The Mysterious Revelations of our Lord

Many of the Hebrew prophetic passages were purposely obscure. The Apostle Paul revealed one reason why this was so:

• No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:7-8)

Nevertheless, the message of the Cross was present in cryptic glory:

• For this is what the LORD says: "You [Israel] were sold for nothing, and without money you will be redeemed." (Isaiah 52:3)

Of what could this redemption consist? It had cost money to procure the sacrificial animal. However, the redemption that the Lord promised through Isaiah would be without cost. How could this be?

The redemption would consist of a message and a Messiah, and God would shoulder the entire cost:

• How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace [with God], who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, "Your God reigns!" Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices; together they shout for joy. When the LORD returns to Zion, they will see it with their own eyes. Burst into songs of joy together, you ruins of Jerusalem, for the LORD has comforted his people, he [God] has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD will lay bare his holy arm in the sight of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God. (Isaiah 52:7-10) 

How would Israel possibly be able to see “the LORD [when He] returns to Zion?” He was un-seeable. In fact, anyone who saw Him would be struck dead! This is answered by “his holy arm [revealed] in the sight of all the nations!” Well, what is His “holy arm?” Isaiah explains:

• Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:1-5) 

Sound familiar? More than familiar! This is our Savior, hidden in plain sight by His Father until the appointed time:

• Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name. He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver. He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor." (Isaiah 49:1-3)

I love these portraits! They were given for us who are weak in faith. In fact, even the Hebrew prophets were unable to fathom the depths of what they had prophesied. Instead, it was revealed that they were prophesying for us:

• Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. (1 Peter 1:10-12) 

Thank You, Lord, for revealing these glories to us! We need them!

Do the Hebrew Scriptures Mention a Second Return of the Messiah

 

A rabbi on a Facebook page - Why Jews don't accept Jesu as the Meshiach -challenged me to provide evidence that the Messiah will return for a second time. Here’s my response:

You asked me if I could produce a verse from the Hebrew Scriptures that mentioned a second coming. There are many verses that hint at a second coming, although Scripture is purposely cryptic about the grace of God. Here is one:

•  “He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray,    each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. For he was cut off from the land of the living… for the transgression of my people he was punished… Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, HE WILL SEE HIS OFFSPRING AND PROLONG HIS DAYS, AND THE WILL OF THE LORD WILL PROSPER IN HIS HAND. After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:3-11)

Here is the description of a sinless man who died for the sins of Israel. Nevertheless, it seems that He will live again, and the LORD’s plan “will prosper in His hand.” Evidently, He must RETURN in order to accomplish this.

Bible Critics and their Lack of Evidence: Case of Isaiah

Skeptical critics claim that Isaiah chapters 1-39 were written pre-exilicly (before Judah went into captivity prior to 586 BC), while chapters 40-66 were written post-Babylonian-exile (after 538 BC) by another “Isaiah” (or by a school of “Isaiahs”) in Babylon. Why are they so dogmatic about this?  It appears evident that they have an anti-prophetic bias!

The Book of Isaiah had identified the Persian King Cyrus by name (cir. 700 BC) as God’s chosen person to liberate His people from Babylon:

• Who says of Cyrus, “He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, saying to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be built,’ and to the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.'” Thus says the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held - to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut. (Isaiah 44:28 – 45:1)

It even seems that Cyrus might have been influenced by Isaiah’s prophecy:

• Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: “All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD God of heaven has given me. And He has commanded me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is among you of all His people? May the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up!” (2 Chron. 36:23; also Ezra 1:2)

In any event, an archeological find, the Cyrus Cylinder, verifies that Cyrus allowed various peoples to return to their ancestral lands, to their “sanctuaries,” so that all of their gods would pray for him.

Since many critics reject the supernatural and therefore predictive prophecy, they are compelled to find a natural explanation for what seems to have been a prophecy about Cyrus uttered almost 130 years before his birth. Since necessity is the mother of invention, they were able to produce a theory that would account for this prophecy. Consequently, at least part of the Book of Isaiah (chapters 40-66) must have been written by a later “Isaiah.”

The absence of any hard evidence is seldom a deterrent to the broad acceptance of baseless theories. The fact that there are no scrolls – no Dead Sea scrolls or Septuagint scrolls – that give the slightest evidence of a second Isaiah or of two separate sections or books of Isaiah, does not seem to daunt them in the least.

Nor is there any internal biblical evidence for such conjecture. What then do they use to support their conjecture? They claim that there is both linguistic and stylistic evidence that distinguishes these “two” books. However, even if these distinctions exist, there are many possible explanations for this. Perhaps Isaiah had been compiled by theme. Or perhaps Isaiah’s style changed over the years. (It seems that Isaiah had a prophetic ministry of 60 years). Perhaps instead, God’s revelations to Isaiah underwent growth over the years.

Nor is there any basis for such a radical conclusion in the New Testament. In fact, the NT provides evidence for only a single Isaiah. For instance, John quotes from “both parts” of Isaiah together, without any indication that they might be separate books:

• That the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?" [quoting from Isaiah 53:1] Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them." [quoting from Isaiah 6:9-10] These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him. (John 12:38-41)

Paul also treated the entirety of Isaiah as one book, referring to it together as “Isaiah”:

• Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth." [quoting from Isaiah 10:22-23] And as Isaiah said before: "Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah." [quoting from Isaiah 1:9]… As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." [quoting from Isaiah 8:14; 28:16] (Romans 9:27-33)…. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" [quoting from Isaiah 53:1]… But Isaiah is very bold and says: "I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me." [quoting from Isaiah 65:1-2] (Romans 10:16, 20)

Paul had quoted from both alleged sections of Isaiah as if they were one book.

The critics also claim that the first section (1-39) reveals a pre-exilic focus on the power of that day – Assyria, while the second section (40-66) focuses on Judah’s Babylonian conquerors in Babylon, thereby proving that there must have been two Isaiahs.

However, the evidence will not agree with them. Several of Israel’s pre-exilic prophets either mirror or actually quote from Isaiah 40-66, indicating that this latter section of Isaiah must have predated them:

•                  This is the rejoicing city that dwelt securely, that said in her heart, "I am it, and there is none besides me." (Zeph. 2:15 seemingly quoting Isaiah 47:8)

•                  Nahum 1:15 Behold, on the mountains the feet of him who brings good tidings, who proclaims peace! (quoting Isaiah 52:7)

•                  Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar. The LORD of hosts is His name. (Jeremiah 31:35 seemingly quotes Isaiah 51:15)

In fact, there is no evidence of an alleged background distinction between these two parts of Isaiah. According to the late Old Testament scholar, Gleason Archer, Babylon is mentioned nine times in chapters 1-39, while only four times in 40-66 – the opposite of what the critics would expect! For instance Isaiah 13:17 reads, “Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them” [Babylon], before Babylon was even an independent nation! This goes directly against the two-Isaiah theory.

Rather than Isaiah 40-66 reflecting a Babylonian setting, it reflects a Judean setting:

•                  “O Zion, you who bring good tidings, get up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, you who bring good tidings, lift up your voice with strength, lift it up, be not afraid; say to the cities of Judah, "’Behold your God!’" (Isaiah 40:9)

•                  “I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the LORD, do not keep silent.” (Isaiah 62:6)

•                  "Is this not the fast that I have chosen: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and that you break every yoke?” (Isaiah 58:6)

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written post-exilicly – after the Jews returned to their Promised Land. Consequently, these books contain Aramaisms from the native language that had been spoken in Babylon. However, no Aramaisms are found anywhere in the Book of Isaiah. However, if Isaiah 40-66 had been written after Israel’s exile in Babylonian, we should expect to find the influence of the Aramaic language, but we don’t.

In addition to these problems, Archer also observes:

•                  “Conservative scholars have pointed out at least forty or fifty sentences or phrases which appear in both parts of Isaiah, and indicate common authorship.”

Here are some examples of this:

•                  “For the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it” (1:20; 40:5; 58:14)

•                  “I act and who can reverse it” (43:13; 14:27)

•                  “And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads” (35:10; 51:11)

Archer concludes:

•                  “There is no doctrine set forth in 40-66 which is not already contained, in germ form at least, in 1-39.” (Survey of Old Testament Introductions)

Why then does this doctrine of two or more Isaiah’s remain alive in the liberal seminaries? Perhaps as a testament to the power of will over evidence!

The Historical-Critical Method and how it Influences our Conclusions

Former vice-president and professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary, Harold Lindsell, called the Historical-Critical Method (HCM) “the Bible’s greatest enemy.” Why?

Our methods often determine our conclusions. If I investigate life through a pair of upside-down glasses, everything will look upside-down, and I will conclude that the world is upside down. If instead my lens is gray, I’ll conclude that life has a gray tint.

We see life through our lenses – our methodological assumptions and scholarly tools. If methodological naturalism is our guiding lens, natural causation is the only thing we will see. Consequently, we will conclude that all scientific causation is natural and non-intelligent.

Our presuppositions give birth to our conclusions. Regarding the HCM, Grant Osborne, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, writes:

• The truth is that most scholars end up with conclusions remarkably similar to the presuppositions with which they began their study (Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 282)

Our starting point is usually our terminus. If we analyze the Bible through the HCM lens, our conclusions will be influenced by this method to the denial of the divinity of the Scriptures. HCM approaches the Bible with the assumption that it can be understood in the same way as any other book - from a strictly human perspective. Hence, the human author writes what he does solely out of human motivations. Consideration of Divine motives or intentions has no place in this analysis. The identification of a Divine imprint is simply outside the scope or interest of the HCM.

If the only thing that you have in your hand is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. When your tool box is the HCM, the Bible suddenly looks entirely human. Its formation is consequently understood in terms of a clash between warring interest groups, colliding cultures and a response to the pressures of the times. No room for a Divine or a prophetic hand here!

For instance, the Book of Isaiah is consequently understood as a political history and not a divine prophecy, according to the HCM. What then is done with Isaiah’s prophecies which, almost 200 years earlier, had named King Cyrus as God’s chosen tool to release Israel from captivity:

• [God] who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, ‘Let it be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Let its foundations be laid.’” This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus. (Isaiah 44:28-45:1)

Isaiah lived and prophesied in the 8^th century BC, 200 hundred years before Cyrus made his grand entry. And since such a miraculous and precise prophecy does not coincide with the HCM’s non-miraculous assumptions – only human explanations are permitted here – then this prophecy couldn’t have been prophecy. Therefore, Isaiah must have been written after Cyrus liberated Israel to return to the Promised Land.  

However, “facts” must be produced that will support the theory. Unfortunately for the HCM, there are many evidences that Isaiah had been written prior to Israel’s exile to Babylon and subsequent liberation by Cyrus. Also, Isaiah’s language does not reflect any Aramaic influences as do the post-exilic Prophets. Furthermore, Isaiah portrays a pre-exilic setting – a concern about the advances of Assyria when Israel was still in their land.

However, these facts present little difficulty for the HCM. Without any hard evidence, the HCM – in this case, it is called the Wellhausen Hypothesis (WH) – came to the rescue by inventing a second “Isaiah.” According to this invention, the First Isaiah (chapters 1-39) was written pre-exilicly, when Israel was still a nation, while the Second Isaiah (chapters 40-66, containing the Cyrus “prophecy”) was conveniently written post-exilicly. 

However, upon subsequent examination, it was objected that this hypothesis simply didn’t fit the facts. Several pre-exilic Prophets resemble (or actually quote from) the allegedly post-exilic Second Isaiah (Zeph. 2:15; Nahum 1:15; Jer. 31:35), suggesting that Second Isaiah is a creative invention and not reality.

Furthermore, according to the WH, First Isaiah should be focused upon the earlier Assyrian threat, while Second Isaiah (chapters 40-66) the later Babylonian threat and conquest.

However, when you have an appealing theory, the facts are easily ignored. The late Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer found that Babylon is mentioned nine times in chapters 1-39 and only four times in chapters 40-66, in contradiction to the assertions of the WH. Archer adds:

• Conservative scholars have pointed out at least forty or fifty sentences or phrases which appear in both parts of Isaiah, and indicate common authorship. (Survey of Old Testament Introductions)

• There is no doctrine set forth in 40-66 which is not already contained, in germ form at least, in 1-39.

However, the HCM is like melted ice cream. When it fails to conform to its stick, sandwich or cone, it can easily be poured into any other container. Consequently, when the WH was invalidated by new findings, it simply found a new container. Suddenly, a third Isaiah was confidently brought on stage, and when these three Isaiahs couldn’t contain the facts, an entire school of Isaiah’s, writing over long period of time, was postulated.

Who cares about the facts when Isaiah can be “explained” in an entirely non-miraculous manner! Consequently, the WH is still being taught as fact in many seminaries.

What is the impact of the HCM? Theologian J.I. Packer laments that the HCM:

• Raises a doubt about every single Bible passage, as to whether it truly embodies revelation or not…It destroys the reverent…approach to the Bible without which it cannot be known as “God’s Word.”

With the HCM in charge, Christianity can no longer be Christianity but a mere human attempt to grope after a god of one’s own creation.

However, does the HCM shed light upon Scripture? Not according to C.S. Lewis:

• My impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these [HCM] guesses has on any point been right; that the method…shows a record of 100 per cent failure. (Lindsell, 287)

Lindsell observes that the HCM practitioner:

• Has nothing but his own opinions on which to depend. And his opinions vary so widely from those held by others who use the same methodology that nothing but confusion and uncertainty result from the used of this method that nullifies Scripture while it subjects it to the whims of sinful man. (287-88).

Why then does it remain popular? Well, why does the belief that the universe sprang into existence uncaused from nothing remain popular? Neither have any factual support! However, they both have their appeal as a bulwark against the claims of the Biblical faith.

The atheist and author of the Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, candidly explained his rejection of the Christian faith:

• I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning [and moral absolutes]; consequently assumed that it had none…We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless. (Ends and Mean)

Rabbis, Skeptics, and the Suffering Messiah

On the day of His resurrection, two disciples were dragging themselves, “faces downcast,” towards a village called Emmaus. They suddenly found that they were joined by another, but “they were kept from recognizing Him.” Not knowing that this was their Lord, they confessed their profound disappointment to Him:

·        “We had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.” (Luke 24:21)

They had despaired of their faith. Therefore, Christ gave them a swift proverbial kick:

·        He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” (Luke 24:25-27)

According to Jesus, Scripture is about Him (John 5:39). By revealing how Scripture had prophesied His death and resurrection, Jesus provided a degree of comfort on the Emmaus road.

However, some critics argue that such comfort is not to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, professor of religion, Bart Ehrman, argues that prophecies of the Messiah’s death and resurrection are entirely absent from these Scriptures:

·        In the Jewish tradition, before the appearance of Christianity, there was no expectation of a suffering Messiah. But doesn’t the Bible constantly talk about the Messiah who would suffer? As it turns out, the answer is no. Since the beginning, Christians have frequently cited certain passages in the Old Testament as clear prophecies of the future suffering Messiah, passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, in which someone suffers horribly, sometimes expressly for the sins of others…Jews who do not believe in Jesus, however, have always had a very effective response: the Messiah is never mentioned in these passages. (Jesus, Interrupted, 228-29)

The fact that the word for “Messiah” is not mentioned in these passages is immaterial. The ancient rabbis regarded many passages as Messianic – even the most prominent ones (2 Sam. 7:14; Psalm 2; 110; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11) – although they do not contain this term.

Besides, it is beyond dispute that the ancient Rabbis did regard these passages as Messianic, along with almost every Messianic passage quoted in the New Testament! Alfred Edersheim provides two references from the Yalkut, which regard Psalm 22 as Messianic (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 718). Edersheim also provides two references for Isaiah 53 – one from the Midrash on Samuel, and the other from a Targum (727).

However, there are many other Jewish references regarding Isaiah 53 as Messianic. Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, a famous 16^th century rabbinic scholar asserted:

·        [Our] Rabbis with one voice, accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet [Isaiah 53] is speaking of king Messiah.  (Rachmiel Frydland, What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah, 53)

Friedland also quotes the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin:

·        The Rabanan [rabbis] say that Messiah’s name is The Suffering Scholar…for it is written, “Surely He hath borne our grief and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.” [Isaiah 53] (54)

The Talmud quotes Isaiah 53:4 in reference to Messiah. However, it goes further by acknowledging that the Messiah would suffer for our sins. Clearly, this is in direct contradiction to Ehrman’s claim that the Jews believe that the “Messiah is never mentioned in these passages.”

Rabbi Friedland contradicts this claim:

·        Generally then, the Talmud, the Targum, the Midrashim, the Zohar and Pesikta Rabbati recognized a suffering Messiah in fulfillment of Isaiah 53 and other similar descriptions in the Tenach. (54)

Douglas Pyle adds some additional references. The revered 12^th century Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides wrote:

·        “Yet he carried our sicknesses, being himself sick and distressed for the transgressions which should have caused sickness and distress in us, and bearing the pains which we ought to have experienced. But we, when we saw him weakened and prostrate, thought we were healed [Isaiah 53:5] – because the stripes by which he was vexed and distressed will heal us: God will pardon us for his righteousness and we shall be healed from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.”

While it is true that modern-day no longer regard Isaiah 53 as Messianic, the ancient authorities did! Pyle provides a number of other quotations. Midrash Aseret Memrot states:

·        “The Messiah, in order to atone for them both [for Adam and David] will ‘make his soul a trespass offering,’ [Isaiah 53:10].”

The highly regarded 1^st century Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai stated:

·        “The meaning of the words Bruised for our iniquities’ [Isaiah 53:5] 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 them for them himself.” (What the Rabbonim Say About Moshiach, Douglas Pyle)

There is just a wealth of ancient evidence to demonstrate that Ehrman’s claim is incorrect and that the ancient rabbis did regard Isaiah 53 as Messianic. However, today many rabbis have rallied around the assertion that the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel and not the Messiah. Furthermore, instead of the Messiah dying for the sins of the people, according to this formulation, Israel would and did die for the Gentiles. However, it is time to look directly at Isaiah 53 to determine whether such an assertion is at all tenable.

Isaiah 53:1-3 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we [Gentiles] see Him [Israel], there is no beauty that we [Gentiles] should desire Him [Israel]. He [Israel] is despised and rejected by [Gentile] men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we [Gentiles] hid, as it were, our faces from Him [Israel]; He was despised, and we [Gentiles] did not esteem Him.

For the sake of clarity, I’ve inserted within the parentheses what the modern rabbinic interpretation looks like. From the start, such an interpretation is highly implausible. For one thing, the narrator is no longer Isaiah but a Gentile spokesman [“we,” 53:3] who has incredibly slipped in and dislodged the author Isaiah. However, there is no precedent for such a thing in all of Scripture.

In a vain attempt to eliminate Jesus from consideration, the modern rabbis have condemned themselves to an absurd interpretation, in which Israel dies for “we” Gentiles. Is there any Biblical evidence that Israel would die a redemptive death for the Gentiles? No! All of the evidence points to God as Redeemer, not sinful Israel! Meanwhile, Israel is always characterized as the object of mercy, not its source.

In The Jew and the Christian Missionary, Rabbi Gerald Sigal also argues that this chapter could not possibly refer to Jesus:

·        Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, does not at all fit that of the Suffering Servant of the Lord as portrayed in Isaiah.

Why not? Sigal argues that the Jesus of the Gospels was popular. However the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 was not. In support of this charge, he cites several verses:

·        Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. (Luke 4:14-15; similarly, Luke 8:4; Matthew 27:57)

However, Jesus’ popularity was only temporary and skin-deep. Ultimately, the world turned against Him:

·        John 7:7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. (Also John 15:18-20)

·        John 6:66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

·        Matthew 27:22 Pilate said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said to him, "Let Him be crucified!"

Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely He [Israel] has borne our [Gentile] griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we [Gentiles] esteemed Him [Israel] stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He [Israel] was wounded for our [Gentile] transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him [Israel], and by His [Israel’s] stripes we [Gentiles] are healed. All we [Gentiles] like sheep have gone astray; We [Gentiles] have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him [Israel] the iniquity of us [Gentiles] all.

Remarkably, Sigal, following other rabbis, claims that the narrators are Gentiles:

• The Gentile spokesmen depict the Servant (the Nation of Israel) as bearing the “diseases” and carrying the “pains” which they themselves should have suffered.

However, just a quick read through the Prophets of Israel will show that Israel wasn’t in any position to carry the sins of others. They could not even bear their own sins. The Prophets make it plain that it was Israel who has “gone astray” and “turned, every one, to his own way.”

Traditionally, Israel-as-Redeemer hadn’t been the Jewish position. Maimonides, commenting  on Isaiah 53:4, wrote:

• Yet he carried our sicknesses, being himself sick and distressed for the transgressions which should have caused sickness and distress in us, and bearing the pains which we ought to have experienced. But we, when we saw him weakened and prostrate, thought we were healed [53:5] – because the stripes by which he was vexed and distressed will heal us: God will pardon us for his righteousness and we shall be healed from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.”

According to Maimonides, the Redeemer is the Messiah. We even find this thinking reflected in the Day of Atonement Musaf (additional) prayer:

• “Our righteous anointed [Messiah] is departed from us: horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgression [53:5]. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time that the Eternal will create him as a new creature.”

Despite of the wealth of evidence to the contrary, Ehrman confidently and repeatedly claims that:

• The idea that Jesus was the suffering Messiah was an invention of the early Christians. (236)

Isaiah 53:7 He [Israel] was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He [Israel] opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth.

Although we cannot find any Biblical references to affirm that Israel had been silent in the face of oppression, we do find that this is true of Jesus. Nevertheless, Sigal claims that:

• Jesus presented a strong defense both before the Sanhedrin and Pilate!

In support of this absurd claim, Sigal cites John 18:20-21:

• Jesus answered him, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said."

This was no defense. Jesus acted provocatively in order to be found “guilty,” as the next two verses indicate:

• And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, "Do You answer the high priest like that?" Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:22-23)

According to the standards of that day, Jesus had answered confrontationally and was therefore struck. This was the opposite of a defense. Before the Sanhedrin, He remained silent, opening His mouth only to aid the prosecution:

• But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? (Mark 14:61-63)

Before Pilate, Jesus admitted He had a kingdom. According to Pilate’s thinking, this would place Him in competition with His boss Caesar, who had zero tolerance for any kingdoms besides his own:

• “What have You done?" [Pilate asked.] Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world." (John 18:35-37)

At this point, to exonerate a “rival” king was to betray Caesar – risky business! Jesus then further infuriated both Pilate and King Herod with His silence:

• And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" But He answered him not one word [in defense], so that the governor marveled greatly. (Matthew 27:12-14)

• Then he questioned Him with many words, but He answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. (Luke 23:9-10)

Contrary to Sigal’s claim, we find no semblance of any defense here. If anything, Jesus was helping the prosecution to condemn Him.

Isaiah 53:8-9 He [Israel]  was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare His generation? For He [Israel] was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My [Gentile] people He [Israel] was stricken. And they made His [Israel’s] grave with the wicked--but with the rich at His [Israel’s] death, because He [Israel] had done no violence. Nor was any deceit in His [Israel’s] mouth.

Jesus was deprived of justice (“judgment”) and was killed. Therefore, no one could talk about His progeny (“generation”). However, this hadn’t been the case with Israel. Israel was not “cut off from the land of the living.” Israel remained to produce progeny. It is also clearly untrue that Israel “had done no violence. Nor was any deceit in His [Israel’s] mouth.” At times, the Prophets charged that Israel had morally descended below the Gentiles.

How was Israel’s grave with both the wicked and the rich? Sigal claims that, somehow, this was figuratively true. However, the Gospels declare that this was the case with Jesus, dying with sinners and buried in a rich man’s tomb. These are claims that could have been very easy to disprove had they not been true!

However, Sigal claims that this description could not fit Jesus because Jesus had done much “violence,” contrary to Isaiah’s description of the Suffering Servant. In support of this charge, Sigal cites Jesus’ “violence” to the money-changers (Matthew 21:12), His casting demons out into swine (Mark 5:13), and His teaching about bringing a sword to divide families (Matthew 10:34-35.)

However, this is a desperate attempt to disqualify Jesus. In none of these three instances did Jesus perform or advocate sinful violence. Clearly, there was no attempt to bring charges against Him for expelling the money-changers. If Jesus had broken the law, the Sanhedrin would have brought charges against him.

Sigal then claims that “no deceit in his mouth”(53:9) could not apply to Jesus! This is because Jesus had been misleading when He promised to raise the Temple up in three days (John 2:19-21), which He didn’t do, simply because He was talking figuratively about His body.

Sigal also indicts Jesus because He hid the truth, talking in parables (Matthew 13:10-11). According to him, this practice was deceitful. However, according to this thinking, poets are also deceitful.

Isaiah 53:10-11 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him [Israel]; He has put Him to grief. When You make His [Israel’s] soul an offering for sin, He [Israel] shall see His seed (”offspring”), He [Israel] shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His [Israel’s] knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their [Gentile] iniquities.

There is no reason to suppose that Israel’s death could represent “an offering for sin.” Sin offerings had to be without any blemish. Meanwhile, Israel was covered with them.  Consequently, Israel could not qualify to “bear their [Gentile] iniquities.”

We should also ask how it could possibly be that the knowledge of Israel “shall justify many?” There is absolutely no Biblical precedent for such an idea. However, it is true that faith (knowledge) in the Messiah will “justify many!” (Psalm 2:12).

Also, throughout, the masculine singular pronoun “he” is used to designate the suffering servant. Such a pronoun is very rarely used in regards to Israel. More usually, Israel is referred to as “you,” she/her.” and “they/them.” However, there is absolutely no problem at all in using “he” in reference to the Messiah.

Sigal claims that “offspring” or “seed” (53:10) could not pertain to believers in Christ, as Christians allege, because, according to him, this term is always used to designate one’s own children and not figurative or spiritual children.

However, even though this is the usual usage for “offspring,” there are exceptions. Sometimes, it can be used figuratively:

• But come here, you sons of the sorceress, you offspring of the adulterer and the harlot! Whom do you ridicule? Against whom do you make a wide mouth and stick out the tongue? Are you not children of transgression, offspring of falsehood? (Isaiah 57:3-4)

It is also interesting to note that this Servant, who dies as a burnt offering for the people, will eventually “see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.” This implies that He will live subsequent to His death. Therefore, this prophecy also represents a cryptic reference to the resurrection.

In fact, all of the verses envisioning the death of the Messiah also seem to contain a cryptic reference to His subsequent resurrection! I’ll just offer one more example:

• Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. (Psalm 16:9-10)

Interestingly, this verse cryptically portrays the Messiah’s death and subsequent life. As David, He too will be in the grave (death). However, He will not remain and decay there (resurrection)!

This entire discourse will raise the question, “Why then isn’t God more explicit about these critical matters?” While I think that there are many reasons for this, I’ll just address one. There is knowledge that we are not ready to handle. The Apostle Paul writes:

• No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." (1 Cor. 2:7-9)

It is not just God’s enemies who are kept in the dark. It is we too, and I trust for good reason! Meanwhile, He has granted us a body of knowledge, which are we mandated to defend against the Gospel’s many detractors. May our Lord enable us!