• Statements from Prominent Christian Leaders

Anti-defamation
League
– This organization deals with a broad
range of topics relating to Anti-semitism and has a number of
articles looking at “The
Passion of Christ” as well as the

Oberammergau Passion Plays and Passion Plays in History

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=11826

© 1996-2001 The Jewish Journal, All Rights Reserved

Crucifixion: After all this time, the death of Jesus has the power to alter certitudes and animate the faith of his followers.

THE DEATH of Jesus occupies a central place in the life of Christian communities around the world.

Two billion adherents of the fastest-growing religion in the world wrangle about almost everything under the sun, but they all converge at the foot of the cross and struggle to discern the meaning of one of the most confounding stories ever told. This historic event comes into focus year after year with the season of Lent, and so the decision to release Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, on Ash Wednesday (Feb. 25) fits snugly into the liturgical calendar of Western churches and promises to deliver a huge audience.

The Gibson production has become a heated issue, and the mass media have all too often framed the debate as a battle that pits Jews against Christians. Momentous theological issues underlie the overheated rhetoric and the commercial hype. The way that Christians read and interpret the story of the Crucifixion profoundly influences the ways in which Christians read and interpret the world around them. The story is not buried in an ancient archive, but animates people who live with the sign of the cross etched into their hearts and who translate their beliefs into action.

In a society where attitudes and values are shaped, for better and for worse, by religious traditions, everyone has a stake in understanding what Gibson makes of the Crucifixion, and what in turn the Gibson film would make of us – Christians and Jews, believers and skeptics, here and in lands where our gaze rarely travels.

Crucifixion was a horrific form of execution that the Roman Imperium reserved for the dregs of society and the most malicious offenders of the civic order. This punishment was performed as a public spectacle that ratified the shame of the victim. The spiritual character of Christian communities was forged in the encounter with the scandalous fact that Jesus met his death on the cross.

As Luke Timothy Johnson, the eminent New Testament scholar, has noted, the struggle to come to terms with a crucified Messiah is reflected in the paradoxical language of the early church, which strives to articulate how blessing can come through one cursed (Galatians 3:6-14); freedom through a slave (Galatians 5:1); wealth through one made poor (2 Corinthians 8:9); wisdom through such obvious foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:25); strength through weakness (2 Corinthians 13:4); and life for all through one man’s death (Romans 5:12-21).

The Crucifixion has never conveyed one meaning or provided a self-evident answer to its religious and political significance for Christians or for the world at large. Instead, the history of Christianity bears eloquent testimony to this: The death of Jesus poses a question that continues to unseat the certitudes and conventions of those who follow in the footsteps of the holy man from Nazareth.

The tensions about the meaning of the Crucifixion within and among Christian communities are reflected in the remarkable range of artistic portrayals that have evolved over the centuries. Representations of the cross demonstrate that Gibson’s gruesome chronicle of torture is not nearly as original as many contemporary critics understandably bemoan. While the Crucifixion was once depicted through stylized conventions and symbolic formulas, a transformation in the 13th and 14th centuries brought the public face to face with the excruciating details of the body in pain.

The grotesque and grisly horror no doubt served to reassure Christians devastated by the Black Death that they were not alone in their affliction and that hope resides on the other side of ruin and to inspire Christians to examine their sins and to transform guilt into gratitude through the conviction that God’s love can traverse any distance and redeem any sin.

Yet, the same portrayals of Crucifixion that have prompted Christians over the centuries to examine themselves and to repent of their complicity in the world’s evil also have served a more noxious purpose: Wherever the gaze of Christians fell, they were reminded that the Jews were enemies of Christ, and therefore enemies of the church. These depictions, which extend from the New Testament to the stained glass to the altarpiece, provided a justification for hatred. The violence of Jesus’ death coupled with the church’s teachings of contempt for Judaism incited the Christian faithful to horrific acts of violence, making Good Friday the most dangerous day in the year for the Jewish community.

Wherever the crusading spirit flourished, the bloody invasions of believers were conducted under the banner of the Crucifixion. The price of this Christian zealotry is written in the blood that drenches European soil and much of the Middle East.

Mel Gibson’s rendition of the suffering and death of Jesus needs to be read against this horizon of catastrophe. While the film’s commercial success might be measured by box office sales, its religious value requires different criteria.

In a world that lives under the shadow of Auschwitz, Christians are obliged to be self-critical about any contemporary retelling of the Christian story, precisely because there is no religiously neutral art, nor is there religious art devoid of political implications.

In assessing The Passion of the Christ, every viewer is obligated to ask: Does the film split the world in two – victimized good guys over and against demonic bad guys – or does it lead to a self-critical assessment of the ways in which we are entangled in political and religious systems of oppression?

Does the film transfix the audience, leaving it in the thrall of the sufferings of Jesus, and concentrating hope in promises beyond the grave, or does it inspire compassionate engagement with the afflicted and advance the quest for dignity and justice in the here and now?

Does the film authenticate a missionizing campaign to convert the world, or does it contest every religious and political impulse that seeks to eliminate divergent points of view?

And finally, Christians live under a special obligation. They must answer the question: What is the commanding voice from Gibson’s cross?

This much we know from our anguished past: Those who are willing to die for their religious beliefs are all too often willing to kill for them. Those who think evil is concentrated in their enemies consistently manage to find a warrant for holy war, and they will venture to distant lands to eliminate the opposition.

People with a mandate to make the world over in their own image know that sacrifices are required. Because Christianity is the dominant religion in America, the ways in which Christians understand the meaning of the Crucifixion will profoundly influence the direction in which American armies march and the extent to which they will suffer.

Gibson has demonstrated that he knows how to wield the sword. What remains to be seen is how the edge cuts, where the blood flows, and if it will end.

Christopher M. Leighton is the executive director of the Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies in Baltimore. Rosann M. Catalano is the Roman Catholic staff scholar at the Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies in Baltimore.

Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun

By Rabbi Aaron Parry

…many of my co-religionists go so far as to lump him in the same category as those nefarious Nazi propagandists of WWII Julius Streicher and Joseph Goebbels. Is that assessment fair?

The email forwards are rapidly filing into my Jews for Judaism mailbox. Needless to say, there is much passionate debate over The Passion raging in the religious community. Some hail this production as “equivalent to a lifetime of sermons,” (Billy Graham). Others denounce Mel Gibson’s film as a malevolent fomenter of hate and anti-Semitism. At this point, were I to conduct a poll, I would have to conclude that notwithstanding Mel’s masterful marketing ploy, there isn’t much to cheer about on either side of the debate. In fact, many of my co-religionists go so far as to lump him in the same category as those nefarious Nazi propagandists of WWII Julius Streicher and Joseph Goebbels. Is that assessment fair?

The actor’s father, Hutton Gibson, told The New York Times he flatly rejected that the terrorist group led by Usama bin Laden had any thing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Sept. 11.

Let’s take a look again at that infamous interview of March 9, 2003. The actor’s father, Hutton Gibson, told The New York Times he flatly rejected that the terrorist group led by Usama bin Laden had any thing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Sept. 11.

“Anybody can put out a passenger list,” the elder Gibson told The Times.

“So what happened? They were crashed by remote control.”

He and the actor’s mother, Joye Gibson, also told The Times that the Holocaust was a fabrication manufactured to hide an arrangement between Adolf Hitler and “financiers” to move Jews out of Germany to the Middle East to fight Arabs.

“Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body,” Hutton Gibson told The Times. “It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now six million?”

Said Joyce Gibson: “That weren’t even that many Jews in all of Europe.”

By not repudiating their words in the strongest terms, Mel becomes guilty by association

Since when did the Gibson matriarch become a demographer? And here lies the problem for Mel. One of the emails arriving at the Jews for Judaism desk came from a Jewish neighbor of the Houstonian Gibsons. In short, “Rebecca” says that the Gibson clan is “totally meshugana” (Yiddish for “crazy.”) I am not kidding, those were the neighbor’s exact words. He claims to have distanced himself from their sentiment, but to borrow one of Mel’s biblical quotations (he uses many in the movie) “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” By not repudiating their words in the strongest terms, Mel becomes guilty by association.The non-historical and biased New Testament depicts the Jewish role in the demise of Jesus as overwhelmingly negative and culminates in the ultimate crime: deicide — the murder of God. The NT is consistently hostile toward the Jews, while making the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, a meek patsy of the Jews.

I do not blame Mel or his family for their religious beliefs. Why not? Because they are merely following fundamentalist (read: literal) interpretation of Christian Scriptures, (more about that in a moment). Furthermore, Mel Gibson is part of a far-right fringe movement in Catholicism, partly surrounding the group, Opus Dei, whose founder rejects, through his writings, the reforms of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960′s. Part of those reforms included (finally) rejecting the notion that Jews “caused” Jesus’ death. Not surprisingly, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and his priest son, Paul Scalia, are members of Opus Dei. What about those literal interpretations influencing their worldview? The non-historical and biased New Testament depicts the Jewish role in the demise of Jesus as overwhelmingly negative and culminates in the ultimate crime: deicide — the murder of God. The NT is consistently hostile toward the Jews, while making the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, a meek patsy of the Jews. After being “forced” by the Jewish mob to sentence Jesus to death, Pilate symbolically washes his hands and proclaims: “I am not responsible for the death of this man! This is your doing. The whole crowd [the Jews] answered back: Let his blood be on our heads and the heads of our children.” (Matthew 27:24-25) Historically, Pilate was a cruel and sadistic man, whom, according to Josephus Flavius, was called back to Rome by his superiors for his lawless behavior in Judea.

Paul goes out of his way to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus

In the same section of scripture where Paul, the orchestrator of the majority of Christian Scripture, while announcing his prosyletizing ploys; “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews…to those who are without law, as without, that I might win those who are without law…I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some ,” goes out of his way to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus: “[the Jews] killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and persecuted us. How displeasing they are to God! How hostile they are to all men.” (I Thessalonians 1) Frankly, Paul is a bit too schizophrenic for my tastes.

And the coup de grace appears in John 8:44: ” You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your father’s desires. From the very beginning he was a murderer, ” a scathing indictment against all Semitic descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

So how can a fervently naïve and eternally trusting devotee of “holy” and “divinely inspired“ words think differently? How should one feel toward a group of people whom one believes is responsible for killing his god?

So how can a fervently naïve and eternally trusting devotee of “holy” and “divinely inspired“ words think differently? How should one feel toward a group of people whom one believes is responsible for killing his god? That’s Mel’s dilemma. For his part, Gibson consistently affirms that he is being faithful to scripture, “just the way it happened. It’s like traveling back in time and watching the events unfold exactly as they occurred…We’ve done the research. I’m telling the story as the Bible tells it.” (NewsMax Wires March 10 2003) We hear you Mel, but can “accurate” portrayals of The Passion prove beneficial to Jewish-Christian relations?

Among those recent callers to Jews for Judaism was a supporter from Dallas. He called because of his concern for witnessing the spectacle of 5000 people converging on the Southern Baptist Church directly across the street from where he lives. Our friend’s major concern, upon hearing pre-release reviews of the rather graphic torture scene, was of an indignant mob pouring out of the church and looking for the next externally identifiable Jew to attack. I told him to remain calm – probably will never happen on these benevolent shores (not so sure about Europe, though). He should be grateful that there is no Muslim lore blaming Jews for the death of Mohammed.

I heard the story about a Pentecostal reverend somewhere in Denver who posted a sign on his church shouting the message “The Jews Killed Jesus!”
[related link]

Today, however, I heard the story about a Pentecostal reverend somewhere in Denver who posted a sign on his church shouting the message “The Jews Killed Jesus!” Fear of incitement to violence from Baptist churchgoers in Dallas is remote, but provocations emanating from fundamentalist like our Denver pastor sure sound a bit daunting, no? Regardless, I feel even these legitimate concerns are not the real problem; there is something even more sinister. And it lies with what the Jewish people represent to the world and how this film dramatically alters it to the detriment of all.

The historian Arnold Toynbee once described the Jewish people as anachronistic, a mere relic of an ancient culture. Fortunately, in recent times he has changed that assessment

I dare say that Judaism will bring a new message to the world…. to spread Judaism in its authentic form…over the whole world and human race!– Arnold Toynbee

“ I dare say that Judaism will bring a new message to the world. Looking from the outside, it seems extraordinary that twice in the course of history the Jews have allowed outsiders to run away with their religion to spread it over the world in garbled form. I am talking, of course, of early Christianity and Islam. It is something almost comic that outsiders should seize some of the essential truths of Judaism and put them in, what must seem to the Jews, a garbled form of Judaism, and make a worldwide religion of them while the Jews themselves kept their religion to themselves.

Is not the real future of the Jews and Judaism to spread Judaism in its authentic form rather than its Christian and Moslem forms over the whole world and human race! After all, the Jews must have a more authentic form of Jewish monotheism than the Christians or Moslems have. And is that not going to be the ultimate solution of the relations between Jews and the rest of the world?”

The greatest disservice Mel has provided the world is perpetuation of the unfortunate canard of Jews perceived as money-hungry backstabbing dual loyalists of whom mankind can do nothing else but loathe.

Professor, we could not have expressed it better ourselves. The greatest disservice Mel has provided the world is perpetuation of the unfortunate canard of Jews perceived as money-hungry backstabbing dual loyalists of whom mankind can do nothing else but loathe. Contrast that with a clear thinking Quaker, John Adams, Harvard graduate and second President of the United States, said of the Jewish people:

“They have done more to civilize men than any other Nation. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.”

In that spirit I suggest Mel stick to safer subjects of “passion,” like simple comedies, you know, “What Do Women Want?” – and leave religion and philosophy to the scholars.

The central narrative of Christian theology is the passion, i.e. the trials and crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. There are four different accounts of the passion in the gospels of Christian Scriptures, in which Jews play different roles. All these accounts culminate in the death and resurrection of Jesus as revealing God’s saving power available to humanity. Good Friday and Easter celebrate respectively the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as the high points of Christian creed and experience. Christians frequently present dramatic representations of this narrative known as “passion plays.”

Because much of Christian Scriptures were written in polemical style that often portrayed Jews and Jesus–and therefore Judaism and Christianity–as adversaries, a common interpretation of the crucifixion was that the Jewish people were responsible for killing Jesus. According to this interpretation, both the Jews at the time of Jesus and the Jewish people for all time bear a divine curse for the sin of deicide. Throughout nearly 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred and violence against Jews of Europe and America, and various forms of anti-Semitic expression. Historically, Holy Week (the week leading up to Easter Sunday) was a period when Jews were most vulnerable and when Christians perpetrated some of the worst violence against their Jewish neighbors.

In 1965 at the Second Vatican Council in Rome, the Roman Catholic Church took formal steps to correct this interpretation of the passion. In its document, Nostra Aetate, the Church officially repudiated both the deicide charge and all forms of anti-Semitism. Most Protestant churches followed suit, and since 1965 many Christians have worked cooperatively with Jews to correct anti-Semitic interpretations of within Christian theology. Understanding the influential role that passion plays have exercised in the spread of anti-Semitism, the Catholic Church today urges great caution in all dramatic presentations of the passion to ensure that they not furnish any impetus for anti-Semitic attitude or behavior.

In 1988, the United States (Catholic) Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs issued a pamphlet, “Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion,” which stresses that passion plays must avoid caricatures of Jews and falsely opposing Jews and Jesus. It quotes Pope John Paul II’s statement that, “Catholic teaching should aim to present Jews and Judaism in an honest and objective manner, free from prejudices and without and offenses.” The pamphlet concludes that correct Catholic teaching of the passion is one that portrays Jews accurately, sensitively and positively, because “the Church and the Jewish people are linked together essentially on the level of identity.”

(from the Thirteen Principles of Faith)

What does Judaism have to say about the messianic age?
What sort of person will the Messiah be?
What is the purpose of a “messianic age”?
Why did G-D allow the belief in false messiahs to spread?

Many people, both Jews and non-Jews, ask these and other questions about the Jewish belief in the coming of the messiah. While a pamphlet of this size cannot possibly address such an important topic with the thoroughness that it deserves, it can present the basic points in the hope that it will lead to further study of the subject.

In his monumental work Mishneh Torah, Maimonides (1135-1204) spelled out the fundamental Jewish concept of the messiah as it was handed down to us, generation after generation, from the time of the prophets. In his concise and lucid manner, the great Jewish philosopher and jurist herewith presents us with a clear picture of the promise which G-D made to the Jewish people.

Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim XI – XII.

The King Messiah will in some future time come, restore the kingdom of David to its former power, build the Temple, bring together the scattered of Israel, and all the ancient laws will again be in force. Sacrifices will be offered, and years of release and Jubilees will be kept as prescribed in the Torah. Whoever does not believe in him, or does not hope for his coming, shows a lack of faith not only in the prophets, but also in the Torah. For the Torah testifies concerning him in the words: ‘And the L-rd your G-D will again bring back your captivity, and show mercy unto you, and again gather you from all the nations…If your outcasts be at the ends of the heavens, from there will the L-rd gather you…and the L-rd will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed…’(Deut. 30:3-5)

You must not imagine that the messiah must prove his messianity by signs and miracles, doing something unexpected, bringing the dead to life, or similar things. The principle thing is this: the statutes and precepts of our Torah remain forever, and nothing can be added to them or taken from them.

If, therefore, a descendant of David earnestly studies the Torah, observes what the written and oral Torah enjoins, causes all Israelites to act similarly, exhorts those who are lax in the performance of the commandments, and fights the wars of the L-rd, he may possibly be the messiah. If he does not succeed, or is killed in war, it is certain that he is not the messiah promised in the Torah. He is like all the other noble and good kings of the House of David who have died, and G-D only caused him to rise in order to try us thereby, as it is said, `And of the wise some will stumble, and through them the people will be tested, purified, and made white, till the time of the end comes; for there is yet a vision for an appointed time.’ (Dan. 11:35).

Also, Jesus the Nazarene, who imagined that he would be messiah and was killed, is alluded to in the book of Daniel, as it is said, `And the sons of the transgressors among thy people will rise, in order to establish a vision, and will stumble’ (Dan. 11:14). Can there be a greater stumbling then this? All the prophets said that messiah will be a redeemer and a savior to the Israelites, will bring together their outcasts, and will strengthen their obedience to the Divine precepts, but he (Jesus) caused destruction by the sword to Israel, the dispersion of those left, and their humiliation. He changed the law, and misled many people to worship a being beside G-D.

But the thoughts of the Creator of the universe cannot be understood by any human being, for the ways of men are not His ways, nor their thoughts His thoughts. For all the events connected with Jesus, and with Mohammed that rose after him, served only to pave the way for the King Messiah, who will reform all mankind and lead them to the unanimous service of G-D, as it is said, ‘For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that all may call by the name of G-D, and serve him unanimously’ (Zeph. 3:9).

How can this be done? Almost all people have through them (Jesus and Mohammed) become acquainted with the idea of messiah, with the words of the Torah and the Divine precepts. Through them the knowledge of the Bible spread even unto the remotest islands and unto many nations ‘uncircumcised’ in heart and uncircumcised in flesh. These nations seek to justify their disobedience to the precepts of the Torah. Some of them say that these precepts are Divine, but are not in force at present, and were never intended to be permanent laws. Others maintain that they must not be taken literally, as they are mere symbols, the meaning of which has already been explained by their ‘messiah’. But when the true King Messiah will rise, he will prosper, be high and exalted. All will then at once know that it was falsehood what their fathers have inherited, and that their prophets and their teachers have misled them.

It is not because they desired to have dominion over all lands and nations and be honored by all people, or because they desired to have plenty to eat and drink and other pleasures, that the wise men and the prophets longed for the days of the messiah, but because they would then be at leisure to study the Torah and its teachings without being interrupted by any oppressor, and would thus make themselves worthy of life in the World to Come.

There will not be in those days any famine, war, jealousy, or quarrel, because the good things will be in plenty and even luxuries will be found everywhere. All people will busy themselves with trying to know the L-rd. Therefore, the Israelites will be great sages, knowing things which are at present hidden. They will obtain a knowledge of their Creator as far as possible by human understanding; `For the earth shall be full with the knowledge of the L-rd as the waters cover the sea.’ (Isaiah 11:9).

By Rabbi Michael Skobac

One of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that the only way to achieve atonement for sins is through the offering of a sacrifice whose blood is shed in our place. The Greek Testament makes this very clear in Hebrews 9:22 “…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Is this idea consistent with the teachings of the Tanach, or do the Jewish and Christian bibles diverge on this issue? Christians generally insist that the absolute need for a vicarious blood sacrifice is rooted in the Torah, and cite as proof Leviticus 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.”

If you are a Christian, or are a Jew who has been approached by Christian missionaries, you have probably heard many sermons on the topic of atonement, and have undoubtedly read many studies which support the contention that there is no atonement without blood. Of course you are also aware that this is a teaching which is not shared by traditional Jews. Have you ever wondered how they could reject what to others seems so clear? This study has been prepared to give you the opportunity to consider a different perspective on the vital issue of atonement.

ANOTHER LOOK AT LEVITICUS 17:11

You might remember that in junior high school, we were often given an assignment to write the title for a story; what is the central idea of a passage. Let’s look at Leviticus 17:11 in context:

“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.’”

What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood. We are told parenthetically that the reason for this prohibition is that the blood contains the vitality of the animal (cf. Genesis 9:4, Deuteronomy 12:23) and consequently, when we bring an animal sacrifice, its blood serves as the atoning agent, and not another part of its body. Since Leviticus 17 doesn’t come to teach us about the principles of atonement, we will have to look elsewhere for the Bible’s most important teaching on how to repair our relationships with G-d.

Before proceeding, let’s consider another point about what is, and what is not being said in Leviticus 17:11. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, G-d has given it to us as a means of atoning for our sins. But does the verse clearly teach that it is the only means G-d has provided to make atonement? As with any other Biblical study, we will have to examine this question in light of the Bible as a whole. But for now, we should note that our verse merely says that blood can serve as an atonement. It is an effective means of atonement, but by no means the only form of atonement.

In the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness. For example, incense served to atone for the people in Numbers 16:46-47, and giving charity is described in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50 as `making atonement for your souls’ – the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11. In reality, blood sacrifices were the least effective of all the means of atonement mentioned in the Bible. One important limitation to the effectiveness of sacrifices is that they were only brought for unintentional sins (ie. someone didn’t know that kindling a fire was prohibited on the Sabbath, or they were aware of this, but thought it was Sunday when kindling the fire). Sacrifices did not help to atone for sins that were done intentionally (Leviticus 4, and Numbers 15:22-31).

Examining the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 17:11 generates some serious problems. What happens if someone can’t afford to purchase an animal for his sin offering? Is it possible that G-d would institute a system of atonement that could only be used by the wealthy? The Torah took this into account and allowed the poor person to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons if he couldn’t afford a lamb (Leviticus 5:7). However, what if someone was so destitute, that he couldn’t afford even these small birds?

“But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering.” (Leviticus 5:11)

Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was not a prerequisite for atonement. Another example will drive home the point. The proposition that only blood sacrifices could secure atonement creates a dilemma. Could it be that G-d would set up a system of atonement that wouldn’t be available to all people at all times? While the Temple stood, sacrifices did serve as part of the atonement process. But what is the fate of Jewish people who don’t have access to the Temple? What were the Jewish people supposed to do after 586 BCE when the first Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylon? What did the Jewish people do in the times of the Macabees when the Syrian-Greeks were in control of the Temple and didn’t allow sacrifices?

Christians erroneously claim that Rabbinic Judaism came up with novel, non-Biblical measures to deal with atonement after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Actually, it wasn’t Talmudic innovation at all- the Bible anticipated the possibility of the cessation of sacrifices. When King Solomon finally laid the finishing touches on the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he inaugurated it with a moving dedication speech (I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). In this lengthy speech of almost 50 verses, you will notice that Solomon doesn’t speak about sacrifices at all! This omission would be strange if the most crucial part of the Temple were the sacrifices. Actually, the central focus of the Temple was the Holy Ark (Exodus 25) containing the Torah. The Temple was first and foremost a symbol of G-d’s presence and revelation to the Jewish people (I Kings 8:13, Exodus 25:8).

Towards the end of his speech, Solomon deals with the possibility of the Jewish people being denied access to the Temple in the eventuality that they are exiled from the land of Israel.

“If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You…” (I Kings 8:46-50).

This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian misunderstanding of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren’t necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing atonement. Certainly, when the Temple stood, and one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins. Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we aren’t allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement.

Christian dogma holds that the crucifixion of Jesus at Calvary served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Christianity insists that this is not just a Pauline innovation, but reflects the requirements of the Jewish Bible, and tries to establish this by pointing to Leviticus 17:11 as the key to atonement in the Tanach. However, if this passage is examined, it will be clear that Jesus could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Obviously, the shedding of blood by pricking my finger or killing my cat won’t fulfill the Biblical requirements for atonement. The Torah delineates how sacrifices are to be brought.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls…”

Clearly, not any spilled blood is accepted by the Torah as a sacrifice. Jesus’ crucifixion may qualify as an atonement according to the Greek Testament, but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in line with what the Torah mandates.

There are actually several other factors which would render the crucifixion of Jesus an unacceptable sacrifice. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Priest who descends from Aaron. This was not the case in the death of Jesus, who was crucified by Roman soldiers. Additionally, Biblical law prohibited any sacrifice which was blemished or maimed (Leviticus 22:19-21). However, prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was whipped and beaten (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:19, John 19:3) which would render him unfit. Furthermore, Jesus was circumcised in the flesh, which according to Philippians 3:2 and Galatians 5:12 is considered mutilation.

Frequently, Christians react to this line of reasoning by protesting that it is improper to be so literal, and that Jesus’ death was more of a symbolic or spiritual sacrifice. This would be fine if the Bible provided for such ethereal offerings, but such is not the case. The Greek Testament, however, does insist that Jesus was a real sacrifice, literally fulfilling the Biblical requirements of such:

“But coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs…in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: `Not a bone of him shall be broken.’” (John 19:33-36)

The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as the Paschal lamb which was not supposed to have any of its bones broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). Since the author of John insists that Jesus was a real sacrifice to the extent that the Biblical rules of the Passover were fulfilled in him, we can’t dismiss the problems cited above as legalistic nit-picking.

One wonders why the Greek Testament chose to type Jesus as a Paschal lamb rather than the sacrifice for the Day of Atonement. We know from Exodus 12 that the Passover sacrifice did not serve as an atonement for sins, it commemorates the exodus from Egypt. (Even when the lamb was slaughtered in Egypt and its blood smeared on the doorposts, it did not serve to atone for the sins of anyone. It was a sign for the angel of death to pass over Jewish homes during the plague of the first born. The only people in danger were first born males, the blood wasn’t a help to other people in the family, and didn’t serve as an atonement for the first born). A more fitting prototype for Jesus would have been the Yom Kippur sacrifice, which was an atonement for the sins of all the people. It is interesting that according to Leviticus 16:10,21-22, the animal which effectuated the atonement for the sins of the nation was not killed, but sent live out into the desert. Again, the shedding of blood is not a sine qua non for atonement.

The Greek Testament went to some great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Bible. In the book of Hebrews, a verse from the book of Psalms is quoted as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of G-d’s original plan for the world.

“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me” (Hebrews 10:5 referring to Psalms 40:6).

In verse 10 of our passage from Hebrews, we are told that the body spoken of refers to the body of Jesus. However, the Greek Testament took some great liberties in quoting from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared:

“Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears You have opened; Burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required” (Psalm 40:6).

The author of Romans asserts that the Jewish scriptures spoke about the Messiah coming in order to eradicate sin from Israel:

“And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written,`The deliverer will come from Zion and remove ungodliness from Jacob’.” (Romans 11:26 citing Isaiah 59:20)

However, checking the original source in Isaiah reveals the flawed foundation of the claim made in the book of Romans.

“And a redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the L-rd.”

Isaiah didn’t teach that the Messiah’s purpose is to remove sin; rather, he will come to the Jewish people when they show themselves worthy by turning away from sin.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT VICARIOUS ATONEMENT?

One wonders why throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Is the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty consistent with what the Bible teaches? After the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d expressed His intention to destroy the Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and offers to die in their place. In response, G-d says “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book!” (Exodus 32:32-33). Throughout the Bible, G-d says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).

“But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30).

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).

“No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7).

“So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!” (Numbers 35:33).

Although Romans 4:5 says that Jesus justifies the ungodly, the Tanach teaches that “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them are an abomination to theL-rd” (Proverbs 17:15).

If indeed, Jesus came as the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world, why does the Tanach predict that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed?

“Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.” (Isaiah 56:7). “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones will bring My offerings.” (Zephaniah 3:10)

“All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; they will go up with acceptance on My altar, and I shall glorify My glorious house.” (Isaiah 60:7)

“And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever.” (Ezekiel 37:26)

“And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the L-rd offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to the L-rd, as in the days of old and as in former years.” (Malachi 3:3-4)

“And every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the L-rd of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them.” (Zechariah 14:21) “And it shall be the princes part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings, and the libations…to make atonement for the house of Israel.” (Ezekiel 45:17)

The Christian claim that our sins can only be forgiven if blood is shed on our behalf also seems to limit the power of G-d. It’s ludicrous to say that G-d`s ability to forgive us is dependent on anything. One of the most basic teachings in the Bible is that since G-d is merciful, He often forgives us simply because He is merciful. “Who is a G-d like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love.” (Micah 7:18; cf.Psalm 103:7-18). Even when we don’t seek G-d appropriately, He has the ability to reach out to us with love and forgive us:

“Their heart was not steadfast toward Him, nor were they faithful in His covenant. But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity…remembering that they were but flesh.” (Psalms 78:36-39)

“You have not brought Me the sheep of your burnt offerings…or the fat of your sacrifices, but you have burdened Me with your sins…Nevertheless, I will wipe out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” (Isaiah 43:23-25)

THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF ATONEMENT

One of the clearest indications that Christianity is off base in its insistence on the centrality of blood sacrifices is that none of the prophets speaks about it. There isn’t one instance in the prophetic books where the Jewish people are told that in order to get right with G-d they need to get covered by the blood. If that’s the case, what is the fundamental teaching of the Tanach on the issue of atonement? What theme is reiterated time and again by the holy prophets in the Jewish Bible?

“That every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin.” (Jeremiah 36:3).

“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the L-rd, and He will have compassion on him; and to our G-d, for He will abundantly pardon.” (Isaiah 55:7).

“I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, `I will confess my transgressions to the L-rd’, and You did forgive the guilt of my sin.” (Psalm 32:5).

“And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (II Chronicles 7:14). “But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has practiced he shall live…When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life…Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you (Ezekiel 18:21- 22,27,30).

“By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for…” (Proverbs 16:6).

“If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent…then you will delight in G-d…” (Job 22:23-27).

“Depart from evil, and do good, so you will abide forever.” (Psalm 37:27, cf. Ezekiel 33, Zechariah 1:3, Jeremiah 26:13).

The central teaching of the Bible is that only a break with our past and a sincere turning in repentance can restore our relationships with G-d. If I go off the path, I have to put myself back on track, and G-d will forgive me. Even when sacrifices were offered, they in and of themselves didn’t effect atonement. The sacrifice was part of the process, it helped bring us to the core of atonement which is achieved by TESHUVAH, returning to G-d by forsaking our evil ways and praying for forgiveness. One of the main teachings of the prophets was to chide Jewish people who thought that sacrifices were the essential element of atonement:

“What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the L-rd. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats…Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come let us reason together says the L-rd, `Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be like wool, if you consent and obey…” (Isaiah 1:11-18).

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the L-rd.” (Proverbs 15:8).

“To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than sacrifice.” (Proverbs 21:3). “For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of G-d rather than burnt offerings.” (Hoseah 6:6).

“Has the L-rd as great a delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the L-rd? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken more than the fat of rams.” (I Samuel 15:22).

“With what shall I come to the L-rd, and bow myself before the G-d on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the L-rd take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the L-rd require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your G-d.” (Micah 6:6-8,cf. Amos 5:22- 24, Jeremiah 7, Psalm 69:31-32).

Since repentance, and not blood is the Biblical form of atonement, we now understand how in I Kings 8, Solomon explained that even if the Jewish people don’t have access to the Temple, they still have access to G-d. This will illuminate a famous story found in the book of Jonah. G-d sends Jonah to the evil city of Ninveh to warn them of their impending destruction. Jonah doesn’t come into the city and tell the people that unless they begin offering sacrifices they are doomed. Their response to his warnings is to repent: they fast, pray, and turn from their evil. What is G-d’s response?

“When G-d saw their deeds that they turned from their wicked way, then G-d relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” (Jonah 3:10).

In similar fashion, Daniel advised king Nebuchadnezzar on how to atone for his transgressions:

“Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: Redeem your sins by doing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.” (Daniel 4:27).

This principle will also help explain a passage in the book of Hoseah. Hoseah was a prophet to the 10 northern tribes in the kingdom of Israel during a time when there was a civil war going on between them and the two tribes of the kingdom of Judah in the south. Because of the strife, the tribes up north couldn’t get to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Did this leave them with no way of atoning for their sins? The prophet advises:

“Return, O Israel, to the L-rd your G-d, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the L-rd. Say to Him, `Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, for we will render as bullocks the offerings of our lips’.” (Hoseah 14:1-2).

We are able to approach G-d directly with prayer, which is possible at all times; and G-d assures us that sincere prayer can achieve forgiveness for our sins:

“Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O L-rd, the G-d of my salvation. And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O L-rd, open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. These, O G-d, You will not despise.” (Psalms 51:14-17, re:II Samuel 12:13).

“I will praise the name of G-d with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This shall please the L-rd better than an ox or bullock that has horns and hoofs.” (Psalm 69:30-31).

“For You, L-rd, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon You. Give ear, O L-rd to my prayer, and give heed to the voice of my supplications.” (Psalm 86:5-6).

“And listen to the supplications of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place; hear from heaven Your dwelling place, hear and forgive.” (II Chronicles 6:21).

Are Christians consistent with the Jewish Bible when they claim that atonement is only possible with a blood sacrifice? Did the Rabbis just make up the idea that we can restore our relationship with G-d through prayer and repentance? YOU DECIDE!

• Statement on 40th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate–Nostra Aetate decries anti-Semitism as contrary to the spirit of the Gospel: “In her rejection of every persecution against any person, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and by anyone.” Going a step further, the 1974 Guidelines more strongly condemn anti-Semitism, linking this condemnation to the Holocaust.

Statement on 40th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony

February 2004

We are approaching the 40th Anniversary of a unique event – the 1965 promulgation of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. There had been nothing like it in the history of the Catholic Church, clearly proclaiming that “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions,” and mandating a change in our relationship with these faiths, especially with Judaism. I will be working with the American Jewish Committee, the Board of Rabbis, and other Jewish groups in commemorating the upcoming 40th Anniversary of this document in a significant way.

Since Nostra Aetate’s promulgation, important guidelines have been issued for its implementation. It might be well for us to reflect upon them prior to the anniversary.

On June 24, 1985 , the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issued Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church. That document, like its predecessor, Guidelines and Suggestions of Implementing the Conciliar Declaration “Nostra Aetate”(December 1, 1974) drew its inspiration from the Second Vatican Council and was intended to be an offering on the part of the Holy See to Catholics on how the Conciliar mandate can be properly fulfilled “in our time.”

Nostra Aetate decries anti-Semitism as contrary to the spirit of the Gospel: “In her rejection of every persecution against any person, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and by anyone.” Going a step further, the 1974 Guidelines more strongly condemn anti-Semitism, linking this condemnation to the Holocaust.

The accusation of deicide has for centuries plagued the Jewish people, creating a popular climate for hatred and serving as a favorite subject for passion plays and catechetical teaching. Nostra Aetate addresses this thorny issue: “True, Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.”

A particularly useful and detailed discussion of the theological and historical principles involved in presentations of the passion narratives can be found in Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion issued by the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs in March 1988: “The overall aim of any depiction of the passion should be the unambiguous presentation of the doctrinal understanding of the event in the light of faith, that is, of the Church’s traditional interpretation of the meaning of Christ’s death for all humanity. Nostra Aetate states this central gospel truth quite clearly: ‘Christ in his boundless love freely underwent his passion and death because of the sins of all, so that all might attain salvation’. Therefore, any presentations that explicitly or implicitly seek to shift responsibility from human sin onto this or that historical group, such as the Jews, can only be said to obscure a core gospel truth.”

This message is reiterated in God’s Mercy Endures Forever: Guidelines on the Presentation of Jews and Judaism in Catholic Preaching, published in 1989 by the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy: “The message of the liturgy in proclaiming the passion narratives in full is to enable the assembly to see vividly the love of Christ for each person, despite their sins, a love that even death could not vanquish…..To the extent that Christians over the centuries made Jews the scapegoat for Christ’s death, they drew themselves away from the paschal mystery. For it is only by dying to one’s sins that we can hope to rise with Christ to a new life.”

These guidelines provide an excellent means of educating all of us as we once again anticipate the season of Christ’s Passion and Death. They denounce an accusation that has provoked contempt for Judaism and persecutions of the Jewish people for centuries. Their implementation will enable all of us to celebrate the anniversary of Nostra Atetae more fully and enhance the historically positive relationship the Jewish and Catholic communities have enjoyed in Los Angeles over the past forty years.

In discussions about the Messiah, one chapter of our Jewish Scriptures keeps coming up: Isaiah 53. Wasn’t the Prophet, in fact, referring to Jesus in this chapter? And didn’t all Jews before the Middle Ages recognize this chapter as “messianic”? We hope to assist you in interpreting a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.

Our Jewish sages teach that “whoever saves a single Jewish soul is considered as if he had saved an entire world.” How precious is the Jewish soul! Though the Bible study which follows is a lengthy one, we have prepared it in the belief that – as a Jewish soul – you are worthy of any method which may be required. We hope that you too will value your soul highly enough to prayerfully ponder that which follows. God’s truth is not always easy to discern, but we are possessors of a Divine promise; “you will find Him if you search after Him with all your heart and all your soul” (Deut. 4:29). As faithful Jews have attested for over 3500 years, it’s worth the effort. And now – on with the search!

A. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Before engaging in an examination of Isaiah 53 itself, some preliminary issues must be considered. First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do (forgetting for a minute the mistranslations and distortions of context which will be noted below), the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, “see – the Prophet predicted what I already believe.” Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no “proof” at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.

Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus’ own disciples didn’t view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. For example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: “God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matt. 16:22). See, also, Mk. 9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9. Even Jesus didn’t see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims – why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)? And why did he later request that God “remove this cup from me” (Mk. 14:36) – didn’t he know that a “removal of the cup” would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?

And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this “Messiah” to get the benefits?

B. CONTEXT

Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of God’s revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you “tackle” Isaiah 53.

Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah’s “Messages of Consolation”, which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God’s chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as “oppressed without cause” (v.4) and “taken away” (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).

Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53′s promise of a reward for God’s servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: “`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the L-rd.”

C. ISAIAH 53

In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.

52:13 “Behold, My servant will prosper.” Israel in the singular is called God’s servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) – the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God’s servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?

52:15 – 53:1 “So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?” Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the “servant of the L-rd,” and they will say “who would believe what we have heard?”. 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations’ astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.

53:1 “And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?” In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God’s “arm” refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).

53:3 “Despised and rejected of men.” While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly “praised by all” (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared “a riot of the people” (Mk. 14:1-2).

53:3 “A man of pains and acquainted with disease.” Israel’s adversities are frequently likened to sickness – see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.

53:4 “Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore.” In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus’ healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.

53:4 “Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and afflicted.” See Jer. 30:17 – of God’s servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, “It is Zion; no one cares for her.”

53:5 “But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities.” Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant’s sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures – see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah “shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth” (Isa. 42:4).

53:7 “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth.” Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel’s faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as “sheep to be slaughtered” in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).

Regarding the claim that Jesus “did not open his mouth” when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.

53:8 “From dominion and judgment he was taken away.” Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since – by Jesus’ own testimony – he never had any rights to rulership or judgment, at least not on the “first coming.” See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.

53:8 “He was cut off out of the land of the living.” Israel is described as “cut off” in Ez 37:11.

53:8 “From my peoples’ sins, there was injury to them.”Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word “lamoh – (lamed-mem-vav) “, when used in our Scriptures, always means “to them” never “to him” and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 – “They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them.”

53:9 “His grave was assigned with wicked men.” See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israel is described as “cut off” and God promises to open its “graves” and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.

53:9 “And with the rich in his deaths.” Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which the plural “deaths” makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will “come to life” when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).

53:9 “He had done no violence.” See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.

53:10 “He shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed”, used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as “sons”, is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).

53:10 “He will prolong his days.” Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?

53:11 “With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just.” Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not “justify the many.” The Jewish mission is to serve as a “light to the nations” which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God’s Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).

53:12 “Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty.” If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people – who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) – who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?