-6-

The Suffering Messiah of Isaiah 53: Part 1

Finally we come to the clearest Messianic prophecy of all (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). Its clarity rises from the text like a majestic mountain with peaks reaching far above the clouds. Any doubts or suspicions that might attend other prophecies applied by the New Testament writers are put to rest by this towering monument to the Messiahship of Jesus.

If Isaiah 53 is shown conclusively to be a prophecy of the Messiah finding historical fulfillment in Jesus, then surely our case is proven from this prophecy alone. Also, credence is automatically given to other Messianic passages that are applied to Jesus that might be plausible but not conclusive in and of themselves. However, if the anti-missionary can defuse our interpretation, then he need not perform mop-up operations on other texts. The battle is conceded. With so much on the line one could scarcely do this prophetic masterpiece justice without devoting two chapters to its exposition.

Israel or Messiah?

Christians are often portrayed as dishonest exegetes who, with Messianic colored spectacles, scan the sacred pages of the Tanakh in desperate search of passages that they can underhandedly apply to Jesus. Regarding the Christian application of Isaiah 53 to Jesus, Levy states: "Isaiah 53 then is in reality no 'proof' at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity" (Jews For Judaism Newsletter, Isaiah 53).

The anti-missionary criticizes our claim that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy concerning the Messiah. He tells us that the proper view is that the suffering Servant of Isaiah has reference to the nation of Israel, not to the Messiah.

Many, however, do not realize that at one time virtually the entire Jewish community believed that this passage was Messianic (though they didn't believe that it applied to Jesus). As the following quotations indicate, the ancient synagogue certainly understood it to be so:

1) During the 1st century in the Targum of Jonathan, the following reference is made to Isaiah 52:13 "...Behold my servant, the Messiah, shall prosper; He shall be high, and increase, and be exceedingly strong."

2) In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, we are told that the name of the Messiah is 'The Leprous.' This name is derived from their interpretation of the Hebrew word "nagua" which is taken from Isaiah 53:4.

3) The Yalkut, (Vol. 2) on Isaiah 52 and 53 correlates Isaiah 53:5 to the Messiah "Where as He was pierced for our sins"

4) In Siphre D' Bay Rav, we have the following quote: "Thus saith Rabbi Jose of Galilee, 'Come and learn of the merits of the King Messiah who grieves for our transgressions, as it is written in Isaiah 53:5, 'But He was wounded for our transgressions.'"

5) In the Midrash Rabbah of Rabbi Moses the preacher, p. 660, we have the following quote:

God hath from the beginning made a covenant with the Messiah and told Him, 'My righteous Messiah, those who are entrusted to you, their sins will bring you into a heavy yoke; your ears will hear great shame; your mouth will taste great bitterness, and your tongue will cleave to the roof of your mouth, and your soul will be weakened in grief and sighing. Are you satisfied with this?' And He answered, 'I joyfully accept all these agonies in order that not one of Israel should be lost.' Immediately, the Messiah accepted all agonies with love, as it is written in Isaiah 53:7, 'he was oppressed and he was afflicted.' (Note also that some of this quote appears to be taken from Psalm 22:16.)

Modern-Day Judaism

Modern-day Jewish thought is that the Servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel. Rashi ('R' Solomon ben Yitzchak) in saying that the passage referred to Israel's sufferings at the hands of the Gentiles, lent support to this position. It is believed, however, that the savage persecution inflicted on the Jewish people by the Catholic Crusaders adversely influenced his interpretation of the passage as the following quote indicates: "Since Christians interpret Isaiah 53 as being a prophecy concerning Jesus, we maintain that this is a prophecy concerning the people of Israel."

Rashi's opinions were adopted by others but he was opposed by Maimonides (who is considered to be the greatest Talmudic authority of  the Middle Ages), by Alshech, and by many others. 'R.' Moshe Cohen Iben Crispin of Cordova (14th century) comments that Rashi "distorts the passage from its natural meaning," for "it was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether He were the Messiah or no." 

The great Jewish educator, Herz Homberg (1749-1841), also took exception to Rashi's interpretation when he says, "According to the opinion of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, it relates to Israel at the end of their captivity. But if so, what can be the meaning of the passage, 'He was wounded for our transgressions'? Who was wounded? Who are the transgressors?  Who carried the sickness and bare the pain?  The fact is that it refers to King Messiah."

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Verse By Verse

Of course, just because the ancient synagogue believed the passage is Messianic does not prove that it is. Ultimately, proof must be derived from the Scriptures. To this end, we shall study the prophecy verse by verse comparing the anti-missionaries' position next to ours. In the process, we will vindicate the Messianic interpretation by the context and demonstrate from history how Jesus fulfilled it.

"Behold, My servant shall prosper, He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was marred more than any man, And his form more than the sons of men" (52:13-14).

The fact that  "my servant" is in the singular does not discount it as being a reference to national Israel. The anti-missionary is right when he states that national Israel is often referred to in the singular. But he fails to take note of the many times "my servant" has reference to a singular individual in the Bible. Abraham, Moses, David and others are referred to as "my servant" (Gen. 26:24; Num. 12:8; 2 Sam. 7:5). In Isaiah 49, "my servant" refers to the Messiah who was to "...raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the nations, that my salvation may be unto the end of the earth"(49:6). (Here the Servant cannot be Israel, as the anti-missionary claims, for he is to  "raise up the tribes of Jacob"). Jesus is called "my servant" in Matthew 12. And His message of salvation went unto all nations in fulfillment of this prophecy (Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47-48, Matt. 28:19).

The fact that God's servant was to "be exalted and lifted up" could also be applied to Israel or the Messiah. The sages of old said that the servant would be exalted higher than Abraham and Moses. It is also significant to note that the next verse talks about God's servant being beaten beyond recognition. This is a perfect description of the abuse Jesus suffered at the cross. Jesus, at Pilate's orders, was scourged (John 19:1). History indicates that the Romans used sharp bones and metal at the end of the whip that would tear into the victim's flesh and muscles. Then they wove a crown of thorns and jammed it onto His head (John 19:2). They spat in His face and took a long stick and struck Him with it on the head again and again (Matt. 27:26-31). He was repeatedly punched in the face. While some crucifixion victims could live on for days, Jesus' beatings were so severe that he lasted a mere six hours on the cross.

To this the anti-missionary is quick to retort: "Look at the abuse Israel has taken over the years, i.e., holocaust, etc." Although the above description seems better fitted for a singular individual, their interpretation is also plausible if taken in isolation from the broader context.

So shall he sprinkle many nations...(52:15a).

The servant was to "sprinkle many nations." Twenty-one out of the twenty-nine times the word "sprinkle" is used elsewhere in the Tanakh; it has to do with the blood atonement. In a few places, it refers to sprinkling of oil or water for a ceremonial cleansing. Here, however, the sprinkling has to do with blood atonement since the servant was to die as an atonement for the sins of the nations and particularly for those of Israel. Nowhere in the Tanakh does it speak of the nation of Israel being a sacrifice for the sins of the nations. But the New Covenant does speak of the sprinkling of Jesus' blood for our atonement:

"...to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling..." (Hebrews 12:24).

"...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus the Messiah..." (1 Peter 1:2).

"...the kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider" (52:15b).

Many Jewish and Christian scholars believe that this verse describes the response of the nations when the Messiah comes to rule on the earth. Christians say that worldly rulers, especially Jewish ones, will be shocked to discover that Jesus was indeed the Messiah that died for the sins of the people. The Jews say that worldly kings will be shocked to find out that Christianity was wrong and the despised Jews were right. Again since both positions are possible, we must go to other verses to find out which interpretation is true.

Based on this verse, Jews For Judaism alleges: "52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53" (Jews For Judaism Newsletter, Isaiah 53; See also Sigal, p. 37).

Upon this premise, Tovia Singer builds a skyscraper of "impeccable" arguments in his three-tape series on Isaiah 53. Indeed, it is crucial for the anti-missionary to establish this. For without it, his whole theory of Israel being the Servant collapses on itself.  In response to this, it should be noted that there are no kings being quoted in Isaiah 53. Isaiah is writing about them, not quoting them! There is no change in person. Singer, to buttress his theory, appeals to Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations putting their hands to their mouths in amazement. But Micah also does not quote the nations, he merely states that they will lick the dust and be "afraid" of God and Israel (v.16-17).  As we shall see, the concept that the ones speaking throughout Isaiah's prophecy are the wicked kings is wholly untenable.  

"[Who has1] believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed:" (53:1).

Obviously, these are not pagan Gentile kings speaking Jewish theology here. The "our" has reference to Isaiah and those with whom he identifies the Jewish nation. Here we find the first inference that the Messiah's initial appearance had to be taken by faith. As we've seen, first century Israel, like her twentieth century counterpart, was bent on seeing the Messiah come as a glorious conqueror. When Jesus came to them "lowly," riding on a donkey, they simply would not believe Isaiah's report. "He came to his own and his own received him not" (John 1:12). 

"For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground..."(53:2a).

Here it speaks of the Messiah growing up as a tender plant. This intimates that the servant would start out as all men do, a mere infant. He will not be an angel from heaven who dramatically appears on the scene. A plant starts as a single seed buried in the ground. Jesus' incarnation started as the "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15). After His birth, "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men" (Luke 2:52).

"...he had no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him" (53:2b).

The gospel writers note nothing spectacular about Jesus' outward appearance. The emphasis is always placed on His inner beauty. There were times in Israel's history when she possessed an outwardly beautiful appearance, i.e., when the Queen of Sheba came and marveled at Solomon's well-ordered kingdom. In fact, every nation on earth came to hear the great wisdom of Solomon. Each one brought costly gifts (1 Kings 10). But the beauty of the Servant of Isaiah's discourse would not be outward but rather the inward beauty of a sinless soul.                

This is the first verse in Isaiah's prophetic discourse where we find conclusive evidence that the Servant could not possibly be national Israel. Isaiah distinguishes the Servant from the nation of Israel when he says, "when we see him." The "we" refers to Isaiah and the nation of Israel. The "him" refers to the Servant. The two could not be one and the same. Acceptance of the anti-missionary position would reduce Isaiah's teaching to a senseless tautology: "and when [Israel] will see [Israel]." This obviously does not make any sense.

But "when [Israel] shall see [the Messiah]" does make sense. This distinction continues throughout verses 3-8 as the Prophet contrasts the Servant of God to Israel eight times proving conclusively that the servant cannot be the nation of Israel.

He was despised and we esteemed him not (verse 3);...he hath borne griefs inflicted by us...we did esteem him...(v. 4); he was wounded through our transgressions,...the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his wounds we were healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the LORD hath caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon him (v. 5-6); For he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people [a phrase which always has reference to the nation of Israel in the Tanakh] was he stricken (v.8).

"He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we esteemed him not"(53:3).

Without question, the Messiah in His first appearance was to be unpopular and rejected. But Larry Levy asks how can this be true of Jesus when the New Testament says he was, "’praised by all’ (Luke 4:14-15); followed by multitudes (Matt.4:25) who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt.21:9-11); had a multitude bemoan his fate at his crucifixion (Lk. 23:27); taken by stealth, as the rulers feared ‘a riot of the people’" (Mk. 14:1-2)? (Jews For Judaism Newsletter, Isaiah 53).

Levy, unfortunately, did not study these passages closely enough. Jesus was indeed patronized by thousands of Jews, particularly during the year of His popularity (His second year of ministry). But most became disenchanted and gradually forsook Jesus. Remember Moses, a prophet to whom Jesus is likened (Deut. 18:15 cf. Acts 3:22-23), at first was so famous that even a mixed multitude of Egyptians followed him out of Egypt in addition to the nation of Israel. But Moses' popularity did not last long. Eventually the very ones he delivered out of Egypt rejected him.

The quotation from Luke 4:14-15 was not talking about everyone in Israel but only those in the region of Galilee. By reading the next verse, one discovers Jesus being driven out of Nazareth by the religious Jews who had previously praised Him (Luke 4:14-30). Thousands of Jews did follow Jesus at various times of His ministry. But they were only a small fraction of the total population of Israel. The word "multitude" in the gospels could be as many as five thousand (Matt. 14:19-21) or as few as one hundred and fifty-three (John 21:6). Moreover, most within these multitudes were nominal disciples who, according to Jesus, followed Him for the "fishes and loaves" He had miraculously provided. Even they eventually forsook Jesus when they realized that He was not going to establish an earthly kingdom and deliver them from the Romans (John 6). Only 120 of Christ's disciples were there on the day of Pentecost awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:15). This was 50 days after His resurrection. While he was on earth, He had perhaps only 500 true disciples (1 Cor. 15:6).

Regarding the rejection of the Messiah, we might ask our Jewish brethren about whom did David prophesy when he said the "stone which the builders rejected has become the capstone"? (Psalm 118:22, cf. Isa. 28:16). Jesus posed this very same question to the leaders of His day. And it has reference to none other than the One who fulfilled it, Jesus the Messiah. (Psalm 118:22 is quoted and applied to Jesus in Luke 20:17, cf. 1 Peter 2:8.)  

"Surely he hath borne griefs inflicted by us, and suffered sorrows we have caused: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted" (53:4).  

Since this verse is quoted in Matthew and applied to Jesus' healing the sick (Matt. 8:17), the anti-missionary concludes that even the New Testament writers did not believe that this prophecy had reference to Jesus' atonement for sin. But this does not logically follow. Just because Matthew applies verse 4 to physical illness, doesn't mean that other verses could not have reference to spiritual salvation. Philip applied Isa. 53:7-8 to Jesus' death (Acts 8:32-33), and Peter applied Isa. 53:5-6 to our salvation from sin (1 Peter 2:24-25). The Hebrew word for "griefs" is "choliy." It means sicknesses. Both physical and spiritual sicknesses are the result of man's fall. The Messiah is to banish both. While Jesus was healing people of physical sickness, "the kingdom of God" was among us (Luke 11:20). His healing miracles were a foretaste of the complete healing that will prevail in the coming Messianic kingdom when the curse of sickness and disease is permanently repealed.

Incredibly enough, some anti-missionaries argue that Jesus couldn't be the Servant of Isaiah 53 because He did not die by disease. The rank inconsistency of this argument is revealed by the fact that the anti-missionary still sees the passage as being fulfilled in national Israel, which did not die by disease either.

< Chapter 5 | Chapter 7 >