Athetotheist wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:29 pm
"If you read the text correctly, Isaiah is clearly telling us how the nations of the world will react when they witness the future messianic-redemption of the Jewish people. (Throughout the book of Isaiah, the Jewish people are referred to as the “Servant of G-d” and in the singular, e.g. Isaiah 41:8, Isaiah 49:3).
Yes, there are two main interpretations of Isa 53 - either it is referring to the nation of Israel or it is referring to Jesus Christ.
“He [Israel] was wounded because of (מ) our [the nations] transgression.” (Isaiah 53:5). In this verse the Hebrew letter (מ) means “because of” or “from.” It is never translated as “for” which would incorrectly indicate a vicarious atonement.
Don't disagree with this. Jesus was wounded because of our transgressions.
“For the transgression of my people they (למו) were stricken.” (Isaiah 53:8). The word they (למו) is plural (see Psalm 99:7) and clearly indicates that this verse does not refer to a single individual.
In BLB, actually Isa 53:8 refers to a singular person.
Isa 53:8 He (singular) was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his (singular) generation? for he (singular) was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he (number unspecified) stricken.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa ... onc_732008
But even if it was plural, I'm not so sure Hebrew is so strict in terms of plural usage. Elohim is also in the plural, but no Jew says there are more than one God.
"Even if we take the approach that the chapter does speak of Messiah, it could just as easily apply to anyone in history who suffered. How about Moses, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Chaninah Ben Tradyon, Jews in the Holocaust, etc?
Could be. But who else has empirical evidence they were resurrected from the dead?
The entire application to Jesus by missionaries is based on faith, but when carefully scrutinized it doesn’t prove anything
No, it's not based on faith. But it's based on empirical and textual evidence.
However, when Jesus then says that he must go up to Jerusalem, be killed, and resurrected on the third day. Peter rebukes him “God forbid it, lord, this shall never happen to you.” One may ask “Why does Peter need to rebuke Jesus?”
Because Peter had a different interpretation (along with everyone else) of what the Messiah should be like. They were expecting a Messiah that would not die, but one that would overthrow the Roman government and rule like King David.
Yet, since neither he, nor any other apostle of Jesus knew of any strange concept of Messiah suffering, dying, and being resurrected, they did not see Isaiah 53 as being a definitive passage containing information defining the “suffering servant” and vicarious atonement role of Messiah.
Right, they did not interpret Isa 53 correctly.
Christians focus on Isaiah 53 and ignore the rest of the book;
I don't necessarily agree with that. And actually, the reverse can be charged with the Jews, where they really don't even read Isa 53.
Christian translators divided the chapters of Isaiah inaccurately;
Don't really see the relevance of this.
Chapters 52 and 54 refer to Israel, indicating that chapter 53 does the same;
I disagree with this.
Isa 52:13-14 KJV Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
Yes, the nation of Israel is found in these chapters of Isaiah. But it is as a nation to be saved by a servant, similar to how the Hebrews were saved by Moses out of Egypt.
Isaiah tells that the suffering servant being exalted will shock and surprise the nations, meaning that the servant cannot be Jesus since most people of the nations expect Jesus to be exalted.
It's hard to argue Jesus has not been exalted. True, he's not exalted by everyone, but he is clearly the most impactful person in human history.