So it is possible for something to be glorified at time A, but not at time B? So, for example, it is possible that Israel was glorified in the time referred to in Psalms 48, but for it to not be glorious during the time when Isaiah 53 was probably written, shortly after the fall of the Northern Kingdom and when the Southern Kingdom was under serious attack from Sennacherib?

I try to take the books of the Bible for what they are. Some of them are more reliable than others. It seems simplistic and wrong to claim that we should make a blanket judgement with a yes/no answer to whether the Bible - a collection of different kinds of writings by different people over a span of hundreds of years - is historically reliable. So, I don't think the creation stories in Genesis are historically accurate. I'm suspicious that most of the foundational myths about the founding of Israel (i.e. about Abraham, Moses, David, etc) are mostly legends, perhaps with some kernel of truth to them, but mostly written at a later time, usually for a non-historical ideological/religious motivation. I think much of the red ink in the Gospels are the author's own words rather than Jesus. But I don't think the writers were usually just making stuff up. Instead, the framework for what counts as reliable or even historical is so different now from then that we should be careful about inferring general claims about reliability.

So the question here isn't whether the Bible is historically reliable. I won't deny that some people probably despised Jesus (although I would guess that he was probably a very charismatic man that would not be accurately described as having no beauty of majesty to attract us to him). I'm protesting your bad hermeneutics. If we're having a dispute about how to understand Isaiah 53, then you should focus on the features relevant to that interpretation, not proof-texting with outside passages.

Speaking of deception, here is Origen writing in 248:

Look, I'm not really arguing that your interpretation is wrong here. You certainly can, from a religious perspective, read Isaiah 53 as referring to a specific kind of Messiah that is exemplified in Jesus. I'm just denying that there are no other plausible readings available where it doesn't refer to Jesus.

Can you summarize his arguments briefly?

Fair enough. I may be making a bad argument and not using good hermeneutics. You're right, there were times when Israel was also despised. I may look back on this and think I could have used better examples, but for now I still think there's enough evidence within the Bible, and for that matter the book of Isaiah itself, that this is not referring to Israel but to a specific Messiah.

1. The passage begins in 52:13 and ends in 53:12. It talks about how this servant will be highly exalted, even more than Abraham, Moses, or the ministering angels.

2. Ancient and modern Jewish interpretations that interpret this passage as being about the Messiah.

3. The reason it can't be referring to Israel as a nation as a whole is because the suffering servant suffers innocently FOR the nations sins. If the nation as a whole were righteous, they would not be humiliated or dying for sins.

5. When Israel suffered, it didn't bring healing to the other nations. God punished the nations that came against Israel. Isaiah 53 says "it pleased the LORD to bruise him." Was God pleased with the holocaust? Certainly not. And no one was healed because of it. God judges the nations that smite Israel. But he heals the people because of the suffering servant.

Hundreds of millions people around the world, both Jew and Gentile, acknowledge they are healed by Messiahs wounds. Healed from a life of degradation, sin, rebellion, atheism, alcoholism, addiction, prostitution, terrorism. They've been made whole by what Messiah did. Jews have received miraculous physical healing because of Messiah's suffering and death. None of this can apply to the nation of Israel or even to a righteous remnant.

Israel is the one being denounced throughout the book of Isaiah; "Woe to the sinful nation a people whose guilt is great, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the Lord; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him." Isaiah 1. So they can't be the innocent and blameless servant of Isaiah 53.

1. The passage begins in 52:13 and ends in 53:12. It talks about how this servant will be highly exalted, even more than Abraham, Moses, or the ministering angels.

2. Ancient and modern Jewish interpretations that interpret this passage as being about the Messiah.

3. The reason it can't be referring to Israel as a nation as a whole is because the suffering servant suffers innocently FOR the nations sins. If the nation as a whole were righteous, they would not be humiliated or dying for sins.

5. When Israel suffered, it didn't bring healing to the other nations. God punished the nations that came against Israel. Isaiah 53 says "it pleased the LORD to bruise him." Was God pleased with the holocaust? Certainly not. And no one was healed because of it. God judges the nations that smite Israel. But he heals the people because of the suffering servant.

Hundreds of millions people around the world, both Jew and Gentile, acknowledge they are healed by Messiahs wounds. Healed from a life of degradation, sin, rebellion, atheism, alcoholism, addiction, prostitution, terrorism. They've been made whole by what Messiah did. Jews have received miraculous physical healing because of Messiah's suffering and death. None of this can apply to the nation of Israel or even to a righteous remnant.

Israel is the one being denounced throughout the book of Isaiah; "Woe to the sinful nation a people whose guilt is great, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the Lord; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him." Isaiah 1. So they can't be the innocent and blameless servant of Isaiah 53.

I'm curious Mason, does it bother you when non-Christians refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the Old Testament?

Hi Original Position:

I think you meant to say "non-Jews" and not "non-Christians." But the answer to your question is no since Old Testament, as opposed to Jewish Bible is the way most everyone knows it.

Best wishes,
Mason

Loading:

I think you have a problem here. Your original question, which is the title of this thread is: Jews, who do you think Isaiah 53 is referring to?, and you've been told, not only by me but by Original Position as well.

Now, you're making arguments that Jesus is who Christians claim he is. I for one have no issue in your believing this, and from my perspective if this is what you believe, again, that's fine with me. But you've been not only told exactly what Jews believe, but have been given specific reasons as to why this is the case. Again, here's the link that Original Position gave:

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_...g_Servant.html

and the information there is quite specific. But if you don't want to accept it relative to your personal beliefs, as I just said, that's fine with me, no one here is trying to convert you even though you're trying hard to convert other people to your way of thinking.

However, what I think you're finding upsetting is that you've discovered that Jews interpret these passages differently from the way you interpret them and from the way your instructors interpreted them. In addition, you were never told that there might be a different interpretation of them and you've never heard (or read) these different explanations before. Thus, it's difficult for you to accept them. But no one here is asking you to accept anything.

Mason

Yeah a more appropriate title would be "punk kid thinks he knows everything and need to learn respect" or even "Jews, why don't you believe Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus?" Since obviously I had an agenda in posting it. I should have been more gracious of your reply, since it was very descriptive of what Jews believe, although it's still frustrating to me that they missed Jesus. And I'm sure you can understand why I'm trying to convert people, considering the dire consequences that are named for those who refuse him. That's still not an excuse to be arrogant, and obviously I've changed my mind in the past about various issues and should remember that before being too critical of others. God bless.