Announcement of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament – Isaiah 53

Deutsch

The coming of a saving Messiah was already known to Adam and Eve. His prophesied appearance simply faded from the minds of God’s people. Furthermore, Jesus Christ was a completely different figure than the one generally expected by the people—not the image of a heroic king, but that of a pitiful beggar.

Multiple Announcements of Jesus Christ

The Old Testament contains numerous passages that announce the coming Messiah. These passages either directly predict His appearance or highlight certain attributes, thereby making it clear that the coming of a savior was taken for granted. The knowledge of the coming of Jesus Christ was ultimately not merely a well-intentioned announcement to keep hope alive among the people, but a fundamental component of the path to salvation that had been opened.

The entire ceremonial system of the Old Testament hinged on (firm) faith, or rather, knowledge, of the coming Savior. The holidays, festivals, and sacrificial services were ultimately nothing other than the symbolic representation of the saving work of Jesus Christ—a shadow of what Jesus Christ would fulfill and ultimately complete through His ministry. While the blood of bulls and goats could not absolve people of their sins (Hebrews 10:1-4), the principle of “righteousness by grace through faith” still applied to the people of the Old Testament. Not through the deed itself (works righteousness), but through the firm conviction that it IS so (righteousness by faith).

But there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood, as Hebrews 9:22 states. This was the shed blood of Jesus Christ. He, through whom all things were created, was therefore necessarily the only one whose blood could blot out the sins of humanity through His vicarious suffering of the consequence of sin, death (Romans 6:23). Therefore, it is also impossible for any person, no matter how “holy” or how exalted, to forgive the sins of another. This is not only presumptuous, but by biblical definition, outright blasphemy.

“Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” (Luke 5:21)

The plan for salvation was clear from the beginning.

Thus, it was “crystal clear” that a Messiah would appear. Adam and Eve already knew this, and this can be taken as a given. For both were subject to the same sinfulness as every subsequent human being. The skins placed around their necks to “throw them out” of the Garden of Eden were certainly lambskins. The first sacrifice, the first shedding of blood in the world once created by God as “very good” (Genesis 1:31). It became obvious at the latest with the first sons, Cain and Abel. Both offered burnt offerings. Not for “the sheer joy of it,” but as a shadow for the promised savior. For this reason, God could not accept Cain’s self-inflicted offering of fruits and vegetables (Genesis 4:5). No bloodshed took place, therefore no forgiveness of sins was possible.

The prophet Isaiah once again proclaimed the coming Messiah to the stubborn people of Judah, who had hopelessly strayed from the path of salvation. He was to be called “Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). “God with us” is the meaning of this name. But this was conditional, for, as so often happens, this announcement was also contingent on the people repenting and doing God’s will. Ultimately, this did not happen. The people simply lacked the will (Jeremiah 6:16, Matthew 23:37).

Isaiah 53 goes into detail

But as foretold, it came to pass, regardless of whether God’s people had finally come to their senses or not. The Messiah appeared, even foretold by Daniel some 450 years in advance, down to the exact year (Book of Daniel, Chapter 9 – Info). He was not called Immanuel (God with us), but Yeshua (God saves), Greek Ieosus, English Jesus. Messiah is Hebrew and means “the anointed one,” in Greek “Christos,” English “Christ.” Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, or commonly shortened: Jesus Christ.

The prophet Isaiah offers a very detailed description of the coming Messiah. He explains the appearance, the work, and especially the reason for the coming savior’s actions. This is chapter 53, which is particularly neglected in Jewish communities. The problem here is simply that Orthodox Jews, in particular, have adopted the same attitude toward the written word as written law is treated in the Roman Catholic Church.

Hurdles for “ordinary believers”

The interpretation of Scripture may only be undertaken by “authorized personnel.” On the one hand, only “in the light of the Catholic Catechism,” and on the other hand, “in the light of the Talmud.” Since the Roman Catholic Church no longer had the power to enforce the drastic sanctions against the possession and interpretation of the Bible, the Church in Rome has become somewhat more lenient. However, it still reserves the final say on this matter:

“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” (CCC 85).

In other words, one was welcome to read and interpret the Bible oneself, but was bound to have one’s insights corrected by authorized personnel if necessary. After all, one did not want to be called a heretic should one’s own understanding deviate from the teachings of the Church’s Magisterium. Even with the old power still in hand (until 1798), the Church, in its explicit mercy, reserved the right to summarily kill such a heretic through public action, often by burning them alive at the stake.

The authority of the Rabbi

Such a thing is unknown in Jewish communities. But it is the unshakeable, inviolable authority of the rabbi that forbids the average Orthodox Jew from unrolling the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) or Tanakh (the Old Testament, excluding the Books of Moses), from even reading it, let alone attempting to understand the word written therein. It is taboo, even an affront, for an outsider to quote from it, especially from the Book of the Law (the Books of Moses). Consequently, the content of Isaiah 53 remains largely unknown.

For it clearly and unambiguously describes the coming Messiah, who, according to Jewish understanding, never actually appeared. They are still waiting for his first arrival. With a flash of insight, this is explained by the people’s lack of readiness, their having drifted too far from the right path, and the Messiah therefore having “no desire” to establish his kingdom there. Hence, Daniel, chapter 9, verses 24-27, is also such an untouchable and controversial topic.

Recognition? Far from it!

A pagan who proudly approaches a rabbi and tells him he studies the Torah and observes the Sabbath shouldn’t expect a happy smile and an approving pat on the back. Depending on which passage of the (contradictory) Talmud the rabbi favors, the response could be as follows:

Answer Option 1

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: “Moses commanded us a law [torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.

Answer Option 2

Alternativ wäre möglich:

“A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should be involved only in the study of their seven mitzvot. Similarly, a gentile who rests,56 even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath,57 is obligated to die. Needless to say, he is obligated for that punishment if he creates a festival for himself.“

The “seven commandments” refer to the laws of Noah. These are not found in the Torah, but exclusively in the Talmud. Therefore, a “heathen” would simply have to know, or have known, that they should study the Talmud first before daring to approach the Torah. In other words, always ask the rabbi first and follow his advice.

Answer Option 3

The answer from a “liberal” rabbi could also be as follows:

“The Gemara asks: But do they not receive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah is considered like a High Priest? The verse states with regard to the mitzvot: “Which if a person does, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Which if priests and Levites and Israelites do, they shall live by them, but rather: A person, indicating that all people are included. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.“

The fate of a “heathen” studying the Torah, as depicted in the Talmud, thus encompasses an astonishing range, from “one condemned to death” to “high priest.” One can choose, therefore, depending on one’s sympathies and the prevailing political climate. At this point, it also becomes more understandable why the Gospels emphasize that Jesus Christ preached in the synagogues “with authority” (e.g., Mark 1:22). He didn’t pontificate, with “Rabbi X” saying, “Rabbi Y” thinking, and “Rabbi Z” having that opinion, but rather, “I tell you…” (e.g., Matthew 3:9; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 9:20; Matthew 6:2; Mark 14:15; Luke 3:8; John 6:47; John 16:20; etc.). Something the Pharisees had a serious problem with, right up to the present day.

The Messiah – Isaiah 53

The “unloved” chapter 53 in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah clearly describes the coming Messiah, His actions, and a whole range of His attributes. Persistent deniers treat this chapter as a description of the people of Israel as a whole, as is often done (Info). This is indeed a matter of interpretation, even though Isaiah 53 describes “this one” being pierced and crushed. Well, everyone can form their own opinion.

Isaiah 53:1-3

Isaiah 53 begins with a leading question:
“Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1).
Das legt nahe, dass der Unglaube an einen kommenden Messias bereits allgegenwärtig gewesen ist. Entsprechend schwerer ist es auch gefallen, den tatsächlich erschienenden Messias als den zu aktzeptieren, wer Er tatsächlich war. Das betraf vor allem Sein Erscheinungsbild und Seine Umstände.
“For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.” (Isaiah 53:2).

The behavior of the people is described in verse 3:
“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.“

The expectations, however, were completely different. A heroic figure was anticipated, with “trumpets and trumpets,” who, like Obelix, would take on the Romans one by one and sweep them out of Jerusalem and all of Judah in a high arc. Such a savior, of course, had to be of royal stature, since he would come as king and establish his kingdom there as well.

And who came? A humble figure, not even carrying a walking stick. The only “luxury” on his body was his seamless robe. But even this detail had symbolic value, for the seamless garment suggested a special, unified purity, without transitions, no patchwork. Even the Romans were eager to see it and cast lots for this robe when it was removed from Jesus before his crucifixion (Matthew 27:35).

Isaiah 53:4-6

The following verses describe the basic reasons why Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross:

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.“

The last sentence must be emphasized here. “The Lord laid on him the guilt of us all.” Jesus Christ, through His self-sacrifice, not only purchased the right to forgive our sins (grace), but He also healed our guilt! One can certainly assume that the “experts” of the Roman Catholic Church understand Scripture correctly, as it is written, for example, in this passage.

But what counts, as a former German Chancellor put it, “is the end result.” This Church takes it upon itself not only to forgive sins through its priests, but also defines that guilt must be paid off (indulgences), worked off (good works, reciting the Rosary, climbing stairs, etc.), or burned away (purgatory). A blatant denial of the saving work of Jesus Christ!

Isaiah 53:7-9

The following verses are prophetic in detail, for the silence like a lamb was fulfilled when Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin and they confronted Him with the false accusations and statements of false witnesses (Matthew 26:59-63).
“He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:7)

The burial of Jesus was also foretold in this passage. The wealthy Judean Joseph of Arimathea sought out Pontius Pilate after Jesus’ death to ask permission to take Jesus immediately so that he could bury him in the unused tomb (Matthew 27:57-60).
“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9)

Isaiah 53:10-11

Anyone who still hasn’t understood from verse 6 that Jesus Christ took our guilt upon Himself and paid for it completely and finally will be reminded of this again in verse 10:
“Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:10-11)

The Roman Catholic Church is very familiar with this passage. However, it promptly makes a synmantic modification of it, as in CCC 615:
“He bore the sins of many and thus justified the many by taking their guilt upon himself. Jesus atoned for our sins and made satisfaction for them to God the Father.”

The footnote even refers to Isaiah 53:10-12. But “guilt” is simply changed to “sin.” These are two very different things.

Isaiah 53:12

“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:12)

Thus, it is clear: sin AND guilt. Jesus can “rightfully” forgive sin; He sacrificed Himself, having suffered the only defined punishment for sin: death. Therefore, Jesus purchased (1 Corinthians 6:20) this right without having to sacrifice His eternal righteousness. That would only have played into the hands of the adversary, whose accusation includes that God and His law are arbitrary and unjust. And Jesus Christ also took the burden of guilt upon Himself. There is nothing left to pay for, neither with hard cash nor through any (pagan) rituals.

Inflated felt

The Roman Catholic Catechism and the Talmud share the common tendency to inflate the simple principle of the Gospel into an impenetrably complicated thicket, which can then be declared as something that can only be understood by “initiated, learned, enlightened, divinely chosen experts.” Yet the principle of salvation, as found between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21, is only slightly more complicated than the recipe for a fried egg.

If it were so simple, why are there at least 35,000 different denominations? Well, at least the main branches are considerably smaller in number. Some believe women should wear headscarves, others say “it doesn’t matter,” they can’t agree, they split, and form their own congregations. The main problem, however, lies in the fact that the main branches (e.g., Calvinists, Lutherans, etc.) didn’t go much further than the insights of their founders. They accepted it as taught and didn’t sit down and study the Bible in depth themselves. Thus, Martin Luther’s insights weren’t complete on the night of October 30-31, 1517, but rather the result of a lifelong learning process. Luther himself revised many of his original statements.

For the Roman Catholic Church, this is of course a desirable situation. It allows them to point the finger at the fragmented, rebellious daughters and emphasize their own unity. However, as always, this is done with a hypocritical undertone, since the Church itself provoked or brought about this situation through its own interventions (Info).

A royal hero was expected

That the expected image of the prophesied Messiah was so distorted for the Judeans, especially after their return from the Babylonian exile (and in some ways persists to this day – Futurism), can only be speculated. After the rebuilding of Jerusalem, there were no longer any kings. The high priests assumed power. It seems likely that the period of Greek rule (331–63 BCE) in particular cemented this perception. For about a hundred years, the Jews fought against the Seleucid Empire of the Greeks. This was the so-called Maccabean Revolt (165–63 BCE). Antiochus IV Epiphanes, in particular, tyrannized the Jewish people and even went so far as to provocatively sacrifice pigs in their sanctuaries.

The uprising was ultimately successful, and the day of liberation led to the annual festival of Hanukkah (Festival of Lights). This festival is also indirectly mentioned in the Gospels. John 10:22 recounts that Jesus Christ was in Jerusalem when the “Festival of Dedication” took place. The (re)dedication of the Temple was necessary because the Seleucids had completely desecrated it through their pagan practices.

History and fiction

As is often the case with success stories like the outcome of the Maccabean Revolt, myths and legends arose, further embellishing the narrative of “heroism.” Since Greek philosophy, Hellenism, exerted such a massive influence that even parts of our thinking are shaped by it today, it was inevitable that the imaginations of many scholars and writers would take their own course. The High Priesthood in Jerusalem was also (presumably) exposed to Egyptian influence, specifically the area around Alexandria, and thus heavily Hellenistic.

During this period, a whole series of books were written that are now classified as Apocrypha. This would actually include the Greek original text “Sinaiticus,” but no, it is even given preference over the majority text (textus receptus) in modern Bible editions (Info).

The writings of the “Two Books of Maccabees,” which also originated during this period, even found their way into the Roman Catholic biblical canon, or rather, were retained within it (Info). The second book particularly emphasizes the offerings for the dead and also the intercessory prayers for the deceased. A typical Catholic tradition.

The future will also look “somewhat” different

It is obvious that such anticipated heroism as the Maccabees’ fight against the occupiers also played a crucial role in their liberation from the Romans, and how fitting that the Messiah is announced there, who will save his people and establish his kingdom, here and now, on Earth. This idea persists to this day and is also taught in evangelical circles as Futurism (and Dispensationalism) (Info).

This visible kingdom, established on earth for 1000 years, will not come to pass. Not if one believes the Bible (Info).

Bible verses from King James Version (1611)