Search Members

[Berean]

@ DT

The figure in Isaiah 53 was innocent. But was Israel?
Huh?

[Berean]

@ DT

If the expression “his death” was in the plural, the expression “his grave” would ALSO be in the plural.
But that’s not the case.
It is indeed one person and not several.

9] And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth

And they made His grave with the wicked: Jesus died in the company of the wicked (Luke 23:32-33), and it was the intention of those supervising His execution to cast Him into a common grave with the wicked.

But with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth: Despite the intention of others to make His grave with the wicked, God allowed the Messiah to be with the rich at His death, buried in the tomb of the wealthy 👉Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50-56, Matthew 27:57-60).

[Berean]

@DT

You did not answer the question in verse 53:9

He was assigned 👉 a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in 👉 his death, 👈though he had committed no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth.

In what way could this verse apply to Israel?

[Berean]

Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

The Paradox
Anyone who sets out to discover what the Old Testament says about the coming of the Messiah will quickly encounter paradoxical elements. At times, it may even seem like a mass of contradictions, for the Jewish prophets painted two distinct portraits of the coming Messiah.

On one hand, the researcher will discover numerous predictions presenting the Messiah as a man destined to undergo humiliation, endure physical abuse, and even suffer a violent death. For the Jewish prophets, this was an atoning death for the sins of the people of Israel. On the other hand, the reader will find that the prophets also spoke of the Messiah as a victorious king who would come to destroy Israel’s enemies and establish a messianic reign of peace and prosperity.

Such is the dual portrayal of the Messiah presented by the Jewish prophets. Over the centuries—specifically during the period when the Talmud was being compiled—our rabbis conducted serious studies regarding messianic prophecies. They concluded that the prophets were speaking of two different Messiahs.

The first coming Messiah—the one destined to suffer and die—was the Messiah, son of Joseph (*Mashiach ben Yoseph*). The second, who would follow him, was designated as the Messiah, son of David (*Mashiach ben David*). It was this latter figure who would bring the first Messiah back to life and establish the messianic kingdom of peace on earth. All the ancient rabbis acknowledged that the Old Testament contained this dual set of messianic prophecies. Yet, the Old Testament nowhere asserts the existence of two different Messiahs. In fact, several of these paradoxical descriptions appear side by side in the very same passages, strongly suggesting a single individual. Yet, the theory of the two Messiahs remained in favor among the early rabbis.

For centuries, Orthodox Judaism adhered to this concept of the two Messiahs. However, since the Talmudic period, it is the Messiah—the son of David—who has captivated the Jewish imagination, warmed their hearts, and occupied their thoughts. The other Messiah—the son of Joseph, the one destined to suffer—fell into obscurity; he appeared in Jewish theology only to explain Old Testament passages concerning the Messiah. His existence offered a way to resolve thorny questions. Most of the time, this messianic figure was completely ignored. Today, few Jews have heard of him or are aware of his place in historical Jewish theology. The only Messiah who commands the attention of Jews today is the Messiah—the son of David—the victor.

The Origin of the Paradox
Isaiah 53 is one of the key texts from which the rabbis developed their theory of the suffering Messiah, the son of Joseph. This chapter lies at the heart of the debate regarding what the Old Testament says about the Messiah. It speaks of a servant—the Servant of the Lord. This servant endures excruciating suffering that culminates in his death. The biblical text goes on to state that his suffering is expiatory and that his death serves as an atonement for sin.

The servant suffers and dies for the sins of others. The passage further indicates that the servant rises again. The point of contention is not so much the meaning of the chapter itself, but rather the identity of the figure being foretold.

Of whom was the prophet Isaiah speaking? That is the question today. Was he foretelling the Messiah? Rabbis claim that this is the Christian interpretation of the passage, not the Jewish one. According to Jewish exegesis, Isaiah is alluding to the people of Israel—the Jewish people—suffering amidst the Gentiles. Rabbis assert that this Jewish interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy is the prevailing one, and that there is no reference whatsoever to the Messiah.

However, to view these verses as a proclamation concerning the people as a whole does violence to the text and forces the interpretation. Viewed in isolation, the passage actually evokes a single individual.

Rabbinic interpretations of Isaiah 53
Is this conflict of interpretations limited to a clash between Jewish and Christian views? The history of Judaism suggests otherwise. The interpretation that applies Isaiah 53 to the Jewish people is, in fact, a recent one. Early rabbis taught that the prophet was speaking of a specific individual: the Messiah himself. Indeed, the concept of the Messiah son of Joseph stems from this passage. To gain a clearer understanding of ancient Jewish exegesis regarding Isaiah 53, it is worth looking at the historical context.

Among the oldest Targums (Translator’s Note: ancient and often very free Aramaic translations of the Old Testament) are those of Jonathan ben Uzziel; they date back to the first century CE. His Targum on the Isaiah passage begins with these…

“…Servant Messiah will prosper…” The Targums of Jonathan ben Uzziel were frequently cited by early rabbis. The author was regarded as a definitive authority on Jewish scriptural interpretation. He was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the Messiah. Jonathan ben Uzziel can hardly be accused of having adopted “the Christian interpretation.”

As a quotation from Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437–1508) clearly shows, Jonathan was certainly not the only one to hold this view. Abarbanel himself rejected the idea that the text of Isaiah could refer to the Messiah, yet he makes a significant admission:

“The first question concerns whom this text alludes to: for scholars among the Nazarenes, it refers to the man who was crucified in Jerusalem towards the end of the Second Temple period—the man they acknowledged as the Son of God and who became incarnate in the womb of the virgin, as their writings affirm. In his Targum, Jonathan ben Uzziel applies it to the future Messiah; “…this is also the opinion of most Midrashic scholars.” (Rabbinic commentaries on the text of Holy Scripture, Translator’s Note).
Despite his personal view on this passage, Abarbanel readily acknowledges that the vast majority of Midrashic rabbis linked this passage from Isaiah to the Messiah. He emphasizes that Jonathan ben Uzziel was not alone in supporting this explanation, as it was the dominant Jewish interpretation during the era of the Targums and Midrashim.

The Zohar (the most important work of Kabbalistic literature, Translator’s Note)—written either by Simeon bar Yochai, a second-century Tanna, or by a thirteenth-century Spanish rabbi—contains several statements that clearly relate to the passage in Isaiah:

“There exists in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Children of Sickness; the Messiah enters it and draws upon himself all the sicknesses, sufferings, and chastisements of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. Had he not thus lightened Israel’s burden by taking it upon himself, there would have been no one capable of bearing the punishment for Israel’s transgressions of the Law; this is what is written: ‘Yet it was our sufferings that he bore.'”
In this passage, the Zohar alludes to Isaiah 53:4 and applies the text to the Messiah himself. Furthermore, it clearly distinguishes Israel from the figure foretold in the Isaiah passage. Finally, the Zohar recognizes the expiatory and substitutionary nature of the event, stating that the Messiah takes upon himself the suffering that would otherwise befall Israel due to its sins. The Talmud provides further evidence of this concept from the same period: “The Messiah—what is his name? … those of the house of Rabbi Judah the Prince say it is ‘The Sick One,’ for, as it is written: ‘Surely he has borne our sicknesses'” (98b).

Like the Zohar, the Babylonian Talmud applies the passage from Isaiah to the Messiah. Verse 4 undoubtedly refers to the person of the Messiah.

In the Midrash Tanchuma, we find:
“Rabbi Nachman says that the word ‘man’ in the passage… refers to the Messiah, the son of David, as it is written (Zechariah 6:12), ‘Behold the man whose name is Tzemach (Sprout),’ which Jonathan [ben Uzziel] understands as ‘Behold the Messiah-man.’ Indeed, the prophet said that he would be a ‘man of sorrows and acquainted with suffering.'”
Targum Yalkut II:338:7 applies Isaiah 52:13 to the Messiah and declares: “He shall be lifted up and exalted—higher than Abraham, higher than Moses, higher than the angels who serve God.”

Addressing Isaiah 53:5, the Midrash Cohen puts the following words into the mouth of the prophet Elijah, who says to the Messiah: “Endure the sufferings and the chastisement of the Lord, who strikes you for the sins of Israel—as it is written: ‘He was crushed for our rebellion, broken for our iniquities’—until the end arrives.”

Another Midrash on this same passage states: “All sufferings are divided into three parts.” One applies to David and the patriarchs, another to the generation of the rebellion (rebellious Israel), and the third to the Messianic King.”

Another work, the *Mahzor*—or prayer book for the Day of Atonement—interprets a passage from Isaiah as a prophecy concerning the Messiah. One of the many prayers in this volume is titled the *Mussaf* Prayer. It was written by Rabbi Eliezer Kalir around the seventh century AD. Here is an excerpt:

“The Messiah, our Righteousness, has been taken from us; terror has seized us, and we have no one left to justify us. He bore the yoke of our iniquities and our transgression; he was wounded because of our transgression. He bears our sins upon his shoulders so that we may obtain forgiveness for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound on the day the Eternal creates him (the Messiah) as a new creation. Oh, bring him back from the circle of the earth, raise up…”

…from the land of Seir, that He may gather us on Mount Lebanon, once again through the power of Yinon.”
The more one studies this Yom Kippur prayer, the more interesting it becomes. It expresses fear because the Messiah has left his people—implying that he had previously come to them. This departed Messiah endured vicarious suffering for the people, as their sins had been laid upon him. After suffering, the Messiah was taken away, plunging the people into consternation. Now, the people pray for the Messiah’s return. Much of this prayer draws directly from the prophecy of Isaiah. This demonstrates that, even in the seventh century, Jewish thought viewed this text from Isaiah as a direct reference to the Messiah.

Indeed, the following commentary by Yepheth ben Ali shows that this understanding remained prevalent among Jews in the tenth century:

“For my part, I am inclined—along with Benjamin of Nahavend—to regard this passage as alluding to the Messiah… He (the prophet) thus conveys two things to us. First, that the Messiah will receive supreme honors only after enduring long and manifold trials. Second, that these tribulations will be inflicted upon him as a sign. If he remains pious in his actions while plunged into adversity, he will know that he was destined to be the Messiah… The expression ‘my Servant’ is applied to the Messiah just as it was previously applied to his ancestor in the verse: ‘I have sworn to my servant David.'” (Psalm 89:4).”
For this rabbi, there was also no doubt that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 applied to the Messiah. He was all the more convinced of this because, according to this prophetic passage, the Messiah would be supremely glorified through suffering.

In the eleventh century, Jews still held the view that Isaiah 53 spoke of the Messiah. In the *Bereshith Rabbah* of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan, one finds these words:

“The Holy One gave the Messiah the opportunity to save souls but also to be severely chastised Himself. Out of love, the Messiah immediately accepted the chastisement, as it is written: ‘He was mistreated and oppressed.’ When Israel sins, the Messiah implores mercy for them, as it is written: ‘By His stripes we are healed’ and ‘He bore the sins of many and interceded for the guilty.'”
By citing verses 7, 5, and 12 of Isaiah 53 respectively, the author of the *Bereshith Rabbah* draws several conclusions. First, that the Messiah will save many people, but that this salvation will be accomplished through His sufferings. Second, the sufferings the Messiah endured constitute the punishment we deserved, since He suffered for the sins of Israel and the entire world. (In this sense, one can speak of vicarious suffering.)

In his *Lekach Tov*, Rabbi Tobia ben Eliezer—another eleventh-century rabbi—states regarding Isaiah 52:13: “May His kingdom be exalted” in the days of the Messiah, of whom it is said: “Behold, My Servant shall prosper; “He shall go up, he shall rise, he shall rise very high.”

Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides or Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon), is one of the most famous rabbis of that period. In his writings, he too ascribes a messianic significance to the text of Isaiah:

Regarding the mission through which the Messiah will reveal himself… he will not commend himself to our reverence by virtue of noble lineage; it is the remarkable deeds he performs that will demonstrate he is the expected Messiah… Isaiah declares: “He grew up like a tender plant, like a shoot out of dry ground,” thereby indicating that his exact ancestry will remain unknown until the success of his mission draws the people’s attention… What is noteworthy is that crowned heads will be struck with amazement… Sovereigns will remain silent, as Isaiah declares: “Kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for they shall see what had not been told them, they shall learn what they had not heard.”
Rambam cites Isaiah 53:2 and 52:15 and applies these passages to the person of the Messiah. For him, this entire prophetic section concerns the Messiah.

Another Jewish writing from the eleventh century states regarding the Messiah:

“The Messiah, son of Ephraim, will die, and Israel will mourn for him.” Then, the Holy One will reveal to the people of Israel the Messiah, son of David, whom Israel will stone, saying: “You speak falsely, for the Messiah has already been put to death…” and thus they will despise him, in accordance with what is written: He was “despised and rejected by men.”
The author upholds the theory of the two Messiahs, commonly accepted by the Jews of his time. One of the Messiahs, the son of Ephraim (or of Joseph), will die. After his death, the other Messiah—the son of David—will appear, whom Israel will reject, according to the rabbi. He relies on Isaiah 53:3 to substantiate his claim.

It was at this time that

For the first time in the history of Jewish theology, we see the emergence of the idea that this prophetic passage applies not to the Messiah, but to the people of Israel as a whole. This view was put forward by Rabbi Solomon bar Isaac (1040–1105)—better known as Rashi, a name formed from the initials of Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac. However, because this went against the grain of traditional Jewish thought regarding the text, it provoked an immediate reaction from other Jewish authorities.

One of the rabbis who reacted against the new interpretation proposed by Rashi was Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin—active in Córdoba and Toledo, Spain, around 1350—who wrote:

“Along with our other rabbis, I am pleased to interpret this passage as applying to the Messianic King, and I shall endeavor, as far as possible, to adhere to the literal meaning. In this way, I shall be shielded from the fanciful and forced interpretations of which many have been guilty.
God gave this prophecy to Isaiah to reveal something of the nature of the future Messiah—who is to come and deliver Israel—and something of his life, so that when he appears (at a time of his own choosing), we might recognize him. We await his coming as Redeemer so that, should anyone proclaim himself the Messiah, we may reflect and see whether he bears any resemblance to what was written about him. If he matches what was foretold, then we may believe that he is the Messiah—our righteousness; otherwise, we should not regard him as such.”
The “fanciful and forced” interpretation condemned by Rabbi Crispin is that of Rashi, who applies the prophecy not to the Messiah, but to the people of Israel. Rabbi Crispin opposes this exegesis, maintaining that the prophetic text of Isaiah indeed refers to the Messiah and was written to help us identify and recognize Him when He comes.

From the sixteenth century, we have the testimony of Rabbi Saadiah Ibn Danan of Granada, dating to around 1500:

“One of them, Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi, went so far as to say that those who applied this passage to the Messiah—who was soon to be revealed—gave heretics the opportunity to see Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy. May God forgive him for not professing the truth! Our Rabbis, the Talmudic sages, made their views known through the power of prophecy and possess a tradition regarding the principles of interpretation… The text refers solely to the King Messiah.”
This rabbi thus condemns those who interpret Isaiah’s prophecy as applying to the people of Israel. He calls upon Jewish exegetes to return to the Talmudic tradition that applied the text in question to the Messiah. He also sheds light on the reason why some opted for the new interpretation. That period saw numerous controversies between rabbis and Christians; the latter used Isaiah 53 to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Due to the strength of their arguments, some rabbis began applying the passage to Israel as a means of defense.

From the second half of the sixteenth century, we also have the writings of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, a disciple of Joseph (ben Ephraim) Caro, the author of the *Shulchan Aruch* (“The Set Table”). He, too, called for Jewish commentators to return to the more traditional Jewish interpretation when he wrote: “Our masters—of blessed memory—are unanimous in accepting and affirming the idea that the prophet is speaking of the Messianic King. Let us, too, adhere to this interpretation.”

The writings of Rabbi Elijah de Vidas date from roughly the same period. Around 1575, he wrote the following regarding Isaiah 53:5:

“The words ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities’ show that, while the Messiah was bruised for bearing our iniquities, he who does not admit that the Messiah suffered for our sins will himself have to undergo the punishment for his own iniquities.”
This Rabbi also applies the prophecy of Isaiah to the Messiah and affirms that the latter will suffer vicariously (that is, in our place), for he will suffer for the sins of the people. He goes on to declare that anyone who refuses to believe in the vicarious suffering endured for the sin the Messiah took upon himself—and who refuses to accept it—is condemned, according to this passage, to suffer for his own sins.

Even in the seventeenth century, reactions to Rashi’s interpretation of the Isaiah passage were still evident. This is shown by the writings of Rabbi Naphtali ben Asher Altschuler, around 1650: “I explain these verses and apply them to our Messiah, who will come soon, God willing! I am surprised that Rashi and Rabbi David Kimchi did not apply them to the Messiah, as the Targums do.”

In the nineteenth century, the new viewpoint proposed by Rashi and followed by Rabbi David Kimchi prevailed over the older conce[pt]…

…view of the rabbis. Yet their victory was not absolute; vigorous reactions were still evident. In his *Korem*, written in 1818, Herz Homburg stated: “The fact is that the passage refers to the Messianic King who will appear in the last days, when it pleases the Lord to redeem Israel from the various nations of the earth.”

It is therefore incorrect to claim that applying Isaiah 53 to the Messiah is un-Jewish. According to traditional Jewish interpretation, Isaiah is indeed speaking of the Messiah. The first to assert that the prophet was referring to the people of Israel rather than the Messiah was Solomon ben Isaac, better known as Rashi (1040–1105). He was followed by David Kimchi (1160–1235). However, these men went against everything that had been said and written by the rabbis over the preceding thousand years. Today, Rashi’s view has become the dominant one in Jewish and rabbinic theology. Yet it is incorrect to claim that this *is* the Jewish position. Nor is it the traditional Jewish conception. Rabbis who lived closer to the time the original texts were written—and who had less contact with Christian apologists—applied Isaiah’s prophecy to the Messiah.

The text of Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12
The text itself should enable us to determine whether the Suffering Servant refers to the Messiah as an individual or to the entire nation of Israel. Before examining specific details of the text, it is worth quoting the entire passage from Isaiah and then summarizing it. 52:13 “See, my servant will prosper; he will rise, he will be exalted, he will be lifted very high.
14 Just as he was a source of horror to many—so disfigured was his face, so different was his appearance from that of the sons of men—
15 so he will be a source of joy to many peoples; kings will shut their mouths before him; for they will see what had not been told them, they will learn what they had not heard.
53:1 Who has believed what was announced to us? Who has recognized the arm of the LORD?
2 He grew up before him like a tender plant, like a shoot coming out of dry ground; he had neither beauty nor splendor to attract our gaze, and his appearance held nothing to please us.
3 Despised and forsaken by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with suffering, like one from whom people turn their faces away, we disdained him; we held him in no regard.
4 Yet it was our sufferings he bore, it was our sorrows he carried; and we considered him punished, struck down by God, and humiliated.
5 But he was wounded for our sins, crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brings us peace fell upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We were all wandering like sheep, each following his own way; and the LORD laid upon him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was mistreated and oppressed, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb led to the slaughter, like a sheep silent before its shearers, he did not open his mouth.
8 He was …taken away by anguish and judgment; and among those of his generation, who believed that he was cut off from the land of the living and struck down for the sins of my people?
9 They assigned him a grave among the wicked, a tomb with the rich, though he had committed no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 It pleased the Lord to crush him with suffering… After offering his life as a sacrifice for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days; and the work of the Lord will prosper in his hands.
11 Because of the travail of his soul, he shall see the fruit of his labor and be satisfied; by his knowledge, my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great; he will share the spoil with the mighty, because he poured out his life unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, because he bore the sins of many and interceded for the guilty.”

Summary of the passage’s content
In Isaiah 52:13-15, it is God who speaks. He draws everyone’s attention to the Suffering Servant. God declares that His Servant will act with wisdom and that his deeds will earn him a glorious position. He adds that the Servant will suffer, but that his suffering will ultimately silence the great ones of this world once they understand its purpose. The Servant will be terribly disfigured, yet in the end, he will save many people.

After God has thus drawn the people’s attention to His Servant, the people respond in Isaiah 53:1-9. In verses 1 to 3, he confesses not having recognized the person and the calling of the Servant. In verse 1, the people express their surprise at what has just been revealed to them in the three preceding verses. In verse 2, they trace back…

Note that during the time the Servant was with them, there did not seem to be anything remarkable about him. His childhood and upbringing were like anyone else’s. He did not possess a particularly charismatic personality that might have drawn crowds to him. His physical appearance was ordinary. On the contrary, as verse 3 highlights, rather than attracting people, he was despised and rejected by the vast majority of them. He was a man of sorrows, acquainted with suffering. The rejection he faced was not passive but active, as people went out of their way to avoid him.

In verses 4 through 6, people confess that when the Servant suffered, they viewed his suffering as divine punishment for his own sins. Now, however, they acknowledge that his suffering was vicarious—borne in our place: it was for the people’s sins that he suffered, not his own. The people admit that they had gone astray, that each had followed their own selfish path, and that the penalty for their sins fell upon the Servant of the Lord. This passage thus testifies to a shift in attitude toward the Servant as people recognize the true nature of his suffering. The harsh judgment that struck the Servant had shaped their opinion of him, as his suffering appeared to mark him out as a specific target of God’s wrath. The people now confess that they are changing their minds; this turnaround marks the beginning of repentance.

In verse 4, those who had once misjudged and despised the Servant because of his wretched condition now see clearly. They discover that the Servant of the Lord endured vicarious suffering—that he took upon himself what should have befallen them. They acknowledge that his tribulations are of a radically different nature than they had believed. They reproach themselves and regret having been blind to the substitutionary and mediatorial character of the unspeakable agony of body and soul involved in this suffering. They confess their error in believing that his sufferings were a punishment inflicted for his own sins.

In verse 5, the people confess that the atoning suffering of the Servant of the Lord resulted in reconciliation and spiritual healing. This verse goes to the heart of the Servant’s suffering and reveals its profound purpose through the link between the Servant’s passion and the people’s sins. This link is twofold: a punishment for our sins—suffering being the penalty that strikes transgression—and a means of reconciliation—the remedy through which the people regain spiritual health. It was for the people’s sins that the Servant suffered, not for his own.

In verse 6, the people confess that they had strayed so far from God that a substitution was absolutely necessary for reconciliation with Him—hence the sufferings mentioned in the previous verse. The Israelites had gone astray, and each was selfishly following their own path. Yet the Lord laid their sins upon His Servant. People humble themselves and confess that they had misunderstood the one God sent for their good, even as they were rushing toward their own ruin.

In verses 7 through 9, it appears to be the prophet who describes in detail the Servant’s sufferings—sufferings that lead him to death.
In verse 7, the Servant is portrayed as humbly submitting to unjust treatment. He does not utter a single word in his own defense. He suffers in silence, not raising his voice to condemn the injustice inflicted upon him.
Verse 8 mentions the death of the Servant of the Lord. It indicates that after being tried and condemned, the Servant was executed. He was put to death for the sins of the prophet’s fellow citizens; it was they who deserved the death penalty. Yet no one seems to have understood the holy purpose God was pursuing in this event. Verse 8 is the key verse of this entire passage, for it tells us that the Servant was sentenced to death and subsequently executed quite legally by a court of law. Clearly, he did not deserve death. Those for whom he died did not understand the reason for his condemnation. As verses 4 through 6 had already revealed, they believed he was dying because of his own sins.

Verse 9 describes the Servant’s burial. After his death, those who had condemned him had assigned him a grave among criminals. He was regarded as such, and it was in that capacity that he had been executed. Yet his body was laid in the tomb of a rich man! This was only just, since he had committed no wrong and there was no evil in his nature.

Verses 10 through 12 set forth the beneficial consequences of the suffer

…and the death of the Servant of the LORD.
Verse 10 indicates that God found pleasure in allowing His Servant to suffer and die. This was the means by which God would make atonement. The Servant’s death was a sacrifice for the sins of the people. Those who had gone astray and sinned would obtain forgiveness through the Servant’s death, for by dying in their place, He atoned for their sins. God punished the Servant in the place of the people, whose sins were thus atoned for. This verse adds that the Servant will see His offspring and that His days will be prolonged. How can this be, given that the Servant was killed? Simply through resurrection. The verse concludes that God will continue to delight in His Servant and will cause His work to prosper, for He will live again following His resurrection.
Verse 11 affirms that God will be satisfied with the Servant’s work. He died in the people’s place, for their sins. But a question arises: will God accept this substitution? Yes. For He will take into account the Servant’s suffering and death, and His justice will be satisfied. That is why God can go a step further and declare that, in light of His vicarious suffering and death (suffering in our place), the righteous Servant will justify many people. To justify means to declare righteous. Thus, the Servant—who suffered, died, and rose again—will be able to make many people righteous. Those who were sinners and could claim nothing due to their separation from God will be able to be made righteous by the Servant. The verse explains how this work is possible: because the Servant bears their sins. These are credited to the Servant, who has already settled the debt by shedding his blood. God therefore declares that his righteous Servant will justify many people through the knowledge they gain of him—specifically, by learning that he is willing to take their sins upon himself.
Verse 12 states that, ultimately, God will bestow upon the Servant blessings far greater than those granted to anyone else. The reasons for this decision are outlined in the remainder of the verse. First, because the Servant voluntarily submitted to suffering and death. Second, because he humbled himself to such an extent that others could view him as a sinner, believing his suffering and death were the result of his own sins. Third, because he bore the sins of many; for the reason so many will be justified and declared righteous is that he took their sins upon himself. Finally, because the Servant intercedes with God on behalf of sinners.
This, in essence, is the summary of the passage. If the Servant represents Israel, then the Gentiles constitute “the people”—those who appear in these verses. If, on the other hand, the Servant is the Messiah, then these people are the Jews—the nation of Israel. Until the time of Rashi, Jewish theology identified the Servant as the Messiah. Since Rashi, most rabbinic exegetes have equated the Servant with the Jewish nation. Yet, if the text is taken literally and simply, it clearly refers to an individual.
Clues for interpretation
The text itself provides a number of clues that reveal its true meaning. It thus resolves the ambiguity surrounding the Servant’s identity: whether he is the Messiah or the Jewish nation as a whole. The personal pronouns and possessive adjectives used help significantly in understanding whom the prophet Isaiah is speaking about. We observe a clear distinction between “we” and “our” on the one hand, and “he,” “him,” and “his” on the other. “We” and “our” can only refer to the prophet Isaiah and the people he is addressing. Conversely, whenever we encounter “he,” “him,” or “his,” the reference must be to the Suffering Servant. Now, Isaiah was a Jew, as were those to whom he was speaking. It seems appropriate to quote part of the prophetic passage again, highlighting the various personal pronouns and possessive adjectives used, in order to better grasp the meaning of the message. Let us look at Isaiah 53:4–9 again:

“Yet it was *our* sufferings *he* bore, it was *our* pains *he* carried; and *we* regarded *him* as punished, stricken by God, and humiliated. But *he* was wounded for *our* sins, crushed for *our* iniquities; the punishment that brings *us* peace fell upon *him*, and by *his* wounds *we* are healed. *We* all wandered like sheep; each followed *his* own way; and the Lord laid upon *him* the punishment of *us* all. *He* was mistreated and oppressed, yet *he* did not open *his* mouth—like a lamb led to the slaughter, like a sheep silent before its shearers; *he* did not open *his* mouth. *He* was taken away by anguish…”

and the punishment; and among those of His generation, who believed that He was cut off from the land of the living and struck for the sins of My people? “They assigned HIS grave with the wicked, HIS tomb with the rich, though HE had committed no violence and no deceit was in HIS mouth.”

Clearly, “WE” and “OUR” refer to the Jews. Isaiah and the people are Jewish. The prophet is speaking to the people of Israel—the Jewish nation as a whole. He includes himself among the Israelites. Isaiah places the Suffering Servant in a different category, defined by the words: HE, HIM, HIS. HE is the one who suffers for US. HE is the one upon whom God places OUR sins. HE is the one who will die for OUR sins so that WE may obtain salvation through HIM. This clear distinction in pronouns and adjectives regarding the various parties present in this chapter—and their unmistakable identification—rules out the possibility that the Suffering Servant refers to Israel. It is the Messiah himself who is thus foretold.

At the end of verse 8, there is a second clue that also makes it possible to rule out identifying the Suffering Servant with the people of Israel. It is written: “… he was cut off from the land of the living and struck for the sins of my people.”
In considering the death of the Suffering Servant, the prophet Isaiah reveals that it occurred for the sins of “my people.” Who are Isaiah’s people? No one doubts that Isaiah was a Jew. Isaiah’s people are, therefore, the Jewish people. If the expression “my people” refers to Israel, it cannot apply to the Suffering Servant. The Servant is thus identified as the Messiah.

As a third clue, let us note that throughout this prophetic passage, the Suffering Servant is presented as a specific human individual. There is no trace of allegory, and nothing suggests an interpretation… …allegorical [to view] the concept of the Suffering Servant as referring to Israel. All the states of mind described and all the actions recounted are such as might characterize an individual. There is no question here of an individual personifying Israel. Throughout this prophecy, Israel appears as an entity distinct from the Suffering Servant. The Messiah is envisioned as a future historical figure who will fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy. As for Israel, it is the people awaiting this fulfillment. Thus, there is no personification of Israel, but merely the announcement of the coming of a man into history.

The fourth indication lies in the fact that the Suffering Servant is presented in this passage as an innocent victim of punishment (verses 4–6, 8b, 9b). It is evident that this description could apply to the Messiah but certainly not to Israel. Moses and the prophets never declared to the people of Israel, “You will face trials because of your innocence,” but rather, “You will be punished for your sins, unless you repent and conform to God’s revealed will.” God chastised Israel repeatedly and in various ways, but it was always because the people had gravely transgressed. According to the prophets, the Babylonian exile and the current diaspora are the result of Israel’s disobedience to God’s revealed will. The situation is entirely different for the Suffering Servant, who is portrayed as an innocent person undergoing punishment.

The fifth indication concerns the way the Suffering Servant voluntarily and uncomplainingly accepts the punishment inflicted upon him (verse 7). He deliberately submits to suffering and does not complain about the injustice he endures. Moreover, throughout the time he bears the suffering that leads to his death, he remains silent. In Throughout the history of Israel, the Jews have been oppressed; they have endured captivity, exile, and ultimately their present dispersion. Yet the Israelites never willingly accepted these tribulations. They always resisted and opposed those who inflicted such things upon them. It was only because Israel was defeated that it was forced to accept the disciplinary measures imposed by its conquerors. Israel never accepted defeat voluntarily. The Messiah, however, willingly accepts suffering.
Furthermore, a survey of the literature on Jewish history reveals that Israel can hardly be said to have suffered in silence. On the contrary, the people never ceased to rail against those who subjected them to such inhumane suffering. Israel has produced a vast body of literature intended to preserve the memory of its past suffering and its grievances. Through its activities, the Jewish Defense League demonstrates violence toward antisemites and a desire to see them destroyed. This observation therefore rules out identifying the Suffering Servant with the Jewish nation and points the interpretation toward the Messiah.

As a sixth indication, let us highlight that in this passage, the Suffering Servant undergoes a…

…vicarious (taking the place of the guilty) and substitutionary (verses 4–6, 8, 10, 12). He suffers and dies in the place of others who, as a result, will not have to undergo punishment for their own sins. Neither the Scriptures nor Jewish history present a picture of the people of Israel suffering for the Gentiles. Israel has often suffered *because of* the Gentiles, but never *for* them. Israel does suffer, it is true, but always because of its own sins. There is no instance of substitution involving the Jewish people; whenever substitution is in question, it involves the Messiah.

The seventh indication presented by this passage is as follows: the sufferings of the Servant of the LORD impart justification and spiritual healing to those who accept them (verses 5b, 11b). Israel’s sufferings have never procured justification and spiritual healing for the Gentiles. After three thousand years of Jewish suffering, it is difficult to claim that the Gentiles are justified! As the involvement of Gentile nations in the Holocaust demonstrated, Gentiles remain spiritually very sick. According to Isaiah, the Messiah’s sufferings were to bring justification and spiritual healing to the Jews; this aspect will be developed further in the final chapter.

The eighth indication is particularly important. The Suffering Servant dies (verses 8, 12). His sufferings end with death. This makes it impossible to identify the Servant with Israel in this passage. The Jewish people are alive and well. Despite all the efforts made by antisemites throughout the ages to annihilate Israel, the nation has never been eradicated from our world. The conclusion is inescapable: the Suffering Servant cannot be the personification of Israel; he refers to the person of the Messiah.

The ninth and final clue follows logically from the previous one: the resurrection of the Servant (verses 10–11). The One put to death for sins did not remain dead; rather, He rose again and can behold the results of His suffering, as it brings justification and spiritual healing to many. Since Israel never died, it cannot experience resurrection. However, if a person—such as the Messiah—dies, God will certainly bring him back to life.

We have thus seen the issue surrounding the interpretation of Isaiah 53. Anyone reading this chapter as they would any other chapter in a book can reach only one conclusion: the person described in the text of Isaiah suffers for the sins of the Jewish people. For centuries, this was the prevailing view within Judaism, which identified the Suffering Servant as the Messiah—specifically, the Messiah son of Joseph. Later rabbinic exegesis, which recast the Suffering Servant as the personification of Israel, appears to be a reaction rather than an explanation derived from the text itself. This passage should be read without preconceptions, simply accepting what it says. It should not be interpreted with the aim of countering the Christian explanation at all costs, but solely based on its own content. The traditional Jewish perspective aligns better with the straightforward statements of the text, which presents the Messiah suffering for the sins of Israel.

 

…vicarious (taking the place of the guilty) and substitutionary (verses 4–6, 8, 10, 12). He suffers and dies in the place of others who, as a result, will not have to undergo punishment for their own sins. Neither the Scriptures nor Jewish history present a picture of the people of Israel suffering for the Gentiles. Israel has often suffered *because of* the Gentiles, but never *for* them. Israel does suffer, it is true, but always because of its own sins. There is no instance of substitution involving the Jewish people; whenever substitution is in question, it involves the Messiah.

The seventh indication presented by this passage is as follows: the sufferings of the Servant of the LORD impart justification and spiritual healing to those who accept them (verses 5b, 11b). Israel’s sufferings have never procured justification and spiritual healing for the Gentiles. After three thousand years of Jewish suffering, it is difficult to claim that the Gentiles are justified! As the involvement of Gentile nations in the Holocaust demonstrated, Gentiles remain spiritually very sick. According to Isaiah, the Messiah’s sufferings were to bring justification and spiritual healing to the Jews; this aspect will be developed further in the final chapter.

The eighth indication is particularly important. The Suffering Servant dies (verses 8, 12). His sufferings end with death. This makes it impossible to identify the Servant with Israel in this passage. The Jewish people are alive and well. Despite all the efforts made by antisemites throughout the ages to annihilate Israel, the nation has never been eradicated from our world. The conclusion is inescapable: the Suffering Servant cannot be the personification of Israel; he refers to the person of the Messiah.

The ninth and final clue follows logically from the previous one: the resurrection of the Servant (verses 10–11). The One put to death for sins did not remain dead; rather, He rose again and can behold the results of His suffering, as it brings justification and spiritual healing to many. Since Israel never died, it cannot experience resurrection. However, if a person—such as the Messiah—dies, God will certainly bring him back to life.

We have thus seen the issue surrounding the interpretation of Isaiah 53. Anyone reading this chapter as they would any other chapter in a book can reach only one conclusion: the person described in the text of Isaiah suffers for the sins of the Jewish people. For centuries, this was the prevailing view within Judaism, which identified the Suffering Servant as the Messiah—specifically, the Messiah son of Joseph. Later rabbinic exegesis, which recast the Suffering Servant as the personification of Israel, appears to be a reaction rather than an explanation derived from the text itself. This passage should be read without preconceptions, simply accepting what it says. It should not be interpreted with the aim of countering the Christian explanation at all costs, but solely based on its own content. The traditional Jewish perspective aligns better with the straightforward statements of the text, which presents the Messiah suffering for the sins of Israel.

https://www.bible-ouverte.ch/articles/jesus-etait-juif-2

[Berean]

@ DT

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had committed no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth.

In what way could this verse apply to Israel?

What Danny Dabbs told you about this is correct:

#948241

So!?

[Berean]

You see clearly that it is a person, this particular servant.

5] But HE was wounded 👉for our transgressions, HE was bruised 👉for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was 👉UPON HIM; and with HIS stripes we are healed.

[Berean]

You are very wrong to be so stubborn.

Don’t you see that the text is about a person?

👇

“His face was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men,”

[Berean]

The chapter before (52) and after (54) are also about Israel; so why is 53 suddenly about the Jesus?

@DT
Thank you for your response.

So according to your understanding, 53:6 would be Israel.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him (Israel) the iniquity of us all.

This cannot be the case, the Lord hath not laid on Israel the iniquity of us all.
Because it is a person and not a people.

,,,👉his face was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

He is despised and rejected of men; 👉 a man 👈 of sorrows, and acquainted with grievance: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 

And he made, 👉 his grave 👈 with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; 👉because he had done👉no violence👈,
👉neither was any disappointment in his mouth.👈

To see in these verses—and the others in chapters 52 and 53—a proclamation concerning the people as a whole is to do violence to the text and force the interpretation. Viewed in isolation, the passages point rather to a single individual.

[Berean]

I asked you two specific questions in my last post

1) And you, are you sure you have verified EVERYTHING?

2) Are you truly capable of telling us who it is upon whom God has laid the iniquity of us all? (As it is written in verse 6)

IF YES, THEN TELL US ABOUT THE ONE UPON WHOM GOD HAS LAYED THE INiQUITY OF US ALL.

[Berean]

 

When will you verify for yourself if what you have been taught is true?

 

@ DT

And you, are you sure you have verified EVERYTHING?

Are you truly capable of telling us who it is upon whom God has laid the iniquity of us all? (As it is written in verse 6)

IF YES, THEN TELL US ABOUT THE ONE UPON WHOM GOD HAS LAYED THE INQUIRY OF US ALL.

[Berean]

3] He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
[4] Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
[5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
[6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

[Berean]

RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH

Convenient Faith

We are living in rather troublous times, aren’t we? There are wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes and tsunamis, pestilences and destruction, uncertain economic times, killings of innocent babies, decline in moral standards, and so much more atrocities and cruelty pervading the human family.

It is as exactly as our Savior predicted conditions would be just before He returns. Then He so eloquently warned, “All these are the beginning of sorrows” (Matthew 24:8).” In other words, we ain’t seen nothing yet. The worst is yet to come…but praise God, beyond that, the BEST is assured. Into this environment marches the menace of convienent faith.

Ask any Christian if he/she believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and you would get a resounding YES. Ask them if they believe He rose from the grave; again the unapolegetic answer is YES. Ask if they believe that God created the world in six literal days; there may be some hesitation, but overwhelmingly the answer would be YES. What about the Virgin Birth? Difinitely some doubt there; but the large majority of Christians would answer in the affirmative.

Now, ask if they believe that they are righteous, and the theological discussion begins. Consternation steps in and doubt covers the countenance. The mind shifts into internal debate mode. The confidence that accompanied the response to the questions on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ evaporates. Every Christian will confidently affirm that they believe the story of Jesus Christ by faith; but that they are righteous—not so sure!

What is this thing called faith? The Bible of course gives the classical answer: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). How many understand its meaning is another question altogether.

Faith, in essence, is accepting as reality that which we have not experienced with our natural senses. As children of Almighty God, everything we believe, teach, and live must be based on faith. It is trusting, without doubt, what He has revealed in His word. Our Christian experience must be rooted and grounded in that faith. Since none of us were there when God created the world, or when Christ was born, died on Calvary, and rose from the dead; and since none of us were eyewitnesses to the marvelous events of Scripture, then we must conclude that it is by faith alone that we live and have our being. We are admonished, ”For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17).

Regardless of any man’s opinion or our own personal feelings, genuine faith demands our yielding to God’s word and God’s word only. Such faith comes ONLY by a personal, dedicated study of God’s word which produces an intimate relationship with our Creator that is beyond the realm of human understanding. The apostle Paul explains,“So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10: 17).

That faith cannot be convenient, believing when one chooses and rejecting when it does not fit their presuppositions and exegesis. Unfortunately, this is the prevelent condition when it comes to the doctrine of Righteousness by Faith.

 

The Million Dollar Question

As one peruses the Bible he/she would discover that, from God’s perspective, there are only two groups of people—the wicked and the righteous. They are distinguished by their relationship with Creator God. The righteous accept Him, the wicked reject Him. This phenomenon is exemplified in a very particular way in the Book of Psalms as the Psalmists frequently contrast the experiences of the two. For example, the Psalmist David, in attempting to explain this overarching theme of the human experience, informs us, “A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked. For the arms of the wicked shall be broken: but the Lord upholdeth the righteous” (Psalms 37:16-17).

Being counted in the company of the righteous does not indicate that someone is doing everything right. Certainly, it does not mean that he or she is sinless. What being righteous entails is that one has accepted the Creator as the God of their life and believes in His promise and ability to empower them to be totally obedient to Him. The declaration that Yahweh makes when one accepts Him is what constitute ones righteousness. He speaks of Himself, “My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness (Psalms 119:172).

Upon accepting Him as Creator, God bequeths to the penitent His righteousness, something he/she did not earn or is worthy of. The prophet Moses tells us of an ancient soul who epitomizes this principle: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). The learned apostle Paul would later enlighten us concerning Abraham’s encounter with the Almighty Creator, “As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were (Romans 4:17). God emphasizes this reality by consistently reminding the believer that his/her righteousness is not based upon anyhing he or she has done, is currently doing, or can in the future do; but rather it’s a free gift from their Creator.

Nineteenth/twentieth century inspired Bible Commentator reflects upon the profoundity of this immersuable gift: “The thought that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, not because of any merit on our part, but as a free gift from God, is a precious thought. The enemy of God and man is not willing that this truth should be clearly presented; for he knows that if the people receive it fully, his power will be broken. If he can control minds so that doubt and unbelief and darkness shall compose the experience of those who claim to be the children of God, he can overcome them with temptation” (Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers, pg. 161).

She concludes,” That simple faith which takes God at His word should be encouraged. God’s people must have that faith which will lay hold of divine power; “for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”(GW 161.1 [Ephesians 2:8.].

As one contemplate God’s Great Exchange Project, the million-dollar question arises, how do I see myself? The answer to this question is of eternal consequences. For it will determine how one lives today and will ultimately face, withstand, and hopefully survive the soon-coming crisis that is about to come upon this world as an overwhelming surprise.

Sinners sin. Righteous people do righteously. Do you view yourself as a sinner who occasionally do righteous things; or as a righteous person who sometime falls into sin? If you see yourself as the latter, then there is a glorious hope for you that is expressed in these comforting words: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Righteousness by Faith, therefore, is not a doctrine to be debated but rather a glorious experience to be lived.

(Aubrey L.Duncan)

 

to be continued

[Berean]

DID JESUS BREAK THE SABBATH—OR MAN-MADE SABBATH RULES?

People accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath.

But did Jesus actually break God’s commandment?

The answer is found in the difference between God’s Sabbath and human traditions.

The Sabbath commandment says:

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
(Exodus 20:8–11)

Jesus kept the Sabbath as His custom. (Luke 4:16)

So why were the religious leaders angry with Him?

Because Jesus didn’t follow their man-made restrictions about what could and couldn’t be done on the Sabbath.

When His disciples picked grain because they were hungry, the Pharisees accused them of breaking the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1–8)

Jesus responded:

“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”
(Mark 2:27)

Then Jesus healed on the Sabbath.

The religious leaders considered this unlawful—but Jesus asked:

“Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”
(Mark 3:4)

Jesus wasn’t destroying the Sabbath.

He was showing what the Sabbath was actually meant to be.

A day for worship.

A day for rest.

A day for doing good.

A day for mercy.

A day to draw closer to God.

Jesus never said, “The Sabbath is abolished.”

Instead, He called Himself:

“Lord even of the Sabbath.”
(Mark 2:28)

The problem wasn’t God’s Sabbath.

The problem was turning God’s gift into a burden through human rules.

Jesus didn’t break the Sabbath.
He broke the man-made expectations surrounding it—and restored the Sabbath to its true purpose.

[Berean]

 

Hi

HIS WORDS AND HIS EXAMPLE

A ​​large crowd listened to him with delight. (Mark 12:34)

Christ never viewed anyone as insignificant or beyond redemption; instead, He strove to bring salvation to all. He always had a lesson that was useful and relevant to the situation at hand. He sought to instill hope in the most hopeless individuals, assuring them that their character could reflect the image of God. They could become children of God, even if they had lived in an evil and corrupt society. That is why so many listened to Him with joy. From childhood, He dedicated Himself to others, illuminating the moral darkness of the world with His presence. He shared His family’s burdens and carried out a public ministry, revealing the character of God. He encouraged people to prioritize what was essential, yet He did not simply urge young people to dream about the future. He taught them, through both His words and His example, that the future is determined by how we live in the present. Our actions shape our destiny. Those who strive to do good and act in accordance with God’s plan in small matters will find opportunities to be of service on a larger scale. […]

Today, we have the privilege of participating in Christ’s mission in everything we do. He does all He can to free us from our narrow, self-centered lives so that we, too, may be a blessing to others. He wants us to understand that we are responsible for doing good and that we are the ultimate losers if we neglect this duty. […]

Jesus bore the burden of humanity’s salvation alone. He knew that those who did not accept Him—and who failed to change their lives and goals—would be lost. No one can imagine the weight He carried in His heart. From His earliest years, He was deeply committed to being the light of the world. That is what He was, and that light still shines for all who live in darkness. Let us walk in the light He has given us.

(Ellen G. White – Youth’s Instructor, January 2, 1896.)

Blessings

[Berean]

AN UNPREPARED PEOPLE

She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save the people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21)

The Jewish people had lost sight of their religion, with its useless festivals and customs. […] Subject to the Romans, they were forced to pay tribute. The Jews suffered under their circumstances and awaited the promised Messiah who was to bring the powerful deliverance of their nation, foretold by prophecy. […] They believed that when he came, the Messiah would establish his reign, subdue the oppressor by force of arms, and take the throne of David. If they had studied the prophecies with spiritual insight, they would not have underestimated the prophecies foretelling a first coming in humility, nor misunderstood those concerning the second coming, with glory and power. […] They failed to distinguish between the prophecies that predicted Christ’s first coming and those describing his glorious return. They expected glory and power for his first coming. […]

When the time came, Jesus was born in a stable and laid in a manger, surrounded by animals. His divine glory and majesty were clothed in his humanity, and the angels announced his coming. His birth was celebrated in heaven, while the powerful of this world knew nothing of it. […] They expected a powerful prince who would take the throne of David and whose reign would last forever. Their prideful ideas about the coming of the Messiah did not conform to the prophecies they claimed to explain to the people. […]

The angels descended from heaven to announce the birth of Christ to those whom he had come to bless and save. They knew of his glory in heaven and believed that he would be received on earth with honors worthy of his character and sacred mission. […] The angels saw with astonishment the people’s indifference and ignorance concerning the coming of the Prince of Life.

(E. G. White – Review and Herald, December 17, 1872.)

[Berean]

 

@ LU

HI LU

Interesting what say Origen about the Son as the visible YHWH of the Old Testament,

E.G.White largely agrees with Origen and explains why it is not the Father who intervenes in His dealings with humanity.

Devotionals is
That I May Know Him

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:19.

All through the pages of sacred history, where the dealings of God with His chosen people are recorded, there are burning traces of the great I AM…. In all these revelations of the divine presence, the glory of God was manifested through Christ. Not alone at the Saviour’s advent, but through all the ages after the fall and the promise of redemption, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” Christ was the foundation and center of the sacrificial system in both the patriarchal and the Jewish age. Since the sin of our first parents, there has been no direct communication between God and man. The Father has given the world into the hands of Christ, that through His mediatorial work He may redeem man, and vindicate the authority and holiness of the law of God. All the communion between heaven and the fallen race has been through Christ. It was the Son of God that gave to our first parents the promise of redemption. It was He who revealed Himself to the patriarchs. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses understood the gospel. They looked for salvation through man’s Substitute and Surety….

The solemn service of the sanctuary typified the grand truths that were to be revealed through successive generations. The cloud of incense ascending with the prayers of Israel represents His righteousness that alone can make the sinner’s prayer acceptable to God; the bleeding victim on the altar of sacrifice testified of a Redeemer to come; and from the holy of holies the visible token of the divine presence shone forth. Thus through age after age of darkness and apostasy, faith was kept alive in the hearts of men until the time came for the advent of the promised Messiah. Jesus was the light of His people,—the light of the world,—before He came to earth in the form of humanity…. From Him has come every ray of heaven’s brightness that has fallen upon the inhabitants of the earth. In the plan of redemption, Christ is the Alpha and the Omega,—the First and the Last.9Patriarchs and Prophets, 366, 367.

From That I May Know Him – Page 102

 

Blessings

[Berean]

 

Safety in the Rock

 

The rock hyrax is a terrestrial mammal that resembles a guinea pig and is found in Israel. As its name reveals, it lives among rocks in which it can quickly escape from predators. The animals are especially known for using sentries that send out alarm calls from high points if a predator comes close.

Hyraxes (called “conies” or “rock badgers” in the Bible) typically live in groups of 10 to 80. Their ability to regulate body temperature is limited, so their activity is related to seasons and times of day. They are short and squatty with a weight of about nine pounds and a length of almost 20 inches. Their thick fur ranges from a dark brown color to a lighter gray, depending on the climate.

Hyrax herds are often subdivided into smaller groups of 5 to 15, with a dominant male who defends and watches over the group. In Africa they are preyed upon by leopards, cobras, adders, wild dogs, and eagles. Yet in Israel the rock hyrax is rarely preyed upon by terrestrial predators because of their excellent system of sentries. This combined with living among the rocks and crags gives them considerable protection.

The Bible says, “There are four things which are little on the earth, But they are exceedingly wise” (Proverbs 30:24). Besides the ant, locust, and spider, the hyrax is listed: “The rock badgers (hyrax) are a feeble folk, Yet they make their homes in the crags” (v. 26).

If you have ever felt small, take heart! Wisdom has nothing to do with our size or strength. We can learn a few lessons from the rock hyrax. The first is to live for others. Be willing to be a “sentry” and share warnings to those you love. And second, learn to live in the shelter of the Rock. Jesus will protect you from the predator (Satan) who is seeking to take you down.

Key Bible Texts
And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; (2 Samuel 22:2 KJV)

[Berean]

Hi

GOD KEEPS HIS PROMISES

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son. (Galatians 4:4)

Christ came into this world to reveal the Father, to give humanity a true knowledge of God, and to manifest His love. Without the knowledge of God, humanity would be utterly lost. […] Life and strength must be imparted by the One who created the world.

The promise made in Eden—that the offspring of the woman would crush the serpent’s head—was the guarantee of the coming of the Son of God. He alone could impart the knowledge of God.

God promised Abraham: “All the families of the earth shall be blessed in you.” He revealed to him the plan for the redemption of humanity. […] Christ declared: “Abraham your father rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

Jacob foretold: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be the obedience of the people.”

God spoke face to face with Moses, as with a friend, and gave him indications concerning the Messiah. He told the people: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear!”

The offerings and sacrifices foreshadowed the Savior who was to come and be offered for the sins of the world. They heralded a superior ministry, in which God would be worshipped in spirit, in truth, and in holiness.

The Jewish service symbolized atonement for the transgressed law. The sacrificial victim—a lamb without blemish—represented the Redeemer of the world, holy and capable of taking away the sin of the world. David received the promise of Christ’s eternal reign and of the kingdom that would have no end.

The Hebrews lived in expectation, hoping for the promised Messiah. Many died in faith; having not received the promise but having seen it from afar, they believed and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

 

E.G. White – Youth’s Instructor, September 13, 1900.)

 

[Berean]

 

THE GRÉÂT APOSTASY

 

He has been called the most successful double agent of World War II. Juan Pujol Garcia, known by the British codename Garbo and the German codename Alaric Arabel, was initially turned away by the Allies when offering his services. Originally from Spain, Juan became a successful agent for the Germans, who asked him to travel to Britain. He agreed—but instead he went to Lisbon and created bogus reports for the Nazis.

Eventually, the Allies accepted Pujol. He moved with his family to Britain where he created a network of nearly thirty fictional agents for the Germans. Garbo played a key role in misleading the Germans on the timing and location of the invasion of Normandy in 1944. His fictional spy network was so convincing that his German handlers did not try to recruit additional spies in the United Kingdom.

The devil is like a double agent, for what better way could he bring down God’s church than by corrupting it from within? Jesus warned His disciples of a coming deception: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

The apostle Paul was equally direct about a coming apostasy. “I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples” (Acts 20:29, 30). The devil used deceived church leaders who looked like genuine believers, but they led many away from Bible truth.

Garbo successfully mixed truth with error and led the Germans astray. Satan has done this and more—and the Bible predicts that before the end of time Satan will work “with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10). But we can spot fictitious reports from Satan if we stand on the Word of God (Matthew 7:24–27).

Apply It:

Have you ever been tricked into believing something that was not true?

Dig Deeper:

Matthew 24:4–35; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12; 1 John 4:1–3

Key Bible Texts
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1 KJV)

 

Blessings

[Berean]

 

Protestant America Awards the Catholic Pope a Liberty Medal on its 250th Anniversary

 

 

On Friday, July 3, 2026, the U.S. National Constitution Center, established by Congress in 1988, awarded the prestigious Liberty Medal to Pope Leo XIV on the eve of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. The public ceremony took place on Independence Mall in Philadelphia, literally steps from Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were debated and signed.

The Pope accepted the award via livestream from the Vatican, thanking the American people and emphasizing interfaith dialogue and the pursuit of common ground as defining pillars of the American experience. Yet these concepts are not the constitutional principles upon which the United States was founded. Rather, they are central themes of modern Roman Catholic social teaching, especially as articulated since the Second Vatican Council. Their purpose is to foster cooperation among the world’s religions by emphasizing a shared belief and common witness while setting aside theological differences in the interest of peace and unity.

America’s founding documents do not establish interfaith dialogue as a national mission, nor do they authorize government to unite religions in pursuit of the common good. Instead, they limit the power of civil government so that religious liberty and freedom of conscience remain outside of governmental control. What Pope Leo XIV is actually doing is revising our history to push the Vatican II agenda of dialogue, fraternity, and the common good and move us away from Protestant constitutional principles and into Rome’s model of church-state unity.

This indeed is a historical and unprecedented event, especially when our Founding Fathers viewed the Pope of Rome with deep suspicion because he was a symbol of the union of church and state and of religious persecution. Many early Americans were Protestants whose families had fled Europe precisely to escape Roman Catholic persecution. The Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, the wars of religion, and the enforcement of Catholic tradition by monarchs backed by papal authority were events that were contemporary to our Founding Fathers.

Today, Protestant America has honored the very symbol that the Founding Fathers rejected. And they did it from the very birthplace of this nation. The medal ceremony was held at the very site where the American experiment in limited government and separation of church and state was born. This nation deliberately rejected European models in which a religious authority, whether pope or king, could claim both spiritual and political power.

And to honor the head of the Roman Catholic Church with a “Liberty Medal” on the eve of the 250th anniversary is a profound reversal to what America is supposed to represent. Our nation is literally bestowing honor on the very system many had fled many centuries ago. The Pope hasn’t changed. He is still the embodiment of church-state union. In the Founding Fathers’ minds, the Papacy stood for tyranny. The Pope’s claim to universal authority and temporal power remained deeply problematic to our nation at its founding. In fact, the U.S. Constitution was written to keep any such authority — foreign or domestic — from gaining a foothold in our nation.

A Changed America, Not a Changed Papacy

The contradiction arises because America has changed dramatically since 1776. In today’s pluralistic, post-Vatican II era, the United States can honor the Pope for his so-called advocacy of religious freedom without seeing it as a threat to the republic. The Liberty Medal award cites the Pope’s advocacy for religious liberty, a position the modern Catholic Church has strongly affirmed since the Second Vatican Council’s Dignitatis Humanae in 1965.

The problem, however, is that the American and Roman Catholic understandings of religious liberty are not the same. The United States Declaration of Independence describes our rights as “inalienable,” meaning that they cannot be legitimately taken away, surrendered, or transferred because they come from the Creator rather than from the state. By contrast, Roman Catholic teaching affirms religious freedom, but not as an unrestricted or absolute civil right; Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae says religious liberty exists “within due limits,” and the Catechism places rights within the framework of “the common good” and public order. Therefore, the American model emphasizes that rights are absolute and that government exists to protect them, while the Catholic model allows civil authority, in certain cases, to limit individual freedoms in the name of a higher common or moral good.

The current situation reveals one of history’s greatest ironies: America, a nation founded to protect itself from religious establishments, which lead to tyranny, now pays tribute to the leader of one of history’s oldest church-state institutions. In the early days of America, there was a healthy, widespread suspicion against the Pope due to his temporal power. This gesture of bestowing a high honor upon the same Pope—the Medal of Freedom—truly represents one of the greatest ironies of our modern time.

Our Founding Fathers saw the Catholic Church’s hierarchical structure, its claim of papal supremacy over secular rulers, and its history of using state power to suppress “heresy” as completely incompatible with a constitutional republic, religious liberties, and individual conscience. That is why the First Amendment was designed to prevent any church from gaining the kind of privileged and coercive relationship with the state that had existed in Catholic Europe.

Unfortunately, that has all changed today:

“Protestants have tampered with and patronized popery; they have made compromises and concessions which papists themselves are surprised to see and fail to understand. Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy. The people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty” (Great Controversy, p. 566).

Protestant America Awards the Catholic Pope a Liberty Medal on its 250th Anniversary

 

[Author]

Posts