Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 53

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnnetteJoan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnnetteJoan

Guest
I found this video very interesting…the prophecy of Messiah in Isaiah 53 is similar to what is in Wisdom 2:12-21 in the LXX (Septuagint), or Catholic and EO Old Testament.

Also, Isaiah 53 mirrors what the Ramchal taught in Derekh Hashem, which is that Judaism teaches that there are tzaddikim who can atone for the sins of their generation, and there is one especially holy tzadik who can atone for all the sins of the human race from the Garden of Eden onward:

 
Last edited:
The common Jewish answer is that Isaiah 53 is not speaking of the Messiah per se, but rather the entire People of Israel as one person - the suffering servant Israel.

Correct @meltzerboy2?

This interpretation is accepted by Catholics - but we also add another spiritual-Messianic/Christological interpretation to it wherein we see Jesus Christ and his Passion as the ultimate suffering servant - the suffering servant Israel par excellence and the deliverer of his people.

Interesting side note - the names Isaiah and Jesus in Hebrew are etymologically very similar - Yeshayahu/Yahoshua - and have the same basic connotation of “the LORD is salvation / the Savior is the LORD” - that many have thought of Isaiah as being a mystical reference to Jesus himself.

The Douay Rheims Bible even notes this in its introduction to the book of Isaias, saying “His very name is not without mystery: for Isaias in Hebrew signifies the Salvation of the LORD.”
 
Last edited:
The Jews have only adopted the “The Suffering Servant is Am Yisrael” view since the time of Christ, interestingly. Prior to that they held that it referred to Mashiach. 🙂

Speaking as a traditional Catholic, I hold to the traditional Catholic (not post V2) view.
 
AnnetteJoan said:
Speaking as a traditional Catholic, I hold to the traditional Catholic (not post V2) view.
Click to expand...
There’s no need to force Isa 53 into an either/or dichotomy.

You can accept both interpretations and see them both in an orthodox light.
 
This refers if I understand the Holy Trinity correctly to the hypostasis (unchangeable state) of the sacrifice of the Person Son (Jesus Christ) in the Holy Trinity - his sacrifice present before, during and after the actual events in NT. In Psalms also it is said ““it was you Lord who stood by me in hell”” (Christ descend into Hell before, during and after the actual Crucifixion in flesh).
In EO the prophecies refer to Jesus himself alone. There is no other interpretation added and this is why: since he had to trick the devil with a false accusation only a perfectly innocent man could actually be unjustly accused in front of God. And the only innocent one in front of God is God who is one with the Son and the Holy Spirit, so none of us humans could ever do it because we are never purely innocent and punishment would be applied for something…there’s always something.
In theory an angel could have done it (not a fallen one) because they are pure and perfect, but it was not God’s plan to do it with angels and He did it Himself through His son.
It awes me now how indebted we are to God continually. Not just the abstract love for us but His real sacrifice for us just so we can still exist after all we’ve done evil. I for one the worst of them all.
 
Actually, the Midrashic interpretation of the text, which supports and clarifies the plain meaning, states that the Suffering Servant of Israel includes the “saints” of Israel (Abraham, Moses, and the like) as well as the Messiah. But the twist is that the Messiah will be the only one among them who will generate the repentance of the gentiles, that is, the gentile nations toward their harsh treatment of the Jews. Thus rabbinic interpretations do not reject the Messianic message of the Suffering Servant but use it to represent the unprecedented act of contrition on the part of the nations who have oppressed Israel.
 
Last edited:
It always amazed me, the huge difference between what the Tanakh says about the Jewish people, and what the Talmudic interpretations and other teachings of Chazal say about them.
 
Last edited:
But if you prefer only the plain meaning of the text without the more profound contextual meanings (as do the Karaite Jews, for example), then there is even less justification to associate the Suffering Servant with the Messiah since nearly every time the Suffering Servant is mentioned in the Book of Isaiah in the Servant Songs, it clearly refers to Jacob or Israel and has little connection with Messianic prophecy. At least the Midrashic interpretation incorporates the role of the Messiah to alleviate the suffering of the Jewish people by means of enabling the contrition of the gentile nations.
 
Last edited:
They can interpret it however they want, it doesn’t impact me.
All I was reflecting on was something I noticed in my years as an Orthodox Jew,
that while the Tanakh is very straightforward regarding the aveiros of the Jewish people,
the writings of Chazal and the Talmudic commentaries seem to whitewash them to make
the Jewish people seem as if they have never sinned. I always wondered about that.
 
As I’m sure you know, the purpose of the Oral Law of the Mishna and Talmud is to codify the oral tradition of the Law and explain the latter in more detail since a lot is left out in the Tanakh. The purpose is not to focus on sins of either commission or omission. Actually, I never felt that the enumeration of sins and prohibitions was the major purpose of the Tanakh either, but rather only a small part of the much deeper meaning.
 
Last edited:
I understand that, in fact its probably where the Church developed the belief in Tradition explaining passages of Scripture that are difficult to understand (iow, Orthodox Jews, like traditional Catholics, are not into ‘sola scriptura’, lol).

My point was that the Talmudic interpretations seem so diametrically opposed to what the Nevi’im in the Tanakh have said about the Jewish people. It often appeared to me as if the rabbinic sages were trying to whitewash the sins of Am Yisrael (though they do teach that the Second Temple was destroyed due to sinat chinam, or causeless hatred, of one Jew for another.)

I’ve seen too much in the Jewish community to ever think the Jewish people are as blameless as the Talmudic sages portray them as. As an example: I used to be involved in a charity that buried indigent Jews, and we often ran into the problem of the families of such Jews wanting nothing to do with them, refusing even to come to the funerals. This was heartbreaking and depressing, but the rabbi who helped run the charity chalked it up to “how Yidden get when they stop being shomer mitzvot (Torah observant)”…yet I knew religious Jews who were also like that, though of course, not as many.
 
Last edited:
I think what you’ve observed reveals there is good, bad, and ugly in the Jewish community as there is in the Catholic community (and Orthodox Christian, Protestant, SDA, Quaker, Mormon, JW, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Baha’i, atheist communities). Jews are no better AND no worse than any other group. And, I must add, less observant and non-observant Jews are no better AND no worse than Orthodox Jews.
 
Last edited:
That’s true, I just couldn’t understand why the Talmudic writings seem to try to whitewash things.

One thing that especially annoys me is that the entire world has focused on the pedophile scandal within the Catholic Church almost exclusively, yet sexual predators are a big problem within Judaism as well, esp Orthodox Judaism. This incident was just reported recently, one of many:


Protestants also are dealing with major pedophile issues within their churches…my own mother in law (my husband is a former Baptist) left her Baptist church after the pastor was arrested for having child porn on his computer. So I guess I wonder, why is only the Catholic Church targeted? (sorry for going off topic)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top