Isaiah 53 - Messianic Prophecy?

Originally posted by @thinkofone

People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others?

John the Baptist said he as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world.

Ironically, the high priest Caiaphas in some way had it revealed to him that one man was to to die for the people (John 18:14) .

Jesus foretold His disciples of His death as a ransom was coming. It is apparent that it didn't sink in. It was beyond man's natural thought that such a Person should die.

It didn't fit their concept of the way God would do things or the way things should be. In fact you yourself still have a terrible problem accepting it.

Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death.

That doesn't make it invalid.
And Isaiah 53 clearly gives the Suffering Servant this identity. He pours out His life to be an offering for sin according to God's will.

Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, “see – the Prophet predicted what I already believe.”...

Even if it were true, it doesn't make it not the meaning of Christ's death.

The Suffering Servant there cannot be Israel because if Israel suffers for its own sins then it is not innocent suffering on behalf of the guilty. If the suffering servant IS Israel then it is the Guilty suffering FOR the Guilty.

Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus’ own disciples didn’t view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy.

That the truth alluded them and didn't sink in because of their strong preconceptions, is evident.

Peter mentions Isaiah 53 a few times with an obvious interpretation that it referred to Jesus.
Here are the New Testament references to some portion or other of Isaiah 53 OR an event in Christ's life reminiscent of the prophecy.

John 12:38; Mark 9:12; Luke 23:17; Matt. 8:17; Matt; 27:26; Mark 15:15; Rom. 4:25; 1 cor. 15:3; 1 John 3:5 Rom. 10:16; ***1 Peter 2:24,25***; Matt. 10:6; Luke 15:6; Acts 8:32; john 19:16; Acts 8:33; ***1 Pet. 2:22***, and many others.

For example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: “God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matt. 16:22)...

Like I said, It didn't sink in. It was too outside of man's assumption about the way God would do something.

You yourself still cannot bring yourself to believe God would have His will in this manner.

Even Jesus didn’t see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims – why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)? And why did he later request that God “remove this cup from me” (Mk. 14:36) – didn’t he know that a “removal of the cup” would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?

In short, this adverse reaction of the man Jesus was a part of His being crushed and put to grief as the prophecy said.

Your complaint goes to establish its truth rather than refute it.

"But Jehovah was pleased to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief. When He makes Himself an offering for sin. (v.10a)

He will see the fruit of the travail of His soul, and He will be satisfied; ..." (v.11)

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The author isn't explaining "how to be a Christian". The author is explaining why it makes much more sense that Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel rather than the messiah / Jesus Christ.

It's the topic of this thread.

And what else would a Jew argue about it? That you make the same argument says all I need to know.

Originally posted by @rajk999
Why don't you go around the forums and do some more flirting with shallow fellow Christians and leave the bible discussion for people who can focus... ok ?

Because what could a woman possibly bring to the table?

Flirting? Are you now actually suggesting that I am guilty by association? Really?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Are you also Pontius Pilate?

Is only Pontius Pilate allowed to ask the question? Your dodge is noted by the way.

Originally posted by @suzianne
And what else would a Jew argue about it? That you make the same argument says all I need to know.

Truth is truth.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Truth is truth.

And just as clearly, untruth is untruth.

Originally posted by @suzianne
And just as clearly, untruth is untruth.

Okay I'll elaborate.

Objectively assess the evidence. Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel, the messiah / Jesus Christ or neither. This isn't dictated by whether the reader is a Jew or a Christian.

The author makes a cogent argument for.Israel. If you can make a better argument, then do so.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Okay I'll elaborate.

Objectively assess the evidence. Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel, the messiah / Jesus Christ or neither. This isn't dictated by whether the reader is a Jew or a Christian.

The author makes a cogent argument for.Israel. If you can make a better argument, then do so.

What is the point of an argument for something that is optional?

.

It is valid to notice that other portions of the book of Isaiah show that other entities can serve as the servant of God.

In the book of Isaiah you indeed do have these entities serving as the servant of Jehovah -

1.) Isaiah the prophet himself

2.) Cyrus the king of Persia

3.) Israel as a nation

4.) The Suffering Servant which is Messiah.

While I have no yet quoted any verses yet, I will present the outline of my objection that Israel is the Suffering Servant in chapter 53.

Before I demonstrate this I think it would be good to indicate that many Christians do understand Christ as the Suffering Servant in chapter 53 because apostles taught that way from the beginning of the Christian church. And they most likely received this interpretation of Jesus Christ Himself.

Christians do not regard the New Testament as a error prone and faulty commentary on the Hebrew Bible. It is rather the inspired oracles of God as the Jews regard Genesis, Exodus or any other book of the Tanakh as divinely inspired canon.

From that standpoint we Christians can tell our Jewish friends from Jews4Judiasm that if Christ or Peter says that Isaiah 53 means the Messiah Jesus, that is all Christians need to believe so.

We can discuss evidence in Isaiah too.

That Isaiah the prophet
or Cyrus king of Persia
or even Israel the nation are sometimes spoken of as God's servant, elsewhere in the book of Isaiah, will receive no disagreement from me.

cont. below

The passages concerning the Suffering Servant start with chapter 52:13 and continue through to include chapter 53.

The marred appearance of the Suffering Servant in 52:14 links Him to His intense persecution and being crushed in chapter 53 -

"Indeed My Servant will act wisely and will prosper. He will be exalted and lifted up and very high. Even as many were astonished at Him - His visage was marred more than that of any man, And His form more than that of the sons of men -

So will He surprise many nations; Kings will shut their mouths because of Him; For what had not been recounted to them they will see, and what they had not heard of they will contemplate." (52:13-15)

The surprise is that One tortured, crucified, marred with agonizing inflictions, and killed will amazingly rise from the dead to be King of kings and Lord of lords over all the earth. Of course both Isaiah the prophet and Israel as a nation have suffered. But the following passages clarify that the prophecy is speaking of neither of those two.

Isaiah 53:2 - " ... He has no attracting form nor majesty that we should look upon Him."

Israel as a land is called "the beautiful land" (Daniel 8:9; 11:41) . This does not fit Israel having "no attracting" . Zion is called "the perfection of beauty" (Psalm 50:2). At least geographically these superlative descriptions don't match a place or person of whom it says

"He has no attracting form nor majesty that we should look upon Him, Nor beautiful appearance that we should desire Him."

Suppose the beauty is pertaining strictly to PEOPLE and not the LAND of Israel ? This doesn't work because "we" should pertain to the Jewish people. And they would be attractive and desirable to themselves. How could the Jews not be desirable to themselves as a nation ? The more reasonable interpretation is that an INDIVIDUAL is the one being spoken of in verse 2.

Not only so, Israel cannot atone for her own sins. The suffering of Israel is historic. And Isaiah was said to have been sawed in two when murdered. But Isaiah is included in the "we" throughout the chapter.

"He was despised; and we did not esteem Him." (verse 3) . It hardly makes sense that Isaiah is speaking of himself.

And it makes no sense that Israel as a people did not esteem Israel as a people.

That Israel despised Jesus, that makes sense for the majority of Jews.

That Israel did not esteem Jesus Christ also makes historical sense.

It makes no sense that Israel is meant where it says - "Surely He has born our sicknesses, And carried our sorrows."

The substitute of ANOTHER bearing our sicknesses and sorrows is intended. It is less likely that the passage means Israel has born her own sicknesses and her own sorrows in some substitutionary way. Israel has suffered no doubt. But the passage is concerning One unworthy to bear who has borne nonetheless for Israel in a substitutionary way.

This is proved by verse 6 - "Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him."

The Isaiah iniquity is included in "us all" . So how can Isaiah be speaking of himself?

And the force of the passage is that One unworthy to bear iniquity is bearing it on behalf of others -

"We all like sheep have gone astray; each of us has turned aside to his own way, And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." (v.6)

The One on whom God has caused the iniquity to fall must in contrast be one:

1.) who has NOT gone astray.

2.) who has not turned to His own way but has followed Jehovah God faithfully.

3.) one who is without iniquity.

It makes no sense that sinful Israel has in some substitutionary way borne her OWN iniquity.

This makes no sense for sinful Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5) who said -

"Woe is me, for I am finished! For I am a man of unclean lips, And in the midst of a people of unclean lips I dwell ..."

That being the case it makes sense for Isaiah to include himself in the phrase -

"WE all like sheep have gone astray, And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of US ALL to fall on Him."

What sense does it make to say that God has caused the iniquity of US ALL to fall on US ALL ?

But to be an offering for sin (v.10) it makes sense that the iniquity of US ALL has been caused to fall on ANOTHER in a propitiatory way. This is the Messiah Jesus.

"God was pleased to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief. When He makes Himself an offering for sin ..." (v.10a)

We may say Israel has at times been crushed in persecution.
We may also say the prophet Isaiah was "crushed" in his final martyrdom. But these sufferings were not as an offering for the sins of others. They could not be an offering for their own sins.

Deuteronomy chapter 28 proves that national suffering for Israel's own sins was in no way a substitutionary offering.

Appeals to the suffering of the Jewish people are moving. But those sufferings were not for an offering for the sins of others let alone an offering for their own sins. The one upon whom the crushing falls bears it as a SUBSTITUTE. And that matches the crucifixion of Jesus for the establishment of the new covenant in His innocent blood -

As He taught on the night that He was betrayed to be crushed at Calvary -

"For this [cup] is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)

The New Testament is the oracles of God. It is the authoritative word of God. No more than a Jew regards Deuteronomy as a faulty, error prone commentary on the books of Exodus or Numbers do we Christians regard the twenty seven books of the New Testament to be a mere human commentary on the Old Testament. It with authoritative finality that the Apostle Peter equates Isaiah 53:6 with the offering of Jesus on the cross -

First Peter 2:25 - "For you were like sheep being led astray, but you have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."

And of Christ Peter says -

"Who committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth; Who being reviled did not revile in return. He did not threaten but kept committing all to Him who judges righteously. Who Himself bore up our sins in His body on the tree, in order that we, having died to sin, might live to righteousness; by whose bruise you were healed." (v.22-24)

The Apostle Peter's utterance is filled with references to Isaiah 53. We believe him. He very likely could have gotten the insight from Jesus Himself.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Every soul can be saved but the soul has to want to be saved.

Not 'want'

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Truth is truth.

You know it bro

Originally posted by @rajk999
God loves righteousness and hates sin.
Funny how Christianity managed to use the very same Bible to change that around.
Now they boast of their sins and condemn those who try to be righteous.

Who boasts of their sins?

Admitting you’re a sinner is an act of humility. Moreover, it’s the truth because everyone is a sinner.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

(Romans 3:23)

Claiming you’re living a sin-free life is not only boasting, it’s a lie as well.

You only become righteous (in right standing with God) by accepting Jesus Christ into your heart.

“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

(Romans 3:27-28)