Is Jesus the Jews' Messiah?

IS JESUS THE JEWS’ MESSIAH?

by James A. McCune

Second Edition

Copyright 2011 by James A. McCune

Copyright 1998 by James A McCune

All rights reserved.

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the rights of this author.

Attributes:

Selected scriptures are quoted from the Revised Standard Version of the bible Copyright 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.

Selected scriptures are quoted from the New Revised Standard Version of the bible Copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.

Used by permission.

Selected scriptures taken from the New American Standard Bible ®,

Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 Used by permission.

Selected scriptures are quoted from the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® (North American Edition). Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984, by International Bible Society. Used by permission of

Zondervan Publishing House.

Appreciation is expressed to Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., for granting permission to quote selected scriptural references from The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, Jay P. Green, Sr., translator, general editor, and copyright holder along with Christian Copyrights, Inc., 1976, 1979, 1980.

Most scriptural quotations are from the Authorized, or King James Version of the Bible, provided graciously by His Majesty, King James,

sovereign of Great Britain, in 1611.

IS JESUS THE JEWS’ MESSIAH?

Table of Contents

Introduction:

Chapter 1: Does the Old Testament Teach the Need of a Mediator Between God and Man?

Chapter 2: Was the Messiah to be a Man, the Son of God, or Himself God?

Chapter 3: Does Jesus’ Claim to be God Violate the One God Principle?

Chapter 4: Was the Messiah to Restore Israel and Rule Only, or to Die for Sins as Well?

Chapter 5: Does the Passover Ceremony Anticipate Jesus’ Death and Resurrection?

Chapter 6: Was the Messiah to Come Once, or Twice?

Chapter 7: Did Jesus, His Disciples, or Paul Do Away with the Law of Moses?

Chapter 8: Did Jesus’ Teaching and Attitude Contradict the Spirit of Judaism?

Chapter 9: The Logic of the Resurrection

Powerpoint graphic of Crucifixion Week

Chapter 10: Jewish Problems with the New Testament

Chapter 11: Coincidental Evidence Supporting the New Testament

Chapter 12: Separating Jesus from the Polluted Paraphernalia of Paganized Christianity

Appendix A: Written Law versus Oral Tradition

Appendix B: A Covenant with Israel Forever

Appendix C: Prophetic Evidence Suggesting Jesus is the Messiah

Endnotes

The MESSIAH --

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

too little to be among the clans of Judah,

From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.

His goings forth are from long ago,

From the days of eternity. (Mic. 5:2, NASB)

Surely our griefs He Himself bore,

and our sorrows He carried;

Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten of God, and afflicted.

But He was pierced through for our transgressions,

He was crushed for our iniquities;

The chastening of our well-being fell upon Him,

And by His scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray,

Each of us has turned to his own way;

But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all

To fall on Him. (Isa. 53:4-6, NASB)

The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand,

Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for thy feet."

The Lord will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, Rule in the midst of Thine enemies.

(Psa. 110:1, NASB)

Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand,

and his arm shall rule for him: BEHOLD,

his reward is with him, and his work before him.

He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. (Isa. 40:10-11, KJV)

Introduction

As Christianity has drifted further and further from the law, and from the faith once delivered, the Jews have continued to distance themselves from both Jesus and the church that proclaims Him. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the Jews will ever accept a Jesus, or a church teaching Jesus, that proclaims that the Sabbath (as well as the body of the Mosaic law) has been done away, that worships the Babylonian queen of heaven Ishtar rather than keep God’s Passover, and that has a general lack of respect for what is holy as opposed to what is unholy, or for what is clean versus what is unclean. For reasons that will become apparent in Chapter 12, I would like to ask the Jewish reader to forget for a moment the paganism of the Christian church and consider the evidence for Jesus’ Messiahship objectively, and apart from the body of Christian doctrine.

Indeed, there are many reasons why the Jews have rejected Jesus as Messiah, but seven stand out as pillars around which all other arguments are formed: (1) no mediator is necessary between the Jew and his God; (2) the notion of God incarnate, or in the flesh, is anathema to the Jew; (3) strict adherence to monotheism (one God) excludes a Jesus who claims to be divine; (4) the Messiah was not to die for the sins of the world, but to restore Israel and rule; (5) Jesus didn’t establish the world-ruling Kingdom of God; (6) Jesus (or His disciples) did away the Mosaic law and, by their other teachings, violated the very spirit of Judaism; (7) the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a hoax. All other objections appear to fall behind one of these seven massive barriers to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Messiah of the Jews, and indeed of all mankind.

Because some concepts cannot even be rationally considered until other higher and enabling concepts are first accepted, or at least understood, this book has a logical sequence to it. For example, it does no good to present evidence suggesting that the Messiah was to be God in the flesh if the necessity of a mediator between man and God is denied. Who cares if someone came to die for sins if such a sacrifice is dismissed as not being necessary for the repentant Jew? Old Testament evidence concerning the absolute need for a mediator, for both Jew and Gentile, is therefore the subject of Chapter 1.

If one accepts the need for a mediator, it is then urgent that that mediator not be a sinner, else how could he pay the ransom for the sins of others? But how can human flesh be sinless before God? This involves proof—again from the Old Testament—that the Messiah of God is only able to avoid sin because he himself is God in the flesh, as Isaiah 9:6 suggests; this is the subject of Chapter 2. Presenting this evidence, however, triggers objection number three, a big one: the assertion that a divine Messiah violates the strict monotheism of Judaism. But how can this be when it is the same Old Testament that claims strict monotheism that also claims that the child will be called the mighty God! Chapter 3 deals with this objection using Old Testament scriptures that should make it clear. The reader that clears these three high hurdles with his or her mind still open will automatically get a second wind that will carry him forward. For these three objections—the need for a mediator, the need for that mediator to be God incarnate (that is, having the nature of both man and God), and the understanding that this individual’s divinity does not violate the oneness of God—form the foundational pillars of the Jews’ argument against Jesus as the Christ, the anointed one of God. But if, on the other hand, these pillars do support Jesus, then they also support the understanding of God’s plan of salvation for mankind, and in the process enable the understanding of why man is even here in the first place.

Is the Messiah to be this mediator of a New Covenant that is to be ratified with the blood of a sin offering? Is the death of the Messiah taught in the Old Testament? And, if He dies, how will he accomplish setting up and ruling over the literal Kingdom of God on earth? Chapter 4 demonstrates that the Messiah does indeed have two missions: to die for the sins of others as a ransom, and to subdue the kingdoms of this world . . . while at the same time raising up David to rule over all Israel! Chapter 6 goes to great lengths presenting seven powerful proofs from the Old Testament that show that the Messiah was, in fact, to come twice, as Jesus said: once to die for the sins of mankind, and once—many years later—to establish His world ruling kingdom.

Chapters 7 and 8 deal with Jesus’ attitude toward the law and Jewish tradition. The point will be made that Jesus and his disciples kept the law (including the Sabbath) and taught others to do the same, in spite of teaching by the Christian church to the contrary. On the other hand, Jesus’ attitude toward the oral law and the traditions of the elders was oftentimes hostile because He viewed them as contrary to the intended use of the law. We will demonstrate clearly that many of these traditions violated the spirit of the very Mosaic Law they were supposedly designed to support. A special section on the oral law and its many contradictions of the written Law of Moses can be found in Appendix A.

Of course if the Messiah is to die for the purpose of reconciling sinners, then He must rise from the dead or else His death is in vain and we are still in our sins! As high as this particular hurdle may seem, it is not an unnecessarily steep one for the Jew, because the resurrection from the dead is taught throughout the Old Testament. Chapter 9 goes through an interesting array of evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus from the dead three days and three nights (not a day and a half, as modern Christianity teaches) from the time of His death on the cross at Passover.

Chapters 10 and 11 present supplemental evidence on Net Testament issues that have posed problems for Jewish readers of that book for centuries. In Chapter 10 topics such as the relationship between grace and works, predestination and free choice, and original sin and the nature of man will be explained from the Old Testament. Chapter 11 reviews a number of events and teachings in the New Testament that are highly unlikely to have been written by someone fabricating a deliberate fraud, therefore these events add credibility to the New Testament’s veracity, and to the case for Jesus as Messiah.

Chapter 12 may be a surprise for the Jewish reader, but will definitely be a treat for him or her. It traces the erroneous replacement of the Sabbath with Sunday and the Passover with Easter by the Church of Rome. By dismantling the pagan paraphernalia of the Christian church and restoring the things of God’s law, the Jewish reader is presented with the opportunity to understand the evidence supporting Jesus as Messiah without the idolatrous stench of Roman Mithraism, anciently known as Baal worship. The book’s concluding remarks will suggest that the Jew who finds the evidence supporting Jesus believable but the practices of contemporary Christianity repulsive is not to worry: the Christian church is unclean and must be rebuilt from the ground up without the influence of paganism. This will be accomplished by God’s two witnesses at the end-time. This is touched upon toward the end of Chapter 12.

Since those Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah also, by definition, reject the New Testament, we must search for our evidence in the Old. While New Testament scriptures will be referenced to illustrate a point, proof will be sought primarily from the text of the Old Testament, and not from either the Christians’ New Testament or the Jews’ Oral Law or tradition. Therefore all quotations from the Old Testament referred to in this work will be bolded.

Finally, Appendix B takes up the mysterious but fascinating topic of what happened to the lost 10 tribes of Israel, who vanished from history after being dispersed first into Assyria, and then from Assyria to presumably unknown parts. The subject of Is Jesus the Jews’ Messiah? would not be complete unless we also gave answers to these Israelites along with the Jews. The Northern (ten) tribes were not known as Judah, but as the nation of Israel; although Hebrew, they were not considered Jewish. We are told that God has put a stumblingblock before both the houses of Israel. The southern nation of Judah has stumbled over the testimony of Jesus; the northern tribes known as Israel have stumbled over the validity and importance of the law:

"Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Many will stumble over them, Then they will fall and be broken; They will even be snared and caught. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait for the LORD who is hiding His face from the house of Jacob; I will even look eagerly for Him. (Isa. 8:14-17, NASB)

Hopefully this work will provide those who are not too familiar with the Old Testament—or those who may be very familiar with it but are open to a fresh perspective—a chance to sort out some very difficult, but also very important concepts. Again, please read the chapters in the order presented in order to maximize understanding, and take your time going through them: some of this is fairly intense! Distractions to peruse some of the excellent references cited herein should also prove useful. If you have difficulty finding some of them, you may want to visit Princeton University’s Speer Theological Library, where most of the older ones were found.

(Table of Contents)

Chapter 1

Does the Old Testament Teach the Need for a Mediator Between God and Man?

Before we can consider who the Jewish Messiah is or might be, we must first consider the characteristics of the Messiah and what He is, or was to do. What is His mission? What is His mission thought to be? Christians claim the most important part of Jesus’ mission on earth was to redeem many by His death as an offering for sin. In other words, to pay the ransom that enables all men—male and female, Israelite and Gentile—to be reconciled to God, and thereby inherit the resurrection to eternal life. Does the Old Testament teach the need for a mediator between man and God? Many Jews claim that it doesn’t, and that man is reconciled to God on his own through repentance. In fact, this non-belief in the necessity of a mediator between man and God is an important argument in the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. If no mediator is needed, then Jesus’ death was in vain and there is no reason to believe that He is, or could be, the Jew’s Messiah. Several such opinions are expressed below:

The Christian doctrines of original sin and of the corruption of the flesh lead to the conclusion of man’s incapacity to atone unaided for his staggering load of guilt. This distrust in the efficacy of the ethical effort per se inevitably induces doubts in the adequacy of repentance as the medium of the sinner’s reconciliation with God. And so Christianity teaches that repentance and the mending of one’s ways do not suffice for procuring Divine forgiveness. Man is so deeply immersed in guilt, his own and the hereditary sin of the human race, that he cannot hope to extricate himself from this mire of perdition without the assistance of grace.

But while the infinite difference between man and God is also the starting-point of Christian thinking, God’s transcendence is overcome not by the arbitrary act of human piety but by the self-chosen and self-willed manifestation of God in the person of Jesus Christ; in Judaism it is overcome by man himself. This is the most significant difference between Church and Synagogue.¹

The Church thus speaks in terms of unredeemed humanity. Without this fact, the Incarnation becomes superfluous. The Cross, which in the eyes of the Church is the symbol of Salvation, otherwise becomes a mere tragedy and the Christian Faith the result of a misunderstanding.²

Indeed, the whole idea of one dying so that another can live, or the paying of a penalty owed by someone else, is often stated as contrary to Jewish ethics:

The idea of vicarious atonement, that is to say, the payment of the penalty not by the sinner but by a substitute, is irreconcilable with Jewish ethics. . . . For justice requires that whosoever hath sinned shall suffer.³

Judaism cannot follow her daughter religion on this flight into the realms of mythology. It cannot understand why an innocent sacrifice is required to atone for the guilt of the sinner.⁴

The scriptural reference referred to in the previous quotation is the following:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24: 16)

This admonition was aimed at individuals who might take vengeance on the son, or on the father, of one who had done them a grievous wrong. It was also to ensure that justice was done by prohibiting an individual from volunteering to bear the penalty incurred by a loved one, or a powerful or wealthy man from coercing any third party (through blackmail or threat of death) to pay the penalty for his sin. Weiss-Rosmarin is correct that the stated principle of justice is that the father is not to be punished for the sins of the son, nor the son punished for those of the father (Deut. 24: 16), but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Such a restriction does not apply, however, to the sacrifice of the Messiah for the sins of all mankind as a ransom that will allow man entrance, at last, into the very presence of God.

The righteous one, my Servant, causes many to be righteous, and their iniquities he bears. (Isa. 53: 11)

Mediation necessary for man Outside the veil

Notice that the Righteous Servant causes many others to be righteous, and that he bears, or pays the price for, their iniquities! How is this consistent with the notion of every man shall die for his own sins? One distinction that should be made is that between civil and religious penalty. When one wrongs his brother and is brought to court and found guilty, he must make restitution. But even though repentance has been offered to God and restitution has been made man-to-man, there is still a vestige of transgression remaining against God, hence the annual day of Atonement for sins that had already been repented of and for which restitution had already been made earlier in the year. In other words repentance, although required, is not quite enough. In the verse quoted above we see that the payment by one individual—at least by this one individual spoken of here—is considered adequate to pay the price for the sins of many. We will return to this notion of vicarious suffering later, but first we note additional references to the belief that no such mediation is necessary:

The doctrine of vicarious atonement quite logically led to the belief in Jesus’ role as the mediator between men and their Father in Heaven. Judaism, on the other hand, being irrevocably committed to the conviction that each and every human being has always and ever access to God, provided he draws near to Him in truth and righteousness, rejects the very idea of mediation, for man can approach God through prayer, and hope to be heard.⁵

Israel’s redemption depends on Israel’s repentance; redemption from sin is understood in terms of forgiveness: it is God’s prerogative to save man from sin. This he does by an act of forgiveness. Hermann Cohen thus makes forgiveness of sin the particular specialty of God’s goodness.⁶ Judaism, therefore, emphasizes not Salvation but Atonement. The Day of Atonement occupies a central place in the calendar of the Synagogue.⁷

To claim that the concept of mediation is irreconcilable with Jewish ethics or that such a concept is not at the very root of the day of Atonement is to miss the point of Israel’s wilderness experience entirely. Observe for a moment that the place where God dwelled with the children of Israel was in the Holy of Holies, in the tabernacle, above the cherubim placed on top of the ark of the covenant. If there is no need for a mediator between man and God, why was there a thick veil separating man’s place from God’s in the tabernacle? Why was the high priest alone to enter into this most holy place, and that only once a year? And why—if nothing beyond repentance was required to gain access to God—was the average Hebrew citizen never allowed into the Holy of Holies in the presence of God? Clearly repentance and atonement are vital steps toward reconciliation with God, but the fact that they do not provide access suggests that something more is required. In 1st Samuel we find again the notion that the courts can settle the claim of one man against another, but who can make it right between man and God? . . .

If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him? (1 Sam. 2: 25)

And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. (Psa. 143: 2)

Both the Old Testament, as we shall see shortly, and the New Testament speak of the sacrifice of God’s Righteous Servant causing many to be righteous. The New Testament witness to the tearing in two of the veil of separation in the temple, upon Jesus’ death, provides a vivid contrast between man’s relationship to God before this sacrifice and after. The difference is that between forgiveness and reconciliation:

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Eph. 2: 16-18)

Mediation necessary because of man’s nature

A further problem for man over and above any transgressions he may commit that estrange him from God is his nature. He cannot approach God because he is born of woman and has not God’s nature, but his parents’ human nature. This is the true meaning of original sin, if sin is defined to mean missing the mark. Man’s nature misses the mark when compared to God’s nature:

How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm? (Job 25: 4-6)

Is it not instructive for us that the most righteous human being in God’s sight was convinced that his own ability to do right, or to seek forgiveness, was not enough to reconcile him to God? Moreover, Job gives us the impression that—without a mediator or go-between—we simply cannot stand in His presence:

Even if I washed myself with soap and my hands with washing soda, you would plunge me into a slime pit so that even my clothes would detest me. "He is not a man like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court. If only there were someone to arbitrate between us, to lay his hand upon us both, someone to remove God's rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. (Job 9: 30-34, New International Version)

Consistent with the ideas discussed above that man is not capable of reconciliation with God on his own is Isaiah’s comment that even at our best, let alone at our worst, our righteousness is not enough:

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isa. 64:6)

Upon closer inspection we find that the notion of redemption, or paying the price for another is clearly taught in the Old Testament—particularly in terms of offenses against God where we ourselves don’t have enough of value to pay the price. ‘Padah’ connotes redemption for which an equivalent of some kind is exacted; while ‘Ga’al’ implies redemption without anything in the shape of payment. Notice the use of the word ‘Padah,’ to redeem, to ransom, to pay a price for:

But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah. (Psa 49:15 KJV)

And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities. (Psa 130:8 )

I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (Hos. 13:14)

For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. (Mic. 6:4)

These verses reveal that it is God who is Israel’s redeemer and it is His righteous one who will cause many to be righteous. Still, the Israelite possessing the law thinks he can go it alone and conform to the righteous image and character of God by his own efforts without help:

Israel walks without a Mediator in the light of God’s Countenance. There can be no New Covenant for the Jew, for the Israelite is thanks to his physiology already in the Covenant.⁸

Before God all men are equal, and there is no need, therefore, for mediation by a Savior. . . . All he need do to be forgiven is repent sincerely. Repentance (teshuvah, literally return) atones for his transgressions and thus effects the reconciliation with God.⁹

Schoeps rightly regards St. Paul’s assumption that man is unable of himself to keep the Law as alien to the spirit of Judaism.¹⁰

In contrast, Oesterley recognizes the significance of the Atonement suggesting that it signifies that repentance alone is not enough: there is a need for something outside of man:

Repentance makes atonement for venial transgressions whether for Do or Do not (i.e., whether the sin is one of omission or commission) and as for grievous (sins) it holds them in abeyance until the Day of Atonement comes and makes atonement."¹¹ This passage is of considerable importance since it teaches that the atoning efficacy of the Day is in itself greater than the atonement brought about by repentance; this witnesses to the feelings of the need of something outside of man, of something more efficacious than anything man can do, in order to bring about a normal relationship with God by the taking away of sin.¹²

Oesterley then combines his intuitive understanding about the Day of Atonement with the instructions for the cleansing of a leper, noticing that the cleansing process begins only after the disease is gone. Again the implication is that something beyond repentance, forgiveness, and healing is needed to truly make man right with God:

Without going into details, it will be found, on reading this passage (Lev. xiv. 1-32), that the recovered leper had, among other things to wash in living water, and to offer a sin-offering.. . . This passage is especially instructive, because it is not the leprosy itself from which the man was being cleansed, for in verses 3 and 4 the directions given are: . . . and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper, then shall the priest command . . . ; that is to say, the actual physical disease had departed before this cleansing process was undertaken. It would seem that the invisible taint of sin (as distinct from its visible manifestation), on account of which the divine visitation, in the shape of leprosy, had overtaken the man, was that which the cleansing process was intended to purify, for the man would not enter into god’s presence for worship until he had washed, etc. . . . ¹³

Notice the purifying effect of cleansing AFTER Israel will have already come out of heathen lands where idols had been served:

For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. (Ex. 36: 24-25)

Old Testament examples of mediation

As the Old Testament indicates clearly, intercession on behalf of the people was a rather common occurrence in Israel. Notice the verses below:

Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them. (Psa. 106: 23)

And Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for you unto the LORD. And they gathered together to Mizpeh, and drew water, and poured it out before the LORD, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against the LORD. And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh. (1 Sam. 7: 5-6)

Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them. Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore. (Psa. 106: 29-31)

These passages, therefore, must be taken into consideration when dealing with the subject of the forgiveness of sins; in each case the sin is forgiven because of intercession, this witnessing, as far as these passages are concerned, to the belief in a mediatorial agency in connection with forgiveness.¹⁴

Mediation by the Righteous Servant

The following rather lengthy quotation from Oesterley’s The Jewish Doctrine of Mediation expresses well the idea of the atoning death, or redemption of others by paying the penalty for their transgression. Of course such a sacrifice can only be made by one who had not himself sinned, else his sacrifice could pay only the price for his own transgression, and if he deserved to die, from whence would come his resurrection, let alone that of the many? From this notion of a sinless one, or Righteous One, comes the idea of a Messiah—a Messiah not only to restore Israel and rule, but also to die for the sins of many, turning many to righteousness; that is, the One to provide salvation to all the world through His death as a ransom payment (‘Padah,’) . . . Quoting from Oesterley:

The following is a literal translation of the Hebrew:

4. Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, and our sorrows he hath carried them; and we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5. And he was pierced for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace is upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.

6. All we like sheep went astray, each to his own way we turned, but Jehovah caused to light upon him the iniquity of us all. (Isa. 53)

According to early Israelite belief sickness and misfortune were the visible manifestations of the wrath of God upon the sinner; the point of verse 4 is that the prophet is correcting what in this case of the suffering servant, at any rate, was an error; so much so that, as he explains, not only were the sufferings of this servant not the signs of God’s wrath at his sins, but they were actually the signs of Divine wrath at the sins of others. The willing self-sacrifice of the servant here recorded expresses the essence of the mediatorial office. The sicknesses refer to bodily suffering, the sorrows to mental pain; as in this passage so in Ps. xxxviii. 18 (17) sorrows refer to the mental pain brought about on account of sin, i.e. it is equivalent to repentance; the wonderful thought, therefore, of the words is that the servant undergoes penitential grief, and suffers bodily pain on behalf of the sinful. A higher conception of vicarious suffering could scarcely be reached. . . . The next passage which more especially concerns us is the end of verse 8:

Because of the transgression of my people, the stroke was his.

These words point again to the fact that the punishment (stroke) which would have been upon the people, on account of their transgression, is endured by the Suffering Servant, although he is innocent; he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. But the most significant word, perhaps, in the whole chapter is guilt-offering (verse 10) as applied to him. This word (‘asham in Hebrew) is also pregnant with meaning. In the next verse (11) there are some further words which are important.

The righteous one, my Servant, causes many to be righteous, and their iniquities he bears.

It is well to emphasize the fact of how the central idea of this whole chapter is kept in the mind throughout; utterly unacceptable as the writer must have known that this teaching would be to his contemporaries, he nevertheless reiterates