The so-called “Suffering Servant” story of Isaiah 53 has long been considered by Christologists to be a messianic prophecy, or about Jesus the Messiah. There are passages in this chapter that that sound like prophecies about the life and death of the Jesus. However, there are some very problematic parts of it that seem to make it impossible to be a prophecy about the future “sacrifice” of Jesus and more about the nation of Israel.
The truth is that in the context of the chapter there is no one is actually dying for our sins. The whole book of Isaiah is about Israel suffering from the violence against them from other nations. Moreover, Isaiah refers to Israel as “my servant”, which has nothing to do with a single individual such as Jesus, and the doctrine of “subsitutionary atonement” is contrary to the Old Testament scriptures:
My Servant Israel:
“Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.” (Isaiah 44:21)
Subsitutionary Atonement:
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Eze 18:20)
Instead of the King James Version that may favor the interpretation of Christology that would show that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus the prophesied Messiah, I have used a more accurate translation to avoid the false interpretation that the KJV may afford the reader. This translation is made directly from the Jewish Hebrew Bible, without influence from any biased Christian sources.
As is frequently done, passages that are needed to “prove” the point of Jesus being the Messiah, Christians pick the verses they need from this chapter, out of context, and ignore the rest.
A verse by verse analysis may give a clearer view of who Isaiah was actually referring to in this chapter — Jesus or the nation of Israel:
- Who would have believed our report, and upon whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
- He grew like a sapling before Him and like a root from arid ground, he had neither form nor grandeur; we saw him, but without such visage that we should desire him.
Here, if the prophet refers to Jesus it is as though he is speaking of Jesus as he is growing up and how he is not very good looking. But the New Testament tells us almost nothing about Jesus’ appearance as a child. “root from arid ground” — one can only guess what Isaiah was referring to in verses 1 and 2.
- Scorned and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, as one from whom we would hide our faces; he was scorned and we had no regard for him.
Christians would use vs. 3 applying it to his trial, and crucifixion — a short time of the life of Jesus. Apart from the short period of his trial and crucifixion, we don’t get the impression from reading the gospels that he had much sorrow and grief. Jesus was not despised by the majority of the people, in fact, he seemed to be very popular because of his teaching — at least in the beginning of his ministry. I have never seen anything in the Gospels that infer that Jesus was “accustomed to illness“. If Jesus was God in the flesh, it doesn’t make sense to say he was “stricken by God and afflicted“. Also, I have never read in the Gospels that Jesus was “diseased“.
4. But in truth, it was our ills that he bore and our pains that he carried; but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God and afflicted.
Does vs 4 sound like Jesus? “we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God and afflicted”. Why would Jesus be “stricken by God and afflicted”? If Jesus was declared innocent at his trial, then what would his punishment be for?
Substitutionary Atonement
“it was our ills that he bore and our pains that he carried” would allude to, in the case of Jesus, the first sign of the false doctrine of “Substitutionary atonement”.
5. He was violated because of our sins and crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his company, we were healed.
This is one of favorite verses of Isaiah 53 that they like to use. Here they consider this to be when Jesus was whipped and chastised for the sins of the world and somehow this cruel treatment made it possible for the world to have peace and be healed.
The way this verse is interpreted fits the doctrine of “Substitutionary atonement”, which basically says that God inflicted suffering upon Christ the the world deserved for its sins and anyone who believes in him is forgiven all and his punishment is no longer deserved. This doctrine is only to be found in Christology and is incompatible with anything in the Old Testament.
6. We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and the Lord inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all.
Here is a continuation of the interpretation in favor of the doctrine of “Substitutionary atonement” in which the sins of the world are put on the back of Jesus during his whipping and crucifixion, if this were to be about Jesus.
7. He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or like a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.
In this verse Jesus is compared to an innocent lamb who is fleeced and sacrificed being quiet not speaking a word. I don’t see this brought out in the Gospels, but it could be inferred.
Intentional Mistranslation
8. Through government and judgment was he deprived, and who could describe his generation, for he was cut off from the land of the living, it was for the sin of my nation that they were afflicted. (incorrect translation in other versions: for the transgression of my people was “he” stricken should be “they” — appears to be an intentional mistranslation, to make it seem like Jesus.)
- Whether translated “he” or “they”, either way, it was Israel that was “my servant: O Israel” that Isaiah was referring to — not Jesus.
“Cut off out of the land of the living” is supposed to be inferring the death of Christ, and “for the transgression of my people was he stricken” again would be referring to Substitutionary atonement in the case it were about Jesus, which it is not.
The issue here is who is it that Isaiah is indicating here? If it is interpreted to be as Christ, Isaiah would be going against Jewish law that no man can be punished for the sins of another, but every man must be punished for his own sins.
Notice in this translation the phrase “they were afflicted”. “They” is plural and is referring to the collective servant this chapter refers to in this more accurate translation — the nation of Israel.
In the King James Version this verse is rendered: ” for the transgression of my people was he stricken”. This is disingenuous on the part of Christian or Greek translators who would make Isaiah 53 appear to be about Jesus by changing what should be “they” to “he”.
- This is the problem with the doctrine of Substitutionary atonement: It would not be a doctrine that would be endorsed by the prophet Isaiah, being a Jew, much less Jesus.
9. And he placed his grave with the wicked and his deaths were with the rich for no violence that he had done nor for any deception that was in his mouth. (Note the plural form of deaths)
The Gospels of the New Testament show no evidence that Jesus made his grave with the wicked and the rich. It says that he was laid in a tomb “wherein never man before was laid.” (Lk 23:53) However, having no “deceit in his mouth”, does sound consistent of Jesus.
10. And the Lord desired to crush and afflict him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and the purpose of God will succeed through his hand.
There are several problems with this verse being about Jesus. Again it makes no sense that “the Lord desired to crush and afflict him (Jesus)”, an innocent man. It is inconsistent with the attributes of God in that God doesn’t even “take pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Eze_33:11) So how would God even take pleasure in the death of a righteous and innocent man?
Again, Jesus, being a righteous man in whom was found no guilt at his trial, the phrase: “if his soul would acknowledge guilt” is very much inconsistent with the story of Jesus’ ordeal. If Jesus was guiltless, why would he need to “acknowledge guilt”?
Now we are told that Jesus died and was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven after about 40 days. So how does he “he would see offspring”? There is no record in the New Testament that Jesus was even married, let alone have children. So how does Jesus see his offspring? (according to the New Testament)
And if Jesus is no longer on the scene after his death and resurrection, how is it that God causes him to “live long days”? At this point he would be already cut off out of the land of the living. (at least according to the New Testament)
What Isaiah is really saying here is that after his chastisement and repentance God’s servant Israel would return to see his offspring and his life would be extended.
The description of Isaiah does not in any way fit the picture of Jesus in the Gospels. This passage fits more the punishment of the people of Israel during the time that they were taken away into bondage.
11. From the travail of his soul he will see and be satiated, with his knowledge will My righteous servant render many righteous and he will bear their sins.
Here again “he will bear their sins”, if he is Jesus on the cross, would be referring to Substitutionary Atonement, being applied to Jesus in their interpretation, which is NOT a Jewish concept and again goes contrary to the Old Testament scriptures.
It’s not clear why the captives are referred to as “righteous” — maybe it’s because they were not guilty of some of the things the rest of Israel was. At any rate it is clear from reading the rest of Isaiah that God was extremely displeased with Israel and as is common the maxim: “righteous suffer for the deeds of the wicked”, seems to be the case here.
“My righteous servant”, in the context of the the writings of Isaiah seems to be much more in line with the servant being the people of Israel than of Jesus.
12. Therefore, I will assign him a portion from the many and he will divide the mighty as spoils, in return for having poured out his soul for death and being counted among the wicked, for he bore the sin of the many, and he will pray for the wicked.
Analyzing this last part reveals that “him” and “he” is very unlikely to be about one individual but a collective unit. How can God divide the spoils with a person who has “poured out his soul for death”? And how can he divide the mighty as spoils?
Conclusion:
The only verse in this whole chapter that uses the word servant, is verse 11. Of course, the whole chapter is obviously referring to the servant and the verse says “my righteous servant” which makes it look like it’s speaking of Jesus since he’s considered righteous with Christians.
The main point of the interpretation is whether or not the servant is referring to Jesus or not. With Christians it is assumed that Jesus is the Messiah. Since many of the attributes Christians consider to be about the Messiah seem to be contained in this chapter, Isaiah 53 appears to be about Jesus.
However, as is common with Christology, many passages in the Old Testament are taken out of context to make them fit their preconceived ideas about the fulfillment of messianic prophecy. Isaiah 53 is no different.
The focal point here is the subject of the chapter, “My righteous servant”. Taking into consideration all of the prophets, in context, where the term “My servant” is used, the majority of times it is used as “Jacob my servant” or “Israel my servant”, obviously referring to the nation of Israel.
At times the text of the book of Isaiah is referring to a single person such as a prophet and many times it seems to be used in messianic prophecy as in “David My servant”. It is mainly Ezekiel that uses in “David My servant”as messianic. But Isaiah doesn’t refer to the Messiah with any expression with “my servant” in any form.
Isaiah only uses the collective form referring to the nation of Israel when using the words “My” and “servant”.
One issue that keeps coming up is that certain passages are seen as being “Substitutionary Atonement” which is completely inconsistent with Judaism and the Jewish bible. This doctrine is solely a Pauline concept with is foreign to the whole idea of God’s chastisements on Israel, with which most of this material deals.
Therefore, “My righteous servant”, in the context of the writings of Isaiah are much more in line with the servant being the collective people of Israel and not a single person such as Jesus. Other inconsistencies, such as “Substitutionary Atonement” make this chapter impossible to be about Jesus.
Next: Who Was Jesus Part 3 | Who Created the Heavens and the Earth?