Matthew 23:35

[Rebecca]

Interesting thank you.  If the situation came about would you  marry your brother's childless widow?
IF a family member was to go astray to another religion would you stone them? How literal do you understand the Scriptures?

[Fenris]

Interesting thank you.

Of course!

  If the situation came about would you  marry your brother's childless widow?

This is not done nowadays for a host of reasons, and instead the rite of refusal is performed (Deuteronomy 25: 8-10)

IF a family member was to go astray to another religion would you stone them?

Only a Jewish court has the right to do that and there is procedure to be followed. Of course since no such courts exist, it doesn't happen nowadays.

How literal do you understand the Scriptures?

I mean I guess it depends on the scripture in question. If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

[ProDeo]

Isa 53, one more time, I just can not wrap my mind around the Jewish understanding. I take the KJV version since it does not use the word "pierced".

The prophet, complaining of incredulity, excuses the scandal of the cross
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 

by the benefit of his passion
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.

and the good success thereof
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

--------

1. Obviously the chapter is about a man, likely from is Israel, but the chapter is not about Israel, it's about a person.

2. This man died as an offering for sin, mentioned 7 times in the chapter.

If this man (also called the servant) is about Israel then it sounds like God is using Jews as an offering for sins, that Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Jews [v10],  But he (Jews) was wounded for our transgressions, he (Jews) was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed [v5]

And in a cynical way this line of thinking -- Jews dying as a sacrifice for the sins of the world -- matches history. The insane obsession of the world with Jews. The persecution of Jews during the last 1950 years, notable mainly by Christians and peaking during the Holocaust.

v7 - He was oppressed, and he (Jews) was afflicted, yet he (Jews) opened not his mouth: he (Jews) is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he (Jews) openeth not his mouth

And so it was during the Holocaust, first the framing with a star, followed by the transports by train to the smoking chimneys of Buchenwald. It all happened with hardly any resistance.

[Fenris]

Isa 53, one more time, I just can not wrap my mind around the Jewish understanding. I take the KJV version since it does not use the word "pierced".

It still contains mistranslations that change the meaning of the chapter.

The prophet, complaining of incredulity, excuses the scandal of the cross

Why assume that the speaker is the prophet?

The previous verse (unfortunately in the pervious chapter. This might be the worst chapter break in the entire bible).

kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
    and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Why can't the speaker be the astonished kings?

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,

"Shall grow up"? The Hebrew is past tense, as every modern translation has it. "he grew up ". Past tense.

he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 

Have the Jews been despised throughout history? Yes. Was Jesus even despised? Why no, he was quite the popular man according to the NT.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

As above. Jews were accused of being "cursed by God" as part of fairly standard and mainstream Christian theology.

He was wounded for our transgressions

Again, this is a mistranslation. The Hebrew says "he was wounded from our sins" not "for our sins". If you sin and strike me, I am being wounded "from your sin". That's not the same as "for your sin", which implies vicarious atonement, which does not exist in Judaism. 

he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

This is the exact phrase that was used to describe Jews during the Holocaust, "like sheep to the slaughter".

Jesus on the other hand did talk back as his trial, as I have already cited.

for he was cut off out of the land of the living:

The land of Israel is called "the land of the living" (see Ezekiel and elsewhere) so this could just mean exile.

for the transgression of my people

"From", not "for"

was he stricken

Hebrew actually says "a plague befell them", plural.

And he made his grave with the wicked

When Jews were oppressed and murdered, they were buried as common criminals, if they were buried at all.

and with the rich in his death

Hebrew actually says "deaths", plural. Perhaps meaning Jews were  executed by oppressive governments in every way they knew how to deal with powerful people. 

because he had done no violence

Did the Jews deserve what was done to them? Executed as though they were hardened criminals?

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him

One of those Christian things that doesn't make sense to non Christians. God is God's servant? It pleased the Lord to bruise the Lord?

his soul an offering for sin

There's is no "soul" offering for sin. Animal's bodies are sacrificed, not souls. The verse could also be read "If his soul acknowledges guilt" which makes perfect sense with the above reading of being cut off "from the land of the living" meaning exile. The Jews are exiled as punishment and correction; if they acknowledge their guilt, God rewards and bring them back. Basically all the messianic prophecies.

he shall see [his] seed

Jesus had no children. On the other hand, for her 100th birthday, a woman who survived the Holocaust had a picture taken at the Western Wall of all her descendants. There's something like 120 of them.

he shall prolong his days

Jesus as God lives forever, wo what does this even mean in your understanding?

Your points

1. Obviously the chapter is about a man, likely from is Israel, but the chapter is not about Israel, it's about a person.

Why "obviously"?  God uses the term "my servant", singular, to refer to Israel something like nine times between Isaiah 40 and 52.

2. This man died as an offering for sin, mentioned 7 times in the chapter.

Not what it says, as I have corrected above.

If this man (also called the servant) is about Israel then it sounds like God is using Jews as an offering for sins

Again, not so.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise [/color]Jews[/i] [v10],  But he (Jews) was wounded for our transgressions, he (Jews) was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed [v5]

From, not for.

And in a cynical way this line of thinking -- Jews dying as a sacrifice for the sins of the world -- matches history. The insane obsession of the world with Jews. The persecution of Jews during the last 1950 years, notable mainly by Christians and peaking during the Holocaust.

This is very Christian imagery, but I see what you mean.

[Fenris]

In an idle moment, I've considered that Christianity would make a stronger case without all the proof texts. No, wait, hear me out.

The problem with the gospel authors (whoever they were) is that they try too hard. They are very creative in finding references to Jesus. And there's a major problem in how they go about it. They almost always ignore context. Isaiah 53 is one such example. Isaiah 53 is not a book. It's a chapter in a book. And when I read a book, I don't just read one chapter. I read the whole book. In order. So for example, in the case of 53, there is a servant. Who is the servant? The chapter doesn't say. Do previous chapters tell us? Why yes, they do. The servant is identified as national Israel multiple times between Isaiah 42 and 52. Yet the gospel authors and you wonderful people ignore this. There is no reason to assume that 53 is about the messiah, aside from you claiming that it is.

Or the surrounding chapters. What's Isaiah 52 about? Most Christians don't know or care. But it's the text immediately preceding 53. And remember, in biblical times there were no chapter breaks. There was just one long scroll. So what's chapter 52 about, anyway? It begins

Awaken, awaken, put on your strength, O Zion; put on the garments of your beauty, Jerusalem the Holy City, for no longer shall the uncircumcised or the unclean continue to enter you.

and

Burst out in song, sing together, O ruins of Jerusalem, for the Lord has consoled His people; He has redeemed Jerusalem.

It's about the redemption of Zion and the ingathering of Jewish exiles in the messianic era.

Ok, what's Isaiah 54 about then?

It begins

"Sing you barren woman who has not borne; burst out into song and jubilate, you who have not experienced birth pangs, for the children of the desolate one are more than the children of the married woman," says the Lord.

and

For right and left shall you prevail, and your seed shall inherit nations and repeople desolate cities.

And the beautiful and poetic

"For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you. With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord. "For this is to Me as the waters of Noah, as I swore that the waters of Noah shall never again pass over the earth, so have I sworn neither to be wroth with you nor to rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

Imagine! The last 2,000 years of exile was but "a small moment" that God has forsaken us! What will follow is everlasting kindness. The very mountains will be ground down by time, but God's kindness will never leave us.

So chapter 54 is also about the redemption of Zion and the ingathering of Jewish exiles.

Knowing this context, what can we say about chapter 53? It must be related in some way.

So the Jewish understanding, where the speaker is the nations of the world in the messianic era, understanding that they were wrong in their treatment of Jews during the exile, is logical and connected to the surrounding chapters.

[ProDeo]

I have read chapter 52 and 52 and they fit in the future Christian understanding, Jerusalem the center of the world. An example from the NT -

1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place1  of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,2  and God himself will be with them as their God.3  4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Back to chapter 53, now who is that person who dies for the sins of many, mentioned 7 times in the chapter?

I can't mention any OT saint that fits the criteria in chapter 53 unless it is a person yet to come.

[Fenris]

I have read chapter 52 and 52 and they fit in the future Christian understanding, Jerusalem the center of the world. An example from the NT -

I don't see how that applies to the text of 52 or 54.

I mean,

"For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you. With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord. "For this is to Me as the waters of Noah, as I swore that the waters of Noah shall never again pass over the earth, so have I sworn neither to be wroth with you nor to rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

How in Christian theology did God "forsake" Christians? Why do Christians need to be "gathered"? When was God "wrathful" towards Christians? When did God "rebuke" Christians?

If it's talking about Jews it makes perfect sense though.

And narrative flow is bonkers. 52 and 54 are future events, but 53 is talking about something that happened 2000 years ago? It's much more logical to read it as all referring to something in the future; 52 and 54 about the ingathering of Jewish exiles, and 53 about the sudden understanding of the gentile nations in the messianic era.

Back to chapter 53, now who is that person who dies for the sins of many, mentioned 7 times in the chapter?

It's not a "person", it's the servant of God. Who is identified by name multiple times. And he doesn't die "for" anyone's sins. That is a bad translation. We have discussed this already. If you ask a question, and I answer it, you can't ask the same question again. If this is how you want to have a discussion, I'll just start reposting my previous answer without comment.

[ProDeo]

I have read chapter 52 and 52 and they fit in the future Christian understanding, Jerusalem the center of the world. An example from the NT -

I don't see how that applies to the text of 52 or 54.

While you are the OT expert here, we (maybe) are the NT experts? 

How in Christian theology did God "forsake" Christians? Why do Christians need to be "gathered"? When was God "wrathful" towards Christians? When did God "rebuke" Christians?

Read -
1. Revelation chapters 2 and 3
2. Romans chapter 11 as a whole, key verses 21-24.

There must be more, but note the NT is about the the first century only.

And narrative flow is bonkers. 52 and 54 are future events, but 53 is talking about something that happened 2000 years ago? It's much more logical to read it as all referring to something in the future; 52 and 54 about the ingathering of Jewish exiles, and 53 about the sudden understanding of the gentile nations in the messianic era.

And what is there to understand for the gentiles?

Back to chapter 53, now who is that person who dies for the sins of many, mentioned 7 times in the chapter?

It's not a "person", it's the servant of God. Who is identified by name multiple times. And he doesn't die "for" anyone's sins. That is a bad translation. We have discussed this already. If you ask a question, and I answer it, you can't ask the same question again. If this is how you want to have a discussion, I'll just start reposting my previous answer without comment.

I have 5 translations and the all say the same thing, the servant is dying a horrible death for the sins of many. Please show me your translation of Isa 53, if it says something else......

[Fenris]

While you are the OT expert here, we (maybe) are the NT experts? 

We're talking about Is. 52-54. Which bible is that in, again?

How in Christian theology did God "forsake" Christians? Why do Christians need to be "gathered"? When was God "wrathful" towards Christians? When did God "rebuke" Christians?

Read -
1. Revelation chapters 2 and 3

I don't see how this correlates to Is 52 or 54 at all.

2. Romans chapter 11 as a whole, key verses 21-24.

I'll quote it, since you didn't.

21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
I mean there's so much wrong with comparing this to the Jewish diaspora. This is making a general statement about God having expectations. It even has a name "ethical monotheism." There's nothing here to suggest that God forsaking Christians or scattering them or that there's going to be some gathering of Christians at some later date. 

There must be more

Then find it. Because what you're citing doesn't fit.

And what is there to understand for the gentiles?

You mean, what does Is. 53 mean? It means that in the messianic era, when Is. 52 and 54 come to pass, the gentile nations will look upon the Jews with new understanding. That the Jews weren't suffering because God was smiting them, but because the gentile nations were. Mind you, this is both objectively true and also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Christianity is correct or not.

I have 5 translations and the all say the same thing, the servant is dying a horrible death for the sins of many. Please show me your translation of Isa 53, if it says something else......

How odd. You mean that some Christians translating the Hebrew bible are putting their own theology before an accurate reading of the text? Impossible.

This is the NIV: But he was pierced for our transgressions

So first of all, it doesn't say "pierced". That's being really creative with the text. I suppose because Jesus was pierced on the cross. But the Hebrew word really means something like "pained" which one could translate as "wounded." But "pierced"? Trying to push a point, NIV? And then it doesn't say "for our transgressions" it says "from our sins". That's a huge difference. Huuuge as Donald Trump might say. "For our sins" means vicarious atonement. "From our sins" simply means that "we sinned, and our sins hurt the servant".

This juxtaposes perfectly with the previous verse "Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed." In other words, "we thought he was smitten by God. Yet really he was smitten by us. It was our sinful behavior in oppressing him that caused his suffering. Not God".

Interestingly enough, the "Contemporary English Version" of the translation on Biblehub gets it sort of right. It reads "He was wounded and crushed because of our sins; by taking our punishment, he made us completely well." It switches "for" and puts in "because" (which still isn't great, because the Hebrew prefix "mem" means "from" and not "because of...") but the implication of vicarious atonement isn't present. I also like the end of the verse "he made us well" because some oppressors of the Jews actually used that language. "We have to eliminate the Jews (from our country, from the world, whatever)" in order to "heal our society".

And again, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that this is talking about the messiah, aside from you saying so. The servant is identified over and over again by Isaiah.

41:8 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend
41:9 I brought you from the ends of the earth and called you from its farthest corners. I said, 'You are My servant.' I have chosen and not rejected you.

44:1 But now listen, Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen.

44:21 Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are My servant, O Israel. I have made you, and you are My servant; O Israel, I will never forget you.

45:4 For the sake of Jacob My servant and Israel My chosen one

[Fenris]

I feel a Hebrew lesson coming on.

Let's focus on the part of the verse in question.

How do we know it means "From our sins" and not "For our sins?"

In Hebrew, like European languages but unlike English, words are conjugated. Anyone who knows French, Spanish, or Italian knows what I am talking about.

So we begin with a root word. In this case, "פְּשָׁעֵ֔" "pesha" which is usually translated as "transgression".

Then we add on a suffix to the word "פְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ" "Pesha-enu" which makes the word plural and possessive, "our transgressions".

And finally we add on the prefix "מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ" Mi-pesha-enu" which means "from our transgressions".

This is all basic Hebrew and completely non controversial.

That the majority of Christian bibles choose the mistranslate the word shows them choosing their agenda over a faithful reading of what the bible actually says. They're trying too hard. Interestingly, there are a couple of Christian commentators who do understand Is. 53 as being national Israel. They're still Christians. Understanding the chapter in this way does not destroy Christian theology.

[Athanasius]

I feel a Hebrew lesson coming on.

Let's focus on the part of the verse in question.

How do we know it means "From our sins" and not "For our sins?"

In Hebrew, like European languages but unlike English, words are conjugated. Anyone who knows French, Spanish, or Italian knows what I am talking about.

So we begin with a root word. In this case, "פְּשָׁעֵ֔" "pesha" which is usually translated as "transgression".

Then we add on a suffix to the word "פְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ" "Pesha-enu" which makes the word plural and possessive, "our transgressions".

And finally we add on the prefix "מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ" Mi-pesha-enu" which means "from our transgressions".

This is all basic Hebrew and completely non controversial.

That the majority of Christian bibles choose the mistranslate the word shows them choosing their agenda over a faithful reading of what the bible actually says. They're trying too hard. Interestingly, there are a couple of Christian commentators who do understand Is. 53 as being national Israel. They're still Christians. Understanding the chapter in this way does not destroy Christian theology.

It's a curious translational "habit", given the NT references to Isaiah 53 exist either way. I suppose the more fundamental question is whether NT references to Isaiah 53 view the passage as Isaiah 53 would have been viewed previously. Clearly, there's a shift from Israel to the person of Jesus as far as the NT authors are concerned, with Jesus himself making reference according to Luke.

[Sojourner]

Then there's this passage from the Babylonian Talmud:

R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah’s] name? …The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.
(Sanhedrin 98b)

For clarification, here is the complete text of Sanhedrin 98b 14:

מה שמו דבי רבי שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר (בראשית מט, י) עד כי יבא שילה דבי רבי ינאי אמרי ינון שמו שנאמר (תהלים עב, יז) יהי שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו דבי רבי חנינה אמר חנינה שמו שנאמר (ירמיהו טז, יג) אשר לא אתן לכם חנינה ויש אומרים מנחם בן חזקיה שמו שנאמר (איכה א, טז) כי רחק ממני מנחם משיב נפשי ורבנן אמרי חיוורא דבי רבי שמו שנאמר (ישעיהו נג, ד) אכן חליינו הוא נשא ומכאובינו סבלם ואנחנו חשבנוהו נגוע מוכה אלהים ומעונה
Apropos the Messiah, the Gemara asks: What is his name? The school of Rabbi Sheila says: Shiloh is his name, as it is stated: “Until when Shiloh shall come” (Genesis 49:10). The school of Rabbi Yannai says: Yinnon is his name, as it is stated: “May his name endure forever; may his name continue [yinnon] as long as the sun; and may men bless themselves by him” (Psalms 72:17). The school of Rabbi Ḥanina says: Ḥanina is his name, as it is stated: “For I will show you no favor [ḥanina]” (Jeremiah 16:13). And some say that Menaḥem ben Ḥizkiyya is his name, as it is stated: “Because the comforter [menaḥem] that should relieve my soul is far from me” (Lamentations 1:16). And the Rabbis say: The leper of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is his name, as it is stated: “Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4).

[Fenris]

Then there's this passage from the Babylonian Talmud:

R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah’s] name? …The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.
(Sanhedrin 98b)

This is pun, not a theological statement.

[Sojourner]

There are puns in the Talmud? I thought it was a source of information.

[Fenris]

It's a curious translational "habit", given the NT references to Isaiah 53 exist either way.

I am unsure what you mean by this.

I suppose the more fundamental question is whether NT references to Isaiah 53 view the passage as Isaiah 53 would have been viewed previously.


Clearly, there's a shift from Israel to the person of Jesus as far as the NT authors are concerned

It's not exactly so clear. Again, none of Jesus's disciples are expecting his death as fulfilment of Is. 53.  Ex post facto they may add it on as some sort of proof text, but that would mean that prior to Jesus nobody read it that way.

And again, that means relying on a problematic translation, context, logical flow of the text, etc.