Isaiah 53 Explained to the Non Jew

guno

Gold Member
Mar 18, 2014
21,553
4,894
290
NYC and NC
And the christian misuse

The original Hebrew text clearly refers to the Jewish people as the “Suffering Servant,” over the centuries Isaiah 53 has become a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, this claim is based on widespread mistranslations and distortion of context.

In order to properly understand these verses, one must read the original Hebrew text. When the Bible is translated into other languages, it loses much of its essence. The familiar King James translation uses language which is archaic and difficult for the modern reader. Furthermore, it is not rooted in Jewish sources and often goes against traditional Jewish teachings. Modern translations, while more readable, are often even more divorced from the true meaning of the text.

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.

One obvious question that needs to be addressed and is misunderstood by christians: How can the “Suffering Servant,” which the verses refer to grammatically in the singular, be equated with the entire Jewish nation?

This question evaporates when we discover that throughout the Bible, the Jewish people are consistently referred to as a singular entity, using the singular pronoun. For example, when God speaks to the entire Jewish nation at Mount Sinai, all of the Ten Commandments are written as if speaking to an individual (Exodus 20:1-14). This is because the Jewish people are one unit, bound together with a shared national destiny (see Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy chapter 32). This singular reference is even more common in biblical verses referring to the Messianic era, when the Jewish people will be fully united under the banner of God (see Hosea 14:6-7, Jeremiah 50:19).

As we will see, for numerous reasons this chapter cannot be referring to the christians Jesus. Even in the Christian scriptures, the disciples did not consider the Suffering Servant as referring to Jesus (see Matthew 16:21-22, Mark 9:31-32, Luke 9:44-45).
 
The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.


Yes, you are right that for the most part Israel is called the servant of God in no uncertain terms as in Isaiah 44:21, but the two lines immediately preceding and leading up to Isaiah 53, 52:14,15, shows a distinction between Israel, my people, and the individual subsequently described in 53.

"Behold my servant shall prosper, he shall be lifted up, exalted to the heights. Time was when many were aghast at you my people; so now many nations recoil at sight of him, and kings curl their lips in disgust. For they see what they had never been told and things unheard before fill their thoughts." Isaiah 52:14,15

Even Maimonides used this specific verse to describe the effect of the appearance of the messiah, a person, not a nation.

"Rambam also wrote "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived."
 
Last edited:
The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.


Yes, you are right that for the most part Israel is called the servant of God in no uncertain terms as in Isaiah 44:21, but the passage immediately preceding Isaiah 53, shows a distinction between Israel, my people, and the individual subsequently described in 53.

"Behold my servant shall prosper, he shall be lifted up, exalted to the heights. Time was when many were aghast at you my people; so now many nations recoil at sight of him, and kings curl their lips in disgust. For they see what they had never been told and things unheard before fill their thoughts." Isaiah 52:14,15

Even Maimonides used this specific verse to describe the effect of the appearance of the messiah, a person, not a nation.

That's a game changer
 
I agree with him as well about the suffering servant but:

Those are Isaiah's words not Gods. Also the God Isaiah is talking about is the Jewish God, theirs alone. God never said a word in the Bible, all man wrote.
 
And the christian misuse

The original Hebrew text clearly refers to the Jewish people as the “Suffering Servant,” over the centuries Isaiah 53 has become a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, this claim is based on widespread mistranslations and distortion of context.

In order to properly understand these verses, one must read the original Hebrew text. When the Bible is translated into other languages, it loses much of its essence. The familiar King James translation uses language which is archaic and difficult for the modern reader. Furthermore, it is not rooted in Jewish sources and often goes against traditional Jewish teachings. Modern translations, while more readable, are often even more divorced from the true meaning of the text.

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.

One obvious question that needs to be addressed and is misunderstood by christians: How can the “Suffering Servant,” which the verses refer to grammatically in the singular, be equated with the entire Jewish nation?

This question evaporates when we discover that throughout the Bible, the Jewish people are consistently referred to as a singular entity, using the singular pronoun. For example, when God speaks to the entire Jewish nation at Mount Sinai, all of the Ten Commandments are written as if speaking to an individual (Exodus 20:1-14). This is because the Jewish people are one unit, bound together with a shared national destiny (see Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy chapter 32). This singular reference is even more common in biblical verses referring to the Messianic era, when the Jewish people will be fully united under the banner of God (see Hosea 14:6-7, Jeremiah 50:19).

As we will see, for numerous reasons this chapter cannot be referring to the christians Jesus. Even in the Christian scriptures, the disciples did not consider the Suffering Servant as referring to Jesus (see Matthew 16:21-22, Mark 9:31-32, Luke 9:44-45).

beside the temple, they were the preservers of the faith/text and the givers of the prophets. One of the reason Mohammed was not accepted was that he was not a jew. He changed the direction of worship to Mecca and left Jerusalem for the jews and christians. They were superior, they just had a purpose given them by god to fulfill. It has been a thankless job and brought them great suffering along the way. They have been protecting the faith till a new temple is built. A bit like preserving a complete set of encyclopedias, adding to a bit at a time in case the internet and all electronic information become impossible to access without electricity or batteries.

What if the dead sea scrolls and books like nag haggadi had never been written. We would never know what the earliest of the faiths thought, believed or recorded. It might not change belief but it does shine a brighter light on things missed or changed along the way. Jews also preserved their old language so the text could be read when the time was right.

What if the only text if a quran was one in english? What if our history was lost? Jews have tried to protect the origins of the faith in a single god of Abraham and the memory of who they are.
 
LOL Like a Christian (or a Jew) is going to listen to an anti religion kook like you

1) That doesnst change the truth in the content of the post
2) that doesn't refute the post
3) ad hominom attacks on the poster without addressing the post is an avoidance technique that admits you have no rebuttle.
4) demonizing the poster to miss direct or avoid the content is a very telling trait that goes back to the founders who demonized the Jews through the Judas slants, Herods fabricated accounts of killing babies, and NT in general. This just backs his post that Israel was the suffering servant who you demonize even todsy b3causecthey tried and expise your idol worship as wrong and useless.
 
LOL Like a Christian (or a Jew) is going to listen to an anti religion kook like you

1) That doesnst change the truth in the content of the post
2) that doesn't refute the post
3) ad hominom attacks on the poster without addressing the post is an avoidance technique that admits you have no rebuttle.
4) demonizing the poster to miss direct or avoid the content is a very telling trait that goes back to the founders who demonized the Jews through the Judas slants, Herods fabricated accounts of killing babies, and NT in general. This just backs his post that Israel was the suffering servant who you demonize even todsy b3causecthey tried and expise your idol worship as wrong and useless.

Bleh, I could care less what the OP or you THINK you know.
 
Nor what your NT and Jesus myth says either as seen by all the Christians trashing and contradicting their own text and prophet just to save face in discussions or just through ignorance. I know when atheist and Jews know your NT more then You yourselves it triggers a certain kind of attitude, the kind that sparks crusades, inquisitions, and genocides.
 
I agree with him as well about the suffering servant but:

Those are Isaiah's words not Gods. Also the God Isaiah is talking about is the Jewish God, theirs alone. God never said a word in the Bible, all man wrote.

what point are you trying to make? They are the words of the bible which according to the writers of the New Testament, Jesus believed. If you are interested in whatever it was that was the POV of Jesus-----the words he believed to be true----would be of interest to you if you
believe any of the words of the "new testament" have any value at all
 
I agree with him as well about the suffering servant but:

Those are Isaiah's words not Gods. Also the God Isaiah is talking about is the Jewish God, theirs alone. God never said a word in the Bible, all man wrote.

what point are you trying to make? They are the words of the bible which according to the writers of the New Testament, Jesus believed. If you are interested in whatever it was that was the POV of Jesus-----the words he believed to be true----would be of interest to you if you
believe any of the words of the "new testament" have any value at all

I don't care what the writers of Jesus believed, he never wrote a word , get a grip on reality. The bible is not the word of God but the word of man, period.
 
I agree with him as well about the suffering servant but:

Those are Isaiah's words not Gods. Also the God Isaiah is talking about is the Jewish God, theirs alone. God never said a word in the Bible, all man wrote.

what point are you trying to make? They are the words of the bible which according to the writers of the New Testament, Jesus believed. If you are interested in whatever it was that was the POV of Jesus-----the words he believed to be true----would be of interest to you if you
believe any of the words of the "new testament" have any value at all

I don't care what the writers of Jesus believed, he never wrote a word , get a grip on reality. The bible is not the word of God but the word of man, period.

oh----ok so you admit that when you make claims as to that which Jesus taught or believed----you are simply lying. I am a little surprised that you are willing to admit
it. If Jesus was anything at all like he is presented by the writers of the "new testament"----then he was able to and, therefore, probably did write sometime in his life
 
And the christian misuse

The original Hebrew text clearly refers to the Jewish people as the “Suffering Servant,” over the centuries Isaiah 53 has become a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, this claim is based on widespread mistranslations and distortion of context.

In order to properly understand these verses, one must read the original Hebrew text. When the Bible is translated into other languages, it loses much of its essence. The familiar King James translation uses language which is archaic and difficult for the modern reader. Furthermore, it is not rooted in Jewish sources and often goes against traditional Jewish teachings. Modern translations, while more readable, are often even more divorced from the true meaning of the text.

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.

One obvious question that needs to be addressed and is misunderstood by christians: How can the “Suffering Servant,” which the verses refer to grammatically in the singular, be equated with the entire Jewish nation?

This question evaporates when we discover that throughout the Bible, the Jewish people are consistently referred to as a singular entity, using the singular pronoun. For example, when God speaks to the entire Jewish nation at Mount Sinai, all of the Ten Commandments are written as if speaking to an individual (Exodus 20:1-14). This is because the Jewish people are one unit, bound together with a shared national destiny (see Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy chapter 32). This singular reference is even more common in biblical verses referring to the Messianic era, when the Jewish people will be fully united under the banner of God (see Hosea 14:6-7, Jeremiah 50:19).

As we will see, for numerous reasons this chapter cannot be referring to the christians Jesus. Even in the Christian scriptures, the disciples did not consider the Suffering Servant as referring to Jesus (see Matthew 16:21-22, Mark 9:31-32, Luke 9:44-45).

beside the temple, they were the preservers of the faith/text and the givers of the prophets. One of the reason Mohammed was not accepted was that he was not a jew. He changed the direction of worship to Mecca and left Jerusalem for the jews and christians. They were superior, they just had a purpose given them by god to fulfill. It has been a thankless job and brought them great suffering along the way. They have been protecting the faith till a new temple is built. A bit like preserving a complete set of encyclopedias, adding to a bit at a time in case the internet and all electronic information become impossible to access without electricity or batteries.

What if the dead sea scrolls and books like nag haggadi had never been written. We would never know what the earliest of the faiths thought, believed or recorded. It might not change belief but it does shine a brighter light on things missed or changed along the way. Jews also preserved their old language so the text could be read when the time was right.

What if the only text if a quran was one in english? What if our history was lost? Jews have tried to protect the origins of the faith in a single god of Abraham and the memory of who they are.

No OT, we'd all probably be better off. Really I think so. We instinctively know right from wrong and its our parents who pass on values and morals, not the garbage in the OT. Actually I think the OT has done lots of damage to the fact that SOME people really believe the Jews are the chosen ones and the end times are coming. Its total nonsense.
 
I agree with him as well about the suffering servant but:

Those are Isaiah's words not Gods. Also the God Isaiah is talking about is the Jewish God, theirs alone. God never said a word in the Bible, all man wrote.

what point are you trying to make? They are the words of the bible which according to the writers of the New Testament, Jesus believed. If you are interested in whatever it was that was the POV of Jesus-----the words he believed to be true----would be of interest to you if you
believe any of the words of the "new testament" have any value at all

I don't care what the writers of Jesus believed, he never wrote a word , get a grip on reality. The bible is not the word of God but the word of man, period.

oh----ok so you admit that when you make claims as to that which Jesus taught or believed----you are simply lying. I am a little surprised that you are willing to admit
it. If Jesus was anything at all like he is presented by the writers of the "new testament"----then he was able to and, therefore, probably did write sometime in his life

Possibly he did say a few of those words,and he hung out with the gentiles as he did not fit in with the Jews of the day, save for 12 and one stabbed him in the back, the only one from Judea, go figure.
 
I agree with him as well about the suffering servant but:

Those are Isaiah's words not Gods. Also the God Isaiah is talking about is the Jewish God, theirs alone. God never said a word in the Bible, all man wrote.

what point are you trying to make? They are the words of the bible which according to the writers of the New Testament, Jesus believed. If you are interested in whatever it was that was the POV of Jesus-----the words he believed to be true----would be of interest to you if you
believe any of the words of the "new testament" have any value at all

I don't care what the writers of Jesus believed, he never wrote a word , get a grip on reality. The bible is not the word of God but the word of man, period.

oh----ok so you admit that when you make claims as to that which Jesus taught or believed----you are simply lying. I am a little surprised that you are willing to admit
it. If Jesus was anything at all like he is presented by the writers of the "new testament"----then he was able to and, therefore, probably did write sometime in his life

Possibly he did say a few of those words,and he hung out with the gentiles as he did not fit in with the Jews of the day, save for 12 and one stabbed him in the back, the only one from Judea, go figure.

try reading the book----there is absolutely no time noted in the only book which records anything at all about jesus,, to wit the 'new testament' .. that puts jesus in the company of any gentiles at all In fact the record indicates that it is unlikely that he would drink so much as a glass of water in the house of a lump of shit like you or even set foot in your house. No wonder your nun teacher told you not to read the
book. When Jesus said "cast not your pearls before swine" -----who do you imagine 'the swine' are? btw---the phrase was commonly used at that time and its meaning is well known to people familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic usages at that time. It is very likely
that Jesus said some of the words attributed to him in the "new testament"-----
all of the Pharisees were quoting &/or paraphrasing Hillel at that time.
 
The "only one from Judea"??? you are confused -------Jerusalem is in Judea----as is
Bethlehem. It is likely that most of the friends of Jesus
were from Judea-----Nazareth is Israel----
I am not sure but I think Peter was from
Israel in the area called GALILEE
 
Irosie that last supper nonsense was borrowed from babylon where there were twelve gods sitting at a table in walked loki and there were 13 thus one had to die because the natural order was 12 months of the year 12 signs of the zodiac as a matter of fact 13 was so hated it was expunged from many places you can still see this when you get in an elevator and the 13 th floor is missing....just another plagerism not based in any fact and the romans used it to blame judas or the jews....pretty sneaky on their part?.
 
Irosie that last supper nonsense was borrowed from babylon where there were twelve gods sitting at a table in walked loki and there were 13 thus one had to die because the natural order was 12 months of the year 12 signs of the zodiac as a matter of fact 13 was so hated it was expunged from many places you can still see this when you get in an elevator and the 13 th floor is missing....just another plagerism not based in any fact and the romans used it to blame judas or the jews....pretty sneaky on their part?.

thanks----but I do realize that the 12 apostle thing is lifted from LOTS of different
backgrounds and that "born in Bethlehem" story is a very transparent contrivance -----and that 3 kings from orient following a star is really cute too. My all time fave remains "Jesus (the obvious Pharisee)
actually hated Pharisees. Ask any sweet little catholic school kid and the WICKED HIGH PRIESTS are "rabbis" as are the
money changers ------and the TAXES went into the pockets of the wicked Pharisee, rabbi, high priests. I have even heard a belief that the whole issue against jesus was he was stopping the wicked high priest rabbis from extorting taxes from poor widows so the "high priest rabbis" wanted him dead. ---(and I once thought santa down the chimney was a bit silly)
 
Well think about santa for a minute his monicker is saint nick... Short for the devil....he is able to go down a hot hot chimney and not get burned.... Alarm bells should be going off....... He knows whether you are good or bad theiving from gd....santa is an anagram for satan....... He has helpers that have pointy ears.....demons per haps and the list goes on...as for the twelve apostles it is more sun worship 12 signs of the zodiac, 12 signs of the cross, 12 months of the year etc etc... Born of a virgin in the constelation of virgo....oh and my favorite jesus was 12 when he was in the temple of the most high....that being the sun directly above your head is highest in the sky at 12 noon....
 

Forum List

Back
Top