I guess that means that all the oral traditions that were put into writing agree.
How is it known if what one Rabbi wrote is oral tradition or his personal interpretation? There were and no doubt are, after all, disagreements between various schools of thought on meanings and interpretations.
The way this one is written is what gives me confidence. The Rabbis say, "... this was taught ... " which indicates an early teaching not a personal interpretation. But you're right, it's not something that can be known for sure.
I high lighted parts of the spoiler which you had included, in post 854.
OK thank you. I see it now. Essentially, the other nations persecute Israel which is a sin, and this should have rendered illness and curses but it didn't. The kings are shocked at this. They did horrible things to Isreal ( taking them captive aka cutting them off from the land of the living ), and they deserved to be punished, but they weren't for a long time. The kings are viewing Israel, the nation, as an intercerssor who were blocking those illnesses and curses and instead taking them on themselves. The kings are shocked that they were able to commit these transgressions against God and against God's people without being punished for such a long time. So the conclusion they come to is that the nation was somehow interceding for them. Not by choice, but simply by accepting the suffering as God's will. That's the idea.
And again, it's not that I'm saying this is the only way to read it, all I'm saying is, this is what fits into the context especially considering what was happening in Isaiah's era.
I have given my opinion on verse 7.
Heard and understood.
OK. Do you want to tell me about it?
Isaiah 53 isn't a forbidden chapter. The whole idea presented there about it is false. And it's the first thing they mention, they stress it as very important, as if the Jewish people are hiding something. The truth is, in synagogue, only a tiny fraction of the prophets are read. The passages were chosen before Jesus. It's omission has nothing to do with Jesus. However, it IS true that most American Jews do not know Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel, or most of the prophets. But I don't think it has anything to do with Jesus, I think it's because these stories describe dark times in Jewish history. It takes some maturity to accept what happened and apply it in a positive manner.
Also, the Zohar reference. It provides the clearest picture, but, because it is following the prophecy literally ( which I think is required ), it asserts that the suffering servant existed and was operating in Isaiah's time. Not only that, but the Zohar's theology requires a physical intercessor or intercessors here on earth which correspond to the intercession in the divine realm. The passage cited includes a Rabbi who it claims was filling this need at least at some point. But the J4Js leave that out even though it's just a few sentences beyond what they quoted.
So, if this is congruent with the gospel story, starting with the destruction of the first temple, there were messiahs long before Jesus. Jesus would have been / could have been one of these messiahs. When Jesus died ( departed the physical realm ) someone else would need to pick up where he left off, and there have been other messiahs ever since. That is what the Zohar brings. But the J4Js don't tell you that. This is in contrast with THE Jewish messiah, who comes at the end of days, rebuilds the temple, gathers ALL the exiles, re-establishes the Sanhedrin, sits on the throne forever, etc.. The Zohar describes this arrival, and, the event is beyond any denial.
So, yes, Isa 53 isn't read in synagogue, and isn't known by many American Jews, but it's not for the reasons they stated. And it's cruel to perpetuate this "Jews are sneaky" trope. And it's true that some read Isa 53 as an individual, or individuals, but when that's done it still doesn't match mainstream Christian theology.
What is the Jewish interpretation?
It's not mysterious. It's right in the verses. Not too much commentary about it which means the simple meaning is accepted.
If his children forsake my Torah, and do not walk in my judgments;
If they break my statutes, and do not keep my commandments;
Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with strokes.
Torah, judgements, statutes, and commandments: that's the whole enchilada. There is a comment about the transgression with the rod, which connects to 1 Kings and a time when Ezra would have been in King David's court. I didn't research it though, but that gives an answer to what Ezra would have been writing about, or inspired by, at that time.
I cannot see that anyone has or will inherit the nations to rule and judge until the end of days.
Agreed. And that's a very good point. Thank you.
Yes OK but we are talking about Isa 9 here and it is the Jews who are ignoring part of the prophecy (sitting on David's throne forever)
We are?
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called “Wonderful counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, of the Prince of peace”.
For the increase of the realm and for peace there without end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from now and forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts performs this.
OK
I hope my eyes are being opened a bit more each time I speak to a Jew.
Hopefully we don't make you want to pull your hair out in frustration.
But there are other things beside worshipping idols, (I don't even see how that could be blindness--that's just disobedience)
Definitely. There are plenty of other problems. But, one cannot worship an idol out of disobedience. That simply doesn't work. The vigor and vitality that is drawn from the deed of rebellion is not from devotion, worship, or service to the idol. It's coming from something else. And if I'm blind, I actually cannot draw that same vitality as I could out of rebellion. I need to be able to see my own rebellion and understand that is in opposition to get that same "high" off of disobedience. If I'm blind, I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing, I don't know it's wrong. It's not the same thing at all.
On the other hand, going to some idol and actually expecting to be able to coax and convince it to work on my behalf in spite of God's strict prohibition against and ultimate authority over every force on heaven and earth is blindness. It's a delusion. A Jewish person ( who's been educated ) would have to blind themselves or be made blind to actual devote themself and serve an idol.
But that doesn't mean that fakey-fakey bowing to an idol is OK, or serving it in vain is OK, or doing any of those actions is OK. But none of that is actually wroshipping it or serving it.
Not being able to see the identity of Jesus in the Hebrew scriptures could be seen as blindness.
Maybe if someone is in denial about some of those phrases and passages. I mean, I guess so. But we've already established besides Psalm 22 and Isa 53, they're mostly incomplete prophecies that don't match up precisely. And the Christian theology that is attached to those prophecies, meaning, the implications of the fulfillment of the prophecies, gets pretty far fetched.
And of course Isa 43:5-8 does look like an end times prophecy and the Jews as still said by God to be blind and deaf, but it sounds like a dig at the Jews from a loving God imo It sounds like the Jews who have remained faithful till then are considered God's people even though blind and deaf.
Isa 43: 8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind,
who have ears but are deaf.
Yes, but keep reading:
Bring forth the blind people who have eyes, and the deaf who have ears.
Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled; who among them can declare this, and show us former things? Let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified; or let them hear, and say, It is truth.
I read this as the blind and deaf are of the nations. Verses 1-7 are so positive and loving to the Jewish people, as you mentioned. It seems like the subject has changed.
So I can get my scissors out and cut out that psaim from God's Word because it was just someone trying their hand at writing poetry?
It made it in there because it was considered inspired imo. Ethan was seen as an inspired writer. Why are you saying it is not prophetic when it is clearly a prophecy in the word of God.? What do you want, a note at the start of the Psalm to say it is a prophecy?
Well.... it does give a note at the start. This is a maskil, and there's some interesting commentary about what that means. It's essentially an intellectual excercise. But, I actually think you're probably right and I was wrong about this. First, you made an excellent point earlier about the other nations. Second, I've read the psalm several times now reviewing everything I have in my library about it, and it IS speaking and confirming the future redemption. Now, I'm not ready to agree 100% that it is word of God prophecy. But Redak, a well respected commentator argues that it is, and he makes the same exact argument you're making. If it's in there, he says it's inspired writing.
