04-10-2020, 12:10 AM
(04-09-2020, 12:07 PM)Peergint Wrote: 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:
It is true that my understanding of Hebrew writing is limited at best.
- “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.”
- 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”.
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.