The suffering servant in Isaiah 53

[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.

[3abd Arahman]

To be continued insha Allah

[3abd Arahman]

Isaiah 53:4 says that the suffering servant was considered "stricken" by his enemies. Does this describe Jesus in any way?


Answer: In verse 4 the Gentile nations exclaim, concerning the servant, "we considered him stricken [by God]." The verb appears again in verse 8. This does not describe Jesus in any way whatsoever.

The verb, nagua, "stricken," is commonly used in the Jewish Scriptures for being stricken with leprosy (for example, 2 Kings 5:27, 15:5; Job 19:21; Leviticus 13:3, 9, 20; Numbers 12:10). Jesus was not stricken physically with leprosy!

Yet, even metaphorically, nagua cannot be applied to Jesus who was not generally shunned as a loathsome pariah. The respectively supportive, indifferent, or hostile audiences he confronts in the Gospels show a variety of responses to his message. Those who apparently despise Jesus are numerically represented in insignificant numbers. They exist, but no more so than one may expect in reaction to any extremely controversial figure. Consideration must also be given to the fact that the great majority of contemporary Jews never heard of Jesus. The application to Jesus of nagua, that is, stricken metaphorically in the manner of one who has leprosy and treated as such by fellow human beings, is unwarranted

[3abd Arahman]

saiah 53:7 says that the suffering servant "humbled himself and opened not his mouth" as a lamb about to be slaughtered or a sheep dumb before its shearers. Does this describe Jesus' behavior at his trials?


IAnswer: Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was the accusation placed against him before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. To the charge of his messianic claim, Jesus

Answered both the Jewish authorities and Pilate in a forceful manner (John 18:19-23, 33-37).

The statement: "Therefore Pilate entered the judgment hall again and called Jesus, and said to him: 'Are you the King of the Jews?'" makes it clear that claiming to be the King Messiah was the Jewish accusation against Jesus. Matthew and Mark comment that Jesus did not Answer the Jewish accusations when Questioned by Pilate: "But he did not Answer him, not even to a single charge" (Matthew 27:14); "But Jesus made no further Answer" (Mark 15:15).

However, the list of charges made by the Jews, which is found in Luke's Gospel: "misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King" (Luke 23:2), is Answered by Jesus. The charges are

Answered in his defense before Pilate, as found in John's Gospel. There he claimed to head a peace-loving, nonmilitary, otherworldly group, which would not countenance revolt against the Roman Empire. John argues, with the help of alleged quotations from the trial, that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews but not one who sought power in this world, i.e., at the expense of the Roman Empire (John 18:36).

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. Pilate, Jesus assumed, would not be interested in a non-political, non-military movement that was not of "this world." However, Jesus' movement must have appeared to Pilate like any of the other seditious movements that confronted him. He reacted accordingly.

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.

Contrary to what Christian theologians claim, the Gospels' Jesus presented a strong defense before the Jewish officials and Pilate. Jesus was not "dumb" but very outspoken before his accusers, Jewish or Gentile. Therefore, it is simply not true to say of Jesus that "he humbled himself and did not open his mouth."

[3abd Arahman]

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.

[3abd Arahman]

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.

[3abd Arahman]

To be continued insha Allah

[3abd Arahman]

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.

[3abd Arahman]

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.