- Isaiah 53 � Who is this servant?
- Part II: What rabbi Tovia Singer
failed to tell his audience.
-
-
-
-
- Charge
# 4: Lamo (10:40)
- Rabbi
Tovia Singer promised (9:40) that even if he only had Isaiah 53 and nothing else
he could prove that this wasn�t talking about Yeshua. He starts with the
famous �lamo� argument and lashes out to the translators of the KJV
translation, who translate it as �him�. The verse that rabbi Singer reads to
his audience goes:
-
- for
the transgression of
my people a plague
befell them (vs 8)
-
-
- This
above translation is the translation the rabbi suggests in his lecture. Notice
that I have given the translated words parallel colours. Take note that he makes
a big deal (1:14:00, part 1) about the KJV translating verse 5 (�we are
healed) in the present tense while that sentence is in the past tense and
condemns those translators, but now rabbi Singer uses the past tense where there
is no past tense at all! The word �befell� is nowhere to be
found in the text, that�s why it�s left in the colour black. I thought that
was a bad thing! So when the KJV does it, it is one of the great Christian
deceiving tactics, but now the rabbis does it and it is considered an accurate
translation, acceptable at worst. But to continue with the word �lamo�, we
can be very brief: the rabbi is right! Lamo means �for them�. BUT, how is it
consistently used in the scriptures? The rabbi goes on to give us examples of
other verses where lamo is used and they are, of course, all plural. Now the
following is interesting. There are 3 instances of lamo being applied to a
single individual or item and guess what the KJV does in all those instances. It
translates it accordingly! If the word lamo refers to a single person, then it
should be translated in the singular form, which is exactly what the KJV does!
Here are the quotes:
-
-
- #1
And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen 9:26)
- #2
he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
(Isaiah 44:15)
- #3
for the transgression of my people was he
stricken (Isaiah 53:8)
-
-
- So what
is rabbi Tovia Singer complaining about? The KJV has no agenda here, it just
translates it in accordance with the context and thus follows a consistent
pattern. But rather than the KJV having an agenda, it is the rabbi who has an
agenda. He not only blatantly lies about the KJV translating the word �lamo�
as �them� in all other places, as has clearly been demonstrated, but he then
goes on to ignore the use of lamo in Isaiah 44:15! WHY? Because
it doesn�t support his claim! Look at the context and you will see
it is totally singular. I have put all the singular Hebrew words in brackets and
made them red:
-
-
- 10
Who hath fashioned a god [el], or molten
an image [uphesel nasach] that is
profitable for nothing?
- 11
Behold, all the fellows thereof [chaveraav]
shall be ashamed; and the craftsmen skilled above men; let them all be gathered
together, let them stand up; they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together.
- 12
The smith maketh an axe, and worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it [yitserhu]
with hammers, and worketh it [wayif�alehu]
with his strong arm; yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth; he drinketh no
water, and is faint.
- 13
The carpenter stretcheth out a line; he marketh it [y�ta�arehu]
out with a pencil; he fitteth it [ya�asehu]
with planes, and he marketh it [y�ta�arehu]
out with the compasses, and maketh it [wa�ya�asehu]
after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in the
house.
- 14 He
heweth him down cedars, and taketh the ilex [tirzah]
and the oak [w�alon], and strengtheneth for
himself one among the trees of the forest; he planteth a bay-tree [oren],
and the rain doth nourish it [y�gadel].
- 15
Then a man useth it [w�hayah] for fuel; and he
taketh thereof (i.e. from the pieces of wood), and warmeth himself; yea, he
kindleth it , and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god [el],
and worshippeth it; he maketh it [asahu] a
graven image [pesel], and falleth down thereto
[lamo].
-
- And
then it goes on and tells the same story in the singular. So it looks like the
KJV translates lamo correctly. You might say �but this is about
idols in general hence the plural lamo�. But the context is
singular, uses a substantial number of singular words to describe the idol and
the actions of the worshipper and so it should be translated accordingly.
Likewise, the language of Isaiah 53 is thoroughly singular and therefore lamo
should be translated accordingly. So why does rabbi Tovia Singer ignore this
passage? And where does this leave his claims of distortion? Also, there are
translations that translate it as saying �for the transgression of my people to
whom the stroke was due�,
making it clear that this servant got the punishment that the speakers deserved.
-
-
-
- Charge
#5: b�motav (19:00)
- Rabbi
Tovia Singer makes the claim that the word must be changed to the singular
because it is a �nuisance to the cross�. But again, I must give the rabbi
credit where credit is due: he is right again. �B�motav� means �in his
deaths� and �b�moto� means �in his death�. But does this indicate
plurality? NO! If it were �b�moteihem/b�motam�,
then he would have a point beyond any doubt, since this would mean �in their
deaths/in their death�, which is indisputably plural. But this word in
Isaiah 53:9 does not support anything he goes on to say. The rabbi then goes on
to say that he can�t prove his point from the Tenach because the word
�b�motav� doesn�t appear in the rest of scripture. But the plural
expression of that word is indeed used elsewhere in scripture. But rabbi Singer
doesn�t quote that and we will see why he doesn�t. Let�s look at Ezekiel
28:
-
-
- (8)
They shall bring thee down to the pit; and thou shalt die the
deaths of them that are slain, in the heart of the seas�.
- ***
- (10)
Thou shalt die the deaths of the
uncircumcised by the hand of strangers; for I have spoken, saith the Lord YHWH.'
-
-
- These
are examples of a single person being addressed and threatened to die deaths
(plural). Now it is often said that these are instances that the word
�deaths� refer to the plural �uncircumcised�. Well, that doesn�t
excuse the plural use either, because the Tenach shows us that the singular is
used in reference to a multitude [e.g. Numbers 23:10; Let me die the death (singular;
moth) of the righteous (plural; y�sharim)]. And also verse 8 is a striking
example of the plural being applied to a singular person. It speaks of
�m�motei chalal b�lev yamim� which translates �in the deaths of
one slain in the in the hart of the seas�. The plural (chalalim)
is not used here (e.g. Isaiah 66:16, Daniel 11:26). Again, rabbi Tovia Singer
claimed that this was an exceptional word and this form doesn�t appear in the
rest of the Tenach so that means he must have studied it out. So if he has
studied this out, how come he �forgot� to mention these two instances? So
again, rabbi Tovia Singer�s charge of deceit is yet again without any
substance whatsoever and I again leave it up to you to decide if this was just
an accidental mistake or he deliberately left out the information.
-
-
-
- Charge
#6: God promises God
- Rabbi
Singer keeps arguing that God is making promises to God, that is, God making
promises to Himself. For starters, this is not a deal that is made. It is a
description of what awaits the servant when he has fulfilled his task. But if
you want more on the concept of the Devine nature of the Messiah, please see my
response on the �Trinity� lecture.
-
-
-
- Charge
#7: Deal? (27:50)
- Rabbi
Tovia Singer makes a big deal about a word that can be translated any way you
like. Since this is a prophecy and this is surely to happen it isn�t a
question of �if� the servant will do something, but �when� he will have
done it! (for example Isaiah 4:4) So the word �אִם�
(im) actually wont prove neither the rabbinic reading nor the messianic reading.
So there is no deal as far as the messianic reading is concerned. The servant
will do that and when he has done it that will be the result. Sure prophecy,
sure fulfilment. Also notice that the servant will live and see generations
after he has made his soul a �guilt-offering�, in other words, after he has
died. This can only be speaking of a resurrection.
-
-
- Charge
#8: Seed/ זָרַע
(Zera) (30:15)
- Rabbi
Singer then goes on a rampage about the fact that Yeshua didn�t have any seed
when the prophet explicitly says this, that is, according to the rabbi. The
rabbi says that the servant has to have children. Rabbi Singer argues that the
word �בֶן�
(ben) is the proper word to refer to non-physical children, not �זָרַע�
(zera). He actually goes so far to say that
-
- �the word �zera�� can only
mean physical children, NEVER spiritual children. By definition the word
�zera� means �seed�. It�s talking about that which leaves the loins of
a man. It�s not talking about those people that follow his teachings.
�Zera� only means PHYSICAL children. NEVER does it mean someone�s gonna
have spiritual children, that�s IMPOSSIBLE! And therefore it�s clear here
that this is talking about physical children. �Prove it to me!� Boy, am I
gonna prove it to you!�
-
- Then the
rabbi gives us some verses that prove his point and then drills his point home
with an account in Genesis 15, a dialogue between God and Abram where God
appears to Abram and Abram mistakes Eliezer for his son (בֶן/ben)
and says that God didn�t give him any seed
(זָרַע/zera). Sounds like a pretty convincing story, doesn�t it? However�
yet again rabbi Tovia Singer is not telling the whole story and plays with the
mind of his audience. Look at the quotes above again:
-
- zera
only means physical seed�
- never
spiritual seed�
- that�s
impossible �
- boy
am I gonna prove it to you�
-
- If what
rabbi Singer says is actually true, then we won�t be able to find a single
instance where zera is used metaphorically (referring to non-physical seed) in
the Tenach since he told his audience that was impossible, right?
Okay! Now what the rabbi failed to tell his audience and conveniently left out
is the following. A few chapters after Isaiah 53 we see the word seed used again.
This is what Isaiah 57:4 says:
-
-
- עַל-מִי
תִּתְעַנָּגוּ
עַל-מִי
תַּרְחִיבוּ
פֶה
תַּאֲרִיכוּ
לָשׁוֹן |
הֲלוֹא-אַתֶּם
יִלְדֵי-פֶשַׁע
זֶרַע
שָׁקֶר
- Against
whom do ye sport yourselves? Against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the
tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a
seed of falsehood,
-
- Now
unless rabbi Tovia Singer is going to argue that the people of Israel are direct
descendants and physical offspring of falsehood, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical
use of the word �zera�, something that rabbi Tovia Singer, who has great
knowledge of Hebrew, said that was IMPOSSIBLE! Why does Isaiah then seem to
think otherwise? Didn�t he know enough Hebrew to know what rabbi Singer knows?
No, it�s simply because Isaiah doesn�t have to disprove or discredit anyone,
but rabbi Singer clearly does! Again, is this just a slip of the tongue or
deliberately left out? Now we will proceed to the next example, which comes from
Psalm 22:31:
-
-
- A
seed shall
serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation.
-
- Unless
you believe that God married some hot goddess and will have physical children,
this pretty much looks like a metaphorical usage of the word �zera�. At
least it looks like the word zera is used to describe to other peoples�
offspring and not of the subject itself, God. �But��, you object, ��this
doesn�t speak of Gods children at all. This just says that �a seed� (zera)
will serve Him and not that �his seed�
(zero) will serve Him!� To which
my answer is; don�t you do the exact same thing regarding the servant in
Isaiah 53? What does it say?
-
-
- He will
see seed
-
-
- Exactly!
It says �yir�eh zera� and not
�yir�eh zero�, so why does
rabbi Singer claim that the servant must have children or that he is promised
children? The text doesn�t say that at all! Now I am aware of instances that
the prophet doesn�t use the possessive form but it is still implied. But who
says that he is implying it here? Nowhere in the text of Isaiah 53 is there ever
a promise to the servant that he will have children. Maybe people
with a double agenda may think so, but looking at the Hebrew text, which is the
source of rabbi Singer�s arguments, there is no basis for that argument.
Except theological bias, of course. Here are more references to metaphorical
uses of zera in Isaiah:
-
- "4
Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers,
children that deal corruptly..." (Isaiah 1)
"20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast
destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers
shall not be named for ever."(Isaiah 14)
"3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of
the adulterer and the harlot." (Isaiah 57)
Unless one is going to argue that all the parents of the ones being addressed
here are truly considered harlots and evildoers, you are going to have to
concede that it's implied here to refer to people who follow the evil works and
the ways of adultery like the generations before them, regardless if they are
their physical children or not. For all we know most of the parents of those
being addressed here have been righteous while they wandered off. This clearly
refers to the works of their predecessors rather than their origins.
So this charge remains
without teeth, is made up from thin air and rabbi Singer is caught lying yet
again!
-
-
-
- Charge
#9: Vindication by blood alone?
- Rabbi
Singer claims that Yeshua has only vindicated His followers through His blood.
The rabbi says that it can't refer to Yeshua because
according to the Gospels "christians are healed by the blood of Jesus and
not by his knowledge, as is said of this servant" (my rendition). This is a
totally inaccurate position, because we believe it all goes hand in hand. Yeshua
knew he had to give up his life in order for us to be saved. It
was his knowledge that made him say "Let this cup pass me by... but it is
not as I want but as You wish". Without this knowledge, things would have
been very different and either one is completely blind to this fact or just
chooses to nitpick in order not to come to this conclusion. We believe that
through his life, suffering, death and resurrection all good things have come to
mankind. They are all a piece of the big puzzle. So clearly rabbi Singer wants
to nitpick and he can go just head. He makes a claim of vindication through
knowledge based on one verse and ignores all the other verses that speak of this
servants suffering bringing vindication and atonement to the speakers. This is a
point even Rashi makes in his commentary on Isaiah 53. I advice anyone to read
it on http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.html
. This is his commentary (in italics, all emphasis mine):
-
- 4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses
Heb. אָכֵן, an expression of �but� in all places.
But now we see that this came to him not because of his low state, but that he
was chastised with pains so that all the nations be atoned for with Israel�s
suffering. The illness that should rightfully have come upon
us, he bore.
yet we accounted him We
thought that he was hated by the Omnipresent, but he was not so, but he was
pained because of our transgressions and crushed because of our iniquities.
5. the chastisement of our welfare was upon him The chastisement due
to the welfare that we enjoyed, came upon him, for he was chastised so that there be peace for the
entire world.
-
- Now this
is not �the big prove� that this speaks of the suffering of the servant
bringing atonement, but since rabbi Singer claims that the Christian reading is
flawed, he is obviously also in contention with Rashi�s reading.
-
-
-
- Charge
#10: The New Testament slips! (1:04:20)
- In order
to demonstrate that the Israel interpretation was common and the Messianic
interpretation was not rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the New Testament slips by
showing that the Messianic reading of Isaiah 53 was new at that time and
everyone knew that Israel was the subject of that chapter. So he brings us to
Matthew 16 where Yeshua announced His suffering and death and Kefa (Peter) took
him aside and rebuked Him, saying �that should not be unto thee�, showing
clearly that the Messianic interpretation was unknown in that day. Well, once
again, the rabbi is right. There was no teachings that the Messiah, son of
David, was to die. This is also something that the New Testament teaches. Sha�ul
(Paul) makes this point in his letter 1 Corinthians 2:7-9:
-
- But
we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God
ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this
world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the
Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared
for them that love him.
-
- So Paul
makes it emphatically clear that it was not known that the Messiah, son of
David, had to die, this was hidden in Scriptures. But does this support the
claim of the rabbi that �everyone� knew that it was speaking of Israel in
the singular? Of this the New Testament gives us a conclusive answer also.
Let�s look at the account of the book of Acts, chapter 8, where Philip meets
the Ethiopian who happens to read the chapter of Isaiah 53:
-
- �29
Then the
Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30
And
Philip ran thither to him,
and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou
readest? 31
And he
said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he
would come up and sit with him. 32
The
place of the scripture which he read was this,
-
- He
was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
- and
like a lamb dumb before his shearer,
- so
opened he not his mouth:
- 33 In
his humiliation his judgment was taken away:
- and
who shall declare his generation?
- for
his life is taken from the earth.
-
- 34 And
the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet
this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then
Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him
Jesus.�
-
- This man
didn�t know what Isaiah 53 was speaking about either! When it was read he
asked of whom it spoke, �the prophet himself or some other man�.
He asked of which individual it spoke! It never occurred to the man that
it could be speaking about a nation in the singular. What he should have
said is �of course I know who this speaks of. It speaks of Israel in the
singular�. But he never thought of that. So, no, this Israel interpretation
was not commonly known in those days.
-
-
-
- Charge
#11: Rashi invented Israel interpretation. (52:50)
- Rabbi
Tovia Singer goes on with the argument that the Israel interpretation is
invented by Rashi and then goes on to tell us how that claim is wrong, quoting
other sources that should date before Rashi. Now there is something fishy going
on here, because those same sources claim that this chapter is about the Messiah
as well. Yet, if you would raise this to an anti-missionary, he would be quick
to point you to the fact that these interpretations are mere �midrash� or
homily and not the �p�shat� (straight forward) meaning of the text and
therefore irrelevant. Including rabbi Singer, who blatantly lied about there not
being one rabbi that said that Isaiah 53 was about Messiah ben David in a debate
with Dr Michael L. Brown. (listen http://www.realmessiah.com/Listen/Entries/2008/12/11_Debate_-_DR_brown_and_Rabbi_Singer.html
at about 48:50 in the debate) So where they will disregard the midrash saying it�s
about the Messiah, the same midrash is taken to be valid evidence that the
Israel interpretation is actually pre-Rashi.
-
- Now
let�s look at the sources rabbi Singer comes up with:
-
- The
Zohar: is quoted
as pre-dating Rashi. But the Zohar isn�t ancient, although rabbinic Judaism
claims it is. It�s most likely 12th century, composed by Moses de
Leon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar
)
-
- Midrash
Rabbah: This is
actually just a side reference to a midrash on Ruth and is actually the
closest any pre-Rashi traditional Jewish source comes to the Israel
interpretation.
-
- Brachot
5a: isn�t about
the �righteous remnant� of Israel nor is it about �all Israel�, but just
righteous people in general. It has nothing to do with a particular group of
righteous people.
-
- Targum:
I have the Aramaic at home but I haven�t read it, because I don�t know
Aramaic. But I have read some translations (Driver & Neubauer; Levey) of the
entire the Targum and there is nothing that indicates that Israel is the servant.
Yes, Israel suffers, but so do the Gentiles! What does that tell us? Absolutely
nothing! What IS evident is the intercessory role that is allotted
solely to the Messiah and absolutely absent in relation to Israel. Instead, just
as the servant in Isaiah 53 intercedes for the transgressors, so does the
Messiah intercede for his people in the Targum. The intercessory role is
ascribed solely and totally to the Messiah and this shows us whom the Targum
understands to be the servant. But because the Targum obviously doesn�t
believe that the Messiah would die, it ascribes some of the sufferings to the
gentiles and some to Israel. If, according to the Targum, the suffering of the
servant was the main theme of the chapter, i.e. to identify the servant, then it
wouldn�t have ascribed any suffering to the gentiles. So according to the
Targum, the servant, who intercedes for the sins of his people, is the Messiah.
-
- Origen:
Now this is the only pre-Rashi source that I have been confronted with in my
years of debating anti-missionaries that gives us a literal reading of Israel
being the servant in Isaiah 53. Note that it�s not even a rabbinic source!
That�s how rare this view was. But let�s see what Origen is saying exactly
in chapter 55 of his book:
-
- Now
I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain
Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my
Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole
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. And in this way he
explained the words, "Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;"
and then, "They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;"
and the expression, "A man under suffering." Many arguments were
employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these
predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to
the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be
appropriate, "This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;"
and this, "But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;"
and to whom the expression properly belonged, "By His stripes were we
healed." For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had
been healed by the Saviour's sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation
or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the
prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, appiled these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest
with the expression, "Because of the iniquities of My people was He led
away unto death." For if the people, according to them, are the subject of
the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the
iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that
people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they
who believe on Him are healed, when "He had spoiled the principalities and
powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His
cross?" At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy,
leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater
length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as
quoted in the work of Celsus.
-
-
Notice
Origen says that it was on this one occasion that he was presented with
this weird interpretation. He starts with �I remember�, which is not
something that you say when you hear something all the time. This tells us that
he had to dig it up from deep in his memory. Origen speaks of �on one
occasion� debating with �certain Jews�. What is also evident is that he
speaks of these Jews claiming this is about �the whole people�,
and not about �a righteous remnant�. We also see that this wasn�t regarded
as intercession, but �in order that many proselytes might be gained�. This
is a whole other interpretation than that of modern day Judaism. Take note also
that according to Celsus, who was anti-Christian this was reckoned as �the
language of the Jew�, and thus Israel is speaking here and this was not
seen as being the language of the gentile kings. There is nothing in this
chapter that would indicate that this was �the� Jewish view of that time.
-
- What
then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer�s claims? They are totally untrue!
