Isaiah 53 from a Jewish perspective

[panhead1]

Can any one help out here? I will be honest, this is written in a very convincing manner, as is the intention of course. It does a very good job of refuting the Christian view of Jesus in Isaiah 53.
I won't copy/paste the whole thing due to copyright, but I would sincerely appreciate some perspectives.

Isaiah 53 - A Jewish Perspective

Wasn't the Prophet referring to Jesus in Isaiah 53? Explore the Jewish perspective of a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.

jewsforjudaism.org

 

[Lamb]

Take note of this statement in the link by the OP:
"Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of God's revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you "tackle" Isaiah 53."

Christians properly view the bible as a whole in light of knowing it's about our Savior who has come. The Jews in the website reject Jesus, so why would you think they'll give an accurate translation?

 

[panhead1]

Christians properly view the bible as a whole in light of knowing it's about our Savior who has come.

Broadly I agree. Their perspective is that the Bible (the OT) is not about the savior to come, but rather the story of their people and how they are to live.

The Jews in the website reject Jesus, so why would you think they'll give an accurate translation?

Conversely, it is hard to view the scriptures from a non-Christian view, making it easy to ask the question in reverse. Thus making this so much of a struggle. Another website may accept Jesus, so wy would you think they'll give an accurate translation?

It would seem to make sense that one should at least investigate the perspectives and translations of the Jewish side, given our faith comes out of that side.

If we are wrong we are committing the worst sins....conversely if they are wrong they are rejecting Jesus and committing a sin just as bad. Thus my struggle.

 

[Albion]

Can any one help out here? I will be honest, this is written in a very convincing manner, as is the intention of course. It does a very good job of refuting the Christian view of Jesus in Isaiah 53.
I won't copy/paste the whole thing due to copyright, but I would sincerely appreciate some perspectives.

Isaiah 53 - A Jewish Perspective

Wasn't the Prophet referring to Jesus in Isaiah 53? Explore the Jewish perspective of a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.

jewsforjudaism.org

Hello, "Panhead."

You've presented a long article for our consideration, so my reply here isn't going to cover everything that could be said. But if we, for the moment, consider just what is referred to in it as "Preliminary" information, we may notice that there are weaknesses in the argument that are caused, I'd say, by the fact that the author was writing to people already convinced of the rightness of their own religion, Judaism.

1) "First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do,..the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. 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."

So, it is argued there that only if we believe the New Testament can we accept what it says about the meaning and importance of Christ's death, but the reader is assumed to be accepting of the Old Testament if he agrees with the writer's opinion about what is written there. Yet, there is no more compelling reason to believe the O.T. than there is to believe the N.T.

So, yeah, we all believe in Holy Scripture or else we wouldn't have any interest in the question at all.

The claim is made that Christians are engaging in circular reasoning, but it appears from my reading of that part of the article that it's actually the author who's done that himself.

2) "Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. 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). See, also, Mk. 9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9."

The above reaction by Peter doesn't "prove" any such thing. It's a natural, human reaction to being told that his leader will shortly be killed by his enemies. And Peter doesn't deny the event he is shocked to be told about. Instead, he accepts that Christ is correct about it, although he wants it to be avoided or prevented somehow. While the article renders the statement as "shall," other translations have it as "must" (never happen). That wording indicates that it's a desire, not a denial on Peter's part. And Jesus's own reply to Peter's comment verifies it.

Moreover, the author simply assumes that the Apostles were experts in the Hebrew scriptures and, as well, in the meaning of Jesus's own instructions and explanations. The fact is that the Apostles come across to us in Scripture as very ordinary men who were anything but theologians! They often didn't "get" the real meaning of what Christ was saying to them. There are many examples in Scripture of that fact.

3) "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?"

Here again, the writer addresses Jewish readers who already have a commitment to Judaism, not to readers of all backgrounds.

There are several points that could be made about this particular part of the article. For instance, the point about Jesus praying for a removal of the cup, etc. takes for granted that Jesus did not have ordinary human feelings. Many times in his life on Earth, Jesus's human "side" seemed to show through strongly while, at other times, it was his divine nature that seemed to predominate. He was both God and Man, which the Jewish reader was not expected to believe. Yet the Bible--which the writer refers to constantly--teaches us about Jesus's two natures.

More glaringly perhaps, the writer tells us that Jesus prayed to "God" when in fact, the Scripture instead says he prayed to the "Father."

The fact that Jesus was/is God himself, and also that the nature of God is "Three in One" (the Trinity), are both completely omitted from any mention in the article. That's not surprising, given the intended audience, but it nevertheless means that the author appeals to the Jewish religion for support at the same time as he's (mis)using the New Testament for evidence.

 

[atpollard]

Doesn’t this all overlook the 600 pound Gorilla in the room … Jesus was crucified and his body disappeared from a guarded tomb (even the Secular Historian Josephus acknowledges this as common knowledge of that time) and thousands of people saw him resurrected and many died rather than recant that they had seen a dead man walk.

That would seem to lend SOME credibility to Jesus’ interpretation of the Messianic Prophecy.

Setting that aside. Let’s explore the alternative view that the Messiah will be a military leader to expel the enemies and restore the OT Davidic kingdom … how is THAT interpretation looking with a Mosque built over the ruins of the Temple and the critical Ark of the Covenant missing? Can anyone living even trace lineage back to King David?

So the two options are the interpretation supported by a resurrection or the interpretation that is currently a physical impossibility … and we want to defer to the “impossibility” because why?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The Jews aren't entirely in agreement as to the intent of the 53rd of Isaiah. For
example:

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 980 ) teaches that Isaiah 53 refers to Messiah.

The Targum of Jonathan begins it with the words Ha yatslakh avdee Mashikha,
which mean: Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper.

Some of the Jews' respected rabbis believed Isaiah 53 spoke of the sufferings of
Messiah; e.g. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin (a.k.a. Ibn Krispin)

And Rabbi Mosheh El-Sheikh (a.k.a. Alshekh) claimed: "our Rabbis with one voice
accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet [Isaiah] is speaking of King Messiah."
_

 

[Messy]

Can any one help out here? I will be honest, this is written in a very convincing manner, as is the intention of course. It does a very good job of refuting the Christian view of Jesus in Isaiah 53.
I won't copy/paste the whole thing due to copyright, but I would sincerely appreciate some perspectives.

Isaiah 53 - A Jewish Perspective

Wasn't the Prophet referring to Jesus in Isaiah 53? Explore the Jewish perspective of a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.

jewsforjudaism.org

I've had a discussion about it a few years ago with a Jewish atheist who used to believe Judaism and a guy who converted from christianity to Judaism 20 years ago. I didn't succeed to make them change their mind, but these texts are so clear.
Isaiah 49 for instance. They say Isaiah 53 and 49 is about Israel. That cannot be.


“And now the Lord says,
Who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant,
To bring Jacob back to Him,
So that Israel is [d]gathered to Him
(For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the Lord,
And My God shall be My strength),
6 Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”
7 Thus says the Lord,
The Redeemer of Israel, [e]their Holy One,
To Him [f]whom man despises,
To Him whom the nation abhors,
To the Servant of rulers:
“Kings shall see and arise,
Princes also shall worship,
Because of the Lord who is faithful,
The Holy One of Israel;
And He has chosen You.”



To Him whom the nation abhors
Who could that be? The nation Israel abhors Israel?


If he is Israel then Israel is with sin, without sin, despises themselves, Israel saves Israel. It makes no sense.

 

[Messy]

This was a good one from Michael Brown debating a rabbi:

He says: The servant is greatly glorified. How does that apply to the martyrs? Yes after this life, says that rabbi. Are they then more exalted than Moses and Elijah? This statement supremely exalted is only used of God in Isaiah 6.

 

[Messy]