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?

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.