Who is Isaiah 52:13-53:12 talking about?
Dr. Barry Fike
Jesus would constantly tell his followers: Relax! Isn’t that what he really is all about? Especially is this true of his resurrection. One of those fascinating accounts is recorded in Luke 24:13-35 and deals with two disciples that met Jesus on the road to Emmaeus. They are talking with each other and did not recognize Jesus. From v. 26 on Jesus “began with Moses and all the Prophets and explained in all the Scriptures the things about himself.” What were all these scriptures? No doubt they must have included Isaiah 53. This is the same gentle teasing, almost playful Jesus that we have seen throughout the Gospel record. He may be back in a different body which appears and disappears and walks through walls, but he can be recognized, and he acts just as he did when in his unresurrected body!
We hear of Isaiah 53 being read by the Ethiopian Eunuch as he was riding in his chariot back to Egypt (Acts 8:26-40).
But who is this section of scripture talking about? While the words are clear, who this servant is, is not. Of all the passage thought by Christians to reflect Jesus in the Old Testament, Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is the one most intensely held by Christians and questioned by skeptics. Christians see the suffering servant as Jesus while others claim that the servant is Israel and that this scripture describes the history of the Jewish people. One author claims, “The messiah is never called the servant of God, not in Isaiah, and not anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, it is plain idiocy to claim that the servant refers to the messiah.” In response, look at Zechariah 12:10 and Daniel 9:26.
“I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a
Spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on Me, the One they have
Pierced, and they will mourn for HI, as one mourns for an only child,
and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a first born son.” Zech. 12:10
Daniel spoke of a specific time when the Messiah would appear and be “cut off”, declaring plainly that this would occur before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.
“After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have
nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city
and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood; War will continue until
the end, and desolations have been decreed.” Den. 9:26
Another states, “Messiah means ‘anointed one’. It was the custom to anoint kings and a high priest with oil at their inauguration. Most of the time Messiah refers to an anointed king. The anointment for a Jewish king is to be done by a priest or prophet. Jesus was never anointed as king by a priest or prophet, and he never had any kingship, so he simply was not a messiah.”
Still others claim that Christians see Jesus in the “servant” section of Isaiah partly through the benefit of hindsight and partly because Christian scholars have tampered with the Hebrew text. They say that by a combination of wishful thinking and dishonesty we have changed the powerful political Messiah of Jewish expectation into a suffering Servant who dies as a sacrifice for the sins of others.
They continue in this thought by saying that the concept of a Deliverer who suffers and dies voluntarily as a sacrifice for the sins of others is a concoction of Christian theologians. Nowhere in the book of Leviticus, or anywhere else, does the Torah allow any form of HUMAN BLOOD as an atonement. That practice was a purely pagan notion performed throughout the world, but never in the Jewish world. The Jews have never offered a human sacrifice with the consent of the Jewish court and community. Furthermore, the entire chapters 17 of Leviticus, and even verse 11, seems to indicate in the strongest terms that all sacrifices and means for atonement that blood must be used in the Tabernacle or Temple. Since Jesus was not offered in the Temple, nor did any priest sprinkle his blood, was the atonement for anyone? In addition, the idea of a god dying in order to atone for the sins of others is purely a pagan idea. Sometimes the accumulated sins of the entire people were placed upon their dying god. This idea is basic to the pagan mind. In addition, the beginning of the book of Leviticus mentions various animals which could be used as an offering in the Temple, and since it specifies only certain animals, it indicates that only those animals, and no other animals, and certainly no humans may be used as an offering.
While it is true that the term “servant of God” can refer to others (Isaiah 20:3; Isaiah 22:20; 24:2; 36:9, 11; 37:5, 24, 25; Israel: Isaiah 41:8, 9; 49:3, 6) it is also true that the term ‘servant of God’ can refer to the Messiah according to the Rabbis (Isaiah 42:1, 19; 43: 10; 44: 1, 2, 21, 26; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3, 5; 49:5-7; 50:10; 52:13; 53:11). Look at the intensely personal nature of some of the Servant passages:
“Here is my Servant, whom I uphold, My Chosen One in whom I delight;
I will put My Spirit on Him, and He will bring justice to the nations.” Isaiah 42:1
The Lord says – He who formed Me in the womb to be his servant to bring
Jacob back to Him and father Israel to Himself…He says: “It is too small a
thing or you to be My servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring
back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make You a light for the Gentiles, that
You may bring My salvation to the ends of the earth.” This is what the Lord says…
to Him who was despised and abhorred by the nation, …”Kings will see You
and rise up, princes will see and bow down, because of the Lord,
who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen You.” Isaiah 49:5-7
These words point to an individual distinct from even the godly remnant (here referred to as “those of Israel I have kept”). Moreover, no Old Testament prophecy declares that this godly remnant will be “despised and abhorred by the nation.”
The beauty of those words in Hebrew is almost beyond description. It is no wonder that Jews in ancient times read them with great pathos. Up to a thousand years ago, the rabbinic commentaries applied the words to the Messiah. The problem with the rabbinic interpretation is that they are ancient interpretations. Beginning in the 1800’s most Jewish scholars rejected the idea that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 referred to the Messiah and began to apply it to a remnant in Israel. Since then they have been saying that these words will be spoken by Gentiles, who in the last days will stand corrected and brokenhearted before the suffering nation that has borne their hatred and sins. They say that this entire passage is a last-days confession of a Gentile world, admitting that its proud and mindless anti-semitism has been the curse of Israel’s pain.
However, the ancient commentators, with one accord, noted that the context clearly speaks of God’s Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapters, ascribed by Rabbi Johnathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century C.E., begin with the simple and worthy words:
Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase,
and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many
days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples,
and their complexion beyond the sons of men. (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, and locum)
We find the same interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud:
The Messiah – what is his name?...The Rabbis say, the leprous one, those of
The house of Rabbi say, the sick one, as it is said, ‘Surely he hath borne
Our sicknesses.’ (Sanhedrin 98b)
Similarly, in the Midrash Rabbah, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14:
He is speaking of the King Messiah, “Come hither” draw near to the
throne “and drip thy morsel in the vinegar,” this refers to the chastisements,
As it is said, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised
For our iniquities.”
In the same manner also in a later midrash, the Midrash Tanhuman, Parsha Toldot, end of section, it says:
“Who are thou, O great mountain?” (Zech. 4:7) This refers to the
King Messiah. And why does he call him the “great mountain?” Because
He is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “My servant shall be high,
and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly.” He will be higher than Abraham who
said, “I raise high my hand unto the Lord” (Gen. 14:22), lifted up above Moses, to
whom it is said, “Lift it up unto thy bosom” (Num. 1:12), loftier than the ministering
Angels, of whom it is written, “Their wheels were lofty and terrible” (Ezek. 1:16).
and out of whom doe she come forth? Out of David.”
The famous Middle Ages Rabbi and Philosopher Moses Maimonides stated:
“What is the manner of Messiah’s advent…there shall rise up one of whom
None have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see
Performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin, for the Almighty,
Where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, ‘Behold a man whose
Name if the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place (Zech. 6:12). And
Isaiah speaks si8milarly of the time when he shall appear, without father
Or mother, or family being known. He came up as a sucker before him, and as a
Root out of dry earth, etc….in the words of Isaiah, when describing the
Manner in which kings will harden to him. At him kings will shut their mouth; for
That which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not
Heard they have perceived.” (From the letter to the South (Yemen), and quoted in the Fifty-third chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, KTAV Publishing House, 1969, vol. 2, 374-375)
Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispen described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those;
“having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the
stubbornness of their own hearts,” and of their own opinion, I am pleased to
interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah…This
prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of
making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to
come and deliver Israel, and his life form the day when he arrives at discretion
until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming himself
the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any
resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may
believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness, but if not, we cannot do so.” (From his commentary on Isaiah, quotes in “The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters”, KTAV publishing house, 1969, vol. 2, pp. 99-114.
Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Iszchaki, 1040-1105) and some of the later Rabbis, though, began to interpret the passage as referring to Israel as a suffering nation. They knew that the older interpretations referred to it as the Messiah. However, Rashi lived at a time when a degenerative medieval distortion of Christianity was preached. He wanted to preserve the Jewish people from accepting such a faith and, although his intensions were sincere, other prominent Jewish Rabbis and leaders realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s interpretation. They presented a threefold objection to his innovation. First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Secondly, they pointed out that the text is in the singular. Thirdly, they noted verse eight. This verse presented an insurmountable difficulty to those who interpreted this passage as referring to Israel. It reads:
He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who shall declare his
generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the
transgressions of my people was he stricken.
Were the Jewish people, God forbid, ever cut off out of the land of the living? No! In Jeremiah 31:35-37, God promised that we will exist forever. We are proud that Am Yishrael Chai stated: “The people of Israel are much alive.” Likewise, it is impossible to say that Israel suffered for the transgressions of “my people,” which clearly means Isaiah’s people. Surely, Isaiah’s people are not the Gentiles, but the Jews.
Moshe Kohen, a 15th-century Rabbi in Spain, explains the section:
Although the singular number if used in it throughout. Others have supposed it to
Mean the just in this present world, who are crushed and oppressed now…but these
Too, for the same reason, by altering the number, distort the verses from their natural meaning. And then it seemed to me that…having forsaken the
knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined “after the stubbornness of their
own hearts,” and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it,
in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah.
For the same reason, Rabbi Moshe Alsheikh, Rabbi of Safed, late 16th century, points out this fact saying:
I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the
opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah.
Rabbi Sh'lomoh Astruc (14th c.) also states that:
My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man -- it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah my servant, speaking as one who sent him. Or he may call the whole people my servant, as he says above my people (lii. 6): when he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it; and when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then is, that my servant the King Messiah will prosper.
Much to the point is the commentary of the great Jewish educator, Herz Homberg (1749-18451). Who says:
According to the opinion of Rabbi and Ibn Ezra, it relates to Israel at the
End of their captivity. But if so, what can the meaning of the passage, “He was wounded for our transgressions”? Who was wounded? Who are the
Transgressors? Who carried out sickness and bore the pain? The fact
Is that it refers to the King Messiah.[1]
The passage is not read in the synagogue today, but no one can be certain why this is so.
Before we ever get to chapters 52, 53 we know something already about the Messiah from Isaiah. He appears many times throughout the book. He is seen as a baby in chapter 9 and grows up in 11. Messiah is repeatedly referred to as the servant too, and contrasted with faithless Israel. Messiah is Israel’s redeemer and covenant makes no sense that suddenly servant Israel is strong and righteous. Isaiah 52:1`3 – the Epistle to the Hebrews attempts to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah, that he is greater than Abraham (7:7), than the angels (1:4), and than Moses (7:7). The same is said in Isaiah 52:13:
“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.”
The Messiah will be more “exalted” than Abraham, more “extolled” than Moses and more “high” than the angels. The method of this midrash is based upon the assumption that no word in the Bible is senseless. Why would three synonymous verbs appear in this verse? Each of the three apparently has a special meaning: the first indicates the superiority of the Messiah to Abraham, the second his higher degree than Moses, and the third his greater value than the angels. Such an exegetical method is very common in rabbinic literature (Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Flusser, pp. 246, 247)
It is written in Isaiah 52:13 – “Behold my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and he shall be very high.” Already in the Aramaic Targum of this verse, “my servant” is translated “My servant, the Messiah”. Three verbs describe the superiority of the Messiah. For the midrashic approach, they cannot be only a stylistic repetition: all of them have to have a particular meaning. But to whom will the Messiah be superior? He “shall be exalted” above Abraham, and “lifted up” above Moses, and “shall be very high” above the ministering angels (ibid, p.248). According to the Jewish faith, Moses is the central and exalted figure, both in his meekness and in his greatness.
The epistle of the Hebrews proved that a Midrash existed at the time of the Second Temple, or soon after its destruction, dealing with the Messiah along this same thematic line.
In the Tannaic Midrash, namely Sifre, on Numbers 12:3-7, Rabbi Jose says that Moses is greater than the Patriarchs and the angels. Hence originated the Midrash which attempted to prove that the Messiah is greater even than Moses, than the Patriarchs, including Abraham, and the Archangels (Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, Flusser, p. 64). In these verses the author, along the same lines as the Rabbis, quote Numbers 12:7, but whereas the Jewish sages quote this verse in order to show the superiority of Moses, the epistle to the Hebrews uses the same biblical verse in order to prove that Moses is inferior to the Messiah.
In Hebrews 1:4-14 we have the idea of the superiority of the Messiah to the angels. In order to support his assertion “and thus he is superior to the angels as he inherited a name superior to theirs” (Heb. 1:4), the writer has to resort to seven biblical proofs. Thus, in the first two testimonia (1:5) the main point demonstrating Jesus; superiority to the angels is that only he – in contrast to the angels – is the Son of God: “For to what angel did God even say: ‘Thou art my son, today I have become thy father?’” (2 Sam. 7:14)…the last four (1:7-14) are quoted in order to show that all the angels without exception are nothing but ministering spirits, sent forth to serve and devoid of ruling power, since of them it was said: “Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire” (Ps. 104:4). The remaining arguments in chapter two are very important for our subject, since these – in contrast to those in the first chapter dealing with Jesus the Son of God – are concerned mainly with proving the superiority of Jesus in his role of Messiah and Savior.
On the last night at the Passover meal, Jesus says to his disciples:
“When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They
Said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must find its fulfillment in me: ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors.’” (Luke 22:35-37)
The phrase Jesus quotes is from a famous passage in Isaiah (52:13-53:12). His point seems to be that since the prophecy concerns a description of the Messiah in which he is thought to be a transgressor or criminal, it is only appropriate that there should be a sword or two in the possession of his band so that when arrested or apprehended the symbols of rebellion will put Jesus, as it were, in the company of rebels.
The disciples show him a couple of sword they happen to have and comment,
“Look, Lord, here are two swords.”
His answer is,
“It is enough.” (Lk. 22:38)
Of course, he must have smiled lightly, for the swords are only tokens. In the face of death, he can somehow laugh.
There are perhaps only one or two other expressions in the many words of Jesus recorded for us which hint at what must have been long hours of meditation on passages such as those we recall when we mention Isaiah 53. The sparsidy of such references only emphasizes that high intellectual sophistication by which he lived on those Scriptures which spoke so clearly to him.
Isaiah 53:8 – The great Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, in his book “Two Types of Faith”, (104f) says this about the self-awareness of Jesus: “It was written of yet another, of the servant of YHVH (Isaiah 53), that he was ‘taken’ and ‘cut off from the land of the living…’ This too is removal, a removal also to a particular, especially elevated office: he shall become a light to the nations (42:6; 49:6)…; through his mediation the salvation of God shall rule unto the borders of the earth (49:6)” (Jesus the Jewish Theologian, Young, p. 276)
Jesus will constantly, throughout his ministry, define his messianic task (Lk. 5:33-39). One such was in the verse, “But when the bridegroom is taken away from them.” No doubt such a verse puzzled his audience. The word “is taken away” (in Hebrew lukach, in Greek aparthe) was another way of saying, “when he dies” or “when he is killed”. Why must the bridegroom die? The term “bridegroom” could be associated with the coming of the messianic Redeemer (cf. Matthew 25:6). The time will come when he will be taken, then his disciples will fast. In the puzzling saying of Jesus, one sees both joy and sadness interrelated. But how can one associate the joy of a wedding with the death of the bridegroom?
Jesus quote possibly alludes to Isaiah 53:8, where the same Hebrew word refers to the death of the suffering servant. Joy is associated with the coming of the Messiah. But when the Messianic idea is connected to the suffering servant in the words of the prophet Isaiah as Jesus taught in his prophecies concerning his death, a reference to the death of the bridegroom is not out of place. Both of the diverse feelings of joy and mourning may be associated with the coming of the messiah figure in the teachings of Jesus. At least in Isaiah 53:8, 9, we read, “He was taken from rule and from judgment…For he was cut off from the land of the living.” Is it possible that Jesus makes a veiled mention of his death as the bridegroom? (Jesus the Jewish Theologian, Young, p. 159)
Anguish and suffering were prophesies: (52:14)
“As many were astonished at him – his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of man.”
The verse depicts the individual as unpretentious and sorrowful. Rejection would meet him: (v. 3)
“He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief…”
Yet, his rejection and suffering had a divine and beneficial purpose: (vs. 4-6)
“Surely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered Him stricken by God, smitten by Him, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed. WE all, like sheep have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him and iniquity of us all.”
His suffering would be with dignity: (v. 7)
“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth,
And like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb so
He opened not his mouth.” (Also see Isaiah 50:5, 6)
The end would be death: (v. 9)
“They made his grave with the wicked and in death the rich,
although he had done no violence and there was no
deceit in his mouth.”
The theology of Christian faith attaches deep significance to the cross. Without death there is no resurrection. Without resurrection there is no hope over death. “Oh, death where is thy sting?” Through his agony upon the Roman cross, he shared with and participates in the sufferings of all humanity. His suffering should also be recognized as a point of unity with his people. For the Romans he was just another trouble maker among the Jews who needed to be deal with severely. Perhaps there is no other point in history where Jesus is so much at one with his people than when he suffered upon the cruel cross of Rome. (Jesus the Jewish Theologian, Young, p. 238)
Yet, the death would not be meaningless:
“We esteemed his stricken, smitten by God and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.
Upon him lay the chastisement that made us whole,
And with his striped we are healed.” (vs. 3, 4)
Nor would it be permanent:
“When he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring,
He shall prolong his days.” (v. 10)
The expression “by His knowledge My righteous servant will justify many” means that by knowledge of Him many will be justified. The Servant here is not portrayed as a teacher but as a Savior in His priestly ministry, saving people by bearing their iniquities, not by imparting knowledge to them. The benefits of His atoning work will be received by those who came to know Him. Their salvation will crown His work with success:
“Therefore, I will give Him a portion among the great, and He will divide
The spoils with the death, and was numbered with the transgressors.
For He bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Verse 12 denotes intercession, not in the restricted sense of prayer for others, but of the wider one of meritorious and prevailing intervention, which is ascribed to Christ in the New Testament, not as a work already finished, like that of atonement, but one still going on (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 9:24; 1 Jn. 2:1).
When we read Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in its entirety and take it in its simple, unforced, and obvious meaning, the evidence shows that the speaker is not the Gentile nations but a redeemed community. The passage also reveals a suffering Servant who bears a striking resemblance to Jesus as He endured suffering on the cross.
[1] http://www.mayimhayim.org/Hebrew%20Perspectives/What%20Do%20The%20Rabbis%20say%20Isa.%2053.htm
