عرض للطباعة
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمدلله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Christians always claim that Isaiah 53 prophsizes the crucifixion of Prophet Jesus for our sins
Let's see how do the Jews answer them and how do they understand it
?
Did Israel suffer primarily because of its own sins
?
The Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 maintains that the
suffering servant of Israel suffered because of the persecutions by the Gentile nations. I understand that the nations overdid it when persecuting Israel but didn't Israel suffer primarily because of its own sins? Please explain.
Answer: It is true that the Jewish Scriptures show that there are times when the nation of Israel undergoes suffering as divine retribution for sin. But, it also shows that suffering is not always an indication of sin. Attributing sin to the sufferer is often a glib generalization by those who do not understand the biblical message. The centuries of Jewish martyrdom and suffering alluded to in Isaiah 53 cannot be explained simply as divine judgment for sin. Certainly there is suffering because of sins (Deuteronomy 31:17-18), but not all suffering can be strictly attributed to divine punishment for sin. In a world where there is much evil, suffering is very often the fate of the innocent person. There is suffering that ensues, not from divine judgment, but from the evil committed by man. "My people went down at first into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause" (Isaiah 52:4). We see that the sufferings of the Jewish people are not a reflection of its failures, but of the failures of humankind. One may be faithful to God and still suffer persecution. Of this the psalmist writes:
All this came upon us yet we have not forgotten You, and we have not been false to Your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor has our footstep strayed from Your path. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and covered us with the shadow of death. Have we forgotten the Name of our God, or spread out our hands to a strange god? Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart. Because for Your sake we are killed all the time, we are considered as sheep for the slaughter. Awake, why do You sleep, O my Lord? Arouse Yourself, forsake not forever. Why do You conceal Your face, do You forget our affliction and our oppression? (Psalms 44:17-24)
Isaiah 53 provides a model: Israel suffers not only for its own sins but also as a result of the sins of those nations among whom they dwell. The fact is that Jews, because they are elect, suffer. Election carries responsibilities, some of which are not pleasant, but, in the end, faithful Israel will be rewarded.
What is the meaning of "And his grave was set with the wicked, and with the rich in his deaths" (Isaiah 53:9)?
Answer: The suffering servant's "deaths" as well as the description of his subsequent revival are metaphors for the fortunes of Israel. The phrases "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8), "his grave was set" (verse 9), and "in his deaths" (verse 9) are not to be taken literally. The metaphor "his grave was set" describing an event in the life of God's suffering servant, is similar to the statement, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8). Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Isaiah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah-"cut off out of the land of the living" and "grave"-are used in Ezekiel's description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people exclaim: "we are clean cut off" (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: "And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land" (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah's phrase, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living," refers to the deadly condition of exile. Similarly, the term "grave" in Isaiah-"And his grave was set with the wicked"-refers to life in exile as used in Ezekiel: "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves" (Ezekiel 37:12), where "graves" is a metaphor for the lands of exile.
The messages of these two prophets are addressed to God's suffering servant. The sovereign national entity was destroyed but the Jewish people survive, albeit in exile from which God will restore them to their land. Although "cut off out of the land of the living" and now living in the lands of exile, the "grave set with the wicked," God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the "land of the living," the Land of Israel. That Isaiah speaks in the singular and Ezekiel in the plural is of no consequence, for the people of Israel may be spoken of in both forms (for example, Exodus 14:31, Psalms 81:12-14).
Paralleling "grave set with the wicked" is the phrase "with the rich in his deaths." "Rich" here refers to the powerful men and institutions of the Gentile nations among whom the personified people of Israel are exiled.
"And his grave was set with the wicked" describes an imposed fate and not something accepted voluntarily by the servant. Furthermore, this was not a literal death, as the servant was alive when "his grave was set" (cf. Genesis 30:1; Exodus 10:17; Numbers 12:12; 2 Samuel 9:8, 16:9; Jonah 4:9 for examples of figurative death). This verse informs us that despite the imposed fate of exile, Israel continued to be faithful to God. Accordingly, Israel is to afterwards enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. The phrase "in his deaths" signifies that the suffering servant of the Lord experienced figuratively many "deaths" in exile. His anguish was multiplied exceedingly by the constant harassment of his enemies. Jewish history shows us how often Israel, hounded by its enemies, seemed to be in its last throes only to rise again.
What is meant in Isaiah 53:8 by: "For he was cut off out of the land of the living"?
Answer: "For he was cut off out of the land of the living" is not to be taken as a literal description of the death of an individual. Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Elijah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah are also used in Ezekiel's description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in an apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people claim: "we are clean cut off" (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: "And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land" (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah's phrase, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living," refers to the deadly condition of exile. God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the "land of the living," the Land if Israel.
Within the context of Isaiah 53 and specifically within the context of verse 8, the phrase "for he was cut off out of the land of the living," has no special literal or metaphorical application to Jesus.
What is meant in Isaiah 53:8 by: "And his life's history who is able to relate?"
Answer: The translation of dor, which is generally rendered as "generation" is to be understood here as meaning "life's history" or "life's cycle." What is involved here is not just the suffering servant's life-span but the entire spectrum of events contained within those years. This is similar to the use of dor in Isaiah 38:12, where Hezekiah speaks of how he felt about what was believed to be his imminent passing: "My life's cycle [dori] is pulled up and carried from me as a shepherd's tent." He bewails not just his expected loss of life but all that he could still accomplish if allowed to live. Isaiah 53:8 quotes the repentant Gentles as asking, in effect, the rhetorical Question: Who is able to properly relate all the trials and tribulations suffered by the servant during his passage through history?
Great research as always
May Allah bless you
:p012::p012::p012:
Thanks dear brother
God bless you too
Why do Jews reject the Christian claim that the beginning of Isaiah 53:8, generally rendered, "By oppression and judgment he was taken away," refers to Jesus?
Answer: Generally, the beginning of this verse is rendered: "By oppression and judgment he was taken away." When explained in this way, the verse is meant to indicate that, by means of persecution and judicial decision, the servant was exiled, not only from his own homeland but from the lands of his dispersion as well. But, at best, the prophet's words have no particular application to Jesus, since they could, in actuality, be applied generally to many people who suffered persecution.
However, the general context of this verse indicates that the word may-'otser should not be translated as "by oppression" but in accordance with its derivation from 'etser, denoting "domination," "sovereignty," and thus the beginning of the verse should read: "From dominion and judgment. . . ." Accordingly, the verse does not refer to how the servant was taken away but refers, rather, to what he was taken away from. Can this be applied to Jesus? From what dominion and judgment was Jesus taken away? He never had any power as a ruler to lose. He was never deprived of any office.
According to the New Testament, Jesus' "first coming" was not as a ruler or judge, but as one who would bring salvation. The New Testament further claims that Jesus will be coming back a second time and it is only then that he will reign as king and judge of the world. Jesus is quoted as saying: ". . . the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28) and "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). It is further stated in the Gospel of John: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him" (John 3:17). The preceding quotations illustrate that Jesus did not lose any dominion or right to judge during his lifetime, since he never had these rights in the first place.
Considering verse 8 in its entirety, within the context of the entire chapter, it becomes clear that Isaiah did not refer to Jesus. "From dominion and judgment" reflects critical events in Jewish history: Taken from "dominion and judgment, that is, rulership and the right to judge, who can relate Israel's history which followed after "he was cut off out of the land of the living," that is, the Land of Israel? Israel's life was filled with innumerable sufferings because of the misdeeds of the Gentiles who afflicted him unjustly. Driven into exile, the servant was deprived of his right to rule and judge.
The fact is that there is nothing in any part of this verse that points to Jesus as the "suffering servant of the Lord."
Is it true (as Christians claim) that Jews at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple believed that Isaiah 53 spoke of a suffering messiah who was to die as an atonement for the sins of others and then be resurrected?
Answer: A number of interpretations as to the identity of the "suffering servant" and what he was to accomplish may have been current during the Second Temple period. However, there is no evidence to support the Christian contention that the interpretation of the servant as the suffering messiah later adopted by the followers of Jesus was one of them.
The Gospels themselves provide evidence that no such understanding of the passage existed prior to the crucifixion. For example, what did Jesus' disciples believe? After Peter acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah (Matthew 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matthew 16:21). Rather than acknowledging this as the prophetic fate of the Messiah he responds: "God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you." He would never have said this if he thought Jesus was the fulfillment of a supposedly centuries old prophetic interpretation of Isaiah 53 that coincides with that now found in Christianity.
As for Jesus himself, he requests that God "remove the cup from me" (Mark 14:36), that is, the humiliation, suffering, and death he is about to undergo? Obviously he didn't know that this is why he supposedly came to earth and that the travail he is about to undertake is allegedly the fulfillment of Isaiah 53. It is clear that a removal of "the cup" would destroy what Christian's would later claim is God's plan for mankind's redemption. Did Jesus offer a prayer that he knew to be nothing but an empty gesture on his part?
Jesus supposedly taught the disciples to understand the Scriptures as referring to himself as the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, who was to arise from the dead after dying as an atonement for mankind's sins. Teaching about a suffering messianic figure who dies for other people's sins some Christian's claim was standard Jewish interpretation until the rabbis supposedly corrupted the true teaching to hide that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53.
However, when Jesus "was teaching his disciples and telling them, 'The Son of Man is to be delivered up into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he has been killed, he will rise again three days later" (Mark 9:31) we are told "they did not understand this statement" (Mark 9:32). This was obviously a concept that was unfamiliar to them.
The news of Jesus' death brings a reaction of "mourning and weeping" (Mark 16:10) from Jesus' disciples. "And when they heard that he was alive . . . they refused to believe it" (Mark 16:11). John explains, "For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead" (John 20:9). The disciples reaction is not what would be expected if they saw events as fulfillment of Isaiah 53.
One would expect that if there were any first century C.E. Jews who were familiar with the interpretation of Isaiah 53 espoused by present-day Christians, that it would have been Jesus and his followers. Yes, there are New Testament anachronisms that attribute such teachings to Jesus. Yet, we find instances where Jesus and/or his followers express themselves in a manner that runs counter to this new Christian interpretation.
It is apparent from the Gospels that before and for sometime after the crucifixion Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as referring to a suffering messiah who would die for the sins of the people and then be resurrected. It was only in the post-crucifixion period that these notions developed among the followers of Jesus. There is simply no evidence that this was a Jewish interpretation of the passage. The Question remains as to who are the Jews contemporary with Jesus that supposedly held to what has become the present Christian understanding of the meaning of Isaiah 53? They simply cannot be identified because they never existed.
How does Isaiah 53:8 show that the death of Jesus should not be considered as atonement for the sins of humankind?
Answer: Verse 8, a statement made by the enemies of the suffering servant of the Lord, shows that Jesus could not be the suffering servant.
Christians allege that Jesus suffered as atonement for mankind's sins. It would appear from the New Testament that Jesus became flesh and blood, that is, a human being, in order to pay the ransom for sins and bring redemption through blood sacrifice as required by the Law of Moses. For example, Paul writes in Colossians, "we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (1:14) and "through the blood of his cross" (1:20) and "in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight" (1:22). He also states, "But now, in Christ Jesus, you who sometimes were far off are made close by the blood of' Christ" (Ephesians 1:13). Thus, it is alleged that "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5) suffered as atonement for mankind's sins through the shedding of the human blood of his human flesh. It is not his alleged divinity that was supposedly sacrificed but his humanity.
This presents a problem for Psalms 49:8 (verse 7 in some versions) declares, "No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him." Yet, it is precisely through his humanity that Jesus would have to offer himself as a redemption or ransom. Are the psalmist's words "no man can by any means" confined solely to ordinary man? If Jesus was fully human while still allegedly being divine, then he was a man in every way understood within the context of the psalm. Then, in no way can he redeem mankind or give himself to God as a ransom for mankind through the means of his human nature or his supposed divine nature.
According to Isaiah 53:8, why does the servant of the Lord suffer?
Answer: There is no indication in verse 8 that the servant of the Lord suffers to atone for the sins of others. What this verse states is that he suffers as a result of the misdeeds of others, who treat him unfairly and unjustly. Hence, the conclusion of the verse, in which the enemies of the servant admit responsibility for the cruel treatment they have meted out to him.
This is the confession of the Gentile spokesperson, who now expresses the Gentile realization that it was they and their people who deserved to suffer the humiliation inflicted on the servant of the Lord, as admitted in verses 4-6. In short, the servant's enemies admit that his suffering stemmed from their own sinful imposition of hardships upon him: "From the transgression of my people there has been affliction to him [them]." The servant of the Lord suffers not on behalf of others' sins but because of the things that sinful men do to him.
What does lamo mean in Isaiah 53:8?
Answer: In Isaiah 53:8, the Gentile spokesperson continues to acknowledge the fault of the nations for the trials and tribulations suffered by the servant, Israel, during his passage through history (cf. Isaiah 52:1, 15-53:1-2). Thus, he states: "As a result of the transgression of my people [the Gentile nations] he [Israel] has been afflicted." The literal translation of' this verse is: "From the transgression of' my people there has been affliction to him [or "to them"]." The poetic form of lahem, lamo, "to them," is used in this verse in reference to a collective noun (cf. Genesis 9:26). Lamo is rendered "to him" as it refers to the collective noun, "suffering servant of the Lord," that is, the Jewish people. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity given the appellative "suffering servant of the Lord."
The proper rendering of lamo is sometimes unclear. For example, there appears to be a Question on how to render lamo in the verse, "Then a man uses it [a tree] for fuel: and he takes it, and warms himself; he kindles it and bakes bread; he makes a god, and worships it; he makes it a carved image, and falls down lamo ["to them," alternately suggested "to it,"]" ( Isaiah 44:15). Since the noun, "god," is in the singular it would seem to show that lamo can mean "to it" as an actual singular and not just when used as a collective noun. This is not the case. Although the prophet's words are in the singular he uses the poetic form lamo, "to them," to show that the content of his message is to be understood as being in the plural. The translator of the Hebrew, into the Greek Septuagint, understood this and rendered the verse accordingly: "That it might be for men to burn: and having taken part of it he warms himself; and they burn part of it; and bake loaves thereon; and the rest they make for themselves gods, and they worship them."
The plural nature of the poetic form lamo is supported by the fifty four places it is used in the Hebrew Scriptures. That the plural lamo, in verse 8, refers to the suffering servant of the Lord as a collective noun excludes any possibility that it pertains to an individual. As a result, it cannot refer to Jesus. The suffering servant of the Lord is a collective noun and, as such, does not refer to a specific Israelite.
To be continued insha Allah
Isaiah 53:4 says that the suffering servant was considered "stricken" by his enemies. Does this describe Jesus in any way?
Answer: In verse 4 the Gentile nations exclaim, concerning the servant, "we considered him stricken [by God]." The verb appears again in verse 8. This does not describe Jesus in any way whatsoever.
The verb, nagua, "stricken," is commonly used in the Jewish Scriptures for being stricken with leprosy (for example, 2 Kings 5:27, 15:5; Job 19:21; Leviticus 13:3, 9, 20; Numbers 12:10). Jesus was not stricken physically with leprosy!
Yet, even metaphorically, nagua cannot be applied to Jesus who was not generally shunned as a loathsome pariah. The respectively supportive, indifferent, or hostile audiences he confronts in the Gospels show a variety of responses to his message. Those who apparently despise Jesus are numerically represented in insignificant numbers. They exist, but no more so than one may expect in reaction to any extremely controversial figure. Consideration must also be given to the fact that the great majority of contemporary Jews never heard of Jesus. The application to Jesus of nagua, that is, stricken metaphorically in the manner of one who has leprosy and treated as such by fellow human beings, is unwarranted
saiah 53:7 says that the suffering servant "humbled himself and opened not his mouth" as a lamb about to be slaughtered or a sheep dumb before its shearers. Does this describe Jesus' behavior at his trials?
IAnswer: Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was the accusation placed against him before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. To the charge of his messianic claim, Jesus
Answered both the Jewish authorities and Pilate in a forceful manner (John 18:19-23, 33-37).
The statement: "Therefore Pilate entered the judgment hall again and called Jesus, and said to him: 'Are you the King of the Jews?'" makes it clear that claiming to be the King Messiah was the Jewish accusation against Jesus. Matthew and Mark comment that Jesus did not Answer the Jewish accusations when Questioned by Pilate: "But he did not Answer him, not even to a single charge" (Matthew 27:14); "But Jesus made no further Answer" (Mark 15:15).
However, the list of charges made by the Jews, which is found in Luke's Gospel: "misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King" (Luke 23:2), is Answered by Jesus. The charges are
Answered in his defense before Pilate, as found in John's Gospel. There he claimed to head a peace-loving, nonmilitary, otherworldly group, which would not countenance revolt against the Roman Empire. John argues, with the help of alleged quotations from the trial, that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews but not one who sought power in this world, i.e., at the expense of the Roman Empire (John 18:36).
Far from showing the humility and silence with which Isaiah describes the servant in verse 7, the encounter between the high priest, the elders, and Jesus is highlighted by a vigorous verbal exchange. In addition, Jesus did not show humility and silence during his confrontation with Pilate. At their meeting, Jesus is depicted as skillfully defending himself. Jesus at no time humbled himself, but, on the contrary, presented a clever verbal defense before Pilate (the one man who could condemn him to death), pleading shrewdly that his messianic teaching was a nonviolent, "not of this world" movement, one which the Romans need not fear. Pilate, Jesus assumed, would not be interested in a non-political, non-military movement that was not of "this world." However, Jesus' movement must have appeared to Pilate like any of the other seditious movements that confronted him. He reacted accordingly.
Jesus was obviously defending himself by presenting a shrewd verbal response when he tried to convince Pilate that he was not the head of a seditious movement but that his intentions were peaceful.
Contrary to what Christian theologians claim, the Gospels' Jesus presented a strong defense before the Jewish officials and Pilate. Jesus was not "dumb" but very outspoken before his accusers, Jewish or Gentile. Therefore, it is simply not true to say of Jesus that "he humbled himself and did not open his mouth."
Does the Gospel's representation of Jesus show fulfillment of the description of the suffering servant: "he was despised and we esteemed him not" (Isaiah 53:3)?
Answer: The Gospel accounts claim Jesus was popular throughout his life generally (Luke 2:52) and during his public ministry in particular. The evangelists insist that Jesus was greatly admired by large segments from every level of society. What is more, many were his loyal followers. True, the evangelists claim that the Jewish rulers condemned Jesus, but, nevertheless, they assert that Jesus had many followers even among the ruling class. The evangelists speak of Jesus as one who, while losing at times, many of his followers, always had, even at the end of his life, a great many faithful adherents. According to the Gospel accounts, these adherents came from every segment of society.
It is claimed that wherever he went, crowds flocked about him. True, it is said that Jesus felt many followed him for unworthy motives (John 6:26). However, this negative motivation or the servant's disappointment at the lack of true loyalty is not reflected in Isaiah 53:3. There the servant is despised and rejected but nothing is said about his adversaries having, at one time been his followers, let alone that they had unworthy motives in initially following him. In verse 3, they never were his followers to begin with.
The Gospels' Jesus is described in superlative terms that are the exact opposite of one who is despised and rejected. He is "glorified by all" (Luke 4:14-15); "a great crowd came together" to see him (Luke 8:4); "great crowds followed him" from near and far (Matthew 4:25); and he is called "a great prophet" (Luke 7:16).
John states that many of the Jews believed in Jesus (John 12:11), and that among them were many of the rulers who secretly believed in him (John 12:42). In Luke 13:31, we are told that even some of the Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod was planning to kill him and urged him to escape. Matthew 21:46 and Mark 12:12, 37, inform us that Jesus taught the crowds in the Temple and that his enemies were afraid to arrest him because they feared the multitudes who listened to him enthusiastically. Moreover, when his enemies made their final plans to arrest him, they decided: "Not during the festival, lest there be an uproar of the people" (Matthew 26:5, Mark 14:1-2, see also Luke 22:2). When Jesus entered Jerusalem, it was to the accompanying shouts of "Hosanna" coming from the crowds (Matthew 21:9) that declared him to be "the prophet Jesus" (Matthew 21:11).
Was Jesus abandoned in his last hours? As Jesus went to be crucified "a great multitude of people, and of women" accompanied him "beating themselves and bewailing him" (Luke 23:27). At his crucifixion "many women [supporters] were there looking from a distance" (Matthew 27:55, Mark 14:40, Luke 23:49); Luke adds "all those acquainted with him were standing at a distance" (Luke 23:49); "all the multitude" attending the crucifixion began "beating their breasts" (Luke 23:48). John mentions the presence at the crucifixion of "the disciple whom he loved" (John 19:20). Nicodemus, a Pharisee and "a ruler of the Jews" (John 3:1), helped Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man, to prepare the body for burial (John 19:39). Joseph of Arimathaea was a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57, John 19:38) and a member of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50-51).
The overall Gospel accounts claim that Jesus had a large and loyal following throughout Judea and the surrounding territories. This group, it is alleged, consisted of people from among every strata of society. These were individuals who did not know of events in Jerusalem and were still loyal to him.
Some Christians claim that Jesus died without any significant following. This, however, is only an argument necessitated by theological needs. The Gospels allege that the masses adhered to a messianic belief that Jesus, who was believed to be the son of David (Matthew 9:27), was not only the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 (John 7:40), but was in fact, the very Messiah himself (John 7:41). Even though there was a division among the crowd over who he was (John 7:43), and many of his disciple left him (John 6:66), we must assume, the Gospels not telling us otherwise, that thousands of people throughout the country, still believed in him as the Messiah at the time of his crucifixion. It should be noted that, according to the Gospel narratives, the general Jewish populace did not have occasion to directly reject Jesus' messianic assertions, since he had not openly claimed to be the Messiah (Matthew 16:16, 20; Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9:20-21).
The words of Isaiah 53:3: "He was despised and rejected of men . . . and as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him not" cannot be applied to Jesus if one is to believe the New Testament narrative.
Isaiah 53:2 describes the suffering servant as one who "had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor appearance that we should delight in him." Does this fit the New Testament's description of Jesus?
Answer: According to the Gospels, Jesus was, throughout his entire lifetime, greatly desired by an ever growing multitude of people (Luke 2:40, 46-47). Jesus' positive attributes are strikingly illustrated in Luke's summation of his formative years: "And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and in physical growth [helikia, cf. Luke 19:3], and in favor with God and men" (Luke 2:52). In this statement, it is asserted that Jesus was wise, tall in stature, and enjoyed popularity even in the years prior to his active ministry. This verse shows that his handsome appearance, charismatic personality, and wisdom attracted many followers.
There are some Christian commentators who say that Isaiah 53:2 refers to the Jewish rejection of Jesus' message at the time of his death. But, we can assume that outside of Jerusalem his still loyal following was unaware of events in the capital and that even there, besides his secret followers (John 12:42) great multitudes were still loyal (Luke 23:27). On the way to being executed the Gospel of Luke maintains that "there were following him a great multitude of the people, and of women who were mourning and lamenting him" (Luke 23:27).
Overall, the great majority of Jesus' Jewish contemporaries in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora never heard of him. Therefore, the Question of large-scale Jewish rejection of Jesus does not yet enter the picture.
Other Christian commentators see Isaiah 53:2 as a reaction to Jesus' physical state at his crucifixion. According to the Gospel of Luke, this notion is without justification. Luke writes that those who followed Jesus to his execution were not turned away by his supposed haggard appearance (Luke 23:27).
Especially, in Luke's passion account, those who reject Jesus are vocal, but appear in the minority. In sum, the type of rejection the Gospels say Jesus experienced in his last hours of life is by no means expressed in the wording of verse two. According to all the Gospel accounts, those who allegedly ridicule Jesus, prior to his execution and at the crucifixion site itself, do not deride his physical condition but, rather, his messianic pretensions (Matthew 27:41-43; Mark 15:29-32; Luke 22:63-64, 23:35-37).
The Christian claim that this verse refers to Jesus is simply without any factual basis.
To be continued insha Allah
How can Christians apply the phrase v'ayn lo, "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing" (Daniel 9:26) and Isaiah 53:12, where the suffering servant receives "a portion with the great," to Jesus?
Answer: One needs to understand that both references, when read in the context of Christian theology, refer to Jesus after his death and supposed resurrection: Daniel 9:26 referring to after he is "cut off" and Isaiah 53:12 as a reward for his suffering and death.
Yet, v'ayn lo, "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing" cannot refer to Jesus' situation at or after death, if one takes the New Testament seriously. Christianity claims that unlike mere mortal bodies which decay after death Jesus rose bodily into heaven, where he sits at the "right hand of the throne of the Majesty."
V'ayn lo certainly could not refer to a lack of wealth or followers, for this would not distinguish Jesus from the great majority of the world's population. One who "has nothing" or "shall have nothing" (Daniel 9:26) does not receive "a portion with the great" (Isaiah 53:12), does not rise bodily to heaven (Acts 1:9), and does not sit at the "right hand of the throne of the Majesty" (Hebrews 8:1). It is precisely with his death that Jesus was allegedly able to attain his rewards (Philippians 2: 8-9). Therefore, the application of both verses to Jesus is untenable.
Isaiah 53:10 says of the suffering servant, "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days." Can this apply to Jesus?
Answer: According to the words "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days," the suffering servant is to be rewarded for his selflessness in the service of the Almighty by being blessed with children and prolongation of life. These two promises must be treated as a unit, as described in greater detail in Isaiah 65:20-23. Each promise complements the other, highlighting the ancient Hebraic ideal of viewing children and a long life as the two greatest rewards God gives to man here on earth. This is further illustrated in Job 5:25-26: "You shall know also that your seed shall be great, and your offspring as the grass of the earth. You shall come to your grave in ripe age, as a shock of corn in its season." From the manner in which the Hebrew word zer'a ("seed") is used in the Scriptures, there can be no doubt that actual physical offspring is meant here.
Christian commentators have interpreted certain verses in the Scriptures (Genesis 3:15, 38:8; Isaiah 1:4, 57:4; Malachi 2:15; Psalms 22:31; Proverbs 11:21) as referring only symbolically to "bodily seed." But such an interpretation is unwarranted, since in each of these verses the term "seed" can be taken in a literal and physical sense. While the literal understanding of these verses is generally evident, those from the Book of Isaiah are misunderstood by some people.
In Isaiah 57, the prophet castigates certain individuals (not the nation as a whole) for perpetuating the idolatrous practices of their parents. Isaiah calls them "sons of the sorceress, the seed of adulterers and the harlot" (verse 3). He then asks, "Are you not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood?" (verse 4). These verses are a scathing denunciation of wicked offspring who uphold the sinful ways of their parents. They are what the prophet has earlier termed a "seed of evil-doers" (1:4) that is, children of parents who do evil deeds. Those spoken to in Isaiah 57 were conceived in adultery and harlotry; they are the resultant products of transgression and falsehood. Literally, they are children born as a result of parental transgression, a seed born as a result of parental falsehood.
Christian commentators would like us to believe that the term "seed" is used metaphorically, meaning, in Isaiah 53:10, "disciples." Generally, the Hebrew word bayn ("son") may be employed metaphorically with the meaning "disciples," but never is the term zer'a ("seed") used in this sense. For example, "And Abraham said: 'Behold to me You have given no seed (zer'a), and, see the son (ben) of my house is my heir.' And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: 'This man shall not be your heir, but he that shall come forth out of your own bowels shall be your heir'" (Genesis 15:3-4). Hence, zer'a must be taken literally, which rules out the possibility that it refers to Jesus since he had no children of his own.
The second part of the promise, ". . . he shall prolong days," also cannot be applied to Jesus, who died at a young age. To apply these words, as Christian commentators do, is not only evasive but also meaningless. How can such a promise have any meaning for Jesus, who is viewed as being of divine substance and whose existence is believed by Christianity to be eternal? There would be no need for God to assure a fellow member of the Trinity eternal life.
In understanding the meaning of the phrase ". . . he shall prolong days" it should be understood that there is a difference in meaning between the concept of prolonging of days and that of gaining eternal life. The concept of a prolonged life cannot be treated as the equivalent of eternal life because in an eternal context, time of any duration is of no consequence. Consequently, one cannot speak of an eternal being as having his days prolonged: "Are Your days as the days of man, or Your years as a man's days?" (Job 10:5). God must be referred to as eternal: "The number of his years is unsearchable" (Job 36:26). He is the first, He is the last, He cannot be anything else. Prolonging the days of one who is already supposed to be eternal would make his life longer than eternity. That is an obvious impossibility. If the promise of prolonged days is applied to Jesus, he could not be of divine origin.
Prolonging of life implies earthly mortality, a cut-off date in the future, while the term eternal life refers to immortality. Therefore, the phrase "prolonged life" can only relate to the limited bodily existence in this world, and not to the endlessness of eternal life. Since the blessings of seeing children and prolonging life are only appropriate when applied to a mortal individual and not to an immortal being, these blessings cannot be applied to the Jesus of Christian theology. Jesus died young and childless. If, after his alleged resurrection, he returned to heaven to become an eternal heavenly being again, this stage of his existence cannot be appropriately referred to as prolongation of days.
Once again, we see that Isaiah 53's description of the suffering servant of the Lord does not find fulfillment in the New Testament's description of Jesus.
Did Jesus fulfill the role of the asham, "guilt-offering," that's used to describe the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:10: "If he would offer himself as a guilt-offering"?
Answer: Can it honestly be said that Jesus, who, in his final statement on the cross, is quoted as saying: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34), willingly offered himself as a guilt-offering? The evidence points to the contrary. Yet, because Jesus died at the time of the Passover festival, the New Testament refers to him as the paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) who, by his voluntary sacrificial death, takes our sins away. To use the paschal lamb as a typology of Jesus' death (as the paschal lamb represented the redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt, so Jesus' death represents the redemption of humanity from bondage to sin) is at best an arbitrary assumption without a secure basis in the biblical text.
A closer look at the biblical text should convince any objective student that the annual sacrifice of the paschal lamb is not treated, in any way, as referring to a guilt-offering intended to bring about forgiveness of sin. It was instituted as part of the celebration commemorating the redemption from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 12:14, 26, 27), and in no honest way can it be used in conjunction with a typological redemption from sin.
The New Testament portrays Jesus as being literally a biblical sacrificial offering. The asham, as all other sacrifices, had to be perfect, without spot and without blemish. Jesus was none of these. In addition, one must address the fact that not only is human sacrifice abhorrent to God, but that only animals with split hooves and which chew their cud could have been offered for sacrificial purposes. Jesus, as a human being, was unfit for sacrificial purposes.
How can Jesus be the paschal lamb sacrifice and simultaneously be the offering of an asham, a "guilt offering"? The functions of each of these two sacrifices are distinct and different. There are several sacrifices whose purpose is the atonement of sin, and there is no need to misappropriate the paschal lamb for this purpose. Certainly the sacrifice offered on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, affords a more logical symbol of redemption from sin.
The rewards of verse 10 are contingent on the servant's willingness to offer himself as an asham, or "guilt offering." All such offerings, as we have seen above, must be perfect, without spot, and without blemish. Under Roman jurisdiction a "crown" of thorns was placed on Jesus' head, cutting into his scalp. He was then scourged. Jesus was then affixed to the beam and to the upright pole with nails. The crucifixion preparatory treatment, the national origins of his executioners, the fact that he was a human, the geographic location of his death, the lack of a death caused by a literal shedding of blood respectively would render any potential offering as unfit for consideration as a fulfillment of a biblically required sacrifice.
If the New Testament is a continuation of what Christians call the Old Testament, it must harmonize with the "Old Testament." False comparisons will not do. The New Testament authors cannot pick and choose what suits them in order to make it seem as if Jesus willingly offered himself as a guilt- offering. Either Jesus is complete fulfillment of Scripture or none at all--and the verdict, clearly, is none at all.
In Isaiah 53:10, God's promises concerning the suffering servant are conditional: "If he would . . . he shall see. . . ." Does this apply to Jesus?
Answer: According to the New Testament, Jesus had specific knowledge of his mission on earth and his destiny in heaven. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus says, "I . . . came down from heaven" (John 6:51) and "I know where I came from, and where I am going" (John 8:14); in the Gospel of Matthew he told his disciples that he "must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things . . . and be killed . . . and be raised up on the third day" (Matthew 16:21). What he supposedly left temporarily in heaven and his alleged additional rewards on his heavenly return are found in Philippians 2:6-11).
There should be no need for God to promise a reward on condition that Jesus fulfill His wishes ("If he would"). If Jesus is all that Christianity claims he is, then God knew that this incarnate sinless divine being would fulfill all that was required of him. It certainly makes no sense to think God would promise to reward such a heaven bound eternal being with having children and prolongation of days. Such things are promised to humans not to one who is supposedly eternal.
According to New Testament doctrine, the sinless incarnate divinity, Jesus, could not fail or refuse to carry out God's plans for mankind. Thus, there was no doubt that Jesus would carry out God's plan and would be uniquely rewarded for his effort (Philippians 2:9). As a result, the application to the New Testament's Jesus of the conditional, "If he would . . . he shall see," that speaks in profoundly human terms makes no sense.
Once again, we see that Isaiah 53 does not refer to Jesus.
To be continued insha Allah
How can Jews say that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers to the Jewish people when not every aspect of this passage has been fulfilled by any individual Jew, including Jesus?
Answer: God deals with Israel in two ways. Singularly, with every individual and collectively, with the nation as a whole. Isaiah 53 is an overview of the historical encounter of collective national Israel with the nations of the world and God's rewards to the collective remnant of Israel for its faithfulness to His Torah. A day is coming when the nations of the world will, by virtue of the Israelite triumphs, become aware of God's special relationship to Israel. This will have the effect of causing, first, shock and disbelief, and then, an acknowledgment of the special rewards that God will grant Israel, as is described in the latter part of Isaiah 53.
What the prophet in this chapter describes refers to Israel as a whole, not every individual Israelite. Not every Jew will have to undergo every aspect of suffering to be worthy of eventually partaking in the rewards God promises. Indeed, not every Israelite has to be faultless because the suffering servant, Israel, as a people is innocent. If one is to insist, however, that Isaiah 53 refers to a specific person, that individual would personally have to accomplish all that is required of the suffering servant of the Lord. Failure to do so is automatic disqualification.
It should be clear to everyone that even if Isaiah 53 referred solely to the Messiah this would still not infer any support for the claim that it refers to Jesus. The fundamental theological Questions raised by the missionaries are "Who is the Messiah?" and "If not Jesus, who then is the Messiah and when will he come?" Jews are not obligated to identify who the Messiah will be or give a timetable for his arrival. One can only discuss the case presented for past claimants to the title. On this basis, Jews can confidently say that Jesus is not the Messiah of Israel prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus could not be the Messiah by virtue of any one of a number of disqualifications. They range from not having the biblical genealogical criteria for that office (one would have to be a biological descendant of David through the male line of Solomon) to bringing about the very fundamentals of the messianic age as delineated in Isaiah, chapter 11.
Did Jesus fulfill Isaiah 53:7 that describes the suffering servant "as a lamb that is led to the slaughter" and as someone who "opened not his mouth"?
Answer: According to the Gospels, both the Jewish officials and Pilate, when
Questioning Jesus, directed their inquiry to his messianic pretensions. Far from showing the humility and silence with which Isaiah describes the servant in verse 7, the encounter between the high priest, the elders, and Jesus is highlighted by a vigorous verbal exchange. In addition, Jesus did not show humility and silence during his confrontation with Pilate. At their meeting, Jesus is depicted as skillfully defending himself. Jesus at no time humbled himself, but, on the contrary, presented a clever verbal defense before Pilate (the one man who could condemn him to death), pleading shrewdly that his messianic teaching was a nonviolent, "not of this world" movement, one which the Romans need not fear. Since Pilate was concerned with messianic movements, which posed a political and military threat to the Roman Empire, he would not be interested in a movement which was not of "this world" and which would not be in conflict with the Empire. Jesus was obviously defending himself by presenting a shrewd verbal response when he tried to convince Pilate that he was not the head of a seditious movement but that his intentions were peaceful. Thus, contrary to what many Christian missionary theologians would have us believe, Jesus presented a strong defense before the Jewish officials and Pilate. Jesus was not "dumb" before his accusers, Jewish or Gentile, and it is simply not true to say of Jesus that "he humbled himself and did not open his mouth."
On the contrary, Jesus declared himself to be a king. "You say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice" (John 18:37). After having heard Jesus admit that he is a king the author of John would have his audience believe that Pilate goes out to the Jews and declares that he does not find him guilty of anything. "Behold, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no guilt in him" (John 19:4; see also Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3).
Earlier, the Gospels claim, Jesus acknowledged before the Sanhedrin that he was the Messiah. When the high priest asks him whether he is the Messiah he
Answers in the affirmative. "I am, and you will see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62; see also Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:69). Matthew and Luke have Jesus Answer the high priest in the affirmative, with a statement similar to that which John uses for Jesus' Answer to Pilate, "you say that I am." It is quite obvious that Isaiah 53:7 makes no reference to Jesus.
Is it true that Jews interpreted Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah until the medieval commentator Rashi explained it as referring to the people of Israel?
Answer: Christian missionaries claim that it is only with the commentary of Rashi (1040-1105), seeking to refute the Christian interpretation, that the Jews began to refer Isaiah 52:13-53:12 to the entire nation of Israel. This misconception perhaps owes its origin to Edward Pusey, who wrote in his 1876 introduction to The "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpretations (trans. Driver and Neubauer, [reprinted] New York: Hermon Press, 1969) that "The new interpretation began with Rashi" (p. XLIV). The interpretation was neither new, nor began with Rashi. This missionary allegation is refuted even by a Christian source. In Contra Celsum, written in 248 C.E. (some 800 years before Rashi), the Church Father Origen records that Jews contemporary with him interpreted this passage as referring to the entire nation of Israel. He wrote:
I remember that once in a discussion with some whom the Jews regard as learned I used these prophecies [Isaiah 52:13-53:8]. At this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes. In this way he explained the text: "Thy form shall be inglorious among men"; and "those to whom he was not proclaimed shall see him"; "being a man in calamity." (Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Book 1.55, 1965, p. 50)
This shows that Jewish biblical exegesis subscribing to the belief that the people of Israel was the suffering servant spoken of throughout the entire passage pre-dates Rashi by many centuries.
As a human being, Jesus certainly had very little. Yet, because he was allegedly God, he could expect, on reassuming his heavenly role, to exercise his power as God. So what did he, in the final accounting, give up in dying a human death?
Answer: Christian theology is saying that Jesus gave up a temporary earthly life as a god-man to return to his role in heaven, where, as part of the Trinity, he reigns as God. In Isaiah 53:12, God speaks of the suffering servant of the Lord, who, as a result of his selflessness, is willing to give up all that he possesses in the service of God. Clearly, it is unreasonable to say that Jesus sacrificed himself for the redemption of mankind when, by his actions, he knowingly gained more than he lost. Paul writes: ". . .
Jesus Christ, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:5-11). There is a gross misuse of the concept of "sacrifice" where one who is alleged to be divine knows that by giving up a flesh-and-blood existence, something essentially unimportant to him, he will receive in return a position of eternal exaltation and power.
This cannot be called sacrifice. On leaving his transitory human lifespan behind him, Jesus, it is alleged, returned to heaven to once more become part of the eternal Godhead.
Why should Jesus be rewarded for his alleged sacrifice, for doing what he himself, as God, wanted done? There is no point for God, of whom Jesus is allegedly a part, to say: "I will divide him a portion with the great" as an actual reward to Himself. Such reward can be properly given to one who is all human and not one who is at the same time divine. The suffering servant is promised "a portion with the great" and that "he shall divide the spoil with the mighty," but if Jesus is God, who can be great enough to share the spoil with him? Is it conceivable that one who is God could possibly have only "a portion" comparable to that of mere earthly rulers, or that "he shall divide the spoil" with anyone? Even if this could be rationalized, it would then run counter to what is stated in Psalm 2, which Christians claim refers to Jesus.
In that psalm, God offers, to the person in Question, the entire earth for a possession (verse 8), and all rulers are told to give homage to that person (verse 10-12). Christian commentators will often try to explain away these irreconcilable contradictions with arguments that have no basis even in their own New Testament. It is for the reader to be vigilant and to be wary of such vain attempts that are based on distortions.
To be continued insha Allah
Who is the suffering servant of the Lord?
Answer: The fact is that the identity of the servant has already been established by Isaiah in PREViously stated passages. In Isaiah 41 :8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3 the prophet identifies Israel as the servant.
Moreover, the history of Israel, down through the ages shows that the servant is, none other than Israel personified. Chapter 53 reiterates this fact by providing an historic overview of the tragedies and triumphs of the servant, Israel, throughout its history. Who would believe that this exiled nation, this humiliated loathsome Jewish people would be fated to survive the vicissitudes of its historical sufferings to once more have a future entailing prominence, hope, and joy.
Who is the narrator in Isaiah 53? Who is to be astonished by the ascendancy of he who was formerly despised?
Answer: This is clarified in chapter 52:15, in which God, whose particular message concerning the servant began with verse 13, poignantly targets the narrator's identity. That verse declares: "So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which they had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive." The words "their" and "they" here refer to "many nations" and "kings." It is neither Isaiah nor Israel, but the "many nations" which are startled and left dumbfounded by what they shall see and come to realize concerning the servant.
This will occur in the day of God's vindication of Israel when the nations, astonished and in terror, will feel ashamed for their oppression of the Jewish people. Of this new perception the prophets declared: "As in the days of your coming out of the land of Egypt will I show to him marvelous things. The nations shall see and be put to shame for all their might; they shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf" (Micah 7:15-16) and "Behold all those who were incensed against you shall be ashamed and confounded; those who quarreled with you shall be as nothing and will perish" (Isaiah 41:11).
At that juncture in time the startled nations personified here as a Gentile spokesman ask the opening Question of Isaiah 53:1: "Who has believed our report?" and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" The prophet, himself, as stated above, is merely a channel for transmitting the divinely given statement which foretells the Gentile confession of guilt as they realize the servant's proper role in history. An abrupt change in speakers from God to a Gentile spokesman takes place in verse 1. The prophetic text utilizes the literary device of the Gentile spokesman to narrate this Gentile admission of unjust mistreatment of the servant. Written in poetic style there is use of metaphorical language throughout the entire passage.