Was Jesus Jewish Messiah – What does the Hebrew Bible really say?

[gadam123]

The New Testament authors misuse Hebrew scriptures

How the New Testament authors interpreted and assimilated the ancient Hebrew text to the point of “taking it out of context.” If I used the same biblical hermeneutic that the NT authors used, I would fail every single bible interpretation course available today, from conservative and liberal seminaries. And that… just feels odd.

For example, if you grow up a Christian you will often hear these grand statements about ancient prophecies that were recorded in the Hebrew Bible and fulfilled in the Christian New testament, and yet, upon closer inspection all of these are completely taken out of context. In this post we will survey some of the popular places where the abuse of the OT by the NT writers creates a cacophonous disharmony in this book that is purported to be divinely harmonious.
Basically, there are many “oops” moments where a careful reader of the text can be nearly certain the NT writers made mistakes and misunderstood, misappropriated, misremembered, and very loosely paraphrased certain passages to the point of changing the meaning, and this bodes very unwell for claims that this book is without error.

OUT OF CONTEXT PROPHECIES
There are dozens of examples of this (in fact, if you’ve ever seen those famous lists of “300 prophecies Jesus fulfilled” you will find that Jewish scholars persuasively argue that every single one of them is clearly out of context or misunderstood). Since we don’t have time for 300, lets looks at some of the most well-known examples.

1. Oops, the wrong virgin
WHAT IT IS: In Mat 1:23 , the Gospel author writes that Jesus’ birth fulfilled a famous prophecy from Isaiah. “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: The prophecy cited can be found in Isaiah 7:14 . The problem is, it wasn’t a prophecy about the distant future, instead Isaiah was speaking to people in his own time. More specifically, in context the prophecy given was to King Ahaz of Judah, who was currently at war against the nations of Israel and Syria. Isaiah’s prophecy is that that the birth of this child would serve as a sign to Ahaz that his enemies would be destroyed swiftly.

“In the days of Ahaz… Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it… And the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out to meet Ahaz… and say to him, ‘Be careful, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two… “It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass”… Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.” (Isaiah 7:1-16 )
The prophecy, in context, clearly states this child grows up during the life of King Ahaz, who lived 700 years before the New Testament era.

HOW THEY MESSED UP EVEN MORE: In fact, Hebrew scholars say the Hebrew word almah doesn’t mean ‘virgin’ but ‘young woman.’ This is likely due to the fact that the popular Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that was available to Matthew, called the Septuagint uses a Greek word, parthenos, that often means ‘virgin’ even when the original Hebrew does not. However, even parthenos doesn’t always refer to a true virgin, for example in Genesis 34:2-4 Shechem raped Dinah and she is afterwards called a parthenos, even though obviously is no longer a virgin. In any case, modern Bible translations like the seminary standard, the NRSV, have started using “young woman” instead of virgin.

HOW THEY MESSED UP A THIRD TIME: To make matters worse, 2 Chronicles 28 tells us the rest of this story and it turns out that the two kings in question, instead of failing in their war against Ahaz, as Isaiah had foretold, actually succeeded in destroying Ahaz and taking over Jerusalem, causing 120,000 of his people to be slaughtered. Jerusalem was plundered, and 200,000 women and children were carried into captivity. “Isaiahs prophecy” in chapter 7 predicted the exact opposite, it failed to predict the future. (Christians reply that the reason this prophecy failed was because Ahaz did not trust the Lord, so you know, it’s all okay, this Immanuel child was unnecessary after all, and no one saw that coming?)

2. Oops, it was David, not Jesus
WHAT IT IS: In Mat 27:35 , the author states: “they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, ‘They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: Matthew is quoting Psalm 22:18  as a prophecy, but in the original passage it is not a prophecy but rather David begging to be physically saved. There is no mention of a future messiah, but simply Davids plea for deliverance from physical death. Reading the full text makes this very clear; it refers to David and his brothers, not Jesus the son of God:

“they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.”
HOW THEY MESSED UP EVEN MORE: Most contemporary Bible translations have removed the latter part of the passage, deeming it a later addition, and it remains only in the KJV and other Textus Receptus based texts, including the Russian Synodal Translation.

3. Oops, the missing third day
WHAT IT IS:  In Luke 24:46 , the gospel author narrates Jesus as saying: “Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: Yet, there is no prophecy, or even purported prophecy in the Hebrew bible that states this, whether explicitly or implicitly.  The closest possibility is Hosea 6:2 “After two days will He revive us: on the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live before Him.” However, there is a slight problem with this passage, it is patently clear that this does not refer to Christ but to the Hebrew nation repenting of sin and being restored. Christ after all, never had to repent.

4. Oops, did Jesus sacrifice to idols?
WHAT IT IS: The author of Matthew writes of Jesus escaping to Egypt “And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt… This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: However, the original “prophecy” wasn’t something that could be “fulfilled” in the first place, instead it’s a song about the sinful nation of the Hebrews, who are collectively called “son.” If this passage was a prophecy about Jesus, it would also mean that Jesus sacrificed to idols.

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.” (Hosea 11:1-2 )

5. Oops, the dead children aren’t dead
WHAT IT IS: The author of Matthew (2:16-18) writes that: “Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem… Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah (31:15) a voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more.”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: Matthew claims the “prophecy” of Jeremiah a fulfillment of the murder of children in Bethlehem. However, a careful reader of the Hebrew bible will note that in the original passage from Jeremiah, there is a section that speaks of the children returning from captivity in Babylon:

“Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.“Thus says the Lord: “Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your work, declares the Lord, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy.”
Dead children do not return “from the land of the enemy” and thus clearly the Jeremiah passage speaks of captivity, not the murder of babies.

6. Oops, the missing prophet
WHAT IT IS: The author of Matthew writes “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, The voice of one crying in the wilderness:‘ Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: Herein Matthew claims that Johns ministry is prophesied in the Hebrew Bible? Is it? When you read the original passage you can see, manifestly clear, that it speaks of Jerusalem’s repentance after receiving double payment for sin, not about a “he” but about an “it.” There is nothing at all that is specific about (a) the future, (b) the Messiah or (c) John, but only about Jerusalem’s iniquity/forgiveness:

“Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins. A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed” (Isaiah 40:2-5 )
Also, note how Matthew changes “a voice” in the wilderness to “the voice of one” to make it refer to an actual person, when originally it refers to an impersonal sound.

7. Oops, the wrong book of the Bible
WHAT IT IS: Matthew 27:9-10 , which summarizes Judas’ betrayal of Jesus ends the story by claiming that:

“Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter.  Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. (Zech 11:12-13 )

But what about Midrash or Pesher hermeneutics?
So how do Christians respond to all this? Conservative bible scholars point to a category of “prophecy” called pesher. The basic gist of it is that this kind of prophetic interpretation  includes a (1) primary contextual fulfillment and (2) secondary “hints” and glimpses.

For example, say we have a prophecy “Thus saith Thor, during the reign of Vijzerog, there will be a war between our people and the enemy, and we shall win the war.” The primary context is a war between two nations that happens during the reign of a specific ancient ruler who lived 1000 years ago. Using a pesher interpretation of prophecy we could take the ancient Germanic phrase “we will win the war” out of context, and use it to say “See, our current US regime was prophesized ‘to win the war’ in Iraq that we are fighting today!”

So basically, one can take anything out of context, and use it to say anything they want.

MISQUOTES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Most Christians know that there are hundreds of occasions where the NT authors quote the OT, but they don’t know that most of these quotes read differently than the original citation. The majority of this is due to the fact that there were (at least) two versions of the Hebrew bible that NT authors had access to, the Hebrew Masoretic text, and the Greek Septuagint, and these two have many have significant differences. There are also other occasions where NT authors had agendas that shaped the way they quoted these passages. And perhaps, there were simple mistakes, misquotes, and instances of bad memorization.

Each of these examples, on its own, isn’t very substantial, but as a whole, seeing this trend cast some doubt on the claims of biblical inerrancy. If there are multiple versions of the same text, which one is truly Gods inerrant word? Let’s looks at a couple of examples.

1. Oops, going from ‘you’ to ‘me’
HOW THEY QUOTE IT:  “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “Behold, I send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way.” (Mark 1:2 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS: Isaiah doesn’t have such a passage. The Old Testament passage that comes closest to Marks citation is written by a different prophet, Malachi: “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 3:1 )

Notice the biblical words “before me” are converted into “ahead of you” to fit the context.

2. Oops, not “praise” but “strength”
HOW THEY QUOTE IT: “said to Him, “Do You hear what these children are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have prepared praise for yourself” (Matthew 21:16 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS: Psalm 8:2 “From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength because of your adversaries to make the enemy and the revengeful cease.”

The radical difference here is due to a divergence between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts (originally this was a mistranslation in the Greek, but since Matthew used a mistranslation we’re stuck with it.)

3. Oops, a voice becomes a person
HOW THEY QUOTE IT: “For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, ‘the voice of the one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the lord, make his paths straight’” (Matthew 3:3 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS:  ”A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.” (Isaiah 40:3 )

Notice “a voice” is altered to “the voice of the one” in order to make this into a prophecy about a person, rather than using the description of a sound. This is used to change this passage into a prophecy about John. There are also other textual differences. Which instance of this passage contain the original words of God?

4. Oops, is receiving different than giving?
HOW THEY QUOTE IT:: “Therefore it says, ‘when he ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men‘”(Ephesians 4:8 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS:  “You have ascended on high, You have led captive Your captives; You have received gifts among men, Even among the rebellious also, that the LORD God may dwell there.” (Psalm 68:18 )

“You have ascended” is changed to “he ascended” to change the context to be about Jesus, when in the original Psalm it spoke of Yahweh. A bigger difference is the changing of “received gifts among men” into “gave gifts to men.”  Perhaps this is to account for the differences between Yahweh (who was served by receiving gifts) and Jesus (who was associated with grace and giving of gifts). Perhaps its something else, there have been various attempted explanations, but none are ultimately convincing.

5. Oops, now we’re just adding whole sentences
HOW THEY QUOTE IT: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:17-19 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS:  ”The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, Because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn” (Isaiah 61:1-2 )

Besides the fact that there are significant textual differences throughout the whole passage, Luke even inserts a whole new phrase missing from the Isaiah passage he is quoting.

6. Oops, confusing the afflicted with the humble
HOW THEY QUOTE IT: “You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed ot the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS: “Though He scoffs at the scoffers, Yet He gives grace to the afflicted.” (Prov 3:34 )

The differences here are “scoffers” which is turned into “proud” and “humble” which becomes “afflicted.” The latter significantly changes the meaning of the passage. One can be afflicted an not humble, one be humble and not afflicted.

7. Oops, caught sneaking in theology
HOW THEY QUOTE IT:  “There is none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:9-10 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS: “There is no one who does good, not even one.” (Psalm 14:1-3 )

Paul changes “no one who does good” to “none righteous” for a specific theological agenda, in order to speak of righteousness and sinful nature, rather than just good deeds. However, if you ask a modern day Christian, doing good and righteousness are not necessarily the same (according to the doctrine of original sin, a baby that is born before doing any deeds at all, is not righteous because of its sinful nature).

8. Oops, rewarded on the earth becomes scarcely saved
HOW THEY QUOTE IT: “And ‘If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?’” (1 Peter 4:18 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS: “If the righteous will be rewarded in the earth, How much more the wicked and the sinner!” (Proverbs 11:31 )

These passages are so different one would think they are completely separate verses. Peter quotes the Greek Septuagint, of Prov 11:31 , while the above quote is based on the the Hebrew Masoretic text. This change works really well with Peters New Testament theology as the Hebrew is converted about rewards on the earth, and Peters language of salvation implies eternal life.

9. Oops, the Gentiles added in the Gentiles
HOW THEY QUOTE IT: “a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope.” (Matthew 12:20-21 )

WHAT THE HEBREW ACTUALLY SAYS:  “a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.” (Isaiah 42:3 )

This is another case where the Septuagint (a Greek, therefore “gentile” translation”) causes the differences to appear in our modern Bibles. The Septuagint version adds “and in his name the Gentiles will hope” which is a radical addition, absent from the original Hebrew, and Matthew incorporates this into the New testament.

SLOPPY KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
1. Oops, Mathew got his Zechariahs’ confused
WHAT THEY SAID: In Matthew 23:35 , the gospel author depicts Jesus saying “so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”

HOW THEY MESSED UP:  As it turns out, that’s the wrong Zechariah; The one who was stoned in the temple by the faithless Jewish people was Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20-21 ). The prophet Zechariah, was actually the son of Berechiah, and he was certainly not murdered between the temple and the altar.

2. Oops, Luke can’t count?
WHAT THEY SAID: “after this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all.“ (Acts 7:14 )

HOW THEY MESSED UP: Luke quoted the Greek Septuagint, which differs from the Hebrew Masoretic text, and while that may get Luke off the hook, it does nothing good for biblical inerrancy.

“The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.” (Exodus 1:5 )
“With the two sons who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob’s family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all.” (Genesis 46:27 )
3. Oops, Mark confuses two high priests
WHAT THEY SAID: In Mark 2:26 Jesus is described as quoting the Old Testament. “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry;  how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: As anyone can easily confirm by reading 1 Samuel 21:1-6 , it wasn’t Abiathar but Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, who was high priest when David did this. But just in case you don’t believe me, here is a direct quote: “Then David came to Ahimelech the priest.”

4. Oops, John quotes “the Scripture”, when no such scripture exists.
WHAT THEY SAID:In John 7:38 , Jesus quotes scripture to describe the rewards promised to his followers: “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: And yet, theologians and biblical scholars must admit that there is no such scripture in the Hebrew Bible. Did the author of John misremember? Perhaps he used one of the many ancient texts that have been lost? And if this refers to some text that has been lost, can “Scripture” be lost?

5. Oops, Mathew also quotes passage a nonexistent “Scripture” that doesn’t exist.
WHAT THEY SAID: Matthew claims that Jesus’ living in Nazareth “fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Mat 2:23 ).

HOW THEY MESSED UP:  And yet, to the great dismay of conservative apologists, there is no such prophecy in the Bible. But you can’t take away credit from them for a lack of trying, there have been dozens of attempts to find something to fit into this prophecy. The most interesting one I’ve read attempts to make the case that “he will be called a Nazarene” just means there are prophecies that vaguely say the Messiah will have the characteristics of a Nazarene, not that there is an actual prophecy that says “he shall be called a Nazarene.”

6. Oops, Luke doesn’t want to be left behind, also quotes “Scripture” that doesn’t exist.
WHAT THEY SAID: In Luke 24:46 we are given a picture of Jesus predicting his own death, “He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day”

HOW THEY MESSED UP: Those words don’t exist anywhere in the Hebrew scripture. As before, apologists have tried to come up with all manner of explanations. The most common is to trace this back to Hosea who wrote: “After two days will He revive us: on the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live before Him” (Hosea 6:2 ). Anyone can clearly see the Hosea passage is not at all “the Christ will suffer” but speaks of a sinful Israel being restored.

7. Oops, Matthew is confused by poetry, and claims Jesus rode two donkeys at once
WHAT THEY SAID: An ancient poem in Zechariah 9:9 states “Behold, your king is coming to you … humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey” The last two lines repeat the same thing in a different way; this is a form of Hebrew poetry called parallelism.

HOW THEY MESSED UP: The author of Matthew believed this was a prophecy about Jesus and attempted to follow it literally, thus he wrote about two separate donkeys.

“Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me… brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats.” (Matthew 21:1-11 )
Yes, Matthew literally dictates that Jesus rode the donkey and the colt at the same time. (The other gospel authors who write about this, Mark and Luke, only mention one donkey) The link..https://yuriystasyuk.com/why-i-dont-trust-the-bible-the-new-testament-authors-misuse-hebrew-scriptures/

[gadam123]

Adam,

You did not prove that the writer of Hebrews interpreted the Hebrew scriptures wrong with that article. The article agrees that YHVH is being associated with Jesus and it is not condemning that but emphasizing that the Jews did not understand the full meaning of their scriptures and how they related to Jesus as YHVH who laid the foundation of the earth among other things.

Your article does not prove that the writer of Hebrews was not inspired by God to connect the OT passages with Jesus. It actually supports that notion by not condemning that connection. Don’t you see? The article supports the book of Hebrews as declaring truth. You present it as proof that it doesn’t.

Hi Sis Kathi, I am not here to prove why this NT writer had interpreted Hebrew scriptures to suit his agenda on Jesus. Here are some more arguments if you are so much interested;

In Hebrews 1, why is Psalms 102:25–28 seen as referring to Jesus, rather than to God?

In the beginning of Ps 102, the Psalmist uses the term “O LORD”

v1 Hear my prayer, O LORD, And let my cry come to You

It makes sense to assume that v 1-24 are referring to God Yahweh.

In v 25-28 he doesn’t use a definitive name. Both the NKJV and ESV use ‘You’

v26 They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed.

However this Psalm is quoted in Hebrews, as referring to Jesus.

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says and then the writer of Hebrews continues on to quote Ps 102:25-27 in Heb 1:10-12

How do we know that the last verses of Ps 102 are referring to Jesus, rather than to God the Father?

Answer

Because to the writer of Hebrews (traditionally attributed to St. Paul), Jesus is God. It’s not that these verses originally had Jesus, or for that matter, the notion of ‘the Son’ in mind. It’s that the writer here assigns the prerogatives of the one true God to Jesus, making explicit a some what less-than-explicit belief that Jesus is divine: that Jesus is YHVH, the one true God.

The writer does this by taking verses which the readers know do not refer to Jesus, as if to speak Biblical passages as a kind of ‘vocabulary,’ for the sake of putting stakes in place—showing authentic doctrine by applying verses which one should be only comfortable saying of YHVH: “In the beginning, Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth” (a few verses later in Hebrews 1—v.10), making the point that Jesus should be considered YHVH God without reservation.

There is simply no other interpretation which can take into account the fact that the quoted passages of Scripture refer specifically to the Creator of all things. To YHVH. Similar to other New Testament quotes to the same effect, applied to Jesus Himself.

As noted here St. Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament, spoke in a kind of ‘mitzvah’ language of stringing together passages of Scripture as vocabulary, while calling them prophetic (in the sense of being fulfilled in spite of whether they ever expected to be applied to their fulfillment) precisely because they apply to the subject matter: they are used to draw a familiar picture of God as Creator, etc, so that the same might not have to be ‘re-described’ of Jesus.

 

[Lightenup]

Adam,

You said:

In Hebrews 1, why is Psalms 102:25–28 seen as referring to Jesus, rather than to God?

In the beginning of Ps 102, the Psalmist uses the term “O LORD”

v1 Hear my prayer, O LORD, And let my cry come to You

It makes sense to assume that v 1-24 are referring to God Yahweh.

In v 25-28 he doesn’t use a definitive name. Both the NKJV and ESV use ‘You’

v26 They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed.

However this Psalm is quoted in Hebrews, as referring to Jesus.

Exactly, the writer of Hebrews is connecting Jesus to the YHVH who laid the foundation of the earth.

If the writer was right to do that, and led by the Holy Spirit, then we would see Jesus being worshiped even today and…Jesus is worshiped even today. Many people today are agreeing that Jesus is YHVH as well as His Father.

I’m sure you are aware that many Christian commentaries teach this too.

YHVH is both God and Lord, the Father and the Son.

Blessings to you, LU

[Lightenup]

Adam do you have a list of Messianic prophecies that you believe are truly Messianic prophecies?

[gadam123]

Adam do you have a list of Messianic prophecies that you believe are truly Messianic prophecies?

Biblical Passages Referring to the Mashiach
The following passages in the Hebrew scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that they rely upon in developing the messianic concept:

Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14

[gadam123]

Exploring sin, sacrifices and atonement

Before entering into the Land of Israel, God commanded the Jews to prepare themselves for encounters with nations whose beliefs are contrary to the Torah. In Deuteronomy 18:9, God said, “You shall not learn to do” – the ways of those nations. Our sages* point out that this statement seems to contain superfluous words because it could have said either, “you shall not learn” or “you shall not do.”

In fact, the additional words teach that although it is forbidden to learn false beliefs to do them, it is permissible to learn them to educate our children to avoid false beliefs.

The teaching, “Know what to answer” in Ethics of our Fathers 2:14 is another powerful directive to learn how to respond to theological challenges. We hope this article will enlighten you, and provide the answers you need.

*See the commentaries of Rashi, Sifre, and Maskil LaDavid.

Answering the Challenge – Sin, Sacrifices and Atonement?
There is a fundamental question posed by Christian believers that warrants a thoughtful response.

The question is often phrased, along with several incorrect assumptions, like this: “We are all sinners1, and the only way to get rid of sin is by offering a blood sacrifice. Since the Jewish Temple no longer exists, and you can’t offer sacrifices, how do you get rid of your sins today?”

This issue is compounded by two additional assumptions, based on the New Testament book of Romans – written by Paul whose authority is questionable because he never met Jesus.

The first assumption is that mankind inherited a state of eternal damnation as a result of the “original sin” of Adam. They attribute this to Romans 5:18, “Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men.”

The second assumption is that the divinely authored biblical commandments were intended only as a stumbling block to prove that frail humanity could not achieve perfection in observing them. Therefore, salvation could only come about through belief in the righteousness of Jesus who, they allege, fulfilled all the commandments in the believer’s place and who died an atoning death on the believer’s behalf. They bring as proof, Romans 4:15; “The Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there is no violation.”

To some with a cursory understanding of the Bible, this line of reasoning may sound logical. However, it should be scrutinized carefully (albeit within the limitations of this brief essay) to determine if it is the true biblical intent, as it says in Proverbs:

“The one that brings his case first seems right, but then his neighbor comes and examines him.” Proverbs 18:17.
So let’s see what the Bible really says. To begin with, according to the Bible sin is an act of rebellion, not an intrinsic state of being. The Bible actually teaches that as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin, mankind was given an inclination – or temptation – to do evil.

This inclination is described in Genesis as,

“The inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Genesis 8:21
An inclination is a pull or a drive. It acts upon the person, but it is not the person. This inclination does not make the person a sinner, nor is he in a constant state of sin. Rather, via the temptation to do evil a person is endowed with freedom of choice and the ability to choose good over evil. This is expounded in the following verses:

“I have placed before you today life and what is good, and death and what is evil.” Deuteronomy 30:15

“I have placed life and death before you, blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live.” Deuteronomy 30:19.
The ability to rule over evil is not just wishful thinking. It is a directive expressed in the following verse, which mentions sin by name the very first time in the Bible,

“Sin is crouching at the door; and it desires you, but you are able to rule over it.” Genesis 4:7
If sin is an insurmountable condition that no one can overcome, wouldn’t this be the logical place for the God to say so? However, this passage teaches that although it is inevitable that we will be tempted to sin, we clearly have God’s promise of an inner ability to overcome the temptation. King David said this in his well-known words,

“Turn from evil and do good.” Psalm 37:27
What does Christianity do with this clear biblical teaching that we can master sin? Christianity simply changes the Bible. It presents a contradictory and incorrect translation of how God instructed mankind to turn from sin, as is demonstrated in a blatant Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 59:20. In the Hebrew original, this verse says:

“A redeemer will come to Zion; and unto those who turn from transgression.” Isaiah 59:20
This verse clearly demonstrates two points: 1) People can turn from transgression; and, 2) The redeemer of Israel will come to Zion and to those who turn away from sin on their own accord.

However, in the Christian New Testament the same verse in Isaiah is incorrectly quoted to give the impression that it is the messiah who removes sin. Romans 11:26 says:

“The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” Romans 11:26
The mistranslation of the words “to Zion” to “from Zion” and, “those who turn from transgression” to “He will remove ungodliness,” distorts the meaning of the original text. This is an attempt to support the incorrect Christian belief that a messianic redeemer will remove sin. According to the Bible, sincere repentance has always been the fundamental method of removing sin.

What is Repentance?
The Hebrew word for repentance is Teshuvah – and it literally means “to return” to God. This is a process of regretting and forsaking sin, as demonstrated in the following verses:

“Let the wicked forsake his way and let him return to the Lord.” Isaiah 55:7

“When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life.” Ezekiel 18:27
Furthermore, the Book of Chronicles says,

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
While there is absolutely no mention of blood in the above verses, the Bible does command sacrifices under a very narrow and specific set of circumstances, solely as a means of motivating sincere repentance. Biblically-mandated sacrifices were required primarily for certain unintentional sins, as it says;

“If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done… he must present to God an unblemished bull.” Leviticus 4:1
An example of an unintentional sin would be violating the Sabbath because you mistakenly thought it was a weekday, or, accidently eating a forbidden food while thinking it was permissible.

In an attempt to build a case that all sins need blood sacrifices, Christians often cite a non-existent, passage: “There is no remission without the shedding of blood.”

The intention of this fabricated passage is refuted by a verse in the New Testament, that says;

“According to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Hebrews 9:22
Incredibly, the inclusion of the words, “one may almost say” in this New Testament passage supports the correct biblical teaching that only some sins required blood sacrifices. There is absolutely no blood sacrifice prescribed for the majority of intentional sin, only for an unintentional sin.

So, in addition to referring to unintentional sins, the limited nature of blood sacrifices can also be seen in Chapter 5:13 of Leviticus that directs a poor penitent person, who could not afford an animal offering, to offer a non-blood, flour offering in its place.

So why were unintentional sins, rather than intentional sins, singled out for sacrifices? Because when you do something accidently you commonly minimize its seriousness and downplay the need for repentance. We rationalize and tell ourselves, “It was just an accident.”

The process of bringing a sacrifice focused attention on the seriousness of the unintentional transgression. An animal was offered to remind us that we were careless with our animal passions; the animal needed to be unblemished, so during the examination process, we would look for and contemplate our own blemishes. The taking of the animal’s life reminded us of the severity of disobeying God.

Animal sacrifices were a means to a specific end. But they were not a panacea. Someone who brought numerous sacrifices without repentance would accomplish nothing. This point was made by King Solomon, the wisest of all men. He referred to sacrifices offered without repenting or acknowledging one’s sin, as “the sacrifices of fools.” As it says in Ecclesiastes;

“Draw near to listen rather than offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong.” Ecclesiastes 4:17
Jewish Scriptures makes it clear that God wants a sincere and changed person, and not rote sacrifices:

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart.” Psalm 51:22

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His delight.” Proverbs 15:8

“I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6

“Doing charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” Proverbs 21:3

Almost all sins committed intentionally required only sincere repentance without an animal sacrifice, because when a person sins intentionally, they know they are doing something wrong.

So when sinners make up their mind to return to God they do so because they cannot delude themselves into thinking it wasn’t serious or was just an accident.

This is confirmed by the following verse:

“When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” Ezekiel 18:27

It is essential to remember that God is just and merciful and does not torment us or make it difficult to return to Him. This is attested to throughout the Jewish scriptures.

“We do not present our supplications before you because of our righteousness, but because of your abundant mercy.” Daniel 9:18

“Return to Me and I shall return to you.” Malachi 3:7

“God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, for He will receive me.” Psalm 49:15

“Israel shall be saved by the Lord, and not ashamed or confounded to all eternity.” Isaiah 45:17
How do Christians cope with the fact that the majority of intentional sins are atoned for without blood? They quote the non-existent passage that supposedly says, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” But as shown above, that statement is false.

This presents a stunning refutation to the validity and foundation of the tenants of Christianity, because in truth we do not need blood at all for intentional sins, nor do we need blood for unintentional sins when there is no Temple to offer a sacrifice.

What do we do without a Temple?
Why does that absence of the Temple preclude us from offering sacrifices today? Considering God’s reverence of life – both human and animal – sacrifices were severely restricted. Unlike pagan rituals, human sacrifice is absolutely forbidden in Judaism and animals could only be sacrificed in a place of extreme sanctity – the Jewish Temple situated on the “Mountain of God” in Jerusalem. As we are taught:

“Be careful that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see: But only in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of your tribes.” Deut. 12:13-14

As a result, after the Temple’s destruction, it is prohibited to offer animal sacrifices.

However, since repentance remains the primary way to return to God, we can still access this spiritual tool in any place and circumstance, just as we do with intentional sins. As the prophet Joel says,

“Yet even now, says the Lord, turn to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: and rend your hearts…” Joel 2:12
In fact, having foreseen the destruction of the Temple, the prophets teach that although we will be without sacrifices for a long time, we will still be able to return to God.

“For the sons of Israel will remain many days without a king or prince, without sacrifice… Afterwards Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king and they will come trembling to the Lord and to his goodness in the last days.” Hosea 3:5
The prophets share additional instructions on how to return to God without Temple sacrifices. One of the most striking is also found in Hosea;

“Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity, Take words with you and return to the Lord…so we offer the words of our lips instead of bulls.” Hosea 14:1-2
This passage is so powerful; it is not surprising, that some Christian Bibles mistranslate, “the words of our lips instead of bulls” as “the fruit of our lips.” By changing “lips” to “fruit” and removing mention of “bulls” they seek to deny the fact that prayer can replace sacrifices.

In context, Hosea was speaking to Jews at a time when they were unable to bring sacrifices to the Temple in Jerusalem. He instructs these Jews to use their words in place of the sacrificial bulls as the means to motivate them to return to God.

The theme, that words of prayer play a vital role in repentance and restoration, is repeated elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures. For example, Jeremiah says:

“Then you shall call upon me, and you shall go and pray to me and I will hearken to you…and I will restore you from your captivity and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places into which I have driven you.” Jeremiah 29:12-14
Furthermore, Daniel was exiled in Babylon and could not offer sacrifices. He would turn toward Jerusalem and pray three times a day corresponding to the three times sacrifices were offered in the Temple.

“He [Daniel] had windows open towards Jerusalem; and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God.” Daniel 6:10
Daniel was righteous and obviously achieved atonement without sacrifices as demonstrated from the fact that he reached a state of holiness to be a prophet and survived the “lion’s den.”

Facing toward Jerusalem during prayer is a universally accepted custom; it traces back to a prophetic utterance of King Solomon when he foresaw that our enemies would destroy the Temple and take the Jews into exile.

Solomon instructs the Jews to pray toward Jerusalem and repent and be forgiven without blood.

“If they return back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies who took them captive, and pray to you toward the land you gave their ancestors, toward the city you have chosen and the temple I have built for your Name; then from heaven, your dwelling place, hear their prayer and their plea, and uphold their cause. And forgive your people, who have sinned against you.” I Kings 8:47-52
Words and confession are one of the most powerful motivators, so much so that when the Jews sinned with the Golden Calf, it was Moses’ words of prayer that accomplished forgiveness. As it says,

“And God said, “I have forgiven them according to your words.” Numbers 14:20
The Torah teaches that through repentance, prayer, fasting, and doing what is right, everyone can return to God directly. This concept is beautifully illustrated in the book of Esther which takes place after the destruction of the first Temple when the Jews were under Persian domination.

Despite being under an edict of absolute annihilation because of their transgressions, a holocaust was averted because of repentance, as it says:

“There was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting, weeping, and wailing…” Esther 4:3
Another example – so powerful it is read each year on Yom Kippur – is in the Book of Jonah where non-Jews repented, prayed to God and were forgiven without any offering and animal sacrifices.

“Let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked. When God saw their (the citizens of Nineveh) deeds; that they turned from their wicked way, than God relented concerning the calamity.” Jonah 3:9-10
The New Testament itself attests to the successful repentance of the citizens of Nineveh.

“The men of Nineveh will stand up…for they repented at the preaching of Jonah.” Matthew 12:41
In fact, non-Jews were never commanded to offer sacrifices and relied solely on repentance. Consequently, the argument that they need blood or something to replace blood sacrifices is wrong.

How do Christians deal with these stunning revelations?
When biblical arguments prove insufficient to validate their beliefs, some Christians resort to the misuse of rabbinical sources in an attempt to prove their beliefs.

There are two statements from the Talmud that are frequently quoted. The first one is:

“There is no atonement without blood.” (Talmud – Yoma 5a)
It is important to explore what the Talmud’s actual intention was when it made this statement.

It is unthinkable to conclude that this statement means that the only way to make atonement is through blood sacrifices because there are numerous biblical and Talmudic examples of atonement achieved in ways that do not include blood. Silver half coins, incense, gold vessels and confession are some examples, as these passages demonstrate:

“You shall not decrease from half a shekel (silver coin) to give the portion of God to atone for your soul. Exodus 30:15

“But Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them.” Numbers 17:11

“So we have brought as an offering for God: what any man found of gold vessels, anklet, and bracelet, rings, earrings and claps, to atone for our soul before God.” Numbers 31:50

“Confession makes atonement.” (Talmud -Yoma – 36b)
Clearly the Talmudic statement, “There is no atonement without blood” is not teaching the exclusivity of blood for atonement; it does however teach that in order for a sacrifice to be valid it must be carried through to its final procedural stage of ensuring that the blood (which represents the essence of the animal) is thrown on the Altar.

In another attempt to prove that blood is the only means to atonement, Christians claim the book of Leviticus says:

“There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.”
As noted earlier, this statement is a total fabrication and does not exist anywhere in the Jewish Bible. It is also contradicted by the New Testament statement (Hebrews 9:22) that blood sacrifices were not for all sins.

When asked where this “no remission of sin” passage is found in the Jewish Bible, Christians typically attribute it to Leviticus 17:11. However, the verse does not say this.

The verse actually says,

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.” Leviticus 17:11-12
It does not say that without blood there is no remission of sin. Rather, in context it says that blood is special because it is the life-source. And since it plays a pivotal role in the sacrificial process, under the narrow and specific criteria where blood is required, it should not be eaten. Additionally, the verse does not use the word “forgiveness,” but rather “atonement” which is different, as will be explained.

The second Talmudic statement quoted out of context by Christians is:

“The death of the righteous atones.” (Talmud – Moed Katan 28a)
This rabbinical statement is completely misinterpreted by Christians. The totality of rabbinical literature demonstrates this pertains to two situations.

First, the alleviation of a Divine punishment decreed upon the Jewish people as a whole.

The story of the sin of Achan son of Carmi in Joshua chapter 7 demonstrates that as the result of one person’s sin the entire Jewish people, despite an individual’s innocence, can experience the collective consequences of the transgression. This is because the Jewish people are compared to one unified body.

Conversely, innocent individuals can absorb a portion of the communal punishment. The Talmud Sanhedrin 39a, in reference to Ezekiel chapter 4, makes it clear that the suffering of the righteous refers to atonement that “washes away” a portion of the punishment of exile.

This is further supported by the fact that the actual meaning of the Hebrew word for atonement (Kaporah) is “covering” or “cleansing.” The essential point is that atonement obtained by death or suffering only removes communal punishment and not an individual’s sin.

Every individual has the responsibility to repent directly to God for his own transgressions.

“The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity… the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” Ezekiel 18:20
Additionally, nowhere does it say that a person needs to believe in the righteous person, or for that matter, be aware of the righteous person’s suffering, to benefit from it.

So Christians can’t apply this rabbinical statement to their belief that you must accept and believe in Jesus to be saved. It is also ironic that Christians attempt to leverage support for their doctrines from the very rabbinical (oral law) they deride as being non-biblical.

The second teaching concerning the above mentioned Talmudic passage is another example of something that motivates an individual to repent. Specifically, when someone is moved by the death of a righteous individual, this can be the catalyst that motivates the person to repent.

The Talmud (Shabbat 105b) teaches that if a person mourns over the death of an upright man, this can arouse the individual to tears and repentance, thereby eliciting God’s forgiveness.

“Whoever weeps for an upright man is forgiven all his iniquities.” (Talmud – Shabbat 105b)
Clearly, the Talmud does not teach that someone can take away another person’s sins.

Law of Life and Connection to God
Contrary to the New Testament’s statement, “the Law brings about wrath” Romans 4:15, which portrays the commandments as a curse and stumbling block; the Torah and the commandments are God’s greatest gift to mankind. King Solomon describes the Torah in uplifting words as follows,

“She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her.” Proverbs 3:18
Indeed, the Hebrew word Torah derives from the word for “instruction and light,” which is very different from the negative Christian connotation of harsh legal decrees.

The literally meaning of the word Torah is “instruction” from the root word “horah –” which means – instruction, – as seen in the verses,

“Teach them the right way to live.” Deuteronomy 4:35

“I have not departed from your laws, for you have taught me” Psalm 119:103
The Torah is also referred to as “light” as we can see in the following verse,

“The commandments are a candle and the Torah is light.” Proverbs 6:23
The Hebrew word for commandment “mitzvah” which are described in the above verse as a “candle” comes from the word “Tzavta” which means a “connection.” This is because God’s commandments connect us to Him in a way we could never have achieved on our own.

Furthermore, King Solomon said that the main purpose of humanity is to believe in God and keep his commandments as is stated in Ecclesiastes;

“The end of the matter, when all is said and done: Be in awe of God and keep his commandments, for that is the whole person.” Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
The Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible, is dedicated to the beauty and eternal nature of the Torah and its commandments.

We can now appreciate an eye-opening admission from a New Testament passage.

“If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Galatians 2:21
In truth, the Torah and the commandments are God’s greatest gift to mankind. This includes the commandment of repentance which was given to enables us to achieve forgiveness, salvation, atonement and righteousness and return to God.

The Torah and is laws are described as follows:

“The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul.” Psalm 19:8
Through Torah, we have a direct and personal connection to the compassionate God. We go directly to God with no need for an intermediary.

“Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity, and passes over the rebellious act…He will again have compassion on us. He will tread our iniquities underfoot. Yes, You will cast all their sin into the depths of the sea.” Micah 7:18-19
The Jewish people have outlived and survived every oppressor who tried to destroy us. The empires of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persian, Romans, Crusaders, Turks, Nazis and the Soviet Union no longer exist; but the Jews are still here.

This is proof of God’s everlasting covenant with the Jewish people, love of Israel, and the eternal nature of God’s Torah that unites us in a common purpose based on our values, commandments and beliefs.

The link….https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Know-How-to-Answer-Christian-Missionaries.html

[Lightenup]

Thanks for the list Adam. Have the Jews found their Messiah yet according to you? What has to happen before they he comes?

[gadam123]

This was how the NT writers altered the Hebrew scriptures to prove Jesus as Messiah….

[gadam123]

Was John the Baptist Elijah?

[gadam123]

Differing interpretations of Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12

The differing interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 found in Jewish sources can be divided into four opinions:

(1) the servant is Isaiah himself; (2) that he is an outstanding past Israelite leader, such as Moses, Josiah, or Jeremiah; (3) that he will be the king Messiah who is yet to come to redeem Israel at the end of days and whose triumph will only be acknowledged at the price of great sufferings ; (4) and last, the most ancient opinion being that the servant is the people of Israel, whether the nation as a whole or its righteous remnant.

Even before the advent of Christianity there was uncertainty in some quarters concerning the identification of the servant described in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. An example of uncertainty is illustrated in Acts of the Apostles 8:27-35 (written c. 85). In this story, one of Queen Candace’s court officials is described as reading Isaiah 53. He asks the apostle Philip: “Please, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else? And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.” Thus, he gave the eunuch the Christian answer. Bur the eunuch’s question is essentially a Jewish one. We are told that this Ethiopian “had come to Jerusalem to worship” (verse 27). He was in all likelihood a semi-proselyte (Godfearer) who was attracted to Judaism and studied the biblical text. Apparently he was confused as to the identity of the servant. Whether the story told in Acts 8 is factual or not, it shows that already in the first century C.E. Jewish exegesis linked parts of Isaiah 53 to historical or symbolic personalities. According to the text of Acts 8, the court official wonders if the servant is Isaiah. Indeed, this is understandable since Isaiah 50:4-10 refers to Isaiah himself as “My servant” (cf. 20:3). There he is described as ready to be crushed by suffering and disgrace: “I gave my back to smirers and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, I did not hide my face from embarrassments and spirrings” (50:6); this is just as the other “servant” described in Isaiah 52:13- 53:12. The text does nor say Isaiah actually underwent harsh treatment as does the servant of52:13-53:12. It may simply be stating Isaiah’s willingness to suffer humiliation in carrying our his prophetic mission. There is no evidence in the Scriptures that Isaiah ever underwent physical suffering and humiliation. ((They did not know the Scripture” There are no clearly identifiable messianic prophecies in the Bible. All such references are based on interpretation. As such, they are subjective understandings of the texts. Therefore, what needs to be investigated is:

(1) to whom did Isaiah 52:13-53:12 initially refer; (2) does this identification still apply; (3) in what way if any does it have messianic application; and (4) does it in anyway apply to Jesus?

Isaiah having identified the servant as Israel (e.g. Isaiah 41 :8-9) it is correct to say that at the time of the composition of Isaiah 53, it had no messianic connotation whatsoever. With the increased persecution of Jews in the centuries following the Second Temple’s destruction the concept of a suffering Messiah developed. As we shall see, he would be an individual who would suffer with and for the Jewish people.  Some Jews turned to Isaiah 53 and using the midrashic method took verses out of context in order to use them as descriptive examples of suffering. However, there is no concrete evidence that the idea of a suffering Messiah was part of first century C.E. Jewish belief. This is even indicated by the New Testament.

When Jesus supposedly informed the twelve apostles that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer, Peter allegedly protests saying: “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matthew 16:22). Peter did not break out in joyful praise exclaiming: “Praise God, you are the fulfillment of the expected messianic suffering servant, as it is written by the prophet.” Peter and the rest of the apostles never heard or believed that the Messiah was destined to suffer and be killed, otherwise why the protest? Why were they “deeply
grieved” to hear that “they will kill him” (Matthew 17:23), and on hearing of his forthcoming suffering: “understood none of these things … and they did not comprehend the things that were said” (Luke 18:34), and, explicitly, “did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” John 20:9).
Much of what the New Testament claims concerning Jesus was developed after his death, as his followers began combing the Scriptures in search of texts that could be used to justify their continued loyalty to him. Initially, they were at a loss as to how to explain his apparent failure to fulfill the acknowledged messianic prophecies. But, they soon overcame the problem. An indication of this is found in John’s comment: “For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” John 20:9). Over a period of seven weeks following his death a group of disciples began developing their answer. Then, according to the author of the Book of Acts, on the Jewish holy day of Shavu ‘ot (Pentecost) they announced their initial claim. They alleged Jesus was not dead, but had been resurrected after his death in accordance with the Scriptures (Acts 2:22-36, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). But, what “Scriptures” means is not the canonical Hebrew Bible as we know it today. It more than likely includes literary works and the ideas they present which are not included in our biblical canon.

Authoritative interpretation of the disciples’ scriptural claims was said to ultimately derive from Jesus himself. Thus, after his alleged resurrection, Jesus is said to criticize two of his disciples for not believing what the prophets had announced, asking: “Did not the Christ have to suffer all this so as to enter his glory?” (Luke 24:26). The author of Luke then states that Jesus began instruction as to the meaning of the Scriptures. He writes: “Beginning, then, with Moses and with all the prophets, he interpreted for them every passage of Scripture which referred to him” (Luke 24:27). Later, it is again emphasized that Jesus literally: “was speaking to us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us” (Luke 24:32). Attributing the initial instruction on the meaning of the Scriptures to Jesus creates a superlative basis of authority. However, in actuality, it was not Jesus but the church over a period of years that searched, interpreted, and explained the Scriptures. This is tacitly admitted to in the statement: “they did not understand the Scripture.”

Who this Jesus was who died, was buried, and then supposedly rose needed to be spelled out in more detail. The formulation quoted by Paul as tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 indicates not only a ritualized formula but also a larger context of narrative and interpretation. In this passage, Paul states that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” {verse 3) and that he was raised “according to the Scriptures” (verse 4). This says two things:
(1) Paul believed Jesus’ death was a vicarious offering for sins; (2) Paul also believed this death was foretold in literary works he considered to be part of the Scriptures of Israel.

References to the same Scriptures are also evident in the formulation: “this is my body which is [given] for you” (1 Corinthians 11 :24) which indicates the vicarious nature of this death. The reference to the supposed “new covenant” (verse 25) establishes a break with the ancient covenant of Israel. A number of scriptural passages are interpreted in the New Testament as of one who suffered and died on behalf of others. These passages are the foundation for the interpretation of the death of Jesus and they provide the language for the telling of the story about him. The life of Jesus was retold to make it appear as if Jesus fulfilled all the biblical passages that the church considered messianic prophecies. The supposed events of Jesus’ life as recorded were designed to serve apologetic needs, not to record historic facts. Among the scriptural texts the disciples seized upon to justify their continued loyalty to Jesus following his death was Isaiah 52:13-53:12. They then proceeded to build many of the claims of their faith around it as part of their attempt to prevent total disintegration of the group still loyal to his memory. During those crucial weeks between Passover and Pentecost Jesus’ followers first began developing the claim that he fulfilled the Isaianic text (cf. Acts 1:2-3, 2: 1-4). They wished to explain first to themselves and then to others how it came about that he who they thought to be the Messiah could have died the ignoble death of crucifixion without accomplishing that which was expected of the true Messiah. They fused in their unique way the concepts of messiah and suffering servant to give themselves a rationale to explain Jesus’ death. Stories concerning Jesus were developed to suggest fulfillment of the passage. In the years that followed, additional supportive material was contrived. But, as we will see from a thorough study of the passage,
they did not succeed in achieving a correlation between the biblical text and the Jesus stories that developed. The claim that Jesus literally fulfilled the prophetic utterances of the Isaianic passage simply does not prove acceptable under scrutiny. His inability to fulfill all that is stated regarding the servant
indisputably disqualifies Jesus from any claim to this title. This is, because if Isaiah 53 refers to a single individual, whether literally or metaphorically, that person would have to fulfill without qualification all the elements in the account of the servant. Any individual who fails to fulfill even one aspect cannot be considered the servant. On the other hand, a corporate entities experience is made up of the sum total of each member’s own experiences and so can be counted collectively.

When the prophet says that the servant “shall see seed, he shall prolong days” there is no application to the Jesus described in the Gospels (see the discussion of verse 10 below). Similarly, in verse 12: “I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty” has no tangible application to the Jesus of the Gospels (see the discussion of verse 12 below). The scene evoked in the servant passage is that of the representative spokesman for the nations looking back into their national history and commenting on how they treated the nation of Israel. This is followed by God’s rewards to faithful Israel, who though they stray, come back to their Creator. Yes, there may be many that fall by the wayside and never return but the distinct national entity remains faithful. When verse 10 is applied toJesus we must ask: Did he have physical offspring? This is the meaning of the word zer’a, “seed,” used by the prophet. Similarly, when, if Jesus is God, did he receive “a portion” with anyone; when did he share “spoil with the mighty”? When Christian commentators claim that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 52:13-53:12,
they neglect to mention that they are waiting in anticipation of Jesus coming a second time to fill in the gaps of non-fulfillment.

The Gospels themselves provide evidence that the interpretation of the passage that equates the servant with a suffering messiah did not exist prior to the post-crucifixion period. With reference to Isaiah 53, what did Jesus’ disciples believe concerning his ultimate fate prior to his death? At one point Jesus supposedly explains to his disciples that he must die: ”And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). Nevertheless: “they understood none of these things, and this saying was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said” (Luke 18:34), this, despite the claim that Jesus “was stating the matter plainly [parresia-plainness]” (Mark 8:32). To reiterate this point, look once more at Peter’s alleged reaction to the news that Jesus is to be put to death that is mentioned above. After Peter acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah (Matthew 16: 16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed {Matthew 16:21). Rather than acknowledging this as the prophetic fate of the Messiah
he responds: “God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matthew 16:22). Would Peter have said this if he thought Jesus was the fulfillment of a supposedly centuries old prophetic interpretation of Isaiah 53 that coincides with that now found in Christianity? Apparently, Peter never heard of a Messiah who was supposed to suffer and die, and he responds accordingly. As for Jesus himself, it is said he requests that God “remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36). By this statement he meant the humiliation, suffering,
and death he is about to undergo. In this verse, Jesus also apparently did not know why he supposedly came to earth and that the travail he was about to undertake is allegedly the fulfillment of Isaiah 53. It is clear that a removal of “the cup” would destroy what Christians would later claim is God’s plan for mankind’s redemption. It is interesting that Jesus would offer a prayer that he knew to be nothing but an empty gesture on his part.

The news of Jesus’ death brings a reaction of “mourning and weeping” from his disciples (Mark 16:1 0). “And when they heard that he was alive … they refused to believe it” {Mark 16:11). John explains: “For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” John 20:9). The disciples’ initial reaction is not what would be expected if the concept of an executed and resurrected messiah was familiar to them. Obviously, it was not. One would expect that if there were a first century C. E. Jewish group that espoused a suffering messiah understanding of Scripture it would have been Jesus and his followers. There are, in fact, New Testament anachronisms that attribute such teachings to Jesus {Matthew 16:16-21, Mark 8:29-31, Luke 9:20-22). Yet, we find significant instances where Jesus and/or his followers express themselves in a manner that runs counter to such an interpretation. It is apparent from the Gospels that before and for some time after the crucifixion Jesus’ own disciples were not familiar with Isaiah 53 as referring to a suffering messiah who would die for the sins of the people and then be
resurrected. Yet, some Christian commentators maintain that this was the prevailing Jewish teaching contemporary with Jesus. The truth is that there is no evidence that this concept of a suffering messiah was a first century C.E. Jewish interpretation of the passage. The question remains: Who are the Jews contemporary with Jesus that supposedly held to what has become the present Christian understanding of the meaning of Isaiah 53? They cannot be identified simply because they never existed. It was only in the
post-crucifixion period that these notions developed among the followers of Jesus. If the concept of a suffering and dying messiah truly existed in Judaism prior to the establishment of the church how does one explain that not even the New Testament text supports this contention?

There are eleven places in the New Testament in which portions of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 are directly cited (Matthew 8: 17; Mark 15:28 [only later manuscripts add this verse]; Luke 22:37; John 12:38; Acts 8:32, 33; Romans 10:16, 15:21; 1 Peter 2:22, 24-25). With the exception of Romans 15:21 these citations are presented as if to show that Jesus literally fulfilled certain verses of Isaiah 53. Thus, Matthew alleges rhar “They brought to him [Jesus] many who were demon-possessed; and he cast our the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill; in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: “He himself took our infirmities, and carried away our diseases” (Matthew 8: 16-17). Later manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark have the following: “And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘And He was reckoned with transgressors”‘ (Mark 15:28). Luke’s Jesus declares: “For I tell you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned among criminals’; for that which refers to me has fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

The author of John writes: “But though he had performed so many signs before them, they did not believe in him; that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, ‘Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?'” John 12:37-38). When the Ethiopian eunuch read from the passage of Scripture that said: “He was led as a sheep to slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he does nor open his mouth. In humiliation his judgment was taken away; who shall relate his generation? For his life is removed from the earth,” “Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.” (Acts 8:32-35). Paul reports: “However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our report?'” (Romans 10: 16). And why does Paul preach in unchartered regions?: “They who had no news of him shall see, and they who have not heard shall understand” (Romans 15:21). The author of 1 Peter claims: “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in his steps, ‘who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth … and he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by his wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep,
bur now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls”‘ (I Peter 2:22, 24-25). Yet, what is the proof that these verses refer to Jesus?

Is there any reason to believe that the Gospel presentation conforms to the historical facts? If we are to evaluate the New Testament proof honestly, we must treat and interpret Isaiah’s prophecy in all its parts, and as a whole, to see whether Jesus actually fulfilled all that the passage delineates. What is called for is a verification based on actual fulfillment of the Scriptures rather than imaginary verification based on blind faith. When compared to the contents of this passage the New Testament text itself contains many inconsistencies.

In addition, the Christian translations of the passage do not always conform to the Hebrew text itself.
When confronted with Jesus’ non-fulfillment of the servant passage Christian commentators will find tenuous answers, rationalize wherever possible and relegate what cannot be explained away to the realm of unanswerable mysteries. When all is said and done, one important fact remains: The life of Jesus is simply not in harmony with Isaiah 53. Jesus’ own actions, as portrayed in the New Testament, demonstrate he could not be the servant.

A number of interpretations concerned with the Messiah and what he was to accomplish were current during the Second Temple period. Of the messianic expectations discussed in the contemporary literature, some are spiritual and others political, bur none give him a divine nature.  Although the messianic role and person is sometimes exaggerated and imaginative, there is no evidence to support an interpretation that identifies the servant spoken of by Isaiah as a suffering messiah. Most first century C.E. Jews who were told that Jesus was the Messiah could not disregard Jesus’ failure to liberate them; indeed he fulfilled nothing biblically expected of the Messiah. It was impossible for them to consider Jesus as the Messiah. As for the Jews of successive generations, they also could not accept Jesus as the authentic Messiah presaged by the prophets. This was made all the more significant since added to the initial non-fulfillment was the fact that what was taught about him reflected the pagan influenced beliefs of gentile adherents to the new faith.

What a Jew could ask of first century Christendom a Jew could still ask today: Did Jesus appear at the “end of days”? And, what of the claim of fulfillment at a second coming? Over two thousand years have passed since his promised “quick” return (Revelation 22:20) and the world has not seen his return nor his inauguration of the Messianic Era. Christianity claims that Isaiah predicted both an alleged suffering of the Messiah (Isaiah 53) and the glory of the Messiah (Isaiah 11), without distinguishing that the former would be fulfilled at a first coming and the latter at a second coming. That so-called distinction between two messianic visitations results from first century Christendom’s frustration that Jesus never returned.

[gadam123]

Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah ?

The Messiah in Judaism (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ‎, romanized: māšîaḥ (Mashiach)) is a savior and liberator figure in Jewish eschatology, who is believed to be the future redeemer of the Jewish people. The concept of messianism originated in Judaism, and in the Hebrew Bible a messiah is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil. However, messiahs were not exclusively Jewish, as the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.

In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah is a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come.[ The Messiah is often referred to as “King Messiah” (Hebrew: מלך משיח‎, romanized: melekh mashiach) or malka meshiḥa in Aramaic.

Jewish eschatology, the term mashiach, or “Messiah”, refers specifically to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to save the Jewish nation, and will be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. The Messiah is often referred to as “King Messiah”, or, in Hebrew, מלך משיח (melekh mashiach), and, in Aramaic, malka meshiḥa. In a generalized sense, messiah has “the connotation of a savior or redeemer who would appear at the end of days and usher in the kingdom of God, the restoration of Israel, or whatever dispensation was considered to be the ideal state of the world.”

Messianism “denotes a movement, or a system of beliefs and ideas, centered on the expectation of the advent of a messiah.” Orthodox views hold that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David, and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, father a male heir, re-institute the Sanhedrin, and so on.

Jewish tradition of the late, or early post-Second Temple period alludes to two redeemers, one suffering and the second fulfilling the traditional messianic role, namely Mashiach ben Yosef, and Mashiach ben David. In general, the term “Messiah” unqualified refers to “Mashiach ben David” (Messiah, son of David).

Belief in the future advent of the Messiah is one of the fundamental requisites of the Jewish faith, concerning which Maimonides has written: “Anyone who does not believe in him, or who does not wait for his arrival, has not merely denied the other prophets, but has also denied the Torah and Moses, our Rabbi.

Judaism’s view of Jesus

There is no specific doctrinal view of Jesus in traditional Judaism. Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, which regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. Therefore, consideration of Jesus as deity is not an issue in traditional Jewish thought. The rejection of Jesus as Messiah has never been a theological issue for Judaism because Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with events that had not occurred at the time of Jesus, such as the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace, and the ingathering of Jews to their homeland.

Historically, some Jewish writers and scholars have considered Jesus as the most damaging “false prophet,” and traditional views of Jesus have been mostly negative, though influential Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages including Judah Halevi and Maimonides viewed Jesus as an important preparatory figure for a future universal ethical monotheism of the Messianic Age. Some modern Jewish thinkers starting in the 18th century with the Orthodox Jacob Emden and the reformer Moses Mendelssohn have sympathetically speculated that the historical Jesus may have been closer to Judaism than either the Gospels or traditional Jewish accounts would indicate, a view that is still espoused by some.

Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfilments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus.

Jesus as the Jewish Messiah

Judaism’s idea of the messiah differs substantially from the Christian idea of the Messiah. In Orthodox Judaism, the messiah’s task is to bring in the Messianic Age, a one-time event, and a presumed messiah who is killed before completing the task (i.e. compelling all of Israel to walk in the way of Torah, repairing the breaches in observance, fighting the wars of God, building the Temple in its place, gathering in the dispersed exiles of Israel) is not the messiah. Maimonides states,

But if he did not succeed in all this or was killed, he is definitely not the Moshiach promised in the Torah… and God only appointed him in order to test the masses. Jews believe that the messiah will fulfill the messianic prophecies of the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. According to Isaiah, the messiah will be a patrilineal bloodline descendant of King David. He is expected to return the Jews to their homeland and rebuild the Temple, reign as King, and usher in an era of peace and understanding where “the knowledge of God” fills the earth, leading the nations to “end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel”. Ezekiel states the messiah will redeem the Jews.

The Jewish view of Jesus is influenced by the fact that Jesus lived while the Second Temple was standing, and not while the Jews were exiled. Being conceived via the Holy Spirit (as espoused by orthodox Christian doctrine), it would be impossible for Jesus to be a patrilineal bloodline descendant of King David. He never reigned as King, and there was no subsequent era of peace or great knowledge. Jesus died without completing or even accomplishing part of any of the messianic tasks, instead promising a Second Coming. Rather than being redeemed, the Jews were subsequently exiled from Israel, and the temple was destroyed years later, not rebuilt. These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars who were contemporaries of Jesus, as later pointed out by Nahmanides, who in 1263 observed that Jesus was rejected as the messiah by the rabbis of his time.

Moreover, Judaism sees Christian claims that Jesus is the textual messiah of the Hebrew Bible as being based on mistranslations, with the idea that Jesus did not fulfill any of the Jewish Messiah qualifications….(Source the Wikipedia)

 

[gadam123]

[GeneBalthrop]

Adam…….Who cares what those wannabe Jews think ?,  naturally they reject Jesus as the Messiah, they were the ones that had him killed.  The more you join in on their thinking the further you go away from Jesus, as well as God the Father .   You on very dangerous ground brother.  You should be showing them the errors of their false teachings by now, in your journey of Faith brother.

peace and love to you and yours………..gene

[gadam123]

[gadam123]

For Mike…..

Mike: 1.  Jesus was indeed the prophesied Messiah, and God did miracles through him.

2.  Jesus was not who he claimed to be, and God did miracles through a liar.

3.  God never did miracles through Jesus at all.

Which of those 3 do you believe?

 

Adam:  If you want the  debate on Jesus’ Messiahship you can argue on the appropriate thread. I can transfer these arguments of yours to that thread…..

Mike:Just pick one of the 3 options.  It’s clear that you are afraid of the question.  So if it gets you to answer it, feel free to transfer it to whatever thread you deem appropriate and let me know where to find it.

Yes this is thread where you can debate on the Messiahship of Jesus without any deviation….

Let us take your point no 1: Jesus was indeed the prophesied Messiah, and God did miracles through him.

The above is the statement by any traditional Christian who faithfully believes that Jesus was the promised Messiah. But to prove it we need to look at the original subject of Messiah in the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew word for “Messiah” is “Moshiach – .” The literal and proper translation of this word is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of anointing and consecrating someone or something with oil (I Samuel 10:1-2). It is used throughout the Jewish Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and/or objects; for example, a Jewish king (I Kings 1:39), Jewish priests (Leviticus 4:3), prophets (Isaiah 61:1), the Jewish Temple and its utensils (Exodus 40:9-11), unleavened bread (Numbers 6:15), and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia, Isaiah 45:1).

The Criteria To Be Fulfilled By The Jewish Messiah
In accurate translations of Jewish Scriptures, the word “Moshiach” is never translated as “Messiah,” but as “anointed.” Nevertheless, Judaism has always maintained a fundamental belief in a Messianic figure. Since the concept of a Messiah is one that was given by God to the Jews, Jewish tradition is best qualified to describe and recognize the expected Messiah. This tradition has its foundation in numerous biblical references, many of which are cited below. Judaism understands the Messiah to be a human being (with no connotation of deity or divinity) who will bring about certain changes in the world and who must fulfill certain specific criteria before being acknowledged as the Messiah.

These specific criteria are as follows:

1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy. 17:15, Numbers 24:17)

2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendant of King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalms 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)

4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)

6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one God. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

All of these criteria for the Messiah are best stated in chapter 37:24-28 of the book of Ezekiel:

“and My servant David will be a king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them, and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant…and I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.” (Ezekiel 37:24-28)

Emphasis: If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah!

The above are some of the arguments of Jewish people. I brought them here as we are debating on the Messiahship of Jesus as their messiah.

So please specify your arguments on the above to prove Jesus as Messiah.

[gadam123]

For Sis Jodi…..

[gadam123]

Isaiah 53 an interpretation

The 53rd chapter of Isaiah is a beautiful, poetic song, one of the four “Servant Songs” in which the prophet describes the climactic period of world history when the Messiah will arrive and the Jewish people assume the role as the spiritual leaders of humanity.

Isaiah 53 is a prophecy foretelling how the world will react when they witness Israel’s salvation in the Messianic era. The verses are presented from the perspective of world leaders, who contrast their former scornful attitude toward the Jews with their new realization of Israel’s grandeur. After realizing how unfairly they treated the Jewish people, they will be shocked and speechless.

While the original Hebrew text clearly refers to the Jewish people as the “Suffering Servant,” over the centuries Isaiah 53 has become a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, this claim is based on widespread mistranslations and distortion of context.

In order to properly understand these verses, one must read the original Hebrew text. When the Bible is translated into other languages, it loses much of its essence. The familiar King James translation uses language which is archaic and difficult for the modern reader. Furthermore, it is not rooted in Jewish sources and often goes against traditional Jewish teachings. Modern translations, while more readable, are often even more divorced from the true meaning of the text.

The Context of Isaiah 53

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)
“You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)
see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20
The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.

One obvious question that needs to be addressed: How can the “Suffering Servant,” which the verses refer to grammatically in the singular, be equated with the entire Jewish nation?

This question evaporates when we discover that throughout the Bible, the Jewish people are consistently referred to as a singular entity, using the singular pronoun. For example, when God speaks to the entire Jewish nation at Mount Sinai, all of the Ten Commandments are written as if speaking to an individual (Exodus 20:1-14). This is because the Jewish people are one unit, bound together with a shared national destiny (see Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy chapter 32). This singular reference is even more common in biblical verses referring to the Messianic era, when the Jewish people will be fully united under the banner of God (see Hosea 14:6-7, Jeremiah 50:19).

As we will see, for numerous reasons this chapter cannot be referring to Jesus. Even in the Christian scriptures, the disciples did not consider the Suffering Servant as referring to Jesus (see Matthew 16:21-22, Mark 9:31-32, Luke 9:44-45).

So how did the Suffering Servant come to be associated with Jesus? After his death, the promoters of Christianity retroactively looked into the Bible and “applied” – through mistranslation and distortion of context – these biblical verses as referring to Jesus.

The intention is not to denigrate another religion, but rather to understand the true meaning of the Divine word.

Isaiah 53 – Line by Line

Early in the Book of Isaiah, God predicts the long and difficult exile of the Jewish people. Chapter 53 occurs in the midst of Isaiah’s “Messages of Consolation,” which tell of the restoration of Israel to prominence as God’s chosen people.

The key to understanding this chapter lies in correctly identifying who is speaking. Though the book was written by Isaiah, verses 53:1-10 are told from the perspective of world leaders. Following in the footsteps of the previous chapter (Isaiah 52:15 – “the kings will shut their mouths in amazement”), these verses describe how world leaders will be shocked with disbelief when God’s Servant Israel – despite all contrary expectations – is vindicated and blossoms in the Messianic age.

(1) Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of God been revealed!

מִי הֶאֱמִין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵנוּ וּזְרוֹעַ יְהוָה עַל מִי נִגְלָתָה

In this opening verse, world leaders are shocked at the incredible news of Israel’s salvation: “Who would believe what we have heard!”

This verse refers to “the arm of God.” Throughout the Jewish Bible, God’s “arm” (זרוע) always denotes a redemption of the Jewish people from physical persecution. For example, God took the Jews out of Egypt “with a strong hand and an outstretched arm” (Deut. 26:8). (See also Exodus 3:20, 6:6, 14:31, 15:6; Deut. 4:34, 7:19; Isaiah 51:9, 52:10, 62:8, 63:12; Jeremiah 21:5, 27:5; Ezekiel 20:33; Psalms 44:3, 89:11, 98:1, 136:12).

(2) He formerly grew like a sapling or a root from dry ground; he had neither form nor beauty. We saw him, but without a desirable appearance.

וַיַּעַל כַּיּוֹנֵק לְפָנָיו וְכַשּׁרֶשׁ מֵאֶרֶץ צִיָּה לא תאַר לוֹ וְלא הָדָר וְנִרְאֵהוּ וְלא מַרְאֶה וְנֶחְמְדֵהוּ

This imagery of a tree struggling to grow in dry earth is a metaphor for the Jewish struggle in exile. A young sapling in dry ground appears that it will die. The Jews were always a small nation, at times as small as 2 million people, threatened with extinction. In this verse Isaiah describes Israel’s miraculous return from exile, like a sapling that sprouts from this dry ground. This idea appears throughout the Jewish Bible (see Isaiah 60:21, Ezekiel 19:13, Hosea 14:6-7, Amos 9:15).

(3) He was despised and rejected of men, a man of pains and accustomed to sickness. As one from whom we would hide our faces, he was despised, and we had no regard for him.

נִבְזֶה וַחֲדַל אִישִׁים אִישׁ מַכְאבוֹת וִידוּעַ חלִי וּכְמַסְתֵּר פָּנִים מִמֶּנּוּ נִבְזֶה וְלא חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ

This verse describes the Servant as universally despised and rejected. This has been a historical theme for the Jewish people, as a long list of oppressors have treated the Jews as sub-human (the Nazis) or as a pariah state (the United Nations). See similar imagery in Isaiah 49:7, 60:15; Psalms 44:14; Nechemia 3:36.

While this description clearly applies to Israel, it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account which describes Jesus as immensely popular (Matthew 4:25). “Large crowds” of people came from far and wide to hear him speak, and Jesus had to sail into the water to avoid being overrun by the crowds (Mark 3:7-9). Luke 2:52 describes him as physically strong and well respected, a man whose popularity spread and was “praised by all” (Luke 4:14-15). A far cry from Isaiah’s description of “despised and rejected.”

Although Jesus died a criminal’s death, Isaiah is describing someone for whom rejection has spanned the ages – obviously referring to a nation, not an individual who suffered rejection for only a few hours.

(4) Indeed, he bore our illnesses and carried our pains – but we regarded him as diseased, stricken by God and afflicted.

אָכֵן חֳלָיֵנוּ הוּא נָשָׂא וּמַכְאבֵינוּ סְבָלָם וַאֲנַחְנוּ חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ נָגוּעַ מֻכֵּה אֱלהִים וּמְעֻנֶּה

Throughout the centuries of Israel’s exile, many nations persecuted the Jews on the pretense that it was God’s way of “punishing” the “accursed” Jews for having stubbornly rejected the new religions. In these verses, until the end of the chapter, the nations confess how they used the Jewish people as scapegoats, not for the “noble” reasons they had long claimed.

Indeed, the nations selfishly persecuted the Jews as a distraction from their own corrupt regimes: “Surely our suffering he did bear, and our pains he carried…” (53:4)

(5) He was wounded as a result of our transgressions, and crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement upon him was for our benefit; and through his wounds we were healed.

וְהוּא מְחלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵנוּ מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲוֽנתֵינוּ מוּסַר שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ עָלָיו וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא לָנוּ

This verse describes how the humbled world leaders confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our iniquities” – i.e., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as previously claimed, the stubborn blindness of the Jews.

Isaiah 53:5 is a classic example of mistranslation: The verse does not say, “He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities,” which could convey the vicarious suffering ascribed to Jesus. Rather, the proper translation is: “He was wounded because of our transgressions, and crushed because of our iniquities.” This conveys that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others – not the opposite as Christians contend – that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others.

Indeed, the Christian idea directly contradicts the basic Jewish teaching that God promises forgiveness to all who sincerely return to Him; thus there is no need for the Messiah to atone for others (Isaiah 55:6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs 16:6, Daniel 4:27, 2-Chronicles 7:14).

(6) We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and God inflicted upon him [Israel] the iniquity of us all.

כֻּלָּנוּ כַּצּאן תָּעִינוּ אִישׁ לְדַרְכּוֹ פָּנִינוּ וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲון כֻּלָּנוּ.

The nations realize that their lack of proper leadership (“shepherd”) caused them to treat the Jews with disdain. They further acknowledge how punishments that should have befallen the nations were averted through Israel’s suffering.

(7) He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth. Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a lamb that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.

נִגַּשׂ וְהוּא נַעֲנֶה וְלא יִפְתַּח פִּיו כַּשֶּׂה לַטֶּבַח יוּבָל וּכְרָחֵל לִפְנֵי גֽזְזֶיהָ נֶאֱלָמָה וְלא יִפְתַּח פִּיו

In various contexts, the Bible uses the imagery of “sheep led to the slaughter” specifically in reference to the Jewish people. For example: “You give us as sheep to be eaten and have scattered us among the nations… we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered” (Psalms 44:12, 23).

This verse prophesizes the many hardships – both physical torment and economic exploitation – that the Jews endured in exile. Ironically, this prophecy refers in part to the 11th century Crusaders who “persecuted and afflicted” the Jews in the name of Jesus. In our time, while Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were “led to the slaughter,” they still remained like a “lamb that is silent before her shearers” – without complaints against God.

(8) He was released from captivity and judgment; who could have imagined such a generation? For he was removed from the land of the living; because of my people’s sin they were afflicted.

מֵעצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח וְאֶת דּוֹרוֹ מִי יְשׂוֹחֵחַ כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוֹ

The phrase, “land of the living” (Eretz HaChaim) refers specifically to the Land of Israel. Thus this verse, “He was removed from the land of the living,” does not mean that the servant was killed, but rather was exiled from the Land of Israel.

This verse again describes the world’s surprise at witnessing the Jewish return to the Promised Land. “Who could have imagined” that the nation we tortured now prospers? World leaders offer a stunning confession: “Because of my people’s sin, they [the Jews] were afflicted.”

Here the text makes absolutely clear that the oppressed Servant is a collective nation, not a single individual. This is where knowledge of biblical Hebrew is absolutely crucial. At the end of the verse, the Hebrew word for “they were” (lamoh – לָמוֹ) always refers to a group, never to an individual. (see for example, Psalms 99:7)

(9) He submitted his grave to evil people; and the wealthy submitted to his executions, for committing no crime, and with no deceit in his mouth.

וַיִּתֵּן אֶת רְשָׁעִים קִבְרוֹ וְאֶת עָשִׁיר בְּמתָיו על לא חָמָס עָשָׂה וְלא מִרְמָה בְּפִיו

Missionaries cite this verse as a claim that Jesus lived a sinless life, and was thus the Messiah. This is contradicted, however, by the Gospels themselves, who record that Jesus sinned by violating the Sabbath (John 9:16) and – by claiming to be God Himself – violating the grave prohibition against making any physical image of God (John 10:33, 14:9-10).

Throughout history, Jews were given the choice to “convert or die.” Yet as this verse describes, there was “no deceit in his mouth” – the loyal Jews refused to accept a pagan deity as their God. Rather than profane God’s Holy Name, they “submitted to the grave” – i.e. chose to die rather than renounce their faith. As such these Jews were often denied proper burial, discarded “to the grave as evil people.”

Further, wealthy Jews “submitted to his executions, for committing no crime” – killed so that wicked conquerors could confiscate their riches.

(10) God desired to oppress him and He afflicted him. If his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days, and God’s purpose would succeed in his hand.

ויהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי אִם תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים וְחֵפֶץ יְהוָה בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח

“God desired to oppress” the Jewish people, in order to inspire them to return to Torah observance. If the Jews would only “acknowledge guilt,” they would see their “offspring and live long days.” This refers to the Messianic era when all Jews will return to Torah observance.

This verse emphasizes that the Servant is to be rewarded with long life and many children. This verse could not possibly refer to Jesus who, according to the New Testament, died young and childless. (Furthermore, if Jesus was alleged to be the immortal Son of God, it is absurd to apply the concept of “living long days.”)

Although missionaries may claim that the “offspring” refers to spiritual descendants, this is based on a distortion and mistranslation. In this verse, the Hebrew word for “offspring” (zera – זֶרַע) always refers to physical descendants (see Genesis 12:7, 15:2-4, 15:13, 46:6; Exodus 28:43). A different word, banim (בנים), generally translated as “sons,” is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1).

(11) He would see the purpose and be satisfied with his soul’s distress. With his knowledge My servant will cause the masses to be righteous; and he will bear their sins.

מֵעֲמַל נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה יִשְׂבָּע בְּדַעְתּוֹ יַצְדִּיק צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי לָרַבִּים וַעֲוֹנתָם הוּא יִסְבּל

Missionaries cite this verse to claim that Jesus died for our sins. The Christian idea of one’s sins being forgiven through the suffering of another person goes against the basic biblical teaching that each individual has to atone for his own sins by repenting. (Exodus 32:32-33, Deut. 24:16, Ezekiel 18:1-4)

This verse describes how God’s Servant “will cause the masses to be righteous” – not as some mistranslate, “he will justify the many.” The Jewish mission is to serve as a “light to the nations,” leading the world to righteousness through knowledge of the one true God. The Jews will accomplish this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zechariah 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God’s Law (Isaiah 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3). As it says: “The world will become full of the knowledge of God, as water covers the sea” (Isaiah 11:9).

(12) Therefore, I will assign him a portion in public and he will divide the mighty as spoils – in return for having poured out his soul for death and being counted among the wicked, for he bore the sin of the many, and prayed for the wicked.

לָכֵן אֲחַלֶּק לוֹ בָרַבִּים וְאֶת עֲצוּמִים יְחַלֵּק שָׁלָל תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱרָה לַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְאֶת פּֽשְׁעִים נִמְנָה וְהוּא חֵטְא רַבִּים נָשָׂא וְלַפּֽשְׁעִים יַפְגִּיעַ

This verse speaks of how the Jews always pray for the welfare of the nations they are exiled into (see Jeremiah 29:7). The verse continues to explain that the Jewish people, who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God, will be rewarded.

Regarding the above passage, some have claimed that the “suffering servant” cannot be Israel, since Israel has sins. Yet this is a fallacy, since we know that no human being – not even Moses – is completely free of sin. Yet Moses was considered “righteous,” which takes into account not only one’s good deeds, but also one’s repentance after sin. If Jesus is God, these ideas have no meaning.

Immediately following this promise of reward for the Jews’ suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 clearly speaks of the redemption which awaits the Jewish people. This point is acknowledged by all Christian commentaries.

Conclusion
In the days of Jesus, nobody ever understood Isaiah 53 to be predicting the death of the Messiah. When Jesus said, “I am going to Jerusalem where I will suffer and die,” the Apostle Peter did not relate this in any way to the suffering described in Isaiah 53. Rather, Peter rebuked Jesus, saying, “Be it far from you Lord, this shall not be unto you.” In other words, “God forbid – that cannot happen to you!” Peter never expected the Messiah to be tortured and killed (see Matthew 16:21-22).

Interestingly, the 20th century Christian New English Bible – Oxford Study Edition (annotation on Isaiah 52:13-53:12) clearly identifies the Suffering Servant as the nation of Israel which “has suffered as a humiliated individual.”

If the context of Isaiah 53 so clearly refers to the Jewish people, how could so many Christian leaders have mistranslated the Bible?

[gadam123]

Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah?

[Proclaimer]

The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone

Psalm 118:20-23

This is the gate of the Lord
    through which the righteous may enter.
 I will give you thanks, for you answered me;
    you have become my salvation.
 The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone;
 the Lord has done this,

Acts 4:8-21

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!  If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed,  then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.  Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”

Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.

[gadam123]

Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

This is purely the Défense mechanism of NT writers and Christianity to save Jesus from the rejection of their  Jewish audience. There is no such thing as saving in Jesus name as per the Hebrew Bible or believing in any Messiah for salvation which is the invention of Christianity.

[Author]

Posts