Isaiah 53

[Padraig_77]

I found this site which tries to claim that Isaiah 53 is not referring to Jesus: geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/isaih.html

Could someone refute these claims?

Particularly these:

======

53:3 “Despised and rejected of men.”

While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the Christian Bible account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly “praised by all” (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11).

Even as he was supposedly taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared “a riot of the people” (Mk. 14:1-2).

53:4 “Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore.”

In Matt. 8:17, this is incorrectly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus’ healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.

53:4 “Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”

See Jer. 30:17 - of God’s servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, “It is Zion; no one cares for her.”

======

53:5 “But he was wounded FROM (NOTE: not FOR ) our transgressions, he was crushed FROM (AGAIN: not FOR) our iniquities.”

Notice above how the Christians mistranslate and write "FOR our transgressions " rather than " FROM our transgressions " .

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

======

53:7 “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth.”

Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel’s faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as “sheep to be slaughtered” in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).

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

======

53:8 “From dominion and judgement he was taken away.”

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

======

53:8 “He was cut off out of the land of the living” and 53:9 “His grave was assigned with wicked men.”

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

The Jewish Bible repeatedly says that if a descendant of David is righteous, he will not be "cut off " (karet). For example, see 1Kings 2:4, 8:25, 9:4-5; Jeremiah 33:17; 2Chronicles 6:16, 7:18. But if a descendant of David or priests are unrighteous, they will be cut off (karet). For example, see Jeremiah 33:18; Joel 1:9.

Therefore, if this verse is speaking of Jesus being “cur off”, then that must mean he was unrighteous and was cut off from his (supposed) royal heritage.

=======

53:8 “From my peoples’ sins, there was injury to THEM .”

Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual.

The Hebrew word “lamoh”, when used in the Jewish Bible , always means “to them” never “to him” and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 - “They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them.”

=======

53:9 “And with the rich in his DEATHS .”

Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will “come to life” when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14). “DEATHS” (Plural)

======

53:9 “He had done no violence.”

See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the Christian Bible account of Jesus . Actualy this denotes that the servant is suffering at the hands of the Gentile nations without provocation .

=======

53:10 “He shall see his seed.”

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

=======

53:10 “He will prolong his days.”

Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God himself ?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Here is commentary on Isaias 53:3-10 from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 3. Not. The whole life of Christ was spent in the midst of poverty, and contradictions, Hebrews iv. 15. He has thus taught us to despise ourselves.

Ver. 4. Sorrows. Healing them by his own afflictions, Matthew viii. 15. Sickness is an effect of sin, which Jesus came to destroy, 1 Peter ii. 24 — Leper, who was bound to have his face covered, ver. 3., and Leviticus xiii. 45. — God. Payva (Def. Trin. iv.) assures us that many Jews were converted by the perusal of this chapter, and particularly of this verse, which may be rendered “as a God wounded and afflicted.” (Calmet)

Ver. 5. Healed. He inculcates this important truth repeatedly. Christ nailed the hand-writing that was against us to the cross, Colossians ii. 14. (Haydock)

Ver. 6. Astray. We belong to his fold, chap. xl. 11., John x. 11., and Luke xv. 4.— Laid. Septuagint, “abandoned him to our sins,” as to so many executioners; (Calmet) “and he, because he had been abused, opened,” &c. (Haydock)

Ver. 7. Will. The pagans were very attentive that the victim should not make much resistance. (Macrobius iii. 5.)

Ver. 8. Judgment, or by an unjust and cruel judgment. (Haydock) — Hebrew, “from prison and judgment.” (Calmet) — Septuagint, “in humiliation, (Haydock) or humility, his judgment was taken away,” or rescinded, by his glorious resurrection. St. Philip follows this version in explaining this passage to the eunuch, Acts viii. 33. — Generation, from his eternal Father or from the Virgin [Mary], his incarnation, life, resurrection, or posterity in the Church. All these may be meant, and are inexplicable. (Calmet)

Ver. 9. Death. Hebrew, “and he made his grave with the wicked men, and with the rich man, in his death.” (Haydock) — Grave and death seem to be transposed; and we might better read, “He was taken up with wicked men in his death, and with a rich man was his sepulchre.” This indeed is only a conjecture, but well grounded in the context. See Josue xxiv. 19. (Kennicott) — Septuagint, “and I will give the wicked for his grave, and the rich men for his death.” (Haydock) — The rich man may denote the small number of Jews who embraced the faith. (Calmet) — They esteemed themselves rich, and were highly favoured by God; yet they were blinded, (Haydock) and given up to the Romans, in punishment of their deicide, Matthew xxvii. 25. The Church is gathered both from Jews and Gentiles, ver. 10. (Calmet) (St. Jerome) — “He will send to hell the wicked,” (Chaldean) who slew him. (Menochius) — Christ was buried where malefactors were generally, yet honourably, in the tomb of Joseph [of Arimathea]. (Worthington) (Matthew xxvii. 57.)

Ver. 10. Bruise. Septuagint, “to cleanse him from the wound.” (Haydock) — God was pleased that he should satisfy fro our crimes. — Hand. Christ has died for all, and established a Church which shall not perish.

 

[Padraig_77]

Thanks but, I was hoping someone could answer the specific claims made on that site, particularly the ones I quoted in the first post.

 

[juliamajor]

Thanks but, I was hoping someone could answer the specific claims made on that site, particularly the ones I quoted in the first post.

The problem with many theologies is that it is either/or. catholic theology is both/and. Yes Israel can be the Suffering servant-but so is Jesus. just like The woman in Revelation is Israel but also the BVM.Isaac is Abraham’s son and patriarch of Israel but he is also a type of Jesus…I. Besides it’s a Islamic site- they simply don’t understand Christian conception of God -foreign to them. .

 

[John7]

Could someone refute these claims?

I can’t refute these claims (yet) but the excellent book series ‘Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus’ (volumes 1-4) which I’ve just begun to read, written by Michael L. Brown (a Messianic Jew with a PhD in Hebrew) probably can. He devotes12 (5-17) chapters to Isaiah 53 in volume three, ‘Messianic Prophecy Objections’, taking apart the antimissionary arguments.

 

[Ruthie]

Ah, an Islamic site. They will quibble all day about one word in the Bible, trying to disprove it. When it comes to proof-texting, they make the sola scriptura people look like amateurs.

53:3 “Despised and rejected of men.”

…it cannot be reconciled with the Christian Bible account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly “praised by all” …

 Then who crucified Him? The people who praised Him?  And "of men" doesn't mean "of **all** men." Note that later, the author will use the account of Jesus' trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate - who weren't praising him. There's no consistency in his arguments.

53:4 “Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore.” …
53:4 “Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”

See Jer. 30:17 - of God’s servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, “It is Zion; no one cares for her.”

 First, Islamists believe that Jesus was not crucified. If He was not crucified, then He did not fulfill the prophecy about bearing our suffering. Which one is it?

The author’s attempt to connect Isa 53:4 with Jer 30:17 is very thin. The passage in Jeremiah is clearly about Israel while Isa 53 is clearly about a single person.

53:5 “But he was wounded FROM (NOTE: not FOR ) our transgressions, he was crushed FROM (AGAIN: not FOR) our iniquities.” …
ALSO: Note that the Davidic Messiah according to the Jews “shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth” (Isa. 42:4).

 "For" or "from" doesn't change the meaning of this verse. It still means He was wounded because of our transgressions.

Isa 43:4 has various translations. The ones I have all say “justice,” or “judgment,” not “right.” But the writer is probably thinking about “fail nor be crushed.” Many Jews, too, thought that the Messiah would be a conquering king in battle, not the One who taught us how to conquer sin and death. He may have been crucified, but He rose again - He did not fail; He was not crushed!

And note that this, too, is contrary to their own belief that Jesus did not die on the cross.

[Isa] 53:7 “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth.”

Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel’s faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as “sheep to be slaughtered” in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).

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

 Now that's some convoluted reasoning. First, they say it can't be Jesus in that passage (which I have already shown you is about a person, not a nation) because there are a couple of verses elsewhere where Israel is oppressed, taken away, and like sheep amidst wolves. Using the same reasoning, nothing in Exodus is about Moses, because it is about Israel being freed from Egypt!

Mt 27:46: A common misconception. Jesus is not complaining to God, but quoting Psalm 22, to reminding His Jewish followers that He would eventually triumph. (The way they learned the Scriptures, hearing the first line would call the rest into their minds immediately.) As for the other two citations, yes, Jesus spoke - but He was neither protesting, nor defending Himself. He gave no reasons why He should not be condemned. He just answered questions.

to be continued…

 

[Ruthie]

Part 2:

53:8 “From dominion and judgement he was taken away.”

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

That's funny. They previously cited Jn 18:36-37, where Jesus speaks of His kingship. And they are stretching it when they cite Jn 8:15 against His judgment - they ignore the next verse.

Jn 12:47 - Jesus doesn’t judge, but we will be judged by His words. 18:36 says nothing about judgment. What a load of codswallop.

53:8 “He was cut off out of the land of the living” and 53:9 “His grave was assigned with wicked men.”

 Another bunch of spurious so-called "reasoning" based on things that do not relate to each other.

53:8 “From my peoples’ sins, there was injury to THEM .”

…/the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual.

 My [online interlinear](http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa53.pdf) shows clearly that it says "**him**," not "them."

53:9 “And with the rich in his DEATHS .”

Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will “come to life” when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14). “DEATHS” (Plural)

Sheesh. Yeah, and I suppose that because "ruler" means "king" in one context, and "measuring device" in another, that they're both the same? And Eze 37:14 does not have the word "deaths" in it at all.

53:9 “He had done no violence.”

See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the Christian Bible account of Jesus . Actualy this denotes that the servant is suffering at the hands of the Gentile nations without provocation .

Wait a minute! Wasn't he claiming, a minute ago, that the Suffering Servant in Isa 53 was Israel, not Jesus? C'mon, Islamic dude, it's one or the other.

And the Interlinear has “wrong,” not violence. Jesus was right to drive those folks out of the Temple.

53:10 “He shall see his seed.”

The Hebrew word for “seed”, used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants …

Nice how he chops up the verses to try to prove his points, but never reads them as a whole. He's taken bits of Isa 53, out of order and out of context. It's called "proof-texting," and it's false argument.

I didn’t look long enough to find “seed” meaning adopted children, but I did find that it refers to seeds, as in planting. I guess he missed Gen 1:11-12. Aww.

And if we are all adopted by God, since Jesus *is *God, we are His seed.

53:10 “He will prolong his days.”

Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God himself ?

This one’s so transparent… Jesus was resurrected from the dead. So he was only “dead” for about 3 days - His body, that is. His days were prolonged, all right; to eternity.

And don’t forget that the author believes Jesus did not die on the Cross, so he’s arguing against his **own **belief here.

There. I spent an hour or so on that. Now you know how they argue, and can disregard their so-called reasoning in the future.

God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[Robbinson]

It can’t be referring to “Israel” because Isaiah 53 refers to an innocent/righteous one. The history of Israel through the Hebrew scriptures is one of national rebellion against God and Isaiah itself says of Israel, “none is righteous, not one”.

In addition, it can’t be Israel because Isaiah 53 says through the Servant’s wounds, we are healed. Those who have wounded Israel are not healed, they are punished (as promised in scripture - those who bless Israel are blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed). This has been born out in history - see any cannanites around? Nazi Germany is gone, etc.

But contrast Jesus - this is a portrait of Jesus.

For further support, note that many of the great rabbis commenting on Isaiah 53 in the Talmud have viewed it as messianic. While not uniformly so, this was a common interpretation until Rashi - about 1,000 plus years after Christianity was born.

Further - look at the book of Wisdom chapter 2 for a striking parallel to Isaiah 53 - another Jewish book written hundreds of years before Christ, in this case unmistakably talking about a “righteous man” who claims to be the “son of God” and will be put to a shameful death by the Jews claiming that if he really is God’s son, he will protect him. Striking!!! absolutatly striking. That book (wisdom) is in the Catholic Cannon and was in the Septuegent (Jewish compilation of books translated in to Greek and from which the apostles predominantly quoted). Not surprisingly, in the Jerusalem counsel after the destuction of the second temple, the Jews omitted this book from their cannon.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I found this site which tries to claim that Isaiah 53 is not referring to Jesus: geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/isaih.html

Could someone refute these claims?

Particularly these:

It isn’t. It was applied to Him by Christians - see Acts 8; that is no reason to insist to a Jew that it referred to him originally. Besides, it is not a prediction of the future, but a description of something in the past. Its Christian sense is a secondary sense, not the sense it had of itself. There is some prediction in the OT, but not nearly as much as used to be supposed; & very little of the prediction there is in it - if any - is long-range, that is, centuries in advance of the thing predicted.​

Prediction is related to the texts in a complicated, because varied, way; because a prediction is not always fulfilled: its fulfilment can be modified by a change of behaviour. Or again, a prediction could come true without the predictor’s being a religiously true prophet; he could be a false prophet even though what he said came to pass (see Deuteronomy 18). In Ezekiel 29 we have a substitute prophecy, replacing the unfilfulled prediction in chapter 26 that Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre by siege.

IMHO, Isaiah 53 is validly understood of Jesus even so, in this way: Who & what He was, interpreted the text for those who believed in Him, so that it could be seen as being fully embodied in Him; so that from the original author’s words & ideas received a fullness of meaning that exceeded his own intention.

Some such approach to the OT texts applied to Jesus in the NT may be helpful: it preserves the OT text & its meaning, without denying the NT application of it: so neither sense has to be sacrificed for the good of the other.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And here is the truth about Isaiah 53 according to Isaiah himself.

I assume that for everyone here in this forum, the Suffering Servant
of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. Did I hear a uniform YES? I thought so. And I equally believe so.

Now, if you don’t mind, would you please read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21 and 45:4? That’s Isaiah himself identifying that Servant with Israel by name. Now, why look for the obscure when the Prophet himself is only being more than clear about the Messiah? To assume that Jesus is the theme of Isaiah 53, one is only assuming; and assumptions butter no bread. Besides, nobody had ever heard that Jesus had been the Messiah until Paul showed up in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the one about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Even for the Apostles it had been a surprise.

Ben: <*)))><

 

[tobinatorstark]

Here is another link to the Haydock Bible Commentary.

haydock1859.tripod.com/id1220.html

In this intro It does talk about the reference to Jesus and his coming through Isaias’ prophecy.