Post by David Ben Yosef on Feb 18, 2010 22:46:17 GMT -8
Benmasada, a current forum member, claims that Israel is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, and not Yeshua HaMashiakh. However, Israel simply cannot be that suffering servant for a plethora of reasons. Here are but a few...
In Isaiah chapter 53 there is a clear distinction in pronouns. Isaiah the prophet, a Jew, when speaking of himself and his nation Israel, uses the pronouns "we," "us" and "our." He describes the servant as someone other than himself and his people by using the pronouns "he," "him" and "his." Since the speakers are clearly Isaiah's people Israel ("we"), then the servant whom they describe ("he") must be someone other than Israel. They cannot both be Israel.
In verse 8, Isaiah declares that the servant was put to death "for the transgression of my people." Who are "my people?" Not the Gentiles, but Isaiah's people, the Jewish people. If the servant died for Israel, the servant cannot also be Israel. Therefore the servant is distinct from the Jewish people.
The passage repeatedly claims the innocence of the servant. Verses 4-6 say that his suffering would not be for his own sin, but for the sin of others. None of the prophets (including Isaiah), ever characterize Israel or any other nation as perfectly innocent (see Isaiah 1:1-31, 64:5). Since Isaiah affirms the servant's innocence while at the same time affirming Israel's guilt, Israel cannot be the Servant.
The servant was to be a voluntary and unresisting sufferer. He willingly accepts his suffering, offering himself as a guilt offering, and pouring himself out to death. His suffering is voluntary, his sufferings are intentional, His sufferings are silent. Israel has indeed suffered, but not willingly, intentionally, or silently. The sufferings of the servant are of a different nature than the sufferings of the Jewish people.
In verses 8, 9, 10 and 12 the servant dies a substitutionary death on behalf of others. He is cut off out of the land of the living, placed in a grave, and sacrificed for the guilt of others. However, the Bible declares that the nation of Israel never has been and never can be killed (see Jeremiah 31:34-36). The servant is described as an individual person, not as a corporate identity. The things that the servant does can only be done individually, not corporately.
The suffering and death of the servant brings righteousness and healing to those who accept him. While Israel has suffered, it's suffering has never brought righteousness or healing to the Gentiles. In fact, it brings judgment on the Gentiles for their sin of anti-Semitism. Israel's suffering has never brought healing to the anti-Semites guilty of these things. The Jewish people have suffered because of the Gentiles, but never on behalf of the Gentiles.
Many of the ancient rabbis understood this passage to refer to the individual known as the Mashiakh. Rashi, who lived around 1050 AD, interpreted the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel, suffering for the Gentile nations. Eventually Rashi's interpretation became the dominant Jewish view, especially since the 1800's. However, Rashi's interpretation must be rejected in light of all the reasons above. It simply doesn't fit, by any stretch of the imagination.
Other passages in the book of Isaiah dealing with God's Servant refer to an individual, and not to the nation of Israel (see Isaiah 42:1-7, 49:1-13, especially 49:6).
There's no way Isaiah chapter 53 is referring to Israel collectively. Unless you abandon logic, exegesis, and linguistics completely.
In Isaiah chapter 53 there is a clear distinction in pronouns. Isaiah the prophet, a Jew, when speaking of himself and his nation Israel, uses the pronouns "we," "us" and "our." He describes the servant as someone other than himself and his people by using the pronouns "he," "him" and "his." Since the speakers are clearly Isaiah's people Israel ("we"), then the servant whom they describe ("he") must be someone other than Israel. They cannot both be Israel.
In verse 8, Isaiah declares that the servant was put to death "for the transgression of my people." Who are "my people?" Not the Gentiles, but Isaiah's people, the Jewish people. If the servant died for Israel, the servant cannot also be Israel. Therefore the servant is distinct from the Jewish people.
The passage repeatedly claims the innocence of the servant. Verses 4-6 say that his suffering would not be for his own sin, but for the sin of others. None of the prophets (including Isaiah), ever characterize Israel or any other nation as perfectly innocent (see Isaiah 1:1-31, 64:5). Since Isaiah affirms the servant's innocence while at the same time affirming Israel's guilt, Israel cannot be the Servant.
The servant was to be a voluntary and unresisting sufferer. He willingly accepts his suffering, offering himself as a guilt offering, and pouring himself out to death. His suffering is voluntary, his sufferings are intentional, His sufferings are silent. Israel has indeed suffered, but not willingly, intentionally, or silently. The sufferings of the servant are of a different nature than the sufferings of the Jewish people.
In verses 8, 9, 10 and 12 the servant dies a substitutionary death on behalf of others. He is cut off out of the land of the living, placed in a grave, and sacrificed for the guilt of others. However, the Bible declares that the nation of Israel never has been and never can be killed (see Jeremiah 31:34-36). The servant is described as an individual person, not as a corporate identity. The things that the servant does can only be done individually, not corporately.
The suffering and death of the servant brings righteousness and healing to those who accept him. While Israel has suffered, it's suffering has never brought righteousness or healing to the Gentiles. In fact, it brings judgment on the Gentiles for their sin of anti-Semitism. Israel's suffering has never brought healing to the anti-Semites guilty of these things. The Jewish people have suffered because of the Gentiles, but never on behalf of the Gentiles.
Many of the ancient rabbis understood this passage to refer to the individual known as the Mashiakh. Rashi, who lived around 1050 AD, interpreted the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel, suffering for the Gentile nations. Eventually Rashi's interpretation became the dominant Jewish view, especially since the 1800's. However, Rashi's interpretation must be rejected in light of all the reasons above. It simply doesn't fit, by any stretch of the imagination.
Other passages in the book of Isaiah dealing with God's Servant refer to an individual, and not to the nation of Israel (see Isaiah 42:1-7, 49:1-13, especially 49:6).
There's no way Isaiah chapter 53 is referring to Israel collectively. Unless you abandon logic, exegesis, and linguistics completely.
