Isaiah 7 study; "Behold the young woman is pregnant..."

[Ben Masada]

1. Jonathan ben Uzziel’s Targums, on this passage dating from the 1st century C.E., begins Isaiah 52:13 by immediately identifying the suffering servant as the Messiah saying,

“Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper.”[2]

Okay but... how about Isaiah? If you read Isaiah 41:8,9 and 44:1,2,21 he identifies the Suffering Servant as being Israel aka Ephraim. Next, if you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One."
That's what the Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel.

 

[Ben Masada]

2. The Babylonian Talmud states:

The Rabanan say that Messiah’s name is The Suffering Scholar of Rabbi’s House (or The Leper Scholar) for it is written, “Surely He hath born our grief and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”[3]

Here, the Babylonian Talmud applies Isaiah 53:4 to the Messiah.

How about the Prophet himself aka Isaiah who wrote the that text? Isaiah was the one speaking. He was from Tecoa in Judah. So, he says that Israel had born our grief aka the griefs of Judah and carried our sorrows. Now, to carry our sorrows is to be assumed that he was with leper. In stricken and smitten of God is a reference to Psalm 78:67-70 when the Lord rejected Israel and confirmed Judah which means preserved him to remain in Jerusalem before the Lord forever. (I Kings 11:36)

 

[Ben Masada]

In Midrash Siphré, we find the following: R. Yosé the Galilaean said, Come forth and learn the righteousness of the King Messiah and the reward of the just from the first man who received but one commandment, a prohibition, and transgressed it: consider how many deaths were inflicted upon himself, upon his own generations, and upon those that followed them, till the end of all generations. Which attribute is greater, the attribute of goodness, or the attribute of vengeance? He answered, The attribute of goodness is the greater, and the attribute of vengeance is less; how much more, then will the King Messiah, who endures affliction and pains for the transgressors (as it is written, “He was wounded,” etc.) justify all generations! And this is what is meant when it is said, “And the Lord made the iniquity of us all meet upon him.”[6]

I agree with the above but, who was the king Messiah? That's the point. The reference in this Midrash is not to the Messiah as a people and not to the Messiah as an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The individual cannot live forever but the collective in "Israel"aka Judah, does. (Jer. 31:35-37)

Here, the Midrash Siphré applies Isaiah 53:5 and Isaiah 53:6 to the Messiah. The argument is: If the transgression of Adam (the first man who was given one prohibition) resulted in such consequences upon all of his descendants (“all generations”), and since the attribute of goodness is greater and more powerful than vengeance, how much more will the sufferings of the Messiah justify all generations. This argument is strikingly similar to that made by Rav Shaul (the apostle Paul) in Romans 5:15-19.

As I have said before, Isaiah 53:5,6 is a reference to Israel aka Ephraim when it was rejected by the Lord and an transferred to Assyria for good so that Judah be confirmed to remain as a lamp in Jerusalem forever. (I Kings 11:36)

 

[Ben Masada]

In Midrash Siphré, we find the following: R. Yosé the Galilaean said, Come forth and learn the righteousness of the King Messiah and the reward of the just from the first man who received but one commandment, a prohibition, and transgressed it: consider how many deaths were inflicted upon himself, upon his own generations, and upon those that followed them, till the end of all generations. Which attribute is greater, the attribute of goodness, or the attribute of vengeance? He answered, The attribute of goodness is the greater, and the attribute of vengeance is less; how much more, then will the King Messiah, who endures affliction and pains for the transgressors (as it is written, “He was wounded,” etc.) justify all generations! And this is what is meant when it is said, “And the Lord made the iniquity of us all meet upon him.”[6]

I agree with the above but, who is the king Messiah? That's the point. The reference in this Midrash is not to the Messiah as an individual but to the Messiah as an people. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The individual cannot live forever but the collective in "Israel"aka Judah, does. (Jer. 31:35-37)

Here, the Midrash Siphré applies Isaiah 53:5 and Isaiah 53:6 to the Messiah. The argument is: If the transgression of Adam (the first man who was given one prohibition) resulted in such consequences upon all of his descendants (“all generations”), and since the attribute of goodness is greater and more powerful than vengeance, how much more will the sufferings of the Messiah justify all generations. This argument is strikingly similar to that made by Rav Shaul (the apostle Paul) in Romans 5:15-19.

As I have said before, Isaiah 53:5,6 is a reference to Israel aka Ephraim when it was rejected by the Lord and an transferred to Assyria for good so that Judah be confirmed to remain as a lamp in Jerusalem forever. (I Kings 11:36)

 

[Ben Masada]

5. In Midrash Thanhuma, we find the following:

R. Nahman say, The word “man” in the passage, every man a head of the house of his fathers (Num. i. 4), refers to the Messiah the son of David, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah” (the branch); where Yonathan interprets, Behold the man Messiah (Zech. Vi. 12): and so it is said, “A man of pains and known to sickness.”[7]

Here, the Midrash Thanhuma applies Isaiah 53:3 to the Messiah.

Messiah, the son of David, yes, it is a reference to Solomon son of David.

I agree that Isaiah 53:3 is a reference to the Messiah but the Suffering Servant aka Israel if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; and 44:1,2,21.

 

[Ben Masada]

6. In Midrash P’siqtha, it states:

The Holy One brought forth the soul of the Messiah, and said to him…Art thou willing to…redeem my sons…? He replied, I am. God replied, If so, thou must take upon thyself chastisements in order to wipe away their iniquity, as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.” The Messiah answered, I will take them upon me gladly.

Here, the Midrash P’siqtha applies Isaiah 53:4 to the Messiah, and clearly states that Messiah’s sufferings were necessary to wipe away the iniquity of all people.

In this midrash as in all of them, the language is allegorical. The question, "Art thou willing to redeem my sons?" Thou Israel willing to redeem my sons aka those of Judah. (Psalm 78:67-70) "of all people"
the people of Judah.

 

[Ben Masada]

15. Rashi, toward the end of the 11th century, was the first to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel. Initially, he applied it to the Messiah. (See Sanhedrin 93.) Only after the Crusades began did Rashi assert that the suffering servant was Israel.[18] However, Rashi’s new view was seen as an aberration from the traditional view (that it spoke of the Messiah).

And, Baruch HaShem, I have understood it so without having studied Rashi. I don't believe why it could be an aberration because, what would be the option? Since it could not be an individual in particular, it is only obvious that it had to be according to the collective concept of the People aka Israel.

 

[Ben Masada]

15. Rashi, toward the end of the 11th century, was the first to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel. Initially, he applied it to the Messiah. (See Sanhedrin 93.) Only after the Crusades began did Rashi assert that the suffering servant was Israel.[18] However, Rashi’s new view was seen as an aberration from the traditional view (that it spoke of the Messiah).

And, Baruch HaShem, I have understood it so without having studied Rashi. I don't believe why it should be an aberration because, what would be the option? Since it could not be an individual in particular, it is only obvious that it had to be according to the collective concept of the People aka Israel.

 

[Lon]

In short: How can a virgin birth be a sign??

It cannot.

Incorrect. That is a Jewish mindset, trying to discredit Jesus Christ as fulfilling prophecy, and only that. You will have to be honest with scripture. The gospels, recording these things, disagree with rabbinical commentary. One or the other is wrong, so you must ask God to help you know which is which. Jeremiah 29:12-13

So what was the sign? Not a young woman giving birth, that is a very normal occurence.

Yet, that indeed is part of the sign. If it were not, Isaiah would not have needed to have mentioned it, but he did mention it.

The sign was that before the young woman would give birth, the land of the two kings for whom Achaz was in dread, would be deserted, their population having been led into exile.

And that happened.

And so the sign was fulfilled.

However, much of Isaiah is messianic, thus it was not all immediately fulfilled, even if there was partial or immediate fulfillments in part.

"Therefore Y-H-W-H himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

Which had immediate fulfillment, but not all the prophecies were immediately fulfilled and some of them extended beyond the initial dates that others began happening. For this, the land was ravaged by the time Jesus Christ was born.

"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God for ever and ever.".
Micah 4:5

The gospels are written by and to you Jews. They are your books, we gentiles have embraced them and preserved them. As a gentile, I do not presume to come between you. There are a couple of websites owned by Jewish Christians that may serve you better than some of us can. -Lon

 

[Ben Masada]

16. Maimonides (1135-1204), perhaps the most famous rabbi of all time, in a letter to Jacob Alfajumi, stated:

What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent, and where will be the place of His first appearance? . . . And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear…He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, . . . in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, at him the kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them they have seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.[19]

In this quote, Maimonides applied Isaiah 52:15 and Isaiah 53:2 to the Messiah.

As you see, Maimonides did specify the Messiah just as Rashi did find out that he was Israel, which was the same in in the mind of Maimonides. Otherwise he would have specified the individual who fit the Messiah.

 

[Ben Masada]

17. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin of Cordora and Toledo, Spain, writing about this passage in approximately 1350, stated:

I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense: thus, possibly, I shall be free from the fancied and far fetched interpretations of which others have been guilty.

That's a reference to the individual so called Messiah which only causes the interpreters to feel guilty of one more false interpretation.

 

[Ben Masada]

18. Don Yitzhaq Abarbanel, writing in about 1500 C.E., made a statement that is particularly significant because his own view was that Isaiah was not speaking of the Messiah. Concerning Isaiah 52:13 through Isaiah 53:12, he stated:

The first question is to ascertain to whom it refers: for the learned among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the second Temple, and who, according to them, was the Son of God, and took flesh in the virgin’s womb, as is stated in their writings. But Yonathan ben Uzziel interprets it in the Thargum of the future Messiah; but this is also the opinion of our learned men in the majority of their Midrashim...[21] (emphasis added).

In spite of his personal view, Abarbanel was honest enough to admit that the majority of the rabbis of the Midrashim took the passage to speak of the Messiah. He thus agreed that this was the dominant Jewish view of the period of the Targumim and the Midrashim. (so much for the one-person's opinion theory in the Midrash)

Abarbanel was wrong because Isaiah does speak about the Messiah and he was quite careful to identify him with Israel by name. (Isa. 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21)

 

[Ben Masada]

19. In the 16th century, we have the following words of Rabbi Sa’adyah Ibn Danan of Grenada concerning the same Isaiah passage:

One of these, R. Joseph ben Kaspi, was led so far as to say that those who expounded it of the Messiah, who is shortly to be revealed, gave occasion to the heretics to interpret it of Jesus. May G-d, however, forgive him for not having spoken the truth! Our Rabbis, the doctors of the Thalmud, deliver their opinions by the power of prophecy, possessing a tradition concerning the principles of interpretation…alludes covertly to the King Messiah.[22]

Thus, Rabbi Ibn Danan asserted that the dominant view of Isaiah 53 of the Talmudic period was that it referred to the sufferings of the Messiah. In addition, Ibn Danan states that one reason Rabbi ben Kaspi was against interpreting the passage to speak of the Messiah is because the passage was being applied to Yeshua. It appears that attempts to interpret the passage as applying to Israel were driven by anti-Yeshua motives, rather than sound principles of interpretation.

And of course, as it is properly expected, you seem to opt for the interpretation according Christian preconceived notions. It makes no sense at all because Jesus died and the Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37)

The sound principle of interpretation is exactly the one used by Prophet Isaiah that the Messiah was the Suffering Servant Israel aka Messiah ben Yoseph who is preserved today as Messiah ben David aka Judah, plus about 10% of those from the Ten Tribes who escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South. (Ezek. 37:22)

 

[Ben Masada]

20. Rabbi Moshe El-Sheikh was a disciple of Joseph Caro, author of the Shulchan Aruch. Writing in the latter half of the 16th century, Rabbi El-Sheikh stated:

Our Rabbis of blessed memory with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.

I do adhere to the view that the prophet is speaking of the king Messiah but not on an individual basis which eliminated Jesus who has died and the Messiah is not supposed to experience physical death which is true as Israel is concerned.

 

[Ben Masada]

21. Rabbi Eliyyah de Vidas, writing from the latter half of the 16th century, stated:

…and this is that which is written, But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the meaning of which is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of his being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.[24]

We don't need at all to go to other Rabbis or those with Christian preconceived notions. The right interpretation is given by the own author of the book aka Isaiah who gives the right interpretation about whom he is talking about. He said that the Messiah born our iniquities aka those of Judah as Isaiah who was himself a Judahite.

Here, Rabbi de Vidas applies Isaiah 53:5 to the Messiah. By stating, “Since the Messiah bears our iniquities,” Rabbi de Vidas appears to assume that this was common knowledge (i.e. the dominant view). He goes on to state that anyone who refuses to admit (i.e. believe, accept, and possibly confess) that the Messiah would bear our iniquities, must suffer for his or her own sins. (Sobering, yes?)

So do I. I do apply Isaiah 53:5 to the Messiah but Messiah ben Yoseph according to Isaiah 41:8.9; 44:1,2,21 and not according to the Christian dominant view which is falsified with Christian preconceived notions which ends up as a threaten as if it were a commandment in the Decalogue.

 

[Ben Masada]

22. In the 17th century, Rabbi Naphthali ben Asher Altschuler stated:

I will now proceed to explain these verses of our own Messiah, who, God willing, will come speedily in our days! I am surprised that Rashi and R. David Kimchi have not, with the Targums, applied it to the Messiah likewise.[25]

Thus, Rabbi Altschuler, likewise, asserted that the dominant Jewish view of the period of the Targumim was that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is none other than the Messiah. This 17th century rabbi was surprised that one would take any other view.

The concept of a return of the Messiah originated when Israel aka the Jewish People was exiled and the lower class left in the Land of Israel would wait and pray for the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel.

 

[Ben Masada]

Prrof by whose standard? If yours, you've already shown that you don't believe it, so the best anyone could do is to tell you that others do--others that are on the same side of the fence in terms of Jesus of Nazareth. If those others felt, even after Jesus came, that Is 53 speaks of the messiah(even if it didn't speak of Jesus in particular), and you don't, it's likely no proof will ever be good enough for you. God doesn't force anyone to believe correctly about the scriptures.

But if it talks about Israel, then who is suffering for whom?

Do you have any idea about being conquered in battle and transferred to another country and throughout the world? This, Israel aka Messiah ben Yoseph suffered when the Lord rejected him so that Judah could remain as the sole People of Yahweh in the whole Land of Israel. (Psalm 78:67-70) Today this is passed and Judah aka Messiah ben David remains the only Messiah as one nation and no longer two. (Ezek. 37:22)

 

[Ben Masada]

How many of them have risen from the dead and ascended bodily up to heaven?

Absolutely none at all and that includes Jesus who was a Jew and according to the Tanach, every one once dead will never return from the grave. Has Jesus ever return from the grave? No one can prove that. Why? Because it would constitute a contradiction of the Word of God in II Sam. 12:23; 14:14; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9...

 

[Spitfire]

God: Krishna
Born of a virgin

Krishna's mother Devaki had many other children with her husband Vasudeva before Krishna. SOURCE

God: Dionsyus
Born of a virgin

Dionysus' mother Semele became pregnant as a result of Zeus' philandering. Dionysus had to be transplanted and carried to term in Zeus' thigh after his mother died. SOURCE

God: Mithra
Born of a virgin

Mithra was born of rock. No virgins (or women or females at all) were involved. SOURCE

God: Horus
Born of a virgin

"Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish, or sometimes by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account (see Osiris) used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a golden phallus to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving)." SOURCE

Maybe part of the problem here is that people have nooooooo idea what Christians mean by "virgin" when they use that word?

 

[Spitfire]

No, it was not uncommon. There are two kinds of virgin in Hebrew. One is "Almah" which is any young Jewish woman still at the age of giving birth. The other is "Betulah" the literally physical virgin whether she is young or not.

Everything I know about the topic, including the way the word "almah" is used in scrpiture, suggests that it is the equivalent of the word "maiden" in English - a young, marriageable woman who is presumably still a virgin on account of not yet having been married, while "betulah" more literally translates into "virgin" (though even then not without fail).