In my previous post, I began to argue that the Suffering Servant in of Isaiah 53, when read within the context of the larger section of Isaiah 40-55, is clearly to be identified with Israel. The “blind and deaf Servant” in passages like Isaiah 42:19 is idolatrous Israel before the exile. That’s why they got sent into exile in the first place. But then, the Servant who emerges from the exile is seen as the redeemed and purified remnant of Israel, purged of her idolatry and sinfulness by the “fiery furnace” of the exile. And the hope expressed in Isaiah 40-55 is that after the exile, the Servant of YHWH (Israel) would finally be able to truly be a light to the Gentiles. With that, let’s walk though the content of Isaiah 53 in particular.
A Read Through of Isaiah 52:13-53:12
The best place to start is the larger context. And if you read Isaiah 52:1-12, it is clearly talking about the coming salvation of God’s people after the exile and the calling of the exiles to leave Babylon. It is worth noting in 52:10 that God has “bared His holy arm before the eyes of all the nations.” Simply put, this passage is saying that God had displayed His power before the eyes of the nations by bringing the Jews out of the exile.
With that, we have the actual “Servant Song” of Isaiah 52:13-53:12. One important thing to keep in mind is who is speaking, because the speaker changes in the course of the passage. As should be obvious, the speaker of 52:13-15 is YHWH Himself and He is talking about His servant. He is saying that the purified remnant of Israel will be exalted (v. 13), and the description in 52:14 of the servant’s appearance being marred can clearly be seen as a reference to Israel taken into exile.
In 52:15, though, there is a translational question. Some translations have, “so will he sprinkle many nations,” where others have, “so he will startle many nations.” In light of the rest of the verse, I think the proper translation is that he will “startle” many nations, because we are told that the reaction of kings will be that they shut their mouths, obviously in disbelief, when Israel comes out of the exile.
With that, when we come to 53:1, there is a change in speaker. It is no longer YHWH speaking, but rather a “we.” And again, there is another key translational question. Some translations have, “Who has believed our message?” while others have, “Who has believed what we have heard?” That’s quite a difference. In one, the “we” is giving the message and wondering who has believed what they’ve said, whereas in the other, the “we” has received a message and asking among themselves who has believed what they’ve heard.
In light of the context of the passage and in light the fact that we were just told in 52:15 that kings will be startled when they see the Servant of YHWH (i.e. Israel) come out of exile, I think we need to understand the speaker of 53:1-10 is the kings of 52:15 who are in disbelief over Israel coming out of exile. The second part of 53:1 gives us another clue that the speaker is the kings, for the speaker asks, “To whom has the arm of YHWH been revealed?” Well, we’ve already been given the answer to that question in 52:10, that YHWH has bared His holy arm before the eyes of all the nations. The simple discipline of reading the passage in light of its surrounding context makes this clear.
With all that, the description of the Servant in 53:2-10 can be seen as a description of Israel in exile: no form or majesty or beauty; despised and rejected; a “man of sorrows” acquainted with grief; cut off from the land of the living (i.e. exiled from the Promised Land), etc. The entire description of a man being humiliated and beaten fits with the metaphorical description of Israel as the Servant of YHWH and is consistent with the larger context of Isaiah 40-55 focus on the Servant.
But What About All that Atonement?
The big sticking point, though, is the talk of the atoning nature of the suffering of the Servant: he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and by his wounds we are healed. How can that be Israel coming of exile? Our sins aren’t atoned for because of what they suffered in the exile—they are atoned for because of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, right?
Right, but we need to remember that God’s story would have never gotten to Jesus if the return from exile never happened. And this, as illustrated in the image of filling up the cup with water, is how we need to understand the idea of “fulfillment.”
To the point, by seeing 53:2-10 as the speech of the kings who are astonished that Israel is coming out of exile, we see the ultimate plan of God that began with his promises to Abraham. Israel was punished by God and sent into exile because its idolatry and oppression of the poor. In that, they proved themselves to be no different from the nations—yet it was Israel, not the nations, who suffered judgment: He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities (53:4); YHWH has laid upon him the iniquity of us all (53:6). This is what the kings in 53:2-10 now see: Israel was punished for the very sins their own nations did as well. And yet, now God was bringing Israel out as a refined remnant so that they could now be able to be that light to the nations, that great nation through whom all nations will be blessed: Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and by his wounds we are healed (53:4).
As for the talk of the Servant being like a lamb to the slaughter, who suffers even though he had done no violence, let me suggest thinking of something like the story of Daniel. Israel as a whole was sent into exile, but not everyone who suffered for the sins of the nation were themselves guilty of those sins. There were righteous Jews who suffered for the sins of the nation. Nevertheless, as seen in 53:10, we are told that it was the will of YHWH to do this, and that that suffering was thus seen in terms of a Temple sacrificial guilt offering.
In Isaiah 53:11-12, the speaker shifts back to YHWH speaking about His Servant. In these verses the main themes of the passage are reiterated: The Servant’s suffering is not the end; his bearing of the iniquities of others will serve to make many righteous. His being numbered among the transgressors makes it possible for him to make intercession for the transgressors. Simply put, as the Suffering Servant, Israel will be refined and will be able to be that light to the nations who brings blessing to all nations by essentially acting as a priest who makes intercession on behalf of the sinful world.
Great, But What About Jesus?
As a matter of historical fact, though, the returned exiles proved themselves to be not a light to the nations at all. They were still beset with many problems, challenges, and many sins of their own. That prophetic declaration that they would be a redeemed and refined Suffering Servant didn’t really pan out, as with many other prophecies regarding their return from exile. That unresolved part of the prophecies regarding coming out of exile led to the Jewish messianic hope. At the risk of being too simplistic, the Jews of Jesus’ day viewed the nation as the Suffering Servant of YHWH who had suffered and who were now waiting for a Messiah-King who would elevate them to rule over the nations. They thought they would be a blessing to all nations by ruling over them.
But the death and resurrection of Jesus caused his original followers (who were Jewish, obviously) to reassess their preconceived notions: Jesus was indeed the fulfillment of God’s entire plan that had begun with Abraham and was gradually unfolding throughout the Old Testament story, but just not in the way that they had expected. It wasn’t a matter of, “Hey, Israel suffered in the exile, so when the Messiah comes it will be our time to rule.” It was, “The Messiah rules and brings about the Kingdom of God through suffering. It is through suffering that the righteousness brings about salvation for world. It is through suffering that God’s people prove themselves to be a light to the nations. Hence, Jesus embodies Israel; he embodies God’s people; he succeeds where Old Testament failed. On the cross, he fulfilled God’s plan of salvation that had slowly been unfolding throughout the history of Israel.
Therefore, in regard to Isaiah 53, the prophecy was that through Israel’s suffering and redemption in the exile, somehow righteousness and salvation would come to the nations—somehow God’s salvation of the world would be achieved through that returned remnant. And so, in time, in light of Jesus’ suffering on the cross, the apostles came to realize that the suffering in the exile and the subsequent return from exile foreshadowed the suffering and resurrection of Christ.
Hence, as I’ve said before, the claim that Jesus on the cross fulfilled Isaiah 53 shouldn’t so much be seen as a claim that Isaiah “predicted” the crucifixion more than 500 years in advance, as it should be seen as saying, “Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection is like Israel going into exile and returning from exile—it is like that…but bigger!”
Conclusion
With all that said, here is the end of the matter. Does the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus fulfill Isaiah 53? Yes. Does that mean Isaiah 53 was a prediction of the crucifixion? No. It means that Isaiah 53 is all about Israel suffering in exile and then YHWH bringing them out of exile, and that somehow He was going to work through them to fulfill his promises to Abraham, namely that through the nation of Israel, all nations would be blessed. At the time of the return from exile, how all that would work out was still unclear.
With the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, though, what God had been doing all along was made clear—that was how He was going to fulfill His salvation plan. And therefore, in that sense, Isaiah 53 was fulfilled in Christ.
Extra Stuff: The References to the Servant in Isaiah 40-55 outside of Isaiah 53
But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.” (Isa 41:8-9)
Who is blind but my servant, or deaf like my messenger whom I send? Who is blind like my dedicated one, or blind like the servant of the LORD? (Isa 42:19)
You are my witnesses, says the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. (Isa 43:10)
But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen! Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help you: Do not fear, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (Isa 44:1-2)
Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you, you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me. (Isa 44:21)
For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I surname you, though you do not know me. (Isa 45:4)
Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it forth to the end of the earth; say, “The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob!” (Isa 48:20)
Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the voice of his servant, who walks in darkness and has no light, yet trusts in the name of the LORD and relies upon his God? (Isa 50:10)
Excellent discussion, Joel.
Your post once again illustrates the point that we should not read the ancient writings of another culture through the strict lens of a modern western mindset. Some skeptics make this error when they accuse the authors of the Gospels of inventing prophecies about Jesus to intentionally deceive their readers. Some conservative Christians go to the other extreme insisting that every story in the Gospels is an accurate depiction of historical events. The ancient cultures of the Near East and the Mediterranean did not have such a strict black and white view of story telling and hence written literature. The Midrash is one such example. In a Midrash, a writer could look back at an event or prophesy in the past and reinterpret it to fit with events occurring in his day. He (and his readers) knew that his story was not historical. This was perfectly acceptable in the culture in which he lived and wrote. He was not required to give a header which said, “The story I am about to tell is a Midrash (a fictional story to teach a theological principle, not to record actual historical events)”. His book might start off with an historical story, then go to a Midrashic story, and then back to an historical story, etc.. This was not seen as being dishonest, it was seen as being a good writer! People wanted a good story!
So it is entirely possible that the use of Isaiah 53, Isaiah 7, and many other OT fulfillment prophecies found in the Gospel of Matthew (and other NT books) were Midrashic. The author of Matthew most likely never intended to deceive his audience. He knew that these OT prophecies had nothing to do with Jesus. But since he sincerely believed that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah due to an empty tomb/sightings of Jesus, he felt at liberty to create Midrashic stories fitting Jesus the Jewish Messiah into OT stories that originally had no messianic significance.
Many modern readers of the Bible assume that the authors of the Gospels knew they were writing holy scripture. We do not know this to be the fact. It is entirely possible that the author of Matthew wrote his book for a wealthy patron, as were many books in that time period. Since most wealthy patrons were educated and could obviously read books, he or she would have probably been aware of the use of Midrash in Jewish literature and other allegorical literature forms in Greek literature. It therefore would not have bothered the patron to find fictional (Midrashic) stories about Jesus in his newly written “gospel”. However, once this “gospel” started to be used in churches throughout the known world, the original Midrashic interpretation of many of the stories was lost. Stores which were fictional were assumed to be just as historical as the truly historical stories found in the same book. It is for this reason that we must be careful about interpreting every story in the Gospels as historical fact.