Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Johann]

Anything as long as it is from the Tanach, so therefore not: "He fits so nicely with the Christian theology", and not: "The rabbis say so",

Doesn't work that way, I am very familiar with how the rabbis debate-and you are not going to tell me I cannot use the NT-the very NT you don't hold as infallible, not inspired by YHVH.

You are not here for a discussion, you seek to proselyte gullible men and women to enter through the gate of Judaism, and observe the 7 Noachide laws.

You shoot straight with me, or hold your peace.

 

[Johann]

If masculine plural pronouns are used, do you then agree that it cannot be a messianic prophecy?

Throughout Isaiah 53, the masculine singular pronoun “he” is used to designate the suffering servant. This pronoun is very rarely used in regards to Israel. More usually, Israel is referred to as “you,” “she/her,” and “they/them.” But there is no problem at all using “he” in reference to the Messiah.

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4–6)

Just a quick read through the Prophets will show that Israel could not even bear its own sins, let alone those of others. It was our Jewish people who had “gone astray” and “turned to our own way.”

According to the revered twelfth-century Jewish scholar Ramban (Nachmanides), the Redeemer is the Messiah:

Yet he carried our sicknesses, being himself sick and distressed for the transgressions which should have caused sickness and distress in us, and bearing the pains which we ought to have experienced. But we, when we saw him weakened and prostrate, thought that he was stricken, smitten of God. The chastisement of our peace was upon him – for God will correct him; and by his stripes we were healed.[3]

While today’s rabbis deny substitutionary atonement – one man dying for the sins of the world – this had not previously been the case. The mystical Zohar records:

The children of the world are members one of another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, he smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest. Whence do we learn this? From the saying, “He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:5) (Numbers, Pinchus, 218a)

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)

We cannot find any biblical references to affirm that Israel was silent in the face of oppression. But we do find that this is true of Jesus. Before the Sanhedrin, he remained silent. When he finally spoke, it only aided the prosecution:

But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. (Mark 14:61–63)

Jesus astonished Pilate with his silence:

Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the story they are bringing against you?” But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge – to the great amazement of the governor. (Matthew 27:13–14)

By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:8–9)

Jesus was deprived of justice (“judgment”) and was killed. Israel was not “cut off from the land of the living.” It is also clearly untrue that Israel “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his [Israel’s] mouth.” At times, the prophets charged that our people had morally descended below the Gentiles. The Gospels declare that Jesus’ grave was with both the wicked and the rich, as he died with sinners and was buried in a rich man’s tomb.

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:10–11)

There is no reason to suppose that Israel’s death could represent “an offering for sin.” Sin offerings had to be without any blemish. But we were covered with them. How could the knowledge of Israel “justify many?” But faith (knowledge) in the Messiah will.

Conj-w+V-Qal-ConsecImperf-3ms way·ya·‘al
Prep+3ms lōw
and we see HimH7200 H8799 Conj-w+V-Qal-ConjImperf.h-1cp+3ms

--beginning to see you have a problem with the Masculine Singular--NOT Plural

 

[Eliyahu613]

Not sure. Never thought of it. I've only seen masculine singular pronouns related to messianic prophecy.

Bs"d

You haven't seen those plural masculine pronouns, because the Christian Bible translations conveniently change them to singular.

Here are some more reasons why Isaiah 53 cannot speak about your messiah:

“Behold, my servant shall act wisely;” You believe this is JC. You believe JC is god. So God is his own servant?

When God speaks about "His servant", is God then speaking about himself or about somebody else?

Hint: A three year old can come up with the right answer.
“his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind”
When did that happen to JC?



“a man of sorrows, and acquainted with sickness” When exactly was JC sick?



“Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

Wasn’t JC a very popular preacher who entered Jerusalem amongst a big crowd of followers?


“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;”

He didn’t open his mouth? "When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" John 18:22

When he was hanging at the cross he accused God, that is himself; he cried out: “Why did I forsake myself?”

“At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" Mark 15:34

He didn’t open his mouth?



“for the transgression of my people the plague was upon them”

This is a very clear proof it speaks about the Jewish people being punished for their own sins. “The plague was upon THEM”. Plural. So this is not about a singular person, so this is not about the messiah.

The Hebrew word translated as “upon them” is “lamo” The same word “lamo” is also used in Genesis 9:26-27: “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be THEIR servant."

Deut 32:32; “and THEIR clusters are bitter.” Literally: “For them are bitter clusters.”

Deut 32: 35 “and their destiny will overtake THEM”


Deut 33:2; “"The LORD came from Sinai and dawned OVER THEM from Seir;”

The word “lamo” which means “for them” or “upon them” is also used in Isaiah 16:4, 26:14+16, 35:8, Psalm 119:165.

Some translations, realizing they cannot get around the plural, translate it as: “for the transgression of my people, TO WHOM the stroke was due?” Like this it is translated by the NASB, AMP, ASV, and in the footnote of the NIV.

But this is a very forced translation. There is nothing “due” in verse 8.


“He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence”

Done no violence? “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.” John 2:15

A grave with the wicked? "When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathe'a, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed " Matt 27:57-60

He was in the tomb of a righteous follower of his, and not in the grave with the wicked.


“And with the rich in his death” The Hebrew word for “death” is written in the plural, again indicating it does not speak about a singular person. Unless of course Christianity wants to say that their god died several times. If you say this talks about a whole people, then there is no problem.
But, if you want to say this speaks about the messiah, then you are in trouble.

And of course, this word is mistranslated in about every Christian translation to be found.



“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;” So it was the will of God to crush Himself???



“when he makes his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days” God makes himself an offering for sin? JC sees his offspring? How is he going to do that? He was never married, he never had any offspring.



“He shall prolong his days”
God is going to prolong his days when he makes himself an offering for sin? And if he doesn’t, God is not going to prolong his days?
But didn’t God die when he was 30?



“when he makes his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring”
God needs to make himself an offering in order to be able to forgive his creatures? God first has to be murdered by his creatures, and only then he can forgive them?



“Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong” God is going to give Himself a portion with the strong? When exactly did JC get that?

 

[Eliyahu613]

Not my problem you left Christianity for Orthodox Judaism.

What do the early rabbis say?
Some of the first written interpretations or targums (ancient paraphrases on biblical texts) see this passage as referring to an individual servant, the Messiah, who would suffer. Messianic Jewish talmudist, Rachmiel Frydland, recounts those early views:3

“Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God’s Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century c.e., begins with the simple and worthy words:

‘Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).'”

“We find the same interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud:

What is his [the Messiah’s] name? The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Sanhedrin 98b)

“Similarly, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14 in the Midrash Rabbah it states:

He is speaking of the King Messiah: “Come hither” draw near to the throne “and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,” this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.”

“The Zohar, in its interpretation of Isaiah 53, points to the Messiah as well:

There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the trangression of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.” (Zohar II, 212a)

The early sages expected a personal Messiah to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy. No alternative interpretation was applied to this passage until the Middle Ages. And then, a completely different view was presented. This view was popularized by Jewish commentator Rashi (Rabbi Smo Itzchaki), who lived one thousand years after Jesus.

You are going to have to do better.
You are not dealing with a ignoramus-no offense.

Bs"d

It is clear you cannot come up with any proof from Isaiah that the suffering servant is the messiah, therefore you can only say: "The rabbis said that he is the messiah!"

A little strange that a Christian bases his Christian faith upon the rabbis, wouldn't you think so?


Anyway, the rabbis don't hold that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah:

Christianity is unable to prove from the Biblical text of Isaiah 53 that the servant of God, whom the text describes, is a messianic figure. The text does not speak about a king or a ruler, nowhere is spoken about a descendant of David or Jesse, and the word ‘messiah’ is nowhere used in Isaiah 53. Since this is the only text Christianity has to back up their fairy tale of a suffering and dying messiah, they grasp at straws. They claim that the Jewish understanding of this text was always that it speaks about the messiah. Since they cannot come up with any scriptural proof, they bring the ancient rabbinic writings as proof that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah. Christianity goes rabbinic. It used to be only messianic Jews coming with the ancient rabbis in order to make their point, but now also mainstream Christianity is falling back upon the rabbis in order to prove that JC was the messiah. This is about the same as butchers calling upon vegetarians in order to prove that eating meat is very healthy. The reason for this absurd behavior is very simple: The Christians have nothing better.

But what Christianity does here is applying the same tactic which the NT writers displayed: They take a piece of text, rip it out of context, and misrepresent it. In order to understand what is going on in books like the Talmud and Midrash you need to have been thoroughly taught by rabbis in a yeshiva. Because of the fact that Christians have no idea what is flying when they read those books they come to wrong conclusions.

An example of this is to be found on this site: http://www.mayimhayim.org/Poetry/Isaiah%2053.htm

They bring there the following passage from the Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

Now their claim is that the Talmud here says that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah. However, that claim is wrong. What the rabbis from the Talmud do here is making an asmachta. An asmachta is a mnemonic device, invented by the rabbis, and it does NOT give over the plain meaning of the Biblical text.

Here is another example of it: Babylonian Talmud tractate Sotah 14a: "R. Simlai expounded: Why did Moses our teacher yearn to enter the land of Israel? Did he want to eat of its fruits or satisfy himself from its bounty? But thus spoke Moses, 'Many precepts were commanded to Israel which can only be fulfilled in the land of Israel. I wish to enter the land so that they may all be fulfilled by me'. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'Is it only to receive the reward for obeying the commandments that thou seekest? I ascribe it to thee as if thou didst perform them as it is said: Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, yet he bare the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” This is a quote from Isaiah 53.

Does the Talmud now think that Isaiah 53 is speaking about Moses? Of course not. The text of Isaiah is only referred to in order to give an example. Just like the Talmud doesn’t believe that Isaiah 53 speaks about Moses, the same way the Talmud doesn’t claim it speaks about the messiah. Here are a few more examples of the Talmudic rabbis making an asmachta:


Babylonian Talmud, Brachot 57b: "Six things are a good sign for a sick person, namely, sneezing, perspiration, open bowels, seminal emission, sleep and a dream. Sneezing, as it is written: 'His sneezings flash forth light'. (Job 41.10) Perspiration, as it is written: 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread'. (Gen 3.19) Open bowels, as it is written: 'If lie that is bent down hasteneth to be loosed, he shall not go down dying to the pit'. (Is 51.14) Seminal emission, as it is written: 'Seeing seed, he will prolong his days'. (Is 53.10) Sleep, as it is written:' I should have slept, then should I have been at rest'. (Job 3.13) A dream, as it is written: 'Thou didst cause me to dream and make me to live'. (Is 38.16)

Does anybody in his right mind now think that the Talmud claims that Isaiah 53 speaks about a sick person having a seminal emission? Also from the other texts brought by the Talmud it is clear that the texts referred to by the Talmud are not claimed to be talking about the subject under discussion; a sick person. So also when the Talmud speaks about the messiah, and then refers to Isaiah 53, saying: “As it is written etc.”, then the Talmud does not claim that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah.

In the back of tractate Brachot of the Babylonian Talmud, on page 90-91 of the counting of the mepharshim, rabbenu Shimshon Mekutsih gives the rules according which we learn the Talmud. There is written under the heading “Hagada” (stories) “Hagada, that is all the explanation that comes in the Talmud on any subject that is not a commandment. This is hagada. You are not to learn from it except for that what comes up on your mind. And you must know that all that the rabbis established concerning the practical execution of the commandments, comes from the mouth of Moses our rabbi, peace be upon him, which he received from the mouth of the Mighty One. We are not to add or subtract from it. And what each one explained from the verses like it appeared to him, and like he saw it in his understanding, and according to what came up on his understanding from the explanations, these we learn, and we don’t rely on the rest.”

Everything written in the Talmud that expounds the 613 commandments, given by God to the Jewish people through Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, that is what we rely upon and study diligently. Everything else in the Talmud that does not speak about the 613 commandments, that is hagada, stories. About that is written above: “We don’t rely on the rest.”

 

[Eliyahu613]

So if anybody is not convinced about the concept of asmachta, and wants to think that the Talmud says that Isaiah 53 speaks about Moses, or a sick person who has a seminal emission, or about the messiah, then he should read the last words again about how to read the stories in the Talmud which do not refer to the law: “We don’t rely on the rest.” The same holds true for the Midrash. You can not take a piece of Midrash and say that it is an absolute truth. In the middle ages, in 1263 CE, the Jewish sage rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, aka the Ramban, was forced to defend Judaism against the Christian religion by King James of Aragonia, in Barcelona. The king attended every session of the dispute, and regularly joined in on the Christian side. Afterwards the king considered the Ramban the winner of the dispute, and he rewarded him with 300 gold coins. But when the Ramban published the disputation in writing, he barely escaped execution and was exiled. During the disputation his opponent, a Jewish convert to Christianity, brought a Midrash in which it is written that at the time when the Temple was destroyed, the messiah was born. Upon this the Ramban answered: "We have three kind of books: The first is the Bible, (the Only Testament) and all of us believe in it in perfect faith. The second is what is called the Talmud, which is the commentary on the commandments of the Torah. There are 613 commandments in the Torah, and there is not one of them which is not explained in the Talmud. We firmly believe in the Talmud's explanations of the commandments. We have a third book called Midrash, meaning "sermons". It is just as if the bishop would rise and deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners whom the sermon pleased recorded it. With regard to this book of sermons, if one believes in it; it is well and good, and if one does not believe in it, no harm will come to him. We have sages who wrote that the messiah will not be born until the time near the end, at which time he will come to redeem us from the exile. Therefore, I do not believe the statement of this book that he was born on the day of the destruction of the Temple. We also call the Midrash the book of hagada, that is to say, it is nothing more than matters which one person tells another." Until here the quote of the big Jewish sage the Ramban.

The Ramban didn't believe in the literal statements of the Midrash. The Midrash contains stories, parables, which teach high morals and wise lessons, and we learn the lessons it teaches us, but also here you can not take every statement as a literal truth.

The Ramban said "We have three kind of books. The first is the Bible, and all of us believe in it in perfect faith." That is the highest authority, the Hebrew Bible. Every religious Jew believes in it with perfect faith.

The Midrash: "It is just as if the bishop would rise and deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners whom the sermon pleased recorded it. With regard to this book of sermons, if one believes in it; it is well and good, and if one does not believe in it, no harm will come to him". Simple and plain. Therefore no commentary can push aside the plain literal meaning of the Hebrew Bible, no matter whether that commentary comes from the Talmud, Midrash, or whatever. Therefore, when all through Isaiah the servant of God is the identified as the Jewish people, then also in Isaiah 53 the servant is the Jewish people.

But many times the Biblical text has deeper levels of meaning. There are altogether four levels of understanding the Bible. The first one is the 'pshat', that is the plain literal meaning. That is what tells us in Isaiah 53 that the servant is the people of Israel.

The second level is 'remez'. That means hint, allusion. The text might hint to different things than described in the text.

Then there is 'drash'. That is what is understood from the text by applying the thirteen hermeneutical rules given by God to Moses at Sinai.

And the last one is 'sod', meaning secret. This points to the secrets in the text.

The Jewish sages explain the Bible on all levels, therefore sometimes explanations come up which might seem to be out of place, or contradictory, but those are then explanations on different, deeper, levels.

HOWEVER, no matter what might be derived from a text on different levels, the plain literal meaning of a Biblical text can never be erased.



Summarizing we can conclude:

The rabbis from the Talmud did not say that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah.

From the other Jewish writings you can not rip a text out of context and present it as the absolute truth.

Nothing in Isaiah 53 points to a messiah, and the servant in Isaiah is many times identified as the Jewish people. For the full story about Isaiah 53 look HERE

 

[Eliyahu613]

Doesn't work that way, I am very familiar with how the rabbis debate-and you are not going to tell me I cannot use the NT-the very NT you don't hold as infallible, not inspired by YHVH.

You are not here for a discussion, you seek to proselyte gullible men and women to enter through the gate of Judaism, and observe the 7 Noachide laws.

You shoot straight with me, or hold your peace.

Bs"d

In case you didn't know, the Muslims claim that the suffering servant is Muhammed.

If you would be talking to a Muslim about the suffering servant, would you then accept as a proof quotes from the Quran that the suffering servant is Muhammed?

Of course not.

So why do you think that I must accept the NT as proof that the suffering servant is your messiah?

As you can see; everybody can project in the servant songs who ever they want.

So the question is not: Who do your holy books say the suffering servant is, but who does Isaiah himself say that the suffering servant is?

And Isaiah is very clear:

Let us now take a look about who the prophet Isaiah is really talking here. Isaiah 52:13; “Behold My servant shall deal prudently ….” The key question here is: Who is it that the prophet Isaiah calls the servant of God? We shall let the prophet Isaiah speak for himself, and please keep in mind that the name of Jacob was changed into Israel after the fight with the angel in the end of Genesis 32; Jacob is synonymous with Israel:

Isaiah 41:8: “But thou , Israel art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou who I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thou from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee: Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.”

Isaiah 44:1-2; “Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant, and Israel who I have chosen. Thus said the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; fear not O Jacob my servant, and thou Jesurun whom I have chosen.” (Jesurun is another name for Israel)

Isaiah 44:21; “Remember these, O Jacob and Israel, for thou art my servant. I have formed thee, thou art my servant; O Israel thou shalt not be forgotten of me

Isaiah 45:4; “For Jacob, my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name.”

Isaiah 48:20; “The lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob.”

Isaiah 49:3; “And said unto me: Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”



The servant that Isaiah is talking about is the people of Israel.


There is more where this comes from, but in above examples you can catch it in one sentence.

 

[Eliyahu613]

As you go through the proposed list of people this passage describes, ask yourself: which one was totally blameless throughout his life? Which one died for the sins of others? Which one lives today? What do I think? Am I willing to dismiss Jesus as the one whom the prophet foretold? Then ask yourself again, why is this passage omitted from the regular synagogue readings?

Bs"d

Nobody is dying for the sins of others in Isaiah 53. Everybody dies for his own sins.

 

[Johann]

Nobody is dying for the sins of others in Isaiah 53. Everybody dies for his own sins.

Like I've said-you are not here for a discussion, but to impose Orthodox Judaism on a Christian Forum--your reasoning methodology and circular reasoning I am very familiar with.
You are here to debunk everything the followers of the derech hold dear, Yeshua, His death and resurrection-kapporah etc.
I have a feeling you won't be here for long.

 

[Eliyahu613]

I have a feeling you won't be here for long.

Bs"d

Since most people cannot handle the truth, that might be the case.

 

[Johann]

Since most people cannot handle the truth, that might be the case.

While it is true that modern-day no longer regard Isaiah 53 as Messianic, the ancient authorities did! Pyle provides a number of other quotations. Midrash Aseret Memrot states:

· “The Messiah, in order to atone for them both [for Adam and David] will ‘make his soul a trespass offering,’ [Isaiah 53:10].”

The highly regarded 1st century Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai stated:

· “The meaning of the words Bruised for our iniquities’ [Isaiah 53:5] is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of his being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer them for them himself.” (What the Rabbonim Say About Moshiach, Douglas Pyle)

There is just a wealth of ancient evidence to demonstrate that Ehrman’s claim is incorrect and that the ancient rabbis did regard Isaiah 53 as Messianic. However, today many rabbis have rallied around the assertion that the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel and not the Messiah. Furthermore, instead of the Messiah dying for the sins of the people, according to this formulation, Israel would and did die for the Gentiles. However, it is time to look directly at Isaiah 53 to determine whether such an assertion is at all tenable.


Isaiah 53:1-3 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we [Gentiles] see Him [Israel], there is no beauty that we [Gentiles] should desire Him [Israel]. He [Israel] is despised and rejected by [Gentile] men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we [Gentiles] hid, as it were, our faces from Him [Israel]; He was despised, and we [Gentiles] did not esteem Him.

For the sake of clarity, I’ve inserted within the parentheses what the modern rabbinic interpretation looks like. From the start, such an interpretation is highly implausible. For one thing, the narrator is no longer Isaiah but a Gentile spokesman [“we,” 53:3] who has incredibly slipped in and dislodged the author Isaiah. However, there is no precedent for such a thing in all of Scripture.

In a vain attempt to eliminate Jesus from consideration, the modern rabbis have condemned themselves to an absurd interpretation, in which Israel dies for “we” Gentiles. Is there any Biblical evidence that Israel would die a redemptive death for the Gentiles? No! All of the evidence points to God as Redeemer, not sinful Israel! Meanwhile, Israel is always characterized as the object of mercy, not its source.

Continue--since I haven't even started

 

[Johann]

In The Jew and the Christian Missionary, Rabbi Gerald Sigal also argues that this chapter could not possibly refer to Jesus:

· Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, does not at all fit that of the Suffering Servant of the Lord as portrayed in Isaiah.

Why not? Sigal argues that the Jesus of the Gospels was popular. However the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 was not. In support of this charge, he cites several verses:

· Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. (Luke 4:14-15; similarly, Luke 8:4; Matthew 27:57)

However, Jesus’ popularity was only temporary and skin-deep. Ultimately, the world turned against Him:

· John 7:7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. (Also John 15:18-20)

· John 6:66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

· Matthew 27:22 Pilate said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said to him, "Let Him be crucified!"


Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely He [Israel] has borne our [Gentile] griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we [Gentiles] esteemed Him [Israel] stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He [Israel] was wounded for our [Gentile] transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him [Israel], and by His [Israel’s] stripes we [Gentiles] are healed. All we [Gentiles] like sheep have gone astray; We [Gentiles] have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him [Israel] the iniquity of us [Gentiles] all.

Remarkably, Sigal, following other rabbis, claims that the narrators are Gentiles:

The Gentile spokesmen depict the Servant (the Nation of Israel) as bearing the “diseases” and carrying the “pains” which they themselves should have suffered.
However, just a quick read through the Prophets of Israel will show that Israel wasn’t in any position to carry the sins of others. They could not even bear their own sins. The Prophets make it plain that it was Israel who has “gone astray” and “turned, every one, to his own way.”

Continue-

 

[Johann]

Traditionally, Israel-as-Redeemer hadn’t been the Jewish position. Maimonides, commenting on Isaiah 53:4, wrote:

Yet he carried our sicknesses, being himself sick and distressed for the transgressions which should have caused sickness and distress in us, and bearing the pains which we ought to have experienced. But we, when we saw him weakened and prostrate, thought we were healed [53:5] – because the stripes by which he was vexed and distressed will heal us: God will pardon us for his righteousness and we shall be healed from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.”
According to Maimonides, the Redeemer is the Messiah. We even find this thinking reflected in the Day of Atonement Musaf (additional) prayer:

“Our righteous anointed [Messiah] is departed from us: horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgression [53:5]. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time that the Eternal will create him as a new creature.”

Despite of the wealth of evidence to the contrary, Ehrman confidently and repeatedly claims that:

The idea that Jesus was the suffering Messiah was an invention of the early Christians. (236)

Isaiah 53:7 He [Israel] was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He [Israel] opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth.

Continue-

 

[Johann]

Although we cannot find any Biblical references to affirm that Israel had been silent in the face of oppression, we do find that this is true of Jesus. Nevertheless, Sigal claims that:

Jesus presented a strong defense both before the Sanhedrin and Pilate!
In support of this absurd claim, Sigal cites John 18:20-21:

Jesus answered him, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said."
This was no defense. Jesus acted provocatively in order to be found “guilty,” as the next two verses indicate:

And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, "Do You answer the high priest like that?" Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:22-23)
According to the standards of that day, Jesus had answered confrontationally and was therefore struck. This was the opposite of a defense. Before the Sanhedrin, He remained silent, opening His mouth only to aid the prosecution:

But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? (Mark 14:61-63)
Before Pilate, Jesus admitted He had a kingdom. According to Pilate’s thinking, this would place Him in competition with His boss Caesar, who had zero tolerance for any kingdoms besides his own:

“What have You done?" [Pilate asked.] Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world." (John 18:35-37)

Continue-

 

[Johann]

At this point, to exonerate a “rival” king was to betray Caesar – risky business! Jesus then further infuriated both Pilate and King Herod with His silence:

And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" But He answered him not one word [in defense], so that the governor marveled greatly. (Matthew 27:12-14)
Then he questioned Him with many words, but He answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. (Luke 23:9-10)
Contrary to Sigal’s claim, we find no semblance of any defense here. If anything, Jesus was helping the prosecution to condemn Him.


Isaiah 53:8-9 He [Israel] was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare His generation? For He [Israel] was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My [Gentile] people He [Israel] was stricken. And they made His [Israel’s] grave with the wicked--but with the rich at His [Israel’s] death, because He [Israel] had done no violence. Nor was any deceit in His [Israel’s] mouth.

Jesus was deprived of justice (“judgment”) and was killed. Therefore, no one could talk about His progeny (“generation”). However, this hadn’t been the case with Israel. Israel was not “cut off from the land of the living.” Israel remained to produce progeny. It is also clearly untrue that Israel “had done no violence. Nor was any deceit in His [Israel’s] mouth.” At times, the Prophets charged that Israel had morally descended below the Gentiles.

How was Israel’s grave with both the wicked and the rich? Sigal claims that, somehow, this was figuratively true. However, the Gospels declare that this was the case with Jesus, dying with sinners and buried in a rich man’s tomb. These are claims that could have been very easy to disprove had they not been true!

Continue-

 

[Johann]

However, Sigal claims that this description could not fit Jesus because Jesus had done much “violence,” contrary to Isaiah’s description of the Suffering Servant. In support of this charge, Sigal cites Jesus’ “violence” to the money-changers (Matthew 21:12), His casting demons out into swine (Mark 5:13), and His teaching about bringing a sword to divide families (Matthew 10:34-35.)

However, this is a desperate attempt to disqualify Jesus. In none of these three instances did Jesus perform or advocate sinful violence. Clearly, there was no attempt to bring charges against Him for expelling the money-changers. If Jesus had broken the law, the Sanhedrin would have brought charges against him.

Sigal then claims that “no deceit in his mouth”(53:9) could not apply to Jesus! This is because Jesus had been misleading when He promised to raise the Temple up in three days (John 2:19-21), which He didn’t do, simply because He was talking figuratively about His body.

Sigal also indicts Jesus because He hid the truth, talking in parables (Matthew 13:10-11). According to him, this practice was deceitful. However, according to this thinking, poets are also deceitful.


Isaiah 53:10-11 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him [Israel]; He has put Him to grief. When You make His [Israel’s] soul an offering for sin, He [Israel] shall see His seed (”offspring”), He [Israel] shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His [Israel’s] knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their [Gentile] iniquities.

There is no reason to suppose that Israel’s death could represent “an offering for sin.” Sin offerings had to be without any blemish. Meanwhile, Israel was covered with them. Consequently, Israel could not qualify to “bear their [Gentile] iniquities.”

Continue-

 

[Johann]

We should also ask how it could possibly be that the knowledge of Israel “shall justify many?” There is absolutely no Biblical precedent for such an idea. However, it is true that faith (knowledge) in the Messiah will “justify many!” (Psalm 2:12).

Also, throughout, the masculine singular pronoun “he” is used to designate the suffering servant. Such a pronoun is very rarely used in regards to Israel. More usually, Israel is referred to as “you,” she/her.” and “they/them.” However, there is absolutely no problem at all in using “he” in reference to the Messiah.

Sigal claims that “offspring” or “seed” (53:10) could not pertain to believers in Christ, as Christians allege, because, according to him, this term is always used to designate one’s own children and not figurative or spiritual children.

However, even though this is the usual usage for “offspring,” there are exceptions. Sometimes, it can be used figuratively:

But come here, you sons of the sorceress, you offspring of the adulterer and the harlot! Whom do you ridicule? Against whom do you make a wide mouth and stick out the tongue? Are you not children of transgression, offspring of falsehood? (Isaiah 57:3-4)
It is also interesting to note that this Servant, who dies as a burnt offering for the people, will eventually “see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.” This implies that He will live subsequent to His death. Therefore, this prophecy also represents a cryptic reference to the resurrection.

In fact, all of the verses envisioning the death of the Messiah also seem to contain a cryptic reference to His subsequent resurrection! I’ll just offer one more example:

Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. (Psalm 16:9-10)
Interestingly, this verse cryptically portrays the Messiah’s death and subsequent life. As David, He too will be in the grave (death). However, He will not remain and decay there (resurrection)!

Continue-

 

[Johann]

This entire discourse will raise the question, “Why then isn’t God more explicit about these critical matters?” While I think that there are many reasons for this, I’ll just address one. There is knowledge that we are not ready to handle. The Apostle Paul writes:

No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." (1 Cor. 2:7-9)
It is not just God’s enemies who are kept in the dark. It is we too, and I trust for good reason! Meanwhile, He has granted us a body of knowledge, which are we mandated to defend against the Gospel’s many detractors. May our Lord enable us!

Posted by Daniel Mann at 11:06 AM
Labels: Alfred Edersheim, Bart Ehrman, Gerald Sigal, Isaiah, Jesus Christ, Messiah, Moses Maimonides, Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, Rachmiel Friedland, Suffering Servant, Talmud

You are lost-without Messiah-without kapporet-no death and resurrection-no virgin birth-nothing, but you would want me to believe in Modern Orthodox Judaism

And now we have nothing in common.
You have a good day.

 

[Johann]

From the Septuagint
Isa 53:1 O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Isa 53:2 We brought a report as of a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty.
Isa 53:3 But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed.
Isa 53:4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.
Isa 53:6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins.
Isa 53:7 And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.
Isa 53:9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth.
Isa 53:10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:
Isa 53:11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.
Isa 53:12 Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.

See your problem?--From the Septuagint?

Heck, you think I am ignorant? Who wrote the Septuagint?

 

[Johann]

Nobody is dying for the sins of others in Isaiah 53. Everybody dies for his own sins.

The Talmud is more authoritative than the Torah-same with Muslims with the Hadith

And the Talmud disagrees with you, there are two Talmud's--you want a history lesson?

 

[Wrangler]

Bs"d

Since most people cannot handle the truth, that might be the case.

Even non-messianic Jew might not be able to handle the truth.