Isaiah 53 is Jesus

I (Pro) will be defending the Chrstian interpretation of Isaiah 53, that the chapter is referring to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior who lived the perfect life that I couldn't live, who died the death that I deserved, and who was raised on the third day so that I may live and enjoy his glory forever. New Testament JesusI noticed Con gave quotations from the NT when talking about who Jesus is, so I am assuming that both Con and I will be getting our information about who Jesus was, what he did etc. , primarily from the NT. Servant is IsraelThroughout the OT, the nation of Israel is indeed referred to as God's "servant", and this might surprise Con and some of the readers, but the suffering servant that is prophesied in Isaiah 53 is indeed Israel. But not Israel the nation, the suffering servant is referring to the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham, and the true servant of God, Jesus Christ. Note: When I say "true servant", I don't mean that the nation of Israel is a false servant of God. What I mean is that like everything in the OT, the nation of Israel as God's servant, is a type or foreshadow of the real thing, they were a type of the true servant of God, Jesus. Why This Passage Is Not Referring To The Nation of IsraelCon gave his interpretation of the passage, I will give mine in the later rounds. I will use this round to refute Con's claim that the passage is referring to the nation of Israel.1. Con's interpretation of Isaiah 53 gives the passage an ousider's perspective. There are no passages in the OT (or NT) that is not primarily from the perspective of God, a prophet, the writer of the book, or God's people. It is never from an outsider's (non people of God) point of view. Outsiders are always in the third person and are quoted when they say something. They are NEVER the primary point of view and they are never portrayed as people who acknowledge and know God, yet that is the case in Con's interpretation. Con said, and I completely agree, that we must view Biblical text in context, but right off the bat he takes this text out of context by asserting for some reason that world leaders and the non-Jewish nations are the ones speaking in Isaiah 53, when in every other case when the first person is a group of people, it is always the people of God. This is not consistent with the way any of the writings in Isaiah or any writings in the OT are written. But even if we are to generously grant that the passage is from an outsider's perspective, it will lead to inconsistencies and incoherencies, which leads us to #2.2. Interpreting Isaiah 53 in which the "servant" is the nation of Israel from the point of view of non-Jewish nations will lead to many internal problems. (as I will show throughout the debate)Isaiah 53:4-5 says:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. Con, to help his cause, arbitrarily claims that verse 5 should be correctly translated, as "wounded as a result of our transgressions, as a result of our iniquities. " And he completely disregards verse 4 and the second part of verse 5. a) So in the first part of verse 5, the nation of Israel was wounded/pierced as a result of the other nations' transgressions (violation of law/command), and the nation of Israel was crushed as a result of the other nations' iniquities (wickedness)? Con's interpretration of the first part of verse 5 makes it pretty much redundant and meaningless. The other nations are automatically violating the law and being wicked when they persecute and crush Israel. The verse however, without twisting and manipulating it, clearly implies that the servant got what the transgressors and wicked people deserved, especially in light of verse 4 and the second part of verse 5. b) By Con's interpretation, verse 4 is saying that the nation of Israel bore the non-Jewish nations' griefs, and carried their sorrows? The second part of verse 5 would then mean that upon the nation of Israel was the chastisement that brought peace to the non-Jewish nations, and with through the stripes or wounds of the nation of Israel, the non-Jewish nations were healed? When and How did Israel accomplish this? His interpretation of the first part of verse 5 completely misses the whole point and core of verses 4 and 5. It is clear that the servant actively and substitionarily took on what the speaker(s) of this chapter deserved, pain and suffering, for their transgressions and iniquities, and the servant's sufferings and stripes also brought them peace and healed them. Furthermore, Is Con asserting here that the nations esteemed Israel stricken and smitten by God(verse 4b)? When did this happen? The other nations knew of Elohim (God)? c) Con also claims that there is no need for the Messiah to atone for others because God promised forgiveness to anyone who returns to God, according to Jewish teachings. Thought I agree wiht that, Con is forgetting that also according to Jewish teachings, a sacrifice for atonement and forgiveness of sins has ALWAYS been required. Verses 6 and 10 compounds Con's translation even more:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;a) God's people is always referred to as sheep not the outsiders. b) Con's interpretation would mean that the LORD laid the iniquities(wickedness) of the other nations on the nation of Israel? c) The LORD crushed the nation of Israel and put them to grief? How does Con reconcile this with his interpretation of verse 5 and that the chapter is talking about the persecution of the nation of Israel? Verse 12 in the end says:"yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. "According to Con's interpretation, the nation of Israel bore the sin of the other nations and intercedes for the transgressors (other nations)? When did Isreal do this?3. God's servant is not always referring to the collective people of Israel. Though the OT, indeed, often referred to the nation of Israel as "God's servant", there are passages where "God's servant" is referring to a distinct servant that is set in contrast to the Israelite people. Isaiah 49 (Ironically Con tried to use this to support his claim that servant songs are unanimously identified as the nation Israel)Con quotes verse 3 here where it says, "You are My servant, Israel". But if we read the chapter, we see that the servant here is not the people of Israel and as a matter of fact, this servant's specific purpose is to gather and bring the preserved of Israel back to God! Isaiah 49:3-6 3And he said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified. "4 But I said, "I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity;yet surely my right is with the LORD, and my recompense with my God. " 5 And now the LORD says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him—for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength—6he says:"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel;I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. " God's "servant" is not always referring to the nation of Israel, even when the servant is referred to as "Jacob" or "Israel". There is a distinct "servant" who is also referred to as "Jacob" or "Israel" whose purpose is to bring back the tribes of Jacob, the people of Israel back to God. We see this in Isaiah 49 and as I will argue, Isaiah 53. The servant in Isaiah 53, just as in 49, is indeed Israel, the TRUE Israel, Christ Jesus.