General Discussion The Messiah and Isaiah 53

[Dana]

Rabbi Daniel Asur claims that according to verse 8, the character described as plural, not in singular, and therefore cannot be talking about the Messiah. He writes (from Hebrew): “The word ‘Lamo’ means ‘them’, and instead of the prophet writing ‘for the transgression of my people ‘he’ was punished’, he writes ‘Lamo’, meaning the servant is plural… that is why it is not possible for Jesus to be the Messiah.”
However, there are a few other possible aspects that Asur fails to acknowledge:

1. “Lamo” can be either plural or singular, as Isaiah elsewhere uses lamo to mean “to it,” not “to them,” Isaiah 44:15: “he makes an idol and bows down to it”. So, if we take lamo to refer to the servant, it could still mean “for him” as opposed to “for them.”
   
2. Septuagint (LXX): εἰς θάνατον (לַמָּוֶת) – The translators of the Septuagint saw a taf at the end of “lamo,” making it “lamavet” – to death. “He was led to death”.
   

It is true that my understanding of Hebrew writing is limited at best.

That part is certainly true, that is,  your understanding of Hebrew writing and your Christian source as well.  I think Rabbi Daniel Asur's explanation was accurate.  He is after all Jewish with an apparent knowledge of the Hebrew language.

Number 1 is incorrect. The word Lamo לָמוֺ is a preposition, 3rd person, masculine and plural and the correct translation would be, to them. It is poetic form that stems from the preposition לָהֶם for (to or for them).

Number 2 concerning a tav at the end of lamo to create the word for death "lamavet" is unrelated to the preposition being discussed.

[Jason]

לָ֫מוֹ is certainly plural. It is an alternative form for לָהֶם based on the fact the suffix -am is an alternative ending to -hem. For example, in the prepositional expression בָּהֶם, we have the alternate form בָּם, and both have the same meaning.

[Peergint]

Rabbi Daniel Asur claims that according to verse 8, the character described as plural, not in singular, and therefore cannot be talking about the Messiah. He writes (from Hebrew): “The word ‘Lamo’ means ‘them’, and instead of the prophet writing ‘for the transgression of my people ‘he’ was punished’, he writes ‘Lamo’, meaning the servant is plural… that is why it is not possible for Jesus to be the Messiah.”
However, there are a few other possible aspects that Asur fails to acknowledge:

1. “Lamo” can be either plural or singular, as Isaiah elsewhere uses lamo to mean “to it,” not “to them,” Isaiah 44:15: “he makes an idol and bows down to it”. So, if we take lamo to refer to the servant, it could still mean “for him” as opposed to “for them.”
   
2. Septuagint (LXX): εἰς θάνατον (לַמָּוֶת) – The translators of the Septuagint saw a taf at the end of “lamo,” making it “lamavet” – to death. “He was led to death”.
   

It is true that my understanding of Hebrew writing is limited at best.

That part is certainly true, that is,  your understanding of Hebrew writing and your Christian source as well.  I think Rabbi Daniel Asur's explanation was accurate.  He is after all Jewish with an apparent knowledge of the Hebrew language.

Number 1 is incorrect. The word Lamo לָמוֺ is a preposition, 3rd person, masculine and plural and the correct translation would be, to them. It is poetic form that stems from the preposition לָהֶם for (to or for them).

Number 2 concerning a tav at the end of lamo to create the word for death "lamavet" is unrelated to the preposition being discussed.

Ok so the Rabbi is incorrect. What do I know?
All I know is there are many Rabbis, preachers, scholars, etc. and many disagreements.
You cannot expect a non speaking, reading or writing, non Jewish person to understand can you?
Why do you think I am asking?

You said, "I think Rabbi Daniel Asur's explanation was accurate". 
Then you said, "Number 1 is incorrect". 
How can he be accurate and incorrect at the same time?
Can you please explain? Is it just the Hebrew meaning can be either?
Thank you.

[Dana]

You said, "I think Rabbi Daniel Asur's explanation was accurate". 
Then you said, "Number 1 is incorrect". 
How can he be accurate and incorrect at the same time?
Can you please explain? Is it just the Hebrew meaning can be either?
Thank you.

I understand Peergint is no longer on the forum, but I had wanted to respond when I had time for clarification if that is okay, per chance, he may read this later.

Peergint,

I believe Rabbi David Asur is correct. Lamo is only plural, as Jason has noted and he, is very proficient with the Hebrew language.

Where you may be misunderstanding is what the author of the Christian link wrote, and I am copying the quote:

("However, there are a few other possible aspects that Asur fails to acknowledge:")

Then, that author proceeds to write that lamo can be either plural or singular.  I disagree with that statement,  not with Rabbi Asur.

Here is a link to Chabad.org with the English translation of the Hebrew word lamo. Notice it is also in verse 7.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo...ter-44.htm

44:7 - And who will call [that he is] like Me and will tell it and arrange it for Me, since My placing the ancient people, and the signs and those that will come, let them tell (for themselves).  Lamo לָמוֺ

44:15 - And it was for man to ignite, and he took from them and warmed himself; he even heated [the oven] and baked bread; he even made a god and prostrated himself, he made a graven image and bowed (to them). Lamo לָמוֺ

Also, while there are many disagreements and opinions among scholars, regarding theology, I believe the Hebrew language is consistent in meaning.

Several years ago I began learning Hebrew and found Rabbi Tovia Singer's book Let's Get Biblical - Outreach Judaism perfect for my level of understanding Hebrew.  Enough that, I purchased his second volume with Why Doesn't Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah. I believe these can now be found online.  Sorry about any confusion in the answer I had provided, but Chapter 53 of Isaiah is known for being the "gottcha" chapter for Christians claiming it's about Jesus, or distorting Hebrew words.

[Alan_Boskov]

Is this an indirectly-related prophecey?

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2662829/rus...-prophecy/

..."When you hear that the Russians have captured the city of Crimea, you should know that the times of the Messiah have started...

[searchinmyroots]

I guess we'll have to wait and see!

Not sure what it has to do with Isaiah 53 though.