Isaiah 53, Micah 7 and Isaiah 62

Isaiah 53, Micah 7 and Isaiah 62

 

Isaiah 53 (52:13 – 53:12) describes the servant of the Lord who shocks the world with his unexpected exaltation. The prophet presents us with the shocked words of the onlookers as they express their astonishment. From these words we learn that the onlookers were intimately familiar with the servant long before his exaltation. But they knew him as a wretched sufferer. The exaltation of the servant will cause them to reevaluate all of the theories that they had been propounding to explain the suffering of the servant.

Who is this servant?

I propose that in order to discover the identity of the servant we search the Scriptures to see who it is that will be exalted in the Messianic era and who it is that will be shocked and shamed when the Messianic era unfolds.

We do not need to wander very far to discover who it is that will be exalted at the time of the final redemption. Throughout the same book of Isaiah we learn that it is Israel who will be exalted and vindicated on that day and her enemies that will be shamed (Isaiah 26:2; 29:23; 30:26; 34:8; 41:11; 54:17; 60:2,14,15; 62:2;).

Micah 7:9,10,16, also describes the shame of Israel’s enemies when Israel is ultimately vindicated. Micah speaks of Israel’s enemy who taunted her with the words: “where is the Lord your God?” This seems to indicate that the shame that Israel’s enemies will experience will be a result of their own rejection of God. Isaiah, on the other hand, seems to focus on the revelation of Israel’s righteousness (62:1). According to Isaiah, it is the nation’s malicious evaluation of Israel that will cause them to be embarrassed when they see her righteousness shining bright.

So what is it that will bring shame upon Israel’s enemies? Is it their rejection of God? Or is it their vindictive attitude towards Israel?

My understanding is that these two are actually one and the same.

Throughout our long exile, we have been accused of many wrongdoings. But there is one “sin” that, in the mind of Christianity, towers above all the others – and that is our rejection of Jesus. According to the Christian Scriptures, it is only a child of the devil and an enemy of truth itself that could find it within themselves to reject the claims of Jesus (John8:44). In the eyes of the Christian, all of the suffering that the Jews experienced is the just consequence of this “sin”.

When that great day comes, and God alone is exalted on that day (Isaiah2:11), Christendom will realize that God is God and that Jesus was just another one of His subjects. They will recognize that their devotion to Jesus was – to put it mildly – misplaced. At the same time they will realize that what they had considered to be the greatest “sin” of the Jewish people was actually their greatest virtue. It wasn’t a rejection of Jesus as much as it was a fierce loyalty and love for God. They will realize that in a world steeped in idolatry, Israel, with all of her faults, maintained her loyalty to God – through fire and water, through the Crusades and the holocaust. This is the righteousness of Israel that will blaze brightly to the eyes of the whole world.

Israel’s enemies will realize that their vindictive assessment of Israelis rooted in their rejection of Israel’s God, and both of these will bring them shame together.

Israel’s exaltation is not something separate from the exaltation of God. When God is exalted, it will be evident that those who had hoped to Him and maintained their loyalty to Him were truly His representatives on this earth, and they will know no shame (Isaiah 49:23).

About these ads
This entry was posted in Isaiah 53, Scripture. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Isaiah 53, Micah 7 and Isaiah 62

  1. Shomer says:

    You ask the question; “Who is this servant?” I know that the Messiah is predicted as a son of king David, thus he is a Jew.

    In Christianity it is widely believed that “Christ” is the Messiah. I personally cannot immagine an incarnated carven image on a crucifix ruling the earth on king David’s throne.

    Quote: Christendom will realize that God is God and that Jesus was just another one of His subjects.

    I personally distinguish YHVH from “God”, Yeshua from “Jesus”, Jerusalem from Babylon. E. g. Yeshua: He was a Jew and if his Genealogy in Matityahu chapter one is authentical, he was David’s son. On the other hand “Jesus” is a Roman Catholic divinity, a carven image, a Trinitarian pagan semi-god, son of the holy virgin and an idol, so to say. Reports about Yeshua have been transferred to “Jesus” by the church but from a Christian perspective no-one is able to see the Jewish points in “Jesus’” life. The “NT”-Jesus is a syncretistic figure that definitely must be discerned.

    • Birthe Jensen says:

      I agree the Greek Jesus is not Yeshua. Yeshua was a Rabbi and the Greek version has nothing to do with him. He was a man and not a god.
      Paul tells us straight out that the god he is worshipping is “The unknown god” (In Athen on Marshill). The deity is call “unknown god”, not because no one knew him, but is was his name. This unknown god told to move Serapis to Alexandria. The followers of Serapis were call christians and their leaders bishops. (Hadrians letter to Caesar). I think this is the reason why Paul and those who followed his teaching also were called christians. The gathering in Jerusalem, lead by James was called “the way” because they were jews and lived according to Torah, as Yeshua did.
      Christianity is not followring the words of Yeshua – then they would live like jews – they follow Paul who was an enemy of the gathering in Jerusalem. (many sources incl. NT)

      • Yedidiah says:

        Don’t fool yourself. The only way you even know about a “rabbi Yeshua” is by first reading the “Greek Jesus”. And then deciding you like certain verses better than other verses by the same “spirit filled” writers. Yeshua & Jesus are 2 “peas in a pod; mirror images of each other, despite the “semantics game” same folks want to play. Divided, Jesus-Yeshua’s house falls. “Both said the exact same words & did the exact same things. Most of the time Matthew says exactly what Paul says and James or Yaakov (who teaches Greek Stoicism & quotes Stoic writers & philosophers) often says just what Peter says which is often what John says which is often what Paul says. And what you all seem to be saying is that you can drop a “kosher sandwich” (the Hellenistic rabbi Yeshua’s words) into a “toilet bowl” (the collection of the Greek rabbi Jesus’s words) and you can “fish” it out, wipe the “corruption” off, and then continue eat your “kosher sandwich”?

      • Birthe Jensen says:

        Thank you very much for your answer.
        I do not agree that Yeshua and Paul agree on the message. They do not agree at all. When I discovered the enmity between the 2 groups, I knew something was wrong and started to investigate. Found out that NT and the gospels are rewritten, overwritten and twisted beyond any imagination. If we look at Q1, Q2 and Q3 (oldest manuscripts) we see a development in the person described (Yeshua) from ordinary person and via wise person became the divine person called christ, and under the influence of paulinians he became god manifested in the flesh and suddenly the trinity is introduced. All lies. There is only one Father.
        I found out that we have inherited lies from the generations before us. So now I am an ekschristian. Christianity is sun-god worship as many other religions are, only the names are different.
        To your mention of kosher sandwich: my husband and I do not know enough about kosher food yet. We have contacted the chief Rabbi here in Denmark for guidance ect.
        We now live according to Torah the best we know.
        We are very pleased to have found a forum where many of the questions we have are being discussed, and so we get the answers.

      • Yedidiah says:

        Q1,2, & 3 are not actual manuscripts, but are part of a theory to explain what is common between Matthew and Luke and Mark. It doesn’t explain why John differs from these “synoptic” gospels nor why Luke & Matthew contradict each other (when they are not Q). It doesn’t explain why ideas that are called “Pauline” ideas are also a large part of Mark, Matthew, & Luke. Part of the reason is that scholars believe that the gospels where all written more than 20 years after the “true” letters of Paul (which is also only a theory). In others words, they believe Paul came first and then the gospels, which means that the Christians, influenced by Paul and believing in Yeshua, were the ones that wrote the gospels. First came the belief in the different Christian “communities” and then these communities each wrote their own gospels.

        Jesus is only an English word that is used when translating Yeshua or Yehoshua or the Greek name Iesous into English. There are NO early manuscripts about an Yeshua. No stories about someone who was not also the “Greek Iesous”. The NT & the earliest Christian fathers called other believers in “Jesus”, Judaizers. In other words, “Jesus” came first and then only later did some Christians try to make Jesus more Jewish – to “Judaize” Jesus. Modern Christians have invented “Yeshua” in an attempt to make “Jesus” more Torah-like. It is an attempt to rewrite history. But if there was no “Jesus” or no “New Testament”, then we would have absolutely no “Yeshua”, no history. If Jesus is a lie, then Yeshua is a way to re-invent Jesus – to hold onto Jesus. It is a new lie so that people can still hold onto the old “lies”. If you take a “scissors” to the NT, you have nothing left. Any “Yeshua” you find in the scrap of pages all cut up, is a new god you are creating in your own image.

      • Birthe Jensen says:

        I agree. The Qs do not mention Yeshua, the person is called “he”. But they show how the false god Yeshua or Jesus developed and became “god manifested in the flesh”. Like for an ensemble also Krishna.
        Still there were 2 groups who did not get along. Paul´s letters show this.
        I do not know who came first, Yeshua or Paul, the scholars disagree.

        Thank you very much for the information.

      • Yedidiah says:

        The “unknown god” was the “God of Yeshua” & of Paul (or “Rav Schaul”) and Peter and of Abraham. The “unknown god” was a god unknown to the Athenians (including the followers of Serapis), the God who was not an idol and a God who was a Creator of ALL things (not just Jews & Israel). The “unknown” God was a creator of Adam & Eve and the God of Abraham. Paul speaks very much about Abraham. And you throw all those words of Paul away by providing us when one verse of Paul that is distorted and twisted all out of context. So you prefer Hadrians world view & his “evidence” over Peter’s & James’s (the “Jerusalem Church’s”) beliefs & “evidence”??? Neither James nor Peter nor John (the “Pillar” of Yeshua) believed Paul was preaching a “new God”. So throw all those words away because of modern distortions in an effort to dismiss Paul. when you dismiss Paul you dismiss ALL OF the New Testment, ALL of your reason to cling to either your Jesus or your version of “Yeshua”. Which is alright, since there is not only no evidence of a “Yeshua” (at least no one worth following if you strip all of him away), there is no evidence that a Paul or a Peter or a James or a John existed outside of the NT. Why base belief in an “unknown god” named Yeshua, when you believe your evidence for that faith is filled with lies or based on lies? Who determines which verse is lie or the “word of God”?

      • Yedidiah says:

        The “Old Testament” or the Jews show that we can know God without reading either the NT Jesus or the modern new-age version of Jesus called “Yeshua”. That God remains unknown to most who profess to believe in Him.

      • Birthe Jensen says:

        Of course I dismiss the NT, that is my point. You cannot trust the gospels, because they are altered beyond any imagination – Q is the proof. Paul is a lier, so what do you have left? Nothing, since we found out – we only read Tanach.

      • Yedidiah says:

        My point is that one is not truly an “ex-Christian” unless they are also not a follower or believer in “Yeshua”. If you can’t say that Yeshua is the same as Jesus, then you are still Christian. If you still hold on to some major beliefs of Christians, then you are still Christian. If you are a follower of “the way” or James or Yeshua, then you are only at step one at being an ex-Christian. I am at least at step 2.

        If a person can’t say either that Yeshua never existed or that his existence over 1900 years ago matters no more than any other nameless rabbi of the 1st century c.e., then that person is still a “Christian” although one might call themselves something else. Jesus or Iesous is 100% Yeshua, or vice versa, at least to the authors (or later redactors) of every NT book. It was Christians who wrote every word in every book of the NT (and Christians who wrote almost every non-canonical book about Jesus, who is also called Yeshua). It was Christians who assembled and preserved certain books into a “canon”, the whole NT that we have today, and they believed in ALL of it. It was a Christian who wrote, & it was many early Christians who accepted, the genealogy in “Matityahu” chapter one as authentic, just like Shomer, who made the 1st comment above, accepts it although he seems to want to reject other Christian writings because they are “Christian”.

      • Birthe Jensen says:

        To be honest, I do not understand why you think I am a believer or follower of Yeshua/Jesus. Perhaps my English is not good enough. I believe that 2 grubs existed and that they disagree on important issues. The one group lived – but not quit – like jews. The other group had a more Greek-like mind. But both were wrong. So I read only Tanach, translated by Jews. Because I discovered that even Tanach has been tempted with (a famous scr. in Jer. )

        I do not believe the coming King has been born yet.
        I believe the Jews are right and that I have inherited lies:
        Like many religions are built up after the same pattern, a god gets a son – a hybrid between him and mankind – born of a virgin and sacrificed for everyone. They all believe in a trinity. So is christianity. And I believe they are wrong

        That is why we have contacted our Chief-Rabbi (in Danish Overrabbiner). Where else can we go? The Jews have the truth.

      • Birthe Jensen says:

        I forgot to say, that I agree the god in NT is very different from the Almighty Father, Creator and only God in “OT”. The “jewish group” is a mix of Greek and Hebrew mindset. The other group is much more Greek.
        None of 2 versions of “christ” is true, he has not been born yet.

  2. Gavin says:

    If his genealogy is correct, then he is not of the house of David.

    because…..

    In Judaism, as in most religions, the father determines the lineage. ALL of Christendom claims that he was born of a virgin, therefor Joseph (who was of David’s lineage) was NOT his father and by virtue of this fact, he cannot possibly be/have been the messiah.

    Q.E.D.

    • Xander says:

      “In Judaism, as in most religions, the father determines the lineage. ALL of Christendom claims that he was born of a virgin, therefor Joseph (who was of David’s lineage) was NOT his father and by virtue of this fact, he cannot possibly be/have been the messiah.”

      Actually your wrong as the Mishna states it is through the Mother’s line. This is still observed by the Orthodox Jews as well.

      • Xander
        Tribal and royal lineage always goes through the father – in the Mishna as in Scripture

      • Xander says:

        I have not seen that, but assuming you are correct that would mean that if no male was born to a king then the throne would be given to another relative other than through the son of his daughter?

        • naaria says:

          It wouldn’t matter. It wouldn’t apply to Jesus anyhow. None of Jesus’ “parents”, grandparents, or great-grandparents were kings or queens. And who knows how many thousands or tens of thousands could claim to be of “royal lineage” and much more suited for leadership. Now the non-Jewish Roman senate had “elected” Herod I as a “king of the Jews” and according to the NT, the non-Jewish Roman P Pilatus named Jesus “a king of the Jews” (without any authorization from the Roman government). But Jesus was never legally made a leader nor was he ever anointed by anyone. So I guess anybody can make any claim they want to make and some people will accept it as true or valid just because they want to.

      • naaria says:

        I forgot to mention that it is only speculation or apologetics that the NT writer of “Luke” wrote of “Mary’s” instead of “Joseph’s geneaology”. Now according to the NT, Joseph did have sons (brothers of Jesus or “cousins”), either older or younger than Jesus, who also could claim to be “royalty”. And according to Luke, Mary’s cousin was Elizabeth, who super-naturally, miraculously gave birth to John a “baptizer”, who could claim the “throne” or the “title of messiah”. In fact, in the earlier NT texts of Luke, it is not Mary’s song but it is Elizabeth’s song about her “special son” John.

      • Xander says:

        @naaria

        I agree that anyone could claim a lineage and it would not necessarily be true, but you would think that since the claims of his lineage back to David were being circulated while the records that could disprove him were actually around that someone would have stepped up and said there is no way by birth this man could be the messiah. Oh well. Guess they did not think of that way to discredit the false messiah. There could have been a plethora of people who were of the Davidic line, as long as it was not from Solomon since he messed up his chances for the lineage of the messiah.

        Yes, Herod I was a Jew and made king by the Romans. He even entered the holy of holies to see what was there and came out alive.

        Latin really messed up both the Greek and Hebrew, so I understand why some copies had listed Elizabeth instead of Mary in Luke, but the Greek copies that are available cleared that up. All of Joseph’s sons would have been younger than Jesus, but they decided not to claim to be God. If Sarai can super-naturally become pregnant after having sex with her old husband, surely it I not wrong to think it could happen to Elizabeth as well? I guess John could have claimed to be the messiah, as others did before and after the time of Jesus, but he declined and rather proclaimed Jesus as that one.

        All rather interesting but originally talking about lineage and how it was determined through which gender.

        • naaria says:

          Which reports were being circulated while which records that could disprove him were actually around? None of the “messiahs” mentioned in the works of Josephus appear to claim “lineage” as “proof of their messiahship” nor are none discredited because of it. They were discredited for what they failed to do. There is no great argument between Jews, recorded by Jews nor the early church fathers, about who or what Jesus was. Rather, Jews in the 2nd century, seemed very baffled about even an aledged existence of a Jesus (aka Yeshua). None even seemed to be aware that a Jesus even existed, so how could they either accept or reject his claims? What happened to all his “Jewish followers” during or after the “first war” against Rome? There are no contemporary Jewish writings (negative or positive) and no Christian writings (until 150+ c.e). There is one legend (& only a legend) about his followers going to “Pella”, but then a deafening silence again.

          Antiochus & his men, Greeks and not Jews, stood in the Holy of Holies as did the non-Jew Roman, Titus and they also remained alive. So what is your point about Herod? Jesus went to “cleanse” the Temple and vandalized it instead, but he did not leave to long after that and he withered like a cursed tree. So?

          The earliest copies of the NT texts are Greek and not “messed up” Latin. It was Jerome, in the 4th century, who said that the copyists of the original Greek manuscripts were “more asleep than awake” while on the job copying the texts, so why shouldn’t he change them or correct them and “make them more suitable for Christians?”. Did John always know who Jesus was? And why Josephus reads John lived years after Jesus and even after Pilate, unlike what the gospels make it seem like. So some of the earliest Greek & Coptic texts shows John being exalted, not Jesus.
          And it depends upon which early Christian canonical & non-canonical writings or “early church fathers” you would rather agree with, but Joseph is usually depicted as an elderly man and James is older than Jesus. But some believe brother & sister really means cousin, which is calling the NT writers liars.

          If Solomon “messed up his chances for the lineage of the messiah”, why is Matthew even wasting our time going over this worthless genealogy?

    • Molly Lyda says:

      Right, but then who could ever be proven to be of the lineage of David if in fact there is to be a miraculous virgin birth? So, whether it is Jesus or someone born next week who the Jews do believe is the messiah, how will lineage ever be proven? I believe that the way the Christian’s have proven lineage by both mother and earthly father, Joseph is about as good as it will ever get. God is the Father. We all have a heavenly Father and an earthly father.

    • Adrian Vink says:

      How true is your statement in that if there is no natural human father in the linage then he cannot be from the house of David.

  3. naaria says:

    Sons of David? Amnon was one & a Jew. So was Absalom, “father of peace” & leader of a major rebellion that temporarily dethroned King David. A “king of Israel” who later was “reconciled’ to his Father, who still loved him despite his rebellion. Sounds familiar. “From a Christian perspective no one is able to see the Jewidh points” of the Sadducee’s nor of the Pharisees that matter. Nor the Jewishness of the Jewish prophets, who are quoted a few times in the NT & the Church of Yeshua, as if they were Christian prophets.

    A house (NT) divided (by whatever method of “discernment”) can not stand. Who is the “wolf” in disguise and who is the “lamb” that is the disguise? Which one do you personally distinguish Jesus as?

  4. What?
    Christians say you’re suffering for rejecting Messiah?
    The Jews suffered over the years because of *their sins against God* — and then, on top of that, rejecting (those who did reject) Messiah.
    Don’t try to pass the buck; the Law says you must pay for your sins, and God was “punishing you 7 times for your sins”, etc.,.

    • naaria says:

      Since no Moshiach (as defined by the Hebrew/Jewish Bible) has yet come (as promised by the Prophets of Israel/Judea), whose “messiah” did Jews reject?  I see no evidence that Jews have suffered or died because of “punishment by God” (which is a matter between God and those individuals and which is not determined by biased or ignorant, sinful judgmental people who have no authority to speak for God).  During WW2, Jews were “punished” along with, and sometimes no more than, many millions of non-Jews.  Non-Jews  who suffered, died, & were “punished”, although they had accepted “their messiah/Christ”!   

      Rather, many Jews have often suffered and have been persecuted by the hands of ordinary humans, who have accepted a messiah and truly believed they were doing the “work of the lord”.  “Since the days of John until now the Kingdom of God has suffered violence….” and it’s people has suffered at the hands of the violent.   Was Hitler & the Nazi’s evil or misguided individuals or were they, as you seem to suggest, just being agents of justice sent by Yeshua/Jesus to carry out the “7 times punishment” “required” of all those who “rejected the messiah” of peace & love?  But is it not better to suffer than to persecute & cause the suffering; better to be killed than to kill?   Did Abel suffer and die and was he “punished for his sins” or was it because of Cain’s sins?    

      • Linda says:

        WOW that is so powerful a response …thank you for your spirit filled insight ..
        .Now backwards spells WON
        I for one am trying so hard and in much prayer and study…to understand this very subject

  5. Xander
    Yes – the throne would pass to a brother or cousin

    • Xander says:

      How does it work in 2 Samuel 21, where the Gibeonites are asking for male descendants of Saul and the boys are traced through their mother’s lineage? You would not think it would pertain since Saul only had one son, and his son could never have led the nation.

    • Mitch W says:

      Interesting discussion- what do you think rabbi?

  6. Xander
    In 2 Samuel 21 the Gibeonites were not looking for heirs to Saul’s throne. Saul’s kingdom had already passed to David in an irreversible move (2samuel 7). The Gibeonites wanted to “punish” Saul posthumously – this was accomplished trhough the death of his descendants – any descendant would technically qualify. This is similar to the process which was repeated throughout the book of Kings whenever one dynasty replaced another – everyone related or even remotely connected to the previous dynsaty would be killed (e.g. 1Kings 14:10). The reason they picked on males as opposed to females is because of the public aspect of this execution – it would have been inapropriate to the leave the bodies of women hanging the way these people were hung.

  7. Xander says:

    I need help understanding lineage. Reading Ruth, Obed was given to Naomi to carry on the lineage of Mahlon, but in the lineage in chapter 4, it says he was the son of Boaz. Is Boaz in there to honor him or is Obed considered to be of his lineage and not Mahlon’s?

    • naaria says:

      I am no legal expert, but Obed would not have existed unless Boaz was his father. Obed therefore will stand to inherit everything Boaz owns (in the future, and who knows how many brother Obed might have in the future). Obed is Boaz’s son and so his lineage is Boaz’s lineage. But there is still property around that belonged to Mahlon or Mahlon’s father. Ruth can “hold” (have temporary custody of) the property (in Mahlon’s name). But a near kinsman can marry her and keep the property “in the family”. Otherwise, Ruth must sell the property to strangers or outsiders and the property loses any and all connections to Elimelech and Mahlon. Any buyer who is a stranger will have no sentimental attachment to the land, no historical connection. Such a buyer might not know Mahlon, Naomi, Ruth, or any of Mahlons ancestors or history, and could care less about Mahlon, Mahlon’s name, Mahlon’s family and history. But if Ruth has a child with a close relative of Mahlon and Naomi or Naomi’s husband, that man will remember Mahlon and his family. Mahlon’s property will be inherited by Ruth’s son. A Ruth’s son will remember Ruth’s connection to her dead husband and also Naomi. But, Obed is not of Mahlon’s physical lineage. Obed is the son of another husband of Ruth. Obed has a direct connection to Boaz’s history and lineage, but only an indirect connection to Mahlon’s history and name. But he and his family will be remembered until who knows how many generations in the future. Well, I guess his name is even remembered up to today, or else his name would have “gone to dust” over 3000 years ago.

      • Xander says:

        But if you look at the story of Judah and Tamar, it says that Onan would not put his seed into Tamara because he knew the child would not be considered his. The offspring would be considered his brother’s. We remember the lineage and that Judah acted as the surrogate father for Er, but I wasn’t sure if Perez or Zerah would be considered to be Er’s child. When the lineage is laid out, you don’t see it mentioned, but the stories reflect back to that. 1st Chronicles says that Judah had 5 sons total, but also makes a point to mention that the last two were with his daughter-in-law. Why denote that?

        With Ruth, the closer relative passed on fulfilling his role as redeemer after he learned that he had to take Ruth as a wife. He was willing to buy the parcel of land, but not marry her. I wasn’t sure if it was because she was a Moabite and their offspring are forbidden from entering into the assembly of the Lord. This would make sense as he said he could not afford to impair his own inheritance, as any additional children he had with her would not be able to inherit the land. So, Boaz would have been the father of Obed naturally, but the inheritance he received is that of Mahlon’s.

        • naaria says:

          And of course, Obed would receive an inheritance from Boaz, which would be a greater inheritance (after Boaz dies, which is after the ending of the book of Ruth).

  8. Adrian Vink says:

    Was Jesus Christ the expected Messiah as fortold in the Torah and the Tanach? There seams to be much debate about this topic on this post, so I hope that my statement below will help clarify any confusion on the topic.
    A major objection concerns the two genealogies of Jesus that are claimed by the Christian Greek Scriptures (the New Testament) and Christian theology in general. Matt. 1:11 shows Jechoniah (spelt Jechanis in KJV) as an ancestor of Joseph and therefore of Jesus. Trouble is that Jechoniah’s line is cursed never to inherit the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:24-30). Jechoniah was deposed and none of his descendents were ever kings. The throne passed to Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle because of Jechoniah’s wickedness. Then Matthew undoes the lineage by claiming a ‘virgin birth’ for Jesus, annulling Joseph’s line entirely. The lineage given at Luke 3 fares no better. Here Nathan is listed as the son of David through whom Joseph was descended, not Solomon through whom the Messiah must descend (1Chron. 22:9 et al).
    As for the ‘virgin birth’, without a human father, no-one can claim to be Messiah as this means that GOD took the throne away from the house of David, violating GOD’s own oaths, something which GOD NEVER has done and NEVER will do. Clearly, both genealogies disqualify Jesus from being Messiah, as does a ‘virgin birth’ which itself is based on a (deliberate?) mistranslation and interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 which is not a messianic prophecy anyway.
    Some of the things that the true Messiah will achieve are:
    World peace – Isa 2:4; 11:6, Universal knowledge and recognition of GOD – Isa. 11:9; Jer. 31:34, General resurrection of the dead – Isa. 26:19; Eze. 37:12, Bring all the Jewish exiles back – Isa. 11:11, 42:5, Jer. 22:8; Building the Third Temple – Eze. 37:26. Not even the most enthusiastic of Christians can claim that Jesus did these things. The opposite is true, the world became much more violent and godless after Jesus’ time, especially once Christianity became the Roman State Religion. A dark age ensured from this time. I hope this will clear up any mis-understandings about who can or can not claim to be messiah.

    • Linda says:

      And it would seem that the enemy of the Lord of Hosts would work to do the opposite…not want world peace, not want knowledge or recognition of the Lord or want Jewish exiles at all ; let alone brought back nor the 3rd Temple to be built. But on the other hand the antichrist does mean against christ, so how is it thought as posing as if he is christ???

  9. Yedidiah says:

    You write very good English. And your last couple of comments are very clear about where you stand as an ex-Christian (what I might call step 2). Where you go from here is difficult to say. In America, non-Jews who follow Torah & Tanach only (who call themselves Bnei Noach -Children of God’s covenant with Noah and all his descendants – non-Israelites, non-Jews), might meet in small groups for prayer, worship, etc.

    My focus is on providing information to readers on this blog (hopefully all true & unbiased) from the “ex-Christian”, non-Jewish point of view. I see that you do understand that there were 2 major groups who followed Jesus in the earliest years (actually, we could say there were several more). You see that the “Jewish group” was a mix of both “Hebrew & Greek” world views (Hellenistic Jews). Some people don’t see their error when they say “Jesus – or Yeshua – was “Jewish””, as if all Jews thought alike back then (except, for their so called “hypocritical” leaders). Or, as if “Jewishness” validated Jesus or any other person.

    When many people (ordinary Christians or those in the “Hebraic Roots” movement) say the name “Yeshua”, they see it as just another name for Jesus. Many who say “Yeshua” hate the names “Jesus” or “Christ” because to them those are “pagan” names. But these people are Trinitarians & their beliefs are 100% Christian, only Judaized, because the “real” Jesus was a Jew and not a “Greek”. Some who say Yeshua, see that the only error in the Church was that brought about by Constantine or by the Catholic Church. They may actually hate Catholics, because they aren’t real Christians like the Protestants or “messianic” believers. Some who say Yeshua, disparage and even hate Paul, because they speculate that he “invented Christianity” and he “corrupted” “Yeshua’s original” teachings. Some Christians now say they only read Torah & Tanach, but they hold on to much of their Christian beliefs and see Yeshua as YWYH or the “One God”. They may be virulent anti-Trinitarians but Jesus -Yeshua is their God or their messiah or a prophet or messenger of God. They may have several different “sacred names” of the “One” they worship (e.g., Yeshua, Yeshua Messiah, Yahwehshua, Yhvh, Yahshua, Jehovahshua, Yehoshua, etc), but they are all just Jesus.

    So arguments or debates about alleged differences between Paul and Jesus or “Rav Shaul” and Yeshua or the “Greek Jesus” vs. the “Hebrew Yeshua”, is all irrelevant. Except for the fact of how Christians or non-Jews interact with Jews, to the Jews (and really also to non-Jews) it doesn’t really matter whether Yeshua & Jesus are 100% similar or 100% dissimilar, it doesn’t matter if Paul & Jesus taught the same basic messages or if Paul taught the opposite, and it doesn’t matter if you see Jesus as a divine son, or a tri-partite personality of God, or God, or a messiah or only a Prophet or only a messenger or whatever. It matters to different Christian groups and they (like all my family, friends, & co-workers) can believe whatever they want about Jesus. But whatever non-Jews think about Jesus or a man from “Nazareth”, he isn’t a part of Judaism, nor does he play any part in their relationship to God/YHWH.

  10. Pingback: Response to Line of Fire 11 | 1000 Verses

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s