Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Brian2]

You make a couple of mistakes here:
1. The text of Isaiah doesn't actually have chapters -- they are a relatively recent and Christian insertion. so
2. Israel is explicitly identified as the servant 7 times throughout the book as a whole
3. The servant is never identified in the text as anyone else so any interpretation you make has to be an innovation, not native to the work

Isa 49:3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
I have been told by Jews that this servant in this chapter is actually Isaiah.
That identification serves the purpose of addressing other things in the chapter which show that the servant Israel cannot be the nation of Israel, but it disagrees with what you have said. How can the servant Israel in Isa 49 be the nation of Israel with something like verse 5?
Isa 49:5 And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,..........

There are also things in the passage Isa 52:12 -Isa 53:12 which show that the servant there cannot be the nation of Israel.
So even if the servant is called Israel in places that does not mean that it means the nation of Israel.

So Christians say it is messianic because their choice of "messiah" says so? That's circular and self-serving.


Yes, though it is used for its first times in reference to Abraham, it is also used for other people. And though the ideas in the psalm match a particular event in Abraham's life, some commentators see it as a reference to others like David. None of it is messianic, of course, but reference to historical/textual events.

Yes it is no good to say that in the New Testament we have evidence that the Jews saw Psalm 110 as Messianic, because all you do is say the gospel story is lying.
Other Jews have used Psalm 110 as Messianic also and in a similar context to the way Jesus used it when He asked why the Messiah is called the Son of David and yet David calls the Messiah Lord.
From this site: The Messiah would be greater than David

The messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 was also found in rabbinic writings. The Midrash on Psalms 18:29 says:

R. Yudan said in the name of R. Hama: In the time to come when the Holy One, blessed be He, seats the Lord Messiah at His right hand, as is said The Lord saith unto my lord: “Sit thou at My right hand” and seats Abraham at His left, Abraham’s face will pale, and he will say to the Lord: “My son’s son sits at the right, and I at the left!”

In other words, the Messiah will receive greater glory, sitting at God’s right hand, than his ancestor Abraham, who sits in the position of lesser honor on the left. The Messiah, though descended from Abraham, nevertheless receives greater glory. This is reminiscent of Psalm 110 in which the Messiah, descended from David, nevertheless receives greater glory because he is David’s Lord.

Melchizedek was both King and Priest, as the Messiah is, Abraham was neither and you are scraing to fit a situation from the life of Abraham into the Psalm.
Abraham did not rule in the midst of his enemies and will not judge nations and crush the rulers of the whole earth. This is something that the Messiah does.

Why do you think that? Are you aware of the Jewish idea of the role of the various anointed people?

You have roles for various anointed people and Christians have all the roles for the Messiah who is a prophet and priest and King and as the Hebrew scriptures show, He is rejected by the Jews and killed and resurrected and sits at the LORD's right hand and then comes to judge the nations and rule.

So you find verses that seem to work with your personal idea of what the messiah is supposed to be and what the gospels describe, and you then decide that they are messianic. That is irrelevant to a Jew who understands the texts very differently and who has a set of messianic prophecies in his understanding that invalidate Jesus.

Yes I know the Jews have rejected Jesus and rejected interpretations of the scriptures that show Jesus to be the Messiah and say that the gospel is lies.
Christians look at what Jesus actually did, what happened to Him, and by that we can see the scriptures that are prophecies about Jesus, many of which have also been Messianic to Jews in the past.
I don't think the Jewish scriptures about the Messiah invalidate Jesus at all, it is just not a complete list.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't think the Jewish scriptures about the Messiah invalidate Jesus at all, it is just not a complete list.

I would have thought that the OT had a very complete list of the Messianic story. What aspects do you think the OT doesn't cover?

 

[rosends]

The one slain will not return? Says in Isaiah 53

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.
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] 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;

Now, this is either
1 - Jesus
2 - some unknown figure
3 - some group of Jews or Israel in general.

Take your pick.

But this only makes sense if you connect two separate texts and insist that they are speaking of the same subject and event and in the same style/sense. That requires that you interpret and find what you are already looking for.

And 53 never says the servant died, just that he was assigned a place for when he dies. (plus one should keep in mind who is actually speaking in that part of 53)

 

[PruePhillip]

But this only makes sense if you connect two separate texts and insist that they are speaking of the same subject and event and in the same style/sense. That requires that you interpret and find what you are already looking for.

And 53 never says the servant died, just that he was assigned a place for when he dies. (plus one should keep in mind who is actually speaking in that part of 53)

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.
By oppression[a] 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.
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.

 

[rosends]

Isa 49:3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
I have been told by Jews that this servant in this chapter is actually Isaiah.

Yes, commentators like the Ibn Ezra identify the servant here as Isaiah.

That identification serves the purpose of addressing other things in the chapter which show that the servant Israel cannot be the nation of Israel, but it disagrees with what you have said. How can the servant Israel in Isa 49 be the nation of Israel with something like verse 5?
Isa 49:5 And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,..........

There are also things in the passage Isa 52:12 -Isa 53:12 which show that the servant there cannot be the nation of Israel.
So even if the servant is called Israel in places that does not mean that it means the nation of Israel.

Before we wade into the problems of 52-53 it is important to note that your position is that when the servant is explicitly identified with Israel, it isn't Israel because in one situation a Jewish commentator explains that it refers to Isaiah. Do you then defer to Jewish commentators in all other cases where they say it IS the nation of Israel, or are they persuasive only when they say what you are looking for?

What you call chapter 49 begins after a textual break (physically displayed in written scrolls), introducing a new idea so in this section, the prophet (according to those commentators) is introducing a distinct idea. Right before that break, the term "Jacob his servant" was used and no commentator says that that refers to Isaiah. The next open break in the text (indicating a new section) is in what you would see as 50:3 and after that, Israel is identified as the servant and no commentator says otherwise. So all around this particular section you have references to Israel as the servant and commentators don't connect it with Isaiah.

Origen (here, chapter 55) points to the nation-as-servant understanding way back when.

Yes it is no good to say that in the New Testament we have evidence that the Jews saw Psalm 110 as Messianic, because all you do is say the gospel story is lying.
Other Jews have used Psalm 110 as Messianic also and in a similar context to the way Jesus used it when He asked why the Messiah is called the Son of David and yet David calls the Messiah Lord.
From this site: The Messiah would be greater than David

The messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 was also found in rabbinic writings. The Midrash on Psalms 18:29 says:

In other words, the Messiah will receive greater glory, sitting at God’s right hand, than his ancestor Abraham, who sits in the position of lesser honor on the left. The Messiah, though descended from Abraham, nevertheless receives greater glory. This is reminiscent of Psalm 110 in which the Messiah, descended from David, nevertheless receives greater glory because he is David’s Lord.

A couple of things -- first, if you are trusting a Jews for Jesus site to give you an honest explanation of anything, then I can't help you. The second is that what they quote, as per what you cited, is "midrash" -- it is not to be understood literally, nor does it supplant the "pshat" (the basic understanding of the text). In Jewish explication of text, there are many levels of meaning with the drash level needing to be understood, often, differently from what it seems to be saying, or needing to be applied or used in a way which is not the literal meaning of its words. This is an old and time-honored aspect to Jewish textual learning. So citing a midrash to argue against the pshat meaning doesn't work.

Melchizedek was both King and Priest, as the Messiah is, Abraham was neither and you are scraing to fit a situation from the life of Abraham into the Psalm.
Abraham did not rule in the midst of his enemies and will not judge nations and crush the rulers of the whole earth. This is something that the Messiah does.

The messiah in Judaism is not a priest. In fact, Ps 110:4 doesn't say that he is a priest. Rashi explains "From you will emerge the priesthood and the kingship that your children will inherit from Shem your progenitor, the priesthood and the kingship, which were given to him." The use of the word kohen in 110:4 isn't even a reference to the formal priesthood status which passed through Aaron's line because that status didn't exist yet, so Malkitzedek couldn't be an actual "priest". Yitro, Moshe's father-in-law is similarly called a "kohen" but he was not a priest. The word also means "facilitator" or "chief officer."

God aided Abraham in Abe's war in Genesis, and then GOD is the one who crushes, judges etc. In the verse of crushing, the word is not adonee, but ado-nai.

You have roles for various anointed people and Christians have all the roles for the Messiah who is a prophet and priest and King and as the Hebrew scriptures show, He is rejected by the Jews and killed and resurrected and sits at the LORD's right hand and then comes to judge the nations and rule.

Except that the "Hebrew scriptures" do not show that. Only your interpretation creates that.

Yes I know the Jews have rejected Jesus and rejected interpretations of the scriptures that show Jesus to be the Messiah and say that the gospel is lies.
Christians look at what Jesus actually did, what happened to Him, and by that we can see the scriptures that are prophecies about Jesus, many of which have also been Messianic to Jews in the past.

Christians look at texts designed to depict Jesus as messiah and say "look, he is the messiah." Jews look at the source texts and say "if your texts are even true, then all they do is show that Jesus is NOT the messiah."

I don't think the Jewish scriptures about the Messiah invalidate Jesus at all, it is just not a complete list.

The Jewish scriptures have requirements on the messiah that Jesus simply never fulfilled.

 

[rosends]

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.
By oppression[a] 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.
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.

Um, yeah. Led TO the slaughter and yet after being cut off (land of the living doesn't mean "life" -- it refers to the land of Israel. cf Psalm 116:9 and Rashi there) and punished he will still see life. No death there. And still, if you take these words as actual then you misunderstand this entire section of Isaiah.

 

[Colt]

There seem to be two ways of understanding Isaiah 53 in the context of sin:

1) Jesus paid for human sin
2) A righteous remnant of Israel/Jewish people atones for sin

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how sin may be atoned for without an animal sacrifice (not punishment or repayment but actual atonement)?

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how a human may atone for another human's sin?

Thank you.

Yes! A sincere repentant acceptance of God's forgiveness was always available without the lucrative Pagan institution of blood sacrifices. Judaism adopted Pagan rituals and theology. Jesus not only revealed the loving and forgiving nature of God the Father in greater detail, but he also went back to the basics of the true relationship between God and the individual.

Repenting of sin and seeking forgiveness from God in Job 33:

19A man is also chastened on his bed

with pain and constant distress in his bones,

20so that he detests his bread,

and his soul loathes his favorite food.

21His flesh wastes away from sight,

and his hidden bones protrude.

22He draws near to the Pit,

and his life to the messengers of death.

23Yet if there is a messenger on his side,

one mediator in a thousand,

to tell a man what is right for him,

24to be gracious to him and say,

‘Spare him from going down to the Pit;

I have found his ransom,’

25then his flesh is refreshed like a child’s;

he returns to the days of his youth.

26He prays to God and finds favor;

he sees God’s face and shouts for joy,

and God restores His righteousness

to that man.

27Then he sings beforeb men

with these words:

‘I have sinned and perverted what was right;

yet I did not get what I deserved.

28He redeemed my soul from going down to the Pit,

and I will live to see the light.’

 

[101G]

Now, this is either
1 - Jesus
2 - some unknown figure
3 - some group of Jews or Israel in general.

1

101G.

 

[PruePhillip]

Um, yeah. Led TO the slaughter and yet after being cut off (land of the living doesn't mean "life" -- it refers to the land of Israel. cf Psalm 116:9 and Rashi there) and punished he will still see life. No death there. And still, if you take these words as actual then you misunderstand this entire section of Isaiah.

I am in the land of the living, and I won't be in Israel till September - my first visit there.
And grave usually means a hole in the ground, or a tomb.
And 'cut off' is the same term found in Daniel - this same mysterious figure who died for his people, killed by the people who destroyed the temple and Jerusalem.
He 'will see the light of life'... again.

This is either Jesus or some mystery figure

 

[101G]

I can understand that.

Listen, an army is under orders, it can only act when given approval, or the authorization to fight or do something. swell you "OWN" Arm just slap someone upside their head on its own, do it? no, the brain/head give authorization to the ARM to slap someone upside their head.

see this is how POWER works, note: power is in two classifications. the Greek define it perfectly. A. G1411, dunamis, and B. G1849, exousia. so, what is the difference? G1411, dunamis, means ABILITY, MIGHT, where as G1849, exousia, means, "authority" to used that ABILITY, MIGHT.

let 101G put it in Layman's terms for you to understand. the Police/Law Enforcement and the Justice system. a policeman has G1411, dunamis, ABILITY, MIGHT to make an arrest, but it have to be based on the G1849, exousia, "authority" of the court/judical system.
see the policeman just can't arrest anyone whom he chooses or he wills. no it must be based on the "authority" of the court/judical system.

this is why the Lord Jesus said, "I do mothing of myself".

101G

 

[rosends]

I am in the land of the living, and I won't be in Israel till September - my first visit there.
And grave usually means a hole in the ground, or a tomb.
And 'cut off' is the same term found in Daniel - this same mysterious figure who died for his people, killed by the people who destroyed the temple and Jerusalem.
He 'will see the light of life'... again.

This is either Jesus or some mystery figure

I hope to set my grave in Israel well before I use it.
The term you have as "cut off" is "nigzar" (decreed) in Isaiah -- this refers to the decree by God that the people will go into exile and be driven out of Israel. In Daniel 9:26, the word is yikaret (related to religious excision). They are different words.

 

[PruePhillip]

I hope to set my grave in Israel well before I use it.
The term you have as "cut off" is "nigzar" (decreed) in Isaiah -- this refers to the decree by God that the people will go into exile and be driven out of Israel. In Daniel 9:26, the word is yikaret (related to religious excision). They are different words.

A common tactic in religious discussions is to settle upon ONE DEFINITION of a word, one which is convenient to the argument.
(ie virgin for Mary, pierced for Jesus etc..) And this serves to put the discussion OUT OF REACH of mere plebs who haven't 'studied' the language (ie Bart Erhman)
But the thrust of the Isaiah 52/53, and Psalm 22 and 69, and Zechariah 9 and 12, and of course Daniel is of a figure who suffers and dies to redeem his people. This figure in his gory startles those who first see him, but he is spoken of by generations to come.

 

[101G]

The term you have as "cut off" is "nigzar" (decreed) in Isaiah -- this refers to the decree by God that the people will go into exile and be driven out of Israel. In Daniel 9:26, the word is yikaret (related to religious excision). They are different words.

Genesis 9:11 "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

cut off: H3772 כָּרַת karath (kaw-rath') v.
1. to cut (off, down or asunder).
2. (by implication) to destroy or consume.
3. (specifically) to covenant (i.e. make an alliance or bargain).
4. (originally) to covenant by cutting flesh and passing between the pieces.
[a primitive root]
KJV: be chewed, be con-(feder-)ate, covenant, cut (down, off), destroy, fail, feller, be freed, hew (down), make a league (covenant), X lose, perish, X utterly, X want.


PERISH mean, "To die or cease living".
101G

 

[rosends]

A common tactic in religious discussions is to settle upon ONE DEFINITION of a word, one which is convenient to the argument.
(ie virgin for Mary, pierced for Jesus etc..) And this serves to put the discussion OUT OF REACH of mere plebs who haven't 'studied' the language (ie Bart Erhman)
But the thrust of the Isaiah 52/53, and Psalm 22 and 69, and Zechariah 9 and 12, and of course Daniel is of a figure who suffers and dies to redeem his people. This figure in his gory startles those who first see him, but he is spoken of by generations to come.

A common tactic is to reduce the precision of the original text with the generalities of translation and come to decisions about meanings based on that translation. Your claim was that "'cut off' is the same term" except that is only true if you use a translation that translates 2 different words the same way. The other technique is to fall back on general thematic claims which are only fed by the agenda of the interpretation in the first place. This seems to absolve the interpreter from wrestling with what the text actually says.

 

[101G]

@rosends.
do you understand why I used H3772 כָּרַת karath (kaw-rath') instead of
H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.
1. to cut down or off.
2. (figuratively) to destroy, divide, exclude, or decide.
[a primitive root]
KJV: cut down (off), decree, divide, snatch.

which is used in Isaiah 53:8? ...... (smile). what do your hebrew mind say about that?

101G

 

[101G]

A common tactic in religious discussions is to settle upon ONE DEFINITION of a word, one which is convenient to the argument.

that tactic is just about to come to an end if he answers me.

101G.

 

[rosends]

@rosends.
do you understand why I used H3772 כָּרַת karath (kaw-rath') instead of
H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.
1. to cut down or off.
2. (figuratively) to destroy, divide, exclude, or decide.
[a primitive root]
KJV: cut down (off), decree, divide, snatch.

which is used in Isaiah 53:8? ...... (smile). what do your hebrew mind say about that?

101G

as I said, nigzar is in Isaiah and karet is in Daniel. Different words in different texts. Sorry you can't appreciate that. Sorry, but not surprised. (what you used? No, what the text used, and you didn't write either Isaiah or Daniel)

 

[101G]

as I said, nigzar is in Isaiah and karet is in Daniel. Different words in different texts. Sorry you can't appreciate that. Sorry, but not surprised. (what you used? No, what the text used, and you didn't write either Isaiah or Daniel)

LOL, LOL, LOL, yes, different words, but same meaning. can you read a dictionary definition completely? let's learn a thing or two. Isaiah 53:8 "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."

where was he "cut off" at? out of the land of the Living, the term used here is
H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.
1. to cut down or off.
2. (figuratively) to destroy, divide, exclude, or decide.
[a primitive root]
KJV: cut down (off), decree, divide, snatch.

now, this. Genesis 9:11 "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

here, ALL flesh was cut off ... by water, it's the Hebrew word,
H3772 כָּרַת karath (kaw-rath') v.
1. to cut (off, down or asunder).
2. (by implication) to destroy or consume.
3. (specifically) to covenant (i.e. make an alliance or bargain).
4. (originally) to covenant by cutting flesh and passing between the pieces.
[a primitive root]
KJV: be chewed, be con-(feder-)ate, covenant, cut (down, off), destroy, fail, feller, be freed, hew (down), make a league (covenant), X lose, perish, X utterly, X want.

did you notice something? both definitions 1 & 2 are the same, why? because both are [a primitive root] do you understand what primitive means as a ROOT? " relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something". meaning it has the same FUNCTION. note the definition in #2 in H3772 כָּרַת karath (kaw-rath').... "by implication", (to destroy or consume)............ when used as a verb, (as here), and as in H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.means ... "TO DIE".
or "CUT OFF". that's what Destroy means.

understand one need to learn how to use a DICTIONARY, pick one up and use it...... the primitive root of both words are the SAME in FUNCTION. the only difference is in HOW they are used in a contex.

people, please pick up a dictionary.... please. and LEARN how to use them. the devil has divided God's people for way to long, get out of IGNORANCE, and understand what the Lord is saying to us in his word.

101G

 

[rosends]

LOL, LOL, LOL, yes, different words, but same meaning. can you read a dictionary definition completely? let's learn a thing or two. Isaiah 53:8 "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."

where was he "cut off" at? out of the land of the Living, the term used here is
H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.
1. to cut down or off.
2. (figuratively) to destroy, divide, exclude, or decide.
[a primitive root]
KJV: cut down (off), decree, divide, snatch.

now, this. Genesis 9:11 "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

here, ALL flesh was cut off ... by water, it's the Hebrew word,
H3772 כָּרַת karath (kaw-rath') v.
1. to cut (off, down or asunder).
2. (by implication) to destroy or consume.
3. (specifically) to covenant (i.e. make an alliance or bargain).
4. (originally) to covenant by cutting flesh and passing between the pieces.
[a primitive root]
KJV: be chewed, be con-(feder-)ate, covenant, cut (down, off), destroy, fail, feller, be freed, hew (down), make a league (covenant), X lose, perish, X utterly, X want.

did you notice something? both definitions 1 & 2 are the same, why? because both are [a primitive root] do you understand what primitive means as a ROOT? " relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something". meaning it has the same FUNCTION. note the definition in #2 in H3772 כָּרַת karath (kaw-rath').... "by implication", (to destroy or consume)............ when used as a verb, (as here), and as in H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.means ... "TO DIE".
or "CUT OFF". that's what Destroy means.

understand one need to learn how to use a DICTIONARY, pick one up and use it...... the primitive root of both words are the SAME in FUNCTION. the only difference is in HOW they are used in a contex.

people, please pick up a dictionary.... please. and LEARN how to use them. the devil has divided God's people for way to long, get out of IGNORANCE, and understand what the Lord is saying to us in his word.

101G

So 2 different words from 2 different roots with 2 different sets of uses and technical applications and you want to equate them because in another language they have overlapping meanings. That's intellectually sloppy but I expect nothing more from you.

 

[101G]

So 2 different words from 2 different roots with 2 different sets of uses and technical applications and you want to equate them because in another language they have overlapping meanings. That's intellectually sloppy but I expect nothing more from you.

LOL, LOL, LOL, can you READ? same ROOT primitive do you understand the ROOT meaning? .... "to destroy"..... to DIE... ie.. "CUT OFF"

this is why so many hebrews, (NOT ALL), don't understand God Holy Word. because of ,,,,,, IGNORANCE.

101G.