Isaiah 53 Verse 10

[searchinmyroots]

Welcome back Thomas.

Did you listen to the video starting at 7:20 to the end?

It explains it in detail.

It has nothing to do with someone bearing the guilt of another, it is because of his own guilt, of his own sin.

Read Leviticus 5 regarding the asham. That describes it in detail and that is the true meaning.

Rabbi Akiva changed the text?

Your entitled to your own belief as others are as well, but it doesn't mean it is correct.

Leviticus 5 is correct as that is the original meaning.

[ThomasDGW]

Thank you for the welcome.

I listened to the video, but Tovia's statements are not linked to the text. In fact he says that this sin can be intentional, contradicts what the text says and what Rashi comments. He also says that the guilt offering is different from a sin offering. In fact, the text speaks of the guilt offering including a sin offering, then a burnt offering.

I did not say that someone bears the guilt of another (That is common Christianity doctrine), but that the NT actually says that Jesus became sin himself. The sins became his sins and the guilt became his guilt. I said that is not the normal way. Leviticus gives the normal way, the original meaning. In leviticus 5, no one bore the sins of others. But Isaiah 536 says that God said on him our iniquity. This cannot be the normal original meaning.

[searchinmyroots]

So in your belief, G-d in human forum became sin.

It's what the word asham means in verse 10 and that meaning is given in Leviticus 5, that's the whole of it.

You can't change the meaning of the word.

[RabbiO]

What is known as the Great Isaiah Scroll, among the Dead Sea scrolls, is the oldest complete Isaiah known. It dates to sometime mid to late 2nd century BCE, a long time before Akiva. The word used there is “chamas”.

[ThomasDGW]

So in your belief, G-d in human forum became sin.

It's what the word asham means in verse 10 and that meaning is given in Leviticus 5, that's the whole of it.

You can't change the meaning of the word.

No, according to II Corinthians 5:18-21, God was in Christ and made him who knew no sin (Christ) to be sin for us. And, I Peter 2:24 states that Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree. That tells me that God made Jesus' body, not God, to be sin, on the cross, not before.  This is why I believe he cried, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" because at that time he became a guilty sinner, after having never committed the sin himself.

If you read my personal introduction, I say that I am excluded from all branches of Christianity. My refusal to put any Trinity doctrine above direct statements of scripture is part of that.  I also do not accept the doctrine of substitutionary or vicarious atonement, or the doctrine of inherited original sin.  The NT teaches something different.

RabbiO, if the date on the scroll is as you say, then my supposition about Rabbi Akiva is clearly wrong.

[searchinmyroots]

So in your belief, G-d in human forum became sin.

It's what the word asham means in verse 10 and that meaning is given in Leviticus 5, that's the whole of it.

You can't change the meaning of the word.

No, according to II Corinthians 5:18-21, God was in Christ and made him who knew no sin (Christ) to be sin for us. And, I Peter 2:24 states that Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree. That tells me that God made Jesus' body, not God, to be sin, on the cross, not before.  This is why I believe he cried, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" because at that time he became a guilty sinner, after having never committed the sin himself.

If you read my personal introduction, I say that I am excluded from all branches of Christianity. My refusal to put any Trinity doctrine above direct statements of scripture is part of that.  I also do not accept the doctrine of substitutionary or vicarious atonement, or the doctrine of inherited original sin.  The NT teaches something different.

RabbiO, if the date on the scroll is as you say, then my supposition about Rabbi Akiva is clearly wrong.

Yes, sounds like another brand of Christian theology that really has no part of the teachings of Judaism or the Hebrew bible.

[Praise El Shaddai]

Sorry but I am curious, then who is meant in Isaiah 53 if not Jesus?
And anyhow what sin did Jesus commit?

I still don't understand why most jewish people don't want /accept/like that Jesus
was/is the Messiah, he was absolutely brilliant, wonderful, his teachings, his wonders, his care about people of no honour. And obviously his sacrifice.
A better Messiah no one can neither expect or imagine!

I see no better teacher about life, god, love, relations,... in history.

[searchinmyroots]

Sorry but I am curious, then who is meant in Isaiah 53 if not Jesus?
And anyhow what sin did Jesus commit?

I still don't understand why most jewish people don't want /accept/like that Jesus
was/is the Messiah, he was absolutely brilliant, wonderful, his teachings, his wonders, his care about people of no honour. And obviously his sacrifice.
A better Messiah no one can neither expect or imagine!

I see no better teacher about life, god, love, relations,... in history.

Thank you for your question.

Remember, the Hebrew bible had no chapter breaks. So if you read through Isaiah you'll see up to Chapter 49, the servant is called Israel.

I'm not sure what sin Jesus may have committed, that has to be determined by reading the Christian bible. I'm pretty sure it says Jesus committed no sin, that's my point. The servant is to admit his guilt of sin.

Jesus may have taught many good things, but that doesn't qualify him to be the Jewish messiah.

There is a very long list of reasons why most Jewish people do not accept him a either G-d or the messiah.

Have you not heard about any of those reasons?

[Blue Bird]

There are also strong promises for Israel in chapter 52.

However, when I read chapter 53, I find it difficult to relate some verses to Israel.

Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account. 
 
Who is “we” and who is “he”? I think “we” are the ones the text is addressing, the people of Israel. If “he” were the servant Israel, then Israel would held Israel of no account.

Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.

Here also my question would be, "he" was pained because of "our" transgressions" - "he" is one (nation, person whatever),  and explicitly others "our transgressions" (cannot be the same as "he"). Isn't it a teaching in Judaism that every person is responsible for himself and bears his own transgressions? Is this a new teaching, that Israel carries other peoples transgressions? And “in his wound we are healed” – does Israel’s wound heal the nations? But as we have already seen, “we” is Israel.


(veres 3-5 https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo...ter-53.htm)

[searchinmyroots]

Yes, Blue Bird, very good questions.

Here are some answers -

Israel is mentioned earlier as despised and rejected in Chapter 49 verses 7 and 26, Chapter 52 verse 4, 54 verse 11, 60 verse14, Jeremiah 50 verse 33

Wounded (the correct translation is "from" the sins of others, not "for" the sins of others) - Isaiah 1 verse 5, Jeremiah 11 verse 19, 30 verse 12

Even if you are not convinced the servant is Israel, we know the servant is not a single person as Isaiah in his usual poetic form goes back and forth referencing the servant in the singular and the plural.

For instance 53:8 mentions the servant as "them" and later also mentions "deaths" in the plural in reference to the servant.

You can find many other places in the Hebrew bible where the themes/words used in Isaiah 53 are related to Israel.

Here is a very detailed paper on all of Isaiah 53 that explains line by line - https://uriyosef.files.wordpress.com/202...sa53jp.pdf