Replies

Shalom.

Once again I apologize for the succinct, terse and synoptic nature of my reply. There aren't enough heartbeats in a multitude of lifetimes sufficient to render a comphrehensive reply, nor are there enough hearteats in numerous lifetimes available to read such, and neither do sufficient electrons exist in the universe available for me to push so as to even remotely address the topic with sufficient depth.

I understand all the arguments and objections respecting the interpretation that Isa 53 is referring to Messiah. However, I beg to differ, in that what specifically is said in the passage can in no way be interpreted referring to Israel as a nation if proper hermenuetics are employed, nay not even a casual reading of the passage will result in exegesis of such; it is patently eisegetical.

The following points emerge from a close reading of Isa 52:13-53:12:

The servant is intimated physically suffering more than any other individual human being will ever do (52:14).
The suffering described would result in 'sprinkling' " many nations" (52:15). The idea of sprinkling recalls the sprinkling of the blood in order to atone for sins under the Law, perhaps specifically referring to the sprinkling of the water of separation for cleansing (Num.19). The blood of his sufferings would therefore enable people from many nations to have forgiveness of sins.
The news about the servant would be widespread, but would be perfect, although dying in the company of wicked men (53:9). The idea of a Messiah who dies is also expressed in Mic 5:1 and II Sam 23:7; both admitted by Rabbis to be Messianic passages.
Messiah's own people would deliberately stop themselves perceiving his Messiahship (Isa 53:3). This recalls the language of Lev 13:44,45, suggesting that Israel would perceive Messiah as smitten with the leprosy of sin. The record of the New Testament, along with the commentaries of the Talmud, show that many Jews have branded Jesus as a sinner unfit for their association. Furthermore, Isa 53:13 distinctly makes references to the pronoun "we". IF the passage is refering to Israel collectively as a nation, then who are "we"? It doesn't make sense in the context of the passage that "we" is a reference to the Gentiles if the servant refers collectively to Israel as a nation.
The description of the servant (Isa 53:2,3) is one generally unacceptable by Jews pertaining to Messiah. Indeed, this is a huge objection by Jews that based on the suffering intimated it can NOT refer to Messiah. It is no mystery whatsoever that Jews instead see their own tribulation symbolized in these verses.
Although perfect, the servant died with wicked men (Isa 53:9). The idea of a Messiah who dies is also expressed in Mic.5:1 and 2 Sam.23:7. These are passages freely admitted by Rabbis to be Messianic passages.
The servant would have a distinctive hallmark of not speaking up in his own defence (Isa 53:7)
The servant's death would be fully considered as a sacrifice for sins, and as a result of which would obtain eternal life for Himself and carry away the sins of "his seed" (Isa 53:10-12). The servant was "bruised" to overcome sin - as prophesied of the "seed of the woman". Therefore the victory over sin prophesied in Gen 3:15 was fulfilled by the death of Messiah and this is described in Isa 53. To interpret these verses pertaining to Israel as a nation is preposterous, in that it goes against the very essence of Jewish Law itelf.
That Isa 53:12 refers to Israel as a nation is absurd to the highest degree. That Israel as a nation could be construed being Messiah borders blasphemy. "...he shall see (the result) of the travail of his soul" (v11), refers to what? Resurrection of the psyche of Jewish people? What soul is being referred to here if the passage is reference to Israel as a nation?

So many other prophecies speak of the suffering prophecied in Isa 53 in language which does not ring totally true of David, Hezekiah, nor Israel to whom they may primarily refer. Thus Psa 22 speaks of a group of men mocking the Messiah as he stood in agony, his bones sticking out (v.17), God appearing not to respond to his prayers (v.1-3), his hands and feet pierced (crucifixion is about the only form of death or torture which could be described like this,v.16), his clothes parted amongst his persecutors (v.18), and then many people worldwide coming to praise God because of His vindication of His servant by answering his prayers for deliverance from death (v.22-31).

No other person claiming to be Messiah has been so consistently rejected by all Jewry. Psa 118:22 speaks of Messiah as the stone that the Jews rejected (He being refered to "the stone" in Gen 49:24; Dan 2:43,44; Zec 3:8,9). Isa 8:14 speaks of Messiah being a stone which Israel will stumble at. It is also worthwhile considering how many of those who typified Messiah such as Moses, David, Joseph and several of the judges were initially rejected by their brethren, although later accepted.

God would make "his soul" , i.e. " him" , " an offering for sin" (v.10). The Law required that the offerer lay his hand on the sin offering before it was killed, to associate himself with it (Lev 4:4,15,24,29). In this way the animal bore the offerer's sins, in the same way as the scapegoat bore Israel's sins on the day of Atonement. This fact is definitely alluded to here: "Bearing their iniquities" (v11), "He bare the sin of many" (v12), "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (v6). These verses are conclusive that a human offering and sin-bearing sacrifice is being described here . It is noteworthy that the bullock's blood was to be "sprinkled" seven times before the Lord to make atonement (Lev 4:6,17); and the same Hebrew word occurs earlier in this same suffering servant prophecy: " My servant...his visage was so marred more than any man...so (on account of his sufferings) shall he sprinkle many nations" (Isa 52:13-15).

The blood of slain animals offered in sacrifice is not in itself a valid way to atone for sin - this merely pointing forward to "the blood" of the perfect sacrifice (an illustraation of the atonement and type of Messiah). That perfect sin-bearing sacrifice, which Isa 53 intimates was to be made by the willing death of the suffering servant, therefore gained forgiveness of sin for all time is some sort of reference to Israel is nothing but sanctimounious pontificating nonsense. The seed of the woman was to destroy sin, the seed of the serpent, through his own temporary sufferings (the bruising on the heel, Gen 3:15). "Sin" in this context must include all transgressions which have ever been committed (or will be), and all those which ever would be after the time that perfect sacrifice was made on Calvary's cross. This perfect sacrifice would not be so if there were other sacrifices still needed after it had been made. Therefore this perfect sacrifice which the "volume of the book" of the Old Covenant constantly pointed forward to (Psa 40:7), would provide atonement for future sins. Thus in the same way as the efficacy of the perfect sacrifice reached back to provide forgiveness of the sins committed under the Old Covenant, so its efficacy reaches forward as well. It is noteworthy that the Orthodox Jewish book of Zohar interprets Isaiah 53 by saying that it illustrates how God chooses to smite one just man in order to save many others.

Unlike tenses in the Greek, tenses in Hebrew are frequently used as part of linguistic idiom, i.e., manner of speaking. To accept arguments based upon them is something very few who appreciate the Hebrew of the Torah would be willing to do. A good example of the problem with Hebrew tenses can be found in Gen 17:5,6. The use of the past tense in "a father of many nations have I made thee" shows that this tense can be used to show Divine intention. The same principle is applicable in Isa 53 - the past tenses there indicate God's intention to do things which elsewhere in the same prophecy are spoken of in the future tense.

This "prophetic perfect" tense in Hebrew grammar is definitely recognized by Jewish expositors. The use of past and then future tenses is surely to teach that there was to be a certain order in Messiah's work as outlined in this passage - first sacrifice, and then honour. Messianic prophesies normally had a primary fulfilment; in this case the minor fulfilment was in Hezekiah, and therefore it is fitting that there is a mixture of tenses, as parts of the prophecy are more specifically relevant to him than others. An excellent example of this can be found in Psa 110:1:

The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand.

Who is talking, who is the object and who is the receiver? Seeing that Messiah was to be a descendant of David, it follows that he could not have existed before he was born, and therefore God could not have literally spoken to him. Thus David is using the past tense in a prophetic sense.

Moreover, the present tense is also used in Hebrew prophecy describing future events (Isa 9:6; 60:1). Due to omniescience and omnipresence, the Lord of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can speak of things which are not yet as though they are; the latter of the foregoing implying that Jehovah exists throught all of time, and also must have knowlege of all time(s).

The foregoing notwithstanding, nevertheless, I do concede that the suffering servant of Isa 53 does have application to the people of Israel. However, the Targums interpret Isa 53 as specifically referring to Messiah (Sanhedrin 98b); there is good reason to support their implication that not all references to the "suffering servant" are to the people of Israel. Isa 49 speaks of the servant being called by God out of the womb (hinting at a virgin birth?), and being "His (God's) servant to bring Jacob again to him...to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel" (v.1,5,6). This clearly differentiates the " servant" and the people of Israel. The " we" referred to in Isa 53 is Israel: "When we shall see him (the servant) there is no beauty that we should desire him (as Jews today claim that they see nothing attractive in Jesus)...we esteemed him not...for the transgression of My (God's? Isaiah's) people (Israel) was he (the servant) smitten". Similarly the same servant in Isa 49:7 is described as "him whom man despiseth... whom the nation abhorreth" when he came to save them from their sins. This is further proof that the Jews were firstly to reject their Messiah and subject him to tremendous mockery and death. No other individual has been so mocked by the Jews as Jesus. Israel desperately need a Messiah now - and that Messiah must be one whom previously they rejected, mocked and killed. The only candidate is Jesus Christ. There certainly are many connections between the language used of the suffering servant in Isa 53, and that of Psa 22:6 and Psa 69:7,10,19 which also describe the suffering of Messiah. These verses again show how one individual is mocked by his Jewish brethren. Seeing the resemblance of the person spoken of being so similar to the spoken of in Isa 53 it buggers astonishment that the person described could even remotely be construed to be the Israel as a natiuon.

Other various Targums and Midrashim can be seen applying to Messiah. Messiah was to be despised (Psa 22:6; 69:19-22); rejected (Psa 118:22); mocked (Psa 22:7,8; 69:8,20; 89:51,52); whipped (Psa 129:3); impaled on a stake (Psa 22:1,2,14-17); thirsty (Psa 22:16); given wine nixed with gall (Psa 69:20-22); have lots cast for his clothes (Psa 22:18,19); have unbroken bones (Psa 34:21); rise from the dead (Psa 16:10); ascend to Heaven (Psa 68:19); be at the right hand of God (Psa 80:17; 110:1); be High Priest (Psa 110:4); judge the nations (Psa 89:3-5); reign eternally (Psa 89:35-37); be the Son of God (Psa 2:7); speak in parables (Psa 78:2); calm a storm (Psa 89:10); have Hosanna sung to him (Psa 118:25,26); be blessed for ever (Psa 45:1-4,8,18); and come in glory at the Last Day (Psa 102:6-23). The picture which the rabbinic writings had created of Messiah was exactly the person whom Jesus was and whom the early church preached. To construe Isa 53 as being something other than what the clear meaning of the reading inimates is neither consistant, nor intellectually honest.

The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel concerning Isa 53: "Behold, my servant, the Messiah, shall prosper...". Aben Ezra writes: " Jonathan ben Uzziel has interpreted it (Isaiah 53) of the Messiah who is to come, and this is also the opinion of wise men of blessed memory (i.e. Rabbis), in many of their Medrashes".
Solomon ben Isaac makes the same identification.
Jarki comments: "King Messiah was among the generation of the wicked....as it is said, 'He was wounded for our transgressions'" .
Rabbi Moses Alschech comments "Our Rabbis, with one mouth have reverently received by tradition that King Messiah is here spoken of"

Quite frankly, to interpret Isa 53 in some context other than that of a prophecy pertaining to Messiah does great and egregious violence to the normal meaning, usage of words, and the intent that the Spirit meant to convery in Scripture.

Finally, please allow me to be so bold to say that if only the idea of accepting Jesus as Messiah can be accepted as possible, so many familiar Scriptures will be illuminated as having echoes of the crucifixion; e.g. Isaac carrying the wood of his own sacrifice and obediently allowing himself to be offered as the first seed of Abraham so clearly points forward to the record of Jesus Christ's crucifixion. I pray for the Spirit's guidance and minstry to you, for humility and understanding so that the Scriptures themselves can give you that courage and ability to accept that which has seemed impossible for so very, very long.

Shalom.