Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dannyza1981 (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 19 July 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Israel theory

Citing a number of Biblical verses that refer to Israel as the "servant", many of them from the Book of Isaiah,[1] many Jewish scholars, among others, have argued that the "servant" in question is actually the nation of Israel.[2] These scholars also argue that verse 10 cannot be describing Jesus. The verse states:

10he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days

This description, when taken literally, is inconsistent with the short, childless life of Jesus.[2] Christian theologians contend that verse 10 is not to be taken literally: the "children" referred to is the Church, and the "long life" refers to the Resurrection.[3]

The reason that the Servant is referred to in the third person may be that these verses are written from the point of view of Gentile nations amazed at Israel's restoration, or it may simply be a method of figurative description.[4][2] Supporters of this theory argue that the reason for the use of past tense is based on the differences between Proto-Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah. Chapters 40-55 of Isaiah are referred to as "Deutero-Isaiah" because the themes and language are different from the rest of the book, leading some scholars to believe it was written by another author. Deutero-Isaiah differs from Proto-Isaiah in that it refers to Israel as already restored, which could account for the past-tense of the passage.[2]

The Servant passages in Isaiah, and especially Isaiah 53, has to be compared with Psalm 44. Psalm 44 directly parallels the Servant Songs, it is probably the best defense for reading Isaiah 53 as applicable to the nation of Israel.

Arguments for and against the "nation of Israel" theory

Many modern Christian scholars cite the Babylonian Talmud as the "earliest indisputable, firsthand evidence of a rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 which takes the servant as the Messiah, and attributes suffering to him"[5]

Christians argue that the "servant" could not have been the nation of Israel because of scriptural contradictions that would arise. Primarily, the servant is described as "innocent and guiltless," but Isaiah 1:4 declares the nation of Israel to be "...a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!"[3], along with countless other verses that declare Israel's iniquity including Isaiah 64:6. Many Jews see no contradiction and view the descriptions of Israel's iniquity as being hyperbolic. This is in contrast to the Christian doctrine of Supersessionism.

In addition, Christians argue that if the "servant" were Israel, verse 10 ("It pleased the LORD to bruise him") would thereby be illogical because it entails God enjoying the sufferings of His elect people, which would seem to have no purpose, whereas the suffering of Jesus would ultimately mean an absolution of sin and victory for mankind.[3] It has also been argued that the nation of Israel, even through all of its suffering and torment can not have "atoned" for the sins of mankind because they were not guiltless.[3]

Most Jewish scholars equate the phrase "It pleased..." with the concept of divine kingship. All royal acts in an absolute kingdom take place at the "pleasure" of the king, regardless of whether they bring the king actual joy or not. Additionally, Jewish theologians contend that one need not be guiltless for his suffering to have meaning.

Another Christian argument is that, although Isaiah does elsewhere refer to "my servant Israel," it is reasonable to argue that this "Israel" is not in fact the nation of Israel, but the Messiah. Just as the Messiah is sometimes referred to as "David," after his progenitor (cf. Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24), it is not unreasonable that he might be referred to as "Israel."

As a proof to this idea, in Isaiah 49:3 KJV, the LORD states, "Thou art My servant, O' Israel, in whom I will be glorified." Shortly thereafter, the scripture reveals that this servant called "Israel" would be responsible "to bring Jacob again to Him (the LORD), though Israel be not gathered..." (Isa. 49:5), and the LORD declares that the servant called "Israel" should be "My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel..." Furthermore, the LORD states, "...I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (Isa. 49:6). This "Israel" could be seen as the Messiah, who is to be responsible for raising Jacob and re-gathering Israel (Daniel. 7:13; Isa. 27:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; 1 Corinthians 15:52-55; Gospel of Matthew 24:29-31).

On the other hand, many Jewish scholars view this text as referring to the righteous among Israel bringing all of Israel back to Him, after which the entire nation would serve as an example for other nations to follow. Furthermore, if the verse in question is punctuated differently, it is not the servant who will gather Israel, but God.

Critics, including Jews for Judaism founder Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz in his book "The Jewish Response To Missionaries," of the Christian viewpoint claim that the Isaiah 53 passage is mistranslated in Christian Bibles to support theological concepts. The original Hebrew, they argue, portrays a different picture. For example, the preposition "mi" in Isaiah 53:5 and 53:8 is commonly translated as "for." The meaning of "mi" is not for but rather "from" or "because of". Thus the Judaica Press Tanach translates Isaiah 53:5 as: "But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed." Other examples of translation errors[citation needed] are Isaiah 53:8 where the Hebrew phrase "mi-pesha’ ‘ami niga’ lamo" is translated as "for the transgression of my people was he stricken". The word "lamo" is the poetic form of the Hebrew "lahem" which means their/them not him and is used as such throughout the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish rendition of Isaiah 53:8 then is: "because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them." Based on this, the servant is argued to be a collective entity not a person. This claim is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for "death" in the following verse of Isaiah 53:9, "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;" is plural.

  1. ^ Isaiah 41:8-9, Isaiah 44:1, Isaiah 44:21, and Isaiah 49:3
  2. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Jewish viewpoint 1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d "Christian viewpoint 1]". Chaim. Retrieved 2006-07-05.
  4. ^ as in Isaiah 52:15
  5. ^ Sydney H. T. Page, “The Suffering Servant Between The Testaments,” New Testament Studies, 31 (1985): 491-492.