GOD HIMSELF will be with them[W;105]

[surada]

Who really wrote the Book of Isaiah?

At least parts of Isaiah were written after the prophet had died. The use of different language style is also a telltale clue.

www.haaretz.com

 

[surada]

Tsk tsk... There are many servants in Isaiah -

• Isa. 14:2 refers to unnamed foreigners who will become the servants of Israel.
• Isa. 24:2 refers to the slaves of human masters.
• Isa. 36:9 and 37:24 refer to servants/subjects of the king of Assyria
• Isa. 36:11 has several figures referring to themselves politely as “your servants” when talking with an Assyrian official
• Isa. 37:5 refers to the servants/subjects of King Hezekiah of Judah
• Isa. 49:7 refers to an unnamed, despised figure who is “the servant of rulers”—i.e., a subject of foreign leaders

This last servant is also likely one of the figures described as a “servant” of the Lord, which brings us to the category we are primarily interested in: those who serve God.

Many of the uses of ‘ebed in Isaiah are in the plural and refer to God’s servants collectively. This theme emerges in chapter 54 and is especially prominent in the final four chapters of the book:

• In such passages, the servants of God seem to refer to the righteous of Israel (Isa. 54:17, 65:8, 13-15, 66:14).
• They are expressly identified with “the tribes of your heritage” in Isa. 63:17, and with descendants of Jacob and Judah inIsa. 65:9.
• However, Isa. 56:6 makes it clear that they also can include foreigners who come to worship God and thus become “his servants.”

We thus see that in Isaiah God actually has many servants.


Individual Servants

Not all uses of ‘ebed are in the plural, and there remain 22 uses which speak of individual servants of the Lord. Four of them are named:

• The first to be named is Isaiah himself. Isa. 20:3 refers to “my servant Isaiah.”
• The second is Eliakim son of Hilkiah (Isa. 22:20), who was a man that God called to be the chief steward of the house of David.
• The third is David himself (Isa. 37:35).
• And the fourth is the corporate figure of the nation of Israel/Jacob, who is named as God’s servant in multiple passages. A typical example is Isa. 41:8, which speaks of “you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen” (cf. Isa. 41:9, 44:1-2, 21 [2 references], 45:4, 48:20, and 49:3). https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-servant-s-of-god-in-isaiah

Who is the Servant of the Lord in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Who is the Servant of the Lord in the Bible? What passages in the Bible mention the Servant of the Lord?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[surada]

Who is God’s Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 - Outreach Judaism

Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel [...]

outreachjudaism.org

 

[Logicman]

Who is God’s Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 - Outreach Judaism

Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel [...]

outreachjudaism.org

So your article says the nation of Israel is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. That's IMPOSSIBLE. Here's why:

1.The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!"

2. The prophet said: "It pleased the LORD to bruise him." Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people (so contrary, by the way, to the teaching of Jesus to love everyone) really been God's pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10 ? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel's suffering during that horrible period, "It pleased the LORD to bruise him?" Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement.

3. The person mentioned in this passage suffers silently and willingly. Yet all people, even Israelites, complain when they suffer! Brave Jewish men and women fought in resistance movements against Hitler. Remember the Vilna Ghetto Uprising? Remember the Jewish men who fought on the side of the allies? Can we really say Jewish suffering during the holocaust and during the preceding centuries was done silently and willingly?

4. The figure described in Isaiah 53 suffers, dies, and rises again to atone for his people's sins. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10 for "sin-offering" is "asham," which is a technical term meaning "sin-offering." See how it is used in Leviticus chapters 5 and 6. Isaiah 53 describes a sinless and perfect sacrificial lamb who takes upon himself the sins of others so that they might be forgiven. Can anyone really claim that the terrible suffering of the Jewish people, however undeserved and unjust, atones for the sins of the world? Whoever Isaiah 53 speaks of, the figure described suffers and dies in order to provide a legal payment for sin so that others can be forgiven. This cannot be true of the Jewish people as a whole, or of any other mere human.

5. It is the prophet who is speaking in this passage. He says: "who has believed our message." The term "message" usually refers to the prophetic message, as it does in Jeremiah 49:14. Also, when we understand the Hebrew parallelism of verse 1, we see "Who has believed our message" as parallel to "to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed." The "arm of the Lord" refers to God's powerful act of salvation. So the message of the speaker is the message of a prophet declaring what God has done to save his people.

6. The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?

7. The figure of Isaiah 53 dies and is buried according to verses 8 and 9. The people of Israel have never died as a whole. They have been out of the land on two occasions and have returned, but they have never ceased to be among the living. Yet Jesus died, was buried, and rose again.

8. If Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Israel, how about Isaiah himself? But Isaiah said he was a sinful man of unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5-7). And Isaiah did not die as an atonement for our sins. Could it have been Jeremiah? Jeremiah 11:19 does echo the words of Isaiah 53. Judah rejected and despised the prophet for telling them the truth. Leaders of Judah sought to kill Jeremiah, and so the prophet describes himself in these terms. But they were not able to kill the prophet. Certainly Jeremiah did not die to atone for the sins of his people. What of Moses? Could the prophet have been speaking of him? But Moses wasn't sinless either. Moses sinned and was forbidden from entering the promised land (Numbers 20:12). Moses indeed attempted to offer himself as a sacrifice in place of the nation, but God did not allow him to do so (Exodus 32:30-35). Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah were all prophets who gave us a glimpse of what Messiah, the ultimate prophet, would be like, but none of them quite fit Isaiah 53.

https://chaim.org/cannot-be-israel

 

[Logicman]

Who is God’s Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 - Outreach Judaism

Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel [...]

outreachjudaism.org

More from the previous post:

So what can we conclude? Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the nation of Israel, nor to Isaiah, nor to Moses, nor another prophet. And if not to Moses, certainly not to any lesser man. Yet Messiah would be greater than Moses. As the rabbinic writing "Yalkut" said: "Who art thou, O great mountain? (Zech. iv.7) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him`the great mountain?' because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, `My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly' --he will be higher than Abraham...lifted up above Moses...loftier then the ministering angels..." (Quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, page 9.)

 

[Logicman]

Who is God’s Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 - Outreach Judaism

Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel [...]

outreachjudaism.org

Isaiah 53:How Do the Rabbis Interpret This?​ ​

Rabbi Moses Alschech(1508-1600) says: "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view." Abrabanel (1437-1508) said earlier: "This is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim." Rabbi Yafeth Ben Ali ( second half of the 10th Century): "As for myself, I am inclined to regard it as alluding to the Messiah." Abraham Farissol ( 1451- 1526) says: "In this chapter there seem to be considerable resemblances and allusions to the work of the Christian Messiah and to the events which are asserted to have happened to Him, so that no other prophecy is to be found the gist and subject of which can be so immediately applied to Him." Targum Jonathan ( 4th Century ) gives the introduction on Isa. 52:13: "Behold, my servant the Messiah..." Gersonides (1288-1344) on Deut. 18:18: "In fact Messiah is such a prophet, as it is stated in the Midrasch on the verse,'Behold, my servant shall prosper...' (Isa. 52:13)." Midrash Tanchuma: "He was more exalted than Abraham, more extolled than Mose, higher than the archangels" (Isa.52:13). Yalkut Schimeon ( ascribed to Rabbi Simeon Kara, 12th Century ) says on Zech.4:7: "He ( the king Messiah ) is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, 'My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly' (Isa. 52:13)." Maimonides (1135-12O4) wrote to Rabbi Jacob Alfajumi: "Likewise said Isaiah that He (Messiah) would appear without acknowledging a father or mother: 'He grew up before him as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry ground' etc. (Isa.53:2)." Tanchuma: "Rabbi Nachman says: ,The Word MAN in the passage, 'Every man a head of the house of his father' (Num.1,4), refers to the Messiah, the son of David, as it is written, 'Behold the man whose name is Zemach'(the Branch) where Jonathan interprets,'Behold the man Messiah' (Zech.6:12); and so it is said,'A man of pains and known to sickness' (Isa.53:3)." More in the following link: http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html​

 

[surada]

​

​ Isaiah 53:How Do the Rabbis Interpret This?​

Rabbi Moses Alschech(1508-1600) says: "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view." Abrabanel (1437-1508) said earlier: "This is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim." Rabbi Yafeth Ben Ali ( second half of the 10th Century): "As for myself, I am inclined to regard it as alluding to the Messiah." Abraham Farissol ( 1451- 1526) says: "In this chapter there seem to be considerable resemblances and allusions to the work of the Christian Messiah and to the events which are asserted to have happened to Him, so that no other prophecy is to be found the gist and subject of which can be so immediately applied to Him." Targum Jonathan ( 4th Century ) gives the introduction on Isa. 52:13: "Behold, my servant the Messiah..." Gersonides (1288-1344) on Deut. 18:18: "In fact Messiah is such a prophet, as it is stated in the Midrasch on the verse,'Behold, my servant shall prosper...' (Isa. 52:13)." Midrash Tanchuma: "He was more exalted than Abraham, more extolled than Mose, higher than the archangels" (Isa.52:13). Yalkut Schimeon ( ascribed to Rabbi Simeon Kara, 12th Century ) says on Zech.4:7: "He ( the king Messiah ) is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, 'My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly' (Isa. 52:13)." Maimonides (1135-12O4) wrote to Rabbi Jacob Alfajumi: "Likewise said Isaiah that He (Messiah) would appear without acknowledging a father or mother: 'He grew up before him as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry ground' etc. (Isa.53:2)." Tanchuma: "Rabbi Nachman says: ,The Word MAN in the passage, 'Every man a head of the house of his father' (Num.1,4), refers to the Messiah, the son of David, as it is written, 'Behold the man whose name is Zemach'(the Branch) where Jonathan interprets,'Behold the man Messiah' (Zech.6:12); and so it is said,'A man of pains and known to sickness' (Isa.53:3)." More in the following link: http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html​

Ask a Jewish person.

 

[Logicman]

Ask a Jewish person.

There's tons of Jews who believe Jesus is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. They're known as Messianic Jews.

 

[NWO_Spook]

There's tons of Jews who believe Jesus is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. They're known as Messianic Jews.

Messianic Jews are simply Protestants under another name.

Messianic Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Logicman]

Messianic Jews are simply Protestants under another name.

Messianic Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nonsense. They're Jews. Wikipedia is a secular-minded rag. They screw up theological issues regularly.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Nonsense. They're Jews. Wikipedia is a secular-minded rag. They screw up theological issues regularly.

What a load of nonsense, which of course has nothing to do with your opinion of Wikipedia, for that is but one source quoting others, and many others are available if you had bothered to look. Why should your lone assertion mean anything to me? Anyway, it isn't a theological issue for Messianic Jews are just Protestants playing pretend ~ that's it.

 

[Logicman]

What a load of nonsense, which of course has nothing to do with your opinion of Wikipedia, for that is but one source quoting others, and many others are available if you had bothered to look. Why should your lone assertion mean anything to me? Anyway, it isn't a theological issue for Messianic Jews are just Protestants playing pretend ~ that's it.

There's Messianic Jews all over the world with their own Synagogues, including some 10,000-15,000 Messianic Jews in Israel.

 

[NWO_Spook]

There's Messianic Jews all over the world with their own Synagogues, including some 10,000-15,000 Messianic Jews in Israel.

So? How does that alter my point? It's a stupid concept, as Jews do not believe Jesus is the moshiach. If people believe Jesus is the moshiach, then they are not Jews, they are Christian Protestants and whatever they call themselves is immaterial.

 

[Logicman]

So? How does that alter my point? It's a stupid concept, as Jews do not believe Jesus is the moshiach. If people believe Jesus is the moshiach, then they are not Jews, they are Christian Protestants and whatever they call themselves is immaterial.

Messianic Jews who believe in the legitimate Messiah - Jesus - are the true Jews. The others are in the dark.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Messianic Jews who believe in the legitimate Messiah - Jesus - are the true Jews. The others are in the dark.

Not according to those of the Jewish religion. The reality of the matter is that none of you know whether the faiths you follow are true or not.

 

[Logicman]

Not according to those of the Jewish religion. The reality of the matter is that none of you know whether the faiths you follow are true or not.

I know the Gospel accounts of Jesus are true. There's multiple, independent reports/confirmations of the life of Jesus.

If you think the Gospels are nonsense, then I have a challenge for you: How about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy.

 

[NWO_Spook]

I know the Gospel accounts of Jesus are true. There's multiple, independent reports/confirmations of the life of Jesus.

You KNOW nothing of the sort. You BELIEVE these tales to be true, but you cannot demonstrate them to be true.

If you think the Gospels are nonsense, then I have a challenge for you: How about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy.

You are demanding one prove a negative, yet again and that is fallacious. Furthermore, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof of the burden of proof. YOU are claiming these tales are true, then YOU have the burden of proof. I don't have to do anything and I don't fall for such tactics. Care to try again?

 

[Gordy327]

You KNOW nothing of the sort. You BELIEVE these tales to be true, but you cannot demonstrate them to be true.



You are demanding one prove a negative, yet again and that is fallacious. Furthermore, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof of the burden of proof. YOU are claiming these tales are true, then YOU have the burden of proof. I don't have to do anything and I don't fall for such tactics. Care to try again?

That's is M-O. Always dodging a challenge and trying to shift the burden of proof. It's downright dishonest.

 

[Logicman]

You KNOW nothing of the sort. You BELIEVE these tales to be true, but you cannot demonstrate them to be true.
You are demanding one prove a negative, yet again and that is fallacious. Furthermore, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof of the burden of proof. YOU are claiming these tales are true, then YOU have the burden of proof. I don't have to do anything and I don't fall for such tactics. Care to try again?

So, because of your vaunted knowledge of the Gospels, you are unable to point out even one fictitious person, place, or event. Very chic!