Like the saying, "no good deed goes unpunished" Israel could of been the ones who came up with that saying, for they know. Part I discusses at length the midrashic use of this passage when referring to the Messiah. It also corrects the distortions missionaries have spread in confusing literal fulfillment and midrashic exposition. Early Talmudic Rabbis generally interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah or a key individual such as Moses, Phineas or some righteous.
Saadia Gaon interprets Isaish 53 as referring to Jeremiah. This means without exception that earliest Jewish sources interpret Isaiah 53 as refering to an Individual and in some cases the Messiah.
Saying that Messianic interpretation has no basis in Jewish tradition is simply not correct. Jeremiah Michael , May 24, PM. I more then agree. Of course the Rabbis are not referring to Jesus, no one is that stupid to think they are. And Rashi is not the first one to say it refers to Israel, that is just as ancient as the Talmudic texts that equate it with Messiah. It's sad to me how sometimes because of Christians aggressive use of certain texts we have shied away from certain view points that are espoused in the writings of chazal.
We should be proud that this passage can go both ways. Richard , May 24, PM. There should not be any argument as to who this means. The principle is the same for true believing Christians and Jews. Antisemitism abounds all over the world today as it did in the past. Today Christian Churches are being attact in muslim countries and very little is ever said about it by our media. The people we are supposed to be helping have hatred for the Jews and Christians as well. Anonymous , May 26, PM.
Wassim , June 4, AM. There are Muslims who hate. There are Muslims who love. There are Christians who hate. There are Christian who love. There are Jews who hate. There are Jews who love. The days for this anti-Muslim bias are numbered. Marilyn , November 12, AM. This makes sense to me because if it is the truth you are espousing one should not be afraid to be objective, or try and silence those who disagree. I think this discussion has been healthy. To interpret Isaiah 53 as speaking of Messiah in not non-Jewish.
The original interpretation of Isaiah 53 by Jewish rabbis has been that it is speaking of an individual - Messiah Himself. The first one to expound this view was Shlomo Yizchaki, also known as Rashi A. But it was contrary to ALLl rabbinic teaching of that day and of the preceding years. Maimonides stated very clearly that Rashi was completely wrong in going contrary to the traditional Jewish viewpoint.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum - Messianic Christology. Chanya , May 24, AM. Keki Snyman - Hope you're not relying on Fruchtenbaum to interpret this or any other verse.
But they were referring for the most part to Messiah ben Yosef, and it is very clear if you read them that they are not at all referring to J. Also, they knew of J's existence, so in saying that the passage referred to the Messiah, they clearly weren't talking about J since they didn't believe he was the Messiah. Contrary to missionaries like Fruchtenbaum, Rashi was hardly the first to say Isaiah 53 was referring to the Jewish people - there's documentation of that view from nearly 1, years before Rashi.
For anyone who knows Hebrew and Jewish sources, and has read Fruchtenbaum's writings on Isaiah 53 carefully especially how he takes issue with Jewish interpretations , his positions are laughable. Either he is no scholar at all, based on the way he twists and misinterprets the Hebrew and esp. Either way, it's not a pretty picture, and I would suggest you look elsewhere for guidance if you really are trying to get at the truth.
Moshe , May 24, PM. Yes, in the literal sense, it is non-Jewish. The idea that Rashi was the first is ludcirous; fors tarters, the Zohar, in his 2nd book, says it's referring to Israel.
A careful study would also show that the Targum on Isaiah 53 is plainly about Israel. Keki, I've never seen that statement by Maimonides - where did you - or Fruchtenbaum - see it?
Penina , May 25, PM. Rashi was not the first to propose that Isaiah 53 was about Israel. Origen, a 2nd century Christen theologian stated that by his time that the Jews believed that this referred to Israel. Your assertion that the traditional Jewish belief was that it was about the messiah until is just not true.
This is a good article and the verse by verse commentary and analysis is very imformative, also many good points and questions were raised about certain Xtian claims.
Ok, my critisism s : the author seems to deny or be ignorant willful or otherwise I do not know of a Moshiach b. Yosef; There are dozens, if not hundreds, of commentators and teachers in the annals of Yisroel who have applied it Moshiach b. Hence the arguement can go both ways AND based upon the number of articles I've read on this topic, people usually understand the passage on how it suits them!!!
Another hole in this article is that it mentions that in J-'s day no-one understood Isaiah 53 to refer to Moshiach; but neither did anybody see it as refering to Yisroel until this Origen mentioned above who was the first!!!?! I also found verse 8 to be troubling - where in the world has Yisroel EVER been caught off from the land of the living??? Our survival is, in my opinion, one of the wonders of the World. Isaiah 53 could refer to both a Moshiach NOT a gentile Christ and Yisroel, plus there are hundreds of ways to deal with and answer to these missionaries I'd just like to see them come around my door again , this article is a poor arguement against these people; in fact these missionaries and "messianics" will probably use it for more fuel.
So in my opinion, good analysis of a Tanach text, but you are fighting the battle in the wrong field. Anonymous , May 24, PM. Anonymous, while I'm not in the habit of defending authors, there are several metaphorical uses for it in regard to moshiach ben Yosef, but, really, few. Your citation of Sanhedrin 98b is play on word - you need to study Chagiga, Yerushalmi edition - 2nd chapter, right at the beginning - to learn who the leper scholar is.
A normal person. Without a proper context given to those Rabbinic sources, it would sure seem that they can go either way; however, with proper context, their meaning is clear and certain. Now, about that Rashi Anonymous , May 25, PM. The reason of my quoting San 98b is to point out that it can refer to a human NOT a man-god, by the way , and not mearly to Yisraol; I could have quoted other sources, but chose this as it is more readily available.
Thanks for the link to Chagiga Yerushalmi, will check it out. Thank you for clarifying what I have been telling my Christian critics of Judaism- and the Jews for Jesus types, people who try to keep their faith in Jesus as Lord and yet try to copy Jews in ritual , and who profoundsly misunderstrand that acceptanceof Jesus as Messiah makes ona Chrsitian not and never a JEW. This text is a particular favorite of mine see my nickname As I donot read Hebrew I value your dissertion and again thank you for the indepth analysis of Isaiah.
A popular old testament bible quote says" the young maiden is with child they shall call him Emmanuel". It never said "'virgin" and modern scholars admit that.
All old testament quotes in the new testament are from the Greek version of the Tanakh and there is a more accurate christian bible called Jerusalem bible it is catholic and written in Israel in the 's. I've studied hard to answer the critics and skeptics. I've been to two bible colleges, studied thousands of hours in great depth. I dare say I have studied enough to have a doctor's degree in theology by now. But now I say that with a smile I do not attend any christian church. I've tried several christian churches after leaving the catholic church i excommunitcated myself from that religion of idols and heresies However, I know that all my studing, misguided as it may have been, has filled me with a love for G-d and Israel.
I'm a gentile living in the United States. I know that until Israel has peace none of us will. Dave, My best suggestion would be linking up with one of the "bnei noach" groups for support. Particularly one under the guidance of an orthodox rabbi. This article guided me to my "Day of Rest" study of Isaiah chapters 41 through I was energized even on my day of rest. While I fully agree that Isaiah 53 can't be referring soley to the Messiah and that christians have for the most part exploited this chapter out of context, I can't see why it can't be bother.
The Sages esp Zohar repeatedly link passages of Isaiah 53 to Messiah, and the Messiah is always linked to the suffering and exile of Israel.
I feel like in a lot of ways because of Christianity's using of this passage we have moved away from the more ancient and Talmudic understanding of this passage. So while in the immediate context I do feel this passage is about Israel I have no issue also applying it to the Messiah. Jeremiah, simply put, no. It's important to study the Rabbinic sources in context; one then realizes that those Sages never literally meant the messiah - they use him as a metaphor to teach about why righteous people suffer.
Which Zohar are you referring too? How many Jews will be saved from this false belief system because of this article--many years ago I was approached with this info and,though I had absolutely no Torah education,I was able to understand that this was completely false,with the help of Hashem,after many years of searching,I did teshuvah and B'H' am raising a beautiful Torah family.
The other nations are stunned that such an insignificant and small group turns out to have been so important to the divine plan. The renewal of Israel, Israel brought back to life. A very dear Jewish friend opened my eyes to this truth awhile back ago and I feel so glad that you have put in written word with all the passages from the Torah.
I was raised as a Christian but always feeling something was missing or wrong with what I was taught and I have learned so very much from the Torah thanks be to HASHEM and my dear friend. Praise be to Hashem. Yesterday, many fundamentalist Christians not all Christians predicted the world will end with the "second coming of Christ. Even the Christian bible mentions that only G-d knows when the world will end, not by man and heresay. Given how much these fundamentalist Christians have been wrong every time about "the end of the world", you'd think Christianity would've lost almost all credibility and become obsolete.
Even so, I would hope that their notion of the "end of the world" as they claim to predict it is not the only thing and the end all, be all of Christianity. Ideally, Jews would abide to the Torah and non-Jews would abide to the 7 Noachide laws.
And, the world shouldn't be about all or nothing - usually everything is a shade of grey and we ought to take many things with a grain of salt as well as try to follow the original Hebrew context of Isaiah in the Torah. Your email address is kept private.
Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment. Get Our Emails. Current Issues. Me and My Antisemitic Girlfriend.
Thanksgiving Dishes for a Beautiful Autumn. A Successful Mindset for Dating. Torah Portion. Remembering the Mensch of Malden Mills. I, Pencil: The Movie. Reviewing the data just presented, we can see something very important: The references to the servant as a people actually end with Isaiah , while the references to the servant as an individual come into indisputable focus beginning with Isaiah 49 and continuing through the end of chapter Thus, by the time we reach Isaiah , the spotlight is on a person, not a people.
The picture is becoming clearer! We will take up this discussion again in the next objection. There are some unmistakable national references to the servant in Isaiah 41— Notice that here the servant consists of the descendants plural of Abraham.
God clearly identifies his servant as his witnesses plural. At times, however, this servant is nonresponsive to the purposes of God:. Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the Lord? This hardly sounds like the righteous servant of the Lord who elsewhere opens the eyes of the blind. The contrast is quite stark:.
This servant is obedient and righteous, setting captives free, and according to the Targum, this servant is none other than the Messiah. The servant is a righteous individual who represents the nation. Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the Lord called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name. He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.
Isaiah —7. According to the next verses, it is the servant who actually leads the people out of captivity—quite supernaturally. Their return from exile typifies their deliverance from all bondage, a time of new creation, a new—and in some ways, greater—exodus, and the servant who leads the way functions in some ways as a new Moses. How do we explain the fact that the servant is called Israel in Isaiah if, in fact, the text is speaking of an individual rather than the nation?
Thus, they too must explain why the servant a person is called Israel. In fact, it reinforces the connection between the Messiah and his people. How then do we put this all together in the immediate scriptural context, which constantly refers to the Babylonian exile? Yet this is clearly the backdrop to several of the chapters in Isaiah under discussion here e.
Touch no unclean thing! Come out from it and be pure, you who carry the vessels of the Lord. But you will not leave in haste or go in flight; for the Lord will go before you, the God of Israel will be your rear guard.
Not necessarily! First, we must remember that many traditional Jewish interpreters—from the Targum until today—had no problem reading Isaiah — with reference to the Messiah, thus reading this section of Isaiah as a distinct passage in its own right. In other words, the passage was interpreted independent of the preceding context of the return from the Babylonian exile.
Otherwise, how could followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in our day interpret this passage with reference to their leader who lived and died twenty-five hundred years after the return from exile? When reading Isaiah and 5 text, God often calls Israel and Jacob an5 reference to Israel , His "servant" in both the singular and plural. In Chapters 52 - 54, the prophet is referring to the gentile nations who have tormented and inflicted pain and suffering on the Jewish people.
An5 interesting point is, many missionaries often claim that "the Rabbis" have deliberately eliminated this chapter from the Haftorah portions section from Prophets that is read every Shabbat after the Torah reading in an effort to suppress the fact that Isaiah is talking about Jesus.
The Haftorah system was established nearly two hundred years before the common era and Christianity, when Jews were prohibited to read and learn the Torah pre-Chanukah revolt. And after the reading of the Law Torah and the Prophets Haftorah Question: I was given a book by a friend entitled: Isaiah Explained.
Answer: The book, published by Chosen People Ministry, and distributed free to thousands of Jewish homes, is part of a multi-million dollar proselytizing campaign currently in its second year.
0コメント