By Larry Rosenbaum
Dialogue with a Jew who does not believe in Jesus (edited)
Proverbs 30:4 states “what is his son’s name” not “what is his firstborn son’s name.” I agree that Ex. 4:22 refers to Israel as the firstborn son of God. In context, God is referring to the Jewish people–all twelve tribes. He is telling Pharaoh to let all the Jewish people go. (Jacob died centuries previously.) The concept of the Jewish people as the firstborn of God is compatible with New Testament teaching. For example, in Romans, the Jews are called the firstfruit (11:16) and God’s natural branches (11:24) in contrast with gentile believers, who are called grafted-in branches (11:17).
The term “firstborn” implies that Israel (the Jewish people) is not the only son of God. The gospel of John states “as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become sons of God.” (1:12). However, Prov. 30 seems to be referring to a unique son of God–“what is his name [God] and what is his son’s name, if you can tell?” In context, the writer is speaking of a mystery, a puzzle–if you can tell.
The mystery of the Son appears elsewhere in the Tanach. Psalm 2:13 “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in Him.” Clearly this passage is not referring to Israel.
Also Isaiah 9:6 “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.” Again, this passage does not refer to Israel.
In regards to Daniel 9, you are taking the traditional Christian view that weeks represent 7 years. I think that most orthodox rabbis today would reject this view. Still, it allows you to do a much better job of explaining the passage–giving an explanation that is very similar to the Christian view.
The King James Version did incorrectly translate “but not for himself.” Modern versions such as the NIV and RSV correctly translate it “and shall have nothing.” I believe that what is known by Christians as the “time of the Gentiles” intervenes between the 69th week, which ends with the Messiah being cut off, and the 70th week, a seven year period beginning with the “antichrist” confirming a covenant with Israel and ending when Messiah returns (Dan. 9:27). Halfway through this 70th week, the antichrist breaks the covenant, causing the sacrifice to cease and defiles the Temple with an abomination.
The concept of the “time of the Gentiles” or “Church age” is clearly taught in the New Testament. You may not agree with it. However, I do not think your explanation, which involves overlapping weeks, is an improvement. I see no basis for your view that the last week “overlaps by 3 1/2 years with the 62 weeks.” Once we start overlapping weeks, we no longer have 70 weeks but 69 1/2 weeks.
The bigger problem I have with your interpretation of Daniel 9 relates to verse 24. “seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophesy, and to anoint the most Holy.” While the 70 weeks could be said to seal up the vision and prophesy in terms of completing the Tanach, I do not see how, according to your interpretation, they accomplished any of the other things mentioned here. As you admitted, the Jewish people, for the most part, still have not turned back to God. So the 70 weeks, if they ended at 70 AD, did not finish the transgression or bring an end to sin. Nor did they make reconciliation for iniquity or bring about everlasting righteousness.
Isaiah 53
On to your email about Isaiah 53 part 1:
Over the past 32 years, almost every Jew I have spoken with has refused to discuss Isaiah 53 with me, or even read it. So it is refreshing that you are willing to discuss this chapter. Checking on the internet, I have noticed that there is some dialog going on about this chapter between Jews and Christians, with Jews presenting an argument similar to the one you are giving — basically that the nation Israel is the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53, not the Messiah.
First of all, many Jewish authorities over the years have maintained that Isaiah 53 is in fact referring to an individual Messiah, not Israel. These people are not trying to make the case of Jesus being Messiah. They simply believe that this is what is taught in the Tanach.
Here is one excerpt from a web site that includes some interesting quotes on the matter:
Isaiah 53: What Did the Rabbis Say?
Maybe you weren’t told, but many ancient rabbinic sources understood Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah. Here are quotations from some of them:
Babylonian Talmud: “The Messiah –what is his name?…The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted…'” (Sanhedrin 98b)
Midrash Ruth Rabbah: “Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14): — He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,’ draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,’ that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,’ this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities‘”
Targum Jonathan: “Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceedingly strong…”
Zohar: “`He was wounded for our transgressions,’ etc….There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.‘”
Rabbi Moses Maimonides: “What is the manner of Messiah’s advent….there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place’ (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc.…in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.” (From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)
Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: “having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,’ and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah….This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so.” (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)
On to your comments on Isaiah 53:
Deut. 7:6 — Yes, God called Israel to be a holy people, separated unto God. But in fact they repeatedly sinned against God and lived in a manner that was anything but holy.
Isa. 40: 1-2, Isa 52:4-5, Zech 1:15 The Tanach is a very long book. It is certainly possible to “prove” anything by taking isolated verses, particularly difficult passages of Scripture, out of their context, and joining them together to prove whatever point you want to make.
A passage of scripture that is difficult to understand should be viewed in light of the totality of Scripture, especially scriptures that are clearer and teachings that are repeated consistently through the Scriptures.
“The Tanach says that she is pardoned because she has received a double portion, twice what she deserved, and without cause, which makes God angry with the nations.”
While the KJV uses the word “for” in Isa. 40:2 “for she has received of the Lord’s hand double for her sins” both the NIV and RSV translate it “that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for her sins.” In other words, Isaiah is stating prophetically that certain things will happen at some future time–Israel’s warfare will have ended, her iniquity will be pardoned, and she will have received of the Lord’s hand double for her sins. I do not see any cause and effect here, as you have supposed.
Isa. 40:2 “double” Wilson, in his Old Testament Word Studies p. 132-133, views the Hebrew usage in this verse as comparable to “Job 11:6, doubled; manifold, or the wisdom of God is double-fold, complicated, abundant.” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say “the ‘double for her sins’ must refer to the twofold captivity, the Assyrian and the Roman…it does not mean double as much as she deserved, but ample punishment in her twofold captivity.” Isa. 52:4 “the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.” The Assyrians had no valid reason to oppress the Jews. But God allowed the captivity because of their sins. Zech. 1:15–Of course God is “sore displeased with the heathen.” God’s judgment is sometimes delayed, but nobody escapes it. This passage may be saying that the heathen treated the Jews more cruelly that God had intended by His judgment of them, but it does not say that the Jews were punished more than they deserved. Also, it does not say that the Jewish people would be pardoned for their sins because of this cruel treatment.
The idea that God would punish Israel more than she deserved is contrary to the rest of scripture. Also, the idea that God would pardon Israel because He had punished them too much, or allowed others to punish them more than they deserved, is equally contrary to the rest of scripture.
Deuteronomy 28 makes it clear what will happen to the Jewish people if they obey His law, and what will happen if they disobey: “The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee…the Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies.. and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth….thy carcass shall be meat undo all the fowls…the Lord shall smite these with madness…thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people…the Lord shall smite thee in the knees…with a sore botch that cannot be healed…thou shall become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all the nations whither the Lord shall lead thee…because thou served not the Lord thy God with joyfulness….and the Lord shall scatter thee among all people…and there thou shalt serve other Gods…”
The Lord told the Jewish people that they would be greatly blessed if they obeyed His law and greatly cursed if they disobeyed His law. He warned them in advance of the horrible consequences if they disobeyed His law. The Jewish people did in fact disobey God’s law and they were punished for their sins as God has promised. If anything, their punishment was less than that promised in Deuteronomy 28.
Isaiah 53
First of all, here is some interesting articles I found on the internet:
| An Introduction to the Talmudby Dr. Harris BrodyPart IVFor centuries discussion among the religious Jews centered around the 53rd chapter of Isaiah. They acknowledged that the passage speaks of the suffering servant, but they questioned who this suffering servant might be. Secular Jews are usually ignorant that the chapter even exists and religious Jews will not admit to Christians that it refers to the Messiah. Instead, they will quote Rashi’s interpretation that the passage speaks of Israel as the suffering servant not Messiah. I put rabbis and others like these on the spot by quoting the traditional rabbis showing that prior to and following Rashi the majority took the view that the suffering servant is Messiah. Orthodox Jews do not accept Rashi’s view on Isaiah 53 while almost all Reformed Jews do. Conservative Jews are divided.Rashi is an abbreviation for a French rabbi, Rabbi Shlomo ben Isaac (1040-1105 CE). Even today the religious Jew reveres Rashi as one of the most rabbinic commentators on the Bible and Talmud. Every page in the Talmud contains Rashi’s commentary. |
Many Jews today accept Rashi’s interpretation of Isaiah 53 not realizing that there are other Talmudic alternatives referring to Messiah as the Suffering Servant. With the use of the Scriptures and Talmud I point out that my interpretation of Isaiah 53 and other Messianic passages is truly a Jewish interpretation. I bring out that the “Derash” (commentary) of the majority of the traditional rabbis prior to and following Rashi was always that Isaiah is referring to the Messiah as the Suffering Servant. The following are only a few of the many “Derash” quotes of the Messiah as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 that can be used:
“I will now proceed to explain these verses of our own Messiah, who G-d willing, will come speedily in our days. I am surprised that Rashi and Rabbi David Kimchi have not, with the Targums, applied it to the Messiah likewise” (Rabbi Naphtali ben Asher Altshuler, ca. 1650 A.D.).
“I am pleased to interpret it in accordance of our rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense: thus, possible, I shall be free from the fancied and far fetched interpretations of which others have been guilty. . .” (Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin of Cordova and Toledo in Spain, ca. 1350).
“Our rabbis of blessed memory with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah. And we ourselves shall also adhere to the same view” (Rabbi Moshe Le Sheich, second half of the 16th century).
“But he was wounded . . . meaning that since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself” (Rabbi Elijah de Vidas)
Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53
Popular Myth Isaiah 53 was never considered messianic by rabbis and Jewish sages. Judaism teaches that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel.
Response Isaiah 53 (more precisely, 52:13 to 53:12) has been interpreted in messianic terms by a wide variety of Jewish commentators over a long period of time. Other interpretations have certainly been offered, including the view first popularized by Rashi in medieval times that the prophet speaks of the nation of Israel. Neverthless the messianic interpretation has a long history in Jewish Bible exegesis, as shown by the quotations below.
“Friends of the Court” The Targum
Behold, My Servant the Messiah shall prosper.
— Targum (“Targum Jonathan”) to Isaiah 52:13, various editions (such as Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targum.” Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974, p. 63).
In the early cycle of synagogue readings
We know that messianic homilies based on Joseph’s career (his saving role preceded by suffering), and using Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, were preached in certain old synagogues which used the triennial cycle…
— Rav Asher Soloff, “The Fifty Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Commentators, to the Sixteenth Century” (Ph.D. Thesis, Drew University,1967), p. 146.
The addition of 53.4-5 [to the cycle of synagogue readings] was evidently of a Messianic purport by reason of the theory of a suffering Messiah. The earlier part of [the Haftarah] (52.7ff.) dealt with the redemption of Israel, and in this connection the tribulations of the Messiah were briefly alluded to by the recital of the above 2 verses.
— Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (NY: Ktav, 1971, © 1940), p. 298. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b
The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].
— Soncino Talmud edition. Ruth Rabbah 5:6
The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. Come hither: approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions. (Isa. LIII, 5).
— Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 8, p. 64). The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)
As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking of his being seated in a position of eat honour, and then goes back to relate all that will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things: In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one..
— S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, editors, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (2 volumes; New York: Ktav, 1969), pp. 19-20. The English translations used here are taken from volume 2. The original texts are in volume 1. Cf. Soloff, pp. 107-09. Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:
By the words “surely he hath carried our sicknesses,” they mean that the pains and sickness which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. . . . And here I think it necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel. . . . The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it. . . God appoints his servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated.
— Driver and Neubauer, pp. 23 ff.; Soloff pp. 108-109. Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:
“And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The prophet does not by avon mean iniquity, but punishment for iniquity, as in the passage, “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. xxxii. 23).
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 26; Soloff p. 109. Mysteries of R. Shim’on ben Yohai (midrash, date uncertain)
And Armilaus will join battle with Messiah, the son of Ephraim, in the East gate . . .; and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, Thou speakest falsely; already is the Messiah slain, and there is non other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they will despise him, as it is written, “Despised and forlorn of men;” but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, “Like one hiding his face from us.”
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 32, citing the edition of Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash (1855), part iii. p. 80.
Lekach Tov (11th c. midrash)
“And let his [Israel’s] kingdom be exalted,” in the days of the Messiah, of whom it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper; he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly.”
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 36. Maimonides, Letter to Yemen (12th c.)
What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent, and where will be the place of his appearance? . . . And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear, without his father or mother of family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of the dry earth, etc. But the unique phenomenon attending his manifestation is, that all the kings of the earth will be thrown into terror at the fame of him — their kingdoms will be in consternation, and they themselves will be devising whether to oppose him with arms, or to adopt some different course, confessing, in fact, their inability to contend with him or ignore his presence, and so confounded at the wonders which they will see him work, that they will lay their hands upon their mouth; in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.
— Driver and Neubauer vol 1: p. 322. Edition is Abraham S. Halkin, ed., Igeret Teman (NY: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952). See Soloff pp. 127-128. Zohar II, 212a (medieval)
There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgressions of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.”
— Cited in Driver and Neubauer, pp. 14-15 from section “va-yiqqahel”. Translation from Frydland, Rachmiel, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah (Cincinnati: Messianic Literature Outreach, 1991), p. 56, n. 27. Note that this section is not found in the Soncino edition which says that it was an interpolation. Nachmanides (R. Moshe ben Nachman) (13th c.)
The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase “my servant” the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly. . . . And by his stripes we were healed — because the stripes by which he is vexed and distressed will heal us; God will pardon us for his righteousness, and we shall be healed both from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.
— Driver and Neubauer, pp. 78 ff. Yalkut ii: 571 (13th c.)
Who art thou, O great mountain (Zech. iv. 7.) This refers to the King Messiah. nd 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 than the ministering angels.
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 9.
The same passage is found in Midrash Tanhuma to Genesis (perhaps 9th c.), ed. John T. Townsend (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), p. 166. Yalkut ii. 620 (13th c.), in regard to Psalm 2:6
I.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. . . .The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” et.
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 10.
R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin (14th c.)
This Parashah the commentators agree in explaining of the Captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used in it throughout. . . .As there is no cause constraining us to do so, why should we here interpret the word collectively, and thereby distort the passage from its natural sense?. . . As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that “they wearied themselves to find the entrance,” having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the “stubbornness of their own hearts,” and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense.
— Driver and Neubauer, pp. 99-100.
Another comment from R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin
If his soul makes itself into a trespass-offering, implying that his soul will treat itself as guilty, and so receive punishment for our trespasses and transgressions.
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 112.
R. Sh’lomoh Astruc (14th c.)
My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man — it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah my servant, speaking as one whosent him. Or he may call the whole people my servant, as he says above my people (lii. 6): when he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it; and when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then is, that my servant the King Messiah will prosper.
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 129. R. Elijah de Vidas (16th c.)
Since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 331.
Rabbi Moshe Alshekh (El-Sheikh) of Sefad (16th c.)
I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves also adhere to the same view.
– Driver and Neubauer, p. 258.
Herz Homberg (18th-19th c.)
The fact is, that it refers to the King Messiah, who will come in the latter days, when it will be the Lord’s good pleasure to redeem Israel from among the different nations of the earth…..Whatever he underwent was in consequence of their own transgression, the Lord having chosen him to be a trespass-offering, like the scape-goat which bore all the iniquities of the house of Israel.
— Driver and Neubauer, p. 400-401. The musaf (additional) service for the Day of Atonement, Philips machzor (20th c.)
Our righteous anointed is departed from us: horror hath seized us, and we have non to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgression, and is wounded because of our transgression. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time that the Eternal will create him (the Messiah) as a new creature. O bring him up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up from Seir, to assemble us the second time on Mount Lebanon, by the hand of Yinnon.
n A. Th. Philips, Machzor Leyom Kippur / Prayer Book for the Day of Atonement with English Translation; Revised and Enlarged Edition (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1931), p. 239. The passage can also be found in, e.g., the 1937 edition. Also, Driver and Neubauer, p. 399
Part
Thank you for your letters. As you said, this does take a lot of study to respond
I’ll start with the 5/8/03 reply. “If you are Orthodox, you must learn to read the Hebrew.” One of the things I find very attractive about the Christian gospel is that it is not elitist. All one needs to do is trust in Jesus. A child can do it. A simple, uneducated person can do it. However, the simplicity itself is a stumbling block to many educated persons
1 Cor 1:18-31
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is writte
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.”
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; 27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; 31 therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.
Nowhere in the Tanach does it say one must know Hebrew to know God or His ways. The first translation ever made of a book was a translation by Jewish scholars of the Tanach into Greek–250 years before Jesus. This translation was used by Jews for centurie
Moslem leaders say one must not translate the Koran, leaving out the majority of Muslims who do not know Arabic. Pope Gregory XI demanded the arrest of Wycliffe for translating the Bible into English. Later, Tyndale was burned at the stake for the same “crime.” Admittedly, knowing Hebrew is an asset in understanding the Tanach, but it is not essential.
I do not know about the Judaica Press Tanach translation but I am skeptical. When I did an internet search on it, almost every reference was to software that combined the translation with the commentary of Rashi. From my readings, the idea that Isa. 53 refers to Messiah was “almost universally adopted by the Jews” (David Baron, The Servant of Jehovah) until Rashi applied it to the Jewish nation.
As I compare the translation of Isa. 53 you gave me on Apr. 21 (apparently from the Judaica Press) with that of the 1917 JPS, the JPS translation consistently agrees with Christian translations while the Judaica Press comes up with a different translation. Since the Jewish Publication Society would have no reason to favor a Christian interpretation of the Tanach, while the Judaica Press has very good reason to oppose the Christian interpretation, I am inclined to distrust the Judaica Press translation
p. 2 “Jesus replacing Israel” Actually, the name “Israel” involves the use of a man’s name (Jacob/Israel) who is taken to represent an entire nation. Jacob was a manipulative person who, through the dealings of God, was brought to a place of submission to God, and was given a new name, Israel. If Jacob/Israel could represent the nation, why could not the Messiah? The Messiah does not replace Israel, he represents Israel as the most perfect example of what a Jew ought to be
Isa. 56 You refer to Gentile proselytes here. Throughout history, there have been extremely few Gentile proselytes. One reason is that the Jews make virtually no effort to reach out to Gentiles. What happens to the vast majority of Gentiles, who did not become proselytes? Is there any hope for them?
Psalm 2. Apparently there is some controversy here (bar son vs. bor cleanness. According to Young’s Concordance, bar is also translated “son” in Prov. 31:2, Ezra 5:1,2,6:14, and Dan. 3:25, 5:22, 7:13) However, the translation you gave doesn’t make much sense: “embrace/desire purity lest He be angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled.” I understand personifying the concept of purity, but I don’t understand how purity has wrath. Also, I do not see any basis for this concept (the wrath of Purity) in the Tanach.
Finally, you mention claims by Muslims and Mormons (there are others such as Bahai) who claim that their religions are a fulfillment of the New Testament. I haven’t seen all their arguments, but those I have seen are extremely weak. However, there is a difference
The Tanach does speak of a New Covenant (Jer. 31). The Tanach speaks of a Messiah that will come. If the words of Jewish prophets are included in scripture, why would not the words of Messiah be considered scripture? The Tanach by its nature is incomplete. It ends with the Jews in rebellion against God, repeatedly judged by God for their sins, waiting for the coming of Messiah who will deliver them. After the Tanach was completed, the Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people were left without sacrifices for sins, prophets, priests, or kings. The story of the coming of Messiah, his teachings, and what followed afterwards is a logical completion of the Tanach
The New Testament claims to be complete. In fact, a curse is put on anyone who adds to it or takes away from i
Rev 22:18-21
18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this boo
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesu
21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.
RSV
May 9 2:09 Reply Part
You begin your comments with two words from Isa:53 that you say should be translated as plural, not singular. I really don’t understand what point you are making
JPS 1917 translates as follows: 8 for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.’
v. 11 “by his knowledge” Hos 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou has rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee.” I am not aware of anywhere in the Tanach where the Jewish people are commended by God for their knowledge.
Isa: 53:7 Jesus opening not his mouth refers to the following.
Mark 15:1-5
15:1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
3 And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.
4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
KJV
Obviously he didn’t spend his whole life in silence. When the high priest ordered him to say if he were the Christ, he answered.
Matt 26:62-68
62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?
KJV
Jesus’ refusal to defend himself against charges that could lead to death caused Pilate to marvel.
As for the Jews keeping silence amidst their sufferings, it seems to me they complained about as much as most people do when suffering. Unfortunately, lots of groups have suffered terribly through history. Often their suffering is in silence in that most of the world is not aware of it. One modern example is the millions of people who are being murdered in Africa today with practically no mention in the press. It seems to me that there is nothing remarkable about the “silence” of the Jewish people.
You could argue that Jesus was intentionally trying to fulfill Isa. 53:7. The very nature of this prediction makes this criticism unavoidable. Anyone who in fact fulfills Isa. 53:7 could be accused of doing so deliberately, to fulfill prophesy.
Next, you pursue the argument–essential to your case–that every time Isaiah refers to the servant of God, he is referring to the nation Israel. The problem you have is that you cannot prove this, and without it, your argument falls apart. It is based upon a logical fallacy. Just because Isaiah sometimes refers to the nation Israel as the servant of God does not mean that every time he uses the term “servant of God,” he is referring to the nation Israel.
The word “Israel” in itself has a double meaning. It refers both to an individual, Jacob (who was renamed Israel) and a nation. Jacob was not only the father of the Jewish people, but also their representative, in that he was a sinful person who, through the dealings of God, was transformed into a godly person. The Messiah, certainly, could be considered a representative of Israel in that he is a Jew who embodies all the good qualities that God desires the Jewish people to possess. As I said before, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David are also called the servant of God in the Tanach.
Yes, Cyrus is called the shepherd of God and the anointed of God. Isaiah does not call him the servant of God. There may or may not be some significance to this, but there really is no way to know. This would involve making an argument from silence (another logical fallacy). In the same way, arguing that Isaiah (unlike the rest of the Tanach) does not name a specific individual as the “servant of God” does not prove that he is never referring to a specific individual when he uses the term.
One must interpret scriptures by their context. The issue is whether specific passages like Isa. 53 would make more sense when applied to an individual, the Messiah, or to the nation of Israel. In my opinion, the argument that they refer to Israel are quite weak.
(Quotes are from Jewish Publication Society 1917)
v. 1 Who rejected a report that was supposedly made by Gentiles?
v. 4 How could the sinful people of Israel bear the diseases of the Gentiles?
v. 5 How could sufferings of the sinful people of Israel take away the sins of the Gentiles?
v. 6 “All we like sheep did go astray” Certainly this applies as much to Israel as to the Gentiles. How can a people which as gone astray as much as the Gentiles, also bear their iniquities?
v. 8 “he was cut off out of the land of the living” The Jewish people never died.
v. 9 “they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” He had a grave and a tomb. Jesus died between two thieves, but a rich man (Joseph of Arimathea) gave him his tomb. The Jewish people have been guilty of both violence and deceit, and have never died.
v. 11 “their iniquities he did bear”
v. 12 he “was numbered with the transgressors” and “made intercession for the transgressors.” Jesus was crucified between two thieves. On the cross he said “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The Jewish people are themselves transgressors. One intercedes for others, not for oneself.
Only by the most convoluted interpretation can any of this apply to the Jewish people. However, it clearly applies to Jesus.
In my last email, I presented a number of reasons why the view that this refers to the Jewish people is absurd and contrary to the entire teaching of the Tanach. I see no basis for thinking that Israel could ever atone for the sins of the world, or that God will forgive the Jewish people simply because they suffered so much.
Isa. 9:5 Again, the idea that Hezekiah represents the person talked about here is, to me, absurd. The word “Hezekiah” “God is strength” is similar to the expression “The mighty God.” That is not the same as saying that Hezekiah shall be called “Mighty God.” Certainly, he is far from fulfilling the entire description:
Isa 9:6-7
6 For to us a child is born,to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder,and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom,to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore.The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
RSV
Hezekiah is the Wonderful Counselor, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end…?
Isa. 9 and 10 do talk about God using the Assyrians to judge Israel for their sins. It is by no means clear to me that there is any reference to Hezekiah in these chapters (of course there is considerable discussion of Hezekiah in Isa. 36-39.) I do not see any basis for Rabbi Singer’s claims as you mentioned. The verses he indicated were quite dissimilar from Isa. 9:6-7. Nowhere does it say that Hezekiah merited deliverance by God. He prayed and asked God to save them
2 Kings 19:19
19 So now, O LORD our God, save us, I beseech thee, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O LORD, art God alone.”
RSV
God saved them as a witness to the other kingdoms, not because Hezekiah or the Jewish people deserved it.
Blood Sacrifices
Ex. 30:15 Yes, there was such a thing as “atonement money.” This was part of the entire procedure on the Day of Atonement and can’t be taken out of its immediate context.
Ex. 30:10 “And Aaron shall make an atonement…with the blood of the sin offering of atonement.” Giving a financial offering without obeying the rest of what was commanded concerning the Day of Atonement would be sinful, and God certainly would not accept it. The money was not charity but was “for the service of the tabernacle.”
Lev. 5:11 God did allow a meal offering for a person who was so poor that he could not afford two pigeons. This offering was burnt on the altar, so it would be mingled with the blood sacrifices on the altar. Since the Temple was destroyed, this kind of offering is also not available today.
According to my count, the word blood occurs 87 times in Leviticus– describing the procedures and requirements for various types of blood sacrifice.
Clearly, if one is to consider oneself an Orthodox Jew who keeps the law of Moses, one cannot ignore all these teachings about blood sacrifice.
Lev. 4;2 talks about sinning through ignorance. It does not say that “blood sacrifice was only accepted for unintentional sins.”
2 Sam. 12 and Psalm 51 show the grace of God in anticipation of Messiah’s atonement. Neither passage teaches a method by which someone could be assured of forgiveness. Although David’s sins were put away, there is no teaching in the Tanach that everyone who repents or has a contrite heart will receive forgiveness.
5/9/03 Sorry I forgot
What scripture talks about using the Temple as a “bar of soap’?
“He took away our crutch that allowed us to justify disobedience.” In the 2000 years since that “crutch” was removed, the Jews have not become obedient to God’s law.
“The Christian stance..teaches us…to make up our own rules, reject the Torah, disobey whenever we like.” It sounds to me that that is what the Orthodox Jews are doing. They throw out most of the book of Leviticus and think they are obeying God’s law. They invent excuses for not needing blood sacrifices.
They misuse Ex. 30:15 to teach that they can be forgiven for their sins by giving charity. They misuse 2 Sam. 12 and Ps. 51 to teach that they can be forgiven by being sorrowful about their sins. They misuse Isa. 53 to teach that their sins are forgiven because they suffered so much. They misuse Hosea 14 to teach that animal sacrifices are unnecessary at the present time.
5/9/03 Reply Part 3
Hos 14:2-3 The RSV, following the Septuagint, renders the passage “the fruit of our lips.” This is referenced in Heb. 13:15
By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
KJV
This scripture anticipates the new covenant. However, taken apart from the New Testament, I certainly don’t see in it any clear teaching that animal sacrifices are no longer needed, all they need to do is use words. They are asking for forgiveness. I wouldn’t want to base my hope for forgiveness without a blood sacrifice on such a verse.
Ezek. 43:6-27. Ezek. 40-48 is admittedly a difficult scripture. Some Christians hold that there will be a literal millennial Temple according to Ezekiel’s specifications, while others view it symbolically. “The rabbis of the Talmud (Menahot 45a) remarked that only the prophet Elijah, who will herald the ultimate redemption, will elucidate the discrepancies with the Pentateuchal laws and the terms which do not occur elsewhere, Moreover, said they, had it not been for Rabbi Chanina ben Hezekiah (Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 13a) who explained away several of these difficulties, the book of Ezekiel would have been excluded from the Canon of Scripture.” (Wycliffe Bible Commentary.)
Ezek. 18 Yes, a child is not punished for his father’s sins, but clearly, whenever an animal sacrifice was offered, an innocent animal shed its blood because of some person’s sins.
Psalm 40:6 Septuagint: (Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation 1851 http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint-hyperlinked.html
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.
Jer. 31:31 Septuagint Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: 32 not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord.
The New Testament was written in Greek and quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Tanach (made around 250 BC). It was supposedly translated by 72 translators, six from each of the 12 tribes. It was the first book (or library of books) known to have been translated into a different language. It was widely used by Jews throughout the Greek-Roman world. Since it predates the Masoretic text, it is possible that the Septuagint, at least in these passages, is more accurate.
“Nowhere in the Tanach does it say that the Law will pass away.” The Tanach predicts a new covenant. It does not clearly specify everything about that covenant.
5/13/03 Brief commentary from Internet
Assuming that one initially believes that the Tanach is inspired by God and that the predictions of the Jewish prophets are accurate, the issue is — Who is Isa. 53 talking about? It seems to fit the description of Jesus. If not, then there are two main possibilities. One is that another Messiah will come who will really fulfill this description. It is difficult to imagine any individual fitting the description more fully than Jesus. This also involves taking account of all Messianic prophesies, not just this one.
The other is that it refers to the nation of Israel. I have already shown that this fails in a number of respects.
This is not circular reasoning at all, but a logical deduction based upon facts. If Jesus in fact fulfilled the prophesies of the Tanach, that is strong evidence that he indeed is the Messiah.
Every Christian is well aware that Jesus’ disciples did not understand about the death and resurrection of Messiah. Clearly, this was not clearly understood by Jews at this time. That does not mean that the Tanach does not predict these things, merely that Jews of the day did not clearly understand the prophesies.
Although Peter and the other disciples did not understand all the prophesies clearly, they did recognize Jesus as the Messiah. God did in fact expect the Jews to recognize the Messiah when he came. However, they didn’t because of their pride, rebelliousness and hardness of heart.
Mark 14:36. Jesus’ prayer was — If there is any other way for the human race to be saved, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless (since there is no other way) not my will but thy will be done.
Like all humans, Jesus did not want to die on a cross. However, he knew there was no other way for humanity to be saved. Jesus would never have gone to the cross if there were another way.
The remainder of the argument about Isa. 53 pretty much is the same as you already gave. I already answered most of the points and will only address the new points.
53:3 “despised and rejected by men” The people who shouted “Hosanna to the son of David” to him on Palm Sunday were crying out “crucify him” and “give us Barabbas” a few days later. He was certainly despised and rejected by the Jewish leaders, who ordered him to be put to death.
53:5 “but he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities” JPS 1917. The writer is arguing with a Jewish translation of the passage. Why should I believe this unknown person rather than the Jewish scholars who translated the JPS 1917 version of the Tanach?
53:8 “he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due” JPS 1917. Again this Jewish translation makes it clear that he was cut off because of the transgression of my people–Israel.
53:12 There is indeed a reward for Jesus–the joy of seeing many come to salvation.
This writer doesn’t deal with any of the problems I raised concerning Israel being the servant of Isa. 53. It is basically a polemic based upon a misunderstanding of the New Testament and a dubious translation of Isa. 53.
I think I have gone over all the points in your email. It took quite a while, but I hope it helps. I did enjoy the Bible study involved.
I have yet to see an argument that is at all convincing to me.
I do look forward to hearing your response to this letter.