Jews, did you know that Isaiah 53 was interpreted by PRE Christian jews to be messianical?

The idea that the "suffering servant" applies to the jewish people instead of the messiah is a post christian phenomenon. In a dialogue with a rabbi, I was told that the ancient interpretation of israel as the suffering servant is attested to by the early church father Origen. But WHY did he use a POST christian "ancient" interpretation as equivalent to a pre christian one? Why the equivocation on the term "ancient"? This is a clear example of the kind of "smoke and mirrors" one sees in many discussions regarding the validity of Jesus as the jewish messiah.
Something else that he said was that I had to know Hebrew in order to have a valid opinion on the matter. Perhaps, but Muslims almost invariably respond the same way when pressed on the violence that saturates the Quran. I find it weak and extremely fishy.

I'm not playing "gotcha" Christianity here, and I'm NOT threatening anyone with hellfire. Most christians (silent majority) do NOT believe you must be quote-unquote "christian" to be saved, and I have no problem in believing that noble rabbis may end up being much closer to Yeshua than I am (though unwittingly). But on the face of things, these "responses" to the Christian challenge come across as just plain desperate.

Whenever the ancient (PRE-christian "ancient") Jewish belief that Isaiah 53 was messianical is brought up in debates I've seen, Jewish apologists always skirt the issue. I've NEVER seen them deny it. Even the rabbi I interacted with EQUIVOCATED on the term "ancient". I'm no scholar, but this heightens my suspicions.

Here is a Jews for Jesus website that speaks of this:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jewish-messianic-interpretations-of-isaiah-53

And here is a quote from a Wiki article on messianic prophecies:
"However, in some of the most ancient Jewish writings, Isaiah 53:5 is applied to the Messiah. The verse is messianically interpreted in the Midrash on Samuel."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy#Isaiah_53:5)

Also, I was told that I misquoted the Rabbi in another of my questions. That's not true, I simply PARAPHRASED the situation. My condensed "dialogue" between the rabbi and I was the distilled core of the issue we had. My intention is not to insult anyone, but if you say I'm arrogant or hateful simply because I see the responses as weak, you'll get no apology from me. (Another thing the Muslims do is declare legitimate criticicisms as "hateful" or "Islamophobic". Sometimes it seems like the more civil your presentation is, the more "hateful" they wish you to be.....easier to reject the issue that way.)

Here are links to my questions, and the response of the rabbi:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlYSoxbxkK9H0XFIu0qvbXPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120427194321AAhzT9j

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgVL9r6mtm1sA7giXZ2oxGHsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120428151531AAvCkAz

2012-04-29T19:28:07Z

To "believe" in Jesus goes FAR beyond being "christian".
ANYONE who loves what is true, good, and spiritually alive, whether in 295 BC China, or modern day Mecca, listens to the voice of God. It doesn't matter how unwitting the love of God is, it IS ultimately a love of God, and as such, a love of Jesus who was/is the one who gave VOICE to the spirit of God in our hearts in human history (the "word" walked among us). The only unpardonable offense is blaspheming against the spirit of God. You can love this spirit however imperfectly without realizing that Jesus is one with it, and was/is its true voice.

If the spirit of God in our hearts could speak (regardless of when or where), what would it SAY? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me." The Good Samaritan is used as an example of God's TRUE follower, and Samaritans were HALF-PAGAN. The Samaritan follows the voice of God in his heart, and THAT

2012-04-29T19:31:34Z

....and THAT is what makes him God's/Jesus's TRUE follower.

The good and decent people of this world are god's true "chosen', but it is the Christian who knows why. It is they who go to the true promised land (heaven) at the end of time. THAT is the judeo-christian story.

The whole "you-must-be-'christian'-to-be-saved" thing makes my SKIN CRAWL, and the vast majority of Christians don't see it that way, despite the fact that they are a less vocal group.
If you don't like that....TOUGH.

allonyoav2012-04-30T02:30:13Z

Favorite Answer

Wrong- there are NO written commentaries prior to the time of Jesus. Every commentary quoted is POST the destruction of the Second Temple (and thus is post the Christian period) as it was only then that commentaries started to be written down. In addition, may of the so called commentaries used to prove this are frequently taken out of context or mistranslated to try and create a proof where none exists. On top of that, in the same sources where you have the commentaries utilised, you will find commentaries stating that it refers to the Jewish nation. You will find such statements in Midrash rabbah, Zohar the Talmud etc.

As for utilising Origen- the point being made was that it is attested to by CHRISTIAN sources that long before th time of Rashi (eitgh centuries), Jews were refuting the Christian claims that Isaiah 53 applied to the Mashiach and asserted it applied to the nation as a whole. And why use a Christian source? To counterthe statement often made by missionaries that the idea that it appllies to the nation as a whole is a modern one. SOme even go so far as to claim that it originated with Rashi in the 11th century! Showing a written source, from a figures that cannot be construed as being pro-Hewish (Origen and Justin) from as early as the 3rd century shows that the statement they are making is false and this has always been a Jewish belief.

Feel free to show preChristian Jewish writings that state that Isaiah 53 refers to the mashiach- it should be fun to see how many you can find lol

Hey, if you want to use Midrashim, Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar 23 refers to Isaiah 53 as being the nation of Israel- and that is reliably dated back to the 2nd century, a long time before Midrash Shmuel!

53

?2012-04-30T02:57:37Z

First off, your sources really aren't that impressive or reliable - you listed wikipedia and the Isaiah 53/Samuel/midrash connection is not verified because someone has yet to submit a specific quote, you listed a site that specializes in converting Jews to Judaism, and you listed an online conversation with an anonymous person claiming to be a rabbi.

At any rate, regardless of ancient Jewish views on Isaiah 53, today's Biblical scholars have good reason to believe that Isaiah 53 is referring to the Jewish people. If you read the chapters leading up to Isaiah 52/53, you'll notice that Israel/Yaakov is named the servant multiple times. So why would scholars assume that by the time you get to Isaiah 52/53, we are now talking about a mashiach? The rabbi who oversees the Outreach Judaism organization posted a two-part lecture on the matter: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/FAQ.

Plus, even if we did believe that Isaiah 52/53 is Messianic, what makes you think we'd believe in your mashiach? Afterall, the early sages didn't.

92

Mark S, JPAA2012-04-30T02:28:03Z

First--whatever Origen did or did not say has no relevance to Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53.

Second--here is the full quote from Wikipedia: "The verse is messianically interpreted in the Midrash on Samuel.[51][Need quotation to verify]". And when you go to reference 51--why, there *is* no full reference 51.

Come back with the actual part of the Midrash and then we'll talk.

80

affinity2922012-04-30T03:20:17Z

Except of course... it is not a post Christian phenomenon.

In fact, the Pauline version of what the messiah means is fully non-Jewish.

In fact, Jesus' original followers, the Nazarenes, rejected Paul and his version of the Gospels as heresy.

But, the Nazarenes got along quite well with the Pharisees.

And the Nazarenes continued to believe that Jesus was a human being, with no virgin birth, no such notion of a resurrection, no dying for anyone's sins etc...

They also believed in only One.

It was only later that Pauline Christians adopted Bianity, Two.

And later still that they adopted Trinity.

51

Suckels Clown of Righteousness2012-04-30T14:19:27Z

Prophecy often applied to more then one event or application. Yes Isaiah applies to the Jews and also the Messiah. Many of the Messianic prophecies apply apply as well to David and Solomon. The importance of denial is so great that often Jews will ignore their own scripture, history and beliefs to deny anything taught by Jesus.

Lets not forget that Monasticism and celibacy were practiced by Essene Jews long before Jesus was born. The role of the messiah changes as needed by the Jews depending on current events. During the time of Jesus they expected a military leader, now they don't. Jews have told us that scripture says no man gets a second coming and that why Jesus is not the Messiah yet they wait for Elijah's second coming.

Justyn Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew gets Rabbi Tarfon to admit that the Jews changed their scriptures (canon and interpretation).

24
Show more answers (6)

Related Questions

Jews: please provide the OLDEST REFERENCE you can to support your belief that Isaiah 53 applies to the Jews?Jews only: What's your take on Isaiah 53 and Micah 5?Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Christians; What does Isaiah 53:5 mean to you?How do Jews interpret Isaiah 53?Is it true that Orthodox Jews are not allowed to see Isaiah chapter 53 (as in Christian Bibles)?

Trending Questions

How do Christians explain away all the DNA and fossil evidence of evolution ?43 answersI am an atheist and when I die I discover that God really exists would I be punished for not believing in his existence? Why?63 answersAtheists what is your testimony of being an atheist?15 answersIs there a principal message of the Bible?38 answersIf god didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. Why didn’t he just put up a fence around it?28 answers