Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? -- Cross Examination

The following post is comprised of my answers to my atheist opponent Ben's questions about my position as stated in my opening statement and rebuttal.

Ben:
In order for Premise 2 of the Leibnizian Cosmological argument to hold—the premise that requires an agent with will to bring the universe into existence—does one have to postulate that the Big Bang is an event in time rather than the explosion of time and space into existence?


Cody:
I would say that the Big Bang is the first event in time. God creates the universe at moment of time T=0, or, stated differently, the act of creating is simultaneous with the universe beginning to exist. So the moment of creation is the first event in time. If the universe is genuinely temporal, it would require a first moment-- a beginning. Things which begin are caused. Eternal causes without wills (like a timeless vacuum as in a vacuum fluctuation model) necessarily have eternal effects. Only a timeless being with a will can account for a universe with a beginning.

Hawking admits that on real time models, there is in fact a beginning, and that this could suggest a Beginner: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator” (A Brief History of Time, p. 140-141). This is why his quantum gravity model is so important-- it curves time to get around the beginning point. Of course, numerous physicists, including Roger Penrose of the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorems, do not find Hawking's system of explaining the universe to be correct or even, in the case of Penrose, scientific.



Ben:
How can you reconcile the omnipotent nature of god—which would require that he be able to end his own existence if he so chose—and traits god possesses like emotion and thought—which are contingent upon neurology and evolution in every instance we can examine—with your claim that god exists necessarily, and therefore must not be able to cease his own existence or possess traits that are contingent?


Cody:
I think this problem stems from you defining omnipotence in a way which Christian theologians do not. I take omnipotence to mean that God can do anything at all which does not deny His nature. (such as things which are irrational, immoral, etc.) For instance, because God is the ground of rationality, and God is consistent with Himself, He will not deny Himself by behaving in irrational ways. For example, God could not draw a square circle or make a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it. Of course, these are anthropomorphisms which make God material, but even with this flaw aside, God could not do these things because they are irrational. If God cannot deny Himself by behaving irrationally, but can still be called omnipotent in a meaningful sense by being able to do anything which is right and rational to do, it follows that He also cannot cease existing because to do so would be an act of denying His nature and doing that which is not rationally possible.

Click here to read Ben's answers to my questions:

http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-wars-round-3-cross-examination.html

Ben's opening statement and rebuttal can be found on his blog-- Fool of Psalms.

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? -- Rebuttal

If you haven't done so yet, click here to read Ben's opening statement, which I respond to in this post.




Ben created three basic categories which all of his arguments fell into.




The first category of his arguments sought to prove that:
"1. A theistic worldview cannot account for many features of our universe that an atheistic worldview can account for."



His central argument on this point was that the universe was far too big and unreachable to have been made with humans in mind. Ben argues:
“The Christian claims the universe was created for the benefit of us, the creation. So why the excess? Why, if the universe is a gift to us, are we limited to just one of a hundred billion trillion planets? Why is most of the universe constructed of empty space that is deadly to us? Why are all of the planets within our reach also deadly to us, with their crushing gravity, sulfuric acid rain or freezing temperatures? Why is everything outside our solar system kept off-limits to us by overwhelmingly vast distances and the laws of physics?”


I could point out that this is really a side-point. If the universe requires a cause, and design requires a designer, then the question of the importance of human beings cannot overturn the positive case for a Creator. However, I am arguing as a Christian here, and it is also my goal to demonstrate that Christianity, not just theism, contains the answer for why something exists rather than nothing. Speaking as a Christian, I would ask Ben what he means by benefit. Certainly if there was a verse in the Bible which said that God made all of the planets specifically for us to dwell upon, this would contradict our experience, and Ben's argument would be a valid one. Of course, the Bible doesn't claim this, as Psalm 115:16 demonstrates:
"The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind" (NIV).


Instead, the Psalmist claims that, "the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2, NIV). In other words, one of the chief purposes that the universe serves for human beings is to point us to the beauty, majesty, and brilliance of its Creator, not to give us real estate to build a restaurant at the end of the universe.


All of that being said, one can't help but wonder if the problem with this argument is that it suffers from an inability to consider options outside of a non-atheistic framework. In truth, one could turn this objection upon itself. Instead of asking, "why is most of the universe constructed of empty space that is deadly to us?" one might just as easily ask, "why is it that earth is oddly habitable?"

For instance, Earth resides in the small habitable circumstellar “Goldilocks Zone” at just the right distance from our sun. The type and size of sun we have, the distance we are away from it, and numerous other characteristics of Earth, the sun, and our moon, all work together to make life possible on Earth. While Ben could ask why God would create a sun we can't build condominiums on, a more pressing question might be, "how is is that Earth's precise relationship to the sun is such that it allows for not just life (which seems tough enough), but highly complex thinking beings to exist?" Similarly, Earth's location in the Milky Way Galaxy, about half-way between the center and the edge, is also in a life-permitting “galactic habitable zone.”


Ben could retort by saying we are here by chance and that pointing out how bad the odds were for us getting here doesn't change the fact that we are, possibly without the aid of God. This is a fair criticism, but it's beside the point. My goal in responding to this particular claim is not necessarily to make a positive case for God, but to show that Ben's argument is not only a straw man, but a false dichotomy. There are other reasonable options which Ben has excluded because of his bias.


Ben also made a sidepoint in this section, but I think it's important to point it out. He said, "life is not the goal of the universe, just a quirk of it, like the storms on Jupiter or the methane lakes on Titan."

Ben's statement here asserts that human life is comparable to a methane lake on Saturn's moon Titan. As a necessary result of this, the universe did not intend to endow Ben with reason. If Ben is able to reason at all, this is an unintentional “quirk.” As such, it would obviously be highly unlikely that Ben's reason is trustworthy. Ben attempts to attack God using a tool that could only have reasonably originated from God. In other words, it is his atheist worldview which can't account for this very important feature in our universe. He can either admit that his reason is untrustworthy (thus rendering logical discourse pointless), or else he must assert by faith that it came about unintentionally.





Ben's second type of arguments fell into this category:

"2. There are natural explanations for why a universe would exist instead of nothing."

In justifying that we do indeed witness things coming into being out of nothing, Ben said, "we now know that the spontaneous creation of matter does actually happen; particles pop into existence for brief moments in time."

However, this is false. Particles don't come into being out of nothing but out of the quantum vacuum, which is, according to philosopher William Lane Craig, "a sea of fluctuating energy. [An] arena of violent activity, and it is governed by physical laws." According to Craig, on the Copenhagen model of quantum mechanics (which is the model Ben is probably appealing to), the energy in the vacuum fluctuates and spontaneously spins off particles which then dissolve back into the energy of the vacuum. This stands in marked contrast to a universe which comes out of nothing.

After this, Ben paraphrased a claim Hawking made in his new book:

“In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking explains how... certain naturally emergent properties such as gravity... inevitably create a universe.”

I will have to do my best as a non-physicist (or even amateur physics enthusiast) to explain Hawking's reasoning and point out some of its flaws, with the help of my own authorities. This may get a little technical. If I have made any flaws in my explanations, I welcome those in the know to point them out.

Ben is correct that Hawking and Mlodinow say this. On page 180, they claim that, "because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Of course, this sentence taken plainly is nonsensical. When someone argues that X causes Y, they are presuming the pre-existence of X to bring about Y. But what of an argument where X causes X? How can X pre-exist itself to bring itself into existence? It obviously can't. Thus, the universe cannot create itself, and it certainly can't do so through gravity, which requires a pre-existent natural universe for its own existence.

What Hawking seems to actually be arguing here is that once space-time exists, it is filled with a quantum vacuum. This vacuum is not "nothing," but instead is filled with both positive and negative energy, which, when balanced out, fluctuates into a material form. Thus, Hawking presupposes space and time before he can account for matter. Unfortunately for Hawking, all of the scientific evidence points to the space-time universe beginning at a singular point in time, meaning that it began to exist, and would thus require an outside cause. His way of dealing with this is to use imaginary time to warp real time and round off the singularity point into a rounded off "south pole." One of the benefits of this warping for Hawking is that it seems to escape the "problem" of a beginning.

Hawking himself admits in his book A Brief History of Time that, "as far as everyday quantum mechanics is concerned, we may regard our use of imaginary time and Euclidean space-time as merely a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate answers about real space-time" (p 134-135).

Hawking laments, "only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities... When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities" (p. 138-139). In other words, when we use the real time of the universe we actually live in, the universe has a beginning point. Hawking's solution is to suggest that it might be the case that imaginary time is actually the real time, and "what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time... But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic..." (p. 139).

To justify this strange premise, Hawking employs a subjective epistemological outlook which he would later refer to as model-dependent realism in The Grand Design-- he asserts that it is meaningless to ask which time is real or imaginary, but that "it's simply a matter of which is the more useful description" (p. 139). The philosopher Craig says it best:

"only if [Hawking] can prove that imaginary time is ontologically real and real time fictitious has he succeeded in obviating the need for a Creator" (Craig, http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/4/473.full.pdf).

In other words, there are many good reasons to reject Hawking's dodge of the beginning.

After Ben paraphrased Hawking, he went on to outline six new points which he suggested explain how the universe could naturally take shape after it has already begun to exist. Of course I could grant these, but they would have no bearing on whether or not God caused the universe.

Next, Ben introduces his last category of arguments:

"3. There is no explanation for why a god would exist instead of nothing."

The heart of Ben's third point can be found in this sentence:

“If Mr. Cook cannot provide an explanation for why such a being [as God] should exist instead of nothing, then he cannot be considered the winner of this debate.”

In my opening statement I noted that since the universe began to exist, it must have been caused, and that this cause could only be a personal being which is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and has a will, great intelligence, and awesome power (to see how I supported this claim, please revisit my opening statement). Since the universe could not exist unless this Being caused it, and the universe does in fact exist, this Being must also exist. The alternative is that we suspend the laws of logic to assert that the universe began to exist out of nothing because we fear, as others who have attempted to avoid the Big Bang have, that it, "smacks of divine intervention" (Hawking, p. 46).

Ben also expanded upon why he thought the existence of God seemed inconceivable:

"Mr. Cook is proposing that something exists outside of the universe. He is proposing that there is an intelligent being, capable of monitoring every movement of every particle at every point in time, capable of orchestrating the dance of 100 billion galaxies across empty space, capable of manipulating evolution in order to create one very specific species of primate, and capable of feeling human emotions like love and sadness. Such a being requires an explanation for its existence, just as the universe does (perhaps more so.)... If parts of the theistic worldview require inexplicable phenomenon, a theistic worldview cannot [have] greater explanatory power than an atheistic worldview."

This is a worthwhile point to bring up in this discussion. I think there are different ways to answer this challenge. First of all, it could be argued that a complicated hypothesis with far-reaching explanatory power is better than a simple hypothesis with little to no explanatory power. The hypothesis that, "in the beginning nothing blew up for no reason and here we are," is certainly simple, but it hardly explains everything that it's supposed to. In contrast, the God hypothesis can easily account for the appearance of design and order in the universe, the existence of complex life which can reason, irreducibly complex biological structures, moral facts, and even the existence of the universe itself. So even if God were more complex than His effect, the God hypothesis would still be preferable to the allegedly simple naturalistic atheistic hypothesis. However, I think Ben may be mistaken in assuming that God is complex, if I am correct that this is his contention. Unlike the universe, God does not consist of multiple, complex parts. In fact, as a non-physical mind, God would actually be quite simple, even though His thoughts and creation are complex. If God's mind is the standard for truth, reason, and goodness, this most certainly makes Him a remarkable Being, though not necessarily a complex one.




Click here to read Ben's rebuttal to my opening statement.

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? -- Opening Statement

Why does something exist rather than nothing? There are two categories of things which exist: those which exist necessarily (those things which don't depend on a certain set of circumstances to exist, but rather must exist) and those which exist contingently (those things which don't have to exist, and must have been caused by something outside of them). In this debate, we will be focusing on why the universe exists instead of not existing. It must have an explanation for itself-- either it necessarily exists, or something else caused it.

A way of reasoning through the question of the universe's explanation is a form of the Leibnizian cosmological argument from contingency:
"1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3) The universe exists. 4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3) 5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)"

This argument points out that everything has an explanation for its existence, either in its necessity or in being caused. As a result, something which is contingent requires that it is grounded by something which is necessary. If the universe is contingent it requires a necessary cause. According to Leibniz, this necessary cause could only be God.

The other alternative is that the universe is necessary. However, big bang cosmology has shown us that the universe began to exist at a finite point in time, which suggests that it could have not come into existence at all. In other words, it does not have to exist. Furthermore, if the universe is said to be necessary, what could this mean? Does it mean that every single quark which composes all of the matter in the universe is necessary? There could be no more or less? This seems absurd.

It is obvious that since the universe began to exist and could have not come into existence at all, it is contingent. All contingent things require a cause, and must ultimately go back to a necessary cause-- something which must exist because of its nature. Otherwise, things would simply pop into existence out of nothing without a cause. As the kalam cosmological argument puts it:
A. Anything which begins to exist has a cause.
B. The universe began to exist.
Thus, the universe has a cause.

While some atheists may counter Leibniz's assertion that the only explanation for the universe would be God by saying that this universe may have simply emerged out of another, this doesn't solve their problem. If what caused the universe is also material and thus contingent, then THAT would necessarily require a transcendent cause, or else the atheist is faced with having an infinite regress. As philosopher William Lane Craig argued, paraphrasing Liebniz in his book Reasonable Faith:
"imagine that a series of geometry books has been copied from eternity; such an infinite regress would still not explain why such books exist at all. But the same is true with regard to past states of the world: even should these be infinite; we have yet to discover a sufficient reason for the existence of an eternal universe. Therefore, the reason for the universe's existence must be found outside the universe, in a being whose sufficient reason is self-contained; it is its own sufficient reason for existing and is the reason the universe exists as well. This Sufficient Reason of all things is God, whose own existence is to be explained only by reference to Himself. That is to say, God is a metaphysically necessary being."

Since the universe consists of all space, time, and matter, that which caused it must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. This cause must also have a will capable of bringing the universe into existence, for although abstract things like numbers are spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, they stand in no causal relation to anything else and have no wills by which to bring anything about, let alone a complex, highly organized universe governed by strict laws and capable of producing highly developed life.

The only alternative for the atheist is to assert that the universe exists with NO explanation at all. For obvious reasons, he/she will not want to admit this. To do so is to make a mockery of logic and the obvious truth that everything which exists requires an explanation for its existence. After all, we do not genuinely worry that a giant sperm whale might simply appear in the earth’s atmosphere and land on our house (infinite improbability drive aside).

When asking why something exists rather than nothing, it's also important that we ask what kind of thing this "something" is. I have demonstrated that in the case of the universe, it is contingent and came into existence at a finite point in time, and so the explanation for it must then be God. However, I could go a step further and point to the obvious marks of design and fine-tuning in this universe, which further demonstrates that there must be a mind behind it. While I cannot claim any expertise in physics, I will take Stephen Hawking at his word when he says:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (A Brief History of Time, p. 125).

Many physicists, prominent atheists among them, have thus reached the conclusion that the universe has the appearance of "fine-tuning" which makes it possible for life to be able to exist at inconceivable odds. However, many of these prominent atheists, like Hawking, have theorized a vast multiplicity of universes, most of them incapable of life, in order to better the odds that our universe could unintentionally produce life. As the lottery slogan goes, “somebody's gotta win! Might as well be you!” While the multiverse model has some mathematical support, it has, as Hawking's colleague Roger Penrose said on the Unbelievable Radio Program, "absolutely no support from observation," and is thus not really a scientific (if science is taken to only be based on empirical data) but a metaphysical construct.

Similarly, Dawkins admits in his book The God Delusion that, "one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect... has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises," and that, "the natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself" (p. 188 paperback edition). These atheistic scientists provide further corroboration for the premise that the “something” which exists exhibits hallmarks of design, and thus strengthens the argument that it was caused by an immaterial, timeless, causeless, spaceless intelligence.

So why does something exist rather than nothing? God exists because He must. He can’t do otherwise. The universe, which began to exist, exists because it was caused, and the only good candidate for the cause of the universe is God.

The opening statement of Ben, my opponent, can be found here:

http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-wars-round-1.html

Ben's rebuttal to my opening statement can be found here:

http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-wars-round-2-rebuttal.html

Debate to Take Place January 24th-- Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

An atheist/Christian debate by Ben Doublett and Cody Cook taking place on

http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/ and http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/

beginning January 24th at 11 p.m. EST

The rules:

Both debaters will post on their respective blogs an opening statement making a positive case for their viewpoint not exceeding 1,200 words.

Within 72 hours, both debaters will post rebuttals not exceeding 1,600 words.

Within another 72 hours, both debaters will post a three question cross-examination they have done of the other debater, questions not exceeding 50 words and answers not exceeding 200 words.

Within another 72 hours, 400 word conclusions will also be posted by each debater.

Links to the post responded to and the response posted (when they are submitted) will be placed in text of each post.


The debaters:

Ben Doublett is the owner of a small business and a British citizen living in the United States. He spends his free time volunteering with the business program at Mason High School, mentoring aspiring entrepreneurs and, most relevantly, as an amateur atheist and rationalist polemic.

In his new blog, Fool of Psalms, he criticizes all kinds of irrational belief, including alternative and faith-based healing practices and (coming soon) astrology, but mainly he focuses on dispelling the reasons given for religious belief and providing reasons for disbelief. This blog has attracted nearly a thousand unique visitors from all over the world in less than three weeks.

While he is definitely not reserved in his criticisms of beliefs he considers irrational, Doublett always tries to remain as respectful as possible in debates with the faithful. He is a strong advocate of the notion that one should attack the belief and not the believer.

To read more about Doublett’s positions on religious faith and other issues, check out his blog at http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/



Cody Cook is a theology student specializing in apologetics. He seeks to follow the biblical command to, "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" and seeks to dialogue with non-Christians about the truths of the Christian faith. He believes that since reason and morality come from God, they cannot be consistently used against Him by the atheist/agnostic/skeptic. As a result, he seeks to demonstrate circular reasoning, unfounded assumptions, and faulty reasoning in atheistic thinking, while at the same time seeking to maintain a friendly and generous spirit. He has two blogs which he uses to encourage dialogue with fellow Christians as well as non-Christians: http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/ andhttp://codysblackbox.blogspot.com/

Hawking Says Philosophy Is Dead, Science Can Answer All the Major Questions

Thanks to Glenn Peoples and Adam Santibanez for directing me to this info! What I've written below is based on reviews of Hawking's new book, which I haven't yet read, so please let me know if I've misunderstood him (or rather, if the reviewers and I have misunderstood him):

Stephen Hawking (and/or his co-author) writes on page 5 of his new book, in which he claims to have disproved God, that: "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

I wonder when philosophy died. Maybe it died right after atheist scientists like Hawking and Dawkins determined that philosophical naturalism should be the presuppositional underpinning of all science. Or maybe it was merely dying, and actually bought the farm pages later after Hawking had quoted his share of philosophers and gave his support to an epistemological view called model-dependent realism. In any case, it's dead now so let's stop asking questions about meaning, truth, beauty, and knowledge and just let Hawking tell us what the truth is, or rather, what the truth is "for him" since model-dependent realism suggests that:

"there is no one model, but in fact a lot of different ways in which one could predict the same situation; and if two different theories are able to forecast same events, none of them could be called wrong. Anyone who feels more convenient with a specific theory is free to use it and no one has the right to question their choice" (http://topnews.us/content/225376-stephen-hawking-introduces-model-dependent-realism-world).

In any case, God is absolutely NOT necessary to explain the universe... at least for him.

‎"The professional philosopher can only roll his eyes at the effrontery and condescension of such a statement. Two scientists who have, to all appearances, little acquaintance with philosophy are prepared to pronounce an entire discipline dead and to insult their own faculty colleagues in philosophy at Cal Tech and Cambridge University, many of whom, like Michael Redhead and D. H. Mellor, are eminent philosophers of science, for supposedly failing to keep up. I couldn’t help but wonder what evidence our intrepid authors have of Mr. Redhead’s laggard scholarship? What recent works in philosophy have they read that form the basis for their verdict? Alas, they do not say.

"The professional philosopher will regard their verdict as not merely condescending but also as outrageously naïve. The man who claims to have no need of philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it. One might therefore anticipate that Mlodinow and Hawking’s subsequent exposition of their favored theories will be underpinned by a host of unexamined philosophical presuppositions. That expectation is, in fact, borne out. Like their claims about the origin of the universe from “nothing” or about the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain fine tuning, their claims about laws of nature, the possibility of miracles, scientific determinism, and the illusion of free will are asserted with only the thinnest of justification and little understanding of the philosophical issues involved."

--William Lane Craig, Question 181

Questions for the skeptic:

Can science really answer ALL the big questions? Are there some questions it can't answer-- for instance, why we should trust science to begin with?

Is it true that we should only trust that which science can show to be true? Can science show this idea to be true?

Despite Hawking's brilliance, doesn't this declaration suggest that he's speaking out of turn on issues he has no real knowledge about?

If truth is not absolute, then isn't it a little ridiculous for Hawking to say that he has "disproved" God? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he personally doesn't see the evidence to be convincing? Since this is only true for him, why should we care?

If truth is not absolute, is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?

Is Isaiah Teaching About a Jesus-like Figure?

Note: The reason I'm examining Isaiah 53 here is because it is an oft quoted passage in the Old Testament (hundreds of years before Jesus) that Christians claim is a prophecy about Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Isaiah 53 we have today is the same Isaiah 53 that we had BEFORE Jesus was born, so Christian tampering cannot be alleged here, as it once was by secular scholars before we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. What follows is pre-Christian and was accepted by pre-Jesus Jews as the Word of God. I am using a popular Jewish translation to show that Christians are not engaging in faulty translations to try to force Jesus into the Old Testament. It's also important to note that Jews in the day of Jesus were not expecting a suffering Messiah, though there are a handful of exceptions in Jewish tradition that can be pointed out (nearly all AFTER Jesus, however). In other words, it would be quite bizarre for Jewish followers of Jesus to attempt to apply this passage to the Messiah, and it is also bizarre how closely it matches the life of Jesus and what He taught about what would happen to Him. With that, I'll move onto the JPS translation of Isaiah 53, along with my notes.

Before I show you how the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) renders this passage, I want to note that this IS in fact a translation done by orthodox, conservative, and reform Jews (in other words, NOT Messianic or Christian Jews). This is the newer updated JPS translation which was finished in the 1980s. Other than changes in capitalization, punctuation (I've removed some of the quotation marks), line spacing, and adding some of the translators' footnotes INTO the text via parentheticals, I have not made any changes to their translation.

After their translation I will add a few notes of my own. I will admit that I am sharing thoughts I have gathered from others or had myself, but I am not surveying any commentaries for my notes. I may be missing or misunderstanding something because of my lack of knowledge. Please let me know if I'm not on-point on anything.

I am also going to begin in Isaiah 52:13 because that's where most scholars agree this passage starts.

Isaiah 52

13 Indeed, My servant shall prosper, be exalted and raised to great heights.

14 Just as the many were appalled at him (translators' note: Hebrew reads "you")-- so marred was his appearance, unlike that of man, His form, beyond human semblance--

15 Just so he shall startle (translators' note: Meaning of Hebrew uncertain) many nations. Kings shall be silenced because of him, for they shall see what has not been told them, shall behold what they never have heard.

Isaiah 53

1 Who can believe what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 For he has grown, by His favor, like a tree crown, like a tree trunk out of arid ground. He had no form or beauty that we should look at him: No charm, that we should find him pleasing.

3 He was despised, shunned by men, a man of suffering, familiar with disease. As one who hid his face from us (translators' note: i.e., as a leper) , He was despised, we held him of no account.

4 Yet it was our sickness he was bearing, our suffering that he endured. We accounted him plagued, smitten and afflicted by God;

5 But he was wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, and by his bruises we were healed.

6 We all went astray like sheep, each going his own way; and the LORD visited upon him the guilt of all of us.

7 He was maltreated, yet he was submissive, He did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to slaughter, like a ewe, dumb before those who shear her, he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppressive judgment he was taken away, who could describe his abode? For he was cut off from the land of the living through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment.

9 And his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death though he had done no injustice and had spoken no falsehood.

10 But the LORD chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, He might see offspring (translators' note: emendation yields "His arm," i.e. His vindication) and have long life, and that through him the LORD's purpose might prosper.

11 Out of his anguish he shall see it. He shall enjoy it to the full through his devotion.

"My righteous servant makes the many righteous, it is their punishment that he bears;

12 Assuredly, I will give him the many as his proportion, he shall receive the multitude of his spoil. For he exposed himself to death and was numbered among the sinners, whereas he bore the guilt of many and made intercession for the sinners."

My thoughts:

We first read of the servant in this passage as someone who WILL BE raised up to great heights. But the following verses suggest that something must happen first, something that brings him low.

The translators' note in verse 15 which points out that the Hebrew says "you" seems preferable to me. Just as the Jewish people had suffered so much, so also would this servant who represents them.

The word "startle" in 52:15 is given as an alternative in many Christian translations, but here is given as the main translation with the note that the Hebrew is uncertain. And yet, in EVERY other place where the word "nazah" is used in the Hebrew Bible, it doesn't mean "startle," but "sprinkle," and is usually used of sprinkling sacrificial blood (see for instance Lev 16:15)! Isaiah uses the word in 63:3 as well, where it is also clearly a reference to sprinkling blood. It seems that startle is suggested because afterwards it is said that kings would shut their mouths at him. However, the overall thrust of the passage is about someone who dies as a guilt offering for the people. While the 53rd chapter focuses on this death as being for the atonement of the Jewish people, 52:15 says that this blood effects atonement for the nations as well.

53:1-3 points out that this servant of the LORD would suffer greatly and not be held in high regard by the people, but looked over. However, verse 4 tells us something quite unexpected. It was for the sins of those who rejected him that he was suffering. Though they assumed that he must be undergoing a just punishment from God, Isaiah tells us that this servant was in fact paying the price that those who taunted him should have been paying for their sins! Verses 5 and 6 re-emphasize these points. His suffering is to make us (in particular the Jewish people, but gentiles who become part of the community of God are also in view) whole, and the guilt we acquired for turning away from God was placed on him. HE took the punishment.

Verses 7-9 tell us a few things. First of all, they reiterate that he suffered for sins he did not commit. Those men who sentenced him did so unjustly. Secondly, he viewed it as proper to accept this undeserved punishment, so he did not defend himself. Third, he suffered the fate that was reserved for criminals, and his place of burial was reserved for a rich man (see Matthew 27:57-60 in the New Testament).

Verse 10 puts this event into view from God's perspective. It was part of God's purpose to crush His servant, so that he would be an asham, a guilt offering, for the sin of God's people (that's what is meant by calling the servant the "Arm of the LORD"-- the one who accomplishes God's purposes. By dying for sins, the servant would see offspring. While the JPS emphasizes that this means he would be vindicated, I think it's important to suggest that the servant would truly see offspring through dying, but that they would not be physical offspring. After all, these are offspring that come about through his DEATH. It is after his death that he is exalted, as Isaiah 52:13-15 suggests (note the tenses). It is through his atoning death, and his being raised up which comes after it, that he is able to see SPIRITUAL offspring-- those who become children of God because they are atoned for by his servant's blood.

Verse 12 uses an important word-- intercession. Though the people have turned away from God and deserve death, God punishes His servant in their place. The servant of the LORD has interceded for them. He is able to do what they cannot-- serve as a sinless mediator between God and mankind.

For information on Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53, please check out my post on this subject.

Questions for the skeptic:

Why does this passage so closely match the details of Jesus' life? Is it coincidence? Did the apostles lie? If so, why? What evidence do we have that would make us doubt their accounts, other than a bias against the supernatural?

Does this passage reflect a Jesus which is far more Jewish than some would suggest? It is often alleged that Jesus' story was taken from pagan mythologies (a claim which has no real scholarly support, but which persists nonetheless), but this dying and rising figure is in a Jewish source-- the Old Testament. Does this suggest that there is much more cohesion between the Old Testament and New Testament, which collects documents spanning over a thousand years, than skeptics would like to admit?

Why do you think that the sacrifice of the innocent for the sin of the guilty is an almost universal theme among mankind?

"At the Instigation of Christ"

The Roman historian Suetonius, reflecting on the period when Claudius was Emperor (41-54 A.D.), shares an interesting tidbit about an event that happened during his reign:
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."

Interestingly, Acts 18:2 in the New Testament also gives an account of this event:
"There [Paul] met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."

It seems clear that the Jews were in fact expelled from Rome by Claudius on account of one Suetonius called Chrestus, but who is Chrestus? Many have pointed out that Chrestus is an alternative spelling of Christus, or Christ. So it seems that Jews were causing disturbances in Rome on account of a Christ-figure (Christ being the Greek version of the Hebrew Mashiach or Messiah). Many have suggested that this refers to Jewish mobs coming against those who preached Christ Jesus. This is not an unreasonable interpretation of Suetonius' words. After all, there clearly was outrage from Jewish mobs over Paul's preaching of Jesus which are recorded all throughout the book of Acts. In the chapter previous to the one quoted above, there is an account of a Jewish mob organizing in Thessalonica in response to Paul's preaching of Christ, and even the chapter the quotation is taken from gives an account of a Jewish mob bringing Paul before the authorities because they are offended at his preaching. Based on just these bare facts, it seems very reasonable to assume that a number of Roman Jews as well were being brought to violence over the preaching of Jesus, and that Claudius might have expelled them from Rome because of it.

One difficulty with this is that Acts 18 never explains why the Jews, along with Christian Jews like Priscilla and Aquila, were expelled. Based on the purpose of Luke in writing the book of Acts (to give an account of the earliest preaching of the Gospel after Jesus' ascension, and of the difficulties the disciples encountered), it would seem that he would be interested in sharing this information. This provides one piece of evidence that Claudius was not concerned about violence over the preaching of the Gospel, but it certainly doesn't destroy the case for the position that he was. Luke could have had any number of reasons for not feeling that it was necessary to give details here.

There is other evidence that Claudius was concerned with the "Christian problem" and particularly how it created difficulties among the non-Christian Jewish population of the empire. The Nazareth Inscription is among this evidence. While there are numerous opinions on how the inscription should be dated and understood, Clyde E. Billington PhD lays out a very convincing case that it was written by Claudius in response to the Jewish claim that the Christians had removed Jesus' body from the tomb, which is why they believed it couldn't be found there. Billington's translation of the Inscription reads, in part:
"if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a judicial tribunal be created..."

Billington also speculates as to what the impact this inscription might have had on Christians. He suggested that Herod Agrippa I, a lifetime friend of Claudius who provided priceless information to him about how to govern the Jews in a way which would be least likely to incite violence and respect their traditions, promptly responded to this edict with what we read in Acts 12:1-3:
"It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread."

If Billington's understanding of this inscription, posted in Nazareth where Jesus lived (and after which His disciples were called Nazarenes), is correct, then it becomes clear that Claudius was concerned with the issue of Rabbinic Jewish and Christian Jewish relations, and that he very reasonably could have expelled all of the Jews (whether Rabbinic or Christian) from Rome because of the conflicts that were erupting in response to the Gospel being preached there.

Questions for the skeptic:

Since so few scholars, reflecting on the historical evidence, doubt the existence of a historical Jesus who lived, taught, was crucified, and whose followers believed was raised up, why do so many "internet atheists" doubt His existence?

Many skeptics might grant that Jesus' followers SAID they saw the risen Jesus, but that they were really lying, as many of the non-Christian Jews of that day said they did. But since almost all of Jesus' 12 disciples were martyred for their belief in the risen Jesus, and they never recanted, is this theory really tenable? What other options are left to the skeptic to explain the disciples' behavior?