Bearing sins

[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?