The suffering servant in Isaiah 53

[3abd Arahman]

Thanks dear brother
God bless you too

[3abd Arahman]

Why do Jews reject the Christian claim that the beginning of Isaiah 53:8, generally rendered, "By oppression and judgment he was taken away," refers to Jesus?


Answer: Generally, the beginning of this verse is rendered: "By oppression and judgment he was taken away." When explained in this way, the verse is meant to indicate that, by means of persecution and judicial decision, the servant was exiled, not only from his own homeland but from the lands of his dispersion as well. But, at best, the prophet's words have no particular application to Jesus, since they could, in actuality, be applied generally to many people who suffered persecution.

However, the general context of this verse indicates that the word may-'otser should not be translated as "by oppression" but in accordance with its derivation from 'etser, denoting "domination," "sovereignty," and thus the beginning of the verse should read: "From dominion and judgment. . . ." Accordingly, the verse does not refer to how the servant was taken away but refers, rather, to what he was taken away from. Can this be applied to Jesus? From what dominion and judgment was Jesus taken away? He never had any power as a ruler to lose. He was never deprived of any office.

According to the New Testament, Jesus' "first coming" was not as a ruler or judge, but as one who would bring salvation. The New Testament further claims that Jesus will be coming back a second time and it is only then that he will reign as king and judge of the world. Jesus is quoted as saying: ". . . the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28) and "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). It is further stated in the Gospel of John: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him" (John 3:17). The preceding quotations illustrate that Jesus did not lose any dominion or right to judge during his lifetime, since he never had these rights in the first place.

Considering verse 8 in its entirety, within the context of the entire chapter, it becomes clear that Isaiah did not refer to Jesus. "From dominion and judgment" reflects critical events in Jewish history: Taken from "dominion and judgment, that is, rulership and the right to judge, who can relate Israel's history which followed after "he was cut off out of the land of the living," that is, the Land of Israel? Israel's life was filled with innumerable sufferings because of the misdeeds of the Gentiles who afflicted him unjustly. Driven into exile, the servant was deprived of his right to rule and judge.

The fact is that there is nothing in any part of this verse that points to Jesus as the "suffering servant of the Lord."

[3abd Arahman]

Is it true (as Christians claim) that Jews at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple believed that Isaiah 53 spoke of a suffering messiah who was to die as an atonement for the sins of others and then be resurrected?


Answer: A number of interpretations as to the identity of the "suffering servant" and what he was to accomplish may have been current during the Second Temple period. However, there is no evidence to support the Christian contention that the interpretation of the servant as the suffering messiah later adopted by the followers of Jesus was one of them.

The Gospels themselves provide evidence that no such understanding of the passage existed prior to the crucifixion. For example, what did Jesus' disciples believe? After Peter acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah (Matthew 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matthew 16:21). Rather than acknowledging this as the prophetic fate of the Messiah he responds: "God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you." He would never have said this if he thought Jesus was the fulfillment of a supposedly centuries old prophetic interpretation of Isaiah 53 that coincides with that now found in Christianity.

As for Jesus himself, he requests that God "remove the cup from me" (Mark 14:36), that is, the humiliation, suffering, and death he is about to undergo? Obviously he didn't know that this is why he supposedly came to earth and that the travail he is about to undertake is allegedly the fulfillment of Isaiah 53. It is clear that a removal of "the cup" would destroy what Christian's would later claim is God's plan for mankind's redemption. Did Jesus offer a prayer that he knew to be nothing but an empty gesture on his part?

Jesus supposedly taught the disciples to understand the Scriptures as referring to himself as the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, who was to arise from the dead after dying as an atonement for mankind's sins. Teaching about a suffering messianic figure who dies for other people's sins some Christian's claim was standard Jewish interpretation until the rabbis supposedly corrupted the true teaching to hide that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53.

However, when Jesus "was teaching his disciples and telling them, 'The Son of Man is to be delivered up into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he has been killed, he will rise again three days later" (Mark 9:31) we are told "they did not understand this statement" (Mark 9:32). This was obviously a concept that was unfamiliar to them.

The news of Jesus' death brings a reaction of "mourning and weeping" (Mark 16:10) from Jesus' disciples. "And when they heard that he was alive . . . they refused to believe it" (Mark 16:11). John explains, "For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead" (John 20:9). The disciples reaction is not what would be expected if they saw events as fulfillment of Isaiah 53.

One would expect that if there were any first century C.E. Jews who were familiar with the interpretation of Isaiah 53 espoused by present-day Christians, that it would have been Jesus and his followers. Yes, there are New Testament anachronisms that attribute such teachings to Jesus. Yet, we find instances where Jesus and/or his followers express themselves in a manner that runs counter to this new Christian interpretation.

It is apparent from the Gospels that before and for sometime after the crucifixion Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as referring to a suffering messiah who would die for the sins of the people and then be resurrected. It was only in the post-crucifixion period that these notions developed among the followers of Jesus. There is simply no evidence that this was a Jewish interpretation of the passage. The Question remains as to who are the Jews contemporary with Jesus that supposedly held to what has become the present Christian understanding of the meaning of Isaiah 53? They simply cannot be identified because they never existed.

[3abd Arahman]

How does Isaiah 53:8 show that the death of Jesus should not be considered as atonement for the sins of humankind?


Answer: Verse 8, a statement made by the enemies of the suffering servant of the Lord, shows that Jesus could not be the suffering servant.

Christians allege that Jesus suffered as atonement for mankind's sins. It would appear from the New Testament that Jesus became flesh and blood, that is, a human being, in order to pay the ransom for sins and bring redemption through blood sacrifice as required by the Law of Moses. For example, Paul writes in Colossians, "we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (1:14) and "through the blood of his cross" (1:20) and "in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight" (1:22). He also states, "But now, in Christ Jesus, you who sometimes were far off are made close by the blood of' Christ" (Ephesians 1:13). Thus, it is alleged that "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5) suffered as atonement for mankind's sins through the shedding of the human blood of his human flesh. It is not his alleged divinity that was supposedly sacrificed but his humanity.

This presents a problem for Psalms 49:8 (verse 7 in some versions) declares, "No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him." Yet, it is precisely through his humanity that Jesus would have to offer himself as a redemption or ransom. Are the psalmist's words "no man can by any means" confined solely to ordinary man? If Jesus was fully human while still allegedly being divine, then he was a man in every way understood within the context of the psalm. Then, in no way can he redeem mankind or give himself to God as a ransom for mankind through the means of his human nature or his supposed divine nature.

[3abd Arahman]

According to Isaiah 53:8, why does the servant of the Lord suffer?


Answer: There is no indication in verse 8 that the servant of the Lord suffers to atone for the sins of others. What this verse states is that he suffers as a result of the misdeeds of others, who treat him unfairly and unjustly. Hence, the conclusion of the verse, in which the enemies of the servant admit responsibility for the cruel treatment they have meted out to him.

This is the confession of the Gentile spokesperson, who now expresses the Gentile realization that it was they and their people who deserved to suffer the humiliation inflicted on the servant of the Lord, as admitted in verses 4-6. In short, the servant's enemies admit that his suffering stemmed from their own sinful imposition of hardships upon him: "From the transgression of my people there has been affliction to him [them]." The servant of the Lord suffers not on behalf of others' sins but because of the things that sinful men do to him.

[3abd Arahman]

What does lamo mean in Isaiah 53:8?


Answer: In Isaiah 53:8, the Gentile spokesperson continues to acknowledge the fault of the nations for the trials and tribulations suffered by the servant, Israel, during his passage through history (cf. Isaiah 52:1, 15-53:1-2). Thus, he states: "As a result of the transgression of my people [the Gentile nations] he [Israel] has been afflicted." The literal translation of' this verse is: "From the transgression of' my people there has been affliction to him [or "to them"]." The poetic form of lahem, lamo, "to them," is used in this verse in reference to a collective noun (cf. Genesis 9:26). Lamo is rendered "to him" as it refers to the collective noun, "suffering servant of the Lord," that is, the Jewish people. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity given the appellative "suffering servant of the Lord."

The proper rendering of lamo is sometimes unclear. For example, there appears to be a Question on how to render lamo in the verse, "Then a man uses it [a tree] for fuel: and he takes it, and warms himself; he kindles it and bakes bread; he makes a god, and worships it; he makes it a carved image, and falls down lamo ["to them," alternately suggested "to it,"]" ( Isaiah 44:15). Since the noun, "god," is in the singular it would seem to show that lamo can mean "to it" as an actual singular and not just when used as a collective noun. This is not the case. Although the prophet's words are in the singular he uses the poetic form lamo, "to them," to show that the content of his message is to be understood as being in the plural. The translator of the Hebrew, into the Greek Septuagint, understood this and rendered the verse accordingly: "That it might be for men to burn: and having taken part of it he warms himself; and they burn part of it; and bake loaves thereon; and the rest they make for themselves gods, and they worship them."

The plural nature of the poetic form lamo is supported by the fifty four places it is used in the Hebrew Scriptures. That the plural lamo, in verse 8, refers to the suffering servant of the Lord as a collective noun excludes any possibility that it pertains to an individual. As a result, it cannot refer to Jesus. The suffering servant of the Lord is a collective noun and, as such, does not refer to a specific Israelite.