Are you saying the person who recounted that story had never heard of those verses before?
1 Like
I am saying that Jesus is claiming that he is fulfilling the scripture of Isaiah 61and that the one anointed by God is him. As agreed by both Christians, Muslims and Messianic Jews, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah described throughout the old Testament.
Most Jews do not agree, though. Funny how that works.
Anyway, even if he did claim to be this Messiah, that does not amount to being a fulfilled prophecy. It just shows that he believed it, and so did other people. It is painfully obvious that the authors of the Gospel were trying to convince people this was the case, hence the clumsy interpolations of āAnd thus the prophecy was fulfilled!ā Itās amusing, but not surprising, that you think this somehow strengthens your position, when it in fact weakens it.
1 Like
They donāt agree on that.
Hi @colewd and @Faizal_Ali,
I agree that at first blush, the Servant of Isaiah 53 (which you cited above) sounds a lot like Jesus. However, it would be a good idea to have a look at what Jews have to say about this passage of Scripture.
The best online Jewish response Iāve seen is by Rabbi Tovia Singer, in his article, Who is Godās Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53. For a detailed verse-by-verse commentary, Iād refer you to the article, Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant by Marshall Roth.
A. Who is the Suffering Servant?
Rabbi Singer makes the following points:
(1) The passage is the fourth of the Servant songs in Isaiah. In the first three songs, the Servant is clearly identified as Israel (see Isaiah 41:8-9, 44:1, 45:4, 48:20 and 49:3). Common sense would dictate that Israel would be the logical choice for the identity of the Servant in Isaiah 53. Moreover, according to rabbinical commentators, it is especially the faithful members of Israel, who willingly suffer for Heavenās sake and walk in the footsteps of Abraham, who are identified in the Tanach as Godās servant (see Isaiah 41:8, 43:10).
(2) Contrary to the claims of Christian polemicists, Jewish rabbis have interpreted the Suffering Servant as the Jewish people (or the nation of Israel) for the past 2,000 years. Back in the 3rd century A.D., Origen acknowledged as much when he wrote that the Jews in his time believed that Isaiah 53 ābore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations." (Contra Celsum, Chadwick, Henry; Cambridge Press, book 1, chapter 55, page 50.) The Talmud (Berakhot 5a) and the Midrash Rabba on Numbers 23 bear out this interpretation.
(3) The New English Bible, Oxford Study Edition, also identifies the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 with the people of Israel. Here is its note on Isaiah 52:13-53:12:
The āfourth Servant Song, the Suffering Servant, Israel, the servant of God, has suffered as a humiliated individual. However, the servant endured without complaint because it was vicarious suffering (suffering for others). 52:13-15: Nations and kings will be surprised to see the servant exalted. 53:1: The crowds, pagan nations, among whom the servant (Israel) lived, speak here (through verse 9), saying that the significance of Israelās humiliation and exaltation is hard to believe (page 788-789).
See also the Revised Standard Bible, Oxford Study Edition, page 889.
(4) The passage actually begins at Isaiah 52:13, not Isaiah 53:1. Thatās important. It begins by describing the reaction of kings, upon beholding the Servant, whose āappearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness.ā We are told that ākings will shut their mouthsā [in amazement] ābecause of him.ā These kings are of course Gentile kings. Chapter 53 continues with the kingsā astonished report at the Servantās vindication: he has been ālifted up and highly exalted.ā When he grew up among them, the Servant āhad no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire himā¦ he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.ā Isaiah 53:8 concludes with their stunning confession, āfor the transgressions of my people [the gentile nations] they [the Jews] were stricken.ā Singer comments: āThe fact that the servant is spoken of in the third person, plural ×Öø××Ö¹ (lamo) illustrates beyond doubt that the servant is a nation rather than a single individual.ā
(5) There is one ancient Jewish source which appears at first sight to support a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53. Christian missionaries are apt to misleadingly quote the second-century Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Godās servant as the messiah, the foremost member of Godās Suffering Servant, Israel. But they selectively omit the commentary on the following verse (52:14), which identifies Israel as the long-suffering and humiliated servant. Again, in its commentary on Isaiah 53:10, on the words of Isaiah, āHe is crushed and made ill,ā the Targum identifies the suffering servant as the nation of Israel who suffers unbearable chastisement. Singer explains:
In rabbinic thought, all of Godās faithful, gentiles included (Zechariah 13:8-9), endure suffering on behalf of God (Isaiah 40:2; Zechariah 1:15). Thus, Jewish leaders of the past, such as Moses12 and Jeremiah,13) Rabbi Akiva,14 as well as future eschatological figures, such as the messiah ben Joseph and the messiah ben David, are held up in rabbinic literature as individuals who exemplify the āservantā who willingly suffers on behalf of Heavenā¦ When Isaiah speaks of the suffering remnant of Israel, the messianic king is, therefore, included.
However, Singer contends that the primary meaning of the passage refers to the suffering of the nation of Israel. He adds:
Bear in mind that the rabbinic commentary on Isaiah 53 is not dualistic or multilateral. Meaning, the sages of old did not suggest that Isaiah 53 refers to either the righteous remnant of Israel, Moses, Jeremiah, or an anointed leader. Rather, the servant in all four Servant Songs are the faithful descendants of Abraham.
B. A Common Christian Objection
Marshall Roth, in his article, Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant, answers a common Christian objection based on Isaiah 53:5: āHe was wounded as a result of our transgressions, and crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement upon him was for our benefit; and through his wounds we were healed.ā The objection runs: if the Servant is Israel, then why is he said to suffer for āourā sins, and not āhisā sins? Roth offers the following response:
This verse describes how the humbled world leaders confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of āour iniquitiesā ā i.e., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as previously claimed, the stubborn blindness of the Jews.
Isaiah 53:5 is a classic example of mistranslation: The verse does not say, āHe was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities,ā which could convey the vicarious suffering ascribed to Jesus. Rather, the proper translation is: āHe was wounded because of our transgressions, and crushed because of our iniquities.ā This conveys that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others ā not the opposite as Christians contend ā that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others.
Bart Ehrman, in his online article, Does Isaiah 53 Predict Jesusā Suffering and Death?, has another take on the passage:
The book of Second Isaiah itself indicates who the Servant of the Lord is. It is Israel, Godās people. In Isaiah 53, when the author describes the servantās past sufferings, he is talking about the sufferings they have experienced by being destroyed by the Babylonians. This is a suffering that has come about because of sins. But the suffering will be vindicated, because God will now restore Israel and bring them back to the land and enter into a new relationship with them.
It may be fairly objected that the Servant is said to suffer for āourā sins, not āhisā sins. Scholars have resolved that problem in a number of ways. It may be that the author is thinking that the portion of the people taken into exile have suffered for the sins of those in the land ā some of them suffering for the sins of all. Those who have been taken into captivity have suffered displacement, loss, and exile for the sake of everyone else. But now the servant ā Israel ā will be exalted and restored to a close relationship with God ā and be used by him to bring about justice throughout the earth.
Another frequently mistranslated verse is Isaiah 53:9, which the NIV translates as follows:
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Christians interpret this verse as referring to Jesus, who was crucified with criminals, even though He had done nothing wrong, and who was buried by the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Strictly speaking, though, Jesus was not buried with the wicked, as the verse suggests.
However, the Jewish translation of this verse cited by Roth in his article is quite different:
He submitted his grave to evil people; and the wealthy submitted to his executions, for committing no crime, and with no deceit in his mouth.
Roth, in his article, interprets this to mean that loyal Jews, throughout history, have āsubmitted to the graveā ā i.e. chosen to die - rather than accept a pagan deity as their God. For this reason, these Jews were often denied proper burial, discarded āto the grave as evil people.ā Additionally, wealthy Jews āsubmitted to his executions, for committing no crimeā ā killed so that wicked conquerors could confiscate their riches. Is Roth right? I donāt know. But his interpretation merits consideration.
C. Why Jesus is an awkward fit for the Suffering Servant, in certain respects
In their book, Jews and āJewish Christianityā: A Jewish Response to the Missionary Challenge (Jews for Judaism, 2002), authors David Berger and Michael Wyschogrod offer the following comments on Isaiah 53:
So far, we have been arguing that any Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 is improbable. Itās time to note that a specifically Christian reading is even more difficult. First of all, whatever the complex relationship between the āFatherā and the āSonā might be, is it really reasonable for God to call himself his own servant? If not for this chapter in Isaiah, would a believer in the trinity even consider the use of such an inappropriate term? Secondly, a straightforward reading of āsee his seed and live a long lifeā doesnāt fit either the first coming or the second, since no Christian expects Jesus to have [biological, physical] children, and ālong lifeā does not normally mean āeternal life.ā A forced, nonliteral understanding of āseedā and ālong lifeā becomes the only way out. Thirdly, the Hebrew phrase ish makhāovot viduaā holi (āa man of pains, and familiar with illnessā) refers to a man of constant, long-lasting afflictions and cannot refer to anguish, however intense, which lasted but a few hours, or even days. Finally, the lack of any explicit reference to a resurrection makes a Christological reading all the more difficult. In other words, even though parts of the crucifixion story may well have been written with Isaiah 53 in mind, there remains a residue of material in that chapter that cannot be squared with Jesusā career or with the later belief that he was divine. Isaiahās āsuffering servantā is the Jewish people, and it is a terrible irony that their sufferings through the ages were made even more intense because of the belief that they are the villains, rather than the victims, in Isaiah 53.
D. Final Considerations
Isaiah 53 is hardly a convincing prophecy of Jesus, for the following reasons:
(1) It nowhere names Jesus, or the time and place in which he lived and died (April, 30 or 33 A.D., Palestine).
(2) It nowhere refers to Jesusā crucifixion. Christian Bibles often translate Isaiah 53:5 as āHe was pierced for our transgressions,ā but the Jewish translation is vaguer: it uses the word āwounded,ā rather than āpierced.ā
(3) It nowhere refers to a Messiah.
(4) There is no clear reference to Jesusā resurrection. The verse, āhe will see his offspring;
and he will prolong his daysā is not a reference to a resurrection, whatever else it might mean.
I have tried to present the Jewish case against Isaiah 53 being a prophecy about Jesus, not because I think the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong, but because I think Christians are utterly mistaken if they suppose that Isaiah 53 is a slam-dunk, open-and-shut case of a prophecy about Jesusā passion and resurrection. It is far from that.
Iāll let the last word go to Dr. William Lane Craig. He writes that the early Christian disciples āwanted to show that Jesusā resurrection was in some sense a fulfillment of Scripture, and, since the Old Testament has almost nothing to say about the resurrection, they had to apply novel interpretations to passages that werenāt really about the resurrection.ā
He adds: āNow if that sort of hermeneutic strikes you as dishonest, understand that for an ancient Jewish exegete discerning such deeper meanings in the Scriptures was normal procedure and would be seen as a strength of oneās view. Giving a novel interpretation to familiar passages was seen as providing additional insight into Scripture.ā
Fair enough. And maybe in the first century A.D., that would have been seen as a perfectly valid form of exegesis. But my point is that it would never convince a seeker after truth in the 21st century. For that reason, I think that Christian apologists do themselves no favors when they trot out Isaiah 53 as if it were a proof-text. It isnāt.
That seems to be somewhat circular if you go to current commentary. It would be more relevant to see how this was understood 2,000 years ago.
1 Like
Fair enough, @swamidass. However, I did discuss that in part A, points (2) and (5) of my response above. Cheers.
That article isnāt referencing Isaiah 53. You also left out the a critical part of his answer,
The answer that they wanted to show that Jesusā resurrection was in some sense a fulfillment of Scripture, and, since the Old Testament has almost nothing to say about the resurrection, they had to apply novel interpretations to passages that werenāt really about the resurrection. Now if that sort of hermeneutic strikes you as dishonest, understand that for an ancient Jewish exegete discerning such deeper meanings in the Scriptures was normal procedure and would be seen as a strength of oneās view. Giving a novel interpretation to familiar passages was seen as providing additional insight into Scripture.
1 Like
I appreciate you making a counter argument however I know you understand your argument so far is limited to the opinions of biased sources.
Tobias and Bartās commentary contains weaknesses such as not addressing the bearing of sins and being cut off. These lines are hard to attribute to a group of people on their own, bearing sins or being cut off.
Are you willing to take on an argument on your own based solely on the scriptures?
You guys seem to have an idiosyncratic understanding of what a āprophesyā is.
Iām a bit puzzled, frankly, by the notion that the resurrection stories require any particular āexplanationā at all. Itās not as though the failure to explain how the stories arose would in some way support the inference that the stories were actually true. Nothing in historical analysis can meaningfully support such an inference; when the positive case is non-existent, who needs some sort of highly specific negative case?
1 Like
How about simply analysis vs āhistoricalā analysis. This is same canard as using "scientific"to demarcate truth.
No, itās not. It is the nature of historical analysis that it relies upon recorded accounts. But recorded accounts can never be enough to meaningfully support a claim of paranormal activity, because they must be evaluated, in any responsible historical method, for plausibility. If one discards the plausibility criterion, one can no longer do historical analysis.
Paranormal claims are best addressed in the here-and-now, not by trying to figure out whether you think somebody who recorded something impossible was actually a witness to the impossible. Demonstrate that these paranormal forces exist and operate in the world, and THEN one may open the plausibility criterion and ask whether it is plausible that they operated on such-and-such an occasion in the past. No amount of hammering away at a ragtag batch of ancient manuscripts will get you there.
2 Likes
My assertion is that the analysis need not meet historical standards to be true.
Hi @swamidass,
That article isnāt referencing Isaiah 53.
I freely acknowledge that the article referenced Psalm 16, rather than Isaiah 53, but Craig was making a general point, namely that "since the Old Testament has almost nothing to say about the resurrection, they [the disciples] had to apply novel interpretations to passages that werenāt really about the resurrection.ā
You also left out the a critical part of his answer, ā¦
Huh? Itās in the second-last paragraph of my response above.
1 Like
OK, letās address those lines, based on the Scriptures. Iād like to quote from Marshall Rothās commentary on those verses in his article, āIsaiah 53: The Suffering Servantā. Hereās his commentary on those verses.
Letās start with Isaiah 53:4. First, you will notice that the Jewish translation doesnāt speak of āthe bearing of sinsā but āthe bearing of illnesses.ā The Complete Jewish Bible translates the verse as follows: āIn fact, it was our diseases he bore, our pains from which he suffered; yet we regarded him as punished, stricken and afflicted by God.ā The important thing to understand is that itās the Gentile kings who are saying this. To continue with Rothās commentary:
(4) Indeed, he bore our illnesses and carried our pains ā but we regarded him as diseased, stricken by God and afflicted.
×Öø×Öµ× ×Ö³×Öø×Öµ× ×Ö¼ ××Ö¼× × Öøש×Öø× ×Ö¼×Ö·×Ö°××Öµ×× ×Ö¼ ×”Ö°×Öø×Öø× ×Ö·×Ö²× Ö·×Ö°× ×Ö¼ ×ֲש×Ö·×Ö°× Ö»××Ö¼ × Öø××Ö¼×¢Ö· ×Ö»×Ö¼Öµ× ×Ö±××Ö“×× ×Ö¼×Ö°×¢Ö»× Ö¼Ö¶×
Throughout the centuries of Israelās exile, many nations persecuted the Jews on the pretense that it was Godās way of āpunishingā the āaccursedā Jews for having stubbornly rejected the new religions. In these verses, until the end of the chapter, the nations confess how they used the Jewish people as scapegoats, not for the ānobleā reasons they had long claimed.
Indeed, the nations selfishly persecuted the Jews as a distraction from their own corrupt regimes: āSurely our suffering he did bear, and our pains he carriedā¦ā (53:4)
Now letās continue with Isaiah 53:8, which the Complete Jewish Bible translates: āAfter forcible arrest and sentencing, he was taken away; and none of his generation protested
his being cut off from the land of the living for the crimes of my people, who deserved the punishment themselves.ā And hereās Rothās commentary:
(8) He was released from captivity and judgment; who could have imagined such a generation? For he was removed from the land of the living; because of my peopleās sin they were afflicted.
×ֵעצֶ×Ø ×Ö¼×Ö“×ּ֓ש×ְפּÖø× ×ֻקּÖø× ×Ö°×Ö¶×Ŗ ×Ö¼×Ö¹×Ø×Ö¹ ×Ö“× ×ְש××Ö¹×Öµ×Ö· ×Ö¼Ö“× × Ö“×Ö°×Ö·×Ø ×Öµ×Ö¶×Øֶׄ ×Ö·×Ö¼Ö“×× ×֓פֶּש×Ö·×¢ ×¢Ö·×Ö¼Ö“× × Ö¶×Ö·×¢ ×Öø××Ö¹
The phrase, "land of the livingā (Eretz HaChaim) refers specifically to the Land of Israel. Thus this verse, āHe was removed from the land of the living,ā does not mean that the servant was killed, but rather was exiled from the Land of Israel.
This verse again describes the worldās surprise at witnessing the Jewish return to the Promised Land. "Who could have imaginedā that the nation we tortured now prospers? World leaders offer a stunning confession: āBecause of my peopleās sin, they [the Jews] were afflicted.ā
Here the text makes absolutely clear that the oppressed Servant is a collective nation, not a single individual. This is where knowledge of biblical Hebrew is absolutely crucial. At the end of the verse, the Hebrew word for āthey wereā (lamoh ā ×Öø××Ö¹) always refers to a group, never to an individual. (see for example, Psalms 99:7)
Is Roth right? Frankly, I have no idea. But he certainly manages to highlight some major difficulties for the traditional Christian exegesis of these verses. In verse 4, the Suffering Servant bears illnesses, not sins. And in verse 8, ācut off from the land of the livingā has quite a different meaning. Also, the plural in the last line (āthey were afflictedā) is something that the Christian interpretation cannot explain.
One thing, however, I do know for sure: if I were an unbeliever, and a Christian were pointing out these verses to me as an example of a fulfilled prophecy, I would be underwhelmed.
This point I agree. Thanks for pointing this out. The rest of his commentary was not very convincing as he would leave out lines that contradict his point.
A line like this is another example:
(6) We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and God inflicted upon him [Israel] the iniquity of us all.
If him is Israel who is us? I propose the Messiah is him and us is Isaiah and his fellow Israelites.
While I agree with you single parts of the Bible are not persuasive on their own, however this chapter has been a big driver behind the growing Messianic movement in Israel.
Here is the Messianic group One for Israels argument for Isaiah 53 being about Messiah.
If someone claims something happened in the past, that is an historical claim. Historical standards are therefore the appropriate standards to use. Theological or prophetic or whatever standards you are playing with here are completely irrelevant.
Kudos, however, for admitting that the claim that Jesus was resurrected does not meet that standards of a verifiable historic event. Many apologists, including some quite famous ones, are not able to appreciate this, so credit where itās due.
1 Like
It is not necessary for the resurrection to be an historical claim in order to establish its truth. History is a set of standards that donāt include all possible claims of something that happened in the distant past. Both science and history are limited by the rules that govern them.
As whether the resurrection is historic or not is different then debating if it is true. Where I agree with @vjtorley is that trying to fit Theological claims into history or science can be counter productive and speaks nothing about their truth.
Again, I appreciate your candour in admitting that the āresurrectionā is not something that can be demonstrated to be true by any of the accepted disciplines by which we usually accept things to be true, such as science or history. If something is said to be ātrueā only in a theological sense, doesnāt really say much for anyone who does not share your particular theological beliefs and presuppositions.
So it would appear this is a rare instance in which we are in agreement.
1 Like