Does "despised and we esteemed him not" describe Jesus?

Does the Gospel's representation of Jesus show fulfillment of the description of the suffering servant: "he was despised and we esteemed him not" (Isaiah 53:3)?


Answer: The Gospel accounts claim Jesus was popular throughout his life generally (Luke 2:52) and during his public ministry in particular. The evangelists insist that Jesus was greatly admired by large segments from every level of society. What is more, many were his loyal followers. True, the evangelists claim that the Jewish rulers condemned Jesus, but, nevertheless, they assert that Jesus had many followers even among the ruling class. The evangelists speak of Jesus as one who, while losing at times, many of his followers, always had, even at the end of his life, a great many faithful adherents. According to the Gospel accounts, these adherents came from every segment of society.

It is claimed that wherever he went, crowds flocked about him. True, it is said that Jesus felt many followed him for unworthy motives (John 6:26). However, this negative motivation or the servant's disappointment at the lack of true loyalty is not reflected in Isaiah 53:3. There the servant is despised and rejected but nothing is said about his adversaries having, at one time been his followers, let alone that they had unworthy motives in initially following him. In verse 3, they never were his followers to begin with.

The Gospels' Jesus is described in superlative terms that are the exact opposite of one who is despised and rejected. He is "glorified by all" (Luke 4:14-15); "a great crowd came together" to see him (Luke 8:4); "great crowds followed him" from near and far (Matthew 4:25); and he is called "a great prophet" (Luke 7:16).

John states that many of the Jews believed in Jesus (John 12:11), and that among them were many of the rulers who secretly believed in him (John 12:42). In Luke 13:31, we are told that even some of the Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod was planning to kill him and urged him to escape. Matthew 21:46 and Mark 12:12, 37, inform us that Jesus taught the crowds in the Temple and that his enemies were afraid to arrest him because they feared the multitudes who listened to him enthusiastically. Moreover, when his enemies made their final plans to arrest him, they decided: "Not during the festival, lest there be an uproar of the people" (Matthew 26:5, Mark 14:1-2, see also Luke 22:2). When Jesus entered Jerusalem, it was to the accompanying shouts of "Hosanna" coming from the crowds (Matthew 21:9) that declared him to be "the prophet Jesus" (Matthew 21:11).

Was Jesus abandoned in his last hours? As Jesus went to be crucified "a great multitude of people, and of women" accompanied him "beating themselves and bewailing him" (Luke 23:27). At his crucifixion "many women [supporters] were there looking from a distance" (Matthew 27:55, Mark 14:40, Luke 23:49); Luke adds "all those acquainted with him were standing at a distance" (Luke 23:49); "all the multitude" attending the crucifixion began "beating their breasts" (Luke 23:48). John mentions the presence at the crucifixion of "the disciple whom he loved" (John 19:20). Nicodemus, a Pharisee and "a ruler of the Jews" (John 3:1), helped Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man, to prepare the body for burial (John 19:39). Joseph of Arimathaea was a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57, John 19:38) and a member of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50-51).

The overall Gospel accounts claim that Jesus had a large and loyal following throughout Judea and the surrounding territories. This group, it is alleged, consisted of people from among every strata of society. These were individuals who did not know of events in Jerusalem and were still loyal to him.

Some Christians claim that Jesus died without any significant following. This, however, is only an argument necessitated by theological needs. The Gospels allege that the masses adhered to a messianic belief that Jesus, who was believed to be the son of David (Matthew 9:27), was not only the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 (John 7:40), but was in fact, the very Messiah himself (John 7:41). Even though there was a division among the crowd over who he was (John 7:43), and many of his disciple left him (John 6:66), we must assume, the Gospels not telling us otherwise, that thousands of people throughout the country, still believed in him as the Messiah at the time of his crucifixion. It should be noted that, according to the Gospel narratives, the general Jewish populace did not have occasion to directly reject Jesus' messianic assertions, since he had not openly claimed to be the Messiah (Matthew 16:16, 20; Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9:20-21).

The words of Isaiah 53:3: "He was despised and rejected of men . . . and as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him not" cannot be applied to Jesus if one is to believe the New Testament narrative.

Does "no form nor comeliness" describe Jesus?

Isaiah 53:2 describes the suffering servant as one who "had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor appearance that we should delight in him." Does this fit the New Testament's description of Jesus?
Answer: According to the Gospels, Jesus was, throughout his entire lifetime, greatly desired by an ever growing multitude of people (Luke 2:40, 46-47). Jesus' positive attributes are strikingly illustrated in Luke's summation of his formative years: "And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and in physical growth [helikia, cf. Luke 19:3], and in favor with God and men" (Luke 2:52). In this statement, it is asserted that Jesus was wise, tall in stature, and enjoyed popularity even in the years prior to his active ministry. This verse shows that his handsome appearance, charismatic personality, and wisdom attracted many followers.

There are some Christian commentators who say that Isaiah 53:2 refers to the Jewish rejection of Jesus' message at the time of his death. But, we can assume that outside of Jerusalem his still loyal following was unaware of events in the capital and that even there, besides his secret followers (John 12:42) great multitudes were still loyal (Luke 23:27). On the way to being executed the Gospel of Luke maintains that "there were following him a great multitude of the people, and of women who were mourning and lamenting him" (Luke 23:27).

Overall, the great majority of Jesus' Jewish contemporaries in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora never heard of him. Therefore, the Question of large-scale Jewish rejection of Jesus does not yet enter the picture.

Other Christian commentators see Isaiah 53:2 as a reaction to Jesus' physical state at his crucifixion. According to the Gospel of Luke, this notion is without justification. Luke writes that those who followed Jesus to his execution were not turned away by his supposed haggard appearance (Luke 23:27).

Especially, in Luke's passion account, those who reject Jesus are vocal, but appear in the minority. In sum, the type of rejection the Gospels say Jesus experienced in his last hours of life is by no means expressed in the wording of verse two. According to all the Gospel accounts, those who allegedly ridicule Jesus, prior to his execution and at the crucifixion site itself, do not deride his physical condition but, rather, his messianic pretensions (Matthew 27:41-43; Mark 15:29-32; Luke 22:63-64, 23:35-37).

The Christian claim that this verse refers to Jesus is simply without any factual basis.

To be continued insha Allah

Portion of the great --- he has nothing?

How can Christians apply the phrase v'ayn lo, "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing" (Daniel 9:26) and Isaiah 53:12, where the suffering servant receives "a portion with the great," to Jesus?


Answer: One needs to understand that both references, when read in the context of Christian theology, refer to Jesus after his death and supposed resurrection: Daniel 9:26 referring to after he is "cut off" and Isaiah 53:12 as a reward for his suffering and death.

Yet, v'ayn lo, "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing" cannot refer to Jesus' situation at or after death, if one takes the New Testament seriously. Christianity claims that unlike mere mortal bodies which decay after death Jesus rose bodily into heaven, where he sits at the "right hand of the throne of the Majesty."

V'ayn lo certainly could not refer to a lack of wealth or followers, for this would not distinguish Jesus from the great majority of the world's population. One who "has nothing" or "shall have nothing" (Daniel 9:26) does not receive "a portion with the great" (Isaiah 53:12), does not rise bodily to heaven (Acts 1:9), and does not sit at the "right hand of the throne of the Majesty" (Hebrews 8:1). It is precisely with his death that Jesus was allegedly able to attain his rewards (Philippians 2: 8-9). Therefore, the application of both verses to Jesus is untenable.

Does "He shall see seed, prolong days" appy to Jesus?

Isaiah 53:10 says of the suffering servant, "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days." Can this apply to Jesus?


Answer: According to the words "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days," the suffering servant is to be rewarded for his selflessness in the service of the Almighty by being blessed with children and prolongation of life. These two promises must be treated as a unit, as described in greater detail in Isaiah 65:20-23. Each promise complements the other, highlighting the ancient Hebraic ideal of viewing children and a long life as the two greatest rewards God gives to man here on earth. This is further illustrated in Job 5:25-26: "You shall know also that your seed shall be great, and your offspring as the grass of the earth. You shall come to your grave in ripe age, as a shock of corn in its season." From the manner in which the Hebrew word zer'a ("seed") is used in the Scriptures, there can be no doubt that actual physical offspring is meant here.

Christian commentators have interpreted certain verses in the Scriptures (Genesis 3:15, 38:8; Isaiah 1:4, 57:4; Malachi 2:15; Psalms 22:31; Proverbs 11:21) as referring only symbolically to "bodily seed." But such an interpretation is unwarranted, since in each of these verses the term "seed" can be taken in a literal and physical sense. While the literal understanding of these verses is generally evident, those from the Book of Isaiah are misunderstood by some people.

In Isaiah 57, the prophet castigates certain individuals (not the nation as a whole) for perpetuating the idolatrous practices of their parents. Isaiah calls them "sons of the sorceress, the seed of adulterers and the harlot" (verse 3). He then asks, "Are you not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood?" (verse 4). These verses are a scathing denunciation of wicked offspring who uphold the sinful ways of their parents. They are what the prophet has earlier termed a "seed of evil-doers" (1:4) that is, children of parents who do evil deeds. Those spoken to in Isaiah 57 were conceived in adultery and harlotry; they are the resultant products of transgression and falsehood. Literally, they are children born as a result of parental transgression, a seed born as a result of parental falsehood.

Christian commentators would like us to believe that the term "seed" is used metaphorically, meaning, in Isaiah 53:10, "disciples." Generally, the Hebrew word bayn ("son") may be employed metaphorically with the meaning "disciples," but never is the term zer'a ("seed") used in this sense. For example, "And Abraham said: 'Behold to me You have given no seed (zer'a), and, see the son (ben) of my house is my heir.' And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: 'This man shall not be your heir, but he that shall come forth out of your own bowels shall be your heir'" (Genesis 15:3-4). Hence, zer'a must be taken literally, which rules out the possibility that it refers to Jesus since he had no children of his own.

The second part of the promise, ". . . he shall prolong days," also cannot be applied to Jesus, who died at a young age. To apply these words, as Christian commentators do, is not only evasive but also meaningless. How can such a promise have any meaning for Jesus, who is viewed as being of divine substance and whose existence is believed by Christianity to be eternal? There would be no need for God to assure a fellow member of the Trinity eternal life.

In understanding the meaning of the phrase ". . . he shall prolong days" it should be understood that there is a difference in meaning between the concept of prolonging of days and that of gaining eternal life. The concept of a prolonged life cannot be treated as the equivalent of eternal life because in an eternal context, time of any duration is of no consequence. Consequently, one cannot speak of an eternal being as having his days prolonged: "Are Your days as the days of man, or Your years as a man's days?" (Job 10:5). God must be referred to as eternal: "The number of his years is unsearchable" (Job 36:26). He is the first, He is the last, He cannot be anything else. Prolonging the days of one who is already supposed to be eternal would make his life longer than eternity. That is an obvious impossibility. If the promise of prolonged days is applied to Jesus, he could not be of divine origin.

Prolonging of life implies earthly mortality, a cut-off date in the future, while the term eternal life refers to immortality. Therefore, the phrase "prolonged life" can only relate to the limited bodily existence in this world, and not to the endlessness of eternal life. Since the blessings of seeing children and prolonging life are only appropriate when applied to a mortal individual and not to an immortal being, these blessings cannot be applied to the Jesus of Christian theology. Jesus died young and childless. If, after his alleged resurrection, he returned to heaven to become an eternal heavenly being again, this stage of his existence cannot be appropriately referred to as prolongation of days.

Once again, we see that Isaiah 53's description of the suffering servant of the Lord does not find fulfillment in the New Testament's description of Jesus.

Did Jesus fulfill the role of the asham, "guilt-offering,"?

Did Jesus fulfill the role of the asham, "guilt-offering," that's used to describe the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:10: "If he would offer himself as a guilt-offering"?


Answer: Can it honestly be said that Jesus, who, in his final statement on the cross, is quoted as saying: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34), willingly offered himself as a guilt-offering? The evidence points to the contrary. Yet, because Jesus died at the time of the Passover festival, the New Testament refers to him as the paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) who, by his voluntary sacrificial death, takes our sins away. To use the paschal lamb as a typology of Jesus' death (as the paschal lamb represented the redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt, so Jesus' death represents the redemption of humanity from bondage to sin) is at best an arbitrary assumption without a secure basis in the biblical text.

A closer look at the biblical text should convince any objective student that the annual sacrifice of the paschal lamb is not treated, in any way, as referring to a guilt-offering intended to bring about forgiveness of sin. It was instituted as part of the celebration commemorating the redemption from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 12:14, 26, 27), and in no honest way can it be used in conjunction with a typological redemption from sin.

The New Testament portrays Jesus as being literally a biblical sacrificial offering. The asham, as all other sacrifices, had to be perfect, without spot and without blemish. Jesus was none of these. In addition, one must address the fact that not only is human sacrifice abhorrent to God, but that only animals with split hooves and which chew their cud could have been offered for sacrificial purposes. Jesus, as a human being, was unfit for sacrificial purposes.

How can Jesus be the paschal lamb sacrifice and simultaneously be the offering of an asham, a "guilt offering"? The functions of each of these two sacrifices are distinct and different. There are several sacrifices whose purpose is the atonement of sin, and there is no need to misappropriate the paschal lamb for this purpose. Certainly the sacrifice offered on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, affords a more logical symbol of redemption from sin.

The rewards of verse 10 are contingent on the servant's willingness to offer himself as an asham, or "guilt offering." All such offerings, as we have seen above, must be perfect, without spot, and without blemish. Under Roman jurisdiction a "crown" of thorns was placed on Jesus' head, cutting into his scalp. He was then scourged. Jesus was then affixed to the beam and to the upright pole with nails. The crucifixion preparatory treatment, the national origins of his executioners, the fact that he was a human, the geographic location of his death, the lack of a death caused by a literal shedding of blood respectively would render any potential offering as unfit for consideration as a fulfillment of a biblically required sacrifice.

If the New Testament is a continuation of what Christians call the Old Testament, it must harmonize with the "Old Testament." False comparisons will not do. The New Testament authors cannot pick and choose what suits them in order to make it seem as if Jesus willingly offered himself as a guilt- offering. Either Jesus is complete fulfillment of Scripture or none at all--and the verdict, clearly, is none at all.

Does Isaiah 53:10 (If he would ...) apply to Jesus?

In Isaiah 53:10, God's promises concerning the suffering servant are conditional: "If he would . . . he shall see. . . ." Does this apply to Jesus?


Answer: According to the New Testament, Jesus had specific knowledge of his mission on earth and his destiny in heaven. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus says, "I . . . came down from heaven" (John 6:51) and "I know where I came from, and where I am going" (John 8:14); in the Gospel of Matthew he told his disciples that he "must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things . . . and be killed . . . and be raised up on the third day" (Matthew 16:21). What he supposedly left temporarily in heaven and his alleged additional rewards on his heavenly return are found in Philippians 2:6-11).

There should be no need for God to promise a reward on condition that Jesus fulfill His wishes ("If he would"). If Jesus is all that Christianity claims he is, then God knew that this incarnate sinless divine being would fulfill all that was required of him. It certainly makes no sense to think God would promise to reward such a heaven bound eternal being with having children and prolongation of days. Such things are promised to humans not to one who is supposedly eternal.

According to New Testament doctrine, the sinless incarnate divinity, Jesus, could not fail or refuse to carry out God's plans for mankind. Thus, there was no doubt that Jesus would carry out God's plan and would be uniquely rewarded for his effort (Philippians 2:9). As a result, the application to the New Testament's Jesus of the conditional, "If he would . . . he shall see," that speaks in profoundly human terms makes no sense.

Once again, we see that Isaiah 53 does not refer to Jesus.

To be continued insha Allah

How can Jews say that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers to the Jewish people

How can Jews say that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers to the Jewish people when not every aspect of this passage has been fulfilled by any individual Jew, including Jesus?


Answer: God deals with Israel in two ways. Singularly, with every individual and collectively, with the nation as a whole. Isaiah 53 is an overview of the historical encounter of collective national Israel with the nations of the world and God's rewards to the collective remnant of Israel for its faithfulness to His Torah. A day is coming when the nations of the world will, by virtue of the Israelite triumphs, become aware of God's special relationship to Israel. This will have the effect of causing, first, shock and disbelief, and then, an acknowledgment of the special rewards that God will grant Israel, as is described in the latter part of Isaiah 53.

What the prophet in this chapter describes refers to Israel as a whole, not every individual Israelite. Not every Jew will have to undergo every aspect of suffering to be worthy of eventually partaking in the rewards God promises. Indeed, not every Israelite has to be faultless because the suffering servant, Israel, as a people is innocent. If one is to insist, however, that Isaiah 53 refers to a specific person, that individual would personally have to accomplish all that is required of the suffering servant of the Lord. Failure to do so is automatic disqualification.

It should be clear to everyone that even if Isaiah 53 referred solely to the Messiah this would still not infer any support for the claim that it refers to Jesus. The fundamental theological Questions raised by the missionaries are "Who is the Messiah?" and "If not Jesus, who then is the Messiah and when will he come?" Jews are not obligated to identify who the Messiah will be or give a timetable for his arrival. One can only discuss the case presented for past claimants to the title. On this basis, Jews can confidently say that Jesus is not the Messiah of Israel prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus could not be the Messiah by virtue of any one of a number of disqualifications. They range from not having the biblical genealogical criteria for that office (one would have to be a biological descendant of David through the male line of Solomon) to bringing about the very fundamentals of the messianic age as delineated in Isaiah, chapter 11.

Did Jesus fulfill Isaiah 53:7

Did Jesus fulfill Isaiah 53:7 that describes the suffering servant "as a lamb that is led to the slaughter" and as someone who "opened not his mouth"?
Answer: According to the Gospels, both the Jewish officials and Pilate, when

Questioning Jesus, directed their inquiry to his messianic pretensions. Far from showing the humility and silence with which Isaiah describes the servant in verse 7, the encounter between the high priest, the elders, and Jesus is highlighted by a vigorous verbal exchange. In addition, Jesus did not show humility and silence during his confrontation with Pilate. At their meeting, Jesus is depicted as skillfully defending himself. Jesus at no time humbled himself, but, on the contrary, presented a clever verbal defense before Pilate (the one man who could condemn him to death), pleading shrewdly that his messianic teaching was a nonviolent, "not of this world" movement, one which the Romans need not fear. Since Pilate was concerned with messianic movements, which posed a political and military threat to the Roman Empire, he would not be interested in a movement which was not of "this world" and which would not be in conflict with the Empire. Jesus was obviously defending himself by presenting a shrewd verbal response when he tried to convince Pilate that he was not the head of a seditious movement but that his intentions were peaceful. Thus, contrary to what many Christian missionary theologians would have us believe, Jesus presented a strong defense before the Jewish officials and Pilate. Jesus was not "dumb" before his accusers, Jewish or Gentile, and it is simply not true to say of Jesus that "he humbled himself and did not open his mouth."

On the contrary, Jesus declared himself to be a king. "You say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice" (John 18:37). After having heard Jesus admit that he is a king the author of John would have his audience believe that Pilate goes out to the Jews and declares that he does not find him guilty of anything. "Behold, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no guilt in him" (John 19:4; see also Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3).

Earlier, the Gospels claim, Jesus acknowledged before the Sanhedrin that he was the Messiah. When the high priest asks him whether he is the Messiah he

Answers in the affirmative. "I am, and you will see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62; see also Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:69). Matthew and Luke have Jesus Answer the high priest in the affirmative, with a statement similar to that which John uses for Jesus' Answer to Pilate, "you say that I am." It is quite obvious that Isaiah 53:7 makes no reference to Jesus.

Is it true that Jews interpreted Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah before Rashi?

Is it true that Jews interpreted Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah until the medieval commentator Rashi explained it as referring to the people of Israel?

Answer: Christian missionaries claim that it is only with the commentary of Rashi (1040-1105), seeking to refute the Christian interpretation, that the Jews began to refer Isaiah 52:13-53:12 to the entire nation of Israel. This misconception perhaps owes its origin to Edward Pusey, who wrote in his 1876 introduction to The "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpretations (trans. Driver and Neubauer, [reprinted] New York: Hermon Press, 1969) that "The new interpretation began with Rashi" (p. XLIV). The interpretation was neither new, nor began with Rashi. This missionary allegation is refuted even by a Christian source. In Contra Celsum, written in 248 C.E. (some 800 years before Rashi), the Church Father Origen records that Jews contemporary with him interpreted this passage as referring to the entire nation of Israel. He wrote:

I remember that once in a discussion with some whom the Jews regard as learned I used these prophecies [Isaiah 52:13-53:8]. At this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes. In this way he explained the text: "Thy form shall be inglorious among men"; and "those to whom he was not proclaimed shall see him"; "being a man in calamity." (Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Book 1.55, 1965, p. 50)

This shows that Jewish biblical exegesis subscribing to the belief that the people of Israel was the suffering servant spoken of throughout the entire passage pre-dates Rashi by many centuries.

What did Jesus (allegedly God) give up in dying a human death?

As a human being, Jesus certainly had very little. Yet, because he was allegedly God, he could expect, on reassuming his heavenly role, to exercise his power as God. So what did he, in the final accounting, give up in dying a human death?


Answer: Christian theology is saying that Jesus gave up a temporary earthly life as a god-man to return to his role in heaven, where, as part of the Trinity, he reigns as God. In Isaiah 53:12, God speaks of the suffering servant of the Lord, who, as a result of his selflessness, is willing to give up all that he possesses in the service of God. Clearly, it is unreasonable to say that Jesus sacrificed himself for the redemption of mankind when, by his actions, he knowingly gained more than he lost. Paul writes: ". . .

Jesus Christ, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:5-11). There is a gross misuse of the concept of "sacrifice" where one who is alleged to be divine knows that by giving up a flesh-and-blood existence, something essentially unimportant to him, he will receive in return a position of eternal exaltation and power.

This cannot be called sacrifice. On leaving his transitory human lifespan behind him, Jesus, it is alleged, returned to heaven to once more become part of the eternal Godhead.

Why should Jesus be rewarded for his alleged sacrifice, for doing what he himself, as God, wanted done? There is no point for God, of whom Jesus is allegedly a part, to say: "I will divide him a portion with the great" as an actual reward to Himself. Such reward can be properly given to one who is all human and not one who is at the same time divine. The suffering servant is promised "a portion with the great" and that "he shall divide the spoil with the mighty," but if Jesus is God, who can be great enough to share the spoil with him? Is it conceivable that one who is God could possibly have only "a portion" comparable to that of mere earthly rulers, or that "he shall divide the spoil" with anyone? Even if this could be rationalized, it would then run counter to what is stated in Psalm 2, which Christians claim refers to Jesus.

In that psalm, God offers, to the person in Question, the entire earth for a possession (verse 8), and all rulers are told to give homage to that person (verse 10-12). Christian commentators will often try to explain away these irreconcilable contradictions with arguments that have no basis even in their own New Testament. It is for the reader to be vigilant and to be wary of such vain attempts that are based on distortions.

To be continued insha Allah

Who is the suffering servant of the Lord?

Who is the suffering servant of the Lord?


Answer: The fact is that the identity of the servant has already been established by Isaiah in PREViously stated passages. In Isaiah 41 :8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3 the prophet identifies Israel as the servant.

Moreover, the history of Israel, down through the ages shows that the servant is, none other than Israel personified. Chapter 53 reiterates this fact by providing an historic overview of the tragedies and triumphs of the servant, Israel, throughout its history. Who would believe that this exiled nation, this humiliated loathsome Jewish people would be fated to survive the vicissitudes of its historical sufferings to once more have a future entailing prominence, hope, and joy.

Who is the narrator in Isaiah 53?

Who is the narrator in Isaiah 53? Who is to be astonished by the ascendancy of he who was formerly despised?
Answer: This is clarified in chapter 52:15, in which God, whose particular message concerning the servant began with verse 13, poignantly targets the narrator's identity. That verse declares: "So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which they had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive." The words "their" and "they" here refer to "many nations" and "kings." It is neither Isaiah nor Israel, but the "many nations" which are startled and left dumbfounded by what they shall see and come to realize concerning the servant.

This will occur in the day of God's vindication of Israel when the nations, astonished and in terror, will feel ashamed for their oppression of the Jewish people. Of this new perception the prophets declared: "As in the days of your coming out of the land of Egypt will I show to him marvelous things. The nations shall see and be put to shame for all their might; they shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf" (Micah 7:15-16) and "Behold all those who were incensed against you shall be ashamed and confounded; those who quarreled with you shall be as nothing and will perish" (Isaiah 41:11).

At that juncture in time the startled nations personified here as a Gentile spokesman ask the opening Question of Isaiah 53 "Who has believed our report?" and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" The prophet, himself, as stated above, is merely a channel for transmitting the divinely given statement which foretells the Gentile confession of guilt as they realize the servant's proper role in history. An abrupt change in speakers from God to a Gentile spokesman takes place in verse 1. The prophetic text utilizes the literary device of the Gentile spokesman to narrate this Gentile admission of unjust mistreatment of the servant. Written in poetic style there is use of metaphorical language throughout the entire passage.