Do you have any evidence that this is the reason for their interpretation of scripture?
Close. No-one has produced anything that suggests Jesus was ever called “Immanuel” until long after he was crucified.
OK, but even if that was the “prophecy”, I think the problems are pretty obvious, or should be.
It’s like if I predict the winner of the Super Bowl in the year 2032 will be the team that scores more points.
For those interested, there is a well written article on the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 here:
https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/
It can be a bit polemic in parts, but overall it has a well laid out argument.
His people, orthodox Christians, have corporately long recognized the trinitarian nature of Jesus, the Christ, and that he was and is ‘God with us’ (i.e., Emmanuel). His mother, ‘pondering these things in her heart’, undoubtedly did too.
That is not implicit? They weren’t Christians.
You are implying that Jewish scholars have no other reason for interpreting Isaiah 53 as they do other than their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. This needs a bit more support.
Once again a tautaological reference :).
Not a big enough bit to be worth any effort. 
It’s implicit. It they had accepted Jesus, then they would not have interpreted it that way.
Read the passage carefully yourself. Can you make a case based on the text? How does a country get killed and come back to life?
Here is a piece of the Messianic Jewish interpretation.
The Servant is not Israel
Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki, 1040-1105) and some of the later rabbis, though, interpreted the passage as referring to Israel. They knew that the older interpretations referred it to Messiah. However, Rashi lived at a time when a degenerate medieval distortion of Christianity was practiced. He wanted to preserve the Jewish people from accepting such a faith and, although his intentions were sincere, other prominent Jewish rabbis and leaders realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s interpretation. They presented a threefold objection to his innovation. First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Secondly, they pointed out that the text is in the singular. Thirdly, they noted verse eight. This verse presented an insurmountable difficulty to those who interpreted this passage as referring to Israel. It reads:
He was taken away from rule and from judgment; and his life who shall recount? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people was he stricken.
Were the Jewish people, God forbid, ever cut off out of the land of the living? No! In Jeremiah 31:35-37, God promised that we will exist forever. We are proud that Am Yisrael Chai—”The people of Israel are much alive.” Likewise, it is impossible to say that Israel suffered for the transgressions of “my people,” which clearly means Isaiah’s people. Surely Isaiah’s people are not the Gentiles, but the Jews.
The fact they had to distort it is telling. The Muslim’s who insist that the NT was written around this passage is also telling.
Forget about who the Servant is, for the moment. Just ask yourself this: is there anything in Isaiah 52 and 53 which indicates unambiguously that the Servant is crucified? (Yes, there’s a reference to the Servant being pierced, but there’s also a reference to him being crushed - and in any case, “pierced” could refer to a wound inflicted either by a spear or by nails or by a dagger.)
Also, how do Christians account for verses which describe the Servant as having an appearance “so marred, beyond human semblance,” or the statement that “Kings [plural] shall shut their mouths because of him”?
Finally, are you aware of how Jews translate Isaiah 9:5?
For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.”
In other words, the child isn’t called “the mighty God, the everlasting Father,” but simply “prince of peace.”
These are supposed to be the clearest prophecies of Jesus as the Messiah. I submit that any Messianic reference can be understood only in retrospect, by people who have converted to Christianity.
Messianic Jews believe this is a description of the Messiah Jesus. Also many Jewish Rabbi’s in history have claimed it as a Messianic prophecy.
You need to integrate all the prophecies starting with Genesis. Why was Gods requested sacrifice of Abraham’s son so significant to the whole story?
Who else fits the description in 53 better than Jesus? How would this possibly be staged?
Have you studied Daniel 9?
There are tools to translate now and you can survey the Dead Sea Scrolls which have Isaiah well preserved.
What source is this from?
Here is the Jewish Tanakh 1917
5 For a child is born unto us,
A son is given unto us;
And the government is upon his shoulder;
And his name is called
aPele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;
You are assuming that they didn’t interpret the verses this way before Jesus.
Wars killed the Hebrew people who lost their land, and the story is about those people reclaiming those lands.
There is no way to make this case other than a force fit. Isaiah clearly says he suffered for our transgressions.
Have you heard of metaphors?
1 Like
They are not used to deceive the reader. Re read the whole passage. Israel is in there but separate from the servant being described. The writer, Isaiah, is part of the chosen people.
This passage describes Christ and that is why the Jews had to spin this just as they spun Isaiah 9.6.
1 Like