Bearing sins

[ThomasDGW]

Isaiah 53 refers to the servant bearing the sins of others in 3 places: verse 6 (indirectly, through HaShem laying our iniquities on him), verse 11,  and verse 12. Tovia Singer, holding to the claim that the servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel, explains that this means that the Jews have borne the brunt of the sins of the nations, suffering because of their sinful actions.  I do not pretend to know Hebrew anywhere near as well as he does, and so it might be expected that I have to take his word that this is the correct meaning of the phrase "bearing sins".

However, I have a useful tool that can clarify meanings of Hebrew text, I think better than a dictionary: a Hebrew concordance, which lists every Hebrew word in the Bible and then lists every phrase in the Bible where that word is used, indicating the tense of the word. Mine is called The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament by George V. Wigram, which shows the King James translation of each phrase containing each Hebrew word

I looked up the word translated "bear/bore" in Isaiah 53:11, 12, "nawsaw" and scanned through the verses shown. It is used about 800 times in the Bible, but I focused on the times when it refers to bearing sins or guilt. I noted about 8 examples that I think shed light on this issue of bearing sins:

Exodus 28:38, 43 refer to the high priest, first bearing the iniquity of Israel in their holy offerings and then in the high priest bearing his own iniquity and dying if he is not dressed correctly when he enters the holy place.  Both refer to the weight or punishment of the sin, not effects of sinful actions.

Leviticus 5:1, 17 use the phrase to refer to a person who becomes aware of his sin that was previously hidden from his knowledge. It seems to me to refer to being guilty of the sin.

Leviticus 16:22 tells how the scapegoat bears the sins of Israel into the wilderness, taking the guilt away from the congregation.

Numbers 14:33 uses the phrase to refer to the innocent children of the rebels at Kadesh Barnea who will have to bear the sins of the rebels by being in the wilderness with them. Again, it refers to suffering the consequences of another's sin as if they were guilty, not the evil actions themselves.

Numbers 30:15 says that a husband of a vowing wife will bear her guilt if he doesn't annul her vow. Again, he is not getting hurt by the vow, but is charged with the guilt for it not being fulfilled.

Psalm 32:5 and 85:4 used the term to refer to God's forgiving the sin or not having the sin duly recompensed.  This seems close to the idea that Tovia expressed, but it involves the sinner being released from the guilt of the sin. That doesn't seem to me to fit with the NAZIs killing your family.

Ezekiel 4:5-6 refers to the prophet bearing the sins of Israel by lying on his side for about a year. Again, this doesn't fit with the idea of suffering their sinful actions, but rather taking on himself part of the punishment.

Ezekiel 18:19-20 is very emphatic that the son is not to bear the sin of the father. If bearing the sin of the father meant receiving his attacks in an abusive relationship, this verse would be nonsense, because this does happen, yet God says that the son shall not bear the sins of the father. It must mean being punished by God.

I scanned though the other verses, looking for those referring to bearing sins or guilt and found none that gave the meaning that Tovia Singer ascribes to the phrase.  I conclude that for the servant to bear the sins of many, it must mean that he takes away their guilt for the sin that they committed. Thus, it cannot refer to Israel. All of those anti-Semites are going to answer for their sins.

[rosends]

You have a few things to discuss here. The first is your reliance on translation but that, I guess, can't be helped. The second is your not understanding who is speaking and about what in most of Isaiah 53. The idea that the nation of Israel suffered is borne out by who is speaking -- foreign kings (through much of, but not all of 53) and their assessment of how the nation has suffered the punishments without having done the sins -- the sins were done by the foreign nations and Israel paid the penalty.

Next, you have to include other verses that say explicitly that the nation is suffering the punishment that should have been visited on others (verse 8, "For he was cut off from the land of the living
Through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment"). It says nothing about what will happen to those other nations after their debt-punishment is paid off by the nation of Israel. But because this is understood to refer to a future, messianic age, according to some, those nations will realize their error and either be destroyed or repent.

I'm not sure what, exactly, you are attempting to claim. Verse 11 uses the s-b-l root to mean "bears" https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.11?lan...n&lang2=en
as does verse 4. Verse 12 uses the n-s-a root
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.12?lan...n&lang2=en

[ThomasDGW]

You have a few things to discuss here. The first is your reliance on translation but that, I guess, can't be helped. The second is your not understanding who is speaking and about what in most of Isaiah 53. The idea that the nation of Israel suffered is borne out by who is speaking -- foreign kings (through much of, but not all of 53) and their assessment of how the nation has suffered the punishments without having done the sins -- the sins were done by the foreign nations and Israel paid the penalty.

Next, you have to include other verses that say explicitly that the nation is suffering the punishment that should have been visited on others (verse 8, "For he was cut off from the land of the living
Through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment"). It says nothing about what will happen to those other nations after their debt-punishment is paid off by the nation of Israel. But because this is understood to refer to a future, messianic age, according to some, those nations will realize their error and either be destroyed or repent.

I'm not sure what, exactly, you are attempting to claim. Verse 11 uses the s-b-l root to mean "bears" https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.11?lan...n&lang2=en
as does verse 4. Verse 12 uses the n-s-a root
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.12?lan...n&lang2=en

Yes, I got the words mixed up because they are both translated "bear" in English. Thanks for your patience. The n-s-a word I looked up the usage for is the "bore" of verse 12, as you state.

What I am attempting to claim is that none of the other verses that use this n-s-a word (or the s-b-l word for that matter: Lamentations 5:7) in regards to sin do so in the sense that you are applying the meaning to the nation Israel. The nation of Israel has suffered from the sinful actions of others, but when and how can you say that Israel bore the punishment or the guilt of those sinners? In fact, in his video, Tovia Singer was saying (if I remember right) that Israel fulfilled this sin-bearing role by suffering sinful actions, using his family's murder by the NAZIs as his example.  According to all the other usages of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, that is not what it means.

I don't see anything in the text that indicates that foreign kings are speaking of Israel in Isaiah 53. In fact, Isaiah 52:15 says that the kings will shut their mouths because of what they see. So, to support that claim, I think that an argument has to be made from the content of the chapter. The use of n-s-a seems to me an argument against that claim.

[rosends]

You have a few things to discuss here. The first is your reliance on translation but that, I guess, can't be helped. The second is your not understanding who is speaking and about what in most of Isaiah 53. The idea that the nation of Israel suffered is borne out by who is speaking -- foreign kings (through much of, but not all of 53) and their assessment of how the nation has suffered the punishments without having done the sins -- the sins were done by the foreign nations and Israel paid the penalty.

Next, you have to include other verses that say explicitly that the nation is suffering the punishment that should have been visited on others (verse 8, "For he was cut off from the land of the living
Through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment"). It says nothing about what will happen to those other nations after their debt-punishment is paid off by the nation of Israel. But because this is understood to refer to a future, messianic age, according to some, those nations will realize their error and either be destroyed or repent.

I'm not sure what, exactly, you are attempting to claim. Verse 11 uses the s-b-l root to mean "bears" https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.11?lan...n&lang2=en
as does verse 4. Verse 12 uses the n-s-a root
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.12?lan...n&lang2=en

Yes, I got the words mixed up because they are both translated "bear" in English. Thanks for your patience. The n-s-a word I looked up the usage for is the "bore" of verse 12, as you state.

What I am attempting to claim is that none of the other verses that use this n-s-a word (or the s-b-l word for that matter: Lamentations 5:7) in regards to sin do so in the sense that you are applying the meaning to the nation Israel. The nation of Israel has suffered from the sinful actions of others, but when and how can you say that Israel bore the punishment or the guilt of those sinners? In fact, in his video, Tovia Singer was saying (if I remember right) that Israel fulfilled this sin-bearing role by suffering sinful actions, using his family's murder by the NAZIs as his example.  According to all the other usages of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, that is not what it means.

I don't see anything in the text that indicates that foreign kings are speaking of Israel in Isaiah 53. In fact, Isaiah 52:15 says that the kings will shut their mouths because of what they see. So, to support that claim, I think that an argument has to be made from the content of the chapter. The use of n-s-a seems to me an argument against that claim.

start by abandoning the idea of chapters -- that is a later insertion by Christian editors. If you were to read an ancient scroll containing the book of Isaiah, there would be no break between what you think of as 52 and 53, so the verse "who would believe" is a continuation. If you follow the pronouns, and see that the "who would believe" is a restated quote said by the people in the verse directly before it and the pronouns of "he" call back to the identified servant a few verses earlier (and the text repeatedly and explicitly identifies the servant as Israel).

Next, you have to confront the question of how one "bears" someone else's sins. The simplest explanation is that the punishment that she be levied on the actual sinner is put on the nation of Israel, so the attacks and murders are that punishment (this contributes to the double meaning of "Our suffering that he endured" because it points both the the "suffering that should belong to us" and also "the suffering that we caused"). Take a look here (on the right side)
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.4?lang...i&lang2=en

[ThomasDGW]

I have been aware that the chapter divisions in the Bible are not part of the text for about all my life. I grew up in evangelical Christian churches where the preachers frequently called attention to that fact. There is even a chapter in the NT that begins: "Therefore..." So, the chapter divisions are not at all a problem for me. I am well trained to ignore them.

However, as you pointed out, the speaker often changes in the course of the book, and I believe that the identity of a servant also changes. In Isaiah 41:8 the servant is identified as Israel. However the servant of Isaiah 42:1 seems to be a different person, NOT because the chapter changed, but because of what is said of him. It is the Messiah King who will establish the justice of his law, and who will open blind eyes. I see that Rashi interprets that last statement as being symbolic of returning to God. It seems to me that he is force fitting Israel into this. I notice that at places where the servant seems to me to be the Messiah, the servant is mentioned in the third person, but when it is clearly Israel, it is "You are my servant, Jacob..." To insist that all subsequent servants have to be the same as the first because there were no chapter divisions does not seem a valid claim to me, certainly not strong enough to insist that the Messiah cannot be the servant In Isaiah 52:13.

You say, "The simplest explanation is that the punishment that [should] be levied on the actual sinner is put on the nation of Israel," but Jeremiah 33:8 says that Israel will be cleansed from their sins. So, Israel needs a sin bearer. Isn't that why Israel was given a Yom Kippur and a scapegoat, to teach the nation that? And if the punishment that the nations deserved is levied on Israel, isn't that substitutionary atonement, a form of human sacrifice, which God said never entered His mind?

[rosends]

I have been aware that the chapter divisions in the Bible are not part of the text for about all my life. I grew up in evangelical Christian churches where the preachers frequently called attention to that fact.  There is even a chapter in the NT that begins: "Therefore..." So, the chapter divisions are not at all a problem for me. I am well trained to ignore them.

However, as you pointed out, the speaker often changes in the course of the book, and I believe that the identity of a servant also changes. In Isaiah 41:8 the servant is identified as Israel. However the servant of Isaiah 42:1 seems to be a different person, NOT because the chapter changed, but because of what is said of him. It is the Messiah King who will establish the justice of his law, and who will open blind eyes. I see that Rashi interprets that last statement as being symbolic of returning to God. It seems to me that he is force fitting Israel into this. I notice that at places where the servant seems to me to be the Messiah, the servant is mentioned in the third person, but when it is clearly Israel, it is "You are my servant, Jacob..."  To insist that all subsequent servants have to be the same as the first because there were no chapter divisions does not seem a valid claim to me, certainly not strong enough to insist that the Messiah cannot be the servant In Isaiah 52:13.

You say, "The simplest explanation is that the punishment that [should] be levied on the actual sinner is put on the nation of Israel," but Jeremiah 33:8 says that Israel will be cleansed from their sins. So, Israel needs a sin bearer. Isn't that why Israel was given a Yom Kippur and a scapegoat, to teach the nation that? And if the punishment that the nations deserved is levied on Israel, isn't that substitutionary atonement, a form of human sacrifice, which God said never entered His mind?

as long as you realize that the text is explicit in identifying the servant and any sense that it applies to anyone else comes from your own imagination and what "seems" to you.

In terms of Jeremiah 33:8, the text describes what God will do ("And I will purge them of all the sins that they committed against Me, and I will pardon all the sins that they committed against Me, by which they rebelled against Me.") It doesn't mention any need for anything else other than approaching God. 33:8 doesn't say "and after Yom Kippur..." or "after their sacrifices..."

As to the issue of "substitutionary atonement" that is an important tradition in Judaism -- in fact, your mentioning of the scapegoat is a great example of one (as are the bulls upon which the kohen leans). This isn't "human sacrifice" but displaced punishment. It also isn't exactly true -- it is the perception of the gentile kings, not necessarily what God had in mind.

[ThomasDGW]

I have been aware that the chapter divisions in the Bible are not part of the text for about all my life. I grew up in evangelical Christian churches where the preachers frequently called attention to that fact.  There is even a chapter in the NT that begins: "Therefore..." So, the chapter divisions are not at all a problem for me. I am well trained to ignore them.

However, as you pointed out, the speaker often changes in the course of the book, and I believe that the identity of a servant also changes. In Isaiah 41:8 the servant is identified as Israel. However the servant of Isaiah 42:1 seems to be a different person, NOT because the chapter changed, but because of what is said of him. It is the Messiah King who will establish the justice of his law, and who will open blind eyes. I see that Rashi interprets that last statement as being symbolic of returning to God. It seems to me that he is force fitting Israel into this. I notice that at places where the servant seems to me to be the Messiah, the servant is mentioned in the third person, but when it is clearly Israel, it is "You are my servant, Jacob..."  To insist that all subsequent servants have to be the same as the first because there were no chapter divisions does not seem a valid claim to me, certainly not strong enough to insist that the Messiah cannot be the servant In Isaiah 52:13.

You say, "The simplest explanation is that the punishment that [should] be levied on the actual sinner is put on the nation of Israel," but Jeremiah 33:8 says that Israel will be cleansed from their sins. So, Israel needs a sin bearer. Isn't that why Israel was given a Yom Kippur and a scapegoat, to teach the nation that? And if the punishment that the nations deserved is levied on Israel, isn't that substitutionary atonement, a form of human sacrifice, which God said never entered His mind?

as long as you realize that the text is explicit in identifying the servant and any sense that it applies to anyone else comes from your own imagination and what "seems" to you.

In terms of Jeremiah 33:8, the text describes what God will do ("And I will purge them of all the sins that they committed against Me, and I will pardon all the sins that they committed against Me, by which they rebelled against Me.") It doesn't mention any need for anything else other than approaching God. 33:8 doesn't say "and after Yom Kippur..." or "after their sacrifices..."

As to the issue of "substitutionary atonement" that is an important tradition in Judaism -- in fact, your mentioning of the scapegoat is a great example of one (as are the bulls upon which the kohen leans). This isn't "human sacrifice" but displaced punishment. It also isn't exactly true -- it is the perception of the gentile kings, not necessarily what God had in mind.

The text is explicit in Isaiah 41:8 that "you, Israel, are my servant," but that does not mean that when God says, "Behold, my servant," in Isaiah 42:1 and Isaiah 53:13 that he must be referring to the same servant. I said that the servant seems to me to be the Messiah King, but I didn't mean to imply that it is just a feeling or my imagination. I already mentioned a couple specific things in chapter 42 that fit the Messiah, but don't fit Israel. In chapter52 and 53 , there are a whole load of such things, such as the statements of  Isaiah 52:13-15 which merit further contemplation by the honest seeker of truth. I understand that it is not a unanimous conclusion that the servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation Israel. If there is any dissent at all, you should not insist on the nation Israel as a foregone established identity of the servant.

However, I see a very strong indicator in Isaiah 53:1-2 where the "he" of verse 2 is directly identified by the antecedent, "the arm of God", which is known to refer to the salvation of God. Since when is the salvation or savior from God Israel himself? The Messiah King IS God's savior.

I see other strong indicators, but I think I should save that for another thread.

My point in mentioning Jeremiah 33:8 was to point out that while you say that Israel is serving as a human kind of scapegoat for the nations, Israel will be getting sins taken away by God in the future. The nations need a human sin bearer, but Israel doesn't?  Saying that Israel's sin bearer is Jesus is said to claim a horrible pagan human sacrifice, but saying that the nations' sin bearer is Israel is just fine?  It isn't exactly true? Well, that is a handy escape hatch when pressed hard. But if this a prophecy from God, it shouldn't have inserted the confused musings of pagan kings expressed as firm statements. Besides, in verses 11 and 12, the speaker is God Himself.

I have seen the anti-missionary accusations against Christianity's claim that this refers to Jesus. In them, the anti-missionaries challenge the missionaries to explain every little detail that doesn't seem to be literally fulfilled by Jesus, and when the missionaries try to explain that the statement doesn't need to be literally fulfilled, they are vilified. But here when we poke into the claims by the rabbinical scholars that the servant is Israel, we see the same kind of back-pedaling explanations. Is the pot calling the kettle, Black?

[rosends]

I have been aware that the chapter divisions in the Bible are not part of the text for about all my life. I grew up in evangelical Christian churches where the preachers frequently called attention to that fact.  There is even a chapter in the NT that begins: "Therefore..." So, the chapter divisions are not at all a problem for me. I am well trained to ignore them.

However, as you pointed out, the speaker often changes in the course of the book, and I believe that the identity of a servant also changes. In Isaiah 41:8 the servant is identified as Israel. However the servant of Isaiah 42:1 seems to be a different person, NOT because the chapter changed, but because of what is said of him. It is the Messiah King who will establish the justice of his law, and who will open blind eyes. I see that Rashi interprets that last statement as being symbolic of returning to God. It seems to me that he is force fitting Israel into this. I notice that at places where the servant seems to me to be the Messiah, the servant is mentioned in the third person, but when it is clearly Israel, it is "You are my servant, Jacob..."  To insist that all subsequent servants have to be the same as the first because there were no chapter divisions does not seem a valid claim to me, certainly not strong enough to insist that the Messiah cannot be the servant In Isaiah 52:13.

You say, "The simplest explanation is that the punishment that [should] be levied on the actual sinner is put on the nation of Israel," but Jeremiah 33:8 says that Israel will be cleansed from their sins. So, Israel needs a sin bearer. Isn't that why Israel was given a Yom Kippur and a scapegoat, to teach the nation that? And if the punishment that the nations deserved is levied on Israel, isn't that substitutionary atonement, a form of human sacrifice, which God said never entered His mind?

as long as you realize that the text is explicit in identifying the servant and any sense that it applies to anyone else comes from your own imagination and what "seems" to you.

In terms of Jeremiah 33:8, the text describes what God will do ("And I will purge them of all the sins that they committed against Me, and I will pardon all the sins that they committed against Me, by which they rebelled against Me.") It doesn't mention any need for anything else other than approaching God. 33:8 doesn't say "and after Yom Kippur..." or "after their sacrifices..."

As to the issue of "substitutionary atonement" that is an important tradition in Judaism -- in fact, your mentioning of the scapegoat is a great example of one (as are the bulls upon which the kohen leans). This isn't "human sacrifice" but displaced punishment. It also isn't exactly true -- it is the perception of the gentile kings, not necessarily what God had in mind.

The text is explicit in Isaiah 41:8 that "you, Israel, are my servant," but that does not mean that when God says, "Behold, my servant," in Isaiah 42:1 and Isaiah 53:13 that he must be referring to the same servant. I said that the servant seems to me to be the Messiah King, but I didn't mean to imply that it is just a feeling or my imagination. I already mentioned a couple specific things in chapter 42 that fit the Messiah, but don't fit Israel. In chapter52 and 53 , there are a whole load of such things, such as the statements of  Isaiah 52:13-15 which merit further contemplation by the honest seeker of truth. I understand that it is not a unanimous conclusion that the servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation Israel. If there is any dissent at all, you should not insist on the nation Israel as a foregone established identity of the servant.

However, I see a very strong indicator in Isaiah 53:1-2 where the "he" of verse 2 is directly identified by the antecedent, "the arm of God", which is known to refer to the salvation of God. Since when is the salvation or savior from God Israel himself? The Messiah King IS God's savior.

I see other strong indicators, but I think I should save that for another thread.

My point in mentioning Jeremiah 33:8 was to point out that while you say that Israel is serving as a human kind of scapegoat for the nations, Israel will be getting sins taken away by God in the future. The nations need a human sin bearer, but Israel doesn't?  Saying that Israel's sin bearer is Jesus is said to claim a horrible pagan human sacrifice, but saying that the nations' sin bearer is Israel is just fine?  It isn't exactly true? Well, that is a handy escape hatch when pressed hard. But if this a prophecy from God, it shouldn't have inserted the confused musings of pagan kings expressed as firm statements. Besides, in verses 11 and 12, the speaker is God Himself.

I have seen the anti-missionary accusations against Christianity's claim that this refers to Jesus. In them, the anti-missionaries challenge the missionaries to explain every little detail that doesn't seem to be literally fulfilled by Jesus, and when the missionaries try to explain that the statement doesn't need to be literally fulfilled, they are vilified. But here when we poke into the claims by the rabbinical scholars that the servant is Israel, we see the same kind of back-pedaling explanations. Is the pot calling the kettle, Black?

there is discussion in the commentaries regarding the identity of the servant and three different options are usually presented. But the interpretive schema of Judaism requires that the primary and explicit understanding is not ignored when finding deeper levels of potential. Isaiah 53:1 for example makes clear that the "he" is the one to whom the arm of God was revealed. If you follow through then to verse 4, you will see that the "he" there is one who (according to gentile kings) was afflicted BY God and since this is in the past tense, it makes little sense to try and apply it to a future. You also seem not to understand the idea of "savior" in Jewish texts. God is the savior but the future messianic king will lead people so that they will be saved by God.

You ask whether "The nations need a human sin bearer, but Israel doesn't?" and the answer is pretty simple -- no, they don't. Their perception is that they do. This isn't an endorsement of that attitude, just a reporting of it. The text isn't at all confusing -- it makes clear what is said by the kings and then, when it changes speakers, it makes clear it has done so
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.11?lan...t&lang2=en
I'm sorry you find that confusing, but lots of people, for a very long time haven't been confused by it. Maybe the problem is your lack of understanding and not that you have some insight that no one has ever considered.

[ThomasDGW]

I have been aware that the chapter divisions in the Bible are not part of the text for about all my life. I grew up in evangelical Christian churches where the preachers frequently called attention to that fact.  There is even a chapter in the NT that begins: "Therefore..." So, the chapter divisions are not at all a problem for me. I am well trained to ignore them.

However, as you pointed out, the speaker often changes in the course of the book, and I believe that the identity of a servant also changes. In Isaiah 41:8 the servant is identified as Israel. However the servant of Isaiah 42:1 seems to be a different person, NOT because the chapter changed, but because of what is said of him. It is the Messiah King who will establish the justice of his law, and who will open blind eyes. I see that Rashi interprets that last statement as being symbolic of returning to God. It seems to me that he is force fitting Israel into this. I notice that at places where the servant seems to me to be the Messiah, the servant is mentioned in the third person, but when it is clearly Israel, it is "You are my servant, Jacob..."  To insist that all subsequent servants have to be the same as the first because there were no chapter divisions does not seem a valid claim to me, certainly not strong enough to insist that the Messiah cannot be the servant In Isaiah 52:13.

You say, "The simplest explanation is that the punishment that [should] be levied on the actual sinner is put on the nation of Israel," but Jeremiah 33:8 says that Israel will be cleansed from their sins. So, Israel needs a sin bearer. Isn't that why Israel was given a Yom Kippur and a scapegoat, to teach the nation that? And if the punishment that the nations deserved is levied on Israel, isn't that substitutionary atonement, a form of human sacrifice, which God said never entered His mind?

as long as you realize that the text is explicit in identifying the servant and any sense that it applies to anyone else comes from your own imagination and what "seems" to you.

In terms of Jeremiah 33:8, the text describes what God will do ("And I will purge them of all the sins that they committed against Me, and I will pardon all the sins that they committed against Me, by which they rebelled against Me.") It doesn't mention any need for anything else other than approaching God. 33:8 doesn't say "and after Yom Kippur..." or "after their sacrifices..."

As to the issue of "substitutionary atonement" that is an important tradition in Judaism -- in fact, your mentioning of the scapegoat is a great example of one (as are the bulls upon which the kohen leans). This isn't "human sacrifice" but displaced punishment. It also isn't exactly true -- it is the perception of the gentile kings, not necessarily what God had in mind.

The text is explicit in Isaiah 41:8 that "you, Israel, are my servant," but that does not mean that when God says, "Behold, my servant," in Isaiah 42:1 and Isaiah 53:13 that he must be referring to the same servant. I said that the servant seems to me to be the Messiah King, but I didn't mean to imply that it is just a feeling or my imagination. I already mentioned a couple specific things in chapter 42 that fit the Messiah, but don't fit Israel. In chapter52 and 53 , there are a whole load of such things, such as the statements of  Isaiah 52:13-15 which merit further contemplation by the honest seeker of truth. I understand that it is not a unanimous conclusion that the servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation Israel. If there is any dissent at all, you should not insist on the nation Israel as a foregone established identity of the servant.

However, I see a very strong indicator in Isaiah 53:1-2 where the "he" of verse 2 is directly identified by the antecedent, "the arm of God", which is known to refer to the salvation of God. Since when is the salvation or savior from God Israel himself? The Messiah King IS God's savior.

I see other strong indicators, but I think I should save that for another thread.

My point in mentioning Jeremiah 33:8 was to point out that while you say that Israel is serving as a human kind of scapegoat for the nations, Israel will be getting sins taken away by God in the future. The nations need a human sin bearer, but Israel doesn't?  Saying that Israel's sin bearer is Jesus is said to claim a horrible pagan human sacrifice, but saying that the nations' sin bearer is Israel is just fine?  It isn't exactly true? Well, that is a handy escape hatch when pressed hard. But if this a prophecy from God, it shouldn't have inserted the confused musings of pagan kings expressed as firm statements. Besides, in verses 11 and 12, the speaker is God Himself.

I have seen the anti-missionary accusations against Christianity's claim that this refers to Jesus. In them, the anti-missionaries challenge the missionaries to explain every little detail that doesn't seem to be literally fulfilled by Jesus, and when the missionaries try to explain that the statement doesn't need to be literally fulfilled, they are vilified. But here when we poke into the claims by the rabbinical scholars that the servant is Israel, we see the same kind of back-pedaling explanations. Is the pot calling the kettle, Black?

there is discussion in the commentaries regarding the identity of the servant and three different options are usually presented. But the interpretive schema of Judaism requires that the primary and explicit understanding is not ignored when finding deeper levels of potential. Isaiah 53:1 for example makes clear that the "he" is the one to whom the arm of God was revealed. If you follow through then to verse 4, you will see that the "he" there is one who (according to gentile kings) was afflicted BY God and since this is in the past tense, it makes little sense to try and apply it to a future. You also seem not to understand the idea of "savior" in Jewish texts. God is the savior but the future messianic king will lead people so that they will be saved by God.

You ask whether "The nations need a human sin bearer, but Israel doesn't?" and the answer is pretty simple -- no, they don't. Their perception is that they do. This isn't an endorsement of that attitude, just a reporting of it. The text isn't at all confusing -- it makes clear what is said by the kings and then, when it changes speakers, it makes clear it has done so
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.11?lan...t&lang2=en
I'm sorry you find that confusing, but lots of people, for a very long time haven't been confused by it. Maybe the problem is your lack of understanding and not that you have some insight that no one has ever considered.

First, the concept of "savior". It is written that there is no savior besides God. However, those individuals whom God uses, such as Gideon, or the unnamed savior whom God sent to save Jehoahaz (II Kings 13:5) are said to save or to be saviors. Saying that an individual saves or is a savior is not necessarily negating that it is really God that is saving through that person (Judges 6:36).

I wonder if a person who has not been indoctrinated to understand a passage in a certain way will naturally be clear and unconfused by the explanations given by Rashi and others. I feel like I am getting mental whiplash when I consider the kings who see and consider what they have not heard, then ask who will believe what they heard.  But I have experienced this kind of thing before when I heard explanations in Christian churches for so long and they seemed to be clear, until I finally was forced to face problem verses that didn't seem to match up with that explanation. In frustration, I finally tried just reading a passage at face value and found that it was not only coherent in the literal reading, but then the problem verse also stopped being a problem, and was also crystal clear. Now the Christian explanation that I had no trouble believing earlier gives me mental whiplash.

Now, if you have completely internalized that this is a group of kings from history speaking, then their use of the past tense precludes the idea of this applying to the future. But if you consider it to be God's people speaking prophetically of their salvation from sin, as I do, then the use of the past tense is natural to be referring to future events. God told Abraham in Genesis 17:5 that God had made him a father of many nations when he still had no son. In God's plan, the events of the future are an accomplished fact.

I repeat that it is God speaking in verses 11 and 12 when He says that this servant will justify them because he has born their sins. That cannot be dismissed as the confused perception of some kings. The bearing of the sins is the cause which justified this "many". The "many" need this sin bearer.

[rosends]

I have been aware that the chapter divisions in the Bible are not part of the text for about all my life. I grew up in evangelical Christian churches where the preachers frequently called attention to that fact.  There is even a chapter in the NT that begins: "Therefore..." So, the chapter divisions are not at all a problem for me. I am well trained to ignore them.

However, as you pointed out, the speaker often changes in the course of the book, and I believe that the identity of a servant also changes. In Isaiah 41:8 the servant is identified as Israel. However the servant of Isaiah 42:1 seems to be a different person, NOT because the chapter changed, but because of what is said of him. It is the Messiah King who will establish the justice of his law, and who will open blind eyes. I see that Rashi interprets that last statement as being symbolic of returning to God. It seems to me that he is force fitting Israel into this. I notice that at places where the servant seems to me to be the Messiah, the servant is mentioned in the third person, but when it is clearly Israel, it is "You are my servant, Jacob..."  To insist that all subsequent servants have to be the same as the first because there were no chapter divisions does not seem a valid claim to me, certainly not strong enough to insist that the Messiah cannot be the servant In Isaiah 52:13.

You say, "The simplest explanation is that the punishment that [should] be levied on the actual sinner is put on the nation of Israel," but Jeremiah 33:8 says that Israel will be cleansed from their sins. So, Israel needs a sin bearer. Isn't that why Israel was given a Yom Kippur and a scapegoat, to teach the nation that? And if the punishment that the nations deserved is levied on Israel, isn't that substitutionary atonement, a form of human sacrifice, which God said never entered His mind?

as long as you realize that the text is explicit in identifying the servant and any sense that it applies to anyone else comes from your own imagination and what "seems" to you.

In terms of Jeremiah 33:8, the text describes what God will do ("And I will purge them of all the sins that they committed against Me, and I will pardon all the sins that they committed against Me, by which they rebelled against Me.") It doesn't mention any need for anything else other than approaching God. 33:8 doesn't say "and after Yom Kippur..." or "after their sacrifices..."

As to the issue of "substitutionary atonement" that is an important tradition in Judaism -- in fact, your mentioning of the scapegoat is a great example of one (as are the bulls upon which the kohen leans). This isn't "human sacrifice" but displaced punishment. It also isn't exactly true -- it is the perception of the gentile kings, not necessarily what God had in mind.

The text is explicit in Isaiah 41:8 that "you, Israel, are my servant," but that does not mean that when God says, "Behold, my servant," in Isaiah 42:1 and Isaiah 53:13 that he must be referring to the same servant. I said that the servant seems to me to be the Messiah King, but I didn't mean to imply that it is just a feeling or my imagination. I already mentioned a couple specific things in chapter 42 that fit the Messiah, but don't fit Israel. In chapter52 and 53 , there are a whole load of such things, such as the statements of  Isaiah 52:13-15 which merit further contemplation by the honest seeker of truth. I understand that it is not a unanimous conclusion that the servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation Israel. If there is any dissent at all, you should not insist on the nation Israel as a foregone established identity of the servant.

However, I see a very strong indicator in Isaiah 53:1-2 where the "he" of verse 2 is directly identified by the antecedent, "the arm of God", which is known to refer to the salvation of God. Since when is the salvation or savior from God Israel himself? The Messiah King IS God's savior.

I see other strong indicators, but I think I should save that for another thread.

My point in mentioning Jeremiah 33:8 was to point out that while you say that Israel is serving as a human kind of scapegoat for the nations, Israel will be getting sins taken away by God in the future. The nations need a human sin bearer, but Israel doesn't?  Saying that Israel's sin bearer is Jesus is said to claim a horrible pagan human sacrifice, but saying that the nations' sin bearer is Israel is just fine?  It isn't exactly true? Well, that is a handy escape hatch when pressed hard. But if this a prophecy from God, it shouldn't have inserted the confused musings of pagan kings expressed as firm statements. Besides, in verses 11 and 12, the speaker is God Himself.

I have seen the anti-missionary accusations against Christianity's claim that this refers to Jesus. In them, the anti-missionaries challenge the missionaries to explain every little detail that doesn't seem to be literally fulfilled by Jesus, and when the missionaries try to explain that the statement doesn't need to be literally fulfilled, they are vilified. But here when we poke into the claims by the rabbinical scholars that the servant is Israel, we see the same kind of back-pedaling explanations. Is the pot calling the kettle, Black?

there is discussion in the commentaries regarding the identity of the servant and three different options are usually presented. But the interpretive schema of Judaism requires that the primary and explicit understanding is not ignored when finding deeper levels of potential. Isaiah 53:1 for example makes clear that the "he" is the one to whom the arm of God was revealed. If you follow through then to verse 4, you will see that the "he" there is one who (according to gentile kings) was afflicted BY God and since this is in the past tense, it makes little sense to try and apply it to a future. You also seem not to understand the idea of "savior" in Jewish texts. God is the savior but the future messianic king will lead people so that they will be saved by God.

You ask whether "The nations need a human sin bearer, but Israel doesn't?" and the answer is pretty simple -- no, they don't. Their perception is that they do. This isn't an endorsement of that attitude, just a reporting of it. The text isn't at all confusing -- it makes clear what is said by the kings and then, when it changes speakers, it makes clear it has done so
https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.53.11?lan...t&lang2=en
I'm sorry you find that confusing, but lots of people, for a very long time haven't been confused by it. Maybe the problem is your lack of understanding and not that you have some insight that no one has ever considered.

First, the concept of "savior". It is written that there is no savior besides God. However, those individuals whom God uses, such as Gideon, or the unnamed savior whom God sent to save Jehoahaz (II Kings 13:5) are said to save or to be saviors. Saying that an individual saves or is a savior is not necessarily negating that it is really God that is saving through that person (Judges 6:36).

I wonder if a person who has not been indoctrinated to understand a passage in a certain way will naturally be clear and unconfused by the explanations given by Rashi and others. I feel like I am getting mental whiplash when I consider the kings who see and consider what they have not heard, then ask who will believe what they heard.  But I have experienced this kind of thing before when I heard explanations in Christian churches for so long and they seemed to be clear, until I finally was forced to face problem verses that didn't seem to match up with that explanation. In frustration, I finally tried just reading a passage at face value and found that it was not only coherent in the literal reading, but then the problem verse also stopped being a problem, and was also crystal clear. Now the Christian explanation that I had no trouble believing earlier gives me mental whiplash.

Now, if you have completely internalized that this is a group of kings from history speaking, then their use of the past tense precludes the idea of this applying to the future. But if you consider it to be God's people speaking prophetically of their salvation from sin, as I do, then the use of the past tense is natural to be referring to future events. God told Abraham in Genesis 17:5 that God had made him a father of many nations when he still had no son. In God's plan, the events of the future are an accomplished fact.

I repeat that it is God speaking in verses 11 and 12 when He says that this servant will justify them because he has born their sins. That cannot be dismissed as the confused perception of some kings. The bearing of the sins is the cause which justified this "many". The "many" need this sin bearer.

You say you finally read the passage "at face value" but if you are reading a translation, you are already not reading the text. And if you try to read in the absence of the commentaries who can explain textual references and connections, and detail the grammar which makes references clear, then you will be confused.

https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12...ng_Servant
https://uriyosef.wordpress.com/category/...g-servant/