Our brothers and sisters in Christ who are in heaven or purgatory are more alive than we are, and can love us and pray for us.

Reflections on the Communion of Saints

This is the first of what will be a continuing series of posts (I will call them Reflections on . . . ) containing information collected in the early 90s for the first draft of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (originally titled, The Credibility of Catholicism). This version ran about 750 pages and contained many citations (along the lines of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict). I revised the whole thing in 1994, incorporating citations from the new Catechism and omitting much material (particularly early Protestant history). I think the revision makes for a much better book, yet what was deleted is not, I think, without value and usefulness.

Slowly I have put this material out in various ways (mostly website papers). I would like to publish what remains on my blog. I am always lacking space on my website (I have to pay when I use any more), so blogs are ideal to post lots of writing that is "sitting in the can" (in this case for eleven years). I hope you find these quotations edifying, educational, and spiritually helpful.

(P) = Protestant work
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Communion of Saints

I. INTRODUCTION / DEFINITIONS

What is the communion of saints? We shall begin with some definitions:

1. John A. Hardon, S.J.

The unity and cooperation of the members of the Church on earth with those in heaven and in purgatory. They are united as being one Mystical Body of Christ. The faithful on earth . . . are in communion with the saints in heaven by honoring them as glorified members of the Church, invoking their prayers and aid, and striving to imitate their virtues. They are in communion with the souls in purgatory by helping them with their prayers and good works . . . Venerating the saints does not detract from the glory given to God, since whatever they possess is a gift from his bounty . . . They reflect the divine perfections, and their supernatural qualities result from the graces Christ merited for them by the Cross.

(Hardon, 83, 448)

The Church founded by Christ has three levels of existence. She is the Church Militant on earth, the Church Suffering in purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in heaven . . . There is communication among these three levels of the Mystical Body. Those on earth invoke the saints in heaven and pray for the souls in purgatory. Those in heaven pray for the Church Militant and the Church Suffering; they obtain graces for us on earth and an alleviation of suffering for the poor souls. Those in purgatory can invoke the saints on high and pray for us struggling with the world, the flesh, and the evil spirit.

(Hardon [II], 90-91)

2. John McKenzie

The veneration of the saints is very simple . . . The saints are believed to represent the most notable successes ln the effort of the Church to lead the Christian life. Honor and imitation of the saints for this achievement do not differ in kind from the honor paid to the memory of any civic or cultural hero . . . The saints are considered as intercessors . . . The saints are the friends of God, and God is on good terms with his friends . . . It does not, as early Protestants said, derogate from the unique mediatorship of Christ. Roman Catholics do not consider that the saints have redeemed us by a saving act; they are themselves redeemed by the saving act . . . The saints are believed to have in an eminent degree that power of intercessory prayer . . . which the Bible . . . attributes to great persons.

(McKenzie, 231)

Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 . . . The four beasts and the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and
golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints.

And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

A. Ludwig Ott

The angels and the saints lay the prayers of the holy on earth at the feet of God, that is, they support them with their intercession . . . The propriety of invoking them logically follows from the fact of their intercession.

(Ott, 318)

Revelation 6:9-10 . . . I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

B. New Bible Commentary (P)

This incident forms an integral part of the last judgments on earth, for the prayer for vengeance (v.10) is answered, and the end thereby hastened; see 8:1-5.

(Guthrie, 1289)

This admission by a well-known Protestant commentary is of immense significance. For if the prayers of dead saints have such an importance regarding the end of the age on earth and the final judgment, who can estimate how weighty such prayers are for less earth-shattering matters (excuse the pun!)? The doctrine of communion of saints, then, would appear to be irrefutably presented in Revelation.

C. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (P)

The elect (not only on earth, but under Christ's covering, and in His presence in Paradise) cry day and night to God, . . . pray . . . to their Head . . . who will assuredly, in His own time, avenge His and their cause.

(Jamieson, 1547, 846) {cf. Zech 1:12}

Luke 15:10 . . . There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. {cf. 15:7}

A. James Cardinal Gibbons

The angels are glad whenever you repent of your sins. Now, what is repentance? It is a change of heart. It is an interior operation of the will. The saints, therefore, are acquainted - we know not how - not only with your actions and words, but even with your very thoughts.

(Gibbons, 127)

B. Charles Hodge (P)

Hodge, perhaps the leading evangelical (Presbyterian) theologian of the 19th century, agrees with Cardinal Gibbons about the knowledge of angels:

In their intellectual faculties and in the extent of their knowledge they are far superior to man. Their power also is very great and extends over mind and matter. They have the power to communicate with one another and with other minds and to produce effects in the natural world . . .

The angels not only execute the will of God in the natural world, but also act on the minds of men. They have access to our minds and can influence them for good . . ., by the suggestion of truth and guidance of thought and feeling, much as one man may act upon another. If the angels may communicate one with another, there is no reason why they may not, in like manner, communicate with our spirits. In the Scriptures, therefore, the angels are represented as not only affording general guidance and protection, but also as giving inward strength and consolation.

(Hodge, 231-233)

As is to be expected, however, Hodge balks at taking the further step of accepting the intercession of angels:

The people of God . . . may rejoice in the assurance that these holy beings encamp round about them, defending them day and night from unseen enemies and unapprehended dangers. At the same time they must not come between us and God. We are not to look to them nor to invoke their aid.

(Hodge, 234)

1 Corinthians 4:9 . . . we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

A. James Cardinal Gibbons

What does he mean, unless that as our actions are seen by men even so they are visible to the angels in heaven? . . . Our Lord declares that the saints in heaven shall be like the angelic spirits, by possessing the same knowledge, enjoying the same happiness (Matthew 22:30).

(Gibbons, 127)

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the
face of my Father which is in heaven.

A. Adam Clarke (P)

Our Lord here not only alludes to, but in my opinion establishes, the notion received by almost all nations, viz., that every person has a guardian angel; and that these have always access to God, to receive orders relative to the management of their charge. See Psalm 34:7; Hebrews 1:14.

(Clarke, 805)

B. New Bible Commentary (P)

Every believer may have been thought to have a guardian angel with access to God to report on his charge (cf. Psalm 91:11; Acts 12:15).

(Guthrie, 839)

If Jesus taught that He could have asked for the assistance of angels (Matthew 26:53) - and He certainly would not have been worshiping them in so doing -- then we, who obviously need their help far more than the Lord Jesus Christ, can do the same without necessarily engaging in idolatry (after all, anything can become an idol if we let it).

It stands to reason that if angels are so aware of our doings and even thoughts, as indicated in Luke 15:10 and 1 Corinthians 4:9, then they certainly would be cognizant of our pleas to them. Protestants can only deny this by maintaining that such requests are synonymous with either the worship of God or the communication with evil spirits by means of a medium or other occultic practice. This is nonsense. Fear of Catholicism
must give way to an open-minded biblical inquiry. The Catholic Church, so its detractors claim, is guilty of "adding to the faith." Even if this were true, would it be any worse than Protestantism's tragic "shrinking" of Christianity down to a minimalistic, "lowest common denominator" type of belief-system? The present subject is a case-in-point, illustrating the bankruptcy of the truncated forms of Christianity existing within Protestantism, when it comes to so many avenues of grace which are either obliterated or ignored.

Matthew 17:1-3 . . . Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. {cf. Mk 9:4 and Lk 9:30-31}

A. Patrick Madrid

If Jesus didn't want any contact between saints on earth (as Paul anticipatorily calls Christians) and saints in heaven, why did our Lord make a
special point of appearing to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration in the company of Moses and Elijah, two `dead' saints? (1)

B. New Bible Commentary (P)

The following excerpt illustrates well the Protestant uneasiness and bewilderment as to what this passage might imply (for the communion of saints):

Hypotheses advanced in explanation of the phenomena of this event differ widely, ranging from those which attribute no more than a legendary or symbolic value to the story, or explain it as a resurrection story read back into the earthly life of Jesus, to the other extreme of the spiritualists who claim it as a seance. In reply to the latter it may be pointed out that there was no communication from Moses and Elijah to the disciples, and the subject of discussion was the cross (Lk 9:31), not usually a topic at seances!

(Guthrie, 869-870)

C. George Haydock

It is hence evident, that the saints departed can and do, with the permission of God, take an interest in the affairs of the living . . . For as angels elsewhere, so here the saints also, served our Saviour; and as angels, both in the Old and New Testament, were frequently present at the affairs of men, so may saints. (2)

(Haydock, 1283)

Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy . . . {Read Rev 11:3-13}

A. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (P)

The actions of the two witnesses are just those of Moses when witnessing for God against Pharaoh . . . ; and of Elijah . . . De Burgh thinks Elijah and Moses will again appear, as Malachi 4:5-6 seems to imply (cf. Matt 17:11; Acts 3:21). Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration . . . As to Moses, cf. Deuteronomy 34:5-6; Jude 9 . . . Many of the early Church thought the two witnesses to be Enoch and Elijah (3). This would avoid the difficulty of the dying a second time, for these never have died [Gen 5:24; 2 Ki 2:11] . . . Still, the turning the water to blood, and the plagues (vs. 6), apply best to Moses.

(Jamieson, 1556-1557)

B. Wycliffe Bible Commentary (P)

Who are these two witnesses? . . . I think these witnesses must be regarded as individuals. Many assert that they are Moses and Elijah . . ., others that they are Enoch and Elijah.

(Pfeiffer, 1510)

1 Samuel 28:12,14-15 And when the woman saw Samuel [who was dead], she cried . . . And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? . . . {Read vss. 7-20}

Some commentators have denied that this was actually Samuel, thinking that "Samuel" in this passage was an impersonating spirit of some sort, conjured up by the medium ("the witch of Endor"). The current consensus, however, appears to be that it was indeed Samuel the prophet, in an appearance after his death:

A. New Bible Commentary (P)

The narrative strongly suggests that this really was Samuel, and not a mere apparition or hallucination. The foreknowledge and uncompromising statements attributed to him in the verses that follow also stamp him as being genuinely Samuel.

(Guthrie, 301)

B. Wycliffe Bible Commentary (P)

The more modern orthodox commentators are almost unanimous in the opinion that the departed prophet did really appear and announce the coming destruction of Saul and his army. They hold, however, that Samuel was brought up not by the magical arts of the witch, but through a miracle wrought by the omnipotence of God . . .

That the spirit of Samuel actually appeared was the view of the ancient rabbis. This is attested in the LXX translation of 1 Chr 10:13b - `And Samuel the prophet made answer to him'; and by Ecclesiasticus 46:20. The same view was held by Justin Martyr, Origen, and Augustine. Tertullian and Jerome maintained that the appearance of Samuel was a diabolical delusion.

(Pfeiffer, 292)

Ecclesiasticus 46:13,20 (KJV) reads:

Samuel . . . after his death . . . prophesied, and shewed the king his end, and lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people.

{Jeremiah also reappears on earth: 2 Maccabees 15:13-16}

C. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (P)

The story has led to much discussion whether there was a real appearance of Samuel or not . . . Many eminent writers (considering that the apparition came before her arts were put into practice; that she herself was surprised and alarmed; that the prediction of Saul's own death and the defeat of his forces was confidently made), are of the opinion that Samuel really appeared."

(Jamieson, 226-227)

Matthew 27: 50,52-53 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost . . . And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

REASONED DEFENSES 0F THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS

1. John Henry Cardinal Newman

The Catholic Church allows no . . . Saint, not even the Blessed Virgin herself, to come between the soul and its Creator . . . The devotions then to angels and saints as little interfered with the incommunicable glory of the Eternal, as the love which we bear our friends and relations, our tender human sympathies, are inconsistent with that supreme homage of the heart to the Unseen.

(Newman, 284-285)

2. Ronald Knox

The great ones of the world live, indeed, in memory; public statues have set their features permanently on record . . . But their memory fades, when their generation has died . . . the man has become an idea. It is not so that the saints live; we conceive them . . . as personally intimate with us, as exercising a real influence, not as the source of a mental inspiration.

(Knox, 179)

3. James Cardinal Gibbons

To ask the prayers of our brethren in heaven is not only conformable to Holy Scripture, but is prompted by the instincts of our nature . . . The Communion of Saints robs death of its terrors, while the Reformers . . . not only inflicted a deadly wound on the Creed (4), but also severed the tenderest chords of the human heart . . . the holy ties that unite earth with heaven . . . If my brother . . . crosses the narrow sea of death and lands on the shore of eternity, why should he not pray for me still? What does death destroy? The body. The soul still lives and . . . thinks and wills and remembers and loves . . .

A heart tenderly attached to the saints will give vent to its feelings in the language of hyperbole, just as an enthusiastic lover will call his future bride his adorable queen, without any intention of worshipping her as a goddess.

(Gibbons, 131, 13)

4. Karl Adam

God . . . takes up into Himself the whole creation that culminates in human nature, and in a new, unheardof supernatural manner, "lives in it," "moves" in it, and in it "is" (cf. Acts 17:28). That is the basis upon which the Catholic veneration of the saints and Mary must be judged . . . The saints are not mere exalted patterns of behavior, but living members and even constructive powers of the Body of Christ . . .

The veneration which we give to angels and saints is essentially different from the worship which we offer to God . . . To God alone belongs the complete service of the whole man, the worship of adoration . . . But so pervasive . . . is God's glory that it . . . is reflected also in those who in Him have become children of God . . . We love them as countless dewdrops in which the sun's radiance is mirrored. We venerate them because we find God in them . . . Therefore are we confident that they can and will help us only so far as creatures may. They cannot themselves sanctify us .
. .

The divine blessing never works without the members, but only in and through their unity . . . Therefore, although the veneration of saints has undergone some development in the course of the Church's history . . . yet such veneration was from the beginning germinally contained in the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ . . . the fellowship and solidarity of His members . . . It is no pagan growth, but indigenous to Christianity . . . Popular devotion to the saints is in line with dogma and is utterly monotheistic in character . . . The devout Catholic . . . for the ordinary and fundamental concerns of his soul . . . practises . . . an immediate intercourse of prayer with God.

(Adam, 115-116, 123-125, 246)

A sound biblical basis for the veneration of saints can be found in the Pauline passages where the Apostle exhorts his followers to "imitate" him (1 Cor 4:16; Phil 3:17; 2 Thess 3:7-9) as he, in turn, imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1 & 1 Thess 1:6). Also, we are exhorted to honor and imitate the "heroes of the faith" in Heb 6:12 & ch.11, and to take heart in the examples of the prophets and Job, who endured suffering (Jas 5:10-11).

5. Karl Keating

Consider how honor is given . . . It is customary to address a judge as "Your Honor" . . . On Mt. Sinai there was a command given to "honor thy father and thy mother" . . . children are . . . instructed to honor the Founding Fathers . . . If merit deserves to be honored . . . it surely should be honored among God's special friends . . .

This prayer for one another does not violate Christ's role as the one mediator, because ours is a secondary mediatorship that is entirely dependent on his . . . None of this violates the truth that without Christ our prayers to the Father would be ineffectual . . .

(Keating, 260-263)

6. Nicholas Russo

Our opponents should prove that, however subordinate are the honors we bestow upon the saints, they necessarily conflict with the honor . . . we are bound to render to God. But this . . . would prove too much; for if subordinate and supreme honors conflict, subordinate and supreme love would conflict likewise . . . The love we give to relatives and friends would necessarily detract from the love due to God. But this is necessarily false . . . Could we call him an idolater who should celebrate in song the flowers of the fields, the stars of the firmament, the majesty of the ocean? . . . Assuredly not; and why? Because it is God Himself we praise in admiring His works."

(Russo, 261-262)

7. Thomas Howard (P)

I had never heard the idea, taught in the Church for centuries, that in the act of Christian worship the scrim that hangs between earth and heaven is drawn back, and we in very truth join with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven . . . It is an awesome picture of things . . . Evangelicalism had instilled in me a robust supernaturalism . . . It was, rather, that no one had ever bothered to open up this vision . . . a notion that would be theoretically affirmed by evangelicalism but which is not often dwelt on and is certainly not vivified in public worship . . . The host of apostles, evangelists, fathers, martyrs, confessors, doctors . . . was not really very present to us . . .

Their roots in history have been pulled up, and they are left with nothing but the Bible and the modern world. They forget that the Faith has been borne on human shoulders and in human hearts for 2000 years . . . Evangelical doctrine is correct, but there are immense treasures that it seldom dips into for the sake of its people.

(Howard, 57-59)

8. The Second Vatican Council (1962-65)

God shows to men, in a vivid way, his presence and his face in the lives of those companions of ours in the human condition who are more perfectly transformed into the image of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 3:18) . . . Exactly as Christian communion between men on their earthly pilgrimage brings us closer to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace . . . every authentic witness of love, indeed, offered by us to those who are in heaven tends to and terminates in Christ, "the crown of all the saints," and through him in God who is wonderful in his saints and is glorified in them. (5)

(Vatican II, 411-412)

9. A.W. Tozer (P)

Tozer, the much-beloved Christian writer and pastor of the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination, though denying the invocation of saints, writes luminously of the Mystical Unity of the Body of Christ:

In the Body of Christ the quickening Spirit flowing through every part gives life and unity to the whole. Our Christian brethren who have gone from our sight retain still their place in the universal fellowship. The Church is one . . . I suggest also that we try to acquaint ourselves as far as possible with the good and saintly souls who lived before our times and now belong to the company of the redeemed in heaven . . . I have no doubt that the prayerful reading of some of the great spiritual classics of the centuries would destroy in us forever that constriction of soul which seems to be the earmark of modern evangelicalism . . . Who is able to complete the roster of the saints? To them we owe a debt of gratitude too great to comprehend . . . They belong to us, all of them, and we belong to them. They and we . . . are included in the universal fellowship of Christ, and together compose "a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people," who enjoy a common but blessed communion of saints. (6)

10. Alan Schreck / C.S. Lewis (P)

C.S. Lewis vividly described how God might see all of his people as one vast, united family . . . In his book, The Screwtape Letters (7), Lewis has the demon Screwtape explain to a junior demon how Satan is aided by the narrow view of the church held by many Christians:

One of our great allies at present is the church itself . . . I do not mean the church as we see her spread out through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. That, I confess, is a spectacle that makes our boldest tempters uneasy. But fortunately it is quite invisible to these humans. . . .

One of Satan's chief strategies to defeat the church is to divide and isolate its members from one another and thus deprive them of the strength they can receive from their fellow members of the communion of saints."

(Schreck, 153-154)

11. C.S. Lewis (P)

Lewis wrote very ecumenically on this topic in one of his last books, from which we will agreeably quote, in conclusion:

. . . devotions to saints . . . There is clearly a theological defence for it; if you can ask for the prayers of the living, why should you not ask for the prayers of the dead? . . . I am not thinking of adopting the practice myself; and who am I to judge the practices of others? . . . The consoling thing is that while Christendom is divided about the rationality and even the lawfulness, of praying to the saints, we are all agreed about praying with them. `With angels and archangels and all the company of heaven' . . . You may say that the distinction between the communion of the saints as I find it in that act and full-fledged prayer to saints is not, after all, very great. All the better if so. I sometimes have a bright dream of reunion engulfing us unawares, like a great wave from behind our backs . . . Discussions usually separate us; actions sometimes unite us. (8)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, Karl, The Spirit of Catholicism, translated by Justin McCann; revised edition, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1954 (orig. 1924).

Clarke, Adam, Commentary on the Bible, abridged one-volume ed. by Ralph Earle, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 (orig. 1832, 8 volumes) [Clarke was a Methodist].

Gibbons, James Cardinal, The Faith of Our Fathers, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, revised edition of 1917.

Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, editors, The New Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970; reprinted in 1987 as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary.

Hardon, John A., Pocket Catholic Catechism, New York: Doubleday Image, 1989.

Hardon, John A. [II], Pocket Catholic Dictionary, New York: Doubleday Image, 1980.

Haydock, G.L. (commentator), Douay-Rheims New Testament, Rheims, France: 1582, {tr. from the Latin Vulgate}, Reprint: Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991.

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, abridged one-volume ed. by Edward N. Gross, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988 (orig. 1873, 3 volumes).

Howard, Thomas, Evangelical is Not Enough, Nashville: Nelson, 1984.

Jamieson, Robert, Fausset, Andrew R., & Brown, David, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 (orig. 1864) [Fausset & Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian].

Keating, Karl, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988.

Knox, Ronald, The Belief of Catholics, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1927.

McKenzie, John L., The Roman Catholic Church, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1969.

Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1956 (orig. 1864).

Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. & Everett F. Harrison, editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Russo, Nicholas, The True Religion, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1886.

Schreck, Alan, Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1984.

FOOTNOTES

1. Madrid, Patrick, "Any Friend of God's is a Friend of Mine," This Rock, September 1992, cover, 7-13; quote from p. 13.
2. Haydock, George Leo, Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, New York: Edward Dunigan & Brother, 1859 / Reprinted: Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991.
3. At least one exception among the Fathers was St. Hilary of Poitiers (c.315-368), who believed the "two witnesses" to be Moses and Elijah.
4. The Apostle's Creed -- pretty much accepted by Christians of all stripes -- contains the line, "I believe in . . . the communion of saints." Protestants largely redefine the historical phrase in their own innovative fashion, excluding elements we have been examining.
5. Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, Lumen Gentium, chapter 7, "The Pilgrim Church."
6. Tozer, A.W., A Treasury of A.W. Tozer, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, 168-170, "The Communion of Saints."
7. Lewis, C.S., The Screwtape Letters, New York: Macmillan, 1961, 12.
8. Lewis, C.S., Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer, New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 15-16.

First Version: February 17, 1991
Revised and Expanded Version: December 14, 1993

Luther and Zwingli wrangle over the correct understanding of the Eucharist at the Colloquy of Marburg, 1529. Painting by August Noack (1869)

Martin Luther Refutes Zwingli & Other Deniers of the Real Presence

From my latest book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Sophia Institute Press: due to be in stores any day now)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [Martin Luther] believed in the Real Presence, although he denied transubstantiation and rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass. Luther (according to his nominalistic, anti-Scholastic leanings) didn’t want to speculate about metaphysics and how the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. He simply believed in the miracles of the literal presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood “alongside” the bread and wine (consubstantiation). In this respect, his position was similar to the Eastern Orthodox one.

It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope.

(Early 1520s; in Althaus, 376; LW, 37, 317)

The glory of our God is precisely that for our sakes he comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our body.

(in Althaus, 398; LW, 37, 71 ff.)

Protestantism’s founders vary in their interpretation of this verse and in their Eucharistic theology. John Calvin’s “mystical” view of the Eucharist is complex and not quickly summarized or refuted. Ulrich Zwingli (the Protestant “Reformer” of Zurich) held to a symbolic view, on the other hand, which seems to have prevailed among many evangelical Protestants today. We shall concentrate on the exegetical and logical weakness of Zwingli’s arguments in this chapter. He wrote about this passage:

In the words: “This is my body,” the word “this” means the bread, and the word “body” the body which is put to death for us. Therefore the word “is” cannot be taken literally, for the bread is not the body and cannot be . . . “This is my body,” means, “The bread signifies my body,” or “is a figure of my body.”

(On the Lord’s Supper, 1526; in Bromiley, 225)

Yet Martin Luther refutes this line of thinking, using the very same scriptures:

[T]his word of Luke and Paul is clearer than sunlight and more overpowering than thunder. First, no one can deny that he speaks of the cup, since he says, “This is the cup.” Secondly, he calls it the cup of the new testament. This is overwhelming, for it could not be a new testament by means and on account of wine alone.

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 217)

In that same work, Luther makes a fascinating argument that a purely symbolic Eucharist turns the sacrament into a futile work of man rather than a grace and blessing from God:

He thinks one does not see that out of the word of Christ he makes a pure commandment and law which accomplishes nothing more than to tell and bid us to remember and acknowledge him. Furthermore, he makes this acknowledgment nothing else than a work that we do, while we receive nothing else than bread and wine.

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 206)

Martin Luther rebukes the symbolic view of the Eucharist, held by most evangelicals today:

[S]ince we are confronted by God’s words, “This is my body” – distinct, clear, common, definite words, which certainly are no trope, either in Scripture or in any language – we must embrace them with faith . . . not as hairsplitting sophistry dictates but as God says them for us, we must repeat these words after him and hold to them.

(Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528; in Althaus, 390)

[John 6]

Zwingli offers us an example of early Protestant “symbolist” reasoning:

There can be no doubt that only the spirit can give life to the soul. For how could the physical flesh either nourish or give life to the soul?

. . . with his own words Christ teaches us that everything which he says concerning the eating of flesh or bread has to be understood in terms of believing . . . . this passage tells us that the carnal eating of Christ’s flesh and blood profiteth nothing, and you have introduced such a carnal eating into the sacrament . . .

(On the Lord’s Supper, 1526; in Bromiley, 206-207, 210-211)

Martin Luther, however, expounded the text otherwise. Preaching on John 6, he stated:

All right! There we have it! This is clear, plain, and unconcealed: “I am speaking of My flesh and blood.”

. . . There we have the flat statement which cannot be interpreted in any other way than that there is no life, but death alone, apart from His flesh and blood if these are neglected or despised. How is it possible to distort this text? . . . You must note these words and this text with the utmost diligence . . . It can neither speciously be interpreted nor avoided and evaded.

(Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 6-8, 1532; LW, 23, 133-135)

Luther’s eucharistic theology was not identical to Catholic theology, but it was far closer than to the symbolic view. To reiterate: he thought that Jesus’ Body and Blood were present “alongside” the bread and wine (consubstantiation) after consecration. So Jesus was really there, but the bread and wine were there, too (whereas in Catholic theology, they cease to remain bread and wine after consecration).

1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

This verse again allows us to observe in a nutshell, traditional Protestant controversies in their own ranks. Catholics interpret it in a literal way, but Protestants differ amongst themselves. Zwingli special pleads in his interpretation of the passage:

[W]hen you offer thanks with the cup and the bread, eating and drinking together, you signify thereby that you are one body and one bread, namely, the body which is the Church of Christ, . . .

(On the Lord’s Supper, 1526; in Bromiley, 237)

But Martin Luther again ably refutes this specious interpretation, and offers us a unique insight into a Protestant exegete who had every motivation to disagree with the Catholic Church’s interpretation, but in the end was forced by the text to accept its straightforward meaning:

I confess that if Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service. At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them. I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy . . . But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage.

(Letter to the Christians at Strassburg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit, 1524; LW, 68)

For Luther, the passage is quite compelling:

Even if we had no other passage than this we could sufficiently strengthen all consciences and sufficiently overcome all adversaries . . .

. . . He could not have spoken more clearly and strongly . . .

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 177, 181)

Luther thinks the realist, concrete, non-symbolic nature of the verse is obvious, to the point where he seems to be aggravated (the three-time repetition of “it is”) that others can’t see what is so clear:

. . . The bread which is broken or distributed piece by piece is the participation in the body of Christ. It is, it is, it is, he says, the participation in the body of Christ. Wherein does the participation in the body of Christ consist? It cannot be anything else than that as each takes a part of the broken bread he takes therewith the body of Christ . . .

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 178)

1 Corinthians 11:27-30: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”

Again, many Protestants today have lost the sacramental outlook of Martin Luther (and to a lesser extent, even of John Calvin). Baptist apologist James White provides a contemporary version of Zwinglian symbolism:

Participation in the Supper is meant to be a memorial (not a sacrifice) of the death of Christ, not the carefree and impious party it had become at Corinth.

(White, 175)

Martin Luther would have a great problem with such reasoning, and in refuting it, he closely approximates what a Catholic response would be. He argues that it is pointless for St. Paul to speak of “sin” here (“profaning” in the text) if Jesus “is not present in the eating of the bread” and that “the nature and character of the sentence requires” this “clear” interpretation. Luther sums up his exegetical argument:

It is not sound reasoning arbitrarily to associate the sin which St. Paul attributes to eating with remembrance of Christ, of which Paul does not speak. For he does not say, “Who unworthily holds the Lord in remembrance,” but “Who unworthily eats and drinks.”

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 183-184)

I prefer what is often called the “superstition” of Martin Luther, St. Augustine, and the Fathers of the Church, as it seems to be far and away the most natural reading of all these texts. Augustine wrote:

[I]t is the Body of the Lord and the Blood of the Lord even in those to whom the Apostle said: "whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.”

(Baptism, 5, 8, 9; in Jurgens, III, 68)

The eucharistic “Catholic verses” are some of the most important in the entire Catholic exegetical and apologetic “arsenal.” It can be shown (and I think I have done so) that Protestants are trying to skirt around the edges of them, special plead, eisegete (reading their own prior biases into texts) and improperly denying the straightforward literal reading. This is odd, given the usual Protestant acknowledgment that Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless there are clear indications in the text otherwise.

These passages are so compelling that they played a crucial role in producing a near-unanimous patristic viewpoint of acceptance of the real presence in the Eucharist. Several major Protestant Church historians and experts on history of Christian doctrine note this (for example, Otto W. Heick, Williston Walker, Philip Schaff, Jaroslav Pelikan, Carl Volz). The historical facts cannot be denied. They are unarguable. As just one representative statement, I cite J.N.D. Kelly, perhaps the most-cited patristics scholar:

One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors.

(Kelly, 447)

Catholics need not be shy in defending transubstantiation or the real presence. The biblical evidence is very strong, and so is the history of the beliefs of the early Christians on this score. We have nothing to fear, and we can decisively win this battle of “competing eucharistic theologies” on the field of Scripture and history alike.

SOURCES

Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Bromiley, G.W., editor and translator, Zwingli and Bullinger, (The Library of Christian Classics series), Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953.

Jurgens, William A., editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, three volumes, 1979.

Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, revised edition of 1978.

Luther, Martin, Luther's Works (LW), American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (volumes 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (volumes 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (volumes 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (volumes 31-55), 1955.

White, James R., The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996.

Dave Armstrong (1992): incorrigible, "wascally" scoundrel or halfway decent guy who happens to be a Catholic (and an apologist)?

Reply to Joel Garver & Kevin Johnson on Calvin's Eucharistic Theology Compared to St. Cyril of Jerusalem's & the Fathers Generally-Speaking

Dr. Garver's words will be in blue; Kevin Johnson's in red:

I would like to particularly thank Joel for replying (though also Kevin, of course); I know he must be a very busy man (like all academics) and could find many better things to do, so I appreciate it, and I again express my great admiration for his fine work.

Well, I also still think you're pretty much talking right past what Kevin is saying and what much of recent scholarship has indicated.

Perhaps so, but if so, I will have to be shown this by rational argumentation, with documentation (as I have tried to do). As for recent scholarship, I would be delighted to learn what it holds. I have neither the time nor money to follow all of that (even less now, after having started a part-time job that requires my services seven days a week), but if someone such as yourself can summarize it for me or send me to some links which do, I am all ears. Please teach us.

As you indicate, the fundamental question here is not whether Calvin rejected the late medieval doctrine that he identified with "transubstantiation" because, of course, he did. The question is [a] whether that late medieval doctrine was identical with that of Cyril and a number of the early Fathers when understood in their own immediate contexts and

I think (based on what I know, be it a little or a lot) that the ("Roman") Catholic doctrine is far closer to St. Cyril's doctrine than Calvin's is. Development is a given. The terminology and Aristotelian philosophical sophistication (as well as the theology itself) developed, but the essential components remain the same: however one calls it, this view entails a transformation of the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ. Cyril clearly teaches this; so does the Catholic Church. Calvin does not. One can quibble about words all day long, but this is the bottom line.

[b] whether, when properly contextualized, Calvin coincides with Cyril in important ways that separate them both from the late medieval context.

Okay; well, again, teach us; show us where we have gone astray. I've done my work. Now, if my argument is to be overthrown I need to be shown by you or someone else at what point it went off: how it took anything out of context or (inadvertently, as it was surely not deliberate) misrepresented anything or drew wrong conclusions, etc. This can't be done by simply making general statements. it has to be argued properly . . . Surely as a philosopher, you understand this. Whether you have time to do so yourself is something else, but you must agree that what I have produced will take a bit of work and time to overthrow.

On the question of the presence of Christ himself in the eucharist, when the Reformers speak of "transubstantiation" and reject it, they are speaking of a particular theory of Christ's presence, cashed out in terms of substance and accidents, as those categories were communicated to them in the context of later medieval ontologies, which were either nominalistic or a kind thomism knocked out of shape by nominalism.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't give them the excuse to co-opt transformational views like that of St. Cyril and make out that they were not so. This is as much about development of doctrine I think, than about eucharistic theology per se.

Earlier medieval and patristic notions of "substance" and how those were contextualized in the eucharist—seen not just as elements and words, but also as an action of the assembled Body of Christ and teleologically directed toward reception by the faithful—would not have necessarily been objectioned to by Calvin, had he a better grasp on them.

Good. I certainly agree that he (just like Luther) had a jaded view of Scholasticism due to the corruptions of that school of thought by nominalism. But he was sharp enough not to have made the wild statements that he made about Catholic teaching.

His own eucharistic views, I submit, are attempting to approach those patristic views, such as Cyril's, though somewhat metaphysically handicapped by his own philosophical context. Indeed, depending on one's ontology of "substance"—particularly after a century of revisionist thomism, renewed study of Christian neoplatonism, and so on—then Calvin's own views might be termed "transubstantiation" (though, given the complexion of that term in his day, Calvin would likely turn over in his grave at the suggestion).

I need to be shown this. My extensive discussions on his eucharistic theology with Josh and Alastair on this blog were extremely interesting and (I think) fruitful, but I was not convinced at all that Calvin's view can be defended as even internally coherent, let alone consistent with the broad views of the Fathers.

Nothing you've said strikes against this in the least since you've neglected to explain what each of the historical figures actually meant within their own particular contexts and with their own assumptions about ontology and the like.

This is untrue, and (with all due respect) you must not have read my paper very closely, because I was making my argument in part by virtue of citing historians of doctrine, who made exactly these kinds of interpretations. Philip Schaff, e.g., wrote:

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, . . .

He says that "the kind and mode of this presence are not yet particularly defined" and classifies Fathers in different categories, but gives transubstantiation a strong place. Then when he gets to Cyril he writes (emphasis added):

With the act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements, whereby they become vehicles and organs of the life of Christ, although by no means necessarily changed into another substance. To denote this change very strong expressions are used, like metabolhv, metabavllein, metabavllesqai, metastoiceiou'sqai, metapoiei'sqai, mutatio, translatio, transfiguratio, transformatio; illustrated by the miraculous transformation of water into wine, the assimilation of food, and the pervasive power of leaven. Cyril of Jerusalem goes farther in this direction than any of the fathers . . . In support of this change Cyril refers at one time to the wedding feast at Cana, which indicates, the Roman theory of change of substance . . .

Schaff also cites Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, and Ambrose as proponents of the transformationist view, and states that the last two "come nearest to the later dogma of transubstantiation."

Furthermore, I cited J.N.D. Kelly along these lines. He described Cyril as the "pioneer of the conversion doctrine," and states that "In the fifth century conversionist views were taken for granted by Alexandrians and Antiochenes alike." Kelly is one of the leading experts on patristic doctrine. If you disagree with his conclusions or that of Schaff, then by all means make an argument and show how they are wrong. But in any event, I have made the argument by citing them in agreement. As they are Protestants, they cannot be accused of a Roman bias. This is my usual methodology, because I am always anticipating the Protestant response. I cite almost all Protestant scholars, so I can undercut the objection of bias and the "party line," etc.

The question of Christ's presence is also distinct from that of the eucaharist as sacrifice, but Reformed theologians were willing to speak of a eucharistic sacrifice and even to admit that it was propitiatory (sometimes citing what they took to be Lombard and Aquinas' understanding of that, in accordance with the Fathers). But they rejected what they understood the Roman church to be teaching on the subject as having departed both from Scripture and tradition

Well, they were wrong! They are not in accord with Tradition on this point. Schaff demonstrated that, and much more could be brought to the table, demonstrating it.

and, even in the midst of retrieving the tradition, they shied away from the traditional language because they perceived it as having been corrupted.

That's fine. But whatever language is used, there are bottom line issues here:

1. Are the bread and wine literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ?

2. Can God do such a miracle, or is this not possible because Jesus is at the right hand of the Father?

3. Is it proper to adore the consecrated host, given #1 (from which it would seem to straightforwardly follow)?

4. Is the Mass a making present of the one-time historical sacrifice of Christ on Calvary?

5. What do the Fathers believe about these things, and what does Calvin believe?

My answers are: #1-4: yes; #5: Calvin greatly differs from the Fathers, because, by and large, they held to the same position on #1-4 as I presently am.

I think it would be best to isolate out the question of adoring Christ in the eucharist from the wider discussion, for several reasons.

First, one could very well hold to some version of transubstantiation and reject the kinds of fetishized treatments of the eucharistic elements to which Calvin is objecting, because one might worry about pushing the eucharist apart from the action of the assembly and from the faithful receiving it.

If He is really there, He is really there! I don't know how else to say it. I don't see how one thing can be separated from the other. Jesus is either present or not. If He is, He can and should be worshiped. If He is not, then He shouldn't be (not in terms of attention upon the Host). You can't have it both ways. If there is no worship permitted, then obviously Jesus isn't there and the Real Presence is denied.

Second, "adoring Christ in the eucharist" to which the Father attest is not necessarily identical with "adoring the consecrated host". After all, we know the adoration of Christ in the eucharist in the Fathers didn't involve kneeling during the consecration, the kinds of reservation that arose later, and certainly not "eucharistic adoration" as that is practiced in later medieval period onwards.

Posture is far less important than the internal attitude and action of worship. Worship of God, by nature (like idolatry) is an internal action of the will and the spirit which can be expressed in many ways. So whether the fathers knelt or not does not decide this question one way or another. Most Catholics in most countries (and most Orthodox) do not kneel, but that doesn't mean that they believe any less in the Real, Substantial Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. They are worshiping by standing.

First, I want to thank you for a response that obviously took some work to research and put together.

You're most welcome. And thank you, as always, for your gracious, gentlemanly dialogical approach.

I intend to reply more fully at another time,

I hope you do. I am still awaiting such a long reply concerning sola Scriptura after many many weeks. :-) Don't you think it would be more worth your time putting the effort into our dialogues than yours with Dr. White? I sure think so. I have observed your several very long replies to him. My hope is that you will put that kind of energy into replies about topics like the present one, and sola Scriptura.

but I do have a couple of observations as well as a question or two immediately for you.

Okay, shoot! But please do not forget to make some longer answer later. I am taking time to answer your questions; I look forward to you returning the favor vis-a-vis my long post.

First, I hope you will note that the primary link between Calvin and Cyril is in regards to the Real Presence. No one is claiming that their views are practically identical in all respects (and I don't think you made that claim either).

Sure, but that is a notoriously nebulous term, used in all kinds of ways. I sought to demonstrate that when it is applied to Cyril, it meant something highly akin to transubstantiation -- which you in tern made out to be a late medieval invention (or corruption). Secondly, David Willis, whom you cited in agreement, expressly tied in the notion of transubstantiation and Real Presence, stating that Calvin rejected the former. But since Cyril seems to have accepted it in a less developed form, it is relevant to discuss it. All these things are tied in together. Overall, Calvin's view was not all that similar to Cyril's from what I can see. I'm not convinced at all. If I am wrong about that, then show me. State your case, and document, as I have done.

Second, classic Protestants use the term Real Presence to speak to the What of what is present in the sacrament, in other words, it speaks of Christ being present in the sacrament. Calvin's view, like that of the other magisterial Reformers (save Zwingli) is that Christ was present in accordance with his nature as defined by Chalcedon--both man and God really present in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

Yes, but like I said, these are a bunch of high-sounding words. We don't really know what is meant by them unless we dig deeper and examine exactly what both Calvin and the Fathers believed. The fact that they adored Jesus in the consecrated host and regarded the Mass as a sacrifice indicates quite a bit about their eucharistic theology. What they believed, Calvin regarded as the grossest abomination, idolatry, sacrilege, etc. This is what I demonstrated, I think, in my post: the disconnect between Calvin and the Fathers on this one. I don't see that this is rocket science. I think it is all rather obvious and I don't understand how Reformed think differently. Hopefully, you can at least help me understand how that can be, as I am truly puzzled. As in most of these discussions, we won't persuade each other away from our positions, but we can at least reach a much better mutual understanding and achieve some constructive discussion.

What is not treated with this issue generally by Protestants is the question of the sacrifice of the Mass and the nature of that sacrifice. While I will grant you that it is perhaps difficult to conceive (especially from the side of Roman Catholicism) that we can speak of the Real Presence without speaking of the sacrifice of Christ, much of Protestantism is all about making the proper distinctions to emphasize certain truths over others depending on what is in question. I hope that is understandable.

Yes, but it needs much further discussion. I think the crux of the discussion comes down to whether Protestantism or Catholicism more closely reflects patristic thought. If the appeal wasn't made to the Fathers, there wouldn't be nearly the amount of controversy. But because they are brought in, now we have a factual matter that can be ascertained by recourse to the fathers' writings and scholarly summaries of their views (such as that of Schaff or Kelly or Pelikan, etc.).

So, for the moment, I will be side-stepping your comments on the nature of how the Fathers viewed the sacrifice of the Mass. I am hopeful you will agree that it has developed over the centuries, though we might disagree as to the degree to which it developed.

Absolutely. All doctrines develop. It's a given.

At any rate, I would just ask you to remember the original comments of my blog entry were to point to a highly specialized and technical journal article that did not treat the whole of the matter.

Fair enough. Nevertheless, you made statements about the supposed late origins of transubstantiation which (I submit) are not consistent with the facts of the matter, as ascertained through historical analysis.

Here I will let you in behind the curtain for a moment. I'm honestly not sure I've completely grappled with the idea of the Fathers' view (and the overall Catholic view) of the sacrifice of the Mass. There are issues I see regarding the Incarnation and how it relates to the Real Presence that I have not fully worked out, that bear more research and discussion, as well as a lot more reading. So, I don't feel fully prepared to comment on that aspect of your post.

That's fine. I respect that. Kudos to you for wanting to study the issue more.

Regarding Cyril, I do have a couple of questions. You quoted Cyril as follows:

Moreover, the things which are hung up at idol festivals, either meat or bread, or other such things polluted by the invocation of the unclean spirits, are reckoned in the pomp of the devil. For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Five Catechetical Lectures to the Newly Baptized, First Lecture on the Mysteries, 19.7)

1. Given the nature of the parallel between what is sacrificed to Satan and the Eucharist, are you prepared to argue that Cyril here is saying that the meat sacrificed to idols is changed in the same manner as the bread and wine (i.e. that it changes substance and ceases to exist)?

I don't think the analogy requires that. The category of "profane" is a spiritual or subjective one. That gets into Pauline discussions of "meat sacrificed to idols" and so forth. No one would argue that it ceases to be meat. But it is meat unfit for Christians because of the implications of how it is used. Cyril is not speaking in those terms regarding the Eucharist. There he uses unbridled realism and literalism (just as St. Paul himself does).

2. If not, what necessitates my taking this quote to mean the elements are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ?

One interprets it in conjunction with other statements from Cyril, just as cross-referencing is used in Scripture study. And just read other statements from the very same work, which I have provided. it's quite clear what he means, just as Calvin is pretty clear when all his statements on a given subject are taken into account.

3. Isn't it clear that Cyril here, by invoking the parallel to meat sacrificed to evil spirits being profaned is not speaking of a change in the substantial nature of the elements as much as he is their sacred use? To argue otherwise means you must recognize a change of substance in the meat otherwise there is no reason for the parallel.

You have to interpret it in light of his other statements. I don't think your analysis of the analogy itself holds. It is a partial comparison. Likewise, I have made an analogy to transubstantiation (in my first book) of water being ice, or steam, or liquid (an accidental as opposed to a substantive or essential change). That was not an absolutely exact analogy, but it is still an analogy (or parallel), in that what changed is reversed: acidents change rather than substance. I believe that is Cyril's meaning here. It was not intended as a comprehensive analogy. Otherwise, he contradicts himself in the same work, and you have to explain what he meant by the other statements that I cited. You don't resolve your difficulty by making this argument, because you still have the other texts to deal with, and presumably, Cyril was self-consistent, or sought to be, anyway.

4. How would you defend the idea that your look at Cyril is something other than anachronistic for nowhere (and here Schaff agrees with me, though he states his case not as strong) is it necessary for us to see the essential elements of transubstantiation in Cyril, especially given the above passage in reference to pagan sacrifices?

You have merely taken one passage and made out that it contradicts this interpretation. I don't think it does, and I have explained why. My view involves no anachronism because it is based on documented statements and interpretations by Protestant scholars (cited again above) who have no stake in making out that Cyril believed something that (prima facie if nothing else) looks more "Catholic" than "Protestant." I wasn't the one who claimed that he went further in this regard than any other Father. That was Schaff.

I wasn't the one who called him the "pioneer of the conversion doctrine," or who opined, "In the fifth century conversionist views were taken for granted by Alexandrians and Antiochenes alike." That was J.N.D. Kelly (not a Catholic, that I know of). If my view is anachronistic, then so is theirs. Or do you somehow separate their opinions from mine simply because I am a Catholic and they are not (even though on this point we are greatly in agreement)?

It's just the historical facts of the matter . . . the notion of conversion of the elements is the essence of transubstantiation, and many fathers (including Cyril) clearly believed this. What is anachronistic is the incessant reading back into the Fathers Protestant views. This is most often dome with regard to sola Scriptura, but also in this area and many others, and never more than with St. Augustine.

Then in your comments at your blog post, you wrote:

If you can show me how Cyril is definitively teaching the elements of transubstantiation (I do not think it is even necessary to bother with needing to see the technical language) in the quote I put in the blog entry, then I think you would have a case. But, until that one is explained we should view the other bare quotes on the subject with some suspicion.

I've done that by giving several quotations and citing experts on patristic theology. Your methodology here is backwards. You don't seize on one statement that looks like it might read "Protestant" and then ignore other relevant statements and become suspicious of them because they don't fit into your assumed interpretation of one. This is a circular argument.

You need to interpret all the statements in harmony, just as you would when you approach the Bible. You interpret the less clear in light of the more clear. That is, unless you want to assume that Cyril and other fathers were characterized by internal inconsistency. That strikes me as a more "liberal" attitude towards patristics, and lacking a proper charity and sympathetic "identification" with the subject under consideration (Cyril). I think, therefore, that you are far more guilty of the very thing you accuse us of (anachronism and selective citation).

I gave several citations and have now given my explanation of the "problem" that you raised. You have simply stated your position and then adopted a stance of "suspicion" towards the quotes that don't seem to fit into your view (and then used the tired recourse to "out of context").

"Pontificator" [Fr. Alvin Kimel] hit the nail on the head in another comment on your blog:

I do not interpret Cyril as teaching transubstantiation, as explicated by Thomas Aquinas, just as I do not interpret Ignatius of Antioch as teaching the homoousion. There is such a thing as development of doctrine. We should not expect to find a scholastic precision in the early Fathers on a matter that was never seriously disputed.

You wrote, in turn, on his blog:

I guess what I don’t understand is why Roman Catholics will grant that the Orthodox view is legitimate even though it can’t really be spoken of with the same categories in mind, yet a high Protestant view like Calvin’s is simply something other than catholic.

That's easy: the Orthodox view incorporates the essential notions of transformation and literal presence of Jesus' body and blood, and allows adoration, and the notion of sacrifice. Calvin;'s position (especially when closely scrutinized) denies all three of these things. Therefore it is neither in accord with Tradition nor catholic. It is a novel innovation and a corruption of previous received eucharistic doctrine.

I also don’t buy this unanimity in the Fathers concerning this issue.

It's about as unanimous as any doctrine gets, in its main outlines.

More research is required, but both Augustine and Ratramnus (and, though disputed, Cyril) viewed this issue of a change in the elements differently than what is currently being held up as the standard of orthodoxy.

There is no essential difference between Augustine's view and the Catholic one, because for Augustine, "sign" and reality can be one and the same. They need not be dichotomized, as in so much of Protestant thought.

It is more than just a matter of avoiding special terms put forth by the scholastics in the High Middle Ages and there is a fair level of diversity on these issues which I have not seen addressed by those towing ‘the party line’.

I addressed whatever diversity there truly was by citing Schaff, who stated that there was such diversity in some respects. But the transformation view was still the most prominent one, and it was held by Cyril. Therefore, it is wrongheaded to claim that Calvin's view closely approached Cyril's (even if you want to restrict that to the issue of the "real presence" -- however you define that -- alone). If Cyril would be regarded as a blasphemous, sacrilegious idolater by Calvin (assuming the latter applies his indignation consistently), then how can it be said that Calvin's view is so close to Cyril's? He is just one more ignorant idolater, just like all of us hopeless "papists."

Thanks for the discussion. I await any reply from either of you with great eagerness.

Defense overcomes offense: the great Bill Russell shutting down powerhouse offensive threat Wilt Chamberlain yet again.

Bill Russell Knows Why the Detroit Pistons Won the NBA Championship / The "Good Guys"

One of the all-time great NBA stars, Bill Russell, wrote an article which was printed in the Detroit News on 15 June 2004 (p. 9A). It was written before the series was over, but it explains why the Pistons prevailed over the mighty Lakers. I shall cite his piece at length. It is entitled, "Defense remains art that wins championships":

. . . nothing compares to the subtle beauty of a winner taking away the other team’s game. Defense is an action, not a reaction. Great defense attacks an opponent’s offense versus reacting to it.

When I was playing for them, the Boston Celtics won an unprecedented 11 championships in 13 seasons, from 1956 to 1969, by embracing a team strategy that I call “team ego.” Team ego recognizes the collective alignment of everyone’s individual talents for the benefit of the team.

Team defense wins games. Team defense — that is, the coordinated efforts of five individuals — wins championships. From high school to the NBA, I played 21 years of organized basketball and won 18 championships, including the record 11 NBA titles, by focusing on our being the better defensive team.

How does one team become the better defensive team? The most successful defensive teams understand one critical reality: All players have patterns of play. Wilt Chamberlain was bigger, stronger and faster than almost any center to play the game. When his team was on offense, Wilt, like every other player, had one particular place he liked to start his offensive pattern from. By simply “nudging” Wilt a few inches (any more would have tipped him off to what I was doing) from that starting spot, I quietly took Wilt out of his comfort zone of play.

Great defensive teams study the offensive patterns of every team and every player they play against. Great defensive teams understand the predictability of their opponents’ offensive patterns.

All great offensive players are predictable . . . in team defense, the core operating principle is to reduce efficiency. Our game plan never varied — we could let our opponent’s star offensive player score 35 points, but if we could take away Jerry West, Oscar Robertson or Walt Frazier’s preferred shot and cause him to miss three, four, five or six shots, we believed we could convert those misses into Celtic points.

. . . Defense is about breaking your opponent’s offensive patterns, breaking their concentration and subtly modifying their offensive schemes. Blocking shots, stealing passes and causing turnovers all distract concentration. Team defense is as much a psychological strategy as it is a tactical weapon. In the end, an offense feeds off its defense. And effective offenses begin with effective defenses.

Our Celtic style of play is timeless and will always be relevant. I see a number of players and teams in the NBA who understand the subtle art and science of defense. Ben Wallace of the Pistons comes to mind. Ron Artest of the Indiana Pacers clearly earned the Defensive Player of the Year award. And while both Kevin Garnett of the Minnesota Timberwolves and Bryant are known for their scoring ability, they also are among the best players in shutting down their opponent.

It is no mystery why the Lakers, Timberwolves, Pistons and Pacers were all within sight of the Finals. Four of the five players named to the All-NBA Defensive First Team made it to the Conference Finals — Wallace, Bryant, Artest and Garnett.

. . . I don’t know who will win tonight in Game 5 or if it will be the Lakers or Pistons who emerge as the 2004 champions. But I do know how the eventual champion will arrive at the Larry O’Brien Trophy. Since the Celtics transformed basketball, defense wins championships.

This is why the Pistons won, in terms of sports analysis. But having immensely enjoyed the entire playoffs and now the celebrations and seeing the NBA trophy back in the Motor City (which gets more than its share of bum raps and slanders in the national media, but is certainly no worse than any major American city (they all have their problems) and much better in many respects), I would like to take a moment to reflect upon how exceedingly impressive this group of athletes are -- not as basketball players (that's obvious to all now) but as people. Over and over again, the night they won we heard them humbly thanking God and their teammates and having exactly the right attitude that ought to be the result of sports success. The last Pistons champions were nicknamed "the Bad Boys." I think this team should be known as "the good guys."

Their remarkable attitudes and posture of humility and thankfulness were even more striking in the parade and rally at the Palace today (I saw both on TV). Again and again they thanked God. And I believe that they sincerely meant it. I can tell when people are faking that. The players spoke of how wonderful it was to be on this team because the guys really loved each other and played together, unselfishly. They even extended the spirit of "family" to the complete Pistons organization, and to all the fans.

They were obviously deeply touched by the affection of the fans (far beyond the usual expected cliches of appreciation), and the feeling was mutual. At the parade, many of the players were throwing out t-shirts to the fans, and signing autographs for hundreds of admirers. All the announcers on TV who were at the events -- to a person -- talked about how moving and emotional they were. It was truly a beautiful thing.

This was much more than about sports. It was about the team concept, sharing, not seeking individual glory, but corporate accomplishment, about decency in the attempt to attain excellence in whatever field, about knowing where you came from, and how you got where you are. It was about appreciation all around. The Pistons reflect, I believe, the strong (no doubt Christian) character of Joe Dumars (the man who defended Michael Jordan as well as anyone), who built this team from scratch, after Grant Hill left, just four years ago, and it looked like it would be a very long haul to become a contender again. This group of extraordinary athletes (again, not only as basketball players but as human beings) was built up with people who had moved all around; some with 5, 6, 7 teams.

Chauncey Billups was on four teams in as many years. Joe Dumars and the Pistons organization believed in him, and the result was the MVP award for the Finals. Ben Wallace was on several teams, but only came into his own here. He is one of most popular athletes of all time in any sport in Detroit, and that's saying something. Rasheed Wallace had been with one team, but got a bum rap on many levels. He was warmly welcomed in Detroit. It's the same story with many of the guys on this team. They played together; they played unselfishly. As coach Larry Brown always says, they "play the way the game is supposed to be played": passing the ball, getting the best shot, relentless defense, aggressive and unselfish play, not going for individual glory, and enjoying it and having fun in the process. Getting to number one is even more rewarding and fulfilling if you have done it the right way. Their accomplishment is something everyone can be proud of (most of all, themselves).

The Pistons organization is simply a class act all around. The franchise was voted the fourth best sports organization in all of sports by some important magazine recently. This shows that they are doing something right; it's not merely hometown blinders and empty talk. They have provided a wonderful role model for those in all sports this year. Sports competition is often a metaphor for life itself, and its struggles and disappointments, hopes and perseverance. At its best (done the right way in the right spirit), I believe it greatly reflects the Christian life. Many of the higher virtues are cultivated by being a good athlete and a team member. I've rarely seen it exemplified in a group of teammates more so than with the 2004 World Champion Detroit Pistons.

Nice guys don't finish last after all. What a delightful occurrence! Let them fully enjoy their attainment. They richly earned it, and thoroughly deserve it. And let us reflect upon the fine example of human behavior set, whether we're from Detroit (as I am), or anywhere else.

Here's to "the Good Guys": the World Champion Detroit Pistons of 2003-2004.

Old Testament and Jewish Conceptions of the Messiah

Hasidic Jews

Thomas Storck, in his article, "The Old Testament Messianic Hope" (http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/1112-96/index.html), in the periodical The Catholic Faith, Nov/Dec 1996, states:

The Messianic expectation of ancient Israel consisted of several strands, some of which were highlighted or stressed more at one time or by one prophet than others, but all together they introduce this multifaceted Messianic hope, which God presented in a more and more definite way over the course of the salvation history of the Old Covenant. It is important to realize that God did not inspire the prophets of the Old Testament with one single concept of a coming Messianic figure who would be born at Bethlehem, preach a new covenant, suffer and die from crucifixion, rise again, thus gloriously defeating Satan, establish a spiritual kingdom on earth, the Catholic Church, and a kingdom of the just in Heaven. Though all these things are foretold in the Old Testament, the manner in which God chose to reveal His plan for the rescue of the human race was not as simple as announcing beforehand exactly what would be done, how, when, and by whom.

Storck goes on to detail many messianic passages, and concludes:

It is easy to understand why the picture of the Messiah as Suffering Servant did not seem to harmonize well with that of the conquering Anointed One, and thus why our Lord's earthly contemporaries expected that the Messiah would be a military leader. This, again, shows how most of the key Messianic passages could not have been entirely understood beforehand. Who could have known that the victories of the Anointed One would be against spiritual enemies or that it would be a victory accomplished in suffering on a cross? But in fact, when they are rightly understood, all the different strands in the Messianic hope do harmonize exactly and beautifully. Jesus Christ conquered, but conquered through His suffering, and only by His sufferings could His conquests have been made.

We must be careful, then, not to attribute to the hearers of the Messianic verses, or even to their human authors, too clear an idea of how these texts would be fulfilled, i.e., that God Himself would assume human nature, suffer, destroy the power of God's one true enemy, the devil, and establish a spiritual kingdom over all the earth. The exact relationship between Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Messiah was not clear, nor the manner of destruction of God's enemies, nor the nature of the kingdom He was to rule. But we can see that the Old Testament texts, in hindsight, point clearly to Christ, the Messiah, the ideal Son of David, the Anointed of God, the Suffering Servant, who comes both as Babe in the manger and as Divine Judge.

I have laid out in great detail biblical passages which I believe to be related to the notion of the Messiah - as fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ our Lord, in these papers:

Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs

The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs

Yet however clear these biblical indications might seem to the Christian (blessed with the hindsight to now "see" clearly what the prophecies meant), it is true that they were not nearly so obvious or even very plain at all to the hearers at the time, and virtually all followers of God/YHWH prior to Jesus Christ, the New Testament and the Christian era.

Way back in 1982, when I was an evangelical Protestant highly interested in Judaism (an interest I retain today, as a Catholic), I did a study of the Jews and their attitudes towards Jesus, and also their own notion of what the Messiah was to be like; what he would do, etc. I utilized many Jewish primary sources. I was particularly interested in what they thought about the Messiah prior to Christ (so that Jewish-Christian polemics and controversies would not be a factor), and which Old Testament passages they regarded as messianic, and how they specifically interpreted them. I will proceed now to recount some of the fascinating results I found in my studies, with regard to the above factors (unfortunately I didn't record many individual page numbers of citations, but passages in quotes are direct quotes; the rest is a paraphrase of the author's conclusions). All sources are Jewish unless otherwise noted:

1) The Messianic Idea in Judaism, Gershom Scholem, NY: Schocken Books, 1971:

Historically, there were two types of messianism: restorative and utopian. Restorative messianism became more prominent within Judaism with the rise of the rational philosophies of the Middle Ages, of which the chief proponent was Maimonides (d. 1204). But the Middle Ages also gave rise to Jewish mysticism, as taught in the Kabbalah and Zohar. Utopian messianism was prominent there. After the Enlightenment, rational utopianism prevailed and was secularized to form the notion of the inevitability of progress, but this development was largely restricted to the more "liberal" facets of Judaism.

"In the 19th century, apocalypticism seemed finally liquidated, and possessed, at least for the Jewish rationalists, no urgency or force whatever. For them it had become meaningless, empty nonsense."

Maimonides sought to minimize apocalypticism, miracles, and other signs. The Messiah must prove his identity not by miracles, but by historical success. The messianic age is a public event and has nothing to do with salvation of individuals. He doesn't recognize a causal relationship between the coming of the Messiah and human conduct. He did hold that Zech 9:9 and Is 11:1-5 were messianic.

The Apocalyptists, on the other hand, read messianic and Last Days connotations into a great number of passages, while their opponents denied same. Many passages, like Isaiah 53, are interpreted by one group to refer to the Messiah, and by the other as predictions regarding the destiny of the entire Jewish people. The rationalists stood in the forefront of the theological defenses mounted against the Church. This motive was a major factor in explaining their prominence.

"The more biblical exegesis could reduce the purely Messianic element, the better it was for the defenses of the Jewish position. But the apocalyptists were not in the least interested in apologetics . . . they are not concerned with fortifying the frontiers. This is no doubt why the statements of the apocalyptists often appear freer and more genuine than those of their opponents who often enough must take into account the diplomatic necessities of anti-christian polemics. In rare individuals the two tendencies come together."

"The most important codifications of the Messianic idea in later Judaism are the writings of Isaac Abravanel (c. 1500) and The Victory of Israel, by the Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel of Prague (1599). The authors endeavor to embrace the legacy of ideas as a whole which have been transmitted in such contradictory traditions. They richly avail themselves of the apocalyptic traditions."

2) The Messianic Idea in Israel, Joseph Klausner, NY: Macmillan: 1955 (orig. 1921):

"The elements of the belief in the Messiah were continually changing under the influence of historical events. In times of national freedom, the worldwide universalistic hope was the basic element, but in times of trouble and distress the nationalistic element was stressed much more."

The figure of Moses was the forerunner and first example of the Messiah. Moses delivered Israel from bondage, from its material troubles, political servitude, and also its spiritual ignorance and bondage. He was also a prophet and lawgiver. The Judges were "messiahs" of a sort, but lacked the spiritual-ethical characteristics of Moses. Samuel, the last judge, had the spiritual characteristics but not the political. Saul did not qualify as a Messiah-type. David was the true prototype. He had great political talents, heroism, courage, and spirituality, like Moses (Hos 3:5). In the Talmud. it is written that the Messiah would be David, or at least have his name.

Hosea develops the messianic theme. "Birth pangs of the Messiah" is derived from Hos 13:13, as well as Is 13:8. Hosea mentions a personal Messiah, "David their king" (3:5; cf. Jer 30:9), earthly bliss (14:5-7) spiritual bliss (2:19-20), and changes in nature (2:18). Klausner says that most scholars (even liberal ones) regard Is 9:6 and 11:1-5 as messianic. Is 2:2-4 is regarded as the quintessential prophecy of the Kingdom. Klausner, however, interprets the "servant" passages (Is 40:1-9, 42:1-7, 50:4-9, 52:13-15, 53:1-12) as referring to Israel, which collectively suffers for mankind and becomes the redeemer of the world. He regards Zech 9:9-10 as a messianic passage.

"The Jewish Messiah, no matter how noble and how spiritual, is nevertheless a human being, a king of flesh and blood."

Around the 2nd century A.D. evolved a doctrine of two Messiahs: Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph. The latter was primarily a warrior who would evntually be slain in battle. Psalm 2:7-8 is regarded as messianic in Sukkah 52a. In the same passage the detah of Messiah ben Joseph is mentioned matter-of-factly. Messiah ben Joseph would fight and defeat Gog and Magog. After he was killed, Messiah ben David could become the sole king of the earth.

"This inner contradiction between the political and the spiritual Messiah was inherent in the Jewish conception of the Messiah from the earliest times. But as long as the political tendency dominated, this contradiction was not readily apparent. Thus it came about that Rabbi Akiba could join himself to a Messiah (Bar-Kochba) who was distinguished for no spiritual qualities whatevr. Only after the political hope of redemption by war had been dashed by historical events themselves - only then was the contradiction felt with full force. Then the spiritual and religio-ethical tendency in the messianic faith inevitably gained the upper hand."

3) The Messiah Idea in Jewish History, Julius H. Greenstone, Philadelphia: Jewish Pub. Society, 1906:

Most Jews regard belief in the Messiah as a dogma of Judaism, even though the conception and nature of the dogma varies widely. Greenstone regards Is 7:14, 9:5, and 11:1-5 as messianic passages.

"The immediate success of Christianity can be accounted for only when we consider the intense messianic hope that existed among the Jewish people during the period of Roman supremacy."

Rabbi Akiba taught that the Messiah occupied a throne next to God and was rebuked by R. Jose the Galilean (Hagigah 14a; Sanhedrin 38b).

Zohar means literally "splendor" (derived from Daniel 12:3). It is a mystical commentary on the Pentateuch. In many Jewish communities, study of the Talmud was superseded by that of the Zohar, since it was regarded as a direct revelation from God and spiritually equal to the Bible. Modern scholars are convinced that the primary author was Moses de Leon of Spain (1250-1305). The influence of the Zohar was still strong in the 18th century.

"There are various references in the Zohar to the idea of a suffering Messiah. The Messiah takes upon himself all the maladies destined for Israel. In this manner, the Messiah constitutes himself the sin-offering, which can no longer be brought by Israel, since the Temple is destroyed."

"The pre-existence of the Messiah is assumed, and his almost Divine character repeatedly emphasized. He is suffering for the sins of his people, and helps them carry the burden of punishment."

Hasidism was formed as a new sect by Israel Baal-shem (1698-1759) as a reaction to Talmudic study methods. Modern Hasidic Jews are firm believers in the sanctity of the Zohar, in the powers of the Kabbalah, and in the influence exerted by their Zaddikim (wonder-working Rabbis) over the destinies of men. The aim of its founders was to free followers from excessive intellectualism, and to encourage prayer and religious emotion and sentiment.

4) A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel, Abba Hillel Silver, NY: Macmillan, 1927:

Isaac Abravanel (1447-1508) wrote three books about messianism. Onee was about Daniel, one about Talmudic passages, and the other dealing with all the messianic prophecies in Scripture. These are the most complete and thorough works of their kind in the whole field of Jewish adventism. Abravanel regarded Daniel 7:13 as messianic, and held that Daniel was a true prophet, unlike most Jews.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (Sanhedrin 98a) said that if Israel was found deserving, the Messiah would come swiftly (Dan 7:13), if they were not, then he would come upon a donkey (Zech 9:9):

"If they will be righteous, [the Messiah will come] on the clouds of heaven, if they will not be righteous [he will come] as a poor man riding upon an ass."

Speculations on the time of Messiah's coming were based on numerical figures in Daniel, supposed initiatory historical events, paralleles of time in Scripture, numerical value of letters and astrology.

5) The Messiah Texts, Raphael Patai, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979:

Concerning the suffering servant of Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 52, 53, Patai writes:

"The Aggada, the Talmudic legend, unhesitatingly identifies him with the Messiah, and understands especially the descriptions of his sufferings as referring to Messiah ben Joseph."

Patai considers Daniel 9:24-27 messianic, including the death of the Messiah:

"It is quite probable that the concept of the suffering Messiah, fully developed in the Talmud, the Midrash, and the Zohar, has its origin in the biblical prophecies about the suffering servant."

Patai also lists Isaiah 9:6-7, 11:1-12, Daniel 7:13-14, and Zech 9:9-10 as messianic passages.

"Ever since Ezekiel, 'Son of Man' has been a designation signifying special nearness to God of the person so called."

"Others applied to him the name of God."

"R. Shim'on ben Jaqish explained: 'And the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water' (Gen 1:2) - this is the spirit of King Messiah, as it is written, 'And the spirit of the Lord will rest upon him.' (Is 11:2)." (Gen Rab. 2:4)

"You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King Messiah was born." (Pes. Rab. ed. Friedmann, p.152b)

Some rabbis named the Messiah, "The Leprous of the House of Study," based on Isaiah 53:4 (B. Sanhedrin 98b).

R. Jose the Galilean names the Messiah "Peace," based on Is 9:6 (Pereq Shalom, p. 101). He also mentions Is 52:7, concerning the messenger of peace.

"R. Nahman said to R. Yitzhaq: 'Have you perhaps heard when Bar Nifle (Son of the Clouds) will come?" (B. Sanhedrin 96b-97a).

"'Anani' (He of the clouds) is King Messiah." (Targum to 1 Chr 3:24)

"King Messiah will come with the clouds of heaven." (Pirqe Mashiah BhM 3:70)

"God will liberate Messiah ben David and make him ride on a cloud." (Midrash fragment, ed. Mamorstein, REJ 52 {1906}, p. 184).

The rabbis believed in a seven-year tribulation (B. Sanhedrin 97a).

"The Holy One began to tell him (the Messiah) the conditions (of his mission), and said to him, 'Their sins will force you into an iron yoke, and they will render you like unto this calf whose eyes have grown dim, and they will choke your spirit with the yoke, and because of their sins your tongue will cleave to the roof of your mouth. Do you accept this?' He said, 'with gladness I accept it, so that not a single one of Israel should perish, even the dead who have died from the days of Adam until now. This is what I want.' " (Pes. Rab. pp. 161a-b)

"You have suffered because of the sins of our children, and cruel punishments have come upon you . . . you were put to ridicule and held in contempt by the nations of the world because of Israel . . . All this because of the sins of our children . . . great sufferings have come upon you on their account. And (God) says to him, 'Be you the judge over these peoples, and do to them whatever your soul wishes . . . all of them will die from the breath of your lips.' " (Pes. Rab. ch. 36)

"Elijah . . . says to him: 'Endure the sufferings and the sentence of your Master who makes you suffer because of the sin of Israel.' And thus it is written: 'He was wounded because of our transgressions.' . . . (Is 53:5) - until the time when the end comes." (Mid. Konen, BhM, 2:29)

"As long as Israel dwelt in the Holy Land, the rituals and sacrifices removed all those diseases from the world; now the Messiah removes them from the children of the world." (Zohar 2:212a)

"In the second year of King Ahazia, Elijah was hidden, and he will not be seen again until King Messiah comes. And then he will be seen but will be hidden a second time, and seen again only when Gog and Magog come." (Seder 'Olam Rabba, ch. 17)

Patai: "When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as the Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two . . . "

The development of the two-Messiah doctrine also had to do with a messianic parallel to Moses, who died before entering the Promised Land.

Referring to Zech 12:10-12, "R. Dosa says: '(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain.' " (B. Suk. 52a; also Y. Suk. 55b)

"A man shall arise from my seed; like unto the sun of righteousness, walking with the sons of man in meekness, and no sin shall be found in him. And he shall pour upon you the spirit of grace, and you shall walk in his commandments . . . a rod of righteousness to the nations, to judge and save all that call upon the Lord." (Testament of Judah, 24)

6) The Doctrine of the Messiah in Medieval Jewish Literature, Joseph Sarachek, NY: Hermon Press, 1932:

"In order not to expose themselves to criticism, many Jewish exegetes waived their own messianic explanations and expounded the texts as allusions to the past."

Solomon ben Isaac, or Rashi (b. 1040) was the most celebrated figure in the rabbinical schools of France in the last half of the 11th century. He is regarded as the greatest Jewish commentator on the Bible and the Talmud. Rashi applied Psalm 2 to David instead of the Messiah, but he believed Daniel 7:13-14 was messianic. The "anointed one" in Daniel 9:26 was Agrippa. Gen 49:10 (Shiloh) is was messianic, as are Zech 9:9 and Isaiah 11. He attributes Is 9:6 to Hezekiah and Is 53 to all Israel. The "anointed" in Daniel 9:25 was Cyrus.

Abraham ibn Ezra (Spain, 1092-1167) was one of the greatest Jewish scholars. He considered Gen 49:10 messianic, and also Zech 13, but he refers Zech 9:9 to Maccabean times. Is 7:14 refers only to Isaiah's son. Zech 12:10 concerns Messiah ben Joseph, and Zech 13:7 refers to the world war in his time. The "messenger" in Mal 3:1 is Messiah ben Joseph. The "son of man" in Dan 7:13 is Israel. The "anointed prince" in Dan 9:25 is Nehemiah. The "son" in Ps 2:7,12 referred to Israel.

Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508; originally from Spain) wrote more about the Messiah than any other Jew before him. He followed the Talmud and the Midrash in his messianic interpretations. The following verses are messianic: Gen 49:10, Is 11:1-5, Is 61, Micah 5:2, Zech 9:9, chs. 12-13, Malachi 3:1. Is 9:6 applied to Hezekiah. Is 53 referred to the nation of Israel, as did the "son of man" of Daniel 7:13. The "anointed" of Dan 9:25 is not the Messiah.

==================================================================

NOTE: Now we move on to a Christian source:

7) Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869; an orthodox Lutheran and eminent theologian), tr. by T. Meyer, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 4 vols., 1854-1858):

Micah 5:2: acknowledged by the Jews as messianic at all times with perfect unanimity. This is indicated in Mt 2:4-6 and Jn 7:41-42. But they explained the "eternity" in terms of the idea of the Messiah, his name, or his descent from the ancient, royal line of David. After the death of Jesus, the rabbis stated that Bethlehem referred not to birthplace, but merely to ancestry from David. This was unheard-of before Christianity arose. Many Jews claimed that Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem.

Isaiah 9:1-2: Some Jews believed that the Messiah would appear in Galilee. E.g., the Zoahr: "King Messiah will reveal himself in the land of Galilee."

Isaiah 9:6-7: The Jews (expectedly) say that the names refer to God, not to the child. But many held it to be a messianic passage: e.g., the commentary on Genesis known as Brehith Rabbah (Gen 41:44), Rabbi Jose Galilaeus in the book Ekha Rabbati. Ben Sira mentions Wonderful, Counselor, and Prince of Peace as names of the Messiah. Later Jews sought to attribute the passage to Hezekiah.

Isaiah 11:1-5: The messianic interpretation is the most ancient one. It is found in the Targum of Jonathan, and was defended especially by Jarchi, Abravanel, and Kimchi. The word "shoot" or "sprout" is used in other passages which are messianic beyond doubt. In verse 4, he slays the wicked with his breath, a thing which is elsewhere said of God only (cf. Ps 33:6, Hos 6:5). In general, doing by the mere word is a characteristic of omnipotence.

Isaiah 42:1-7: The Chaldean Paraphrast understood the Servant to be the Messiah, as did Kimchi and Abravanel; the latter said of the non-messianic interpretation, "all these expositors were struck with blindness." Simeon's reference at Lk 2:32 indicates that this was the common Jewish viewpoint at the time of Christ. The non-messianic defenders can only agree negatively; they don't agree on who the passage is talking about. In Is 49:5-6 the Servant is contrasted with Israel and thus can't possibly be equated with Israel. David called himself the servant of God ten times in 2 Samuel 7. The prophets are called servants of God in 2 Kings 13:3 and Jer 26:5. In Is 42:6, the Servant is a covenant to the people (Israel), thereby ruling out the possibility that "he" is Israel.

Isaiah 49:1-9: Verses 4 and 7 foretell the rejection of the Messiah. Many Jews here equate the Servant with collective Israel - an impossibility in light of verses 5, 6, and 8.

Isaiah 50:4-11: Verse 4 indicates that the Servant is speaking ("sustain the weary"). Verses 10 and 11 state that one's destiny is contingent upon acceptance or denial of the Servant - the Messiah. Verses 6 and 7 indicate the suffering and rejection by the people of the Messiah. Finally, the Servant appears as the judge of his rejectors.

Isaiah 52:13-53:12: "Shoot" and "root" in verse 2 connect this passage with other messianic descriptions elsewhere. 53:5 ("peace") is similar to the messianic Micah 5:5: "this one will be our peace." The phrase "cut off" (v. 8) occurs also in the arguably messianic Dan 9:26.

"There cannot be any doubt that the messianic interpretation was pretty generally received in earlier times by the Jews. This is admitted even by those later interpreters who pervert the prophecy, e.g., Ibn-ezra, Jarchi, Abravanel and Nahmanides."

The whole translation of the Chaldean Paraphrast, Jonathan, refers to prophecy to Messiah. He paraphrases the very first clause: "behold, My Servant Messiah shall prosper." The Midrash Tanchuma states: "This is the King Messiah who is high and lifted up, and very exalted, more exalted than Abraham, elevated above Moses, higher than the ministering angels."

There is a remarkable passage in the very old book Pesikta, cited in the treatise Abkath Rokhel, and reprinted in Hulsii Theologia Judaica, where this passage occurs, p. 309:

"When God created the world, He stretched out His hand under the throne of His glory, and brought forth the soul of the Messiah. He said to him: 'Will you heal and redeem My sons after 6000 years?' He answered him, 'I will.' Then God said to him: 'Will you then also bear the punishment in order to blot out their sins, as it is written, "But he bore our diseases" ' (53:4). And he answered Him; 'I will joyfully bear them.' " (cf. Zohar, 2:212a)

Rabbi Moses Haddarshan states: "Immediately the Messiah, out of love, took upon himself all those plagues and sufferings, as it is written in Isaiah 53, 'He was abused and oppressed.' " In the Rabboth, a commentary, 53:5 is quoted, and referred to the sufferings of the Messiah. IN the Midrash Tillim, an allegorical commentary on the Psalms, printed at Venice in 1546, it is said at Psalms 2:7: "The things of King Messiah are announced in the prophets, e.g., in the passage Is 52:13 and 42:1, in the Hagiographa, e.g., Ps 60 and Dan 7:13."

Rabbi Alschech, in Hulsii Theologia Judaica, pp. 321 ff., comments:

"Upon the testimony of tradition, our old rabbis have unanimously admitted that king Messiah is here the subject of discourse. We, in harmony with them, conclude that king David, i.e., the Messiah, must be considered as the subject of this prophecy - a view which is indeed quite obvious."

Comparatively few Jews (i.e., those who didn't take the "servant-as-Israel" view) believed that the passage referred to a person other than the Messiah. Tha kabbalistic Jews still largely held to the messianic interpretation of the passage. The Messiah is called "servant" in Zech 3:8 - a passage which is unanimously regarded as messianic, and also in Ezek 34:23-24. As for the collective interpretation: not one sure analogous instance can be cited in favor of a personification carried on through a whole section, without the slightest intimation that it is not a single individual who is referred to. In 53:3 the subject is called a man. In 53:11-12 a "soul" is ascribed to him. "Grave" and "death" seemingly imply a singular subject. In the passages where Israel is called "Servant," all uncertainty is prevented by the presence of the names of Jacob and Israel (Is 41:8-9, 44:1-2,21, 45:4, 48:20) and the plural is used alongside the singular (Is 42:24-25, 48:20-21, 43:10-14). Several factors in the passage rule out a collective. The Servant voluntarily bears sufferings (vss. 10,12) and he suffers quietly and patiently (v. 7).

Daniel 7:13-14: In other passages it is always the Lord who appears with, or upon the clouds of heaven (Is 19:1, Ps 18:10, 97:2, Nahum 1:3). The word for "serve" is never used in any other sense than that of divine worship (whether paid to God or a false deity). See Dan 3:12,14,17-18,28 and Ezra 7:19. For "everlasting dominion," a common feature of the announcement of the Messiah, see Ps 72:5,7,17, 89:37-38, Is 9:6. The Jews were almost unanimous in agreeing that the passage is messianic. The Messiah was called :man of the clouds," a title which is espoused by the Talmud. Abravanel said: "The expositors explain these words, 'like a son of man,' as referring to the King Messiah." Jesus called himself "son of man" 55 times, not counting parallels.

Zechariah 9:9-10: The messianic interpretation prevailed among the Jews. For parallels, see Ps 72:8 and Micah 5:9.

Zechariah 12:10-12: "They will look on me whom they have pierced." Connection with Joel 2:28; se also Mt 24:30 and Rev 1:7. Some Jews sought to give "pierced" a figurative meaning, i.e., "grieved." This was the view of the Septuagint also. Similar interpretation was given to Zech 13:3, where it seems even more unlikely. Elsewhere, the verb daquar is never figurative; it is always literal: Num 25:8, Jud 9:54, 1 Sam 31:4, 1 Chr 10:4, Is 13:15, Jer 37:10, 51:4, Lam 4:9. The parallele verse Zech 13:7, with its mention of the sword, gives good reason to interpret the verse literally. The Palestinian Talmud and also the Babylonian Talmud interpret the verse messianically, as do Ibn-ezra and Abravanel. Many Jews attributed the passage to Messiah ben Joseph. The Jews eventually changed the divine "Me" to "him," even though "Me" is found in the oldest, the best, and the largest number of manuscripts.

Malachi 3:1: The allusion to Is 40:3-5 is undeniable. Ibn-ezra thought the messenger was the Messiah. Kimchi said it was an angel (see Ex 23:30), Jarchi, the angel of death. The early Christians unanimously thought it was John the Baptist. The same messenger referred to here is called Elijah in Mal 4:5. jesus fulfilled the other two parts of the prophecy, i.e., going to the Temple and bringing in the New Covenant. God is obviously referred to in the divine "Me" and the clause "His Temple." The divinity of the Messiah is logically deduced from the passage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript: Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), a convert to Christianity from Judaism, in his Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2 vols., 1883), cited 456 passages in the Old Testament which Jewish commentators had interpreted as messianic (vol. II, pp. 710-743).

Compiled by Dave Armstrong on 19 February 2000, from 1982 research.

Psalm 110: Examples of Jewish Commentators Who Regard it as Messianic / Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer's Charges of Christian "Tampering" With the Text

Rabbi Tovia Singer

One doesn't have to believe that Messiah is God or be a Christian to accept this passage as messianic, because many Jewish exegetes throughout history have done so. Alfred Edersheim offers documentation, in an appendix of his Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (see http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/Eder1.rtf):

Ps. cx. is throughout applied to the Messiah. To begin with, it evidently underlies the Targumic rendering of ver. 4. Similarly, it is propounded in the Midr. on Ps. ii. (although there the chief application of it is to Abraham). But in the Midrash on Ps. xviii. 36 (35 in our A. V.), Ps. cx. verse 1, 'Sit thou st My right hand' is specifically applied to the Messiah, while Abraham is said to be seated at the left.
Verse 2.'The rod of Thy strength.' In a very curious mystic interpretation of the pledges which Tamar had by the Holy Ghost, asked of Judah, the seal is interpreted as signifying the kingdom, the bracelet as the Sanhedrin, and the staff as the King Messiah, with special reference to Is. xi. and Ps. cx. 2 (Beresh. R·. 85, ed. Warsh. p. 153 a) Similarly in Bemid. R. 18, last line, the staff of Aaron, which is said to have been in the hands of every king till the Temple was destroyed, and since then to have been hid, is to be restored to King Messiah, according to this verse ; and in Yalkut on this Psalm (vol. ii. Par. 869, p. 124 c) this staff is supposed to be the same as that of Jacob with which he crossed Jordan, and of Judah, and of Moses, and of Aaron, and the same which David had in his hand when he slew Goliath, it being also the same which will be restored to the Messiah.
Verse 7 is also applied in Yalkut (u. s. col. d) to Messianic times, when streams of the blood of the wicked should flow out, and birds come to drink of that hood.

Likewise, we find additional similar documentation in THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF RABBINICAL WRITINGS , by Risto Santala (Translated from Finnish by
William Kinnaird) - at http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/OT/contot.html

[abridged by Dave Armstrong]

The picture in psalm 110 of the one sitting at the right hand of God

Psalm 110, which as we observed earlier has often been considered a
"twin" to psalm 2, is also given a Messianic interpretation by the Sages, to
the extent that there is no essential disharmony between the Christian and
Rabbinic exegesis of both these psalms.

The psalm in outline is as follows:

"A psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right
hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' The
LORD will extend your mighty sceptre from Zion; rule in the midst
of your enemies... The LORD has sworn and will not change his
mind: 'You are a priest for ever, in the order of Melchizedek:' "

The best known expositions which we have been following are
comparatively late expressions of the Rabbinic perspective. To take two
examples; RaSHI, Solomon Yarchi, died in 1105 AD and Ibn Ezra, the
son of Abraham Meir died towards the end of the same century. If in
them, despite all their opposition to Christianity, we still find some mention
of the Messianic character of a certain passage, it will have particular
weight as a witness to our case. Psalm 110, they say, refers primarily to
Abraham. RaSHI says of the psalm that it is right to interpret it as
touching Abraham, "but there is a difficulty in the fact that it speaks
of Zion, which was the city of David".

The Midrash on the Psalms says of the verse 'Sit at my right hand', that
"he says this to the Messiah; and his throne is prepared in grace and
he will sit upon it". The Talmud refers to psalm 110 when discussing
Zechariah 4:14 -- "These are the two who are anointed to serve the
LORD of all the earth" -- and states:

"By this meant Aaron and the Messiah, and I do not know which
of them I should prefer. When it is written, 'The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind: You are a priest for ever', we know
that the Messiah-King is more agreeable than the Priest of
Righteousness." [Avôth, Rabbi Nathan, chap. 34]

Right up to the Middle Ages the Rabbis continued this discussion. Rabbi
Shim .on the Preacher (ha-Darshan), who lived towards the end of the
12th century and collected together the Talmud's old legends and
preaching, summarises the traditional understanding of the status of the
Messiah as follows:

"Rabbi Yodan says in Rabbi A .han Bar Haninan's name that 'The
Holy One will set the coming Messiah-King at his right hand and
Abraham at his left'; and so Abraham's face will become white with
envy, and he will say, 'The son of my son sits on your right and I
must sit on your left?' Then the Holy One will appease him by
saying, 'Your son is on your right and I am on your right.' "

[Yalqut Shimoni Ps. 110, Nedarim 32b and Sanhedrin 108b. The subject is also
touched upon in: David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand,
Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, New York 1973]

The Rabbis say in their discussions that, according to psalm 72:17, the
Messiah was granted this position before the creation.

It is remarkable that the idea of the Messiah's special status also
comes to the fore in the Rabbis' exposition of other psalms. Of these,
three are primarily worthy of mention: a) Psalm 16:11 says:

"You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with
joy on your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand."

The Midrash for psalm 45 constructs a bridge between the "fairest of the
sons of men" (Ps 45.2) and psalm 16, saying:

"Thus, those who believe in the Messiah will one day worship the
glory of the presence of God and will not be harmed (from having
looked upon him), as it is written: 'You will fill me with joy in your
presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand'."

b) Psalm 18:36 promises:

"You give me your shield of victory, and your right hand sustains
me."

The Midrash explains this Davidic hymn, saying that, it refers to the
"coming of the Messiah", and adds:

"If deliverance were to come in one wave men would be unable to
stand such a great liberation, and so it will be accompanied by
great sufferings, which is why it will draw near gradually... like the
dawn."

c) The third isolated reference to the status of the Messiah is found in
psalm 80, in the 18th verse of which the Rabbis perceive the Messianic
motif:

"Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of
man you have raised up for yourself."

Verse 15 speaks of the "vine" which the "right hand" of God has planted.
Ibn Ezra explains this as being an analogy in which "that which is
compared concerns Israel and the Messiah, the son of Ephraim". As
we have already seen, the idea of the suffering Messiah is often in Judaism
connected with this son of Joseph, Ephraim.

The words the "right hand" of God, the "sustaining of the right hand", and
the "right hand man" are thus connected in some way with the Messiah,
and are to be taken in conjunction with psalm 110.

The last verse of psalm 2, "blessed are all who take refuge in him", also
appears in psalm 18, another psalm containing the Messianic motif (v.30).
The word "Rock", mentioned in v. 31 is understood in the Talmud,
when discussing Moses' hymn in Deuteronomy ch. 32, to mean "the
Messiah, the Son of David" (Deut. 32:15; Sanhedrin 38a). This "refuge" in psalm 2
relates to the "son", who is honoured by greeting him with a kiss.

Rabbi Tovia Singer, a polemicist against Christianity, applies the passage to King David (at: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/psalm110.html). Does that not indirectly suggest that the passage is at least quasi-messianic, since Messiah is a figure of David? At any rate, learned Jewish commentators in the past have indeed applied the passage to the Messiah, and it seems to me that they would (for a Jew, or any person interested in this particular matter) carry at least as much authority as Rabbi Singer. It's also strange to note that David wrote this Psalm, and states, "The LORD says to my lord" (RSV). David is writing about himself? If not, then who would David's "lord" be -- he being King of Israel?

An extensive online article about Psalm 110 (http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/ps110.htm) has dealt with some of Rabbi Singer's accusations (at the above URL) that Christians have supposedly "tampered" with this text:

Quoting from the New American Standard Bible, he [R. Singer] claims there is a deliberate mistranslation in Psalm 110:1,

"The Lord said to my Lord. . ."

He notes that the two "Lords" here look identical in this English translation, although in my online reading of this, it appears as,

"The LORD said to my Lord. . ."
Psalm 110:1, Online NASB

[Dave: my own hard copy reads this way too]

Assuming that Singer is reading from a different edition of the NASB, we'll take his word at face value. Although, he asserts that the "Christian translator carefully masked what it says in the text of the actual Hebrew," (emphasis mine), we will not be so quick to charge anyone with deceit here.

Singer is correct in his statement that the "LORD" and "Lord" are two different words in the Hebrew, and that the second "Lord" can, and is applied to humans in the TaNaKh. Here are some powerful words that Singer uses to describe the "Christian" translation of this verse:

1. Stunning and clever mistranslation
2. The Church tampered with it
3. Complete and delieberate mistranslation
4. Doctored
5. Altered
6. Rampant Christian tampering

These are VERY serious charges. In my CD ROM version of the Soncino Talmud,
created by the Davka Corporation, the english translation of Nedarim 32b doesn't
distinguish between the LORD and Lord of Psalm 110:1,

. . . [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is written, The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool; which is followed by, The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,’ meaning,
‘because of the words of Melchizedek.’
Nedarim 32b, Soncino Press Edition

Now, it is possible that the English translation of Nedarim is incorrect from the original language of this Talmudic reference, or even possible that when the text was being digitized, that someone made an error. However, according to Rabbi Singer's logic, this english CD version of the Talmud, which was made by a Jewish Software company, was "altered, tampered, stunningly mistranslated, Christianized, carefully masked, appalling, deliberate mistranslation, doctored, manipulated, and altered." It would seem that this conspiracy of the "rampant Christian tampering" has even influenced and infiltrated the Jewish community, or on the other hand, we could accept a much more probable possibility, that a mistake was made. A mistake and a "deliberate mistranslation" are two very different things, and we must be careful not to make incorrect accusations. It is one thing to call to attention a mistranslation, it is another to accuse of "deliberate tampering."

There was admittedly some "tampering" that has occured, however. In the Massorah, there are one hundred and thirty-four places in the Hebrew text that Masoretic scribes changed YHVH, the Tetragrammaton, to Adonai! Singer sure is adamant about "Christian tampering," but can he apply the same rules to himself, as he does his opponents? . . . An article from the TheRain.org [http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app32.html] notes,

"The official list given in the Massorah (§§ 107-15, Ginsburg's edition)
contains the 134."

The article gives the locations where the Tetragrammaton is changed [listed at the URL above].

The writer goes on to cite many Jewish messianic interpretations of Psalm 110. He notes that Ibn Ezra regarded this "Lord" as David, and others thought him to be Abraham. But there were also those who thought he was King Messiah:

R. Yudan said in the name of R. Hama: In the time-to-come, when the Holy
One, blessed be He, seats the lord Messiah at His right hand, as is said The
Lord saith unto my lord: "Sit thou at My right hand" (Ps. 110:1), and seats
Abraham at His left, Abraham's face will pale, and he will say to the Lord:
"My son's son sits at the right, and I at the left!" Thereupon the Holy One,
blessed be He, will comfort Abraham, saying: "Thy son's son is at My right,
but I, in a manner of speaking, am at thy right": The Lord [is] at thy right hand
(Ps. 110:5).

[Midrash on Psalms, translated by William G. Braude, Yale University Press Edition]

Genesis Rabbah seems to allude to the Messianic status of this passage,

AND HE SAID: WHAT PLEDGE SHALL I GIVE THEE? AND SHE SAID:
THY SIGNET AND THY CORD, AND THY STAFF THAT IS IN THY HAND
(Genesis XXXVIII, 18). R. Hunia said: A holy spirit was enkindled within her.
THY SIGNET alludes to royalty, as in the verse, Though Coniah the son of
Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, etc. (Jer.
XXII, 24); AND THY CORD (PETHIL - EKA) alludes to the Sanhedrin, as in
the verse, And that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread (pethil)
of blue, etc. (Num. XV, 38)1 AND THY STAFF alludes to the royal Messiah,
as in the verse, The staff of thy strength the Lord will send out of Zion (Ps.
CX, 2).

[Genesis Rabbah 85:9, Soncino Press Edition]

Numbers Rabbah says,

[Aaron's] staff was held in the hand of every king until the Temple was
destroyed, and then it was [divinely] hidden away. That same staff also is
destined to be held in the hand of the King Messiah (may it be speedily in
our days!); as it says, The staff of thy strength the Lord will send out of Zion:
Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies (Ps. CX, 2).

[Numbers Rabbah 28:23, Soncino Press Edition]

Other references cited in The Messiah Texts, an awesome book by Raphael Patai,
state:

[God says:] "Ephraim, My firstborn, you sit on My right untul I subdue the
army of the hosts of God and Magog, your enemies, under your footstool . .
."
Mid. Alpha Betot, 2:438-425

" . . .the Holy One, blessed be He, will fight for Israel and will say to the
Messiah : "Sit at my right." And the Messiah will say to Israel:"Gather
together and stand and see the salvation of the Lord." And instantly the Holy
One, blessed be He, will go forth and fight against them . . .May that time
and that period be near!"

T'fillat R. Shim'on ben Yochai, BhM 4:124-266

It should be noted, however, that the various interpretations in Rabbinic literature,especially in the Midrashim, are allegorical, and do not necessarily mean that Psalm110 literally refers to the Messiah.

When did David sit at God's right hand? How can David be a 'priest forever in the
order of Malki-Tzaddik' if David is dead? Could it refer to a resurrected David?
Regardless, even if it were to refer to David, it would then automatically refer to theMessiah, as Messiah will be just like David. David is a prophetic prototype of Mashiach.

Furthermore, in light of Rabbi Singer's free-and-easy accusation of Christian tampering with Psalm 110, I thought I would check out some of my many Old Testament versions to see if I could find evidence of this. Here are the results:

"The LORD said to my Lord" (or similar: LORD/Lord): RSV, NASB, NAB, NIV, NRSV, KJV, NKJV, CEV, Goodspeed
"The Lord said to my Lord" Douay-Rheims, Confraternity (but these versions seem to never use the form "LORD")
"To the Master I serve the Lord's promise was given" Knox's Revised Vulgate
"This is the LORD's oracle to my lord" REB
"Jehovah saith unto my Lord" ASV
"The Lord (God) says to my Lord" Amplified
This oracle has the Eternal for my lord" Moffatt

Out of sixteen non-Jewish Bible versions, then, only two have the "Lord" / "Lord" translation which so concerns Rabbi Singer (and those seem - with a cursory examination - to not use "LORD" at all). Those which have something different than "LORD/Lord" make a clear differentiation of the two subjects.

So it appears that Rabbi Singer's "Christian Bible-Twisting of Psalm 110" conspiracy (is this somewhat akin to the Jewish banker's conspiracy?) is in rather poor shape these days, having no adherents whatever (that I can find, anyway), among modern translators (or even those way back in 1611). Even R. Singer's alleged example of the NASB was embarrassingly mistaken, on his part (it ain't in my NASB, nor the online one). And note that neither I nor the writer I cite accuse him of deliberate dishonesty, as he freely does concerning Christian translators or self-described "messianic Jews" with their supposed underhanded methods, etc. He is simply wrong.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 14 September 2001.

Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Authority and the Rabbinic Credentials of Jesus and the Apostle Paul (vs. Ari G.)

This exchange took place on a public Catholic Internet bulletin board. Ari's words will be in blue:

A woman who used to be Catholic and is strongly considering converting to Judaism, inquired of one Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim, who wrote (forwarded back to the public discussion board):

It is essential to understand that accurate Written Torah interpretation is only possible via the Oral Tradition - the "Mesora" - which was entrusted to Moses in the form of God's spoken words, (not included in the Written Law) and without having such knowledge through the generations tracing back to Moses, one cannot possibly have the correct understanding of the Written Torah, Prophets or Writings - the only three components of the Scriptures given by God.

This proves little in and of itself, given the many strands of Judaism in late antiquity. Who is one to accept as the binding authority? The Pharisees? Sadducees? Essenes? Zealots? John the Baptist? Etc. Jesus was also a rabbi and an observant Jew, of course. Why would a Jew not be within his rights to accept Jesus' teaching on the Torah?

The authority for a rabbi comes from receiving smicha from his teacher, and is as good as the smicha and reputation of the teacher. There is no indication whatsoever that Jesus had this authority. The term "rabbi" simply means "my master" or "my teacher" and is also used to refer to teachers of Jewish material who do not have smicha and are therefore not authorized to make rulings.

When the Great Sanhedrin exists, it has final authority on all matters, just as the Supreme Court does in the U.S. Anyone who teaches against the Sanhedrin is wrong and is in violation of the Torah (Deut. 17:8-12).

When rabbis contradict each other, what is the layman to do? Latitude can conceivably be allowed on many matters, but are not many instances of such contradiction tantamount to doctrinal or theological relativism?

It depends on the issue. If it is one of belief, layman can just ignore it, since belief is such a minor point. If a rabbi were to proclaim something that was clearly out of the bounds of Judaism (such as that it was permissible to eat non-kosher food or light fires on the Sabbath), that rabbi has just disqualified himself from all future rulings, and laymen should avoid him.

On points of halachic rulings, the answer nowadays is to follow your own rabbi. This is usually the rabbi of your synagogue, although some hold to the rulings of a yeshiva rabbi or their hometown synagogue rabbi. But you have to be consistent regarding whose rulings you follow. When there is any doubt, the practice is for the rabbi to write to one of the greater rabbis (in reputation and wisdom), explain how he rules and ask if it was the correct ruling. Answers to such question get published and act as a repository for precedents.

I understand that the Sanhedrin ceased to exist after A.D. 70.

Long after. Actually, it ceased to exist somewhere about 425, when the Roman Emperor banned it.

If that is correct, I still would like to know "who speaks authoritatively" for Judaism, so that the Jewish believer can distinguish truth from falsehood in matters relating to faith and practice.

In matters of faith and practice, there is no single authority; however, there exists a great consensus on most points. With regard to faith, the consensus is essentially the 13 principles articulated by Maimonides. Practice is also normative and generally follows the summation in the Shulchan Aruch, although different communities may differ in custom.

1. Does Saul of Tarsus (Paul) therefore possess validity as a rabbi?

He never offers any credible reason for us to believe that he has smicha, so no.

Acts 22:3 (RSV):

'I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as you all are this day.' (see also Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5:34-39)

Acts 23:6:

. . . 'Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees . . . '

Acts 26:4-5:

'My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews, They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.'

Philippians 3:5-6:

'circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless.'

(see also Acts 7:58, 8:1,3, 9:1-2)

Would this not constitute having smicha, as Paul studied under one of the most eminent and respected rabbis of that time?

Information from The New Bible Dictionary (edited by J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962):

Gamaliel was a grandson of Hillel, doctor of the law and a member of the Sanhedrin. He was held in such high honor that he was designated "Rabban" ("our teacher"), a higher title than "Rabbi" ("my teacher").

The Mishnah (Sota ix.15) says, 'Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died there has been no more reverence for the Law, and purity and abstinence died out at the same time.' (p. 451)

Gamaliel receives a fair-sized mention in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 ed., v. 5, 101):

. . . one of a select group of Palestinian masters of the Jewish Oral Law . . . According to tradition - but not historic fact - Gamaliel succeeded his father, Simon, and his grandfather, the renowned sage Hillel (to whose school of thought he belonged) as nasi (president) of the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court. It is certain, though, that Gamaliel held a leading position in the Sanhedrin and that he enjoyed the highest repute as teacher of the Law; he was the first to be given the title rabban. Like his grandfather, Gamaliel was also given the title 'ha-Zaqen' (the Elder) . . .

. . . (Acts 22:3) tells how St. Paul, in a speech to the Jews, tried to influence them by stating that he had been a student of Gamaliel . . .

Now, if studying under this man did not give Paul smicha, on what basis would you hold that opinion? Gamaliel himself did not rule out the possibility that Christians might be following God (and by extension, be legitimate Jews), for he referred to Peter and other apostles as follows (Acts 5:38-39):

'. . . keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!'

Therefore, the fact of Paul's conversion to Christianity would not disqualify him from being a rabbi, according (by logical deduction) to his own rabbi, the eminent Gamaliel.

Furthermore, we have record of Jesus being called "rabbi" by Pharisees:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi [Greek, "rhabbi"], we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.' (John 3:1-2)

Nicodemus appears to have been a member of the Sanhedrin, so one of that number (which you acknowledge as the supreme and binding authority for Jews) is recorded as calling Jesus a "rabbi," whereas you deny that he was one at all.

Furthermore, did not the prophets possess smicha, whether or not they were commissioned by other men (rabbis)? Likewise, John the Baptist seems to have been commissioned by God. Jesus alludes to this commission from heaven in a dispute with scribes and elders who asked Him where He got His authority (Luke 20:1-8)

Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition, as argued by Asher Finkel in his book The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1964). He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:4). This author argues that Jesus' condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel.

The Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: 1971) backs up this contention, in its entry "Jesus" (v. 10, 10):

In general, Jesus' polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources.

This source contends that Jesus' beliefs and way of life were closer to the Pharisees than to the Essenes, though He was similar to them in many respects also (poverty, humility, purity of heart, simplicity, etc.).

Jeremiah was commissioned and called directly by God; he didn't need a rabbi to give him legitimacy (Jeremiah 1:4-10). Likewise, with Isaiah (Isaiah 6), Hosea, Joel, Amos, and so forth. So we maintain that Jesus could have legitimate authority on the same basis (and much more, of course).

I am quite aware that Paul claimed to be a student of Rabban Gamaliel; and I have no questions at all about Gamaliel's qualifications, based on the esteem in which he was held by his peers. I also know that Paul claimed to be a Pharisee. None of these mean smicha.

Set against these, we have to consider Paul misquoting the Prophets (if he did not do it deliberately but was merely using a Greek translation, it indicates that he was not reading the original Hebrew, as any true student of Gamaliel would have done). We have to consider his relationship with the High Priest, a Sadducee whom the Pharisees considered a Roman collaborator. We have to consider his assertion that the law is a curse and preference for celibacy, both of which are anything but normative Judaism.

In short, there is more reason to believe that he was not a disciple of Gamaliel than to believe that he was.

Now, he did not claim to be a disciple of Gamaliel, merely a student. That could mean that he simply attended some lectures by the learned rabbi. But studying for smicha is a fairly involved and intensive process, and not even every disciple of a rabbi achieves it. It might help to think of it as a graduate degree.

I am aware that the NT shows people calling Jesus "rabbi." That does not prove smicha either. We tend to use the term for men who teach Jewish subjects even if they do not have smicha, and are not qualified to interpret halacha.

As for the prophets, what makes you think that they did not have smicha? I don't remember the exact line of teacher-to-student, but the provenance of their learning and authority is known. It is they who were the conduits for the oral tradition between the period of the judges and the period of the Great Assembly. Jeremiah, for example, was a priest, as were a number of the others.

As for Gamaliel's comment about leaving the Nazarenes alone, assuming that he actually made it, we would have to examine the context - when did he say it, whom did he mean, and what had they already said? It is far from a blanket endorsement of anything Paul might choose to say!

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 14 September 2001, from public Internet discussions.

Ancient and Medieval Jewish Bible Commentators and the Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53

Rembrandt's painting of a rabbi

Isaiah 52:13 - Isaiah 53 (RSV)

13 Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
14 As many were astonished at him--his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the sons of men--
15 so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which
has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall
understand.
1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been
revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no
form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as
one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten
by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was
the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD
has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led
to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had
done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself
an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD
shall prosper in his hand;
11 he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the
righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their
iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

From: Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869; an orthodox Lutheran and eminent theologian)

Translated by T. Meyer, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 4 vols., 1854-1858)

There cannot be any doubt that the messianic interpretation was pretty generally received in earlier times by the Jews. This is admitted even by those later interpreters who pervert the prophecy, e.g., Ibn-ezra, Jarchi [Rashi], Abravanel and Nahmanides.

The whole translation of the Chaldean Paraphrast, Jonathan, refers to prophecy to Messiah. He paraphrases the very first clause: "behold, My Servant Messiah shall prosper." The Midrash Tanchuma states: "This is the King Messiah who is high and lifted up, and very exalted, more exalted than Abraham, elevated above Moses, higher than the ministering angels."

There is a remarkable passage in the very old book Pesikta, cited in the treatise Abkath Rokhel, and reprinted in Hulsii Theologia Judaica, where this passage occurs, p. 309:

"When God created the world, He stretched out His hand under the throne of His glory, and brought forth the soul of the Messiah. He said to him: 'Will you heal and redeem My sons after 6000 years?' He answered him, 'I will.' Then God said to him: 'Will you then also bear the punishment in order to blot out their sins, as it is written, "But he bore our diseases" ' (53:4). And he answered Him; 'I will joyfully bear them.' " (cf. Zohar, 2:212a)

Rabbi Moses Haddarshan states: "Immediately the Messiah, out of love, took upon himself all those plagues and sufferings, as it is written in Isaiah 53, 'He was abused and oppressed.' " In the Rabboth, a commentary, 53:5 is quoted, and referred to the sufferings of the Messiah. In the Midrash Tillim, an allegorical commentary on the Psalms, printed at Venice in 1546, it is said at Psalms 2:7: "The things of King Messiah are announced in the prophets, e.g., in the passage Is 52:13 and 42:1, in the Hagiographa, e.g., Ps 60 and Dan 7:13."

Rabbi Alschech, in Hulsii Theologia Judaica, pp. 321 ff., comments:

Upon the testimony of tradition, our old rabbis have unanimously admitted that king Messiah is here the subject of discourse. We, in harmony with them, conclude that king David, i.e., the Messiah, must be considered as the subject of this prophecy - a view which is indeed quite obvious.

Comparatively few Jews (i.e., those who didn't take the "servant-as-Israel" view) believed that the passage referred to a person other than the Messiah. The kabbalistic Jews still largely held to the messianic interpretation of the passage.

-------------------------------------------------

From: The Messiah Texts, Raphael Patai, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979 [Jewish]

Here are Raphael Patai's credentials, from Gates to the Old City: A Book of Jewish Legends (NY: Avon Books, 1980):

Noted anthropologist, Biblical scholar, and author of 26 books (as of 1980). He taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and served as professor of anthropology at Dropsie University and at Fairleigh Dickinson University, and as visiting professor at the Univ. of Pennsylvania and at Princeton, Columbia, Ohio State, and New York Universities.

Concerning the suffering servant of Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 52, 53, Patai writes:

"The Aggada, the Talmudic legend, unhesitatingly identifies him with the Messiah, and understands especially the descriptions of his sufferings as referring to Messiah ben Joseph."

Patai considers Daniel 9:24-27 messianic, including the death of the Messiah:

"It is quite probable that the concept of the suffering Messiah, fully developed in the Talmud, theMidrash, and the Zohar, has its origin in the biblical prophecies about the suffering servant."

Patai also lists Isaiah 9:6-7, 11:1-12, Daniel 7:13-14, and Zech 9:9-10 as messianic passages.

"R. Shim'on ben Jaqish explained: 'And the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water' (Gen1:2) - this is the spirit of King Messiah, as it is written, 'And the spirit of the Lord will rest upon him.' (Is 11:2)." (Gen Rab. 2:4)

"You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King Messiah was born." (Pes. Rab. ed.Friedmann, p.152b)

Some rabbis named the Messiah, "The Leprous of the House of Study," based on Isaiah 53:4 (B. Sanhedrin 98b).

"The Holy One began to tell him (the Messiah) the conditions (of his mission), and said to him, 'Their sins will force you into an iron yoke, and they will render you like unto this calf whose eyes have grown dim, and they will choke your spirit with the yoke, and because of their sins your tongue will cleave to the roof of your mouth. Do you accept this?' He said, 'with gladness I accept it, so that not a single one of Israel should perish, even the dead who have died from the days of Adam until now. This is what I want.' " (Pes. Rab. pp. 161a-b)

"(When) the Son of David comes they will bring iron beams and put them upon his neck until his body bends and he cries and weeps, and he says: 'How much can my strength suffer? How much my spirit and soul? And how much my limbs? Am I not but flesh and blood?'" (Pes. Rab. 162a)

"You have suffered because of the sins of our children, and cruel punishments have come upon you . . . you were put to ridicule and held in contempt by the nations of the world because of Israel . . . All this because of the sins of our children . . . great sufferings have come upon you on their account. And (God) says to him, 'Be you the judge over these peoples, and do to them whatever your soul wishes . . . all of them will die from the breath of your lips.' " (Pes. Rab. ch. 36)

"Elijah . . . says to him: 'Endure the sufferings and the sentence of your Master who makes you suffer because of the sin of Israel.' And thus it is written: 'He was wounded because of our transgressions.' . . . (Is 53:5) - until the time when the end comes." (Mid. Konen, BhM, 2:29)

"As long as Israel dwelt in the Holy Land, the rituals and sacrifices removed all those diseases from the world; now the Messiah removes them from the children of the world." (Zohar 2:212a)

Patai: "When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as the Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two . . . "

The development of the two-Messiah doctrine also had to do with a messianic parallel to Moses,
who died before entering the Promised Land.

Referring to Zech 12:10-12, "R. Dosa says: '(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain.' "
(B. Suk. 52a; also Y. Suk. 55b)

"A man shall arise from my seed; like unto the sun of righteousness, walking with the sons of man in meekness, and no sin shall be found in him. And he shall pour upon you the spirit of grace, and you shall walk in his commandments . . . a rod of righteousness to the nations, to judge and save all that call upon the Lord." (Testament of Judah, 24)

-------------------------------------------------

From: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1883), by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889; convert from Judaism to Anglicanism)

Edersheim studied intensively the doctrines, practices, and conditions of Judaism in the centuries preceding and following the beginning of the Christian era.

LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN ANCIENT RABBINIC
WRITINGS (Vol. i. Book II. ch. v.)

The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to
Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings . . . The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are: the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and the most ancient
Midrashim, but neither the Zohar (as the date of its composition is in dispute), nor any other
Kabbalistic work, nor yet the younger Midrashim, nor, of course, the writings of later Rabbis. I
have, however, frequently quoted from the well-known work Yalkut, because, although of
comparatively late date, it is really, as its name implies, a collection and selection from more than
fifty older and accredited writings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us. AndI have the more readily availed myself of it, as I have been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that even the Midrashim preserved to us have occassionally been tampered with for controversial purposes . . .

Is. lii. 3 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 97 b), while the last clause of verse 2 is one
of the passages quoted in the Midrash on Lamentations (see Is. xi. 12).The well-known Evangelic declaration in Is. lii. 7 is thus commented upon in Yalkut (vol. ii. p. 53 c):

In the hour when the Holy One, blessed be His Name, redeems Israel, three days before Messiah comes Elijah, and stands upon the mountains of Israel, and weeps and mourns for them, and says to them: Behold the land of Israel, how long shall you stand in a dry and desolate land? And his voice is heard from the world's end to the world's end, and after that it is said to them: Peace has come to the world, peace has come to the world, as it is said: How beautiful upon the mountains, &c. And when the wicked hear it, they rejoice,and they say one to the other: Peace has come to us.
On the second day he shall stand upon the mountains of Israel, and shall say: Good has come to the world, good has come to the world, as it is written: That bringeth good tidings of good. On the third day he shall come and stand upon the mountains of Israel, and say: Salvation has come to the world, salvation has come to the world, as it is written: That publisheth salvation.

Similarly, this passage is quoted in Yalkut on Ps. cxxi. 1. See also our remarks on Cant. ii. 13.

Verse 8 is one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations quoted above, and
frequently in other places as Messianic.

Verse 12 is Messianically applied in Shemoth R. 15 and 19.

Verse 13 is applied in the Targum expressly to the Messiah. On the words 'He shall be exalted and
extolled' we read in Yalkut ii. (Par. 338, p. 53 c, lines 7 &c. from the bottom): He shall be higher than Abraham, to whom applies Gen. xiv. 22; higher than Moses, of whom Num. xi. 12 is predicated;
higher than the ministering angels, of whom Ezek. i. 18 is said. But to Him there applies this in Zech.iv. 7: 'Who art thou, O great mountain?' 'And He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed.' R. Huma says, in the name of R. Acha: All sufferings are divided into three parts; one part goes to David and the Patriarchs, another to the generation of the rebellion (rebellious Israel), and the third to the King Messiah, as it is written (Ps. ii. 7), 'Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion.' Then follows a curious quotation from the Midrash on Samuel, in which the Messiah indicates that His dwelling is on Mount Zion, and that guilt is connected with the destruction of its walls.

In regard to Is. liii. we remember, that the Messianic name of 'Leprous' (Sanh. 98 b) is expressly
based upon it. Is. liii. 10 is applied in the Targum on the passage to the Kingdom of the Messiah.
Verse 5 is Messianically interpreted in the Midrash on Samuel (ed. Lemberg, p. 45 a, last line),
where it is said that all sufferings are divided into three parts, one of which the Messiah bore - a
remark which is brought into connection with Ruth ii. 14. (See our comments on that passage.)

-------------------------------------------------

Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53

From: http://www.yashanet.com/library/nterpret.htm

"Friends of the Court"

The Targum

Behold, My Servant the Messiah shall prosper.

-- Targum ("Targum Jonathan") to Isaiah 52:13, various editions (such as Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974, p. 63).

In the early cycle of synagogue readings:

We know that messianic homilies based on Joseph's career (his saving role
preceded by suffering), and using Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, were
preached in certain old synagogues which used the triennial cycle...

-- Rav Asher Soloff, The Fifty Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Commentators, to the Sixteenth Century (Ph.D. Thesis, Drew University, 1967), p. 146.

The addition of 53.4-5 [to the cycle of synagogue readings] was evidently of a
Messianic purport by reason of the theory of a suffering Messiah. The earlier part
of [the Haftarah] (52.7ff.) dealt with the redemption of Israel, and in this
connection the tribulations of the Messiah were briefly alluded to by the recital of
the above 2 verses.

-- Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (NY: Ktav, 1971, © 1940), p. 298.

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b

The Rabbis said: His name is "the leper scholar," as it is written, Surely he hath
borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten
of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].

-- Soncino Talmud edition.

Ruth Rabbah 5:6

The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. Come hither:
approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD refers to the bread of royalty;
AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is
said, But he was wounded because of our
transgressions. (Isa. LIII, 5).

-- Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 8, p. 64).

The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)

As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to
the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the
time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking
of his being seated in a position of eat honour, and then goes back to relate all that
will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things:
In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour
after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as
a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst
remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one..

-- S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, editors, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the
Jewish Interpreters (2 volumes; New York: Ktav, 1969), pp. 19-20. The English translations used here are taken from volume 2. The original texts are in volume 1. Cf. Soloff, pp. 107-09.

Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:

By the words "surely he hath carried our sicknesses," they mean that the pains and
sickness which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. . .
. And here I think it necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain
why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the
sake of Israel. . . . The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that
which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it. . . God
appoints his servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in
order that Israel might not be completely exterminated.

-- Driver and Neubauer, pp. 23 ff.; Soloff pp. 108-109.

Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:

"And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all." The prophet does not by avon
mean iniquity, but punishment for iniquity, as in the passage, "Be sure your sin will
find you out" (Num. xxxii. 23).

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 26; Soloff p. 109.

Mysteries of R. Shim'on ben Yohai (midrash, date uncertain)

And Armilaus will join battle with Messiah, the son of Ephraim, in the East gate . .
.; and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him.
And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David,
whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, Thou speakest falsely; already is the
Messiah slain, and there is non other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they
will despise him, as it is written, "Despised and forlorn of men;" but he will turn
and hide himself from them, according to the words, "Like one hiding his face from
us."

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 32, citing the edition of Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash (1855), part iii. p. 80.

Lekach Tov (11th c. midrash)

"And let his [Israel's] kingdom be exalted," in the days of the Messiah, of whom it
is said, "Behold my servant shall prosper; he will be high and exalted, and lofty
exceedingly."

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 36.

Maimonides, Letter to Yemen (12th c.)

What is to be the manner of Messiah's advent, and where will be the place of his
appearance? . . . And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear,
without his father or mother of family being known, He came up as a sucker
before him, and as a root out of the dry earth, etc. But the unique phenomenon
attending his manifestation is, that all the kings of the earth will be thrown into
terror at the fame of him -- their kingdoms will be in consternation, and they
themselves will be devising whether to oppose him with arms, or to adopt some
different course, confessing, in fact, their inability to contend with him or ignore his
presence, and so confounded at the wonders which they will see him work, that
they will lay their hands upon their mouth; in the words of Isaiah, when describing
the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their
mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they
had not heard they have perceived.

-- Driver and Neubauer vol 1: p. 322. Edition is Abraham S. Halkin, ed., Igeret Teman (NY: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952). See Soloff pp. 127-128.

Zohar II, 212a (medieval)

There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of
Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every
chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus
lightened them upon Himself, there had been no
man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgressions of the law; as it is
written, "Surely our sicknesses he has carried."

-- Cited in Driver and Neubauer, pp. 14-15 from section "va-yiqqahel". Translation from Frydland, Rachmiel, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah (Cincinnati: Messianic Literature Outreach, 1991), p. 56, n. 27. Note that this section is not found in the Soncino edition which says that it was an interpolation.

Nachmanides (R. Moshe ben Nachman) (13th c.)

The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase "my
servant" the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is
adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to
explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The
Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or
perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly. . . .

And by his stripes we were healed -- because the stripes by which he is vexed
and distressed will heal us; God will pardon us for his righteousness, and we shall
be healed both from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.

-- Driver and Neubauer, pp. 78 ff.

Yalkut ii: 571 (13th c.)

Who art thou, O great mountain (Zech. iv. 7.) This refers to the King Messiah. nd
why does he call him "the great mountain?" Because he is greater than the
patriarchs, as it is said, "My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty
exceedingly" -- he will be higher than Abraham,... lifted up above Moses, . . .
loftier than the ministering angels.

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 9.

The same passage is found in Midrash Tanhuma to Genesis (perhaps 9th c.), ed. John T.
Townsend (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), p. 166.

Yalkut ii. 620 (13th c.), in regard to Psalm 2:6

I.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. . . .The chastisements are divided
into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and
one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, "He was wounded for
our transgressions," et.

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 10.

R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin (14th c.)

This Parashah the commentators agree in explaining of the Captivity of Israel,
although the singular number is used in it throughout. . . .As there is no cause
constraining us to do so, why should we here interpret the word collectively, and
thereby distort the passage from its natural sense?. . . As then it seemed to me that
the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and
that "they wearied themselves to find the entrance," having forsaken the
knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the "stubbornness of their own
hearts," and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with
the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am
able, to adhere to the literal sense.

-- Driver and Neubauer, pp. 99-100.

Another comment from R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin

If his soul makes itself into a trespass-offering, implying that his soul will
treat itself as guilty, and so receive punishment for our trespasses and
transgressions.

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 112.

R. Sh'lomoh Astruc (14th c.)

My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is
really man -- it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls
the King Messiah my servant, speaking as one whosent him. Or he may call the
whole people my servant, as he says above my people (lii. 6): when he speaks of
the people, the King Messiah is included in it; and when he speaks of the King
Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then is, that my
servant the King Messiah will prosper.

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 129.

R. Elijah de Vidas (16th c.)

Since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of His being
bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our
iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 331.

Rabbi Moshe Alshekh (El-Sheikh) of Sefad (16th c.)

I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion
that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves also adhere to
the same view.

- Driver and Neubauer, p. 258.

Herz Homberg (18th-19th c.)

The fact is, that it refers to the King Messiah, who will come in the latter days,
when it will be the Lord's good pleasure to redeem Israel from among the different
nations of the earth.....Whatever he underwent was in consequence of their own
transgression, the Lord having chosen him to be a trespass-offering, like the
scape-goat which bore all the iniquities of the house of Israel.

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 400-401.

The musaf (additional) service for the Day of Atonement, Philips machzor (20th c.)

Our righteous anointed is departed from us: horror hath seized us, and we have
none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgression,
and is wounded because of our transgression. He beareth our sins on his shoulder,
that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the
time that the Eternal will create him (the Messiah) as a new creature. O bring him
up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up from Seir, to assemble us the second
time on Mount Lebanon, by the hand of Yinnon.

-- A. Th. Philips, Machzor Leyom Kippur / Prayer Book for the Day of Atonement with English Translation; Revised and Enlarged Edition (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1931), p. 239. The passage can also be found in, e.g., the 1937 edition. Also, Driver and Neubauer, p. 399.

-------------------------------------------------

Medieval Jewish Messianic Exegesis of Isaiah 53: Espousals & "Hostile" Acknowledgements (including Maimonides, Abravanel, Alshech, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Crispin, Liturgies)

From: http://www.messianicgoodnews.org/articles/RecogniseTheMessiah1.htm

Maimonides on Isaiah 53

Maimonides (writes to Jacob Alfajumi): It is said about Him (the
Messiah), �And his delight will be in the fear of the Lord� (Isaiah 11:3).

He grew 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 see him,
there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Isaiah 53:2 (Comp. Isaiah 52:14)

(again to Rabbi Jacob Alfajumi):

And likewise said Isaiah that He (the Messiah) would appear without acknowledging
a father or mother: �He grew up before him as a tender plant and as a
root out of a dry ground etc.� (Comp. Luke 2:46-49; Matthew 12:46-50.)

He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrow and
acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he
was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isaiah 53:3 (Comp. note as Pesiqta; Isaiah 49:7a.)

Zohar (Part II, fol. 212a and Part III, fol. 218a, Amsterdam edition):

When Israel was in the Holy Land, they had their sufferings and
afflictions removed from them by their prayers and sacrifices; but now
the Messiah removes them from the children of the world. When the
Holy One, blessed be He, wishes the recovery of the children of the
world, He afflicts one righteous person from their midst, and for His
sake all are healed. How is this known? It is written, �He was
wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities . .
and with his stripes we are healed� (Isaiah 53:5).

-------------------------------------------------

THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH: THE SUFFERINGS OF THE MESSIAH AND THE GLORY THAT SHOULD FOLLOW

AN EXPOSITION OF ISAIAH 53

BY DAVID BARON (Hebrew-Christian scholar)

THE ANCIENT JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 53 (excerpts)

(available online at: http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/Baron.rtf)

That the generally received older Jewish interpretation of this prophecy was the Messianic is admitted by Abrabanel, who himself proceeds in a long polemic against the Nazarenes to interpret it of the Jewish nation. He begins, �The first question is to ascertain to whom (this scripture) refers, for the learned men among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple, and who according to them was the Son of God and took flesh in the virgin�s womb, as is stated in their writings. Jonathan ben Uziel interprets it in the Targum of the future Messiah; and this is also the opinion of our learned men in the majority of their Midrashim.�

Similarly another, Rabbi Mosheh el Sheikh, commonly known as Alshech (latter half of the sixteenth century), who also himself follows the older interpretation, at any rate of the first three verses (52:13-15, which, however, as we shall see, contain a summary of the whole prophecy), testifies "that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah."

In fact, until Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Yizchaki, 1040-1105) applied it to the Jewish nation, the Messianic interpretation of this chapter was almost universally adopted by Jews, and his view, which we shall examine presently, although recieved by Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and others, was rejected as unsatisfactory by many others, one of whom (R. Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin, of Cordova, and afterwards Toledo, fourteenth century, who says rightly, of those who for controversial reasons applied this prophecy to Israel, that �the doors of literal interpretation of this chapter were shut in their face, and that they wearied themselves to find the entrance, having forsaken the knowledge of our teachers, and inclined after the stubborness of their own hearts and of their own opinions.� According to Ibn Crispin, the interpretation adopted by Rashi �distorts the passage from its natural meaning�, and that in truth �it was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not.�

Another (R. Eliyya de Vidas, c. 1575), says �The meaning of �He was wounded for our transgressions. . . bruised for our iniquities�, is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of him being bruised, it follows that whoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer them for himself.�

Before proceeding to an examination of the modern Jewish iterpretation of this chapter, let me add two further striking testimonies to its more ancient Messianic interpretation--taken this time, not from any Targum, or Midrash, or Rabbinical Commentary, which might be said to express the individual opinion of this or that Rabbi, but from the Jewish liturgy, which may be said to bear upon it the seal of the authority and usage of the whole synagogue.

The first is taken from the liturgy for the Day of Atonement--the most solemn day of the Jewish year--and reads as follows: "We are shrunk up in our misery even until now! Our Rock has not come nigh to us; Messiah our righteousness (or, "our righteous Messiah") has departed from us. Horror has seized upon us, and we have none to justify us. He has borne the yoke of our iniquities and transgressions, and is wounded because of our transgression. He bears our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound at the time the Eternal will create him (Messiah) as a new creature. O bring him up from the circle of the earth, raise him up from Seir to assemble us the second time on Mount Lebanon, by the hand of Yinnon." (This forms part of the Musaph service for the Day of Atonement. The author, according to Zunz, was Eleazer ben Kalir, who lived in the ninth century. Yinnon, as will be seen, was one of the names given by the Rabbis to the Messiah, and is derived from Psalm 72:17, which the Talmud renders, "Before the sun was, his name. . ." a rendering and expression which implies a belief in the pre-existence of at least the name of the Messiah, and perhaps of the Messiah himself.)

The other passage is also from the Machsor (Liturgy for the Festival Services), and will be found among the prayers on the Feast of Passover. It is as follows: "Flee, my beloved, until the end of the vision shall speak; hasten, and the shadows shall take their flight hence; high and exalted and lofty shall be the despised one; he shall be prudent in judgement, and shall sprinkle many! Lay bare thine arm! Cry out and say, 'The voice of my beloved; behold he cometh!'" (David Levy, the English translator of the Machsor, says in a note that this verse referred to �the true Messiah�.)

. . . Rashi, at an earlier period of his life--when he wrote his Commentary on the Talmud--actually followed the older interpretation, which applied Isaiah 53 to the Messiah, but he very probably wrote his Commentary on the bible (in which the new interpretation is first introduced) after the second Crusade, when the hideous massacres of Jews in Spire, Worms, Mainz, Cologne by the wild profligate swarm which gathered, after the first Crusaders were gone, might well have occasioned it.

-------------------------------------------------

The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (1876)

by S.R. Driver and Ad. Neubauer

(available online in abridged form at: http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/Fifty3.rtf)

Driver and Neubauer's The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters
was intended to be a complete collection of everything said about this passage in Jewish
classical literature. First published in 1876, it included an introduction by E.B. Pusey, Regius
Professor of Hebrew at Oxford for nearly 50 years, discussing various objections to
interpreting the passage of the messiah. The material here has been vastly abridged; but it
includes a cross-section of views, including some who think the passage refers to Hezekiah,
or Isaiah, or to the nation of Israel as a whole. But a surprising number of commentators favor
an interpretation which sees in the passage references to a messiah who suffers for the sins
of his own generation and of Israel.

Excerpts:

Benjamin of Nehawend, a philosophic Karaite of much reputation (c. 800 A.D.), still believed that Isaiah 53 referred to the messiah (according to Yepheth ben Ali). "Many," Ibn Ezra says, in the middle of the twelfth century, "explained it as being of the messiah", on the authority of a traditional saying of the rabbis.

A few, however, still continued to explain the whole of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as referring to the messiah. But these were met by the great paradox: How can the same one both be put to death and yet also prolong his days and reign? Hence Moses ben Nachman supposed only a readiness to die. Ibn Crispin, only a nearness to death. Some rabbis explained the last verse of Moses, although (as Moses Elsheikh hints) they thereby had a difficulty in connecting it with what preceded. Moses Elsheikh himself followed the "unanimous opinion of the rabbis" that the section referred to the messiah; but so great was the difficulty of admitting the death of the messiah, that he also interpreted all the verses which spoke of death as referring to Moses.

From this difficulty, however, they could be freed as soon as they could satisfy themselves that the prophecy might refer to any group of men, some of whom had died, or even of any one man, except Jesus. The expected exhalation of the figure could be relegated to the future. And out of the many explanations suggested, it was only natural that the one most flattering to national feeling was extensively adopted. It might have in effect become universal, except for its unsatisfactoriness.

This new interpretation, emphasizing Israel's suffering, began with Rashi. Rashi's authority is put forward by some who followed him, with Ibn Ezra, J. and D. Kimchi, who were later than he; but no one before him. His great Talmudical studies, which seem to have been his earliest occupation, did not suggest it. On the contrary, in his notes on the Talmud he followed the older tradition. In the graphic story in which Joshua ben Levi is reported to have made diverse inquiries of Elisha and Shimon ben Yohai as to the coming of the messiah, and was told that he would find the messiah sitting at the gates of Rome among the poor who bare sicknesses, Rashi explains the words "bearers of sicknesses" by reference to this section of Isaiah. "' Bearers of sicknesses', in other words, stricken; and he too is stricken, as it is written, 'And he was wounded for our iniquities,' and it is written, 'And our sicknesses he bare'."

But if Rashi's later commentary was written after 1096 A.D.--after the hideous massacre of Jews in Spire, Worms, Maintz, and Cologne, by the wild swarm which gathered in the wake of the first Crusaders--then these deeds may have been the cause for his change of mind. Before then, according to Gratz (who is careful in noting any disparity of condition between them and any people among whom they sojourned), Jews "were neither in a condition of oppression nor contempt, nor were shut out from holding property". Afterwards, though, according to Milman ("History of the Jews"), scenes were far too common in which the Jews suffered as innocent victims.

Rashi's interpretation that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 referred to Israel as a nation, with stress on her suffering (instead of her dispersion) was accepted by most subsequent commentators. But it would have been a strange exception to the language of the prophets, and of Isaiah himself, who upbraids his people for their wickedness, their neglect of God, their dullness and blindness, hypocrisy, idolatries and disobedience, and who tells them, "Your iniquities have separated you and your God"--it would have been a strange contradiction had he, in the midst of this, described them as God's righteous servant, who should bear the sins of the world. And that we, the gentiles, when converted, after the arrival of the messiah, should admit that they suffered in our stead, the just for the unjust, and atoned for us.

Abraham Farissoll apologizes for those who interpreted it of the messiah. "Whatever justice there may be in the expressions of our sages, who applied the prophecy to the messiah [note, therefore, that some sages did in fact apply this passage to the messiah], it should be borne in mind that although they themselves and their words are both truthful, yet their object was [only] allegorical."

Moses Elsheikh says, "The verses in the chapter are difficult to fix or arrange in a literal manner, so that the various parts, from the beginning to the end, may be combined and connected closely together.I see commentators going up and down among them, and yet neither agreeing on the subject to which the whole is to be referred, nor disentangling the words with any simple plan." He himself then plans, in "all humility", to set himself to "apply to it a straightforward method, according to the literal sense of the text, such as should be adopted by one who would rightly unite the several words and periods, and determine what view is legitimate, and what not." He then interprets it of the Messiah; yet, when he comes to verses 9-12, all of which speak of the death, he says, "These verses are all of them hard, though we shall not touch on everything which might be noticed."

Shlomo Levi says, "Throughout this prophecy, all the commentators exert their utmost on its interpretation, and are at no small variance as to its import." Even in later times, R. Napthali Altschuler expresses his surprise that "Rashi and David Kimchi have not, with the Targum, applied them to the Messiah likewise."

Passani expresses his surprise at former commentators, and says, "Not one of the explanations is in complete accord with the language of the text, or succeeds in satisfying us--still less the [Christians]." He thinks that, like all other prophecies, most of Isaiah's also point to the latter days, when the Messiah shall have appeared, but exhorts caution how it should be interpreted. "Take heed, O wise man, in your words, even though the language be meant to be metaphorical and indirect."

Rabbi Tanchum seems to be carefully ambiguous. He uses the phrase, "any person or nation", but speaks of the subject as being "one of the generation in exile", who had died, yet "a guide and a deliverer", who "rescues them from captivity and their enemies generally", and speaks of "his hidden nature, the mystery connected with him not being revealed to them." He concludes with a protest against there being anything allegorical, and seems to think that the intention of the prophet was, not to be understood.

Ibn Amran says, "As relates to the Jews, there is no little difficulty in giving a sense to these most obscure words of Isaiah at the present; they manifestly need a prophetic spirit; thus our older and more abstruse masters went apart from one another to different explanations. But," he satisfies himself, "each very far removed from the exposition of the Christians."

Mosheh El-Sheikh ("Alshech")

I may remark, then, that our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view; for the Messiah is of course David, who, as is well known, was "anointed", and there is a verse in which the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, says expressly, "My servant David shall be king over them" (Ezekiel 37:24). The expression My servant, therefore, can justly be referred to David; for from what is explicit in one place we can discover what is hidden or obscure in another.

God declares in these verses how far the merits of those who suffer for the sins of their own age extend their effects, adducing a proof from the case of the Messiah who bore the iniquities of the children of Israel, "and behold his reward is with him" The Almighty argues with Israel, saying, ". . . look and learn how great is the power of the man who suffers for a whole generation; you shall see then from the exaltation which I shall confer upon the King Messiah how vast are the benefits of the chastisements of love to him that endures them."

Our rabbis further say, "He shall be higher than Abraham . . . lifted up above Moses. . . and loftier than the ministering angels." As Moses ruled even in the world of the stars--for the rabbis say that for this reason the hail, the locusts, and the grasshoppers were sent through his instrumentality--so, even more fully, will the Messiah hold sway over these likewise. This does not imply that he will be superior to Moses in wisdom or in prophecy, nor again, that at the time alluded to Moses will not in every respect be the greater (indeed anything different from this will not be credited by those who have real knowledge), but only that he will be more exalted than Moses was previously, in his own lifetime.

And he is to be loftier than the angels, according to the text (Ezek. 1:18), for these had "loftiness and fear", i.e., in spite of their high position, they still stood in awe of the Almighty, not venturing, like the righteous one who "played before him, as a son before his father", to make request of their Creator.

I maintain that up to this point we have had the words of God announcing the greatness of the Messiah in return for his sufferings.

Here, however, the prophet seems to set before us the words of Israel endorsing the Divine declaration, and affirming in their own persons its entire truth. "The 'tried saying of the Lord' " , they exclaim, "which He has made known to us concerning the King Messiah, has opened our ears and removed the blindness of our eyes; we beheld a man, just and perfect, bruised and degraded by suffering, despised in our eyes, and plundered verily before God and man, while all cried, 'God has forsaken him!' ; he must surely, therefore, we thought, be 'despised' likewise in the eyes of the Almighty, and this is why He has made him 'an offscouring and refuse' (Lam. 3:45). But now the Lord has awakened our ear, and taught us that the chastisements of love are infinitely great; henceforth, then, will 'his strength be magnified', when we see him just, and humble in spirit, stricken, and smitten; for them we shall all agree in concluding that what we had seen before meant nothing except that he was carrying our sicknesses; and that his sufferings were for the protection of his generation."

Such is the substance of what the prophet puts into the people's mouth. And first of all they say, "He came up as a tender shoot", etc. ; i.e., we see one who was as tender shoot with water for it to absorb, and growing great and tall; he was like this, however, only in the upper world; for though this just and perfect sufferer flourished and grew great before God in the upper world, yet in the earth which we see below, he was as a root coming forth out of the dry earth, where there was no water for him. Being lowly, therefore, in the sight of our eyes, he was without form and comeliness in the world; his form was "darkened" by the blackness of his sufferings (cf Lam. 4:8), and "his own leanness bore witness in his face"; neither had he any beauty that we could desire him on account of his righteousness, but, on the contrary, he was rejected in our eyes.

YEPHETH BEN ALI

Isaiah 52:13 The commentators differ concerning this section. The Fayyumi [Sa'adyah Gaon of Fayyum] lost his senses in applying it to the prophets generally, or, according to some authorities, in supposing that it referred to Jeremiah. Some of the learned Karaites apply the prophecy to the pious of their own sect. Others think that the subject of it is David and the Messiah, saying that all the expressions of contempt, such as "many were desolated at you", refer to the seed of David who are in exile; and all the glorious things refer to the Messiah. As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne. The expression "My servant" is applied to the Messiah as it is applied to his ancestor in the verse, "I have sworn to David My servant" (Psalm 89:4).

Inasmuch as now at the end of the captivity there will be no prophet to intercede at the time of distress, the time of the Lord's anger and of his fury, God appoints His Servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated. Thus, from the words, "he was wounded for our transgressions", we learn two things: first, that Israel had committed many sins and transgressions, for which they deserved the indignation of God; and second, that by the Messiah bearing them they would be delivered from the wrath which rested upon them, and be enabled to endure it, as it is said, "And by associating with him we are healed."

The expression "smitten of God" signifies that these sicknesses attacked him by the will of God; they did not arise from natural causes. And the word "afflicted" corresponds to "despised" in verse 3, the meaning being that he was afflicted with poverty.

Verse 6 exhibits Israel's wickedness in not awaking to repentance after God had punished them with his plagues. They are compared in this respect to sheep without a shepherd, wandering from the way, and torn by wild beasts, going astray among the mountains without any to lead them back,. In like manner Israel in captivity has no one to call him, and lead him back to the right way, and if a guide rises up to them, desiring to bring them back, they hasten to kill him, and so cause their captivity to be prolonged. By the words "we have turned every one to his own way", they mean that each is occupied with the necessities of life and with establishing his fortune. And while God looks upon their work, and they do not think of their sicknesses, their guilt is thrown upon this guide, as it is said, "And the Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all." The prophet does not mean literally "the iniquity", but rather the punishment for this iniquity.

Verse 9 says, "And he made his grave with the wicked." This means that he sometimes despaired so much of his life as either to dig for himself a grave among the wicked (i.e., the wicked Israelites), or at least desire to be buried among them. The general sense is that he resigned himself to die in exile.

It was said, "The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all", and the prophet repeats the same thought here, saying that God was pleased to bruise and sicken him, though not in consequence of sin. The prophet next says, "When his soul makes a trespass offering", indicating thereby that his soul was compelled to take Israel's guilt upon itself, as it is said, "And he bore the sin of many".

DON YITZCHAK ABARBANEL

The first question is to ascertain to whom [this passage] refers; for the learned among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple, and who, according to them, was the Son of God, and took flesh in the virgin's womb, as stated in their writings. But Yonathan ben Uzziel interprets it in the Targum of the future messiah; and this is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their midrashim, although one of the verses (verse 12) is referred to Moses our master.

In the same way I see in the exposition of Rabbi Mosheh ben Nachman that he explains the prophecy [as being about] the King Messiah. The Gaon Rabbi Sa'adyah, however, interprets it entirely of Jeremiah. And Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, and also Rabbi Menachem [ben Shlomoh] Meiri speaks of this interpretation as "excellent", though what may be the goodness or excellence that they see in it, I do not understand.

Rashi, however, and Rabbi Joseph Qamchi, and his son, the great Rabbi David Qamchi, all with one voice explain the entire prophecy of Israel.

As regards the course taken by Yonathan ben Uzziel and our other wise men, who interpret it of Messiah our righteousness, I do not know whether in saying this they mean Messiah ben Joseph, who they believe is to come at the commencement of the deliverance, or whether they intend Messiah son of David, who is to arrive afterwards. In either case, however, the sense of the words will not admit of such an explanation.

In a word, the interpretation of Yonathan, and of those who follow him in the same opinion, can never be considered to be the true one, in a literal sense, because the character and drift of the passage as a whole will not bear it. These learned men were concerned only with allegorical or adventitious expositions, and hence merely applied the traditions they had received respecting the Messiah to the present passage, without in the least imagining it to be its actual meaning.

MOSHE KOHEN IBN CRISPIN

Others have supposed it to mean the just in this present world; but these, too, for the same reason, by altering the number, distort the verses from their natural meaning. As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that "they wearied themselves to find the entrance", having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the "stubbornness of their own hearts", I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense; thus, possibly, I shall be free from the forced and far-fetched interpretations of which others have been guilty.

He shall be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly. He will be more exalted than Moses; for when he gathers together our scattered ones from the four corners of the earth, he will be exalted in the eyes of all the kings in the whole world, and all of them will serve him, as Daniel prophesies concerning him, "All nations, peoples, tongues shall serve him." (Dan. 7:14). He will be loftier than Solomon, whose dignity was so lofty that he is said to have "sat on the throne of the Lord" (I Chron. 29:23), and our rabbis say that he was king over both the upper and the nether world. (Sanhedrin 20b) But the King Messiah, in his all-comprehending intelligence, will be loftier than Solomon. Exceedingly above the ministering angels, because that same comprehensive intelligence will approach God more nearly than theirs.

This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the express purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come an deliver Israel, and his life from the day he arrives at the age of discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here. If there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so.

RABBI SHLOMOH ASTRUC

My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man--it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah My servant, speaking as the One who sent him. Or he may call the whole people My servant, as he says above My people (52:6). When he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it. And when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then, is that My servant the King Messiah will prosper.

Our rabbis declare that he will be higher than Abraham; more exalted than Moses; and loftier than the angels. Lofty through the angels, in that he will depend upon the intelligent powers which belong to him and are his ministers, and which tend to attach themselves to God, so that he will be like the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. Of him also, it is said, that "His angels He will appoint for you, to keep you in all your ways." (Psalm 91:11).

In verse 52:14, the prophet, speaking of Israel as a whole, says, Just as all who saw you were amazed at the greatness of your distress, and said, What is the heat of this fierce anger (Deut. 29:24) that is upon this people more than any other people? and, Is this the city which men used to call the perfection of beauty (Lam. 2:15)? [so will they now be amazed at your glory]. For as before the Lord gave full measure in smiting you, so now he will give you full measure of prosperity, so that the dignity of this Annointed One, when he is annointed, will surpass that of all others who are annointed, by the radiancy of his countenance which will shine like that of Moses (Ex. 34:30).

[Normally this verse is translated, "he was marred beyond any other man"; but with a slight change in the spelling of one word it could read, "he was annointed beyond any other man". Apparently this is how the verse is being interepreted in the above passage. It is interesting to note that one of the versions of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls also has this alternate reading--ed.]

SA'ADYAH IBN DANAN

I was perusing the book of the prophet Isaiah, and when I came to the Parashah Behold My servant, I set before myself the notes of those who had commented upon it, and pondered over them and examined the opinions they contained. But all alike, I found, lacked solidity and soundness; as was the more palpable, since each differed from the rest in the subject to whom he supposed it to refer, some expounding the Parashah of the congregation of Israel as a whole, and others, in one way or another, of the King Messiah, who will speedily be revealed in our days. This, in fact, is done by our rabbis, who , in the section Heleq (Sanhedrin 94a), on the words To the increase of his government (Isaiah 9:7), expound as follows: The Holy One sought to make Hezekiah the Messiah, and [to make] Sanacherib, Gog and Magog.

And the heretics explain it of their messiah, by their method of interpretation, discovering in its arguments relating to his passion and death, and their false belief in him, which, however, have been refuted oftentimes with unequivocal proofs by learned Jews. One of these, Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi, was led so far as to say that those who expounded it of the Messiah, who is shortly to be revealed, gave occasion to the heretics to interpret it of Jesus.

May God, however, forgive him for not having spoken the truth! Our rabbis, the doctors of the Talmud, deliver their opinions by the power of prophecy, possessing a tradition concerning the principles of interpretation, so that their words are the truth. The principle which every expositor ought to rest upon is never to shrink from declaring the truth. And now I will make known what has been communicated to me from heaven, namely, the Parashah was originally uttered with a reference to Hezekiah, king of Judah and Israel, but being "a word deftly spoken" (Prov. 25:11), nevertheless alludes covertly to the King Messiah. . .

Says the author: Behold, we have explained the several parts of this Parashah in an elegant and plausible manner; and the interpretation here given is the one that is revealed and open to all, but there is a secret one, sealed and treasured up in its midst, which sees throughout allusions to the King Messiah (who is assuredly to be speedily revealed in our own days). And in the same sense it is expounded by our rabbis.

MOSHEH BEN MAIMON (MAIMONIDES)

What is to be the manner of Messiah's advent, and where will be the place of his first appearance? He will make his first appearance in the land of Israel, as it is written, "The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His Temple" (Mal. 3:1); but as to the manner of his appearance, until it has taken place, you cannot know this, not so that you could say he is the son of a specific person, or to be from the family of that person. There shall rise up one whom none have known before, and the signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin. For the Almighty, when he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, "Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth from his place." (Zech. 6:12) And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear, without his father or his mother or family being known, He came up as a shoot before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc. But the unique phenomenon attending his manifestation is, that all the kings of the earth will be thrown into terror at the fame of him---their kingdoms will be in consternation, and they themselves will be devising whether to oppose him with arms, or to adopt some different course, confessing, in fact, their inability to contend with him or ignore his presence, and so confounded at the wonders which they will see him work, that they will lay hands upon their mouth; in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.

RABBI SHMUEL LANYADO

My servant, i.e., the King Messiah, shall be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly--he shall be higher than Abraham; lifted up above Moses; and loftier than the ministering angels. Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel was unable to comprehend how the Messiah could be lifted up above Moses, of whom it was said that "there arose no prophet in Israel like him". (Deut. 34:10); and still more how he was to be greater than the angels, who are spiritual beings, whereas the Messiah is born of a woman. It is, in fact, upon that expression that the idolators [Christians] rest the chief article of their faith, the divinity of the Messiah. Abarbanel rejects also the opinion of the learned En Bonet, who explains it of the doctors, "for how", he asks, "could it enter into anyone's mind to speak of the doctors as exalted above Abraham or Moses?"

In my own humble opinion it seems that in this instance En Bonet is right; for in point of nobility the Messiah will excel even Abraham, and therefore it is promised that he shall be high. And in the ability to guide Israel he will be superior to Moses. For Moses, when he was a shepherd, had compassion on the kid which escaped from him in order to drink, and brought it to his bosom; and for that purpose the Almighty had chosen him (Shmoth Rabba)--how much more then that he might guide and tend Israel?

The opinions of our wise men on the interpretation of this verse have now been discussed. But we do not gather clearly from their language whether they are speaking of Messiah son of Ephraim or of Messiah son of David.

In a word, the explanation of the rabbis and of the Targum of Yonathan cannot possibly be conceived as being truthful in the sense of being literal; it is allegorical and adventitious, consisting, as it does, in the adaptation of one of their traditions to the language of the text. And a proof of this lies in the fact that the Targum itself refers the subsequent verses to Israel, and not to the Messiah, and that one verse , the last, is referred by our rabbis to Moses.

In my own humble opinion, I believe that they mean to assert that the verse speaks solely of Messiah son of David, to whom all the gorgeous language in it will apply. The prophet next addresses the people of Messiah son of Ephraim, and encourages them not to be afraid of the myriads which were against them; that even though the son of Ephraim were slain, the Almighty would avenge him by the hand of Messiah son of David, who would sprinkle the blood of many nations.

The words mean, then, As when you, O Messiah son of Ephraim, went forth into the world, many were astonished at you, wondering how it could possibly be that his countenance was so marred beyond men, and his form beyond the sons of men, whether also such was the usual appearance of a conqueror--as they thus mocked you without measure, so will the Messiah son of David sprinkle the blood of many nations.

THE MIDRASH KONEN

The fifth mansion in Paradise is built of onyx and jasper, and set stones, and silver and gold. . . there dwells Messiah son of David, and Elijah, and Messiah son of Ephraim. There is also the "litter of the wood of Lebanon" , like the tabernacle which Moses made in the wilderness; all the furniture thereof and "the pillars thereof of silver, the bottom of gold, the seat of purple", and within it, Messiah son of David who loves Jerusalem. Elijah takes him by his head, and lays him down in his bosom, holds him, and says, "Bear the sufferings and wounds with which the Almighty does chastise you for Israel's sake"; and so it is written, He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, until the time when the end should come.

ASERETH MEMROTH

The Messiah, in order to atone for them both [for Adam and David] will make his soul a trespass-offering, as it is written next to this, in the Parashah Behold My servant. And what is written after it? He shall see seed, shall have long days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

YAKOV YOSEPH MORDECHAI CHAYIM PASSANI

I am much surprised at those commentators who have applied themselves to investigate the meaning of this Parashah. One, for example, maintains that it was the intention of the prophet to allude to Moses; another, that he referred to the Israelitish people; a third applies it to king Josiah; a fourth dwells much upon the King Messiah, and so brings the Midrash into the text. For ourselves, however, we know with certainty that scripture never bears any other than the simple and literal meaning.

Moreover, not one of the explanations mentioned is in complete accordance with the language of the text, or succeeds in satisfying us, still less does the opinion of the disbelievers who make these verses the foundation of their faith.

Thus the words had no form or comeliness cannot possibly be interpreted of Moses, for everyone is well aware that Moses had a fine form and the strength of a lion. And if (as is indeed the case) the words, For the transgression of my people were they smitten allude to Israel, then the person described as suffering for the nation cannot be the nation itself.

And as regards the explanation which refers it to the Messiah, we may say, Take heed, O wise men, in your words, even though the language be meant to be metaphorical and indirect.

I have therefore been led to the conviction that the Parashah may after all be referred intelligibly and naturally to Hezekiah.

RABBI NAPHTHALI BEN ASHER ALTSCHULER

I will now proceed to explain these verses of our own Messiah, who, God willing, will come speedily in our days. I am surprised that Rashi and Rabbi David Kimchi have not, with the Targum, applied them to the Messiah likewise.

LEVI BEN GERSHOM

It follows necessarily from this verse (Deut. 34:10) that no prophet whose office was restricted to Israel alone could ever arise again like Moses; but it is still quite possible that a prophet like Moses might arise among the gentile nations. In fact the Messiah is such a prophet, as it is stated in the Midrash on the verse, Behold My servant, etc. , that he will be "greater than Moses", which is explained to mean that his miracles will be more wonderful than those of Moses. Moses, by the miracles he wrought, drew but a single nation to the worship of God, but the Messiah will draw all nations to the worship of God. And this will be effected by means of a marvelous sign, to be seen by all the nations even to the ends of the earth, that is, the resurrection of the dead.

RABBI LIWA OF PRAGUE

The Messiah, who is the perfection of the world, will be high and lofty and exalted. Now, inasmuch as he is the perfection, he is also the consummation, and the consummation is above all things; and this is why it is said of this Messiah that he will be high and exalted and lofty.

Edited and uploaded on 14 September 2001 by Dave Armstrong

Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Is the Servant of Isaiah 53 the Messiah or Collective Israel? (vs. Ari G.)

The following exchange, which I enjoyed very much, was undertaken on a public Catholic bulletin board in early September 2001 with an Orthodox Jew whose name on the board was "Ari G." His words will be in blue. I asked him if he would like to list his e-mail address or perhaps an organization, for the sake of readers who wished to inquire further of Jewish positions on these matters. He responded with the following statement, which I reproduce verbatim:

The best resources to post would be Outreach Judaism and Jews for Judaism, both of which are committed to helping born Jews see through the deceitful tactics of missionary organizations like "Jews for Jesus" and other so-called "messianic Jewish" groups. I don't claim any particular knowledge in this compared to the scholars working for both of these organizations. Much of the material I posted comes from R.[Rabbi Tovia] Singer's tapes and study guide. If you choose to post my responses, be sure to acknowledge that fact.

Isaiah 52:13 - Isaiah 53 (RSV)

13 Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
14 As many were astonished at him--his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the sons of men--
15 so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which
has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall
understand.
1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been
revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no
form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as
one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten
by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was
the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD
has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led
to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had
done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself
an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD
shall prosper in his hand;
11 he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the
righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their
iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

. . . Isaiah 53 says nothing about a son of G-d or a Messiah. That is absolutely a Christian invention.

I have not found this to be the case [see my accompanying paper: "Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Ancient and Medieval Jewish Bible Commentators and the Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53"]. Granted, as far as I know, it is indeed true that the majority of historic and present Jewish opinion would equate the "suffering servant" with Israel as a nation. But not all Jews have done so; thus the notion that this is "absolutely a Christian invention" is untrue.

Let me help you a bit. First of all, recognize that while nowadays we use the term "Messiah" to mean almost exclusively the promised heir of David ("the David Messiah") whose coming will signify the start of the Messianic age, that was not always true. Around the time of Jesus, the term was as likely to mean the Josephite Messiah. This man is the one who will die in the gates of the city when the nations march on Jerusalem in the End of Days. It will be his death that will cause the Jews to repent and return to G-d and Torah. Every reference I have ever seen which identifies the Servant with the Messiah refers to the Josephite Messiah, not the Davidic one - and even those are inevitably homiletic.

Before this time - and certainly when the books of the Hebrew Scriptures were written, the term "messiah" was more general, simply referring to any person in a position of authority, such as a king or priest or prophet.

That the servant has traditionally been understood to be Israel - or more specifically the "righteous remnant of Israel" is attested to by Origen in his Contra Celsum. He notes that he told Jews that he knew that he believed Isaiah 53 to speak of the Messiah, and they answered that he was wrong - that it meant Israel.

From: Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869; an orthodox Lutheran and eminent theologian), tr. by T. Meyer, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 4 vols., 1854-1858):

The Messiah is called "servant" in Zech 3:8 - a passage which is unanimously regarded as messianic, and also in Ezek 34:23-24. As for the collective interpretation: not one sure analogous instance can be cited in favor of a personification carried on through a whole section, without the slightest intimation that it is not a single individual who is referred to. In 53:3 the subject is called a man. In 53:11-12 a "soul" is ascribed to him. "Grave" and "death" seemingly imply a singular subject. If this were allegory, distinct hints would be present. In the passages where Israel is called "Servant," all uncertainty is prevented by the presence of the names of Jacob and Israel (Is 41:8-9, 44:1-2,21, 45:4, 48:20) and the plural is used alongside the singular (Is 42:24-25, 48:20-21, 43:10-14). Several factors in the passage rule out a collective.

"Startle" in verse 15, comes from a word which is used for the sprinkling with the blood of atonement, and the water of purification (see Lev 4:6,16-17; also 16:14,18-19, 14:7, Num 19:19, Ezek 36:25, Ex 29:21). "Shoot" ("young plant") and "root" in verse 2 connect this passage with other messianic descriptions elsewhere. 53:5 ("peace" in KJV) is similar to the messianic Micah 5:5: "this one will be our peace." The phrase "cut off" (v. 8) occurs also in the arguably messianic Dan 9:26.

The messianic prophecies speak specifically of a root; I don't recall any that speak of growing like one. I don't see what word you are translating as "peace" - in any event, a common word like "peace" proves nothing at all. The phrase "cut off" also does not appear in the Hebrew. You cannot do exegesis on a translation if you are going to rely on single words which can represent multiple different Hebrew words.

Against this, weigh the fact that the vast majority of servant references are to Israel / Judah / Jacob; the fact that every time the Bible uses a phrase like "arm of the Lord" it refers to physical salvation of Israel from her enemies; the fact that the only other place that the Bible describes someone as committing no sins and having no deceit in his mouth is Zephaniah 3:13, which speaks of the remnant of Israel.

Verse 4 reveals the vicarious character of the sufferings, so that the servant is one who is greatly loved and admired. "Servant" occurs in Zechariah 3:8, a passage which is unanimously referred to the Messiah, and also in Ezekiel 34:23-24. Other instances of a suffering Messiah occur at Is 49:50, Daniel 9, Zech 9:9-10 and 11:12-13. Isaiah 11 has many striking points of contact with Is 53.

The first condition of the vicarious satisfaction of the servant is absolute righteousness (verses 9,11). The servant voluntarily bears sufferings (vss 10, 12) and he suffers quietly and patiently (53:7). The sufferings and sin of Israel had all been foretold, and the purpose and causes of it are irreconcilable with the reasons given in Isaiah 53 (see Lev 26:14 ff., Deut 28:15 ff., 29:19 ff., Isaiah 56-59, 42:24, 43:26-27. Israel's merits could not be the cause of their deliverance. According to Is 48:11 and chapter 42, deliverance is due solely to the mercy and grace of God (cf. Lev 16:20-22). Nehemiah 9, especially 9:20 ff., shows that Israel had little merit of its own.

The equivalence of 53:5-6: "our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; . . . with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray" and 53:8: ". . . the transgression of my people" clearly show the distinction and contrast between the Servant/Messiah and Israel, which is clearly in mind in verses such as 53:6: descriptions commonly applied to Israel in the Psalms and elsewhere. Likewise, the servant is contrasted with the Gentiles as well in 52:15: "many nations . . . kings." He is shown as the Redeemer of both.

Why Isaiah 53 Cannot Refer to the Nation of Israel, but Must be the Messiah

(c) 1997 Fred Klett - Reformed pastor [words in red] {abridged by Dave Armstrong}

From: http://www.chaim.org/nation.htm

The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless.

Not true at all; for example (Zephaniah 3:13):

those who are left in Israel; they shall do no wrong and utter no lies, nor shall there be found in their mouth a deceitful tongue. For they shall pasture and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.

Your source doesn't seem to be very familiar with the Scriptures, Dave - or else hopes his readers won't be. This description is almost identical with that of Is. 53:9.

Alright, Ari: granted there could be (and was and is) a righteous remnant who could theoretically atone for the sinners and the Gentiles and so forth (Catholics, too, believe in atonement of one person or many persons for the sake of another, all by and in the pure graciousness of God, based on OT precedents: Ex 32:30-32, Num 14:19-23, 46-48, 25:6-13, Prov 16:6). Israel obviously had cycles of wickedness and revival, just as the Catholic Church has had through the centuries. You know this full well. That is human nature and the fruit of sin.

Granting that, your exegesis still won't work in this particular context because it doesn't account for the suffering to be undergone by the Servant, referred to in subsequent verses. This gets back to the traditional Jewish dichotomy between the Suffering Servant-Messiah (Messiah ben Joseph) and the kingly, triumphant Messiah (Messiah ben David). You are illogically and unbiblically mixing the two here, and it doesn't succeed.

It utterly fails because in Isaiah 53 the following things happen the the Servant: he is "despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief"; he is "stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted," "wounded," "bruised," "chastise[d]," "oppressed," "afflicted," "by oppression and judgment he was taken away," "stricken for the transgression of my people." "It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief." "He poured out his soul to death."

What, and none of these has happened to Israel??? You haven't read much of the history of antisemitism, if you think that, Dave.

I deal with this strain of thought [below]. You need to show me how it is relevant to the text.

Now, in the corresponding context of Zephaniah, none of this occurs; therefore, I maintain that it is an improper cross-reference (you are welcome to attempt another). That context is the familiar OT motif of the messianic age, or what Christians might call the Kingdom come in its fullness. It occurs after the Day of the Lord (Zeph 1:7,10,14-16,18, 2:2-3) and Judgment (1:15-18), including against Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (1:2-6). And so on and so forth, throughout chapters 1 and 2 and 3:1-8.

And are you suggesting that the remnant represents a brand new group of people, distinct from the reast of Israel? That is not in the text!

The texts we have looked at suggest to me that they are transformed by direct supernatural intervention of God. They were present before, but God does a work in them to make them righteous.

The righteous remnant of Israel is here today, undergoing the same travails as the entire nation. It was first mentioned in I Kings 19:18 when Elijah complains that the entire nation is worshipping Baal:Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba'al, and every mouth that has not kissed him.

Who are they? Are they exclusively Orthodox? Are any Conservative Jews included? Or Reformed? What are the criteria for inclusion? Or do we not know who they are until Messiah comes and sweeps away the wicked ones (much like dispensationalist Protestant thought, with their rapture and "taking away" to heaven of the "spiritual elite" before the tribulation of the Last Days)?

Note that the wicked Israelites and Gentiles are being punished, "judged," "chastised," "oppressed," etc., not the righteous remnant (1:7,9). And do we see anything of this remnant atoning for the evil, wicked ones? No, not a bit of it. We see them gaining land (1:7), and plundering (1:9). Do they attain to righteousness of their own accord, in order to redeem and atone for others? No.

Again, the text says nothing about "atoning" - you are reading that in. The suffering of the remnant - and indeed all of Israel - is as a direct result of the sins of the nations. Surely you don't deny that oppressing and murdering Jews is sinful? And that the nations of the world have been engaged in this practice for millenia? And that the Jews bore this and were wounded as a result of it?

History is one thing. The application of it to a biblical text is quite another, and you'd better have some awful solid, compelling reasoning to convince me of such an application. So far you have offered none whatsoever for this strain of thought you have. You merely assume your interpretation and then marvel at how someone like me doesn't see the supposed self-evident truth of it.

That may be a manifestation of a commendable faith on your part -- you are a "true believer" -- but it is not reason, and it is not the art and science of exegesis and hermeneutics. I'm sure reasons for this notion have been suggested somewhere; but you haven't explained to me why you find this interpretation compelling.

God (by pure unmerited grace) changes their speech to "a pure speech," and causes them to "serve him with one accord" (3:9). God takes away their rebellion and pride and haughtiness (3:11) and creates humility in them (3:12). It was all God's doing; it wasn't as if there was a small group of Jews who had been totally righteous in the midst of a sea of wickedness, and then they heroically atoned for the others like Moses did for the rebellious Hebrews of the Exodus (and as the Suffering Servant does).

So that is the context. God mercifully rescues and nurtures a remnant for His purposes, in the messianic age. But there is not a single word of this remnant "atoning" in a substitutionary fashion for the wicked majority, as in Isaiah 53. This righteous remnant in Zephaniah undergoes no suffering like the Suffering Servant does. Apples and oranges . . . Who is more familiar with Scripture here? It looks like you didn't look at the context or take these factors into consideration at all.

Where in Isaiah 53 does it ever say the servant "atoned in a substitutionary fashion"???

Where in Isaiah 53 does it ever say the servant "is my people Israel"???

Does God "chastise" and "bruise" this Jewish remnant? Was it the will of the Lord to "bruise them" and put them to grief, and all the other sufferings referred to in Isaiah 53? No, not at all. Nor are the wicked ever described as being "made whole" or "healed," as in Isaiah 53:5. On the contrary, the remnant here (which you would have me believe is a more plausible alternative to the Messianic Servant of Isaiah 53) have quite an easy time of it!:

"None shall make them afraid." (Zeph 3:13) That was even included in your own quote, and serves as a mini-refutation of your exegesis in and of itself. They are not "put to shame" (3:11,19). They have no judgments or enemies (3:15). They "fear evil no more" (3:15). They have "victory" and festive joy (3:17-18). They have no more "disaster" or "reproach" (3:18). They have no oppressors and have "renown in all the earth" (3:19) and "praise among all the people of the earth" (3:20). Their "fortunes" are restored (3:20).

You are not paying attention. Zephaniah speaks of what will happen in the future, at the end of days. The speaker in Isaiah 53 is describing what happened to the servant in the past and astonishment at what has now happened, and how different it is. That is what is meant by restore your "fortunes" (actually, the Hebrew speaks of restoring "captives" not "fortunes").

Precisely my point. They are talking about two different things and times, which is why your cross-referencing is improper and illogical. Thanks for backing me up.

Here is what these two passages tell us: The nations have persecuted Israel, the righteous along with everyone else.

This is incoherent. You want the Servant to be a "righteous remnant," but when it is convenient, you will arbitrarily switch to all Israel, or the persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany, etc.

The nations have argued that Israel's suffering is for its own sins: rejecting Jesus, being "Christ-killers", a "damned race", poisoning wells, eating the blood of Christians in matzah, and every other calumny imposed on the Jews.

All unspeakably evil, and to be severely judged by God, but how do you know for sure that Isaiah 53 is referring to this? Does this mean you think the passage was literally fulfilled in 1933-1945, since you believe it refers to past events? If it was fulfilled before then, then the Holocaust could have nothing to do with it. Your interpretation strikes me as entirely incoherent and in places utterly arbitrary. It reminds me of Jehovah's Witness biblical interpretation, where they will say that the "two witnesses" spoken of in the NT book of Revelation are their first two presidents, or some ludicrous thing like that.

The nations have perceived benefit to themselves as a result of this oppression and so considered themselves "healed" whenever they pushed the Jews out of their midst. But at the end of days, the Jews (or at least the righteous ones left) will be made whole and the nations will see that the suffering of the Jews was not because of their own sins, but because of the sins of their oppressors.

I find this a quite fantastic and implausible interpretation of the passage. Sorry, but that is my opinion. You have once again baldly stated your opinion, but I want to know why you believe this, on the basis of the text itself.

This [Zephaniah 3] is supposed to be some sort of parallel to Isaiah 53 and the Suffering Servant? Where is the suffering, pray tell? Where is the atonement and healing of the wicked, straying Jews and Gentiles? The wicked in Zephaniah are utterly judged, whereas the remnant seems to have no difficulties at all (at the very least none are referred to). But in Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant is chastised in order to heal the others. He suffers horribly and dies.

How is it that the remnant "dies" at all here? You can speak of the Holocaust and the horrific, abominable persecutions of Jews through the centuries, but those are simply not parallel to the context of Zephaniah, which occurs after the Jews are triumphant, in the messianic age. You can't just arbitrarily construct a bunch of connections, bringing in any conceivable parallels whatever. E.g., a Christian might conceivably refer to 1 million Armenian Orthodox being murdered by the Turks or 10 million Ukrainian Catholics being starved by Stalin and attribute to those terrible, equally earth-shattering events (for those experiencing them) some eschatological, biblical significance. I don't think proper exegesis and Bible commentary is nearly that simple.

Therefore, unless you can find a parallel of such a remnant of Israel which also atones, I think this attempt to turn the Suffering Servant into a collective (whether all Israel or a righteous remnant) fails miserably. Perhaps that is why so many eminent Jewish exegetes both before Christianity and in the Middle Ages (as I have now thoroughly documented beyond all dispute) held that the Suffering Servant was indeed the Messiah. They must have had some reasons to do so, whether or not they were the same or identical to mine, and those I have cited. And we know that their reasoning did not flow from a Christian bias or a real or alleged desire to deliberately twist biblical texts in order to convert Jews to Christianity. :-)

Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!"

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10 for "sin-offering" is "asham," which is a technical term meaning "sin-offering."

No, a chatas is a "sin-offering." The RSV translates asham as "guilt-offering" in Lev. 5-6, but for some reason chooses to translate it as "offering for sin" in Is. 53:10. There is a world of difference between them. An asham is an offering brought for a range of reasons; it is usually translated as "guilt-offering" because the most prominent reason comes in the case of someone who is not sure whether he has committed an unintentional sin for which he would owe a chatas, but feels guilty about it. Another reason to bring an asham is if he committed a crime involving deceit - and then changes his mind and confesses his crime without having been caught. There a number of other situations that involve an asham.

"Asham" is Strong's word #817. It defines it as "guilty" and "guiltiness," but also as a "sin-offering." The Jewish Scriptures of 1917, in its rendering of 53:12 (i.e., in the immediate context), states that the Servant "bore the sin of many," and at 53:11: "their iniquities he did bear," so I don't see why you are making an issue of this.

As I think I have mentioned, we don't tend to use translations to study the Bible. As a result, until very recently (the past two decades or so), there has been very little concern for accurate translations. The 1917 JPS is in fact taken extensively from the KJV, with some minor emendations to correct the worst mistranslations only. Don't rely on it as a source of Jewish theology or even accurate meanings of words.

Duly noted. But perhaps it can be somewhat helpful when insinuations of bias of Christian Bible translators is present, no? But if you have that low of an opinion of it, I'll stick to the RSV. I believe (if I recall correctly) that there may have been some Jewish consultants or participants when the RSV was done.

The concept is certainly there, beyond quibbling over single words. In Leviticus 5:5-10, "sin" and "guilt" and the offerings for same seem to be essentially identical. E.g., 5:6 in that version:

and he shall bring forth his forfeit [asham; 'guilt-offering' in RSV] unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering [asham]; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin.

So if even the Jewish version clearly equates the two concepts in its own translation, where is the beef? If we trace "asham" back to Leviticus 5 and 6 in the same Jewish Bible, in other verses, we find that it is translated "sin-offering" at 5:7, 5:8, and 5:9 (twice), and at 6:17, for a total of at least six times in those two chapters (I may have missed some further occurrences). In the fourteen occurrences of "asham" in Lev 5 and 6 that I have found, the Jewish Bible of 1917 renders it "sin-offering" six times, "guilt-offering" four times, and "burnt offering" and "forfeit" twice each. Do you wish to register a complaint as to the scholarship of the men who translated that Bible? Do you claim that you know better than they do about those passages?

By comparison, the RSV for those same two chapters renders "asham" as "sin-offering" only five times, "guilt-offering" seven times, and "burnt offering" twice. So the Jewish version uses "sin-offering" in those chapters more than either the RSV or the KJV (also 5 times). So much for your beef about the translation of it. In fact, I traced the comparative translations of the three Bibles over 29 occurrences of "asham" in Leviticus (5:6 [2], 5:7 [3], 5:8, 5:9 [2], 5:10, 5:15, 5:16, 5:18, 5:19, 6:17, 7:1, 7:2. 7:5, 14:12, 14:13, 14:14, 14:17, 14:21, 14:24, 14:25 [2], 14:28, 19:21 [2], 19:22). The usage (hence the context) seems to me to be essentially the same in these instances: the ritual, atoning sacrifice of Mosaic Law. The results are as follows:

"sin offering" RSV-6 / KJV-5 / Jewish Bible (1917)-6
"guilt offering" RSV-21 / KJV-0 / Jewish Bible (1917)-18
"trespass offering" RSV-0 / KJV-22 / Jewish Bible (1917)-0
"burnt offering" RSV-2 / KJV-2 / Jewish Bible (1917)-2
"forfeit" RSV-0 / KJV-0 / Jewish Bible (1917)-3

Does this look like the translations are all that different from each other, or that sectarian or polemical bias is a significant factor here (as I think you may be implying)? The Jewish Bible is identical to the RSV in its English renderings of "asham" in the above passages 24 out of 29 times: a significant 83% rate of similarity. In Lev 6:17 it translates "asham" as "sin offering" whereas neither RSV or KJV do. It follows both of them in five other instances.

Now, you made an issue of how the RSV translated "asham" at Isaiah 53:10 ("offering for sin" - same in KJV), as if it were an improper or impermissible rendering. But based on what we have seen above and the context of Isaiah 53:10, where the next two verses even in the Jewish Bible mention the Servant's bearing "iniquities" or "sins" of others, it seems to me that this is entirely proper and not contrary to the context or overall meaning at all.

It is the Jewish Bible which has departed from linguistic precedent here, not the RSV (or KJV) by rendering the phrase, ". . . his soul would offer itself in restitution." This is a somewhat different concept (in English) and doesn't seem to square that well with other occurrences of "asham" in the Jewish Bible itself. So if there is any translational bias here, I submit that it would much more arguably be found in the Jewish Bible (but I am not making that argument myself - I am only being rhetorical at the moment). Certainly there is nothing wrong with the usage of "offering for sin" here, according to crystal-clear precedent in Leviticus.

It is also important to note that the RSV translation of this verse is simply incorrect. The key phrase which is there translated as "... when he makes himself an offering for sin..." contains only one verb - and that verb is feminine. The only feminine word in the phrase is nafsho - which means "his soul". Thus, the verse should read:The L-rd desired to oppress him and afflicted him; if his soul will make a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and live long days and the desire of the L-rd will succeed in his hand. There is nothing in the original Hebrew about making himself the offering.

I think your rendering of "guilt offering" is closer to the RSV and KJV than it is to the 1917 Jewish Bible's "restitution." RSV notes in a footnote, "Vg: Heb 'thou makest his soul.'" NRSV has a footnote, "meaning of Heb uncertain" and renders the phrase, ". . . you make his life an offering for sin." If "nephesh" (Strong's word #5315) is the same as your "nafsho" then I would argue that it has a wide latitude of meaning and that yours is largely a distinction without a difference.

The difference is who is making what, not the meaning of "nefesh" ("nafsho" means 'his nefesh'). It is "if his soul will make a guilt-offering" (or, "if he will concede guilt") rather than "if he makes his soul a offering [of any kind]". That is a world of difference. The RSV and KJV identified "his soul" as the object of the verb; in fact it is the subject of the verb. The RSV footnote is interesting, since it attempts to rationalize the change by translating tasim as "you will make" which is possible taken in isolation, but fails because there is no second person singular reference anywhere else in this passage and because it still is not possible to use "nafsho" as the object, from a grammatical standpoint in the Hebrew, without an additional grammatical particle that is missing.

I think context (particularly the passages I set forth above, suggesting "atonement") demonstrates the plausibility that he is offering himself, or that God is offering him as a sin-offering for the atonement of others (or both, as I would hold).

E.g., in Gen 2:7 the Jewish Bible reads: ". . . man became a living soul." In other words, "soul" ("nephesh") can be the equivalent of "man." My Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon gives this as the fourth possible meaning of "nephesh" (after "breath," "the soul," and "the mind"): "'animal,' that in which there is a soul or mind," and cites Gen 1:21,24, 2:7,19, 9:10. "Specially it is 'a man, a person,'" (Deut 24:7, Eze 22:25, Lev 4:2, 5:1,2,4,15,17, Ex 1:5, 16:16, Gen 46:18,27, Deut 10:22). A fifth meaning is "I myself, thou thyself."

Furthermore, I think context again mitigates against your alleged difficulty with the Servant making himself the offering. The Servant seems to suffer willingly, implied by "he opened not his mouth" (Is 53:7) and other more subtle hints throughout.

That does not follow. The Jews who went to the gas chamber did so without "opening their mouths"; the Jews slaughtered by the Ukrainians during the Chmielnicki massacres died without "opening their mouths"; most people led to execution go without screaming. It does not mean that they go willingly.

Granted. This was not a major point. I do think it is implied, though.

If it was the "will of the LORD" for him to suffer for the sake of atonement (53:10), then if he is any sort of obedient Servant his own will will be in line with that of the LORD's. So he offered his life up for this purpose.

But it doesn't say that he suffered for the sake of atonement!

Already dealt with.

How is it all that essentially different to say, e.g., that "I gave all my heart and soul to this project," as compared to "I gave myself fully for [or, devoted my life to] this project"? I don't see how much changes. You still have the exegetical difficulties above to sort through and figure out, for your collective interpretation to stand.

I think it all comes together in 53:12 (RSV): . . . he poured out his soul to death . . . he bore the sin of many . . . The Jewish Bible reads: ". . . he bared his soul unto death . . . he bore the sin of many." What is the distinction you are trying to make? He did it; he willingly did it. How is "pouring out your soul" for the purpose of bearing "the sin of many" different from "he makes himself an offering for sin"? I just don't see it.

It doesn't say that he "poured out his soul" for the purpose of bearing sin. Look at the actual RSV text: because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Note that these are in separate clauses. It says that the servant suffered. It does not say that the servant was willing to suffer, much less chose to suffer in order to bear sins. In fact, it was by bearing sins; as a result of the sins, that the servant suffered.

Okay; no particular response (for length's sake). Thanks for this observation.

I have to stop here. There is simply too much to address in one post, and a lot of this has been dealing with your seeing words (Like "atone") that are simply not present.

And you do not seem to be able to see ideas that are present, and parallels to levitical sacrifice and atonement elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

This is the problem with overlong posts. You go off on a tangent and make assumptions and waste your time and mine.

You have plenty of assumptions too -- no more evident than in your apparently purely fideistic acceptance of the notion that the Servant must be Israel, and could not possibly be King Messiah.

If you want to quibble about words at 53:10, then we simply respond with 53:12 and the overall context. That's how hermeneutics is done: by a comparison of verses and consideration of context for the sake of determining specific meaning.

See how it [asham] is used in Leviticus chapters 5 and 6. Isaiah 53 describes a sinless and perfect sacrificial lamb who takes upon himself the sins of others so that they might be forgiven. This cannot be true of the Jewish people as a whole, or of any other mere human.
The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?

Again, you have misread the passage. Start just one verse earlier (the chapter breaks are not in the original text - they were added by a Christian translator much later) and you will see (Is. 52:15-53:1):

[15] so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand:[1] "Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

This idiom should be very familiar: "Well, shut ma mouth - who'da thunk it?" Closing - and even placing ones hands over one's mouth in astonishment seems to be a near universal gesture. The ones who say "it was our ills he bore and our pains that he carried" and all the rest, are the kings of the gentile nations, who constantly oppressed Israel (cf. Durban) and are now astonished to see Israel elevated, as promised by numerous prophets.

I don't buy it. I think this is special pleading. Isaiah is speaking, and to his own people, as always throughout the book that bears his name. He addresses Zion and Jerusalem directly in 52:1-2 and to the Jews in 52:11 (particularly priests). Then Isaiah starts speaking of the Gentiles and the "nations" in v. 15, as you note, but that doesn't mean they are now the narrators. He is speaking about them, in the third person. Is this not obvious? There is no indication whatever that anyone but the Prophet is speaking in Isaiah 53. It may be a convenient assumption, in line with your overall interpretation, but what indication in the text makes you assume this in the first place?

No? Then why does he switch to the plural? Has Isaiah now cloned himself? "what we have heard" "we esteemed him not" and many other places.

I would suspect the plural is because Isaiah is now speaking for Israel as a nation or people, as one of them (or in personification), rather than as God's prophet reviling against or exhorting them.

Where else does Isaiah quote Israel speaking in astonishment?

This is nothing unusual at all, and you should know that. Examples of the above, or use of plural ("we," "us," etc.), to denote collective Israel "speaking": Isaiah 1:9, 16:6, 20:6, 22:13, 25:9, 26:1,8,13,17-18, 28:15, 30:16, 33:2, 36:7, 41:22-23,26, 42:24, 56:12, 58:3, 59:9-13, 63:19, 64:3-12. The last passage is particularly interesting in its parallels to Isaiah 53, where collective Israel is also speaking. That this is Israel is made very clear in Isaiah 63 and also 65. There can be no doubt whatsoever.

Isaiah 53:6: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 64:6: We have all become like one who is unclean and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Isaiah offers the solution, in Isaiah 53, for the dilemma of Isaiah 64: the atonement of the Messiah for the nation Israel, just as Moses, a figure of Messiah, atoned for Israel (Ex 32:30-32), even to the extent of being willing to be "blotted" out of God's "book."

It seems to me that commonly in the OT God speaks of other nations as also His people, such as in Is 19:25 ". . . Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, . . . ", or God (through a prophet) talks about how He will judge them, in the third person: "Edom shall become a horror . . " (Jer 49:17; cf. Ezek 25:12-14), ". . . Behold, I will stir up the spirit of a destroyer against Babylon . . . " (Jer 51:1), ". . . I will stretch out my hand against the Philistines . . . " (Ezek 25:16), etc.

I don't recall very often, if at all, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Gentiles speaking for themselves, through a prophet, in prophetic literature (as opposed to historical narrative). I wouldn't be surprised if you could find an example here or there, but then they would probably be very clear in context, whereas this is assuredly not the case in Isaiah 53.

Such as Zechariah 8:23:

Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'"

Note that it is the nations coming to the Jews, saying that they are wrong, not the Jews coming to the nations.

I didn't think there wouldn't be such an example, but usually it is Israel speaking collectively, as in the numerous instances in Isaiah above. If you can find as many instances of Gentiles doing this in Isaiah as Jews, by all means do so, in order to bolster the plausibility of your exceedingly weak case that Gentiles are speaking in Isaiah 53.

The Jews don't have to go to the nations: they were the chosen people and had far more revelation in their possession than anyone else at that time (if not exclusively so). The Jews (like all of us) needed to go to God to repent and to seek a solution for their incessant sin. That solution was God's grace and atonement, applied to and working hand-in-hand with law-keeping, and a result of His everlasting Covenant with Israel.

They were no better (as a group) than anyone else, as history records. Certainly you can't read the Bible and not see this (arguably worse, because of how blessed and informed by God they were). On numerous occasions, God uses the Gentiles to judge the Jews (notably with Egypt and Babylon). And whatever remnant managed to keep untainted by sin and undefiled, that was purely a result of God's completely unmerited grace. Any other view than that cannot be biblically sustained for a second.

The straightforward, prima facie reading is that Isaiah is speaking to and about his own people, as in 53:8. That is the context of chapter 52 (as noted), and again in chapter 54. Israel (the subject of the address) is contrasted with the nations in 54:3. The covenant with Israel is referred to in 54:10. The messianic age is alluded to in 54:11-15, as in the passage in Zephaniah which you cited. And so forth throughout Isaiah and other prophetic books.

But you would have us believe that the "narrator" abruptly switches to the Gentiles at the end of Isaiah 52 and in Isaiah 53, before he switches back again in ch. 54 (with no clear textual indication that this has occurred) because it talks about the great wickedness of the people and need for atonement (as if that is not equally necessary for the Jews as well as the Gentiles).

If Hebrew had quotation marks you would be right in looking for them. But look at many many english texts and you will see frequent cases in which the punctuation is the only thing which tells you when a point of view changes. This is a quote. Narration frequently switches between the words surrounding a quote and the quote itself.

As I have shown, Isaiah often has Israel speaking collectively, and I noted (as I found these) how indeed it can be a sudden entrance into the text. What is strange in your exegesis is that you think the narrative abruptly changes from the Jews to the Gentiles. Please show me elsewhere in Isaiah where that happens. I have given many examples of the pattern I believe to be occurring in Isaiah 53.

Even your assumption that the Servant is a small righteous Jewish remnant presupposes that the vast majority of Israelites were not quite so worthy or holy. Being chosen by God does not suggest any inherent superiority to others. I should think that Jews would know that better than anyone else, being human and fallen as we all are. You know: Jesus said, "to whom much is given, much is required."

My interpretation (in line with many eminent Jewish interpreters) of Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah, atoning for the sins of Israel (and those of the whole world: you yourself say that Gentiles are being referred to) is perfectly consistent with, e.g., the "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31:31-40, where, again, God is doing all the work of transformation: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jer 31:33-34).

Again, when Israel is made righteous in any collective sense, it is because God did some significant, supernatural miracle to bring it about. It wasn't because the righteous remnant somehow brought about atonement for the sinners in Israel, as in Isaiah 53 and King Messiah (as many Jewish exegetes refer to him in Isaiah 53), the Suffering Servant.

The figure of Isaiah 53 dies and is buried according to verses 8 and 9. The people of Israel have
never died as a whole. They have been out of the land on two occasions and have returned, but they have never ceased to be among the living.

You are not seriously suggesting that Jews have not died and been buried in great numbers, are you?

Of course not, but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. If you want to insist on a collective "Servant," then if the Servant dies, it seems clear to me that the nation (or the remnant of it) would die, as the analogy is logically carried through. It isn't like nations have not died before (where are the Edomites today?). But note what you want to do; you want to have it both ways: when the collective Servant is referred to as dying, then you quickly switch horses in mid-stream and claim that this refers to individual Jews dying during various persecutions.

I think this is inconsistent and arbitrary exegesis and not particularly convincing, let alone compelling, at all. But if one insists on a larger interpretation no matter how much contrary evidence is brought forth, and won't allow the possibility of another (even falsely claiming that others are "Christian inventions" when they are not at all), that's the sort of incoherent methodology one comes up with.

Where does it say that the servant died?

53:8-9,12 and implied in 53:7 ("Lamb that is led to slaughter").

It speaks of his "deaths" - how is this less consistent with the deaths of many individuals of a nation?

I'm unaware of any English translation that renders "deaths" in 53:9. If you know of any, please inform me. Thanks. Indeed, that would be linguistic nonsense, as throughout the subject is referred to as "he" and "him." What sense does it make to say, "they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his deaths" ?

Would you deny that the deaths of individual Jews are deaths of Israel?

Yes. Israel is a nation. People are people. Nations can die, and have died. Even empires die. America didn't die when JFK was killed. Israel, likewise doesn't die with David's or Isaiah's or Moses' death. I find this a very strange strain of thought.

Or that many of these deaths are not directly attributable to the sins of the world who oppressed them?

Of course, but this is incoherent for the reasons above, and it has little to do with the text itself, since how were others "healed" and "made whole" (in the sense of Isaiah 53) by such sufferings? Don't get me wrong: as a Catholic I believe that all suffering can be applied to the redemption of others, because I believe that God worked this into His providential and redemptive plan (and Judaism appears to have a similar understanding). I don't think suffering -- even the most ghastly, unspeakable sort, as in the Holocaust -- is in vain.

But I would say that 10 million Ukrainian Christians being starved to death in the 1930s would help cause just as much redemption (by God's grace) as 6 million Jews in the Nazi concentration camps (if one can even speak of quantifying such things). I wouldn't apply either group of martyrs/victims to Isaiah 53 because I see no textual or biblical reason to. I understand that this is a very deep, painful, emotional point for Jews (I've been to the Holocaust Museum in the Detroit area, where I wept, and was quite moved and anguished), and I have seen many documentaries and movies about the Holocaust), but it is not related to biblical interpretation per se. It is my firm opinion that Isaiah 53 clearly refers to the Messiah, not a collective. It reads just like other messianic passages and has all the hallmarks of being about one man: King Messiah.

The verse does not say "as a whole"

It doesn't have to, nor could it, as that would be grammatical nonsense. If it is talking about a collective Servant, then the collective also dies. It's as simple as that. I don't see how you think it makes any sense to switch back and forth between collective and individual. You must either maintain the collective throughout, in which case it dies and is "cut off," or adopt the messianic interpretation, where the Messiah dies. The former makes little sense, the latter all the sense in the world.

So you are interpreting "cut off" to mean that the servant died?

Yes, given overall context and immediate context: "cut off out of the land of the living." If one is not in the land of the living, where are they? The Hebrew for "cut" is "gazar" (Strong's word #1504). According to Gesenius, it can have the meaning of "destroy," hence "kill" when applied to human beings, as in Isaiah 9:19, where it refers to the slaughter of war. Gesenius says that the literal meaning in Is 53:8 is "separated," but again, if you are separated from "the land of the living," where are you?

Well, Gesenius in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon gives a cross-reference (for Isaiah 53:8) of Psalm 88:6. "Gazar" appears in Ps 88:5:

like one forsaken among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, like those whom thou dost remember no more, for they are cut off from thy hand.

The context is "Sheol" and the "Pit" (88:3-4,6). The same word means to "perish" in Lam 3:54 and Ezek 37:11 (see entire context of 37:1-14). Other parallels exist:

For thou hast delivered my soul from death . . . I walk before the LORD in the land of the living. (Ps 116:8-9)

But God will break you down for ever; he will snatch and tear you from your tent; he will uproot you from the land of the living. (Ps 52:5; cf. 27:13, 142:5)

. . . I am consigned to the gates of Sheol for the rest of my years. I said, I shall not see the LORD in the land of the living; I shall look upon man no more among the inhabitants of the world. (Isaiah 38:10-11)

then I will thrust you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you to dwell in the nether world, among primeval ruins, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you will not be inhabited or have a place in the land of the living. (Ezek 26:20; speaking of Tyre; cf. 32:23-27,32)

Did you ever wonder why the text doesn't simply say "died"?

It says "death" in 53:12. That's quite sufficient for me.

The word here is nigzar which literally means "divided" or "decreed". That all Jews have frequently been served with death sentences is again fairly apparent. Hitler, for example, did not declare that he was only going to kill some Jews; he tried to kill all of us. During the Chmielnicki massacres, it was all Jews against who the fatal decrees were issued. Your assumption seems to be based on misunderstanding of this word.

There's no point in recounting the horrors of massacres and Holocausts unless you can show me some solid reason for supposing that they are here spoken of.

- there are more than enough deaths of Jews to satisfy this verse. In fact, given that the word in Is. 53:9 is "deaths" not "death" in the Hebrew, it is much more credible to associate this with a group than an individual. This is further reinforced by the word lamo in 53:8, which the RSV chooses to translate here as "him" but everywhere else as "them."

I've done enough comparative biblical linguistics for one day. I still think you have insuperable textual and hermeneutical problems, without delving into this dispute over single words, where my resources are barely adequate as it is.

So what can we conclude? Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the nation of Israel. Of whom does Isaiah speak? He speaks of the Messiah, as many ancient rabbis concluded. The second verse of Isaiah 53 makes it crystal clear. The figure grows up as "a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground."

Compare this to Isaiah 27:6: In days to come Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots, and fill the whole world with fruit, and Hosea 14:5-7 (RSV):

[5] I will be as the dew to Israel; he shall blossom as the lily, he shall strike root as the poplar; [6] his shoots shall spread out; his beauty shall be like the olive, and his fragrance like Lebanon. [7] They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow, they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom as the vine, their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon.

The image of a growing plant is used in many many places to mean Israel. The messianic reference you are looking for is "root of Jesse" - which this does not say.

It can mean Israel. I have no problem with that. But it can also clearly refer to the Messiah, as in Isaiah 11:1 and forward, which I understand is virtually universally regarded as messianic by Jews. Messiah can be a figure of Israel as well as of David, Elijah, Moses, and what not, just as in Catholic Christian thought, John the Baptist is a figure of Elijah and Mary is a figure of the Church (and the ark of the covenant, for that matter). But I think Isaiah 53 is closer in form and content to Isaiah 11 (at least with regard to this point of a "shoot" and the messianic elements) than to Isaiah 27 or Hosea 14:5-7.

And you run into the same huge exegetical problem you had with Zephaniah: Isaiah 27 is about the messianic age. It is again referring to the Day of the LORD (27:1-2,12-13). There is not the slightest hint that Israel or a remnant of it atones for others through suffering. Yet you think this is somehow a parallel to Isaiah 53. Similarity in one minor respect does not constitute exegetical synthesis of entire passages.

Rather, God judges Jew and Gentile alike (27:7-8). The text speaks of "the guilt of Jacob" being "expiated" (27:9) by the sufferings undergone, but note that the expiation refers to Israel, not the Gentiles -- precisely the opposite of Isaiah 53, where (in your interpretation) the remnant is blameless and its suffering atones for the Gentiles. The context is, once again, post-judgment, re-gathering and peaceful worship in Jerusalem (27:13). How does that have anything whatever to do with either the Holocaust or the atoning sufferings of the Suffering Servant?

Likewise with Hosea. The exact same pattern applies, because it is talking about the same events. Israel has iniquity and needs to return to the LORD (14:1). God has to supernaturally make them righteous (as always): "I will heal their faithlessness" (14:4). Then we have your passage and the golden, glorious messianic age once again. Not a word about atonement for others, or even suffering of the remnant. There is simply no analogy here, so your comparative exegesis fails.

Yes, some terms can refer to Israel, but they also apply to Messiah elsewhere. But where you find parallels to your collective sense, the context has thus far always been vastly different, so that you have to go to the Holocaust and historical persecutions of the Jews to locate the suffering which is present in Isaiah 53, as opposed to finding it in the actual context of the biblical passages you submit as relevant to the discussion of Isaiah 53, which is what you must do for your view to succeed, it seems to me.

The shoot springing up is beyond reasonable doubt a reference to the Messiah, and, in fact, it is a common Messianic reference in Isaiah and elsewhere. The Davidic dynasty was to be cut down in judgement like a felled tree, but it was promised to Israel that a new sprout would shoot up from the stump. The Messiah was to be that sprout.

Several Hebrew words were used to refer to this undeniably Messianic image. All the terms are related in meaning and connected in the Messianic texts where they were used. Isaiah 11, which virtually all rabbis agreed refers to the Messiah, used the words "shoot" (hoter) and branch (netser) to describe the Messianic King. Isaiah 11:10 called Messiah the "Root (shoresh) of Jesse," Jesse being David's father. Isaiah 53 described the suffering servant as a root (shoresh) from dry ground, using the very same metaphor and the very same word as Isaiah 11. We also see other terms used for the same concept, such as branch (tsemach) in Jeremiah 23:5, in Isaiah 4:2 and also in the startling prophecies of Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12.

Messiah is the shoot who sprung up from the fallen Davidic dynasty. He became the King of Kings. He provided the ultimate atonement. Isaiah 52:13 states that it would be the Messiah who will "sprinkle" many nations. What does that mean? What was Messiah's ministry to be toward the nations? The word translated "sprinkle" or sometimes "startle" is found several other places in the OT. The Hebrew word is found in Leviticus 4:6; 8:11; 14:7, and Numbers 8:7, 19:18-19.

The references cited all pertain to priestly sprinklings of the blood of atonement, the anointing oil of consecration, and the ceremonial water used to cleanse the unclean. Is Isaiah 52:13 telling us that the Messiah will act as a priest who applies atonement, anoints to consecrate, sprinkles to make clean? (This vision of the Messiah as both priest and king is also found in Zechariah 6:12-13). But, priests were to come from the tribe of Levi and Kings from the tribe of Judah! What kind of priest is he? David told us Messiah would be a priest of the order of Melchizedek (see Psalm 110).

------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . granted there could be (and was and is) a righteous remnant who could theoretically atone for the sinners and the Gentiles and so forth.

Hold it - where do you get anything about the servant "atoning" for anyone? That is not in the text! There is nothing here which speaks of "atonement" (Heb. kapparah).

That particular word may not appear, but I think the concept certainly is present, by similarity to what is clearly spoken of as atonement in Leviticus and elsewhere. "Asham" is here in Isaiah 53, and it can be, and is, translated "sin offering." "Kaphar" (Strong's word #3722 ("atonement") is, of course, present in six of those passages in Leviticus I traced for the appearance of "asham" (5:6, 5:10, 5:16, 5:18, 14:21, 19:22). This is straightforward enough: the deaths and sacrifices of the Mosaic Law were for the purposes of atonement.

I have my suspicions about what you are reading, but please let me know for sure.

The Bible and Strong's Concordance. I need little else, the evidence for my position is so strong in this instance. I'm not going to Jews for Jesus or other "messianic Jewish" sites for this cross-referencing and linguistic stuff. God's inspired Word is enough for me.

If you could actually read the Bible in the original, you would know better.
The biggest problem with Strong's Concordance is that it obsfuscates almost as
much as it reveals. You need to use a concordance which shows where the same
forms of the word are used, and you need an interlinear translation which shows
the meaning of each word in context. Part of the problem is that Hebrew is
agglutinative and inflected. Strong's only shows the root (and sometimes errs in
identifying it). As a result, you completely miss the meaning of the text. For
example, "nefesh" and "nafsho" have the same root, but the first means "a soul"
while the second means "his soul." They are not interchangeable. "Mipesheihem"
means "from their sin", not simply "a sin" and certainly not "for their sin."

What are you reading, besides Rabbi Singer's stuff?

I am reading the Scriptures in the original Hebrew.

I don't know if it is a translation problem or you are simply reading in what your theology wants you to see.

Everyone has their theological biases, wouldn't you agree? Or do you fancy that you have none, while all the presuppositional biases are on my (and the larger Christian) side? The text is an objective standard we can both agree upon as authoritative, and we can work through our differences in a friendly, constructive manner by means of recourse to that, not suspicions of bias.

Only the original Hebrew is authoritative, not translations.

The fact that "asham" is found in this passage does not mean that the servant
acts as a substitutiary atonement. You will also find "asham" in passages
which have nothing to do with atonement, but merely speak of guilt, including
Genesis 26:10, Numbers 5:7, I Samuel 6:8, Psalms 68:21, Proverbs 14:9, and so
on. There is no basis for declaring that every chapter that includes the word
"asham" is about atonement of any kind.

Furthermore (as I previously mentioned), other persons can make atonement, not just lambs and goats. Moses did so, in Exodus 32:30 (same word: "kaphar"). And I don't believe he was even a priest.

He wasn't; you only need a priest to bring an offering. All you have managed to
show is that offerings are not the only way to atonement.

Aaron made atonement for the people with incense, in Numbers 16:46-48 (same Hebrew word again). In another instance of "kaphar," Phinehas slew two Baal-worshipers, thus making atonement for Israel (Numbers 25:11-13). "Loyalty and faithfulness" bring about "atonement" ("kaphar"), in Proverbs 16:6.

Yes, that is quite correct - you don't need blood sacrifice for atonement. You
have shown several examples.

The Suffering Servant (whatever or whomever you think it/he is) does the same, because "asham" was applied to him/it in Isaiah 53:10: ". . . you make his life an offering for sin . . . " (NRSV)

As I believe I have explained already, that translation is not warranted by the
Hebrew, although it is less egregious than the one in the RSV. "his soul" (or
"his life" if you prefer) is the subject of the verb, not the object, and as
you had already pointed out, "asham" does not only mean a guilt-sacrifice; it
means more generally guilt. That is, the servant is making the "asham" - which
either means that he is bringing an offering (not being one), or more probably
is acknowledging guilt for something.

He was "wounded for our transgressions" (53:5) and "bruised for our iniquities" (53:5). The people were "healed" by his "stripes" (53:5). "The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (53:6). There is reference to the Servant being "like a lamb that is led to the slaughter" (53:7) -- to me this suggests a clear parallel to levitical sacrifice (hence, atonement) --,

That is a real stretch, although given your assumption that Jesus is a
substitutiary offering, not surprising. There is also a reference to the
speakers going astry like sheep - are you going to say that the speakers were
also sacrifices? The use of the phrase "like a lamb led to slaughter" is
specifically qualified in the text as indicating the servants silence in the
face in persecution; not being sacrificed.

And you are reading too much into careless translations. For example, 53:5 says
that the servant was bruised from / as a result of the speakers'
iniquities, not "for" them. That is, the servant is not making up for
anything; rather it is the speakers who are directly responsible for the
suffering. As I said, this is because the Jews did indeed suffer when the
nations sinned by persecuting them.

and "stricken for the transgression of my people" (53:8). "He shall bear their iniquities" (53:11), and "he bore the sin of many" (53:12). In fact, "He shall bear their iniquities" (53:11), is similar to instances of atonement elsewhere (RSV):

Why have you not eaten the sin offering [minchah -- Strong's word #4503] in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?" (Leviticus 10:17)

"Bear" in Lev 10:17 is a different word (nacah -- Strong's word #5375) than "bear" in Isaiah 53:11 (sabal or cabal -- Strong's word #5445), but surely the concepts or ideas are virtually the same in the two passages. Scripture is not just single words; it is also sentences and thoughts and notions. Plus, two (or more) words can have very similar meanings.

I think there may be something wrong with your concordance. "mincha" does not
appear anywhere in Lev 10:17. The word for the sin-offering used in the verse is
chatas (Strong's #2403).

The key point that you seem to have missed in Lev. 10:17 is that the "bearing"
of the sin of the assembly is not the same as the atoning mentioned in
the same verse! From the fact that the verse needs to describe both goals of
eating the chatas in the proper place, it should be obvious that "bearing
a sin" does not mean "atoning" for it. If "bearing" sin meant "atoning"
for it, the second phrase would be unnecessary.

In Leviticus 20:19-20, the phrases "bear their iniquity" and "bear their sin" seem to be used synonymously, as in Isaiah 53:11 and 53:12. In the former case, the sinners bear their own sin, but in Isaiah, the Servant is vicariously bearing their sin for the purpose of atonement.

No, the servant is suffering as a result of the sin of others, just as the
sinners in Lev. 20:19-20 suffer as a result of their own sins. The passage still
does not say "atone" anywhere.

And Jewish commentators have seen atonement here, too:

The Messiah, in order to atone for them both [for Adam and David] will make his soul a trespass-offering, as it is written next to this, in the Parashah Behold My servant. And what is written after it? He shall see seed, shall have long days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Asereth Memroth)

Inasmuch as now at the end of the captivity there will be no prophet to intercede at the time of distress, the time of the Lord's anger and of his fury, God appoints His Servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated. Thus, from the words, "he was wounded for our transgressions", we learn two things: first, that Israel had committed many sins and transgressions, for which they deserved the indignation of God; and second, that by the Messiah bearing them they would be delivered from the wrath which rested upon them, and be enabled to endure it, as it is said, "And by associating with him we are healed."

It was said, "The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all", and the prophet repeats the same thought here, saying that God was pleased to bruise and sicken him, though not in consequence of sin. The prophet next says, "When his soul makes a trespass offering", indicating thereby that his soul was compelled to take Israel's guilt upon itself, as it is said, "And he bore the sin of many". (Yepheth Ben Ali)

As I have said, I am not impressed by your ability to find isolated Jews whose
words appear to support your position. You have to look at the total context of
their comments, and to what extent their opinions are normative, and whether
there are speaking homiletically.

What more do you need, my friend? I don't see how it could be any more explicit in its clear teaching of an atonement taking place here (but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if I have missed something). This is not exclusively Christian theology, either, as I have shown with references to righteous people doing this for others in Jewish history.

I have shown why your arguments don't add up to anything. When the Bible wants
to say that something atones, it knows how to spell the word. If it doesn't say
it, you need to show more evidence that the fact that it uses a word which is
also used in passages that do speak of atoning.

Dave, your "proofs" are based on mistranslations and misunderstandings. I suggest you find a source who actually can read the Hebrew Bible in the original.

I think I have shown that the matter is a bit more complicated than your simplistic triumphant summary of the alleged groundlessness of my case. I may not know Hebrew, but you seem to have great difficulty in examining biblical context and maintaining a coherent exegesis without glaring logical errors and lack of cross-referenced biblical support. I would say that one factor is as important as the other in these matters. I can barrel through my Strong's Concordance and muster up a halfway decent argument about Hebrew words and their usage. Can you, however, explain variously the passages I have critiqued as having nothing to do with Isaiah 53? I would like to see it.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 14 September 2001, from public Internet discussions.

Dialogue on "Salvation Outside the Church" and Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions

(Particularly in the Middle Ages: With Emphasis on St. Thomas Aquinas's Views)

The following is based on an exchange with an Anglican, which took place on the Catholic Online forum. He has complained about posting his words, and my editing, and stated that the forum policy forbade such use. I obliged by removing his words (which were formerly posted here), and paraphrasing his thoughts. Later I heard that he had become a Catholic.

* * * * *

I thought I would reply to some of the points you have made in this thread, if you don't mind. I don't particularly want to get into minutiae of Councils and so forth. For now (and generally speaking), I am much more interested in presuppositions, premises, and assumptions underlying people's arguments, as you'll quickly discover, if we interact much. Whole systems are built on axiomatic principles, but if those are suspect or erroneous, then the system built upon them is only as good as they are (it might indeed be a house built on sand).

Councils cannot contradict one another on faith and morals. You must realize, though, that infallibility is not a sort of verbal inspiration, akin to biblical inspiration, so that individual words are not the focus of infallibility, but rather, doctrines. Doctrines can be expressed in different ways (and Vatican II stresses presentation of orthodoxy in terms that modern man can understand).

My opponent claimed that the notion of "outside the church no salvation" was understood by the medievals in a way contradictory to the modern Catholic understanding, and cited the Council of Constance' condemnation of the statement, "It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches."

This is a non-issue, because, in fact, the mediævals did indeed possess such an understanding. That is where your error lies (and hence, the creation of the alleged difficulty). The lack of subtlety and nuance (and supposed contradiction, as you argue) in this instance lies in your wooden, overly-literalistic interpretation, not in the theological and ecclesiological self-understanding of the mediæval Catholic Church (nor the Church subsequently, for that matter).

The late Fr. William Most, wrote about the sense in which these sorts of texts must be understood, in his online paper, "Is There Salvation Outside the Church?" -- documentation of sources can be found there; I won't bother with them here.

. . . RESTRICTIVE MAGISTERIUM TEXTS

There are several Magisterium texts that seem quite stringent. The
Profession of Faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III in 1208 A.D. for the
Waldensians says: "We believe in our heart and confess in our mouth that
there is one Church, not of heretics, but the holy Roman Catholic
apostolic Church, outside of which we believe no one is saved." [20]
Similarly, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. defined, against the
Albigensians and Cathari: "There is one universal Church of the faithful,
outside of which no one at all is saved."[21]

Pope Boniface VIII in his famous Unam sanctam of Nov. 18, 1302 spoke strongly: "Outside of which (the Church) there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. . . . But we declare, state and define that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is altogether necessary for salvation."[22]

The texts of Innocent III and IV Lateran do not go farther than the
patristic texts we have seen. But the second sentence from Boniface VIII
does raise a further question. However, the difficulty is easily handled;
for the critical line is quoted from St. Thomas, Contra Errores
Graecorum: Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano Pontifici sit de
necessitate salutis [23] ("It is also shown that to be subject to the
Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.") But in the context, shown by
the two quotes St. Thomas gives at this point, it means merely that there
is no salvation outside the Church. In that sense one must come under the
jurisdiction of the Pope.[24]

An Epistle of Clement VI, of Sept. 29, 1351, makes just a simple
statement: "No man . . . outside the faith of the Church and obedience to
the Roman Pontiff can finally be saved."[25] The sense is as above.

Finally, the Decree for the Jacobites from the Council of Florence in 1442
seems specially vehement:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and
schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal
fire . . . unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it
(the Church); and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force
that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church
profitable for salvation, and fastings, alms and other works of piety and
exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards (only)
for them. "No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."[26]

The internal quote at the end is one we saw above from Fulgentius. Does
the Council endorse all the implications of Fulgentius? Hardly. As we saw,
Fulgentius also teaches the damnation of unbaptized infants, and seems to
contradict the teaching of Pope St. Stephen on baptism given by heretics.
But, more importantly, we can see from the vehemence of Patristic attacks
on heretics, e.g., St. Cyprian Ad Demetrianum, that the Fathers have in mind those who are in bad faith, who culpably reject the Church. They do not seem to think of those who inculpably fail to find the Church.[27] So from this point on, it becomes largely a question not of doctrine but of objective fact: how many are culpable?

Nor was this truth "discovered" in the Middle Ages. The Bible teaches it (Romans 2) and so do the Fathers. Philip C. L. Gray, in his article, “Without the Church There Is No Salvation," points out:

Many people who claim that God restricts salvation to baptized Catholics cite the Fathers of the Church to prove their assertions. While space does not allow an exhaustive analysis of the Fathers, there are several necessary points to keep in mind. First, the Fathers must be understood in the context of their writings, not in the context of the one quoting them. The majority of the Fathers who wrote on this topic were concerned about those who had once believed or had heard the truth, but now rejected it. Many of them believed the entire world had heard the Gospel. Their words were not directed at those who, by no fault of their own, did not know the Gospel of Christ.

The Fathers do affirm the inherent danger in deliberately rejecting the Church . . . On the other hand, many of the Fathers did write about those who were invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. Of these, the Fathers accepted that salvation was open to them, even if in a mysterious way. The Fathers recognized that the natural law of justice and virtue is written on the hearts of all men. Those who respect this law respect the Lawgiver, though they do not know Him. As St. Justin Martyr wrote in the second century:

We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared Him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them . . . those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46).

In the third century, St. Clement of Alexandria wrote:

Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the Law did the Hebrews (Miscellanies 1:5).

Origen wrote,

There was never a time when God did not want men to be just; He was always concerned about that. Indeed, He always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the Wisdom of God descended into those souls which He found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7).

In the fifth century, St. Augustine wrote:

When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within the heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (Baptism 5:28:39).

Karl Adam, in his wonderful 1924 book, The Spirit of Catholicism, wrote on p. 176 in the Doubleday Image edition:

The Jansenists in the seventeenth century.....advocated the.....principle that 'outside the Church there is no grace' (extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia). But again it was Rome and a pope that expressly rejected this proposition.

And on page 182, Adam states:

The Church expressly distinguishes between "formal" and "material" heretics. A "formal" heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a "material" heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. St. Augustine forbids us to blame a man for being a heretic because he was born of heretical parents, provided that he does not with obstinate self-assurance shut out all better knowledge, but seeks the truth simply and loyally (Ep. 43,1,1). Whenever the Church has such honest enquirers before her, she remembers that our Lord condemned Pharisaism but not the individual Pharisee, that He held deep and loving intercourse with Nicodemus, and allowed Himself to be invited by Simon.

It was at the Council of Trent that the dogma of baptism of desire was defined. This reiterated that literal membership in the Catholic Church was not required for salvation.

St. Thomas Aquinas, who died some 140 years before Constance, shows that invincible ignorance and relative culpability were concepts alive and well in the early Middle Ages. Fr. Alfredo M. Morselli summarizes St. Thomas's teachings in this regard in a paper I have on my site: A Defense of the Ecumenical Gathering at Assisi ( Ecumenism in St. Thomas Aquinas):

I call up here a distinction by St.Thomas:

a) "Unbelief by way of pure negation" (infidelitas secundum negationem puram) in case a man may "be called an unbeliever merely because he has not the faith" "in those who have heard nothing about the faith"; this Unbelief is not a sin -and

b) "Unbelief by way of opposition to the faith" (infidelitas secundum contrarietatem ad fidem) when "a man refuses to hear the faith" (S.Th II II, 10,1 c); this Unbelief is a sin.

The fact that "unbelief by way of pure negation" is not a sin, is not only a Thomist concept, but it's also a verity of faith: St. Pius V condemned the proposition Infidelitas pure negativa in his quibus Christus non est predicatus peccatum est (D +1068) (=Purely negative unbelief, in those whom Christ was not preached to, is a sin).

In fact St. Thomas teaches that "Nobody would believe if he doesn't see he must believe" (non enim crederet nisi videret ea esse credenda - S.Th., II II, q. 1, a. 4 ad 2).

The prayer of Cornelius was a false worship, but it has been made a good prayer by faith; an implicit faith:

S Th. II II q. 10 a. 4 ad 3 (in some editions ad 4)

With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.

For further extensive analysis on this issue, regarding the closely-related, "infamous" Papal Bull, Unam Sanctam, see, The Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved: Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?, by Catholic apologist and friend Phil Porvaznik.

Thus, your objection collapses due to its factually erroneous premise (that the mediæval Church did not understand invincible ignorance, baptism of desire, implicit desire and suchlike), and is therefore no proof at all of a contradiction between Ecumenical Councils, nor between mediæval and current-day Catholic theology.

It is only the simplistic reading of a document in isolation from its theological and cultural context (not to mention without the faith of a Catholic who approaches the same document), that causes so-called "problems," and is part and parcel of the faulty liberal methodology of both biblical exegesis and jaded interpretation of conciliar and papal documents.

Perhaps an analogy of the Bible and its interpretation will be helpful at this point. Christians believe that the Bible is inspired and infallible (therefore self-consistent and non-contradictory). That is a tenet held in faith. Yet we come to the Bible to study it with all the usual, helpful academic and intellectual tools at our disposal. We attempt to get behind the text (exegete rather than eisegete) and to harmonize it with biblical thought elsewhere. This is done (or should be done) in the overall framework of Christian faith. In so doing, obviously, there will be differing opinions held by sincere men in good faith. Those contradictions do not in any way, shape, or form, overthrow biblical infallibility or inspiration.

Likewise (though in a somewhat lesser fashion), statements of Ecumenical Councils are not immediately suspect as non-infallible simply because some differences of interpretation may exist, or because, prima facie (prior to any in-depth analysis at all), they might appear to clash with some other Catholic teaching. Protestants can't even agree on something so central to biblical thought as baptism (with five major contradictory camps), yet manage to believe that Scripture is perspicuous and able to be understood in the main by someone with an average intelligence. So far be it from them to wax eloquent about alleged Catholic conciliar contradictions. "People in glass houses . . . " But I digress . . .

There is nothing wrong whatever with delving into historical context of theological pronouncements, anymore than we would do with, for example, analysis of the thoughts and intent behind something like the US Constitution (e.g., The Federalist Papers, or the correspondence of Jefferson, Madison, etc., or political precursors in Locke or Montesquieu). One might do the same with the Magna Carta, and even with such things as great works of art and music.

I'm a great admirer of Beethoven. And one thing Beethoven-lovers (and even students of history in general) know about is his Heiligenstadt Testament (1802), in which he agonized about his impending deafness. The music critic takes that into account in analysis of Beethoven's wonderful Third (Eroica) Symphony of 1803. This is an elementary point, it seems to me. And so, in a discussion on the meaning of conciliar statements, one is well-advised to look at prior thought and theological development on the same theme.

With regard to this "salvation outside the Church" red herring, one need go no further than St. Thomas Aquinas, though there is much more relevant material to be brought to bear. But you didn't do that. You insisted on analyzing a bald text in complete isolation.

You seem, then (though I don't know you that well yet), to possess a measure of the usual modernist animus against the mediæval period, complete with the obligatory stereotypes of "pitchforks and molten lead." I submit that you have (willingly or not -- probably not) distorted the mediæval fully-thought-out position on this and opted for secular-type caricatures. Shame on you. You ought to embrace the mediæval Church as part of your own heritage and seek to understand it better, and take to heart G.K. Chesterton's words:

There is something odd in the fact that when we reproduce the Middle Ages it is always
some such rough and half-grotesque part of them that we reproduce . . . Why is it that we
mainly remember the Middle Ages by absurd things? . . . Few modern people know what a
mass of illuminating philosophy, delicate metaphysics, clear and dignified social morality
exists in the serious scholastic writers of mediaeval times. But we seem to have grasped
somehow that the ruder and more clownish elements in the Middle Ages have a human and
poetical interest. We are delighted to know about the ignorance of mediaevalism; we are
contented to be ignorant about its knowledge. When we talk of something mediaeval, we
mean something quaint. We remember that alchemy was mediaeval, or that heraldry was
mediaeval. We forget that Parliaments are mediaeval, that all our Universities are
mediaeval, that city corporations are mediaeval, that gunpowder and printing are mediaeval,
that half the things by which we now live, and to which we look for progress, are
mediaeval.

("The True Middle Ages," The Illustrated London News, 14 July 1906)

We can study background assumptions, and study the history of dogmatic theology and doctrinal development. We even have records of many of the deliberations of these Councils. You simply conveniently assume that defenders of the Catholic orthodoxy of Constance (in this one statement) -- those who think it is not in disharmony with other Councils or present-day Catholic theology -- are special pleading and making up some "loophole" as we go along.

I think the truth (if we must argue in this rather shallow way) is much more likely to be the contrary. In thumbing your nose at proper and necessary historical inquiry into the background of this statement and the thoughts contained therein, you are the one who cuts off the possibility of a true understanding from the outset. That works for you because without the background, you can simply impose your preconceived notions and circular reasoning to the text and abracadabra! -- you "win" the discussion, and Catholicism is hopelessly contradictory, and so forth, therefore not worthy of allegience. That won't do. You'll have to do better than that, for Pete's sake (no pun intended).

Rather than look into the actual background of how those of other religions were in fact viewed by the Church in that period (as I have done, presenting plenty of documentation for you), you simply make your wooden and erroneous, wrongheaded interpretation of one line in the Council and conclude that a contradiction is present. You don't seek to understand it as possibly in harmony with prior Catholic teaching. In my opinion, that is simply a "polemical" methodology, rather than a truly fair-minded attempt to approach it on its own terms (agree or disagree). No one expects you to become a Catholic overnight, I'm sure, but we hope that you can admit that no internal contradiction in Catholicism (with regard to this particular) is present, when shown that this is indeed the case.

Now you have the background thought to contend with, and it seems to me that it annihilates your premise, in which case you must concede your entire argument against one statement in Constance being a flat-out contradiction to Catholic teaching prior or since, and move onto something else.

My opponent then characterized the "conservative method" of interpretation of Church documents, as the refusal to take into account the intentions of the drafters of the dogma, and playing around with definitions to make them mean whatever one wants them to mean., in an effort to special plead and "explain away."

Apparently, for you, the word conservative is the equivalent of dishonest. Curious definitions of words . . . You use the word conservative like I would use anti-intellectual (or, perhaps, sophist). The anti-intellectual is not trying to "conserve" anything other than his refusal to use his head and to bring proper reasoning to the table. I am interested only in orthodoxy or the mind of the Church. Perhaps we agree on that in principle, if not in application, in this instance.

I shall paraphrase my opponents' words henceforth [in this smaller font]: if "outside the Church no salvation" was simply another way of saying "invincible ignorance," that might be a reasonable explanation.

Like everything else, this question underwent development. Since the Church doesn't proclaim anyone damned (not even Judas), obviously, it is not assuming that entire classes of people are damned. You are simply wrong on the facts on this. The Fathers mulled over this question, and were not as "legalist" or willing to damn people who are simply ignorant, as you seem to assume. St. Thomas Aquinas has a quite nuanced and sophisticated approach to the topic. So for you to assume that bishops at Constance had no inkling of that is a quite a stretch (to put it mildly).

The Council of Constance makes this view an impossible one to take.

No; rather, your false and razor-thin interpretation makes you wrongly think that the fatal blow has occurred, when it has not at all. You interpret the council's words wrongly. I love how you blithely dismiss the only sensible option of the three that you pose as the comprehensive choices, and then cynically conclude that Catholic dogmatic theology is either 1) contradictory, or 2) a wax nose which special pleaders can form in whatever way they like. Very cute. One has to hand it to you for chutzpah, if nothing else.

The bottom line is that the Catholic believes in papal, ecclesial, and conciliar infallibility in faith. These are not airtight propositions, able to be proven beyond all doubt, like a geometric axiom or something. That said, it does not follow that we are talking about sheer fideism or irrationality. In my reply, I used reason and showed, I think, how there is a sensible, plausible way to interpret Constance which is in accord with orthodox Catholic theology before and since. If you consider it special pleading, feel free to refute it. I think what you are doing is engaging in rather shoddy and shallow methods of interpretation, and a massive begging of the question.

Granted, we can't prove that councils are infallible anymore than one can "prove" that the Bible is inerrant and inspired. Both propositions obviously require faith. But we can demonstrate through reason and historical analysis that something is not immediately (and self-evidently) contradictory, as you are claiming.

We can, in other words, disprove the negative charge. The positive assertion will always require faith. You don't possess that faith in infallible councils (which we believe are protected by God from error, not the wisdom of men) -- we understand that, but you have failed in your attempt at establishing internal inconsistency in this case.

You only bring out [in a citation of an argument from St. John Chrysostom] one category of people in a state of invincible ignorance: that of people who were before Christ and could not possibly have known about Him. But, logically speaking, this does not disallow the same reasoning as applied to those who lived after Christ.

Quite the contrary: ignorance is ignorance, no matter what time period one lives in. A nominally-Muslim, uneducated, illiterate peasant on the steppes of central Asia today may not know Jesus Christ anymore than he knows about Grover Cleveland or Captain Kangaroo. What does time period have to do with it? He is ignorant. Therefore, the principle is the same whether one lived before or after Christ, and I think your objection is lightweight and of no particular significance.

Beyond that logical point, you are simply incorrect once again as to the facts (trying to imply that the Fathers only talked about those before Christ), and I will document that now. First, more material from Fr. Most (I only cited his examinations of the late-medieval period before):

. . . the Fathers of the first centuries, on closer study, reveal the start of a way out of this impasse. They did not, it seems, reach the complete solution, but they pointed in the right direction . . .

. . . We find . . . two sets of assertions, very often by the same writers. One group of statements speaks very strongly, and almost stringently, about the need of membership; the other group softens this position by taking a remarkably broad view of what membership consists in . . .

St. Irenaeus, as we saw, has one passage which might be considered restrictive. But in many other places he takes a very broad view:

There is one and the same God the Father and His Logos, always assisting the human race, with varied arrangements, to be sure, and doing many things, and saving from the beginning those who are saved, for they are those who love God, and, according to their age (genean) follow His Logos.[40]

We note Irenaeus speaks of the human race, of the various time periods, of various arrangements, not just of the Hebrews and the arrangement God made with them. Further, although Irenaeus was not fond of speculation, yet he wrote that those who follow the Logos are saved. This of course sounds like Justin's First Apology, 46 cited above . . .

In the same vein, we also read in Irenaeus:

For the Son, administering all things for the Father, completes (His work) from the beginning to the end. . . . For the Son, assisting to His own creation from the beginning, reveals the Father to all to whom He wills. [42]

And similarly, as if answering Celsus:

Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly. . . and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice. [43]

Clement of Alexandria has many statements of a broad nature:

From what has been said, I think it is clear that there is one true Church, which is really ancient, into which those who are just according to design are enrolled. [44]

Similarly:

Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews. [45]

. . . It is Origen who gives us the objection of Celsus:

Did God then after so great an age think of making just the life of man, but before He did not care? [55]

To which Origen replies:

To this we will say that there never was a time when God did not will to make just the life of men. But He always cared, and gave occasions of virtue to make the reasonable one right. For generation by generation this wisdom of God came to souls it found holy and made them friends of God and prophets.

Similarly, in his commentary on Romans 2:14-16 Origen said that the law written on hearts was not the law about sabbaths and new moons, but:

that they must not commit murder or adultery, not steal, not speak false testimony, that they honor father and mother, and similar things . . . and it is shown that each one is to be judged not according to a privilege of nature, but by his own thoughts he is accused or excused, by the testimony of his conscience. [56]

The remark about the "privilege of nature" means that it does not matter whether they be Jews or not. There is no respecting of persons with God.

. . . We found broad texts much more widely. Only three of the above ten Fathers who have restrictive texts lack broad texts: St. Cyprian, Lactantius, and St. Fulgentius. All others, plus many more, do have them.

Broad texts are found in: First Clement, St. Justin, Hermas, Second Clement, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hegemonius, Arnobius, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Prosper, St. Nilus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great, Primasius, and St. John Damascene. We added two samples of later writers with broad texts: Haymo and Oecumenius.

We find many of the Fathers specifically answering the charge of Celsus (why did Christ come so late)--St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, Hegemonius, Arnobius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine (though not all explicitly mention Celsus).

Very many speak of the Church as always existing: Hermas, Second Clement, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Augustine, St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. John Damascene . . .

Modern experimental anthropology concurs; pagans do know the moral law surprisingly well. How do they know it? It seems to become known in some interior way, though not by mere reasoning. That interior way, even though the pagans did not recognize what it was, is God, or the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Christ, or the Logos--all mean the same. St. Paul clearly has this thought, for in Rom 2:15 he obviously echoes Jeremiah 31:33 (prophecy of new covenant): "I will write my law on their hearts."

So God did and does indeed write His law on the hearts of men. Objectively, this is done by the Spirit of God, the divine Logos, as we said. As Justin says, those who follow the Logos were and are Christians.

Now if we add still other words of St. Paul in Romans we can go further. In Rom 8:9: "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Him." So, those who do have the Spirit of Christ, and follow the Logos as He writes the law on their hearts, do indeed belong to Christ. But still further, according to the same Paul, to belong to Christ means to be a member of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:27). Again further, to be a member of Christ, is also to be a member of His Church for the Church is the Body of Christ.

So we seem to have found the much needed solution: Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the Logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. They may lack indeed external adherence; they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense, without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church.

They can also be called sons of God, for Romans 8:14 adds: "All who are led by the Spirit are sons of God." As sons, of course, they are coheirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), and so will inherit the kingdom with Him.

We can even add that objectively--though probably those who drafted the text or voted for it did not realize it--Vatican II taught the same thing: "For all who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church." [99]

In saying this, we are not contradicting the teaching of Pius XII (Mystical Body Encyclical). He spoke of some as being ordered to the Church by a certain desire which they did not recognize. We admit that. To add to truth is not to deny truth . . .

. . . finally: some would say that the Fathers and the Magisterium speak only of people before Christ--after He came, formal entrance into the Church is necessary. We reply: First, the Magisterium texts speak in the present tense, not the past. Thus, Pius IX: "God by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments. . . ." And the Holy Office said: "It is not always required. . . ." Vatican II similarly: "They who without their own fault . . . can attain eternal salvation." Second, the statements of the Fathers show a basic conviction that God must have made provision for men before Christ: the same thinking applies to those after Christ. Further, St. Paul in Romans 5:15-19 insists strongly and over and over again that the redemption is more abundant than the fall. But if the coming of Christ caused countless millions to lose in practice all chance of salvation, then the redemption would not be superabundant--it would be a tragedy, a harsh tragedy for these persons. And God would not act as if He were their God--as St. Paul asserts in Romans 3:29-30.

(see: Is There Salvation Outside the Church?)

Furthermore, I already noted material before that contradicts this silly assertion that the Fathers were only talking about those before Christ and not after:

Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them . . . those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid.

(St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 46; emphasis added)

I see nothing in my prior quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas, either, that restricts his observations to those before Christ. Your objection is much ado about nothing, and you are only digging yourself in deeper.

Also, from the above-mentioned article by Fr. William Most:

Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt (died 853), in his commentary on Romans 2:14-16, says that the words of Paul that the gentiles show the work of the law written on hearts can be understood in two ways. First:

They show surely that they have the natural law written on their hearts, and they are the law for themselves: because they do the things that the law teaches, even though it was not given to them. For example, the Saracens who have neither the law of Moses nor of the Gospel, while by nature they keep the law, do not commit murder, or commit adultery, or other things, which the law written within them contains; they are a law to themselves. . . . In the second way: When the gentiles . . . naturally do the things . . . because they have the same law of Moses written on their hearts by the inspiration of Almighty God . . . "their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts in turn accusing or even defending." And when will this be? "On the day when the Lord will judge the hidden things of men" according to my Gospel." [96]

So, Haymo thinks even some Saracens of his day are being saved!

Now, lest [my opponent] attempt to place the Saracens before the time of Christ (Haymo spoke in the present-tense of present-day Saracens, but the overly-skeptical mind finds "loopholes" one way or another . . . ), I will nip that possibility in the bud by noting that my Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985 ed., vol. 10, p. 445), defines a Saracen as: "in the Middle Ages, any person -- Arab, Turk, or other -- who professed the religion of Islam."

Islam having begun in the 7th century, I think we can safely conclude without fear of contradiction that Haymo is referring to a group of people after the time of Christ. He even expressly states that they are without "the Gospel." It couldn't be more clear than it is.

Yet [my opponent's] dubious contention is that the Fathers thought one could be saved before the time of Jesus without being members of the Church, but not after Jesus. Elsewhere he applies this supposed universal ("one voice") state of affairs to the medieval Church. Taint so! St. Thomas Aquinas alone disproves that . . .

Ya looks at the facts and ya makes yer choice . . . .

[My opponent] has repeatedly asserted that neither the Fathers nor the medieval Church possessed a notion of invincible ignorance [I documented how he did this eight times, on eight different dates: January 3,6,8, 11, 13, 16, 21, 23]. As for the Fathers supposedly not teaching this, St. Irenaeus fits the bill, I think (or something closely approximating it, at any rate):

Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly. . . and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) states in its article on "Ignorance":

Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful.

"Remoter conclusions" would include, of course, the notion that the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation, since that is clearly a matter of revealed truth and (like the Holy Trinity) not accessible in the natural law that all men have knowledge of, according to St. Thomas.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes, in his Summa Theologica: First Part of the Second Part, Question 76, Article 2:

Whether ignorance is a sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that ignorance is not a sin. For sin is "a word, deed or desire contrary to God's law," as stated above (71, 5). Now ignorance does not denote an act, either internal or external. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.

Objection 2. Further, sin is more directly opposed to grace than to knowledge. Now privation of grace is not a sin, but a punishment resulting from sin. Therefore ignorance which is privation of knowledge is not a sin.

Objection 3. Further, if ignorance is a sin, this can only be in so far as it is voluntary. But if ignorance is a sin, through being voluntary, it seems that the sin will consist in the act itself of the will, rather than in the ignorance. Therefore the ignorance will not be a sin, but rather a result of sin.

Objection 4. Further, every sin is taken away by repentance, nor does any sin, except only original sin, pass as to guilt, yet remain in act. Now ignorance is not removed by repentance, but remains in act, all its guilt being removed by repentance. Therefore ignorance is not a sin, unless perchance it be original sin.

Objection 5. Further, if ignorance be a sin, then a man will be sinning, as long as he remains in ignorance. But ignorance is continual in the one who is ignorant. Therefore a person in ignorance would be continually sinning, which is clearly false, else ignorance would be a most grievous sin. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.

On the contrary, Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance deserves punishment, according to 1 Cor. 14:38: "If any man know not, he shall not be known." Therefore ignorance is a sin.

I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (71, 6, ad 1), when we say that sin is a "word, deed or desire," we include the opposite negations, by reason of which omissions have the character of sin; so that negligence, in as much as ignorance is a sin, is comprised in the above definition of sin; in so far as one omits to say what one ought, or to do what one ought, or to desire what one ought, in order to acquire the knowledge which we ought to have.

Reply to Objection 2. Although privation of grace is not a sin in itself, yet by reason of negligence in preparing oneself for grace, it may have the character of sin, even as ignorance; nevertheless even here there is a difference, since man can acquire knowledge by his acts, whereas grace is not acquired by acts, but by God's favor.

Reply to Objection 3. Just as in a sin of transgression, the sin consists not only in the act of the will, but also in the act willed, which is commanded by the will; so in a sin of omission not only the act of the will is a sin, but also the omission, in so far as it is in some way voluntary; and accordingly, the neglect to know, or even lack of consideration is a sin.

Reply to Objection 4. Although when the guilt has passed away through repentance, the ignorance remains, according as it is a privation of knowledge, nevertheless the negligence does not remain, by reason of which the ignorance is said to be a sin.

Reply to Objection 5. Just as in other sins of omission, man sins actually only at the time at which the affirmative precept is binding, so is it with the sin of ignorance. For the ignorant man sins actually indeed, not continually, but only at the time for acquiring the knowledge that he ought to have.

(see: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/207602.htm; emphasis added)

In Summa Theologica: Third Part, Question 68, Article 2, St. Thomas (citing St. Augustine) espouses the baptism of desire that was made dogma at the Council of Trent:

Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

Lastly, in his Commentary on Sentences II, d. 22, q. 2, a. 2, c, he writes (emphasis added):

One kind of ignorance completely excuses from wrongdoing; another kind, however, partially excuses; and yet another kind excuses neither completely or partially. To clarify this, let us reflect upon the threefold division of ignorance.

First, on the part of the knower himself: the agent can know some things, and ignorance of these is called vincible or affected; and there are other things that he cannot know, and this is called invincible ignorance . . .

All this in St. Thomas alone, yet [my opponent] astonishingly contends that it is very difficult to find support for the notion of invincible ignorance "anywhere" in the Church of the Middle Ages, and that there was "virtually no evidence" in that period for this notion. Yet St. Thomas Aquinas was quite "mediæval." He lived in the 13th century, and died 140 years before the Council of Constance, and exercised a wee bit of influence on the Catholic Church and her theology, I submit. But [my opponent] would have us believe that the Council bishops knew nothing of his teaching on these matters, and that the very notion of invincible ignorance was absent at that time from the mediæval Church.

That falsehood can be laid to rest once and for all. And since it is the erroneous foundation of [my opponent's] argument, his argument collapses with it. I don't question his sincerity (I fought infallibility myself with great vigor in the year preceding my conversion in late 1990, marshalling resources from George Salmon, Dollinger, Hans Kung, and all the usual suspects who oppose the doctrine). But he needs to now concede this particular matter and move on to something else that has more substantive proofs than his faulty interpretations of the intent behind Catholic conciliar statements (entirely neglecting the context of historical theology and doctrinal development), arguments from silence (which really aren't, once all the relevant facts are in), and his own unsubstantiated bald statements.

We all make mistakes. There is no shame in admitting that, and I admire anyone who can do so very much. I'm sure I am not alone in that opinion.

Your original argument tried to show conciliar or magisterial contradictions, using one statement from Constance. Your argument was that it couldn't possibly be interpreted in a way other than rigid and woodenly literal. It has now clearly been shown that that was untrue. Your premise was incorrect from the outset. So I can see why you would want to set aside Constance at this point. :-) (<---- smiley face in the original post)

You made sweeping claims that the notion of invincible ignorance was not known by the medieval Church or even the early Church. That, too, was shown to be false.

You tried to evade various patristic quotes which countered or overthrew your claims with the argument that their words were only applied to those before Christ and not anyone after. I produced a rebuttal to that, too. You make my job easy when you set forth grandiose claims that are able to be disproven by a single counter-example!

You claimed that no one in the early Church would have taught a broad notion of salvation for those "outside" the Church. I produced Irenaeus (d.c. 202) and Justin Martyr (d.c. 165) to put that false assertion to rest.

All we had to do was to refute your charges and show that invincible ignorance and things like implicit desire and baptism of desire were indeed present before the 15th century (and indeed they were taught long before). The Church has always had a sophisticated "psychology of unbelief." It developed, of course, but it was already nuanced in Holy Scripture itself (Romans 2 / Peter and the Gentiles) and in the teaching and behavior of our Lord Jesus (the woman at the well, the Roman centurion, etc.). This is the mind of the Church. This topic has been sufficiently dealt with, for the purpose of bolstering the faith of Catholics who may have been teetering under your critiques for three weeks, and starting to doubt Catholic dogmas or authority.

What has been demonstrated is quite enough for the person who has faith in God with regard to His protection of the Catholic Church. It will never be enough for one (like you) who has not such faith (with regard to Catholicism). I learned a long time ago that it is pointless to go round and round with those of a skeptical bent, on any given topic. They always come up with another obection; another "difficulty." But what they see as a "difficulty" is often factually incorrect or simply implausible to the eye of faith. This is one such instance. I do think it is worthwhile, however, to cover each particular argument at least briefly, to demonstrate that it has far less power and cogency than its proponents claim for it.

I post from work and this places limits on the time I spend in this forum.

I guess, but what is your total? 674 posts since July? That's almost a four per day average for six straight months. And your posts are usually of some length. You must either write awfully fast or have a great deal of free time at work.

This issue is only one example of many of Christian paradox and complexity. We can't always figure everything out with finality. This is one of those subjects (like, e.g., predestination vs. free will). No one knows who will actually be saved in the end. All we can do is speculate on the relationship of various beliefs or lack of beliefs, or lack of knowledge of same, to salvation and individual culpability. It's not a simply-understood issue, so one can easily find opposing strains of thought or emphases in the Fathers.

Your objections have already been anticipated and overcome. I have no interest in a detailed patristic study along these lines. Your argument -- which you stated repeatedly and vigorously here for three weeks -- has (with all due respect) been defeated at all major points, in my opinion.

By the way, do you have any objection to my posting of these dialogues (and others to come) on my website? I can add your name and e-mail if you like.

[he never replied one way or the other, until 30 July 2003, some six months later, when he objected to my editing]

There is a logical difference comparing one who lived before Christ and another who lived during and after His lifetime, and knew of Him and His teaching.

But there is no logical distinction in terms of ignorance and invincible ignorance between two people B.C. and A.D. if the latter has never heard of Christ. The Fathers (in the quotes I have seen) are discussing the first scenario, not the second. You are making an issue out of the second scenario when there is none, because ignorance is ignorance whenever one lives. It is a thoroughgoing non-issue.

The distinction described above was made because it would have application to the first scenario above, and also have to do with what it means to be saved by Christ before He was incarnated. In fact, those who are saved before Christ are a perfect parallel to those after Christ who are saved, never having heard about Him or the gospel, because the principle is the same: they're judged by what they know, their hearts, and adherence to the moral law which is in all of us (Romans 2). Anyone who is saved is saved by grace and Jesus Christ, whether they are aware of that fact or not. And all who are saved are Catholics, whether they know that or not (another sub-meaning of "no salvation outside the Church).

So when the Fathers talk about those before Christ being saved by Him, they are logically and conceptually discussing the same matter as those saved after Christ who haven't heard the gospel. Those before Christ were obviously invincibly ignorant, yet could be saved. So there is your concept of invincible ignorance again.

My opponent then cited 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Sure, this is the "Limbo of the Fathers," a purgatory-like state. These people were saved and awaiting Jesus' victory so they could go to heaven. In the KJV and some other versions, the Greek Hades, or the nether world (Heb. Sheol) -- which is what this place is --, is translated hell, leading to much confusion. These people had faith. They were saved because they followed God acording to what they knew, and were saved by grace and Christ just as we can be today. We are in the Church Age now. Now one goes to hell, purgatory, heaven (with all in purgatory eventually headed for heaven); or limbo.

God can clearly save someone from 500 BC before Christ, or an ignorant person from 500 AD, after Christ. That is biblical and Catholic teaching, and indeed, that of virtually all Christians who think much about it.

To whom much is given, much is required.

Let not many of you become teachers . . . for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. (James 3:1; RSV)

The more you know, the more you are accountable for what you know, and whether you accept and follow the teaching (and Jesus) or not. God also has middle knowledge (scientia media, an emphasized aspect of Molinist soteriology with regard to predestination, which is my own particular belief), of potentialities and conditionals. He knows what any given person would do if they were presented with the gospel and claims of Christ (when in fact they have not been), and -- having that knowledge -- is fully able to judge them fairly according to a single criteria applied to all mankind, not double standards according to what knowledge one was literally familiar with.

Unbelievers can make it to heaven, depending on what they do with the knowledge and faith they possess (Romans 2:12-17). They can have any sin that anyone else commits, and they also have original sin in their soul, and are worthy only of damnation, like all of us, BUT for God's grace.
Original sin is capable of damning one. But God can see what everyone would or would not do and how they would respond to the gospel if given a chance (even, I believe, a merely theoretical person who never existed; God could create such a person in an instant and then know how he would act his whole life because God is out of time and experiences no sequence or future or past like we do). We even have explicit biblical proof of middle knowledge: Matthew 11:20-24, where Jesus taught that the cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have repented if they had witnessed His works. And God is merciful and loving, so we can be sure that everyone has an equal chance and that there is no unfairness with God. Sodom and other cities were judged, but it doesn't follow that every individual in them was damned.

The damnation might not be all that painful [cites Summa Theologica Appendix 1, question 1].

Limbo is not damnation. The latter is utter separation from God, and direct punishment and torment, eternally. Limbo is a state of natural happiness and relationship with God, such as we can attain on this earth to a large extent. It is deprivation from the Beatific Vision. Apples and oranges. "Damnation" can only refer to hell.

What Aquinas states about the baptism of desire is the orthodox position! Any alleged difficulty you continue to have is dealt with particularly in his words:

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, . . .

St. Thomas is obviously not talking about atheists here, but about those who consciously, willingly believe in God and His providence, by means of the knowledge they have from natural law. According to the Bible -- technically speaking --, there are no atheists in fact (i.e., down deep, after their intellectual pretensions are stripped away), because all men know that there is a God (Romans 1:18-23).

When Catholics talk about invincible ignorance (with regard to salvation), they are generally referring to ignorance of the gospel or the Christian revelation. St. Thomas is speaking of those without such revelation and explaining how their implicit faith -- based in natural law; cf. Romans 1 -- was related to the Jesus they did not know. Again, we see, you are trying to create a difficulty or contradiction where there is none at all. When will you give this up? Your arguments are suffering now from the law of diminishing return: you have to put out a lot more stuff to get even a tiny return from it (if any return at all).

The medievals are simply not as dumb as you previously thought (and I think you are sharp enough to have figured that out -- thus rendering this entire thread unnecessary and fundamentally wrongheaded, since you had some acquaintance with St. Thomas Aquinas and could have easily deduced or discovered that he would have thought about this). And the medievals don't contradict modern Catholic thought on salvation "outside" the Church; they were simply less-developed, which is altogether to be expected. St. Thomas lived over 725 years ago, and the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding His Church. We've learned many things since his time. But the acuity of his mind has perhaps never been surpassed, which is a testament to his extraordinary intellectual and theological achievement at a relatively early period in Church history.

St. Augustine wrote of these matters in his Nature and Grace (chapter 2):

Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if [as the Pelagians falsely contend] it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ's divinity and humanity, which was manifest in the flesh. For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? For "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? "Yea, verily; their sounds went out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth - because there are some remote nations still (although it is said that they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way, - what must human nature do, or what has it done - for it has either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished - but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath - in a word, from punishment - except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.

I used the word "dumb" to describe your view of the mediævals with regard to this question. Now, granted, it was a bit rhetorically and polemically excessive as a synonym of the word ignorant, because it really isn't one, as a check of my dictionary and Roget's Thesaurus revealed.

So I retract that word and instead claim that you previously argued that the mediævals were virtually utterly ignorant of the notion of invincible ignorance. That has been shown to be false, without a doubt. So my point stands, even though I used one unfortunate word. I now rephrase my unfortunate comment as: "The mediævals are simply not as ignorant as you previously thought."
Do you now agree with that sentiment?

To quote Shakespeare: "methinks thou doth protest too much."

And our Lord Jesus: ". . . straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (Matthew 23:24).

Now [my opponent] is at a place well-familiar to lawyers who have no case, but who have to put up some sort of defense for their clients: when you don't have the facts on your side, you have to sling around as much nonsense as you can and hope that the jurors won't notice that it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. In debate, we call this obfuscation, sophistry, or obscurantism. And this is what [my opponent] is doing. I will now proceed to demonstrate exactly how (in my opinion) he is doing this:

The first thing [my opponent] does is set up a false dilemma, by assuming without argument his false premises once again (that have long been proven to be incorrect and wrongheaded). A short while ago, [my opponent] implied that St. Thomas wasn't even aware of the concept of invincible ignorance. Having been shown otherwise, now he tinkers around the edges of St. Thomas's treatment of the subject and still pretends that it somehow contradicts Constance. Of course, as we have been arguing, Constance presupposes all of these "loopholes" concerning people "outside" the Church, because that had already been part of the mind of the Church since the beginning, and is easily shown in Holy Scripture itself. I showed that early on by citing William Most, discussing a similar statement and showing how it was cited from St. Thomas, and that his citation was, in turn, clear from context as to its exact meaning. But never mind . . . like the cynical lawyer defending a guilty person, [my opponent] continues on, as if none of this has been demonstrated.

Bishops can be cruel and "nasty" just like anyone else. Bishops were mostly at fault in the widespread adoption of the Arian heresy. Today they (at least some of them -- as opposed to the laity) bear much of the blame for the priestly molestation scandal. And we know that only one bishop (St. John Fisher) was faithful to received Christian Tradition when Henry VIII established a separate church in England ( [my opponent's] own) by means of butchery and treachery. But despite all that, God protects the decrees of Councils from error. The fact remains that the Church always held that those outside the Church could be saved if certain criteria were met.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 30 January 2003. Revised on 31 July 2003.

Dialogue: Vatican II and Other Religions ("Nostra Aetate")

A discussion with a so-called "traditionalist," who thinks that Vatican II compromised the Catholic faith. His words will be in blue.

Your argument has two sides to it: one is a defense of the Second Vatican Council, another is an attack on those who dare to question it; let's examine the defense.

I am not attacking the people, of course, but their positions. I always make that distinction, and it is absolutely crucial in the field of apologetics, as well as all legitimate dialogue.

I proceed now to quote from the Second Vatican Council document Nostra Aetate, paragraph two:

It [Buddhism] proposes a way of life by which men can, with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or by the aid of divine help. . . She [the Catholic Church] has a high regard. . .for the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ, Who is the way, the truth and the life. In Him. . . men find the fullness of their religious life.

and

In Hinduism men explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy.

I will note, before I proceed, that if even one statement of one document of the Second Vatican Council is proved to be fallible, your case founders.

Not exactly. The catch is in the criterion of "proof." As you well know, our anti-Catholic Protestant friends think they have all kinds of proof that Catholicism is unbiblical, idolatrous, false to history, pagan, a departure from early Christianity, etc. They think they have an airtight case. You and I would surely agree that they don't. So don't be so sure that you can disprove beyond all doubt something or other in an Ecumenical Council. Luther thought the same, and I'm sure he had at his disposal all the garden-variety charges of supposed "Romish" error through the centuries (Honorius et al). So let's take a closer look at your "proof."

These two quotes are so ambiguous and contain so mixed a message, it cannot be said they are either definitive or binding. This is the case for two reasons: the failure to use definitive language and assertions which are contrary to fact.

1. Lack of definitive language: "proposes a way of life by which men can..." What does this mean? Propose means "to set forth." For example the propositions of such heretics like Wyclif, Hus and Luther were condemned becaused they proposed, i.e. set forth errors as true beliefs. Yet according to the above quote, the way of life which Buddhism proposes is a way BY which men can, that is ARE ABLE to attain perfect liberation.

You misunderstand the language almost totally. The Council is not agreeing with Buddhism per se; it is merely recognizing the sincere and worthy goals to be found in almost all world religions, including Buddhism. This is diplomatic, conciliatory language. It is obviously an attempt to find common ground with other religions - not an exercise in indifferentism or relativism. You needn't create a contradiction where in fact two ideas are complementary. I find that people who are predisposed to be critical of Vatican II often find in it what they wish to find, but in so doing, they make their bias evident to all. I believe this is one such case. I am glad you have brought up specifics of the Council, because then we can observe the evident fallacies entailed in your interpretation.

The key phrase in the document is: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions." In other words, what is true is good (and that is what is discussed), and can be gladly acknowledged. The errors are bad. It is not the purpose of this particular document to document those. It is difficult to be both conciliatory and apologetic at the same time (though we are indeed called to both). E.g., in the present debate, we are being very apologetic, and defending our own viewpoints. We are all fairly aware of what unites us, so we don't have any particular need or desire to discuss that. Nostra Aetate has precisely the opposite purpose.

You could, I suppose, argue (similar in spirit to a hyper-Calvinist fundamentalist) that all religions besides Catholicism are thoroughly evil, through and through, but this is patently (and I think, obviously) false. St. Paul engaged in a tactic not unlike this document, in his sermon on Mars Hill, in Athens. He cited pagan poets and philosophers, and the "tomb of the unknown god," rhetorically built upon them, and proceeded to make the case for Christianity. So he engaged in both endeavors, but consecutively. It is difficult to do them simultaneously, just as a prophet cannot easily bring forth a message of love and pastoral concern, and a scathing jeremiad, at the same time. Pro-life activism offers another analogy. One can block doors of clinics (as I used to do), and one can counsel women who are trying to get an abortion. Both are very valuable. But they are also difficult to do together.

Furthermore, St. Paul teaches the notion that much good can be found outside of the "law" (by extension, the Church) in Romans 2:12-16 (cf. 3:29). This is nothing new in Catholic teaching. Ecumenism finds its roots right in Holy Scripture. The early Jesuit missionaries to North America, e.g., are famous for their attempts to synthesize Native American culture with Christianity, as much as possible.

So your argument really boils down to a curious version of the tired anti-Catholic Protestant objection that Catholicism is deliberately compromised with paganism. They make the same arguments you do, and I have answered them in largely the same fashion (Is Catholicism Half-Pagan?). You yourself know their arguments are false, and misrepresent true Catholic teaching; likewise, I reject your argument here as false and a gross misrepresentation of Vatican II (which is magisterial Catholic teaching, and perfectly consistent with Tradition).

This incorporation of what was true and good in pre-Christian religion was also very much in evidence in the Virgin Mary's appearance at Guadalupe - perhaps the greatest and most rapid mass conversion of all time.

All throughout its documents the Council asserts the liberation that comes through Christ, so the context of the other documents only clouds this statement further. Is this "way of life" a false proposition?

You yourself give the solution; you just can't see it. Of course the Council teaches Christ as the "way of life." In this very document, it states:

Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fulness of their religious life.

{section 2; p. 739 in Flannery edition}

The document does not say this clearly, and then it rushes to praise these very same errors.

You have it exactly backwards: it is not praising the errors at all, but rather, whatever truth can be found in other religions.

Then we hear that in Our Lord we find the "fullness" of the religious life. The implication here is that the religious life of man can be partially located outside of faith in Christ.

Whatever is true does eventually emanate from Christ and the Church. This isn't denied.

Our Lord said "who does not gather with me scatters." He did not say that those who do not gather with Him only partially gather. No Council or Father prior to this one would ever assert that any belief that rejects Jesus Christ as the only way of Salvation has any merit. The ancient fathers may have held that a man can perform objectively moral acts while disbelieving in Christ, not because he embraced a religion that rejects Christ., but DESPITE it. This teaching is unclear, implies falsehoods condemned by earlier councils and has been an occasion for modernists and heretics to shield the assaults they make on the Church. Further what "divine mystery" is it to which Hindus are privy? Certainly not the mysteries of the Trinity or the Incarnation, in fact, not even the knowledge of One God. Which divine mystery does the Council assert that Hinduism explores? Are we to take it that the faithful are to profess with an assent closely related to the assent of faith that Buddhism or Hinduism explore divine mysteries or are capable of proposing methods by which men can attain perfect liberation? If I assert, as I wholeheartedly do, that these two systems are false and that everything they teach is contrary to the Catholic faith, am I disobedient or schismatic? Have I separated myself from the Catholic Church for the bizarre "crime" of refusing to honor Hinduism, a religion whose devotees are known to practice AS A TENET OF THEIR FAITH, the immolation of widows and the strangulation of children?

In this instance, the very "vagueness" you deplore was put to very good use! Not much in Hinduism was praised, and what was can hardly be ascertained in any specific sense. And that is what diplomatic language seeks to achieve - harmony as much as possible, as opposed to arguing every point of difference.

The Fathers and Pre-Vatican II Popes (from Catholic Apologetics Today, by Fr. Most):

St. Justin Martyr (d.c. 165)

Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus. {Apology, I, 46}

St. Augustine

From the beginning of the human race, whoever believed in Him and understood Him somewhat, and lived according to His precepts . . . whoever and wherever they may have been, doubtless were saved through him. {Epistle 102, 12}

Pope Pius IX

[God] does not allow anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.

Pope Pius XII

[those who are merely] ordered to the Church by a sort of unrecognized [by them] desire and wish [can be saved]. {Fr. Most's interpolations}

2. Errors of fact: Buddhism teaches a system of self-annihilation. This is not akin, as some modernists have said, to the Catholic notion of embracing one's cross or dying to one's self: it is a doctrine which teaches the obliteration of self. Its idea of "illumination" is to know nothing, to seek nothing, to have affections or feelings for nothing, not even God or a "divine mystery." In Buddhism it is considered wrong to love God or to desire His presence. It does not teach perfect liberation or supreme illumination. This is simply incorrect. Hinduism expresses the divine mystery through the accurate insights of philosophy? Are we idiots? Please name one doctrine of Hinduism which Catholics are bound to accept as being accurate in any way, let alone an accurate expression of the divine mystery. The Buddhism and Hinduism described in this passage are a Buddhism and Hinduism which exist only in the minds of the Council Fathers, not in the theology or practice of their adherents. This is how we get Balasuriyas.

Perhaps you have some valid points here. I can only appeal (without a lot of research I have no desire to do) to the diplomatic nature of the document; it is not a treatise of comparative religion. That gets back to the purpose of ecumenical statements. Nor is it binding Catholics to any particular belief about these religions, other than the most general outlook. It might be interesting to find a Hindu and a Buddhist and ask them what they think of these descriptions. The document does presuppose a certain attitude or spirit towards other religions, whereby we recognize whatever truth is in them. They are not entirely evil. Thus stated the Council of Trent, St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many other Catholics through the ages.

I have never denied that there are great complexities in the operation and nature of conciliar infallibility. It would be foolish to do so. But criticizing particular passages and language in the Council is a far cry from rejecting entire decrees, stating that the Council violates or overthrows Catholic Tradition, not accepting it with submission of mind and will, etc. That's why I am far more interested in your take on certain passages. I think we saw your (false) bias when it came to how you interpreted the Council's view of other religions (as if it were espousing them in toto).

You claim that the notions of ecumenism were something radically new. I think I have shown that they certainly aren't new, and are, rather, legitimate developments. This is what interests me in this discussion, as it gets down to brass tacks - as opposed to arcane discussions of the precise nature of the levels of infallibility, etc. I am neither a canon lawyer, nor a theologian, and I won't presume to be one (as far as I know, no one else here is, either). But in any event you have to deal with previous "ecumenical Tradition," as outlined above.

Can it be realistically asserted that Christ came, in part, to tell us that Hinduism expresses the divine mystery through its accurately defined philosophical principles? And that such a teaching has anything to do with faith and morals? As you said above, a clear teaching of the Church is binding: where is this clarity which you ascribe to the entirety of the Second Vatican Council?

None of this injures indefectibility: indefectibility requires that a Council be incapable of error when it defines matters of faith or morals. Much in these documents is cleverly insinuated or implied, little is taught definitively.

So you pick arguably the most deliberately vague document (by its very ecumenical nature) to make your case that the entire Council lacked definitive teaching? That hardly follows.

If, as I have shown, a teaching not only is not infallible or definitive or helpful in better understanding faith and morals but seems on the contrary, to be positively harmful to the faith, then there is a clear responsibility to object until it is clearly defined.

I deny that anything you have cited from the Council is "harmful to the faith," and I have shown why.

(This has nothing to do with "modernism," since modernists dispute matters which are clearly defined like women's ordination or contraception).

So you think it is controversial to assert that some good can be found in other religions?

In connection with all this, Dave, not only do I have "business being a Catholic," my difficulties cannot be characterized by you as being contemptible or scandalous. I speak in good faith, as one who wants to defend the Catholic Faith from its enemies external and internal. I may disagree with you Dave, but I will not uncharitably impugn you, your faith or your motives.

Good. Thanks. I am passionate about ideas, about my Church, and about what I feel to be the truth. I would have to examine the context of these remarks of mine again, but I know that my intent was not to impugn you or your motives. If it appeared that way, or if indeed I was overly-harsh (which is quite possible), I offer my sincere apologies. Oftentimes I utilize the argumentum ad absurdum or attempt to show inconsistencies in principle (my comparisons to Luther are an example of that). In so doing it may look like I am intending to attack people personally, or accusing them of deliberate intent to distort. But such is never my purpose, I can assure you. I accept virtually anyone's sincerity and good faith, unless and until I see very strong and compelling evidence to the contrary (of Clintonesque proportions).

Compiled by Dave Armstrong, from group e-mail discussions: 1 August 1999.

John Calvin & St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Comparative Eucharistic Theology

Reformed Protestant (or Reformed Catholic; take your pick) Kevin D. Johnson has been making the argument that these two men have a similar theology regarding the Holy Eucharist. He wrote in his blog entry, "The Catholic Nature of Calvin's View of the Real Presence" (emphases added):

For Calvin, his view of the Real Presence very much agreed with Cyril of Jerusalem and a better term to understand him is the "mystical presence" of Christ . . . The term "spiritual presence" can be misleading because Calvin's opponents (both Lutheran and Roman Catholic) tried to emphasize a presence that avoided the fuller definition given above and claim that he believed that Christ was only present in spirit and not bodily. Christ's bodily--physical--presence was there in the sacrament according to Calvin, but this was so by the Spirit (hence the usage of the term "spiritual" which refers to the Holy Spirit making this presence possible). This is in line with the orthodox catholic teaching of the subject over the ages--and Calvin very much resonated with the Church in this regard. It is wrong to think somehow that he broke with catholic tradition here.

. . . I think Roman Catholics must admit that at the very least, transubstantiation as it was approved at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and Trent in the mid-sixteenth century was a later development of the doctrines both of the Real Presence and the Lord's Supper and while it is certainly a part of Roman Catholic orthodoxy now it was not so clear cut prior to 1215 when it was made a part of the deposit of the faith. Indeed, it had been hotly debated for 400 years prior to the Fourth Lateran Council starting with its chief protagonist Radbertus.

Calvin's view actually represents an earlier tradition via Cyril of Jerusalem among others (arguably, Augustine since that is where Calvin primarily pulls his definition of a "sacrament" in his Institutes) and is truer not only to the text of Scripture but also to the orthodox theology of the Church over the ages. In addition, it avoids the heavy influence of a scholastic look at such an issue that transubstantiation clearly represents.

The scholastic theology of Rome caused a break between the orthodoxy of the early and medieval Church and while there are Roman Catholic apologists out there who can look back at the early fathers and read transubstantiation back into their statements, it is very difficult for a true scholarly effort to accomplish the same thing without admitting a great deal of prejudice in interpreting those early texts in such a manner.

Calvin and the other magisterial Reformers very clearly viewed themselves as part of the historic Catholic Church and felt that it was the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism that had departed from the ancient deposit of the faith. Regarding this issue, it is very easy to see why they felt that way once one acquaints himself with all of the historical data on the matter of the Real Presence and the development of transubstantiation as the Church approached the High Middle Ages.

This concisely summarizes Kevin's position and gives us a solid statement of his position, that we can work with as we examine the historical data (in which alone the question can be satisfactorily and substantively settled). In his blog entry, "A Reformed Doctrine of the Eucharist and Ministry and its Implications for Roman Catholic Dialogues," Kevin cites at length the following article by David Willis: "A Reformed Doctrine of the Eucharist and Ministry and Its Implications for Roman Catholic Dialogues", Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 21:2, Spring 1984, pp. 295-309. Here are some highlights from his post (all from Willis, and emphases again added):

. . . Calvin maintained a doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper. The starting point for his doctrine, one which he shares with Cyril of Jerusalem, is the mystical union of Christ with believers. According to Calvin, in the eucharist we participate not just in the benefits of Christ but also in his substance, that of his humanity no less than of his divinity; Christ is substantially, not just sacramentally, present. Calvin's objection to the doctrines of transubstantiation and bodily ubiquity is that they constitute threats to a correct doctrine of the real presence--the former by weakening the reality of the signs which Christ uses as the instruments for his presence, the latter by weakening the reality of the humanity of Christ . . .

Saying that Christ is really present by the power of the Spirit was not an adequate account of Christ's real presence, according to those who insisted that the real presence had to be guaranteed either by a doctrine of transubstantiation or bodily ubiquity.

We may, then, summarize (using the above data) Kevin's interpretation of Calvin's eucharistic theology and its relation to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in the following way:

1. Calvin's notion of "real presence" was "very much" in agreement with St. Cyril.

2. Calvin's understanding of "real presence" is "in line with the orthodox catholic teaching of the subject over the ages." He did not break with catholic tradition on this point.

3. Transubstantiation was a development postdating the Fathers, and was quite questionable even strictly in terms of "Roman Catholic orthodoxy" prior to 1215.

4. The eucharistic theology of St. Cyril (reflected by Calvin) is basically at odds with transubstantiation, which is primarily a result of late medieval scholastic theology, and constituted a "break" with earlier tradition.

5. To find transubstantiation in the Fathers is "very difficult" for one engaged in a "true scholarly effort," and requires a "great deal of prejudice" (in other words, it is anachronistic interpretation).

From these opinions, I therefore logically conclude (expressing it in a different manner which follows straightforwardly from the above):

1. If transubstantiation, or something closely approximating it, or a lesser-developed version of it, can be found in the Fathers, then Kevin's argument collapses, since he holds that it was only a later scholastic development, and a break with the Fathers. If the development can be shown to have occurred in the patristic age, then so much the worse for Kevin's historical scenario regarding "catholic orthodoxy" and the Eucharist.

2. If, in particular, St. Cyril of Jerusalem can be shown to adopt something akin to transubstantiation or otherwise opposed to Calvin's opinions (e.g., acceptance of the Sacrifice of the Mass or adoration of the consecrated Host), then the strong comparison and parallel must be withdrawn as factually inaccurate. This follows from the content of #1 and #2 above. If he can be shown to have accepted a primitive form of transubstantiation, then #3 and #4 must be discarded as well.

3. If non-Catholic scholars can be produced who find transubstantiation, or something closely approximating it, or a lesser-developed version of it, in the Fathers (or in St. Cyril particularly), then we must conclude that they, too, are guilty of anachronistic interpretation, are lacking in a "true scholarly effort," and suffer from a "great deal of prejudice" -- and for no particular reason, as they are not Catholic apologists, etc., determined to shore up a [Roman] Catholic position at all costs, in the face of demonstrable facts.

Now, to begin our study, let us examine John Calvin's opinion concerning transubstantiation, adoration of the Host, and the Sacrifice of the Mass (his own theology of the Eucharist having been previously discussed at great length in one dialogue on this blog and another subsequent one, which continued it). We will then proceed to inquire as to whether this was in accord with the Fathers and St. Cyril in particular, and thus merely continuing that earlier "orthodox tradition," or whether it was, in fact, a break from the same (rather than transubstantiation being the decisive break and corruption of earlier doctrine). Calvin's words will be in blue. St. Cyril's will be in red. Words of others in citations will be black, but indented (as above). Bolded emphases remain my own throughout. Italics are in the originals.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

From: Reply to Jacopo Cardinal Sadoleto

(September 1, 1539; translated by Henry Beveridge, 1844; reprinted in A Reformation Debate, edited by John C. Olin, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966; citation from p. 71)

In condemning your gross dogma of transubstantiation, . . . we have not acted without the concurrence of the ancient Church, under whose shadow you endeavor in vain to hide the very vile superstitions to which you are here addicted.

From: Jules Bonnet, editor, John Calvin: Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Letters, Part 2, 1545-1553, volume 5 of 7; translated by David Constable; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983; reproduction of Letters of John Calvin, volume II [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858]:

. . . transubstantiation was a mere fiction . . .

(Letter to Farel, 11 May 1541, p. 261)

From: The True Method of Reforming the Church and Healing Her Divisions

(1547; translated by Henry Beveridge, 1851; reprinted in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 3: Tracts, Part 3, edited by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983; citation from p. 277):

In treating of the Supper they bring back the fiction of Transubstantiation, against which all are forced to protest who are unwilling that the true use of the Supper should be lost to them. A common property of the Sacraments is, that in a manner adapted to the human intellect, they exhibit what is spiritual by a visible sign. The spiritual meaning of the Supper is, that the flesh of Christ is the meat and his blood the drink on which our souls are fed. Unless the sign correspond to this the nature of the Sacrament is destroyed. It is therefore necessary that the bread and wine be held forth to us, that from them we may learn what Christ sets before us in figure. But if the bread which we see is an empty show, what will it attest to us but an empty shadow of the flesh of Christ? They pretend that there is only an appearance of bread, which deceives the eye. How far will this phantom carry us?

ADORATION OF THE HOST

From: On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly, and Preserving the Purity of the Christian Religion.

(1537; translated by Henry Beveridge, 1851; reprinted in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 3: Tracts, Part 3, edited by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983; citations from pp. 383, 386-387, 393):

. . . the abominable Idolatry, when bread is pretended to assume Divinity, and raised aloft as God, and worshipped by all present! The thing is so atrocious and insulting, that without being seen it can scarcely be believed . . . A little bit of Bread, I say, is displayed, adored, and invoked. In short, it is believed to be God, a thing which even the Gentiles never believed of any of their statues! And let no one here object that it is not the Bread that is adored, but Christ who becomes substituted for the Bread the moment it has been legitimately consecrated.

. . . At last, behold the Idol (puny, indeed, in bodily appearance, and white in colour, but by far the foulest and most pestiferous of all Idols!) lifted up to affect the minds of the beholders with superstition. While all prostrate themselves in stupid amazement . . . What effrontery must ours be, if we deny that any one of the things delivered in Scripture against Idolatry is inapplicable to the Idolatry here detected and proved! What! is this Idol in any respect different from that which the Second Commandment of the Law forbids us to worship? But if it is not, why should the worship of it be regarded as less a sin than the worship of the Statue at Babylon? . . . how can it be lawful to keep rolling about in such a sink of pollution and sacrilege as here manifestly exists?

. . . Away, then, with those who, on the view of a missal-god of wafer, bend their knees in hypocritical adoration, and allege that they sin the less because they worship an idol under the name of God! As if the Lord were not doubly mocked by that nefarious use of his Name, when, in a manner abandoning Him, men run to an idol, and he himself is represented as passing into bread, because enchanted by a kind of dull and magical murmur!

From: Reply to Sadoleto (ibid., p. 71):

In . . . declaring that stupid adoration which detains the minds of men among the elements, and permits them not to rise to Christ, to be perverse and impious, we have not acted without the concurrence of the ancient Church, under whose shadow you endeavor in vain to hide the very vile superstitions to which you are here addicted.

From Bonnet, Selected Works (ibid.):

. . . the reposition of the consecrated wafer a piece of superstition, that the adoration of the wafer was idolatrous, or at the least dangerous, since it had no authority from the word of God . . . I condemned that peculiar local presence; the act of adoration I declared to be altogether insufferable.

(Letter to Farel, 11 May 1541, p. 261)

From: Institutes of the Christian Religion:

(1559 ed., translation of Ford L. Battles; edited by John T. McNeill;, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2 volumes, 1960):

. . . fictitious transubstantiation . . . the first fabricators of this local presence could not explain how Christ's body might be mixed with the substance of bred without many absurdities immediately cropping up . . . But it is wonderful how they fell to such a point of ignorance, even of folly, that, despising not only Scripture but even the consensus of the ancient church, they unveiled that monster . . . they all [the Fathers, or "old writers"] everywhere clearly proclaim that the Sacred Supper consists of two parts, the earthly and the heavenly; and they interpret the earthly part to be indisputably bread and wine.

Surely, whatever our opponents may prate, it is plain that to confirm this doctrine they lack the support of antiquity . . . For transubstantiation was devised not long ago; indeed, not only was it unknown to those purer ages when the purer doctrine of religion still flourished, but even when that purity already was somewhat corrupted.

(IV, 17, 14)

They could never have been so foully deluded by Satan's tricks unless they had already been bewitched by this error . . . among them consecration was virtually equivalent to magic incantation . . . Even in Bernard's time [1090-1153], although a blunter manner of speaking had been adopted, transubstantiation was not yet recognized.

(IV, 17, 15)

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

From: On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly, and Preserving the Purity of the Christian Religion.

(1537; translated by Henry Beveridge, 1851; reprinted in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 3: Tracts, Part 3, edited by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983; citations from pp. 383, 386-388):

. . . the mere name of Sacrifice (as the priests of the Mass understand it) both utterly abolishes the cross of Christ, and overturns his sacred Supper which he consecrated as a memorial of his death. For both, as we know, is the death of Christ utterly despoiled of its glory, unless it is held to be the one only and eternal Sacrifice; and if any other Sacrifice still remains, the Supper of Christ falls at once, and is completely torn up by the roots . . .

Will it still be denied to me that he who listens to the Mass with a semblance of Religion, every time these acts are perpetrated, professes before men to be a partner in sacrilege, whatever his mind may inwardly declare to God?

. . . Taking the single expression which gives the essence of all the invectives which the Apostle had uttered against Idolatry -- that we could not at once be partakers at the table of Christ and the table of demons -- who can deny its applicability to the Mass? Its altar is erected by overthrowing the Table of Christ . . . In the Mass Christ is traduced, his death is mocked, an execrable idol is substituted for God -- shall we hesitate, then, to call it the table of demons? Or shall we not rather, in order justly to designate its monstrous impiety, try, if possible, to devise some new term still more expressive of detestation? Indeed, I exceedingly wonder how men, not utterly blind, can hesitate for a moment to apply the name "Table of Demons" to the Mass, seeing they plainly behold in the erection and arrangement of it the tricks, engines, and troops of devils all combined . . . I have long been maintaining on the strongest grounds that Christian men ought not even to be present at it!

. . . will you represent the Supper under the image of a diabolical Mass? Will you persuade us that in an act in which you ignominiously travesty the death of the Lord, you observe his Supper, in which he distinctly exhorts us to shew forth his death?

From Reply to Sadoleto (ibid., p. 74):

. . . We are indignant, that in the room of the sacred Supper has been substituted a sacrifice, by which the death of Christ is emptied of its virtues . . . in all these points, the ancient Church is clearly on our side, and opposes you, not less than we ourselves do.

From: Institutes of the Christian Religion

(1559 edition; translated by Henry Beveridge, 1845)

Scarcely can we hold any meeting with them without polluting ourselves with open idolatry. Their principal bond of communion is undoubtedly in the Mass, which we abominate as the greatest sacrilege.

(IV, 2, 9)

From: Institutes of the Christian Religion:

(1559 ed., translation of Ford L. Battles; edited by John T. McNeill;, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2 volumes, 1960)

The height of frightful abomination was when the devil . . . blinded nearly the whole world with a most pestilential error - the belief that the Mass is a sacrifice . . . It is most clearly proved by the Word of God that this Mass . . . inflicts signal dishonor upon Christ, buries and oppresses his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which came to us from it . . .

Let us therefore show . . . that in it an unbearable blasphemy and dishonor is inflicted upon Christ . . . they not only deprive Christ of his honor, and snatch from him the prerogative of that eternal priesthood, but try to cast him down from the right hand of his Father . . .

Another power of the Mass was set forth: that it suppresses and buries the cross and Passion of Christ. This is indeed very certain: that the cross of Christ is overthrown as soon as the altar is set up . . .