The "Passion" According to Isaiah

"One Jewish scholar, Claude Montefiore, explained: 'Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter [Isaiah 53] by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths … the omission is deliberate and striking.' Why is the omission so striking? We've left out a portion from our own prophets, ostensibly because of what Christians think about it."

Isaiah 53 is a well-known passage of Scripture to the avid student of the Bible. But most people are not avid Bible students and have not read this controversial passage. A recent informal survey illustrates this point.(1) One hundred Jews on the streets of Tel Aviv were asked, "Who do you think the 53rd chapter of Isaiah describes?" Most were unfamiliar with the passage and were asked to read it before answering. After doing so, many conceded that they did not know to whom it referred.

Some thought it was Jesus, but when it sunk in that the passage was a citation from the Tenach, they were put off. Others shrugged off the passage as too difficult to understand.

Some repeated what they had heard from Jews more religious than themselves: that it referred to the Jewish people or perhaps even the gentile nations. All seemed to think that whomever it referred to, it wouldn't make much difference in their daily lives.

Israel is unique inasmuch as it is probably the only place on earth where you can spend a couple of hours on a public street and be assured of getting one hundred Jewish opinions. (Not that our people outside of Israel are adverse to giving opinions, it's just difficult to find such a high concentration of us in any one place.) But Israel is not unique when it comes to the Jewish response to Isaiah 53. There is really no consensus based on personal knowledge of the passage. People either have not read it or they have accepted a status quo interpretation, or both.

One might think the passage is obscure and irrelevant based on the fact that so many people are unfamiliar with it. That unfamiliarity in part stems from the fact that Isaiah 53 does not appear in the regular synagogue calendar readings. Yet it could be argued that the very fact that it is left out shouts out the importance of this passage. Even the reasons for omitting it point to the uniqueness of this passage. For example, one Jewish scholar, Claude Montefiore, explained: "Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths … the omission is deliberate and striking."(2)

Why is the omission so striking? Because when we finish the cycle of readings for the year, we haven't really finished it. We've left out a portion from our own prophets, ostensibly because of what Christians think about it. Since when does the Christian interpretation of Jewish Scripture have a bearing on what is or is not read in synagogues all over the world?

The omission is striking because of what Montefiore does not quite say. It is not simply because of the Christian interpretation that the Isaiah passage is omitted. After all, the services from which it is omitted are not for Christian ears. They are for Jews. What does that imply? The problem is not what Christians think of the passage. The problem (according to those who omitted the passage) is what Jews might think.

This portion of Scripture is highly controversial. Because contrary to what those surveyed felt, many people have looked into the questions this passage poses and have found that the answers are extremely relevant to their own lives. Are you ready to know why?

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment, he was taken away.

For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will jusitfy many, and he will bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)

Those words were written over 2700 years ago. Yet many people who read them today find that the words seem to jump off the page. If nothing else, the chapter is packed with incredible drama, heroics and pathos. But many people find a personal challenge in these words that is interwoven with the questions: who is this person and what in the world was he doing?

They are questions worth considering for oneself, but it may also be helpful to see the progression of opinions given by our rabbis.

Some of the first written interpretations or targums (ancient paraphrases on biblical texts) see this passage as referring to an individual servant, the Messiah, who would suffer. Messianic Jewish talmudist, Rachmiel Frydland, recounts those early views:(3)

"Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God's Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century c.e., begins with the simple and worthy words:

'Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).'"

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)

He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities."

There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the trangression of the law; as it is written, "Surely our sicknesses he has carried." (Zohar II, 212a)

The early sages expected a personal Messiah to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy. No alternative interpretation was applied to this passage until the Middle Ages. And then, a completely different view was presented. This view was popularized by Jewish commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki), who lived one thousand years after Jesus.

Rashi held the position that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimchi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later—including Maimonides—realized the inconsistencies of Rashi's views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretations.

The objections these rabbis put forth to Rashi's view were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, "He was despised and rejected…he was pierced for our transgressions…he was led like a lamb to the slaughter," and so on.

Third, they noted verse 8 of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel. It reads:

By oppression and judgment, he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Were the Jewish people, God forbid, ever "cut off from the land of the living"? No! God promises that Israel will live forever:

"Only if these decrees [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] vanish from my sight," declares the Lord, "will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me." (Jeremiah 31:36)

Likewise, it is impossible to say that "for the transgression of my people he was stricken" since "my people" clearly means the Jewish people. If verse 8 refers to Israel, then are we to read that Israel is stricken for Israel because of Israel's sin? How can the sin-bearer and the sinner be the same? Likewise, how can Israel be the servant, the one who "had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth" (Isaiah 53:9)? Israel is not now, nor ever has been, without sin—the Scriptures are replete with examples of Israel's disobedience.

All of these inconsistencies troubled many rabbis and they expressed their opinions of Rashi's view in no uncertain terms. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Iben Crispin of Cordova, who lived in the fourteenth century, said of the Israel as servant interpretation, it "distorts the passage from its natural meaning" and that Isaiah 53 "was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not." (4)

When humanity was young, sacrificing one of your valued livestock was exactly that, a sacrifice. When we go to mass and spend an hour on our knees and give money, it's not nearly the sacrifice as they gave when they showed their faith and devotion by slaughtering livestock.

Love is not a feeling or a noun. It's an action, a verb. It always takes some sort of sacrifice. Whether you're sacrificing your time to cook someone you love dinner or drive them somewhere or your sacrificing savings to send your kid to college. Giving time at a soup kitchen. Priests and nuns (good ones) give up family, wealth and everything worldly for love of God and their fellow man. However you feel about priests and nuns, that's the verb love, not the mushy noun kind.

Christ was also sacrificed for us. What greater way to show your love than be tortured and die for someone? God didn't have to give us salvation, He's sovereign.

Imagine if you were to become a pig or a dog in order to help pigs or dogs, then be slaughtered on their behalf. I would say that you very much care for pigs and dogs for you to do such a thing.

If you read the NT, all of His teachings are perfect. All of them. Perfect love and a perfect instruction book on world peace as well as a how-to so that the human condition can evolve from being a mob of craven animals.

What did we do in return for these perfect teachings and this gift that changed the world? We killed Him. Yet killing Him changed everything, including how we count time.

As a logical person this should tell you something.

All of this being said, given that fact that we do believe in a God that created all we see before us, we should avoid too much in the way of trying to figure Him out. Such would be 1000 times more futile than an ant on the sidewalk trying to figure out the theory of relativity.

Instead we should be happy with these clues he gives us as to His presence and wisdom on life.

No?

I always had a mild curiousity about all those animal sacrifices. Millions and millions of them.

It wasn't really a stumbling block. God said do it, that was good enough for me. But I was still curious.

God made us with the ability to reason so we want to know stuff.

I heard a tape of Scott Hahn on covenant theology and he pointed out some things that made sense to me.

There was no prescribed daily ritual sacrifice until after the golden calf. From then on, there was a lot of prescribed sacrifice.

Among other passages, he pointed out chapter 20 of Ezekiel:
5
Thus speaks the Lord GOD: The day I chose Israel, I swore to the descendants of the house of Jacob; in the land of Egypt I revealed myself to them and swore: I am the LORD, your God.
6
That day I swore to bring them out of the land of Egypt to the land I had scouted for them, a land flowing with milk and honey, a jewel among all lands.
7
Then I said to them: Throw away, each of you, the detestable things that have held your eyes; do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD, your God.
8
But they rebelled against me and refused to listen to me; none of them threw away the detestable things that had held their eyes, they did not abandon the idols of Egypt.

There's more, of course. He also talked about the "idols of Egypt" and what we know from sources outside the Bible. The animals they worshipped as forms of gods included lambs, bullocks and goats.

The thought he put forward was that Israel was being bullheaded about putting aside false gods they had adopted in all those years in Egypt and they needed the daily sacrifice as a reminder that there is only one God. He ordered the sacrifices to help them.

As to Jesus defeating death through His sacrifice, well that's another subject.

He told us to love with our heart,soul and mind. There is a sequence there. If the mind goes first sometimes we bump our heads and hurt ourselves.

The "Jewish Roots" of Christianity.

IN SHORT... The newest technique used by Christian missionaries and other Christian Clergy, is what they call learning about "The Jewish Roots of Christianity." One might think this means how, in their opinion, Christianity began with Jews, or developed from Judaism. However, this is not what they mean by "the Jewish Roots." The way they show that the roots of Christianity are to be found in Judaism is that they put a Christian theological interpretation into a Jewish ceremony or ritual. Then they claim that this planted Christian theological interpretation, having been "found" in something Jewish (because it was planted there by them in the first place), shows that Christianity came from Judaism. This is nonsense, and shows the lengths they will go to, in order to obtain for themselves Jewish legitimacy.

A FULL EXPLANATION..

A Story:

David had a garden that was absolutely beautiful. In it, he grew the most perfect tomatoes that you have ever seen! One day, Matthew came along and planted cucumbers right in the middle of David's garden. When the cucumbers started sprouting, Matthew told everyone that the tomatoes were the root of his cucumbers. In other words, that the cucumbers had developed from the tomatoes, and were the natural result -- the goal -- of the tomatoes as they grew to maturity.

The above story may seem to you to be ridiculous, but this is exactly what many people who teach "The 'Jewish Roots' Of Christianity" actually do. They plant Christian cucumbers, so to speak, in the midst of the Jewish tomatoes, and then claim that what they planted there sprouted naturally from what was already growing there. In other words, they put a Christian theological interpretation into a Jewish ceremony or ritual. Then they claim that this planted Christian theological interpretation, having been "found" in something Jewish (because it was planted there by them in the first place), shows that Christianity came from Judaism. This is nonsense, and shows the lengths they will go to, in order to obtain for themselves Jewish legitimacy. Let me give you an example:

Most people are aware that there are three pieces of matzah on the Passover seder plate. Most people know that the middle matzah is taken out, broken into two, and one of the two pieces is then hidden away, brought out at the end of the meal, and is called the Afikoman. The matzah has stripes and lines of holes on it. Christians will claim that the matzah as well as the ritual with the Afikoman is symbolic of Jesus, and therefore indicates that the basic theology of Christianity can be found in Jewish rituals. This, to them, shows the "Jewish Roots" of Christianity. They will claim that the stripes and holes represent the marks on Jesus from the scourging he received, and the holes represent those on Jesus that were caused by the crucifixion. They will claim the three pieces of matzah represent the trinity of the Father, the SON, and the Holy Spirit. Please take note that it is the middle matzah, the "son" in the trinity, that is taken out and broken (crucified), hidden (buried), and brought back out (resurrected).

The problem with this is that it is an absolute lie. There was no seder, no Haggadah, no three pieces of Matzah on any seder plate, at the time of Jesus. There was not even a seder plate. The whole ritual developed hundreds of years after Jesus lived. The first discussions of a Passover ritual describe only one half of a piece of matzah. This half piece of Matzah was then broken in half, and one of these two pieces, now a fourth of the original whole, was set aside, to be eaten as the last part of the meal. It was not hidden, it was merely set aside, remaining in plain view. The idea of hiding it came in the middle 1600's, in Germany, as a way to keep the children interested in the service, an idea that eventually caught on throughout the world. The reason that the matzah has stripes and holes is that it is machine made. The machine causes the stripes and the holes as it pulls the dough through the machine. This machine was invented only about 150 years ago, in the middle of the 1800's.

Of course, Christian missionaries and those who want to see Christianity as coming from Judaism, can interpret anything at all in a Christian way. But that does not mean that Christianity developed from whatever they are interpreting.

A Christian might ask, "But weren't the first Christians actually Jews?" Yes, but this is irrelevant. The first Protestants were Roman Catholics. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest. The Roman Catholics do not consider Protestant Christianity to be merely another form of Roman Catholicism.

If you read the Apocryphal book of I Maccabbees, you will see that the first person killed in the Maccabbee's rebellion was a Jew. He was willing to go ahead and sacrifice a pig to Zeus, just as Mattathias had refused to do. Obviously, he had to have been a very secular, assimilated Jew. Had he survived Mattathias's attack, and later formed a religion that was dedicated to the worship of Zeus and Zeus's half-human sons, would that make his newly formed faith just another form of Judaism? Should he call his new faith, "Jews For Zeus," or "Jews For Zeus And His Half-Human Sons?" Would that mean that his new faith had "Jewish Roots?"

Christian missionaries, and this includes the "Jews" For Jesus, the Messianic "Jews," and the "Hebrew" Christians, will go to any length to get even one real Jew to convert. They will take anything that is Jewish and put into it Christian symbolism. Then they will claim that, since they can now find Christian symbolism in it, that it proves that Christianity developed from it, that it was the source of Christian theology, and that the Jews are too stupid to see how Christian theology is what Gd wanted them to see in it, in the first place.

However, this can be done with anything that is not Jewish as well!

One could do the same thing with pizza. Pizza has three basic elements to it, the bread, the tomato sauce, and the cheese. The middle element is the tomato sauce, which is red.

One could easily give a Christian interpretation to these three elements that define pizza:

The three basic ingredients of pizza represent the Christian trinity of the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit.

The bread: Jesus is called the bread of life. The dough is kneaded. This image of kneading the dough is the same as someone being beaten which could represent Jesus being scourged. The dough to make the bread is rolled over with an instrument, which pokes holes in the dough to remove any air before baking. This could be likened to Jesus receiving the holes in his body from the crucifixion, just like they say of the matzah.

The tomato sauce: The sauce is red like Jesus's blood, and it is spread all around the dough like the blood of a sacrifice is put on an altar.

The cheese: The cheese covers the rest, like the death of Jesus covers the sins of the people.

From what you have read above, you can easily see how anything, even pizza, can be used to symbolize Jesus. But does that mean that the symbolism found in pizza indicates The Pizza Roots of Christianity?

There are no Jewish Roots to Christianity, because the theology that supports it is antithetical to what the Bible says, and is diametrically opposite of what Judaism believes.

WHEN JEWS WILL FINALLY REALIZE JESUS CHRIST IS THERE MESSIAH

The conception of Antichrist will be like Christ's except that it will be by the devil instead of the Holy Ghost. He will have the devil's power like Christ had God's."

Dionysius of Luxemburg:"Elias will cause the rain, dew and snow to cease in those countries where the inhabitants oppose the two prophets and refuse to reject Antichrist.

The first land to be so punished will be Palestine in order to win over the Jews."

"After Elias finds the `Ark of the Covenant' of the Jews, (hidden until the recall of the Jews to God), he and Henoch will place the Blessed Sacrament upon it.

The Jews will then realise the Jesus Christ and not Antichrist is the true Messiah.

They will desert Antichrist and make a pilgrimage to Mount Nebo (where the Ark is found) bewailing the hardheartedness of their ancestors. Thereafter they will accept the Christian faith."

"The Antichrist will kill Henoch and Elias and leave them unburied. These will, however, be resurrected after three and one-half days and ascend into heaven in a cloud in the presence of their enemy. This miraculous event will actually confuse Antichrist. In order that the nations will not abandon him, he will lift himself with great majesty into space on Mt. Olivet, with the purported intention to cast down the prophets who have ascended into heaven. But in this moment Christ will strike him down. The earth will open and swallow him and his prophets alive. Then a large part of Jerusalem will fall into ruins from the earthquake."

St. Zenobius: "Then the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, shall come in person. He shall appear on the clouds of heaven surrounded by legions of angels; and, shining with glory, He will put to death Antichrist, the Beast, the Enemy, the Seducer, and all his followers. This shall be the end of time and the beginning of the general judgment."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.