Isaiah 53 prophecy. Is it about Jesus?

[LoAmmi]

If we take the entirety of Isaiah (or both Isaiahs, depending on which structural theory one goes with), the intertextuality of the contexts imply a possible interplay between the Messiah and the Servant, wherein the figure of Messiah in Isaiah bleeds (perhaps easily bleeds) into the concept of "the Servant" in Isaiah.

I for one will not say that the Servant motif can't apply to both Israel AND, figuratively, also to the Messiah to come. And this is where I think mistakes (or a lack of insight) come into the interpretive process on the part of both Jews and Christians. It's probably not just one OR the other. It's both. So, Israel, despite its grievous sins in Isaiah, should still have some level of its "election" [through the post-Exile 'Remnant'] recognized, along with the implications that these 66 chapters have for the Messiah.

My perspective is that, generally speaking, Jews tend to read the text very literally and Christians very figuratively. Literally, Isaiah identifies the servant several times leading up to 53. There is never any indication that the subject of the servant has suddenly changed in 53.

I don't do figurative very well as I find it to be subject to the whims of the person reading the text.

 

[Athée]

Early Christian biblical interpretation often comprehended a Christocentric meaning to the texts; that is, when Christians went back and looked at these Scriptures they saw Jesus written all over them. Whether they were wrong or right to do so depends on whether or not Jesus is, in fact, the risen Lord and Christ.

As such I have no problem recognizing that Isaiah 9 is almost certainly about Hezekiah, and yet its application to Jesus has been part of Christian tradition since the beginning.

I would argue that, in a sense, early Christians were engaging in a kind of midrashic reading of these texts. Looking behind the more surface layer, and at least for them, they saw Jesus there. Again, whether or not this is correct, I think, depends entirely on whether or not the Jesus story is true--because if it is true, then Jesus' statement, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which bear witness of Me" ought to be taken seriously, and that is precisely the kind of thing we see the early Christians doing.

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, if Jesus is just another failed messiah, then of course none of this matters anyway as the entire Christian belief system is rendered totally false.

-CryptoLutheran

As is often the case I agree with you Because the Jesus story includes the idea that he is the fulfillment of all the old testament from beginning to end, if the Jesus story is true, then we can read Isaiah in that light. My question is more about if Isaiah 53 can be used as evidence to support that conclusion.

 

[Athée]

Yes, I agree. There are people who are generally righteous in the Scriptures. However, the Israelites tended to have periodic oscillations between Sin on a national level and being drawn by God back toward spiritual reformation through various leaders He would send to them.

However, the historical period(s) in question that contextualize the book of Isaiah, and of Isaiah chapter 53, was definitely not one of the better, more faithful times for Israel. Things were getting really bad between the invasions by Assyria and then later by Babylon, which led to the decimation of Israel and their Exile into Babylon.

Anyway, feel free to study and let me know what you find. It's all interesting, and as always, it's good to hear from you and see what you've been up to.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I think your reading of the time period is right on, not one of Israel's best moments. But as you say the nation is redeemed periodically. My thought is that the passage is describing what the state of Israel will be at the time (or immediately after perhaps) the time of the Messiah. Does that make sense?

 

[Athée]

A quick comment. "Isaiah 53" is treated by Christians as a stand alone text, just like the prophecy to King Ahaz, and out of context. In reality there's no "Isaiah 53", but 4 Servant Songs of Isaiah. And the Servant is clearly identified.

I tend to agree. I don't see a good reason to read it as if it were a specific person.

 

[Athée]

If we take the entirety of Isaiah (or both Isaiahs, depending on which structural theory one goes with), the intertextuality of the contexts imply a possible interplay between the Messiah and the Servant, wherein the figure of Messiah in Isaiah bleeds (perhaps easily bleeds) into the concept of "the Servant" in Isaiah.

I for one will not say that the Servant motif can't apply to both Israel AND, figuratively, also to the Messiah to come. And this is where I think mistakes (or a lack of insight) come into the interpretive process on the part of both Jews and Christians. It's probably not just one OR the other. It's both. So, Israel, despite its grievous sins in Isaiah, should still have some level of its "election" [through the post-Exile 'Remnant'] recognized, along with the implications that these 66 chapters have for the Messiah.

I suppose it could be both/and, what elements do you see that suggest to you that the second reading, that this passage also refers to the individual Messiah, is a valid one?

 

[Athée]

To b

Perhaps. Or, perhaps, it depends on the pov. My belief system does not require a or the messiah. However, not being a biblical scholar, I must have to ask the question: how many hoops do I have to jump to arrive at a desirable conclusion? That,in a nutshell,is the problem with "53".

To be fair if the hoops line up then going through them is just good hermeneutics. In this case I agree with you that reading Jesus into this passage is not so much a straight path.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think your reading of the time period is right on, not one of Israel's best moments. But as you say the nation is redeemed periodically. My thought is that the passage is describing what the state of Israel will be at the time (or immediately after perhaps) the time of the Messiah. Does that make sense?

That's makes sense to me, with a certain kind of "deflection" of the extension of reference to one that correlates with Jesus' advent as Messiah.

Also, do this Athée, take another passage Jewish Rabbis tend to 'read' in identification with the nation of Israel, in this case the whole of Psalm 22, and then intertextually compare it to the Isaiah 52-53 passage we're discussing, and see what similarities [or differences] you find there. This is yet one more level of context to consider in exegesis. (Of course, if we wanted to get into the nitty-gritty of Isaiah, we could compare and contrast Isaiah 53 with all of the other Servant/Messiah passage within the entire book of Isaiah as well for another kind of contextual implication, but I don't want you to have to bite off more than you can chew in one meal at the moment. )

 

[LoAmmi]

That's makes sense to me, with a certain kind of "deflection" of the extension of reference to one that correlates with Jesus' advent as Messiah.

Also, do this Athée, take another passage Jewish Rabbis tend to 'read' in identification with the nation of Israel, in this case the whole of Psalm 22, and then intertextually compare it to the Isaiah 52-53 passage we're discussing, and see what similarities [or differences] you find there. This is yet one more level of context to consider in exegesis. (Of course, if we wanted to get into the nitty-gritty of Isaiah, we could compare and contrast Isaiah 53 with all of the other Servant/Messiah passage within the entire book of Isaiah as well for another kind of contextual implication, but I don't want you to have to bite off more than you can chew in one meal at the moment. )

I've never been taught that Psalm 22 was about Israel but about David himself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've never been taught that Psalm 22 was about Israel but about David himself.

Ok. That may be the case, and if so, I appreciate the correction. I'm not going to claim that I'm a guru about Jewish Rabbinical viewpoints. But, even if the usual interpretation in the case of Psalm 22 is about David, which makes sense, it still has the same approach being made to it by typical Jewish interpretation where it is taken only on a literal level, and in application to only David himself rather than pointing 'also' prophetically to a suffering servant, just like the passage in Isaiah 53 is typically only taken as being about the nation of Israel itself rather than to a suffering servant (or messiah). So, that's the point I'm trying to dig at here.

In the same way that I think that Isaiah 53 can be referring to both, it can also be referring to both in Psalm 22. ...and for you to completely discount my dual interpretive interface would imply that you wouldn't be able to find any Jewish Rabbi anywhere, at any time, who hasn't also seen more than one level of applicable meaning within the O.T. Scriptures.

See, I'm not here to discount Jewish people, or all of Jewish interpretation. What I'm trying to assert, whether in error or not (hopefully not) is that in Jewish prophetic literature, there is more meaning intended by God's Spirit than "meets the eye" on first glance, or even upon second glance.

 

[LoAmmi]

Ok. That may be the case, and if so, I appreciate the correction. I'm not going to claim that I'm a guru about Jewish Rabbinical viewpoints. But, even if the usual interpretation in the case of Psalm 22 is about David, which makes sense, it still has the same approach made where it is taken only on a literal level, and in application to only David himself rather than pointing 'also' prophetically to a suffering servant, just like the passage in Isaiah 53 is typically only taken as being about the nation of Israel itself rather than to a suffering servant (or messiah). So, that's the point I'm trying to dig at here.

In the same way that I think that Isaiah 53 can be referring to both, it can also be referring to both in Psalm 22. ...and for you to completely discount my dual interpretive interface would imply that you wouldn't be able to find any Jewish Rabbi anywhere, at any time, who hasn't also seen more than one level of applicable meaning within the O.T. Scriptures.

The problem I have with dual meanings, is why stop at two? Why not ten or fifteen or thousands? Psalm 22 then can apply to every human that ever lived because we've all dealt with suffering. The more you dilute the text, move away from the language it presents, the less clear things become until you get to a point that the text is meaningless.

Yes, you could find rabbis that would agree with multiple levels of meaning and all that. The saying is that if you ask ten rabbis a question, you'll get eleven answers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem I have with dual meanings, is why stop at two? Why not ten or fifteen or thousands? Psalm 22 then can apply to every human that ever lived because we've all dealt with suffering. The more you dilute the text, move away from the language it presents, the less clear things become until you get to a point that the text is meaningless.

I disagree with that. If we take the entirety of Psalm 22, then the sheer combination for all of these elements to be present in some 'real way' in a persons life immediately filters out a lot of excessive and made up application-----and I understand very well what you are saying because I do see Christians who are very inept at hermeneutical study foist very bad interpretations upon even the New Testament Christians writings. In my case, I can't say that Psalm 22, in whole, applies to me directly. Sure, I have spiritual empathy with it. But let's face it, if I'm not actually being run out of town and sought after in order to be put to death, whether by spear or by crucifiction--which in my case would be highly, highly unlikely--then I as a Christian am definitely not going to apply this Psalm to myself, and any Christian who mistakenly tries to do so would be one that I'd tell to refrain from doing so, however loving I might try to do it, to their face.

Yes, you could find rabbis that would agree with multiple levels of meaning and all that. The saying is that if you ask ten rabbis a question, you'll get eleven answers.

Ok. So, with that, then where is the authority for any one voice within Judaism to interpret Isaiah 53? Are you saying that ALL rabbis would interpret this passage in an identical way? (Maybe they would, it's not like I've got copies of the Talmud's just laying around ... not yet anyway. )

 

[danny ski]

I disagree with that. If we take the entirety of Psalm 22, then the sheer combination for all of these elements to be present in some 'real way' in a persons life immediately filters out a lot of excessive and made up application-----and I understand very well what you are saying because I do see Christians who are very inept at hermeneutical study foist very bad interpretations upon even the New Testament Christians writings. In my case, I can't say that Psalm 22, in whole, applies to me directly. Sure, I have spiritual empathy with it. But let's face it, if I'm not actually being run out of town and sought after in order to be put to death, whether by spear or by crucifiction--which in my case would be highly, highly unlikely--then I as a Christian am definitely not going to apply this Psalm to myself, and any Christian who mistakenly tries to do so would be one that I'd tell, however loving I might try to do it, to their face.

Ok. So, with that, then where is the authority for any one voice within Judaism to interpret Isaiah 53? Are you saying that ALL rabbis would interpret this passage in an identical way? (Maybe they would, it's not like I've got copies of the Talmud's just laying around ... not yet anyway. )

I'm sure that LoAmmi will address the mistranslation in the Psalm 22.

 

[Athée]

Ok. That may be the case, and if so, I appreciate the correction. I'm not going to claim that I'm a guru about Jewish Rabbinical viewpoints. But, even if the usual interpretation in the case of Psalm 22 is about David, which makes sense, it still has the same approach being made to it by typical Jewish interpretation where it is taken only on a literal level, and in application to only David himself rather than pointing 'also' prophetically to a suffering servant, just like the passage in Isaiah 53 is typically only taken as being about the nation of Israel itself rather than to a suffering servant (or messiah). So, that's the point I'm trying to dig at here.

In the same way that I think that Isaiah 53 can be referring to both, it can also be referring to both in Psalm 22. ...and for you to completely discount my dual interpretive interface would imply that you wouldn't be able to find any Jewish Rabbi anywhere, at any time, who hasn't also seen more than one level of applicable meaning within the O.T. Scriptures.

See, I'm not here to discount Jewish people, or all of Jewish interpretation. What I'm trying to assert, whether in error or not (hopefully not) is that in Jewish prophetic literature, there is more meaning intended by God's Spirit than "meets the eye" on first glance, or even upon second glance.

Adding my 2 cents...

My general discomfort with the dual interpretation or dual fulfillment hermeneutic, is that it seems to me to be vulnerable to the accusation of being ad hoc or just not being prophetic.
In the first case some readers will pick a few words out of a verse, ignore the context entirely and claim dual fulfilment of the verse happens to have a clear meaning that has already been met. In the second case, to take Jesus as an example, we have a character written about by people with a clear interest in presenting him as a second but better David. As such the foreshadowing Christians see in these texts just isn't very impressive to me. My notion is that the originators of the Jesus story were framing thier leader in a way that borrowed from the well established tradition of Judaism in a way that lent their movement authority. I guess it seems to me that if you already accept Jesus as Messiah you can go back in these texts and find resonance if you look for it, but that a reader who knew nothing of Jesus would never come away from these passages with the suspicion that they were really about something other than what they seemed.

 

[LoAmmi]

I disagree with that. If we take the entirety of Psalm 22, then the sheer combination for all of these elements to be present in some 'real way' in a persons life immediately filters out a lot of excessive and made up application-----and I understand very well what you are saying because I do see Christians who are very inept at hermeneutical study foist very bad interpretations upon even the New Testament Christians writings. In my case, I can't say that Psalm 22, in whole, applies to me directly. Sure, I have spiritual empathy with it. But let's face it, if I'm not actually being run out of town and sought after in order to be put to death, whether by spear or by crucifiction--which in my case would be highly, highly unlikely--then I as a Christian am definitely not going to apply this Psalm to myself, and any Christian who mistakenly tries to do so would be one that I'd tell, however loving I might try to do it, to their face.

I was bullied when I was in school. It was very, very bad. I was regularly attacked by groups of people. At times, it was clear they had the intent of doing great harm if not killing me. I had done nothing to these people except be who I was. Does Psalm 22 apply to me?

Now, I don't want to get much into the translation issues between pierced or like a lion, since that just bogs everything down, but would it interest you to know that I was stabbed in my hand (requiring a hospital visit)? Fun times.

Ok. So, with that, then where is the authority for any one voice within Judaism to interpret Isaiah 53? Are you saying that ALL rabbis would interpret this passage in an identical way? (Maybe they would, it's not like I've got copies of the Talmud's just laying around ... not yet anyway. )

It's more like that's the majority interpretation. Nobody would claim they speak as one, but the majority of rabbis you speak to would interpret it close to what was said here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suppose it could be both/and, what elements do you see that suggest to you that the second reading, that this passage also refers to the individual Messiah, is a valid one?

Before directly answering this question you've posed, I should probably explain my interpretive approach so you might see better how I come by my interpretive measures.

In essence, when dealing with biblical prophecy, much of our interpretations as they may apply to Jesus as Messiah will depend upon whether or not we discern Scripture writers are attempting to express truth through either 1) LINEAR FULFILLMENTS that have an exactly matching, one to one ratio, between prediction and event, or 2) through GENERALIZED PATTERNS of spiritual significance, with prophetic statements remaining obscure or guessable until future events take place which exhibit very similar patterning, even during multiple, periodic occasions, from era to era.

So, let's just say that in our consideration of the above approaches to how we understand the nature of biblical prophecy, I tend to lean on the second one quite a bit in regard to how I evaluate the meaning of Old Testament prophetic literature, which as you may tell is not typical of the more stringent Christian fundamentalist readings of prophecy. Of course, I am still somewhat 'evangelical' in my ecumenical view of Christianity, but I don't feel beholden to have to defend in any ironclad way the first approach I mention above.

I know the above is too short to really explain what I'm getting at, so here is again from another angle: In my view, many of the Old Testament prophecies are enigmatically and esoterically articulated, expressing patterns and/or relations between various concepts. Some prophecies pertain to the immediate historical context of the times in which they were written. Some prophecies instead refer to vaguely insinuated future fulfillments. And some other prophecies express patterns of meaning that, while not expressly pointing to the future, provide precedents for meaning by which God can act AGAIN in the future and by which we can recognize [if we're paying attention] that event X (such as the birth of Christ) is a fulfillment of previous prophetic patterns.

However, by “fulfillment” in this case, as we apply it to Christ, I DON'T mean that a previous prophecy in the O.T. has to be read as having specifically alluded to a future event, but rather that the later event exudes a pattern which reflects the previously revealed pattern(s) and thereby signifies that God is again doing some activity in the world of the kind for which He has been known for doing in the past and by which we should recognize His activity in the world again at a later time, if we pay close enough attention AND we are given help by God to do so.

Do you see the difference in what I'm saying in all of this, Athee? Yes, this would make prophecy very complex to sort out and frustrating at times since it is so enigmatic. But this application (by God) of patterning within the complex of prophecy would also avail itself to the typical sensibilities already in evidence within the various Jewish interpretive traditions. So, this would go for Isaiah 53 as well, in my estimation. Yeah, it's not literal, but the pattern was established by which we could recognize it. And it can't just apply to anybody.

Now, let me attempt to answer your question .... (in another post coming up, when I can get to it.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was bullied when I was in school. It was very, very bad. I was regularly attacked by groups of people. At times, it was clear they had the intent of doing great harm if not killing me. I had done nothing to these people except be who I was. Does Psalm 22 apply to me?

That's a very awful thing for me to hear, LoAmmi. I'm am truly sorry to hear that. I was bullied just a little bit when I was in Jr. High, so I have had just a little taste of that kind of thing. But, I can imagine that your situation was quite a bit more of a serious one, and I'm sorry you had to endure that. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

With that said, I would say that some of the implication of Psalm 22 does apply to you, to some extent, but not completely. It applies to you in that you indeed had a serious situation to contend with from bullies, all of which had some real semblance to the situation that David found himself in when trying to contend with the repeated provocation and attacks by King Saul and his company. On the other hand, I need to ask a question: Was the bullying you experienced in school perpetrated by your peers because you are Jewish and they wanted to pick on you and your view of faith in our Lord, OR ... was this bullying at the hands of your own fellow Jewish classmates? I ask because in Psalm 22, the danger David was in, as far as I understand the historical contexts, came from David's own ethnic kin (again, Saul and company, in this instance), and in which case, then, I'd have to say, no, it doesn't apply to you all that well.

Now, I don't want to get much into the translation issues between pierced or like a lion, since that just bogs everything down, but would it interest you to know that I was stabbed in my hand (requiring a hospital visit)? Fun times.

Again, I'm truly sorry to hear that you were targeted like that. That's an awful thing.

It's more like that's the majority interpretation. Nobody would claim they speak as one, but the majority of rabbis you speak to would interpret it close to what was said here.

Well, in looking at one of my books, this one by Ronald A. Brauner (a Jewish, non-Christian educator within American Judaism), I find that he says that in relation to topics like that of our contemplation about the meaning of the Messiah, Messiahs, or Messianic movement, or what have you:

These topics are discussed at length in the sources of the Tradition [by the Rabbis, I assume], but there is generally no consensus as to the particular details attaching to them. These matters, and others like Resurrection of the Dead and Days of the Messiah, while significant for the overall picture and understanding of Judaism, do not have doctrinal significance because they have no halakhic significance. In these and similar areas, much is left to the individual's own imagination and understanding but there is little if any insistence upon collective understanding. Judaism tends to articulate consensual detail only when the subject being examined is meant to be applied behaviorally. (pp. 143-144)
​

In seeing that this comment doesn't tie Jewish people today down to a particular interpretation about the Messiah, however He may be alluded to in the Law, Prophets and Writings, I would think this openness could extend to hearing out what well-meaning Christians, such as myself, might have to say about the nature of the Messiah and all of the disparate things we find about various related entities in Scripture.

Just a thought.

Reference
Brauner, Ronald A. (2001). Thinking Jewish: The art of living in two civilizations. Pittsburgh, PA: Mirkov Publications, Inc.

 

[LoAmmi]

That's a very awful thing for me to hear, LoAmmi. I'm am truly sorry to hear that. I was bullied just a little bit when I was in Jr. High, so I have had just a little taste of that kind of thing. But, I can imagine that your situation was quite a bit more of a serious one, and I'm sorry you had to endure that. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

With that said, I would say that some of the implication of Psalm 22 does apply to you, to some extent, but not completely. It applies to you in that you indeed had a serious situation to contend with from bullies, all of which had some real semblance to the situation that David found himself in when trying to contend with the repeated provocation and attacks by King Saul and his company. On the other hand, I need to ask a question: Was the bullying you experienced in school perpetrated by your peers because you are Jewish and they wanted to pick on you and your view of faith in our Lord, OR ... was this bullying at the hands of your own fellow Jewish classmates? I ask because in Psalm 22, the danger David was in, as far as I understand the historical contexts, came from David's own ethnic kin (again, Saul and company, in this instance), and in which case, then, I'd have to say, no, it doesn't apply to you all that well.

Again, I'm truly sorry to hear that you were targeted like that. That's an awful thing.

Well, in looking at one of my books, this one by Ronald A. Brauner (a Jewish, non-Christian educator within American Judaism), I find that he says that in relation to topics like that of our contemplation about the meaning of the Messiah, Messiahs, or Messianic movement, or what have you:

These topics are discussed at length in the sources of the Tradition [by the Rabbis, I assume], but there is generally no consensus as to the particular details attaching to them. These matters, and others like Resurrection of the Dead and Days of the Messiah, while significant for the overall picture and understanding of Judaism, do not have doctrinal significance because they have no halakhic significance. In these and similar areas, much is left to the individual's own imagination and understanding but there is little if any insistence upon collective understanding. Judaism tends to articulate consensual detail only when the subject being examined is meant to be applied behaviorally. (pp. 143-144)
​

In seeing that this comment doesn't tie Jewish people today down to a particular interpretation about the Messiah, however He may be alluded to in the Law, Prophets and Writings, I would think this openness could extend to hearing out what well-meaning Christians, such as myself, might have to say about the nature of the Messiah and all of the disparate things we find about various related entities in Scripture.

Just a thought.

Reference
Brauner, Ronald A. (2001). Thinking Jewish: The art of living in two civilizations. Pittsburgh, PA: Mirkov Publications, Inc.

The concrete Jewish position I can give, and I'm pretty sure this one is universally accepted, is that the Messianic prophecies are not complete yet so there is no Messiah yet. No matter what we talk about, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, whatever, that's going to be the major hurdle and one I'm not sure we can ever get past.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Adding my 2 cents...

My general discomfort with the dual interpretation or dual fulfillment hermeneutic, is that it seems to me to be vulnerable to the accusation of being ad hoc or just not being prophetic.
In the first case some readers will pick a few words out of a verse, ignore the context entirely and claim dual fulfilment of the verse happens to have a clear meaning that has already been met. In the second case, to take Jesus as an example, we have a character written about by people with a clear interest in presenting him as a second but better David. As such the foreshadowing Christians see in these texts just isn't very impressive to me. My notion is that the originators of the Jesus story were framing thier leader in a way that borrowed from the well established tradition of Judaism in a way that lent their movement authority. I guess it seems to me that if you already accept Jesus as Messiah you can go back in these texts and find resonance if you look for it, but that a reader who knew nothing of Jesus would never come away from these passages with the suspicion that they were really about something other than what they seemed.

Sure, I can understand a person's hesitancy to affirm a dualistic type of prophetic composition, but this is an interpretive motif that runs among various Christian expositors and teachers as you'll find in various Christian books on Biblical Hermeneutics. Without getting into a defense of that kind of thing just yet, I'll instead bring out a comment from the Jewish side of things which I found from Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein (1984), and it is one that I've seen similarly stated by other modern Rabbis, expressing something of how some Jewish expositors delineate the nature of Old Testament prophecies, including the type we're talking about in this thread:

Unlike the case of Moses and the Torah, however, the revelations recorded in the prophetic Books were general ones, not verbatim "dictations" ... Thus, while the themes that Isaiah, for example, treated were, in fact, conveyed to him by God, the precise words he used were his own. They, therefore, differ stylistically from those of Jeremiah, Ezekial, or any of the other prophets. The principle mission of the prophets was to present God's message to the people and only secondarily, to predict future events.
There are different levels of prophecy. Moses reached the highest rung humanly possible in that he spoke with God "face to face" (Deut. 34:10). All the other prophets, on the other hand, received their revelations through dreams or visions in a hypnotic state (see Maimonides' Mishneh Torah for a description of the different levels of prophecy). (pp. 51-52)​

So, with the above in mind, I think there is room for some notion of prophecies in the Old Testament to have been given, at least in some part, in an enigmatically dualistic fashion as they pertain to motifs like "the Messiah," and they were given in some way in formats that approach something approximating what we'd call "patterns" rather than in concrete, ipso facto, linearly directed predictions of exacting events in the future. I rather think messianic prophecy WAS given to make us aware of God's activity, even in the future from the time they were given, but not all of it was given so we'd have a hard and fast, even obvious, insight about the Messiah. Instead, we were given something by God that makes us say something more along the line like, "Hey, this guy Jesus.....yes, yes..."that" Jesus, the strange one about whom we all aren't sure whose daddy was really his (wink, wink)....yeah, that guy......well, he's doing and saying some crazy stuff, and he's different. In fact, we think He could be IT, man! He could be IT! Let's go see ...."

Yeah, that's kind of how I think God intended for it to be, at least that is what I think the epistemic indices within the bible nod to in their murky extension of reference ...

Reference
Eckstein, Yechiel (R.) (1984). What Christians should know about Jews and Judaism. Waco, TX: Word Books.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suppose it could be both/and, what elements do you see that suggest to you that the second reading, that this passage also refers to the individual Messiah, is a valid one?

Well, the "elements" by which I accept Isaiah 53 as being a passage referring to the individual Messiah (which from even a Jewish perspective could be one of two or three possibilities) aren't just made up of an amassing of little notes I've taken from having sat down, read Isaiah 53, mulling over over the implications of the little notes on this passage--and then from these alone saying, "Eureka....that's Jesus, fur sure!"

No, it's a bit more complex than that. In fact, my acceptance of Isaiah 53 as being indicative of a messiah incorporates several different lines of interplaying contexts and intertextual connections which I see throughout the whole of the Bible; granted, some of this is informed by my "seeing" through the lense(s) of the historical Christian church as men and women over the last 2,000 have attempted to make heads or tails of who Jesus, and what Jesus, is. But some of it is also informed by taking some Jewish lines of thought into consideration, and not only those emerging from a Greek like notion of interpretation and wrapping it in airtight logic.

With that said, from yet another angle, the skeptical one, I can understand why someone who may not have yet grappled with the various levels of complex contexts, read a lot of books, and is then handed Isaiah 53 on a plate, won't necessarily say, "Gee, that's obviously a Messiah, even our Messiah!"

But, for me, the patterns are definitely there, and I tend to focus on the idea that, for some reason, some early 1st century Jews thought Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the prophetic patterns which are strewn throughout the Old Testament.

And of course, I also think that somewhere in the mix God Himself has to help us "see" how the Bible, and His Spirit, and His people are communicating to us.

 

[John 1720]

Hi all,
Your friendly local atheist back with another question. So chatting after hockey about life's big questions one of the guys said that he was a Christian and when I asked what convinces him that Christianity is true his first thought was all the fulfilled prophecy. When I asked him for the very best one he cited Isaiah 53 (meaning the end of 52 through 53).

So I went back and read it myself and did a cursory internet search and it seems to me like the traditional Jewish interpretation makes the most sense, that the suffering servant is the nation of israel...but maybe I am missing something (I usually am!)

If you are a believer that this passage is a clear prophecy about Jesus as Messiah please help me understand why.

Peace

Yes, I believe Isaiah 53 , which was written 700 years before Christ, alludes to Jesus in Messianic prophesy. I also know an abudance of Jewish people who have studied it in depth that also believe it alludes to Christ. Most became Messianic Christians in response although some were not willing to suffer the rejection that comes with that decision. There is more than just Isaiah 53 though and many Messianic Jews show a wealth of Scripture that points to Jesus. How about Psalm 22 for instance?
The Suffering, Praise, and Posterity of the Messiah
To the Chief Musician. Set to “The Deer of the Dawn.” A Psalm of David.
Ps 22:1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?

• Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
• Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised by the people.

• Heb 13:12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

Ps 22:7-8 All those who see Me ridicule Me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, “He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!”

• Mat 27:29 When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”
• Mat 27:39 And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads
• Mar 15:20 And when they had mocked Him, they took the purple off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him out to crucify Him.
• Mar 15:29 And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who destroy the temple and build it in three days,
• Luk 23:11 Then Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate.
• Luk 23:35 And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God.”
• Luk 23:36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine,
• Luk 23:37 and saying, “If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.”
• Luk 23:39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”

Ps 22:14-15 I am poured out like water, And all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.

• Jhn 19:28-29 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth.
• A (more accurate) Medical Account of the Crucifixion - Douglas Jacoby

16 For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet; 17 I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

Mat 27:35 Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: “They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.”
Mar 15:24 And when they crucified Him, they divided His garments, casting lots for them to determine what every man should take.
Luk 23:33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left.
Jhn 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece.
Jhn 19:37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”
Jhn 20:25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
Jhn 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

It seems that much of Psalm 22, as well as other prophesies give us a clear picture of our crucified Lord.
In Christ, Patrick