Loading...This now is a seventh favorite post from years past. As you know, I frequently simply write posts on questions readers have raised. For understanding Christianity, here is one of the most important of all. Christians maintain that the messiah had to suffer and die for the sins of the world. Jews do not understand the messiah this way. But Christians started off as Jews. So where did their understanding of the messiah come from?
QUESTION:
Where did the idea of a Jewish messiah dying for the sins of mankind originate from? OT? Did Jews prior to Jesus’ existence believe this notion of the Messiah dying for other’s sins?
RESPONSE:
I deal with this issue in a couple of my books. Here is one of my fuller discussions from Did Jesus Exist?, where I talk about the issue in connection with the question of why Paul originally opposed Christians before converting to the faith.
*********************************
Why, as a highly religious Jew, did Paul originally persecute the Christians before he himself joined their ranks? It appears to have been for one reason only: the Christians were saying that Jesus was God’s special chosen one, his beloved son, the messiah. But for the pre-Christian Paul, it was quite clear. Jesus was not anything like God’s chosen one, the one selected to do his will on earth. He did not enjoy God’s blessing. Just the opposite. He was under God’s curse. Evidence? He was hung on a tree.
But why would that be a problem? Wasn’t the Messiah supposed to suffer horribly for the sins of others and be raised from the dead? Not according to ancient Jews. On the contrary, the messiah was not supposed to be killed at all. It is at this point that we need to consider what ancient Jews, including the pre-Christian Paul, thought about the messiah.
Ancient Views of the Messiah
The word “messiah” is Hebrew, and literally means “anointed one.” The Greek translation of the term is “christos,” so that “Jesus Christ” literally means “Jesus the Messiah.” The origin of the term goes back into the ancient history of Israel, to the time when the nation was ruled by kings, who were said to have been specially favored, “anointed,” by God. In fact, the king was literally anointed during his inauguration ceremonies, when oil was poured on his head as a way of showing that he was especially favored by God, as seen in such passages as 1 Samuel 10:1 and 2 Samuel 23:1.
Other persons thought to be God’s special representatives on earth were sometimes …
Interested in finding the answer? You’ll have to keep reading. Not a member of the blog? Can’t keep reading! So join the blog already!!
Excellent post! My question is, if this is something that is taught in seminary, why do pastors continue to preach that this is proof that Jesus is the suffering messiah?
They either skipped class that day, went to a seminary that didn’t tell them this, decided not to believe it, or chose to say something other than what they believed.
“Jews roundly and loudly disagreed with these interpretations.”
Could you, please, point me to one or two such occasions where, say, Christians back then pointed to Isaiah 53 as evidence for Jesus being the Messiah and Jews debunked them by pointing to chapter 49, or anything like that?
You might check out Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. I can’t remember offhand if these passages come up there; but they do argue about the interpretation as lots of Scriptures, famously, for example, Isa. 7:14.
Even today, Christian missionaries see Isa. 53 as one of their most useful arguments for converting Jews. Mitch Glaser and Darrel Block published The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology in 2012; it’s a manual for how to use the suffering servant. (Chris Evans wrote a chapter in the book, but as I read between his lines, I sense some discomfort with the idea of conversion.)
Origen noted the dispute in 248 C.E., writing that the Jews of his time believed Isaiah 53 “bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.” [from Origen’s Contra Celsum, Henry Chadwick, Cambridge Press, book 1, chapter 55, page 50].
Is the Messiah the same as the son of man and if so how did Jesus imagine he would suddenly transition to the sky on a throne?
For most Jews, no. The messiah was typically thought as a future human who became the King od Israel and destroyed the enemy to set up Israel as a sovereign state again; the son of man was a cosmic figure who came in judgment on the earth to give the kingdom over to Israel. Some Jewish thinkers combined the two into one figure (as the Christians later did); some, like Jesus, appear to have differentiated between the two but see them as connected. Jesus appears to have thought htat the cosmic-judge Son of Man was soon to appear to destroy the forces of evil, and that he would then appoint the human Jesus himself to be the king. That would be why Jesus did think he was the messiah, in that apocalyptic sense.
Quote – “Why, as a highly religious Jew, did Paul originally persecute the Christians before he himself joined their ranks? It appears to have been for one reason only: the Christians were saying that Jesus was God’s special chosen one, his beloved son, the messiah.”
Acts 9 provides the reason. Paul had his “road to Damascus conversion.”
He heard the Messianic claims about Jesus long before his conversion.
There is an idea of suffering Messiah in Judaism. He is named as Messiah son of Joseph (Mashiach ben Yosef).
For example, he is called “leper scholar”.
(Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 98b) – What is his [the Messiah’s] name? …. The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted
Yes, you can certainly find references centuries after Jesus.
What crime(s) do you think Jesus, a rural, itinerant preacher would have committed to necessitate a punishment such as crucifixion at the hands of the Roman authorities?
He claimed to be the King of the Jews, a political statement (in the eys of the Romans)
What do you think happened to Paul on the road to Damascus? Assuming miraculous explanations are off the table – a migraine attack, an epileptic fit, over-tiredness from travel and work? Or something else?
Physiologically? I don’t know. Lots of people have visions, and there are all sorts of reasons for them.
Addendum:
According to William-Davidson Talmud, (a word-by-word translation of the Talmud), it’s said, “The Rabbis said: The leper of the house of Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] is his name, as is it written…. ” https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.98b.14?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
Above is from Soncino Talmud.
I like reading the Talmud on that website. ? Currently reading the Sanhedrin and commentary too.
It kind of looks like Christianity as we have it grew out of a need to resolve a cognitive dissonance. In Paul’s case the dissonance was so extreme, he had to fall on his head, or have a seizure AND perhaps fall on his head, before the thing made “sense” to him. Unfortunately, his brain might not have been working right…
Professor, an irrelevant question, but I think, really interesting. Could Luke 20:34-36 imply that those that marry while living, won’t be able to be resurrected? There are two posts in favor of this argument, here https://tinyurl.com/y9qh6z5a and here https://tinyurl.com/y68ppn4d. Do you find them convincing?
No, I don’t think so at all. Most of Jesus’ disciples were almost certainly married. Then as now, most people were.
Dr Ehrman, do think Paul became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah after he heard the Christians using this passage in Isaiah? Something he had never considered before. Or was this just one of a number of reasons for Paul’s conversion?
He never mentions it as a reason. The reason he gives is that he had a vision of Jesus. He himself never uses this passage to refer to Jesus as the suffering messiah, so it’s not clear it was important to him in that way.
Are there records of other Jews besides Paul being so offended of Jesus being considered the messiah that they also tried to persecute the Jewish Christians?
The book of Acts, for starters. But there are a number of places. Gospel of John, Apocalyptic discourses in Matthew and mark, later: Justin martyr, etc.
Ok even I have wondered about this one:
“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,”
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 NRSV
https://www.bible.com/2016/1co.15.3-4.nrsv
What scriptures??? What is Paul referring to?
Paul appears to have interpreeted a lot of Scriptures as referring to Jesus’ death (Deut 21:23 e.g.), and to his resurrection (Hos. 6:2). Of course other Jews didn’t read these passages that way.
Paul was pretty clear that the idea of a crucified messiah was a problem for the Jews: “we preach Christ [Messiah] crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness…” 1 Cor. 1:23. It took a seemingly miraculous vision to convince Paul, after all. I’m sure this point was recognized by early Christian thinkers. Was the inability of the Jews to acknowledge a crucified Messiah used against them, as the church grew more Gentile? Perhaps even saying that God Himself had blinded them to the truth of Jesus, or that God had hidden the truth from them (in much the same way that Jesus disguised his teachings in parables)?
Yup, yup! You should read The Epistle of Barnabas, e.g., and Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, to get a sense of the polemic.
Jews in Palestine were under occupation from Rome, so the popular idea of a messiah was one who would defeat the Roman occupiers in battle. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple a few decades after Jesus’s crucifixion seems to indicate that someone claiming to be a messiah did appear, and the Romans put down that rebellion too. However, the idea that a messiah could be rejected is found in Psalms 118:22, the famous “the stone that the builders rejected is become the head of the corner.” (Mark 12:10). The scripture goes on to say that when the farmers had been outsmarted by Jesus, who Bart says was also an illiterate peasant, they went to get help from Pharisees and Herodians. Maybe Jesus wasn’t an illiterate peasant after all.
As I read this post, Rabbi Tovia Singer comes to mind. In his talks, he always likes to quip,” Why did God create Mormons; so Christians would know how the Jews feel”. BTW, I too came to the understanding that the suffering servant in isaiah was Israel, and not Jesus. When I was in a Christian church, Pastors’ always referred to Isaiah as speaking of Jesus. Great post!
Could you do a post on how Christians started worshipping on Sunday instead of Saturday? Or is this not in your area of Christian/Jewish history?
It’s pretty simple really. Sunday was believed to be the day of Jesus’ resurrection, so his followers worshiped him on that day. That also had the convenient side-effect of separating Christian prctices of worship off from Jewish.
Really? It’s kind of funny that there is so much written about it then: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3346&context=auss
Thank you Dr. Ehrman, for the detailed explanation. Just a quick question.,
From your post (please correct me if I’ve understood it wrong), it looks like you’re saying the very early Christians before Paul’s inclusion took the verses in 2 Samuel 7:11-14 as Proof/allegory to conclude that Jesus is in fact the Messiah promised by the OT God.
And it seems Paul wasn’t aware of this allusion the Christians were using as poof for Jesus being the messiah but finds a parallel in Deuteronomy 22 that talks about a criminal with death penalty, if his body was hung on a tree he’s cursed.
My question is: In both the narratives the person talked about isn’t sinless. In 2 Samuel, it say “…when he commits iniquity (meaning sin), I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,”
And in Deuteronomy it’s ever more clear that it’s something that God can’t tolerate his land being defiled because the person who hangs on the tree is cursed, meaning he’s a criminal who deserved death as punishment.
Isaiah 53’s subject is sinless/innocent! One man or nation.
How/why did the early Christians reconcile with these inconsistencies?
I don’t think I’m saying that the early followers of jesus specifically pointed to 2 Sam for their ideas; I’m saying that the passage in 2 Sam lies behind the Jewish idea of a future messiah. The Deut passage is explicitly used by Paul in Galatians 3 precisely to show that siince God raised Jesus from the dead, the “curse” of the Deut 22 passage was not on *him* for his sins, and thereofe he was bearing the sins of others. Isa 53 doesn’t actually say the righteous one had never sinned, I don’t believe. Only that he was righteous before god. That is said of lots of people in Scripture (Abraham, e.g.) who definitely were sinners.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman for taking your time to explain.
Can’t wait to see your new posts!
Thanks for a really good post Bart; and one of my favourites too.
“Paul, though, had a change of mind, and later decided that this one who stood under God’s curse – since anyone is cursed “who hangs on a tree” – was in fact the Christ.”
But – if I may hark back to a previous discussion – Paul is not only convinced that in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ was crucified; but also that in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ was buried. Indeed he couples the two principles in a theological reflection; burial at Romans 6:4; crucifixion at Romans 6:6.
So, although Paul is explicit in this passage that death on the cross is a ‘slave’s’ death, I can see no implication that he considers Jesus’s having subsequently been buried as being in any degree strange. Which call into question (for me) the supposition that burial of a slave or low-status person following crucifixion would have been considered unusual. In Paul, as I read it, for the Christ to be crucified is highly problematic; but for a crucified person to be buried, not at all problematic.
Yes, he certainly thinks Jesus was buried. I do not take that as evidence he was, since Paul came to believe this a few years after the event. As to whetehr it was unusual for a crucified man to be buried, again I simply say — read what the ancient sources say. (Start with the meant-to-be-amusing tale in Petronius’s Satyricon…)
Absolutely so Bart.
But if you are expecting verisimilitude in the Satyricon, you are reading the wrong book.
Petronius, as a comic device, narrates a transgressive ‘absurd’ reality, within which selected taboo behaviours and subjects are re-presented as ‘normal’. As here, where a widow determines to starve herself to death in the company of her husband’s corpse. And is joined in the tomb by a soldier, awol from guarding a recent crucifixion.
Pertonius’s necrophiliac threesome is clearly taboo-normal; but is the continued guarding of a crucifixion after death, taboo-normal or normal-normal? No other crucifixion narrative presents soldiers guarding the crucified corpse.
In favour of a taboo-normal reading, is that crucifixion is certainly a taboo subject in early CE Antiquity. Not only was it a slave punishment; any representation (either as words or images) was avoided in polite discourse. An exception was Josephus, but he was on his own in this; for Cicero, Dio, Plutarch, Livy, Tacitus, or Suetonius, the whole subject was ‘impolite’.
In consequence, surviving crucifixion images are commonly ‘transgressive’; as obscene graffiti or magical amulets. All objects of crucifixion – especially the nails themselves – were powerful totems in forbidden sorcery.
Satire, to work, needs to play on realistic expectations in order to be funny. In this case, the scenario is completely consistent with all the other references to crucifixion that deeal with the issue.
More exactly, Bart; satire starts from a realistic situation – but then extends it by exaggeration into absurdity. So, for a widow to mourn her husband is realistic; but enclosing herself with the body and starving to death is not. Equally, setting a guard on the crucifixion of a bandit gang would be realistic; but expecting that guard to stay on duty over a further three nights (at least) is stretching matters.
The ‘widow and the soldier’ story is a widely-told folk tale; a version in the Greek ‘Aesop Romance’ presents the ‘widow and the farmer’; where the farmer’s plough is stolen while the couple are intimate, to be replaced by that of the dead husband. A shortened Latin version is also found in Phaedrus (which lacks many of Petronius’s drolleries; but does have soldiers guarding a crucifixion). Likely, the ‘guarding’ element goes back to an original Greek version of the tale. For Petronius, the ‘Ephesus’ of the tale is in folklore land ‘long ago and far away’.
That crucified bodies could sometimes be left exposed is not disputed. But can you argue from a bawdy folk tale, that this was standard practice?
No, not at all. That’s why I said it’s a place to *start*. I’d suggest you go from there and find the exceptions. The satire in this case wouldn’t work if everyone knew that bodies were not left on crosses for days. It simply wouldn’t make sense.
BUT, it doesn’t appear that we are going to agree on this. I don’t know if you’ve actually looked at all the references in antiquity, or if you have whether you take them seriously as evidence or not. But since we ain’t gonna see eye to eye, how bout we drop this back and forth and get on to other things?
Not convinced, Bart, that you are giving sufficient weight to the aspects of taboo pollution and the occult in the crucifixion references,
On taboo: Cicero; ‘for Rabirius’ 16
“The very word “cross” should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but his thoughts, his eyes, and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these things but the very mention of them that is unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man.”
On the occult: Apuleius on the sorceress Pamphile; 3.17.4-5
“She began by setting up her dread laboratory with the usual apparatus, all kinds of spices and plates written in unknown languages, lost possessions from wrecked ships, and exposed members of corpses of those who had been mourned or even placed in tombs; here noses and fingers, there nails covered in the flesh of those who had been crucified; there the preserved blood of those who had been murdered and maimed skulls torn from the teeth of wild beasts.”
Pilate may not have been concerned for Jewish sensibilities, but he would undoubtedly have paid attention to those of his soldiers; for whom unburied crucified bodies would be alarmingly polluted and threatening.
Luke seems to push the idea most that Jesus’s disciples didn’t understand during his lifetime that the messiah should suffer and die but it was only afterward studying the scriptures that they came to understand.
Do you think this indicates that Luke really did speak to eyewitnesses?
I think if he spoke to eyewitnesses he would have said so in his Prologue. But no, I see nothing in his idea that would suggst he got it from an eyewitnsess.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks for a fascinating post! I hope you don’t mind if I ask an unrelated quick question. What do Biblical scholars these days think of the theory that Luke borrowed from Josephus, or used him as a source? Thanks.
It’s a popular notion these days for the book of Acts. I’ve never found it convincing.
I know Paul calls the crucifixion a stumbling block for the Jews, but that was in getting Jews to believe he was the messiah. It’s the “cursed is anyone who is hanged on a tree” part that bothers me – the Romans crucified thousands of Jews for religious reasons, and Jews didn’t call them cursed for that.
Later, in Talmudic times, the rabbis will argue that someone who is executed according to the law has his sentence in the next world annulled by that act, but I am not aware of such thinking in Temple times.
So it was Isaiah 53 that turned Jesus from being a political or kingly messiah, for which you assert he was actually crucified, into an atoning messiah as referenced in the pre-pauline fragment found in 1Co 15:3, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures”; of necessity, this shift in position moves Jesus from being a collective messiah/king for Israel to a more personal redeemer of individual sins. I can’t think of any other OT scripture than Isaiah 53, which could facilitate such a change. Do you know of any other candidates?
The interesting thing is that nowhere in the NT quoted to indicate the messiah must suffer. But yes, other passages are, e.g. Ps. 22:1; Deut 21:23; etc.
I remember EP Sanders making a point about Paul’s theology that Paul started with Jesus’ death and resurrection and worked backwards from there to figure out what was its significance. The idea was everything was going great for him as a Jew then he had this revelation about Jesus. So why would God send Jesus unless God’s covenant with the Jews was no longer the way to salvation? Do you agree?
I agree with him that it all started with Paul at Jesus’ resurrection and that it is what flipped his views upside down. I don’t think though that Paul thought God had now changed the rules. Christ allowed him to see what the rules were. (I think that’s more along Sanders’s view as well.)
I agree that Paul thought Christ was God’s plan from the beginning (Romans 16:25,26) and not merely “changing the rules”. However what Paul proposes is a shift from the covenantal nomism that he adhered to prior to his conversion. At least that is the way that I see it.
A teacher at my Christian HS back in the day taught us the Dead Sea Scrolls have two messiahs, including a suffering one. I’ve never attempted to check references until now, but I suspect it comes from Israel Knohl’s book The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (University of CA Press). Maybe there are others I’m unaware of, but is there a case here for a suffering messiah concept pre-Jesus in the Dead Sea?
Yes, there are two messiahs in the Scrolls. One is a priest and the other is from the house of David. Neither one is a suffering messiah though.
Bart: “… and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.”
Psalm of Solomon 17,32. Don’t you agree with Alfred Rahlfs that this is probably a Christian emendation? Rahlfs’ text reads not “Lord Messiah” but rather “anointed of the Lord.”
… καὶ βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν χριστὸς κυρίου.
“… and their king (will be) anointed of the Lord”
I haven’t really looked at it, but it makes sense “and King, the Lord’s Christ”
What best describes your view on Paul’s opinion of the Torah?
1 The Torah should be followed by both Jews and Gentile Christians it just doesn’t give you salvation (because Christ does) and Gentiles shouldn’t be forced to obey all the Torah when they aren’t ready.
2 Jews still should follow the Torah but Gentiles do not have to.
3 Neither Jews nor Gentiles need to follow the Torah because Christ has a new law, the Torah is still optional though.
Not quite any of the above. My view is that Paul thought: Jewish followers of Jesus should keep following the Torah so long as they can do so without compromising their commitment to the gospel of the Jewish messiah; Gentiles should follow the dictates of the Torah that might applie to them (that we might consider “ethical” requirements) but are not to follow specifically Jewish laws and customs (circumcisions; kosher food; etc.)
Prof Ehrman,
Q1 – Placed in its rightful context, who is Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 – Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Q2 – Why did later Christians identify Jesus with the name ‘Immanuel’ when clearly, Jesus was never called to that in the Gospels?
The child is not named, but has been conceived already and will soon be born; it is teh second symbolic child in the context of the book; the next is my favorite, mainly because of his great name: Mahershalalhashbaz (8:1-4). The child’s name is taken in its literal meaning “God is With Us.” Christians said that is the perfect description of Jesus.
Analysis of Suffering Messiah Concept without greek-roman literature influance ?
LXX, NT is a part of greek literature for readers rooted in greek culture and tradition. Jewish tradition is availiable through foreign language. The pagan concept of resurection, empty tomb was popular in novels and is for sure older then NT writings. Suffering hero is an archetype
I don’t believe there was a pagan concept of resurrection, in the way that it appeared in Judaism. (Just resuscitation of the dead, not their resurrection)
Soma pneumaticon is not a Jewish concept. Or docetism – simple solution for an unpleasent general public view that dead body is …definitely dead. So, we need a special body and our resurrection concept is more acceptable.
There is a tradition of Alkestis, Protesilaos, Er, Glaukos.
Resurrection and raising , anastasis and egersis was present in ancient greek literature in many ways. Not as a subject of faith, not as a paradigm like in greek NT
I have commented somewhere on your Youtube videos that to Christians, a suffering Messiah is a brilliant plot twist, the kind of plot twist that only the God of Plot Twists could have come up with, whereas to Jews, a suffering Messiah is a stupid plot twist, the kind of plot twist you’d only come up with if your lead actor died in the middle of filming and you had to pretend it was part of the plan all along.
Have you ever read “Power of Your Love: Jesus the Unexpected God” by Geoff Bullock (Strand Publishing, 2000)? It’s rubbish. It’s a Christian songwriter trying his hand at amateur Biblical scholarship, which is not to say it doesn’t have some virtues by way of the author’s humanity and compassion. But your reaction to it would be priceless.
No, haven’t read it….
Hi Dr Ehrman, i’m a new one of your followers from Belgium (so i’m a french speaker and my english is bad but i understand it very well, sorry for that ^^). What do you think about “11Q13” (a Dead Sea Scroll), the relation of Daniel 9 and Isaiah 52-53 for a dying Messiah before Christ ? Richard Carrier (surprising me) seems to accept it for exemple. Thank you very much.
It is a problematic text but in the bits that survive I do not think it mentions a dying messiah
Prof Erhman,
Thanks for your blog, it’s sure useful! I’m at ‘How Jesus became God.’ There too you mention the servant of Isaiah 53 clearly identified as the nation Israel, referring Isaiah 49:3.
In the same chapter of Isaiah 49 is this passage: Isaiah 49:5-7
And now the Lord says,
he who formed me from the womb to be his SERVANT,
to bring Jacob back to him;
and that Israel be gathered to him—
for I’m honored in the eyes of the Lord,
and my God has become my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too light a thing that you should be my SERVANT
to raise the tribes of Jacob
and bring back the preserved of Israel;
I will make you a light for the nations,
that salvation reach the end of the earth.”
7 Thus says the Lord,
the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One,
to one despised, abhorred by the nation,
the SERVANT of rulers:…
There are two servants. This Servant isn’t Israel, they’re the ones redeemed by the Servant? This Servant is ‘despised by Israel. The Servant of Isaiah 53 thus could be the Servant who’ll bring Jacob and Israel back to God and additionally will be a light to the Gentiles?
It’s a confusing translation. in v. 5 it sounds like the Lord has brought the speaker, the Servant (identified in v. 3 as Israel), into existence so that it will bring Israel back to him; That would suggest Israel cannot be the servant itself. But the meaning appears to be that God brought the servant into existence so that *HE* (God) could bring Israel back to himself.
Thank you. So verse 5…
the Lord says,
he who formed me from the womb tobe his servant,
to bring Jacob back to him;
and that Israel be gathered to him—
forI am honored in the eyes of the Lord,
and my God is my strength—
…should read:
He, God, brought the nation Israel into existence so that He, God, could bring the nation Israel back to Himself. Is that what you mean? In what way did God lose Israel before they existed?
And verse 6:
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
to bring back the preserved of Israel;
I will make you a light for the nations,
that my salvation reach to the end of the earth.”
It’s too light a thing for you, nation Israel, to raise up the tribes of the nation Israel and to bring back the preserved of the nation Israel, I will also make you a light to the gentiles?
Verse 7
Thus says the Lord,
the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One,
to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation,
the servant of rulers:
Thus says the Lord, to the nation Israel, deeply despised and abhorred by the nation Israel…
Is this right?
THe Servant is probably to be understood as that *part* of Israel that paid for the sins of the nation. It suffered for the national sins. God designed it that way, so he could restore the nation after it was destroyed.
Dr Ehrman,
The Temple was also anointed by Moses (Leviticus 8:10-12) and hence was the center of Jewish religious life.
May it be possible that after its destruction, the need to have another “Anointed” one , either be it a human , was greatly felt by a certain sect of Jews(early Xns), who were also tired of waiting for the “promised long awaited messiah”?
Regards
My sense is that the destruction of the kingship was the more important issue for Jews awaiging the messiah. In the Dead Sea Scrolls there is an expectation of two messiahs, one a priest (the main one) and the other apparently a ing figure; but that was unusual. Most expectations involved a political / military leader.
Question on the Messiah post. I have heard scholars say that the suffering and meek messiah came from the Messiah of Aaron. He was suppose to be a more priestly messiah not a conqueror like the davidic messiah. My question is that we see in the New Testament that Jesus was clearly thought of as the Davidic messiah. He was expected to be a conqueror and as you state not killed or crucified. I don’t believe we have seen Jesus as described as the aaronic messiah as we do the davidic like when Jesus was called son of David etc. so it seems to me that falling back on the aaronic messiah to fit Jesus in as a suffering messiah doesn’t work because in the New Testament it clearly shows Jesus was thought of as the davidic one. Does that make sense or am I way off?
I don’t know of any ancient test that refer to a soffering messiah of Aaron. Are you referring to the Priestly Messiah mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Jesus could not be that messiah since being a priest was not an career choice but a matter of being born in the right family; it was inherited by birth. So yes, if Jesus was considered a messiah it certainly would have to have been as a “son of DAvid.”
Oh that make sense so when they say messiah of Aaron. That just means a messiah from Aaron’s family