EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[Wandering Monk]

Bot a lot is known (or has been written about) MBY. In fact, Saadia Gaon says that his presence is not even a sure thing. Much more has been written explaining the servant as the nation.

There is the notion that the suffering of an uber-Tzaddik can atone for the sins of Israel.

 

[rosends]

If, as is said in Aish.com, the Suffering Servant is only the nation of Israel and not an individual Messiah, we have some selective use of scripture.

Yes, you have.

I understand that the Suffering Servant is BOTH the individual Messiah and the nation, Israel. The Messiah is so closely connected to Israel that he can be its representative, but only when Israel is doing the will of God. The Messiah is the perfectly righteous representative of the people as a whole.

That is, indeed, your understanding. Good luck with that.

If you have a look at Psalm 89, you will see that verse 3 says, 'I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.'

David is an individual, a messiah, and a servant. How can his seed be established forever? Will this heaven and earth last forever?

His seed is the Davidic lineage/kingship which will be reestablished in the future and last forever. "I will establish your offspring forever, I will confirm your throne for all generations." Or, as the targum says ( you remember the targum, right?) "עַד עָלְמָא אַתְקֵין בְּנַיִךְ וְאֶבְנֵי לְדָר וְדָר כּוּרְסֵי מַלְכוּתָךְ לְעָלְמִין"

In verse 20, it says,'I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:' [Has God also anointed Israel as a nation with his holy oil?]

No, when the servant is talked about in a context in which it is identified with the nation (as it frequently is in Isaiah 53) it refers to the nation, Where there is another antecedent which is connected (David, Eliezer, or whoever) then it is that person. Never is Jesus mentioned, so never is Jesus intended. QED.

In verse 45 it says, 'The days of his [David's] youth hast thou [Israel] shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.'

How can verse 45 refer to David the messiah, and not to the Son of David, King Messiah? David lived to be 70 years old. His youth was not shortened. David was also the youngest in the family, not the firstborn [See verse 27]

The rabbinic commentators explain that the quality days of David's youth WERE cut off as he was chased by Saul and forced to grow up rather early and his Davidic kingship-dynasty was ended well before its culmination.
As to verse 27, the wording is clear that God will GIVE him the status of 1st born. Not that he has it by birth.

 

[rosends]

There is the notion that the suffering of an uber-Tzaddik can atone for the sins of Israel.

That is not as clear as your statement makes it out to be. There are some references which appear to make a similar argument but they are most often explained differently from what you conclude.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That is not as clear as your statement makes it out to be. There are some references which appear to make a similar argument but they are most often explained differently from what you conclude.

I am not concluding anything about Jesus. I am just trying to point out that the ideas about the suffering servant are not Christian creations but have a prototype in Jewish thinking (even if that thinking is not mainstream.)

 

[sooda]

Bot a lot is known (or has been written about) MBY. In fact, Saadia Gaon says that his presence is not even a sure thing. Much more has been written explaining the servant as the nation.

Isaiah is pretty clear that Israel is the suffering servant if you read ALL of the Servant's Song.

There is something wrong here. Judah hated Israel and there was never any united kingdom.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Isaiah is pretty clear that Israel is the suffering servant if you read ALL of the Servant's Song.

There is something wrong here. Judah hated Israel and there was never any united kingdom.

Other Jewish literature suggests that King Messiah is an individual. In Midrash Tanhuma he is a descendant of Zerubabel.

 

[rosends]

I am not concluding anything about Jesus. I am just trying to point out that the ideas about the suffering servant are not Christian creations but have a prototype in Jewish thinking (even if that thinking is not mainstream.)

A point about a "suffering servant" and about the death of a righteous man as atonement are two separate notions. I was responding to your claim about the uber-tzadik and atonement.

 

[sooda]

Other Jewish literature suggests that King Messiah is an individual. In Midrash Tanhuma he is a descendant of Zerubabel.

Tanhuma was a Rabbi, wasn't he?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The new, or better, covenant of God, prophesied by Jeremiah, is with us today.

What did Tanna debe Eliyyahu teach? [Sanhedrin 97a] 'The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, [97b] but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.'

Emphasis on the last clause.

This is one idea. It is not uniformly accepted in Judaism.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Emphasis on the last clause.

This is one idea. It is not uniformly accepted in Judaism.

Do you accept the idea that the present heaven and earth, calculated from the time of Adam, is to last seven days, or seven thousand years?

Genesis, as a prologue to the rest of the Bible, seems to indicate this time frame. [See 2 Peter 3:8]

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, you have.


That is, indeed, your understanding. Good luck with that.

His seed is the Davidic lineage/kingship which will be reestablished in the future and last forever. "I will establish your offspring forever, I will confirm your throne for all generations." Or, as the targum says ( you remember the targum, right?) "עַד עָלְמָא אַתְקֵין בְּנַיִךְ וְאֶבְנֵי לְדָר וְדָר כּוּרְסֵי מַלְכוּתָךְ לְעָלְמִין"


No, when the servant is talked about in a context in which it is identified with the nation (as it frequently is in Isaiah 53) it refers to the nation, Where there is another antecedent which is connected (David, Eliezer, or whoever) then it is that person. Never is Jesus mentioned, so never is Jesus intended. QED.

The rabbinic commentators explain that the quality days of David's youth WERE cut off as he was chased by Saul and forced to grow up rather early and his Davidic kingship-dynasty was ended well before its culmination.
As to verse 27, the wording is clear that God will GIVE him the status of 1st born. Not that he has it by birth.

You have not stated explicitly whether or not you believe in the coming of an individual King Messiah. Do you?

There is good reason why the name of Jesus is only alluded to [as in types and in the name 'Joshua'] Paul says, 'had they [evil powers and principalities] known it [the hidden mysteries], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' [1 Cor.2: 6-9.]

It's interesting to see how the rabbinic commentators explain these things. Yet, Jesus remains the perfect fulfilment of all the verses of Psalm 89, and of Isaiah 53. He died at the age of 33, his life 'cut off' in death by crucifixion. Daniel tells us that the Messiah will be 'cut off' [Daniel 9:26]. Psalm 22 describes the experience of crucifixion.

David may have run from Saul, but his life was not 'cut off'. In the preceeding verse of the same Psalm it says,' Thou hast made his [David's] glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.' Did this happen to David? It certainly happened to Jesus Christ. He went 'unto his own', the house of Judah, and they rejected him. Yet, the title was pinned to his cross for all to see: 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.'

Interestingly, Jesus was baptized, or anointed by the Holy Spirit, at the age of about 30, the same age that David received his anointing from Samuel. There are many parallels but also significant differences between David and the King Messiah. This can be explained by the fact that David was a sinner, but Christ was himself without sin. The only time that God turns his face from Jesus is when he bears the sins of others. [Psalm 22:1]

One other thing I would like to mention. Aish.com says that prophecy is now complete/finished [presumably with the prophecy of Malachi]. Do you agree?

 

[metis]

And since Adam's transgression, all the sons of Adam fall under sin, and, therefore, there is a need amongst all humanity for a Saviour from sin.

So, you're saying that sin can only be removed through sacrifice? You actually might want to look that up if that's what you believe.

 

[rosends]

You have not stated explicitly whether or not you believe in the coming of an individual King Messiah. Do you?

Yes.

There is good reason why the name of Jesus is only alluded to [as in types and in the name 'Joshua'] Paul says, 'had they [evil powers and principalities] known it [the hidden mysteries], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' [1 Cor.2: 6-9.]

There is another good reason why the name is omitted. There is no reference to him. Your quote from Paul could be used to defend any messianic claimant whose is anything close to Joshua (Josiah, Isaiah and Ishmael jump to mind).

It's interesting to see how the rabbinic commentators explain these things. Yet, Jesus remains the perfect fulfilment of all the verses of Psalm 89, and of Isaiah 53. He died at the age of 33, his life 'cut off' in death by crucifixion. Daniel tells us that the Messiah will be 'cut off' [Daniel 9:26]. Psalm 22 describes the experience of crucifixion.

It is amazing the stretching non-Jews do to try and find what they need to support their theology, regardless of the actual text. Psalm 89 is not a messianic prophecy other than recounting the promise to David that his descendants would continue to reign. Isaiah 53 is about the nation's suffering and eventual rise. Daniel 9:26 has nothing to do with Jesus and Psalm 22 is about describing enemies as groups of animals.

David may have run from Saul, but his life was not 'cut off'. In the preceeding verse of the same Psalm it says,' Thou hast made his [David's] glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.' Did this happen to David? It certainly happened to Jesus Christ. He went 'unto his own', the house of Judah, and they rejected him. Yet, the title was pinned to his cross for all to see: 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.'

Well, actually not to Jesus as he wasn't a king so he had no throne. Meanwhile, David (an actual king) had the promise of a continuing line of dynastic monarchy but that was cut off from his lineage rather quickly, removing the throne from him. So, yes, this did happen to David, but not to Jesus.

Interestingly, Jesus was baptized, or anointed by the Holy Spirit, at the age of about 30,

Yeah, not a thing in Jewish law.

One other thing I would like to mention. Aish.com says that prophecy is now complete/finished [presumably with the prophecy of Malachi]. Do you agree?

The talmud teaches that all prophecy left after the death of Malachi. There are forms of insight and quasi prophecy which might still exist, but proper prophecy was done at that point, yes.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So, you're saying that sin can only be removed through sacrifice? You actually might want to look that up if that's what you believe.

Sin has the effect of alienating people from God. God is without sin, and holy, therefore people who sin alienate themselves from his holiness.

Adam sinned, by disobeying God (through conformity with Eve). Their sin, through temptation (which comes with freewill), was to choose the path of self-dependency, rather than God-dependency. The punishment was death in a day, as promised.

We know that as soon as they sinned they felt ashamed. Guilt touched their souls. God would have communed with them, but was left asking, 'Where art thou?'. What this story tells us is that the Spirit of God left Adam and Eve immediately. Yet the body and soul remained alive long enough for them to have children and populate the world. Interestingly, though, they still died within a day, of a thousand years.

Scripture is very clear on the link between sin and death. All men have sinned, and all will die. Is there anything people can do, by their own efforts, to prevent death? No.

So we reach the first hurdle. Man can do nothing but wallow in the mire of sin. He cannot extract himself because the only Saviour from sin and death is God. Temporal solutions, such as animal sacrifices, show the condition of a man's heart (a willingness to repent shown by making special offerings). These sacrifices, and the priests who administer them, strive to be perfect to please a holy God, but they are earthly and inevitably fall short of the glory of God.

It's a form of justice that a price is being paid for transgression of God's commandment. Adam sinned, and all in him die. Jesus Christ did not sin, and so, having passed through death for others, all in him are restored to life.

Paul explains this in Hebrews 9: 22-28. Please read.

Short answer: Life is the payment for sin. Blood must be offered if man is to be redeemed. So, yes, a sacrifice is necessary.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes.


There is another good reason why the name is omitted. There is no reference to him. Your quote from Paul could be used to defend any messianic claimant whose is anything close to Joshua (Josiah, Isaiah and Ishmael jump to mind).

It is amazing the stretching non-Jews do to try and find what they need to support their theology, regardless of the actual text. Psalm 89 is not a messianic prophecy other than recounting the promise to David that his descendants would continue to reign. Isaiah 53 is about the nation's suffering and eventual rise. Daniel 9:26 has nothing to do with Jesus and Psalm 22 is about describing enemies as groups of animals.

Well, actually not to Jesus as he wasn't a king so he had no throne. Meanwhile, David (an actual king) had the promise of a continuing line of dynastic monarchy but that was cut off from his lineage rather quickly, removing the throne from him. So, yes, this did happen to David, but not to Jesus.

Yeah, not a thing in Jewish law.


The talmud teaches that all prophecy left after the death of Malachi. There are forms of insight and quasi prophecy which might still exist, but proper prophecy was done at that point, yes.

What do you make of Malachi 4:5?
'Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:'

If Elijah is to be sent in advance of the Messiah's appearance, do you not think that Elijah will also prophesy?

 

[rosends]

What do you make of Malachi 4:5?
'Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:'

If Elijah is to be sent in advance of the Messiah's appearance, do you not think that Elijah will also prophesy?

2 answers, maybe even 3.
1. No, his presence is what is necessary, so why assume he will prophesy?
2. Sure -- as has been stated on another thread, those who had prophecy before the destruction of the temple will have it still
3. He is dead. What comes back is a spirit/angelic version which won't prophesy as a person but will speak on behalf of God as an angel.

 

[Redemptionsong]

2 answers, maybe even 3.
1. No, his presence is what is necessary, so why assume he will prophesy?
2. Sure -- as has been stated on another thread, those who had prophecy before the destruction of the temple will have it still
3. He is dead. What comes back is a spirit/angelic version which won't prophesy as a person but will speak on behalf of God as an angel.

Elijah must prophesy because his job is to announce the arrival of the Messiah. Simply standing around with a sign saying, I'm Elijah, is not enough.

In 2 Kings 2:15 it says, 'And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.'

So Elijah will not be recognized by his name but by his spirit; which means that the message he delivers is all important. Moreover, we are told what that message will be.

Malachi 3:1, 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:'
Isaiah 40:3, 'The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
[Now compare this with Mark 1:1-7, Matthew 3:1-6, if you'll allow yourself to study the New Testament.]

One further bit of information that you can confirm, or dismiss, is that the name Elisha means 'God has helped' and the name John means 'Yah has shown favour'. Remarkably similar, and possibly intentionally so, because Jesus says this,
'Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' [Matthew 11:11-15]

 

[JJ50]

Elijah must prophesy because his job is to announce the arrival of the Messiah. Simply standing around with a sign saying, I'm Elijah, is not enough.

In 2 Kings 2:15 it says, 'And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.'

So Elijah will not be recognized by his name but by his spirit; which means that the message he delivers is all important. Moreover, we are told what that message will be.

Malachi 3:1, 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:'
Isaiah 40:3, 'The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
[Now compare this with Mark 1:1-7, Matthew 3:1-6, if you'll allow yourself to study the New Testament.]

One further bit of information that you can confirm, or dismiss, is that the name Elisha means 'God has helped' and the name John means 'Yah has shown favour'. Remarkably similar, and possibly intentionally so, because Jesus says this,
'Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' [Matthew 11:11-15]

I reckon the gospel writers created the character of Jesus to fit in with OTT so called 'prophecies'.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Elijah must prophesy because his job is to announce the arrival of the Messiah. Simply standing around with a sign saying, I'm Elijah, is not enough.

In 2 Kings 2:15 it says, 'And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.'

So Elijah will not be recognized by his name but by his spirit; which means that the message he delivers is all important. Moreover, we are told what that message will be.

Malachi 3:1, 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:'
Isaiah 40:3, 'The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
[Now compare this with Mark 1:1-7, Matthew 3:1-6, if you'll allow yourself to study the New Testament.]

One further bit of information that you can confirm, or dismiss, is that the name Elisha means 'God has helped' and the name John means 'Yah has shown favour'. Remarkably similar, and possibly intentionally so, because Jesus says this,
'Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' [Matthew 11:11-15]

What can I say, that Malachi 3:1 verse was the Bab and the Bab came to prepare the way for Baha'u'llah.

Bab means gate,
Baha'u'llah means 'Glory of God', or 'Glory of the Lord'.

Ezekial43:1"Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east;....
Ezekial 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I reckon the gospel writers created the character of Jesus to fit in with OTT so called 'prophecies'.

Baha'u'llah confirms that both Jesus and Muhammad are Messengers from God.

The Gospels and Quran are a neccessary link that foretell of this day we live in, the 'Day of God', no less.

Regards Tony