ISAIAH’S SERVANT & THE SEED PT. 1

In the next two posts I will be excerpting Messianic Jewish scholar and apologist Dr. Michael L. Brown’s lengthy exposition and defense of the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, which can be found in Volume 3 of his multi-volume work, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, published by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2003.

4.6. Isaiah 53 speaks of the people of Israel, not Jesus (or any Messiah).

It is impossible, both contextually and logically, for Isaiah 53 to be speaking of the people of Israel. Rather, the text clearly speaks of one individual, and as many rabbis recognized through the ages, that individual was the Messiah.

For the last thousand years, religious Jews have often interpreted Isaiah 53 with reference to the people of Israel, but that has by no means been the consensus interpretation, and it is not the interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis. So, for example, the Targum interprets the passage with reference to the Messiah—as a warring, victorious king, even to the point of completely twisting the meaning of key verses117 —while the Talmud generally interprets the passage with reference to the Messiah, or key individuals (like Moses or Phineas), or the righteous (for details on this, see 4.8).

Note also that Saʿadiah Gaon influential ninth-century Rabbinic leader, interpreted Isaiah 53 with reference to Jeremiah. This means that virtually without exception, the earliest traditional Jewish sources—and therefore the most authoritative Jewish sources—interpret Isaiah 52:13–53:12 with reference to an individual, and in some cases, with reference to the Messiah. As stated above (4.5), this is highly significant.

While it is true that Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak all interpreted the passage with reference to Israel, other equally prominent leaders, such as Moses ben Nachman (called Nachmanides or the Ramban), felt compelled to follow the weight of ancient tradition and embrace the individual, Messianic interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis (found in the Midrash, despite his belief that the plain sense of the text supported the national interpretation).

Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, “Our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.” This too is highly significant, since Alshech claims that all his contemporaries agreed with the Messianic reading of the text, despite the fact that Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak had all come out against that reading. Could it be that Rabbi Alshech and his contemporaries came to their conclusions because the text clearly pointed in that direction? The Messianic interpretation is also found in the Zohar as well as in some later midrashic works (for references, see below, 4.8). Thus, it is clear that there is substantial Jewish tradition—spanning a period of up to two thousand years—that differs with your objection.

Most recently—really, from the early 1990s and right up to this day—Isaiah 53 has been applied to Menachem Schneerson (1902–1994), the Grand Rabbi of the Lubavitcher Hasidic movement. Obviously, his followers had no problem applying the prophecy to him as an individual (as opposed to the people of Israel as a whole), in keeping with the most ancient Jewish traditions.

All this is especially important when you realize that sections from Isaiah 52:1353:12 are quoted several times in the New Testament, and the passage as a whole can arguably be called the clearest prophecy of Jesus in the entire Tanakh. Yet many traditional Jewish commentators and teachers have still interpreted the prophecy as Messianic.

How tempting it would have been for the Talmudic rabbis and their successors to interpret this passage with reference to Israel—rather than to the Messiah or any other individual—seeing that it played such an important role in Christian interpretation and polemics. Yet they did not interpret the passage with reference to the nation of Israel in any recorded traditional source for almost one thousand years, nor did they interpret it with reference to national Israel with unanimity thereafter.

This is all the more striking when you consider that there is a tradition dating back to Origen, a scholarly Christian leader in the second century, who stated that some Jewish leaders in his day interpreted the passage with reference to Israel, not the Messiah.¹¹⁸ In other words, the national, non-Messianic interpretation was apparently used in some Jewish circles more than three centuries before the completion of the Talmud, yet it simply didn’t stick. It was known, it seems, but it didn’t take root in any Rabbinic source of any kind until the eleventh century. This is saying something!

Still, the bottom line is the scriptural text itself, and a careful examination of the evidence makes it clear that Isaiah 52:13–53:12 cannot refer to Israel as a whole for the following reasons.

1. Throughout Isaiah 52:13–53:12, the servant is depicted as completely righteous yet lowly and afflicted, despised and rejected (before his final exaltation). This cannot possibly apply to the people of Israel as a nation; otherwise, the Torah cannot be true. For the Torah plainly promises, again and again, that if, as a nation, we live righteously before God, we will be the head and not the tail, lifted high and not brought low, blessed and not afflicted, revered and not rejected. This is indisputably clear, as Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 explain in great detail. Really, I see no way that an honest reading of these lengthy Torah passages (which do not stand alone but rather summarize what is taught throughout the Torah) can differ with this conclusion: If the people of Israel were righteous, as described in Isaiah 53, then they would be blessed and not cursed. (See vol. 1, 2.4.)

It was only when our nation as a whole (or as the clear majority) was sinful (and therefore hostile to God and his servants) that a righteous individual (like Jeremiah or one of the prophets) or a righteous remnant (like the few godly believers in Elijah’s day) could suffer for their righteousness, since they would be going against the grain of a society that had rejected God and his laws. But the thought of the people of Israel, as a whole, being righteous and yet suffering for their righteousness is totally unthinkable from a Torah perspective.¹¹⁹ For righteous Israel to suffer humiliation, shame, and death at the hands of her enemies—going like sheep to the slaughter—would be a complete breach of the national covenant, since the Torah explicitly taught that Israel’s blessings and curses would first be experienced in this world as opposed to the world to come (see again vol. 1, 2.4). In Christian terms, such a reversal of the covenant promises would be similar to Jesus condemning a true Christian to hell. Yet according to your interpretation, God himself (see Isa. 53:10) would cause totally righteous and obedient Israel to be slaughtered by the Gentiles to the point of total, national disfigurement (interpreting Isaiah 52:14 according to your viewpoint, with reference to the nation, not an individual). Quite simply, this cannot be.

2. According to Isaiah 52:13–15, the servant of the Lord would not only suffer terrible disfigurement and suffering but would then be highly exalted, to the point that kings would stand in awe of him and bow down to him. While this applies perfectly to Jesus the Messiah, who is adored and venerated by kings and leaders around the world, no such exaltation has taken place for our people Israel. So, not only do the verses referred to not fit the corporate Israel interpretation, but the verses that follow can hardly be understood to be the words of the kings! How could these kings confess their wonder and amazement at Israel’s exaltation if such exaltation has never occurred?¹²⁰

3. Isaiah presents a picture of a totally righteous, guileless servant of the Lord. According to the anti-missionaries, this is a picture of Israel. But when did our nation ever live like this? When do the Scriptures, or even our own history books, record a time when as a nation, there was no deceit on our lips or violence in our midst (Isa. 53:9), when we were as silent as lambs going to the slaughter before our oppressors (v. 7)? What generation could be called God’s “righteous servant” (v. 11)? Yet if the national interpretation were true, Israel would have to be a righteous nation. At no point in our history has this been true. Is that the reason that the closest the Talmud comes to a national interpretation of Isaiah 53 is in b. Berakhot 5a, where verse 10 is applied to righteous individuals within the nation?

Note carefully that the servant was not smitten by God because of his guilt but rather because of the guilt of others (Isa. 53:4, 8). The servant was not guilty! The others transgressed, committed iniquity, and went astray (vv. 5–6). Not so the servant of the Lord! He bore the sin of many, but he himself did not sin (v. 12). This description fits Yeshua perfectly. In no way does it describe the people of Israel (or any other people for that matter).

4. According to Isaiah 53:4–6 and 12, the servant’s suffering brought healing to the people. We sinned, he suffered, and his suffering brought us redemption and forgiveness and mercy and healing. This cannot possibly apply to the sufferings of Israel. Our people’s terrible suffering did not bring healing to the nations who afflicted us. To the contrary, the nations who attacked us and punished us and abused us were judged by God for their deeds! (We will return to this shortly, when we deal with Isaiah 52:3–5, below.) In complete contrast with this, when our Messiah died on the cross, he prayed for those crucifying him, saying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34), and he explained to his disciples prior to his death that his body was being broken and his blood was being shed as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). He died for a sinning world. He died that we might live. All who have truly put their trust in him have found forgiveness of sin and transformation of life by the power of his death and resurrection.

Once again, it is only fair to ask, When can these truths be applied to the people of Israel? How is it right to apply Isaiah 53 to the nation as a whole? The answer by now should be obvious: Isaiah 53 does not apply to the nation but to a righteous individual who represents the nation—Yeshua, our Messiah and King.

“There’s still one problem with your argument,” you say. “You neglected to factor in Psalm 44, a lengthy passage of Scripture that demonstrates that even righteous Israel sometimes suffered terribly at the hands of its enemies. This undermines one of your main points and backs up my position that Isaiah 53 is speaking of righteous Israel suffering humiliation and pain at the hands of its oppressors.”

At first glance, Psalm 44 seems to back up your thesis, describing in detail the terrible sufferings that the nation was experiencing—rejected by God; plundered by their enemies; given up to be devoured by the nations; disgraced, taunted, and shamed; brought down to the dust—and then stating explicitly:

Indeed, some of these very verses have been quoted at the beginning of deeply moving studies on the Holocaust, especially verse 17, “All this happened to us though we had not forgotten you or been false to your covenant.” Doesn’t this mean, then, that the Jewish people as a nation could be godly and righteous and yet be judged by God and defeated and destroyed by their enemies? Certainly not! As previously emphasized, that would make void the whole theology of the Torah and completely contradict fundamental passages in God’s covenant with our people (in particular, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) stating that national obedience would bring blessing, while national disobedience would bring judgment. Yet if your reading of Psalm 44 were correct, it would mean that national obedience brought judgment. This simply cannot be.

“But what about Isaiah 52:3–5, where the text explicitly states that the Jewish people were sold into captivity although they had done nothing wrong. And this is the very text that precedes Isaiah 53!”

As rendered in the NJPSV, Isaiah 52:3–5 reads:

Does this text indicate that Israel suffered without cause? Obviously not. Rather, the Hebrew words hinam (vv. 3 and 5, translated here as “no price” and “for nothing”) and ʾephes (v. 4, rendered here as “nothing”) simply compliment the words “without money” in verse 3. It is true that hinam can sometimes mean “without cause” (as in Job 9:17; Ps. 35:7), but it can also mean “in vain” (as in Prov. 1:17) or “without compensation” (as in Gen. 29:15). As for ʾephes, it simply means “nothing, none” and has no moral connotations in the Scriptures (see, e.g., Isa. 5:8, where ʾephes maqom means “no place”). 121 How then can we be sure how these words should be rendered here? The context makes it obvious: As stated, the issue is one of “no money, no compensation,” as introduced in verse 3, “You were sold for nothing, and without money you will be redeemed,” and that is the theme of verses 4–5, as quoted above. Also, Isaiah elsewhere states that Israel was “sold” because of its sins! This is the prophet’s theology of why his people suffered: “Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away” (Isa. 50:1b; the Hebrew verb for “sold” is identical in form to that found in 52:3).¹²²

There is even a Talmudic interpretation of Isaiah 52:3 that states that the phrase “for nothing were you sold” means “[you were exiled] because you worshipped idols [which have no value],” while the phrase “and without money you will be redeemed” means “even without repentance and good deeds” (b. Sanhedrin 98a).¹²³ So the Talmud states that the people of Israel were exiled because of their sins rather than without cause. Note also that Isaiah 52:4 specifically mentions Assyria’s treatment of the Jewish people. But in Isaiah 10:6b, God said of this same Assyria, “I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me.” Thus, our people’s suffering and exile were hardly without cause; rather, it was without compensation. This agrees with the consistent teaching of the Scriptures.¹²⁴

How then should Psalm 44 be understood? Very simply, it is the prayer of the righteous remnant on behalf of the sinning nation. It is the godly “standing in the gap” for the godless, the righteous making intercession on behalf of the unrighteous. 125 You see, when the nation as a whole persisted in sin, it brought divine judgment down on everyone, and even the righteous suffered in the midst of their guilty brothers and sisters (cf. Lam. 2:1–12). National sin made life miserable for one and all alike.

Thus, in Psalm 44, the godly, suffering minority intercedes for the ungodly, suffering majority. Also, because of Israel’s sense of corporate solidaritythey were one body, one community, and one member was intertwined with another member, for better or for worse—as the righteous Israelites watched their sinning brethren being destroyed, they prayed for the others as if they were praying for themselves.

Normally, in the Tanakh the righteous intercessors would take on the guilt of the nation, as Daniel did in his prayer recorded in Daniel 9. Verses 5–8 express this clearly:

… we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. We have not listened to your servants the prophets… . Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered usbecause of our unfaithfulness to you. O LORD, we and our kings, our princes and ourfathers are covered with shame because wehave sinned against you.

Daniel himself was righteous, but he freely and fully confessed the sins of his people as his own as well, including himself by saying “we” and “our” instead of “they” and “their” (cf. also Neh. 1:4–7; Ezra 9:1–15).

In Psalm 44 the godly remnant makes an appeal to the Lord based on their innocence, crying out for mercy on the nation as a whole because of their devotion to him (or at the least, crying out for mercy on themselves because of their devotion). This is the only interpretation that makes sense in light of the explicit teaching of the Torah and the consistent historical testimony of the entire Hebrew Bible, both of which testify to the fact that obedient Israel was blessed by God, while disobedient Israel was judged by him. Moreover, this sheds light on the intercessory power of the Messiah, described in Isaiah 53 and further explained in the New Testament writings: Through his perfect righteousness, the Messiah was able to make multitudes of sinners righteous too (Isa. 53:11b; Rom. 5:15–21).

None of this can be said about the so-called righteous remnant of Israel. Certainly, the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that in every generation in Israel’s history there were righteous individuals—never the majority of the people but always the decided minority—and these individuals often went against the grain of the sinful society and corrupt religious establishment. I have no problem with the concept of a righteous remnant. 126 The problem arises when we try to make them into a distinct entity, as required by the text of Isaiah 53. In reality, this “remnant” has no history and cannot possibly be described with words such as, “He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground” (Isa. 53:2a), since the righteous remnant does not have a specific origin or upbringing. Nor do verses such as Isaiah 53:7, speaking of the servant’s lamblike silence and submission in the midst of his suffering, apply to the remnant, which was sometimes actively opposed to the sinful majority and even led resistance movements to overthrow their oppressors (as the Maccabees did in the second century B.C.E.). Nor was the righteous remnant ever highly exalted to the point that kings bowed down before it/them, as stated explicitly in the end of Isaiah 52. Quite simply, a concrete person, not an abstract group of hardly identifiable individuals, is described by the prophet in Isaiah 53.

This is driven home by reading some of Rashi’s comments to Isaiah 53, all of which make far more sense when applied to Jesus, our Messiah, than when applied to the righteous remnant. As you read, ask yourself, Who does this describe? (For an enlightening experiment, when Rashi says “Israel,” substitute “Yeshua” instead.)

Again I ask, Who does this describe?

4.7. The rabbis only applied Isaiah 52:13–15, not 53:1–12, to the Messiah son of David.

Absolutely not. In fact, an Orthodox anti-missionary made this very claim—quite emphatically—in a live radio debate with me in 1991. Needless to say, he had to come back on the air and admit his error.

The question here is not whether the traditional rabbis applied this passage to Jesus (obviously, they did not, or else they would not have been traditional rabbis). Rather, the question is whether they applied it to the Messiah son of David (as opposed to the Messiah son of Joseph, the suffering Messiah of Jewish tradition; see vol. 2, 3.23)—and it is a question in which I have a special interest. As I explained in volume 2 (pp. 225–26):

I am especially familiar with these interpretations due to an unusual event that took place when holding a live radio debate with anti-missionary Rabbi Tovia Singer in May of 1991. As we were discussing Isaiah 53, Rabbi Singer stated that not one traditional Jewish Bible commentary interpreted the passage with reference to Messiah son of David. I differed with him emphatically, stating that several traditional commentaries did, in fact, say that Isaiah 53 referred to the Messiah. To this Rabbi Singer gave me a challenge: If he could prove me wrong, would I become a traditional Jew? “Yes,” I responded (since I was sure I was right in my position), asking him in return, “Would you become a Messianic Jew if I could prove you wrong?” To this he in turn responded, “Yes.” Right then and there, we shook hands on it. And he was wrong indeed! In fact, we got on the air again a few weeks later (together with the host and moderator, Messianic Jewish leader Sid Roth), and Rabbi Singer explained that what he meant to say was that no traditional Jewish commentary applied Isaiah 53 to the death of the Messiah son of David—a subject that had never come up once in our previous discussion.

Of course, Sid and I released Rabbi Singer from his promise (I never expected him to become a believer in Jesus just because he made a mistake in the middle of a live debate), but an unforgettable lesson was learned: Even traditional Jewish commentators referred Isaiah 53 to the Messiah, meaning Messiah son of David.¹²⁷

What commentators did I have in mind? Most prominently, I pointed to Nachmanides (the Ramban), one of the greatest of all medieval Jewish thinkers, a commentator, a mystic, a philosopher, and a legal scholar. He claimed that Isaiah spoke of “the Messiah, the son of David… [who] will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies.”¹²⁸ Other commentators have interpreted this key passage with reference to the sufferings of Messiah son of David. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin (or Ibn Krispin), first described the highly exalted nature of the Messiah (following a famous midrash to Isaiah 52:13; see vol. 2, 3.22) and then spoke of his sufferings in great detail, explaining that he would share Israel’s “subjugation and distress and be exceedingly afflicted.”¹²⁹ Rabbi Mosheh El-Sheikh (or Alshekh), claimed that “our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah” and also referred to a midrash that stated, “of all the sufferings which entered into the world, one third was for David and the fathers, one for the generation in exile, and one for the King Messiah.”¹³⁰ There is no debating this!

4.8. It is not true that the medieval rabbis were the first to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel instead of the Messiah. The Israel interpretation is actually very ancient.

You’re partially correct. The earliest reference to this interpretation is found in a second-century Christian source recounting a discussion between a Gentile follower of Jesus and some Jewish teachers who did not believe in him. But aside from one passing reference in Midrash Rabbah (where part of one verse is interpreted with reference to the righteous), a specific identification of Isaiah 53 with Israel is not found in any Rabbinic literature until almost one thousand years after Jesus. (In other words, it is not found in the Talmuds, the Targums, or in the midrashim.) Therefore, the view that Isaiah 53 spoke of Israel can hardly be considered a standard (or ancient) Rabbinic interpretation, and for the traditional Jew, that’s what really matters.

There is really nothing puzzling here at all. The evidence is well known and has been fully accessible for centuries. The Rabbinic data is as follows:

• Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 52:13–53:12 (which, for simplicity in this discussion, we will simply call Isaiah 53) with reference to the Messiah, despite the fact that the Targum virtually rewrites the entire passage, changing the verses that speak clearly of the servant’s sufferings so that they speak instead of the suffering of the nations. This means the Messianic interpretation of the passage must have been quite prominent when the Targum was being formed, since it would have been much easier to not add the explicit reference to the Messiah (in 52:13) rather than to virtually rewrite the verses that seemed to contradict the expected role of the Messiah.¹³¹

• The Talmud interprets various verses in this section with reference to righteous individuals within Israel (including the Messiah) but never once with reference to the nation of Israel as a whole.¹³² The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) applies 53:12 to Rabbi Akiva, while the Babylonian Talmud applies 53:4 to the Messiah in Sanhedrin 98b, 53:10 to the righteous in general in Berakhot 5a, and 53:12 to Moses in Sotah 14a.

• Midrash Rabbah interprets 53:5 with reference to the Messiah (Ruth Rabbah 2:14), while interpreting 53:12 with reference to Israel in exile (Numbers Rabbah 13:2). This last interpretation, offered in a passing interpretation of Song of Solomon 5:1, is the one and only time in the first thousand years of recorded Rabbinic literature that any portion of any verse in Isaiah 53 is applied to Israel as a nation.

• Yalkut Shimoni (a thirteenth-century compilation of earlier midrashic writings) applies 52:13 to the Messiah, stating that the Messiah—called the great mountain according to the Yalkut’s interpretation of Zechariah 4:7—is “greater than the patriarchs … higher than Abraham … lifted up above Moses … and loftier than the ministering angels” (2:571; see also 2:621). Isaiah 53:5 is applied to the sufferings of “King Messiah” (2:620),¹³³ while 53:12 is applied to Moses (2:338), as in the Talmudic passage referred to above.

Reviewing the above evidence, one thing is clear: The ancient rabbis—traditional Judaism’s most authoritative sources—almost always interpreted Isaiah 53 with reference to an individual rather than to Israel as a whole or to the righteous within Israel, and this individual was most commonly interpreted to be the Messiah. Once again, I cannot underscore how important this is for a traditional Jew, nor can I emphasize enough how this fact has largely been obscured by later interpreters: The Messianic interpretation was common among the ancient rabbis! As we noted above (4.6), even Rabbi Saʿadiah Gaon, the renowned leader of Babylonian Jewry in the ninth century, who did not interpret this chapter as Messianic, still follows the individual interpretation of the passage, explaining it with reference to Jeremiah. Surely, if the national interpretation had been common, he would have endorsed it, especially since it would have helped him in his polemics against the Christianity of his day.

The first authoritative recorded instance of Isaiah 53 being interpreted with reference to national Israel is found in the commentary of Rashi (eleventh century), who interpreted it, however, in terms of the righteous remnant of Jacob. Not surprisingly, Ibn Ezra (twelfth century), who also read Isaiah 53 as speaking of the people of Israel, began his comments with the words, “This is an extremely difficult passage.” But when we read it with reference to Yeshua, it is not difficult at all. Rather, it is wonderfully clear, giving the reader the distinct feeling that the chapter was written after the Messiah’s crucifixion and resurrection. Despite the fact that Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak (twelfth to thirteenth century) as well all stated that the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 was national Israel (or the righteous remnant within the nation)—rather than the prophet himself or the Messiah—many other Jewish commentators, even in our day, still claim that the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 is the Messiah.

As stated above (4.6), the only ancient reference of any kind to the national interpretation of Isaiah 53 is actually found in a non-Jewish source, namely, a polemical work entitled Contra Celsum, written by the second-century Christian scholar Origen. In this work Origen refutes the arguments of an opponent of both Judaism and Christianity named Celsus, and while discussing Messianic prophecies, Origen makes reference to a disputation he once had with some learned Jews, stating that the Jews interpreted Isaiah 53 in terms of Israel’s national suffering:

Outside of this one lone reference—from an ancient Christian source, not an ancient Jewish source—there are no ancient Jewish references to this national interpretation, an interpretation that does not become prominent until the biblical commentary of Rashi, who wrote more than four hundred years after the completion of the Babylonian Talmud.

From this survey, it should be clear that your objection is completely unfounded.

4.9. Isaiah 53 contains the words of the repentant kings of the nations rather than the words of the Jewish people.

This is not possible. The servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 was smitten for the sins of his people, while he himself was guiltless. In complete contrast to this, the Torah promised that the people of Israel would be smitten for their own sins, not for the sins of the nations. Even more importantly, the sufferings of the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 bring healing to those for whom he suffered, whereas when Israel was smitten by its enemies because of its sins, God subsequently judged those nations for overdoing the punishment. Israel’s suffering brought judgment rather than healing to Assyria, Babylon, Greece, and Rome—to name just a few of the nations used by God to judge his people Israel. (For more on these points, see above, 4.54.6.) At any rate, the text plainly says that the servant was suffering for the sins of “my people,” which in context must refer to Israel, with either God speaking (“My people”) or the prophet speaking (“my people”).

Although this objection may seem odd at first glance, it appears to have some textual support, since Isaiah 52:15 says, “Kings will shut their mouths because of him [i.e., the servant of the Lord]. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard [from the root sh-m-ʿ], they will understand.” The very next verse, 53:1, opens with the question, “Who has believed our message [also from the root sh-m-ʿ] and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?” Doesn’t this indicate that these kings are the ones raising this question, asking who has believed their report? Certainly not; the rest of the chapter simply does not support this thesis.135

Now, I could simply point out that it is somewhat ludicrous to put one of the loftiest theological statements in the Bible into the mouths of pagan, idol-worshiping kings. This is not only illogical; it is without precedent. Even the case of God speaking through the pagan prophet Balaam (Numbers 22–24) does not offer a true parallel to this, since (1) Isaiah 53 is presented as thoughtful reflection whereas Balaam’s prophecies are divinely inspired utterances delivered contrary to his own desires, and (2) the Balaam oracles do not present deep redemptive truths, such as the theology of vicarious suffering outlined in Isaiah 53, but rather messages concerning God’s choosing of Israel out of the nations.

But there are more substantial arguments that invalidate this objection. First, there is a fundamental theological flaw in the interpretation that the Gentile kings are the speakers in Isaiah 53. According to Jeremiah 30:11, God would completely destroy the nations among whom he scattered his people. While he promised to discipline his people—hence their scattering among these nations—he would eventually judge those nations for their sins against Israel. So, God’s people would suffer for their own sins, often at the hands of their enemies, but then the Lord would destroy those enemies. This is the opposite of what Isaiah 53 states: The servant was guiltless, suffering for the sins of his guilty people, who are then healed by his suffering. How then can the Gentile kings—kings who are promised judgment, not blessing, for inflicting pain on the Jewish people—be pictured as the speakers in this chapter? If they were the speakers, they should have said, “We inflicted great suffering on the people of Israel, who were guilty of great sin against God, but we went too far in our punishments, and now Israel’s God will utterly destroy us.” There’s quite a difference!

Look at Isaiah 10:5–34. God used Assyria to judge his sinning people (Israel and Judah), but Assyria was full of pride and was especially vicious. As a result, God said he would bring devastating destruction on that proud nation, which is exactly what he did. Similarly, in Habakkuk 1 the Lord said he would use the Babylonians (literally, Chaldeans) to judge Judah, but then in the next chapter the prophet is told that the Lord would judge godless Babylon for its treatment of the Jewish people. This is also a prominent theme in Jeremiah, where Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon’s greatest leader, is actually called the Lord’s servant (e.g., Jer. 27:6). Yet Babylon itself would be judged and utterly destroyed (see Jeremiah 50–51). It is abundantly clear, then, that the kings of these nations would hardly be declaring that they were healed through Israel’s innocent suffering at their hands. Not at all! Israel’s suffering was because of national sin, and the nations that inflicted that suffering were then destroyed by the Lord. 136 Therefore, from a theological, scriptural perspective, it is not possible that the Gentile kings are speaking in this passage.

Second, there is a serious contextual and grammatical flaw in this viewpoint. Look carefully at the consistent language of the entire passage. First person singular is only used by God: my servant (52:13), my righteous servant (53:11), therefore I will … (53:12). The same holds true for my people in 53:8.¹³⁷ God himself is speaking about his servant suffering for his people Israel, rather than the kings speaking of their people individually. This becomes even more clear when we realize that the onlookers in this passage (according to this objection, the Gentile kings) always express themselves in the first person plural: our message (53:1); to attract us … that we should desire him (53:2); we esteemed him not (53:3); our infirmities … our sorrows … we considered him (53:4); our transgressions … our iniquities … brought us peace … we are healed (53:5); we all … each of us … the iniquity of us all (53:6)—and then this language stops in verse 6. No more “we, us, our”—not once—indicating that whatever group is speaking, be it the people of Israel as a whole or the alleged kings of the nations, they are no longer speaking after verse 6. The narrator must be either the prophet or (much more likely) God, speaking in the first person singular and describing the sufferings of the servant in the third person singular. And this means that the only possible meaning of my people in Isaiah 53:8 is that the servant of the Lord suffered for the people of Israel, not that the servant was actually the people of Israel themselves.138

So then, even if someone tried to make the (highly unlikely) case that foreign kings were actually speaking in the first six verses of Isaiah 53, it is clear that their words stop right there, God (or possibly the prophet) stating clearly that the servant was suffering for the sins of his people Israel (and by extension, for the sins of the nations). So, even if the opening verses described the words of the astonished kings (again, an interpretation with little support), the verses describe their words of astonishment when they recognize Yeshua, the despised and rejected one, as the highly exalted servant of the Lord.¹³⁹

In concluding the answer to this objection, I’d like you to consider something of great importance: If the subject of this chapter—the righteous, suffering servant of the Lord who was mocked, rejected, despised, and killed—is actually Jesus of Nazareth, who then are the speakers in this chapter who say, “We didn’t understand that he was suffering for our sins. We thought God had rejected him and he was suffering for his own disobedience. We didn’t realize he was dying for us!” Read these words carefully:

Is the picture coming into focus for you now? These are not the words of the Gentile kings, the great majority of whom had no idea what was happening in Judea two thousand years ago. These are the words of our own people! These are the words of the Messiah’s blood brothers: “We thought he was dying a criminal’s death. We had no idea he was dying for us!” And this continues to be the attitude of most of our people to this day: “We don’t know why Jesus was crucified. Apparently he was some kind of threat to the Roman government. Or maybe he was just a false prophet. Obviously, he did something wrong and paid for it.” Not so! Rather, we did something wrong—every one of us born into this world—and he paid for that. That is good news!

But the story doesn’t end there. A careful reading of the passage from Isaiah 53 quoted above tells us something else: Although our people did not initially realize why Yeshua the Messiah was dying, and although to this very day most of our people continue to misunderstand the nature and purpose of his sacrifice for our sins, eventually our people will see it clearly. Remember, according to the text, they are the ones who declare, “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). Suddenly, the light went on, the revelation came, and the incredibly rich spiritual confession was made by our people. So be it!

Who was it who failed to understand why Yeshua was suffering, believing that Yeshua was suffering for his own sins and not for the sins of the world? Historically, it is clear that my people Israel—including some who are even now reading this book—have done exactly what Isaiah prophesied. And this leads to only one conclusion: Jewish friend, your healing comes from him!

¹¹⁷ See above, n. 113 (Levey); cf. further vol. 2, 3.23.

¹¹⁸ See Origen, Contra Celsum, bk. 1, chap. 55, cited in 4.8.

¹¹⁹ It is for this very reason that followers of Jesus are promised persecution, namely, suffering for righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world, living as strangers and pilgrims in an often hostile environment (see, e.g., Matt 5:10–12; 10:16ff.; John 15:18ff.; Acts 5:41; Phil 1:29, among many references); see further vol. 1, 2.6, and cf. Joseph Ton (Tson), Suffering, Martyrdom, and Rewards in Heaven (Lanham, Md.: Univ. Press of America, 1997).

¹²⁰ Ibn Ezra, in harmony with other classical Jewish commentaries, claims that Isaiah 49:7 (“This is what the LORD says—the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation, to the servant of rulers: ‘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.’ ”) refers to the prophet himself rather than to the nation. But this passage clearly parallels the promise to the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 52:1315, a passage interpreted by Ibn Ezra with reference to the nation of Israel as a whole.

¹²¹ According to Delitzsch (Isaiah, 772), beʾephes in this context means, “‘for nothing,’ i.e., without having acquired any right to it, but rather serving in its unrighteousness simply as the blind instrument of the righteousness of Jehovah, who through the instrumentality of Asshur put an end first of all to the kingdom of Israel, and then to the kingdom of Judah.” The NIV renders this as “lately,” a translation rightly rejected in its day by Delitzsch (ibid.). The Stone edition appropriately renders hinam as “for naught” in Isaiah 52:3, 5 but then translates beʾephes as “without justification”—a rendering that is without justification. For other usages of ʾephes (related to the meanings of “end, extremity, nonexistence”), see further D. J. A. Clines, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–), 1:359.

¹²² A number of Christian translations (such as the NLT and NRSV) render some of these terms with “without justification” or “without cause.” See, e.g., the NLT’s rendering of v. 4a, “Now they have been oppressed without cause by Assyria”), apparently overlooking the teaching of Isaiah and the other prophets that God used Assyria to judge Israel and Judah because of sin (see, e.g., Isa. 10:5ff.).

¹²³ As rendered by Asher Finkel, Ein Yaakov, CD Rom ed. (Northvale, N.J.: Aronson).

¹²⁴ Isaiah 57:1 is no exception. Rather, it says that the reason righteous individuals sometimes die before their time is to spare them from a greater calamity that is about to befall the sinning nation; cf. 1 Kings 14:1–13.

¹²⁵ Cf. Ezek. 22:30–31; also 13:4–5; Ps. 106:23; cf. further Yohanan Muffs, “Who Will Stand in the Breach?: A Study of Prophetic Intercession,” in idem, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), 9–48. Cf. also Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 236; and idem, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 463.

¹²⁶ Cf. the standard study of Gerhard Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, Andrews University Monographs, 5 (Berrien Springs: Andrews Univ. Press, 1974).

¹²⁷ Audio copies of the debate (including a recap with Sid Roth) are available through ICN Ministries, 4000

West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, FL 32506; http://www.icnministries.org.

¹²⁸ See S. R. Driver and Adolph Neubauer, eds. and trans., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters, 2 vols. (New York: Ktav, 1969), 2:78.

¹²⁹ For a more extended quote from Ibn Krispin on this subject, see vol. 2, pp. 215–16.

¹³⁰ Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:259.

¹³¹ Cf. the discussion in Levey, The Messiah, an Aramaic Interpretation; see further Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, repr. with Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach as Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York: Ktav, 1983).

¹³² The question raised by the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:34 (while reading Isaiah 53:7–8)—“Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”—is in keeping with this line of reasoning and is completely consistent with the most obvious meaning of the text.

¹³³ This interpretaƟon is in the midrash to Psalm 2:6, dealing with the Hebrew word nasakti, interpreted here to mean, “I have woven him,” with reference to Judges 16:14, i.e., “I have drawn him out of the chastisements.” R. Huna, on the authority of R. Aha, says, “The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, etc.’ ” See Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:10, for the translaƟon.

¹³⁴ Origen, Contra Celsum (i.e., Origen Against Celsus), bk. 1, chap. 55 (5:218).

¹³⁵ Allan A. MacRae, a staunch evangelical Old Testament scholar, believed that the Gentile kings spoke the opening verses of Isaiah 53. However, in his view, this actually enhanced, not detracted from, the Messianic application of this chapter to Jesus. See his study on Isaiah 40–55, The Gospel of Isaiah (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977).

¹³⁶ According to Ibn Ezra, the Jewish people brought healing to the nations in which they were scattered by praying for the peace and prosperity of those nations (as per Jer. 29:7). While this is certainly a noble thought, and while it is no doubt true that Jews have, at times, prayed for the welfare of the nations among whom they were scattered, this is not what Isaiah 53 states. Rather, it is the servant of the Lord’s actual suffering that brings healing (see esp. vv. 4–6; only v. 12 partially supports Ibn Ezra’s view). Does anyone imagine that during the horrors of the Holocaust, our people were praying for God’s blessings on Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and the other nations that were slaughtering them? This is not meant to criticize the actions or reactions of our people toward their persecutors and oppressors; it is simply to say that the picture painted in Isaiah 53 did not accurately apply to them.

¹³⁷ It is interesting to note that in the first edition of the NJPSV Isaiah (1972; the translation was attributed to H. L. Ginsberg), Isaiah 53:8 was rendered with “My people,” the uppercase M indicating that deity was speaking. In the second edition (1986 or later), this phrase is changed to “my people,” lowercase, indicating that the prophet was speaking. In either case, whether the Lord or the prophet is speaking, it is clear that this is not the voice of the Gentile kings.

¹³⁸ I would encourage you to read through the Book of Lamentations and ask these two questions: For whose sins were the people of Israel suffering? Does the author of Lamentations fully acknowledge his people’s guilt? The answers are self-evident.

¹³⁹ Cf. the posiƟon of MacRae, cited above, n. 135.

¹⁴⁰ The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah reads nwgʿ lmw, taken by Semitic scholar Mitchell Dahood to be a passive form (a Qal passive, to be exact), hence, “smitten for them” (see his article, “Phoenician Elements in Isaiah 52:13–53:12,” in Hans Goedicke, ed., Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971], 69–70). This reading completely removes the very basis of this part of the “plural servant” objection. Note, however, that the passive meaning is not assured, according to the scholar of Hebrew and Aramaic Edward Yechezkel Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, trans. Elisha Qimron (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979). Kutscher explains the anomalous form as a phonetic variation.

¹⁴¹ For the emendation of the text from bemotayw (“in his deaths”) to bamato (“his burial mound”), cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 348; see further W. Boyd Barrick, “The Rich Man from Arimathea Matt. 27:5760) and 1QIsaa,” Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 235–39, following Ibn Ezra. This, of course, would completely remove the very objection being raised, since the noun would no longer be read as plural.

¹⁴² These arguments were already refuted in the nineteenth century by the Oxford Hebrew scholar Eberhard Pusey (see his preface to Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah; this two-volume project was actually Pusey’s idea; see Raphael Loewe’s fascinating prolegomenon to this book for further background). For a popular study, cf. Judy Conaway, The Rejected Cornerstone: Does Yeshua Fulfill the Prophecy of Isaiah 53? (n.p.: n.p., 2001).

¹⁴³ Cf. Luke 2:22–24 with LeviƟcus 12:8.

¹⁴⁴ The original source of this quote is unknown to me.

¹⁴⁵ It is fair to ask a follower of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menchaem Schneerson, hailed by many of his followers as the Messiah, how the picture of Isaiah 53 correlates with his life, since his disciples pointed to this very passage of Scripture when he suffered a debilitating stroke in 1992 at the age of ninety. He had several hundred thousand devotees around the world and was considered by his people to be the most influential Jewish leader of the twentieth century. Can’t the same objection raised here against Jesus—incorrectly so, as we have seen—also be raised against the Rebbe? Yet anti-missionaries in his camp use this objection against Yeshua!

In the next part I will quote the rest of Brown’s defense of the Messianic interpretation of Isa. 52:13-53:12: ISAIAH’S SERVANT & THE SEED PT. 2 .