Isaiah 53 Verse 10

[ThomasDGW]

I just want to confirm the meaning of the Hebrew word "asham" used in this verse.

From what I understand it means guilt and it is also related to the guilt offering, meaning the person is guilty of sin.

In this case, it is the servant.

If that is true, then how could any Christian possibly think Isaiah 53 is about Jesus?

The servant is guilty of sin, and Christian theology teaches Jesus was sinless.

He is the offering for sin.  He is not guilty of the sin.  If you do not see Jesus as the suffering servant in Is 53 what about in Is 49?

Then this verse isn't about Jesus then. You clearly don't understand the Hebrew it is written in.

Searchin, your statement, "The servant is guilty of sin, and Christian theology teaches Jesus was sinless." is correct, and a watertight conclusion from this is that Isaiah 53:10 cannot refer to the Jesus of Christian theology. But that does not mean that it is automatically about Israel.  There might be another servant. It might be that Christian theology is wrong about Jesus.

The definition of "asham" that you present is right in line with what James Strong put in his Hebrew dictionary: "Asham means "guilt offering; offense; guilt; gift of restitution; gift of atonement."... The noun implies the condition of guilt incurred through some wrongdoing..."

But 53:9 says that this servant did no violent wrongdoing nor deceit.  So, any candidate to be this servant has to be innocent of violent wrongdoing and deceit AND have guilt of sin. This seems impossible. Israel has guilt, but did Israel commit no violent wrongdoing nor deceit? According to the NT, Jesus did no sin (I Peter 2:22, quoting Isaiah 53:9 as expressed in the Greek translation). However, I Peter 2:24 goes on to say that Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the tree. II Corinthians 5:21 says that God made Jesus, who knew no sin to be sin for us. God made Jesus guilty. This is not the normal way a person becomes guilty of sin, because it is a special work of God. So, who has the theological authority to say that Jesus had no guilt? We have to say that Jesus had guilt incurred through wrongdoing, although our wrongdoing, and so he wasn't sinless as he died on the cross. Instead of contradicting Isaiah 53:9-10, the NT is in complete harmony with it. But Christian theology errs because they do not hold firmly to the Hebrew Scriptures.

[I believe that the reason that the Hebrew text uses the word "chamas" = violent wrongdoing instead of "chatta-ah"= sin may be that Jewish scholars under Rabbi Akiva altered the text to be able to more easily maintain the identity of the servant as Israel.  They may have sincerely believed that they were correcting a copy error. The text was changing from the original "paleo-Hebrew to the modern Hebrew letters. To me, the modern letters are somewhat similar between the two. In this case, I believe that the Greek translation made before that time, and the quote given by Peter, preserves the true meaning.]