• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who is the Suffering Servant in Isaiah?

gnostic

The Lost One
Pegg said:
its pretty clear that the 'suffering servant' cannot be Israel because as the Encyclopaedia Judaica says: “The real Israel is sinful and the Servant [of Isaiah 53], free of sin.” 1971, Volume 9, page 65.

Jesus is not the Suffering Servant, because many times in other chapters of Isaiah, the word "servant" is often and explicitly say Jacob or Israel, and sometimes both Jacob and Israel (instances of both - 41:8, 44:1, 44:24, 45:4). The alternatives are Isaiah himself (mentioned once as servant - 20:3) and David (37:35). I don't know (or remember) who this Eliakim son of Hilkiah is.

Israel being Jacob - and the number of times Jacob-Israel were mentioned as a "servant", make Jacob-Israel most likely candidate as the Suffering Servant.
 
Last edited:

steeltoes

Junior member
Jesus is not the Suffering Servant, because many times in other chapters of Isaiah, the word "servant" is often and explicitly say Jacob or Israel, and sometimes both Jacob and Israel (instances of both - 41:8, 44:1, 44:24, 45:4). The alternatives are Isaiah himself (mentioned once as servant - 20:3) and David (37:35).

Israel being Jacob - and the number of times Jacob-Israel were mentioned as a "servant", make Jacob-Israel most likely candidate as the Suffering Servant.

I would say you are correct about that, however the gospel writers appear to have modeled their Jesus on Isaiah's suffering servant so that is where the confusion comes about.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
In Isaiah 53, where it talked about the servant "suffering", I believed that most Christians believed these parts referred to Jesus.

For instance, according to what I remember of Christian or church teachings, Jesus suffered for their sins, when he was beaten and crucified, in order to save them. Sort of like sin offering. Jesus was atoning for us mere mortals.

I think that's the main reasons why Christians believed that Jesus was the Suffering Servant. It could be the case.

However, I believed that the Suffering Servant could symbolize something else, other than the Christian interpretation.

Now, I preferred to reading narrative (drama or adventure) because I find it interesting. :yes: :yes: I know, I'm addicted to storytelling, like myths. But my point is that I prefer to reading narratives than reading about law, morality or poetry, or in the case of religious scriptures, what they called prophecy. The problem I have with writings of law, morality or ethics is they can be downright boring, :sleep: especially when the scriptures goes on and on about sins...sorry, but I'm not obsessed with sins. And then there are so-called prophecies, which are often confusing, and can mean any number of things; to sum it up - prophecy is open interpretation - and 9 out of ten times, your will interpretation sucks if you're wrong.

Anyway getting back to my point, is that Moses introduced a law or custom (don't really know which it is...or it could be both) for the Levite to use.

I am referring to the sin offering...but more to the point - the Day of Atonement.

Sin offering is way of atoning. And this usually involved the sacrifice of a goat (see Leviticus 3:12-16, 4:1-28 (where either bull or goat being used), 5:2-6; Leviticus 9, 10, etc.)

The most interesting one is sin-offering where 2 goats were used; see Leviticus 16.

Here, one goat was offered as a sacrifice to God, while the other goat was to be used as atonement for the sins of all the tribes of Israel. This 2nd goat was the scapegoat. In JPS, it was offering to Azazel:



Who this Azazel is, I don't know.

Other translations leave out Azazel, and just called it scapegoat, because Azazel means "scapegoat".

But anyway, like Jesus or the Suffering Servant bearing the sins of others, so does this scapegoat.

The scapegoat was to be presented to God first, before sending into the wilderness:



Am I saying that the Suffering Servant is the goat?

:no: What I am saying the Suffering Servant bear the sins of his people (Israelite), just as the goat to Azazel did, as form of atonement for the people. The Suffering Servant is a symbol for sin offering and atonement. So is the scapegoat (being the symbol of Israelite's sins) in Leviticus 16.

In the case of Isaiah's Suffering Servant, I don't think it should be taken too literal.

Am I making any sense? I do tends to get "sidetracked" or ramble off. :sorry1:

To get a better sense of Isaiah 53... start reading it at Isaiah 51:22, and keep Isaiah 52:15 in mind as you read Isaiah 53:1.

Realize that yes, Israel is the servant. And though they have spent many moments throughout history suffering as a result of their own sins, that is not what Isaiah 53 is about. The "we" and "us" and "our" from the beginning of Isaiah 53 refer to the nations that have caused Israel misery... not just in ancient times... but consider events like the Russian pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust...

And when the Jews are redeemed, the nations that persecuted and despised is will marvel at what they see, saying "Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?"



Take a look at this version of Isaiah 53. First read it without Rashi's commentary... then try reading it with Rashi's commentary.

Let me know what you think.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 53 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Jesus is not the Suffering Servant, because many times in other chapters of Isaiah, the word "servant" is often and explicitly say Jacob or Israel, and sometimes both Jacob and Israel (instances of both - 41:8, 44:1, 44:24, 45:4). The alternatives are Isaiah himself (mentioned once as servant - 20:3) and David (37:35). I don't know (or remember) who this Eliakim son of Hilkiah is.

Israel being Jacob - and the number of times Jacob-Israel were mentioned as a "servant", make Jacob-Israel most likely candidate as the Suffering Servant.

only if Jacob is sinless
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Israel being Jacob - and the number of times Jacob-Israel were mentioned as a "servant", make Jacob-Israel most likely candidate as the Suffering Servant.
As you had mentioned the lineage of Jacob is a likely explanation. If anyone can prove lineage to Jacob then they are a candidate.
only if Jacob is sinless

Isaiah doesn't say it needs to be someone sinless. It is prophesied that the lineage of Jacob would be a light for the gentiles. Gods chosen people are forgiven before they can take the sin from the world. God would have had to broke a covenant with the Jews in order for Jesus to be the exclusive savior.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Isaiah doesn't say it needs to be someone sinless. It is prophesied that the lineage of Jacob would be a light for the gentiles. Gods chosen people are forgiven before they can take the sin from the world. God would have had to broke a covenant with the Jews in order for Jesus to be the exclusive savior.

Just as sacrifices had to be perfect and without blemish, the servant had to be 'unblemished' and in 'perfect condition' to offer himself as a guilt offering on behalf of mankind.
Isaiah says:
Vs9: '....he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth. and ".... By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear. ...he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.

only a perfect person could have been an intercessor.... just as the sacrifices offered at the temple had to be perfect and blemish free.


But with regard to the covenant, God was not bound to it because the Jews broke the covenant and God stipulated that the covenant would remain inforce ONLY IF 'they' remained committed to it. But they didnt remain committed to it. They became disloyal and broke the rules of the covenant over and over again. God kept to his word but they didnt keep to theirs and therefore the covenant between them was void....this is why he promised a "new covenant, not like the old covenant which they themselves broke when I had husbandly ownership of them..."
 

gnostic

The Lost One
pegg said:
But with regard to the covenant, God was not bound to it because the Jews broke the covenant and God stipulated that the covenant would remain inforce ONLY IF 'they' remained committed to it.

Sorry, but what is this "covenant" did they imaginary break? Which covenant did they break?

They followed the law "Torah" that Moses introduced, which is the covenant between God and the 12 tribes. Did they break that?

They continued to follow the covenant of circumcision, introduced in the days of Abraham. Did they break?

They lost the temple in 70 CE, not so much because they lost faith in their god, but that they chose to revolt against Rome.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Sorry, but what is this "covenant" did they imaginary break? Which covenant did they break?

They followed the law "Torah" that Moses introduced, which is the covenant between God and the 12 tribes. Did they break that?

have you read the hebrew scriptures? It is a record of the nations breaking of the covenant and Gods anger at them for doing so.

Ezekiel 16:59 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘I also must do with you just as you have done, because you despised the oath in breaking [my] covenant

Jeremiah 22:9 And they will have to say: “On account of the fact that they left the covenant of Jehovah their God and proceeded to bow down to other gods and to serve them.”

2 Kings 22:17 due to the fact that they have left me and have gone making sacrificial smoke to other gods in order to offend me with all the work of their hands, and my rage has been set afire against this place and will not be extinguished.’”

Judges 2:12 Thus they abandoned Jehovah the God of their fathers who had brought them out of the land of Egypt and went following other gods from among the gods of the peoples who were all around them and they began bowing down to them, so that they offended Jehovah.

Judges 2:17 And even to their judges they did not listen, but they had immoral intercourse with other gods and went bowing down to them. They quickly turned aside from the way in which their forefathers had walked by obeying the commandments


They continued to follow the covenant of circumcision, introduced in the days of Abraham. Did they break?

what good is circumcision if you are not actually obeying the laws? The circumcision was a 'sign of the covenant'... but if you were not obeying the covenant then the 'sign' was pretty meaningless. Actually the prophet Jeremiah gave the message that the isrealites, though circumsized were actually 'uncircumsized just like the nations

Jeremiah 9:25 “Look! Days are coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will hold an accounting with everyone circumcised [but still] in uncircumcision, 26 upon Egypt and upon Judah and upon E′dom and upon the sons of Am′mon and upon Mo′ab and upon all those with hair clipped at the temples who are dwelling in the wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.”
So physical circumcision was irrelevant if a person did not have their 'heart' right toward God.

They lost the temple in 70 CE, not so much because they lost faith in their god, but that they chose to revolt against Rome.

God brought Rome against them just as he brought Babylon against them
Jeremiah 25:8 “Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘“For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”


God orchestrated the first destruction of Jerusalem and he orchestrated its final destruction. He will never allow it to be rebuilt because there is no more covenant and no priesthood to officiate it. And in the same way he will orchestrate the destruction on the current world religious system... God is not one to be mocked by religions who claim to serve him but fail to live up to his standards and laws.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Just as sacrifices had to be perfect and without blemish, the servant had to be 'unblemished' and in 'perfect condition' to offer himself as a guilt offering on behalf of mankind.
Isaiah says:
Vs9: '....he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth. and ".... By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear. ...he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.

only a perfect person could have been an intercessor.... just as the sacrifices offered at the temple had to be perfect and blemish free.


But with regard to the covenant, God was not bound to it because the Jews broke the covenant and God stipulated that the covenant would remain inforce ONLY IF 'they' remained committed to it. But they didnt remain committed to it. They became disloyal and broke the rules of the covenant over and over again. God kept to his word but they didnt keep to theirs and therefore the covenant between them was void....this is why he promised a "new covenant, not like the old covenant which they themselves broke when I had husbandly ownership of them..."
There is nothing there saying it has to be a sacrifice. It says by way of "knowledge" he brings "righteousness". Also Jacob was said to be righteous as well as the decedents. That covenant cannot be broken or else Jesus certainly could not be chosen since the promise was for the entire line of Jacob. Were all of Jesus ancestors supposed to be fallen, probably not if Jesus was supposed to be clean.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
the Land will be bereft of them, appeasing its sabbaticals when it had been desolate of them, and they will gain appeasement for their iniquity. This was all in retribution for their having despised My ordinances and in retribution for their having rejected My statutes.

But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their God.

I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God to them. I am the Lord.

Leviticus 26:43-45

One among several assurances that God's covenant with Israel is eternal.

Pegg's misunderstanding and consequent misuse of scripture to suggest otherwise is an indication that she has no clue what she is talking about.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
the Land will be bereft of them, appeasing its sabbaticals when it had been desolate of them, and they will gain appeasement for their iniquity. This was all in retribution for their having despised My ordinances and in retribution for their having rejected My statutes.

But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their God.

I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God to them. I am the Lord.

Leviticus 26:43-45

One among several assurances that God's covenant with Israel is eternal.

Pegg's misunderstanding and consequent misuse of scripture to suggest otherwise is an indication that she has no clue what she is talking about.

Gods promises are eternal for those who are circumcised in heart.....and that could be anyone, a jew, a greek, an arab, an indian etc etc etc
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
There is nothing there saying it has to be a sacrifice. It says by way of "knowledge" he brings "righteousness". Also Jacob was said to be righteous as well as the decedents. That covenant cannot be broken or else Jesus certainly could not be chosen since the promise was for the entire line of Jacob. Were all of Jesus ancestors supposed to be fallen, probably not if Jesus was supposed to be clean.

i would say that God only kept the covenant with the Israelites inplace for the sake of Abraham his friend. See what happened in Deuteronomy 9 when God became very angry with Isreal and wanted to do away with them... Moses had to plead for them to be spared.

Deut 9:13 And Jehovah went on to say this to me, ‘I have seen this people, and, look! it is a stiff-necked people. 14 Let me alone that I may annihilate them and wipe out their name from under the heavens, and let me make you a nation mightier and more populous than they are....19 I was scared because of the hot anger with which Jehovah had got indignant at YOU to the point of annihilating YOU. However, Jehovah listened to me also that time...25 “So I kept prostrating myself before Jehovah forty days and forty nights, for I prostrated myself thus because Jehovah talked of annihilating YOU

But once the Messiah had appeared, there was no need to keep the covenant in force for a wayward nation because Abraham could be blessed through those who joined themselves to the Messiah. Can you come up with any good reasons why God should keep a covenant in place when those involved continually break it???
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
pegg said:
have you read the hebrew scriptures?

Have you? :rolleyes:

pegg said:
It is a record of the nations breaking of the covenant and Gods anger at them for doing so.

Is that all you got out of the Hebrew scriptures, which you would call the Old Testament (OT)? :p

Look, I am not the one who believe in miracles and all, but I do know how to read ancient literature.

Sure, there are many things I probably don't understand, because I am limited by not being a follower of either Jewish or Christian inner teachings. There are lot of symbols that I don't understand, customs and rituals that seemed senseless to me, as well as being outdated.

But is that all you really see the Jews, past and present? Breakers of covenants?

Then, it would seemed that you don't understand the Hebrew scriptures at all, or the people that were presented in the narrative of your OT.

The OT stories are not just about Hebrews, Israelites, Jews or whatever you want to call them having "records" of turning away from God; it is also about them being able to find their way back to God. And this God, if you truly believe that he is loving, forgiving or merciful god that Christians teaches and have taught, then he would always accept them back in the fold, and forgive them. For every warning and punishment the OT god will inflict upon the descendants of Jacob as foretold by the prophets, there were also messages of forgiveness, reconciliation and acceptance.

You had quoted God's warnings, threats and punishments, and yet you also ignore that God had other messages that he would always be patient enough to accept them back and forgiving them.

I may not believe in the stories and I may not be at all convince at the stories, but I understand the stories, far better than you.

You'd seem ready to believed that already they have gone to Christian hell that fundamental Christians are so fond of believing. The hell that doesn't exist in Judaism or in the Hebrew Scriptures. That's because hell was a foreign concept that Christians borrowed from the Egyptians and Greeks during the Hellenistic period or the late Second Temple period. But that's beside the point.

Your Jesus told you not to judge others, not to persecute others, but it would seem that such simple advice he had given to you, is a lot harder to follow.

You've already pass judgement upon them, and have already condemn them. You are quite ready to blame Jews for this so-called broken covenants, but you have failed to grasp what the covenants are really all about.

Warning: sidetrack again. And the Christian teaching of God condemning man for eternity in hell, seemed to be even a worse tyrant than that of Jewish teaching. This teaching of eternal reward and eternal torment is sadistic in the extreme.

But getting back to the point about covenant. Where does Jesus say that god that the Jews have broken the covenant and then decided that no more dealing with Jews? Where Jesus say that Jews are no longer parts if God's covenants?

Jesus never said no such things.

I don't believe in no mad BS rantings of the Book of Revelation, but according to Christian teachings, all of it is supposed to be prophecies of the coming apocalypses and Jesus' second coming. In all the death and destruction that were to come, it clearly stated that 144,000 people would be saved, would come from the twelve tribes of Israel.

Israelites, not Christians, will be saved, in the Revelation's apocalypse. If that crap of literature (Revelation) is supposed to be true, then this god of yours, is not done with the Jews...not unless you think this author John or your god is lying.

But Christians, such as yourself, are good at twisting words around to suit church teachings, so that there are no Hebrew context but that of propaganda in replacement theology.

Editor's notes: I had edited my post, which I wrote late last night, before I went to bed. Just reworded so it make more sense. :sorry1:
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
pegg said:
Gods promises are eternal for those who are circumcised in heart.....and that could be anyone, a jew, a greek, an arab, an indian etc etc etc

If God's promises and covenant are supposed to be eternal, but if God kept breaking them, then they are not really "eternal", are they?

Which is it? Eternal or not?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Can you come up with any good reasons why God should keep a covenant in place when those involved continually break it???

Everybody continually breaks it, christians are no different in that respect. People are righteous by virtue of God saying so.

Aside from that your argument is that Jesus is the suffering servant. Jacobs lineage had to be blessed/chosen for this to even be true.
 

jerusalemgifts

New Member
Isaiah 53 says "for my people, he was stricken". The 53rd chapter goes on to say that HE was wounded for OUR transgressions. So the question is, who are Isaiah's people? Whose transgressions is HE wounded for? The answer is ISRAEL, so Israel cannot be wounded for the sake of itself when Israel sinned and broke the covenant in the first place (Jeremiah 31).
 
Top