7. Isaiah 52:13-53:12

This passage of Scripture is possibly the strongest Messianic portion of Scripture which has found fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth. It uniquely describes the crucifixion suffering of Christ and His death for the redemption of mankind. Because of its length, a short verse by verse Christian exegesis will be provided.“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high” (Isaiah 52:13).This verse refers to the exaltation of the Servant, the Lord Jesus (Matthew 28:18, Colossians 1:13-19), which has in part taken place by His resurrection from the dead. The full unveiling of His majesty is still to come (Philippians 2:5-11; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-12).Verse 14 states that before this exaltation there would be a period of suffering and humiliation.“Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage was marred more than any man and his form than the sons of men”. (Isaiah 52:14)The Lord Jesus was stricken and smitten in his pre-crucifixion proceedings, until He was fully marred and bruised (John 19:1-3).“So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for what had not been told them they shall see”. (Isaiah 52:15)“So shall he sprinkle many nations…” was fulfilled in Christ’s redemptive achievements (Hebrews 12:24). His death and resurrection have brought about the preaching of the good news of salvation in all the world so that all men may know and serve the Lord (Luke 24:46,47 ; Acts 1:8).“Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were our faces from Him; he was despised and we did not esteem Him.” ( Isaiah 53:1-3)These verses speak of the universal rejection of the Servant of the Lord. Jesus was rejected by His own family (John 6:66; 7:1-5), and the Jewish people in general (Matthew 13:55-58 ; John 1:11). He grew up within the Jewish race and Faith which anticipated the glorious coming of the Messiah, yet because of His humble background and the message that He preached, Jesus was despised and rejected (John 19:14,15).“Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all”. (Isaiah 53:4-6)The Servant bore the sins of all people; He took upon Himself the sin and iniquity of the world (John 1:29; Matthew 26:28). Jesus, the Savior, was smitten of God, beaten and afflicted and through His suffering, which ultimately led to death on the cross, He provided forgiveness and salvation for mankind (1 Peter 2:22-24; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21).“He was oppressed and He was afflicted yet He opened not His mouth: He was led as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before it’s shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth.He was taken from prison and from judgment and who will declare His generation? For He was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people He was stricken.” Isaiah 53:7,8)In His trial, Jesus was oppressed and judged wrongly, yet He remained silent. He literally was ‘led as a lamb to the slaughter’ and died for the transgressions of men. (Matthew 26:59-63 ; 27:12-14)“And they made His grave with the wicked – but with the rich at His death; because He had done no violence nor was deceit in His mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9)This verse refers to the crucifixion of Jesus in which He was crucified along with evil doers (two thieves) (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27,28). He also was buried in a tomb provided by a rich man, Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-60). These two minute details concerning the death and burial of the Suffering Servant found perfect fulfillment in Jesus Christ.“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin. He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul and be satisfied. By His knowledge My Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:10-12).Verse 10 states that it was God’s will to bruise His Servant and to put Him to grief. The Jewish rulers and Roman authorities responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus were only instruments used by God (Hebrews 9:26-28; Revelation 13:8; 1 Peter 1:18-20). All of mankind’s sin put the Servant there and the responsibility for His death rests with every person individually. Verse 10 culminates by describing Christ’s resurrection, “… he shall prolong his days…” (Isaiah 53:10d), and the establishment of the Church, “… he shall see his seed” (Isaiah 53:10c). Verses 11 and 12 describe the salvation from sin provided by Jesus’ death and resurrection, “… he has poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12).When all of these predictive factors of Isaiah 52 and 53 are brought together, the fulfillment of this prophetic passage in Jesus Christ is astounding. The following list gives a summary of the fulfillment of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in the life and ministry of Jesus.

• Servant’s body and face is beaten: Isaiah 52:14 – John 19:1,2.
• Servant is not believed in: Isaiah 53:1 – John 1:11, 12:37-39.
• Servant comes from a humble background: Isaiah 53:2 – Luke 2:12,40.
• Servant is rejected by his people: Isaiah 53:3,4 – John 7:46-48.
• Servant is the sin-bearer: Isaiah 53:5,6 – John 1:29; 11:49-52.
• Servant is righteous: Isaiah 53:11 – John 8:46.
• Servant is silent before accusers: Isaiah 53:7 – Matthew 26:59-63.
• Servant dies for men’s sin: Isaiah 53:8 – Matthew 27:1,2.
• Servant is buried in a rich man’s grave: Isaiah 53:9 – Matthew 27:57-60.
• Servant dies with criminals, lawbreakers: Isaiah 53:12 – Matthew 27:38.
• Servant justifies many people: Isaiah 53:11 – Romans 3:22-26.

It is totally impossible that all of these events literally took place in the crucifixion of Jesus by mere chance. Only the supernatural prophetic nature of God’s Word could produce a passage as predictively perfect as this.

Jewish Objections

The position held by Judaism regarding Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is quite different than that of the Christian Faith. There are numerous Jewish arguments brought against this passage and its reference to Jesus.

Four major Jewish objections will be examined here. A) This passage does not refer to the Messiah but rather to the nation of Israel. B) The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death were made to fit the descriptive language of Isaiah 53. C) A careful examination of the life of Jesus does not agree with the Isaiah passage. D) The interpretation of certain verses in Isaiah are not to be taken literally; they are to be understood as metaphors only.

A. “This passage does not refer to the Messiah but rather to the nation of Israel”.

The first Jewish argument states that instead of referring to the Messiah, Isaiah 52:13-53:12 refers to the Jewish people. This has by no means been the opinion of the older Jewish sources, but rather has become the modern exegesis of Isaiah 53 in order to refute the claims of Jesus Christ. Dr. Hengstenberg says:“The Jews in more ancient times unanimously referred this prophecy to the Messiah.” 87Arthur Kac relates concerning this,“Rashi, the Jewish Biblical and Talmudic commentator of the eleventh century, was the first one to suggest that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 represents Israel. It is thought that the suffering inflicted on the Jews by the Crusaders was a determining factor in Rashi’s interpretation. Until then the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 was almost universally understood by the Jews as referring to the Messiah…. Rabbi Moshe Cohen Iben Crispen (fourteenth century) states that those who for controversial reasons apply the prophecy of the Suffering Servant to Israel, find it impossible to understand the true meaning of this prophecy, ‘ having forsaken the knowledge of our teachers and inclined after the stubbornness of their own opinion’. Their misinterpretation, he declares,’ 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’ .” 88In spite of this, 99 out of 100 Jewish polemicists and scholars interpret the totality of this passage as referring to the Jewish people. Samuel Levine gives the essential elements of this argument,“Many Jewish commentators feel that it refers to the Jewish people on the whole. We find many instances in the Bible where the Jewish people on the whole are addressed to, or are described in the singular, such as the famous, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord who is our God, is one’ (Deuteronomy 6:4): the verb ‘hear’ there is singular in the Hebrew. See also, in the Hebrew, Deuteronomy 4:10 (‘omadtah’). The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 are in the singular, in the Hebrew, and yet were addressed to the entire people. Exodus 18:13 ‘the nation stood’ – in the singular again, Exodus 19:2 – ‘camped’, in the singular again. There are many such instances like this in Isaiah as well, if you look at the original Hebrew. Thus, while you will find many places where the plural is used, you will also find many places where the singular is used to describe the entire people.” 89He states further,“Thus, in Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah says that the Jews are to be a light to all nations and are therefore more responsible and therefore Isaiah points out in chapter 53 that the Jews will bear the iniquity of the world. This is a very simple, unforced, smooth understanding of the verses.” 90Gerald Sigal also points out that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 calls the subject being referred to “the rnservant”. He follows this by saying “Israel is often spoken of as the servant of the Lord (e.g. Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21:45:4; 48:20; 49:3).” 91Upon an examination of all the passages mentioned by these two men, the context of each verse either names “Israel” or makes it clear in the passage that the whole Jewish nation is being referred to. The author makes it obvious in the context what the intended meaning is and never is any guess work involved. The singular or plural in each case also makes no difference. For instance, in Exodus 18:13, the people stood is stated in the singular. But the context makes it clear that more than one person is standing and that the entire congregation of people is the subject matter.“But you, Israel, are my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend” (Isaiah 41;8).Again in this verse the clear intent is demonstrated. Israel is referred to as the “servant” only after the author names Israel as the subject. This same type of contextual clarity is found in all of the passages in the Old Testament where Israel is spoken of in this manner. However, no such possible application to the Jewish people can be found in Isaiah 53. Dr. Hengstenberg says regarding interpreting Isaiah 53 as referring to the Jewish people,“It is true, that the Jewish people are sometimes personified as a unity and called servant of Jehovah. But such a personification extended through a whole section, without the slightest intimation that the discourse does not relate to one individual, can be confirmed by no analogous example. In the third verse the subject is termed ‘he’, in the tenth verse a soul is attributed to him; grave and death are used in reference to a subject of the singular number. Did the Prophet wish to be understood, he must have given at least some hint as to his meaning. The Servant suffered voluntarily – vs. 10, innocent – bears all men’s sins, suffered quietly and patiently; Israel – they did not go voluntarily into Babylonian exile – carried away in violence. They did not suffer innocently, but bore in the exile the punishment for their own sins as spoke Moses.” 92This Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 ignores the clear context and meaning of this chapter. In verse three, the Servant is referred to as a “man of sorrows”; in verse four, ”he” carries “our” sorrows and bears “our “ grief. Here the prophet is including to his own Jewish people when he says “our” griefs and sorrows and thus makes a distinction between the Jewish people and “he” the Servant. In verse 9, the Servant is said to be a perfectly innocent person:“…he had done no violence [wrong], neither was any deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9b).In no way could this apply to Israel who throughout the Old Testament is stated to be neither sinless or righteous (Deuteronomy 9:4-6; Joshua 24:9; Ezra 9:6,7: Psalm 14:2,3: Isaiah 1:4; 1:13; 6:1-6; 64:6; 65:7; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Daniel 9:4-6). See Note #3.The prophet Isaiah states in verse 6 that the Servant will bear all of mankind’s sin, which of course, includes the Jewish people. The whole concept of substitution eliminates the Jewish people, seeing that it is impossible Biblically to bear one’s own sin (Psalm 49:7,8 ; Ezekiel 18:10; Leviticus 26:14,15). The words “he” and “we” are also separated from one another in verses 5 and 6. The “we” refers to Isaiah and the rest of Israel; the “he” therefore refers to the individual who is to be the Suffering Servant. The culmination of the suffering that the Servant goes through is his own death. The nation of Israel has suffered, but she has never died.The passage mentions the “mouth” of the Servant, his “visage”, “form”, “soul”, “death”, and “grave” (Isaiah 53:7-12). These singular and human-related terms make clear the simple intent of the author. The Servant is not the Jewish people, but rather was a man chosen of God to fulfill the subject matter of Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Why else would the prophet Isaiah include terms that apply only to an individual? This is the simple, straight forward Messianic exegesis of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and the Jewish polemicists know it! No one else in all of Jewish history fulfills the details of this prophecy like that of Jesus of Nazareth. Mr. Levine makes this very point when he states,“Perhaps Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, and perhaps the Messiah will be despised, etc. – but perhaps this Messiah has not come yet? So what if Jesus suffered, perhaps the real Messiah will also suffer, and so perhaps Isaiah 53 refers to the future Messiah. There is no proof that it refers to Jesus even if the passage refers to a Messiah.” 93In other words, what Mr. Levine is saying is that whoever the Messiah is, he will be exactly like Jesus in all these details, yet of course, not Jesus. Why not just face the fact, that Jesus is the Servant to whom Isaiah refers? Forget the argument from the silent future and deal with the fulfilled facts of history. Jesus is the Suffering Servant – Messiah of whom Isaiah speaks and the facts of history bear this out in ever so clear consistency.

B. “The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death were made to fit the descriptive language of Isaiah 53.”

The second argument is stated by both Levine and Sigal. Mr. Levine says,“Isaiah 53 seems to resemble the crucifixion, but only if the history of the Jesus story is honest and correct. That, however, is very questionable. Read The Passover Plot by Schonfield; keep in mind that if you were making up a story about someone whom you thought was the Messiah, you would try to doctor the story so that it resembled the description written hundreds of years before, in the book of Isaiah, about the Messiah, if indeed (it is talking about the Messiah in the first place).” 94Mr. Sigal reinforces this same argument;“It is well known that much of what the New Testament claims concerning Jesus was added after his death, as his followers began combing the Scriptures in search of proof-texts. They seized upon Isaiah 53 and built the claims of their faith around it. Stories concerning Jesus were adjusted to agree with Isaiah 53…. Early Christianity filled in certain elements in the life of Jesus so that Jesus could fulfill all the biblical passages that the early church considered to contain messianic prophecies. The events of Jesus’ life have been arranged and amplified to accord with the early Christian doctrines and to serve apologetic needs.” 95This argument is used by Jewish polemicists whenever the prophetic passage seems quite clearly to point to Jesus. This has to be the weakest and most unfounded in all of the Jewish polemic arsenal. The Gospel documents are very reliable historical records, written by eyewitness sources. A fair and open-minded evaluation of this I am convinced, will result in an acknowledgment of this assertion. To call into question the events of the New Testament requires a call into question of all that we know of ancient history. This is truly an argument from silence, for it is based on absolutely no facts whatsoever. It is noteworthy that as often as this argument is expressed by Jewish polemicists, not once is a thorough supply of facts presented with it to substantiate the claims. (See the article “Are the New Testament Gospel Documents Reliable?” for a presentation on the evidences for a trustworthy Gospel record.)

C.“The life of Jesus does not agree with the details of this passage”.

The third Jewish argument concerning the Isaiah 52:13-53:12 passage states that if one examines the life of Jesus, the results will demonstrate that in no way could Jesus have been the Servant of whom Isaiah speaks, for the events of Jesus’ life and the criteria of the passage oppose one another. There are four areas mentioned by Jewish polemicists in which these so-called “differences” occur. (1) His physical appearance. (2) His blasphemy. (3) His violence. (4) His offspring.

The Objections

1) His physical appearance : The Servant is depicted in this passage of Scripture as “despised”, “rejected”, “a man of sorrows” – Isaiah 53:3. It also states that “there is no beauty that we should desire of him” – Isaiah 53:2. It is consummated by stating, “we hid as it were our faces from him, he was despised and we esteemed him not” – Isaiah 53:3. Concerning this description Sigal says,“Does this description fit the one of Jesus as depicted by the evangelists? Was he a frail, unsightly child? Was he a repulsive adult? According to them, he was, throughout his entire lifetime, greatly desired by an ever growing multitude of people, as is strikingly illustrated in Luke’s summation of Jesus’ formative years: ‘And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and in physical growth and in favor with God and men’ – Luke 2:52. … There is simply no indications in the Gospels, that Jesus, as he grew up, could in any way be likened to ‘a tender plant’. i.e., stunted, or to a ‘root out of dry land’, i.e. withered or that he was extremely repulsive to look at, as the servant was said to be by his many enemies. We are thus compelled to conclude that the life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, does not at all fit that of the suffering servant of the Lord as portrayed in Isaiah.” 96The fallacy of this argument lies in a misinterpretation of what Isaiah is referring to. Isaiah is not in any manner describing the physical features of the Servant as a child or as an adult, nor is he depicting the response of the multitudes to his physical appearance. Instead, he is referring to the basic rejection of the Servant by his Jewish people. Jesus was not born in a royal, kingly setting, but rather He was born into the humble home of a carpenter (John 1:45,46; 7:45-49: Matthew 13:54-56). He did not align Himself with any of the political, messianic ideas that were contemporary with His time and people. Jesus preached repentance of sin and commitment to the salvation and right-standing with the Father, that only He personally could provide. There was no great political attractiveness in this, nor did it fit with the prevalent national needs of the Jewish community. Jesus was never hailed by the Jewish authorities and political powers as the Messiah-king of Israel, but instead, He was crucified as a blasphemous, deceiver who attempted to “lead Israel astray”. The New Testament makes this point abundantly clear. This is exactly what Isaiah the prophet is referring to and the attempt by Sigal to confuse the intent of the author is not sound Biblical interpretation. In Isaiah 52:14 and Isaiah 53:3, the physical appearance of the Servant is mentioned; however, this applies to the suffering and torment that He had to endure which resulted in His marred and broken condition. The fact that Jesus was a “man of sorrows”, “rejected”, “despised”, with no special beauty or kingly attractiveness, is the picture that the New Testament presents of Him.2) His blasphemy: Samuel Levine verbalizes the second part of this objection.“Isaiah says that the person referred to ‘is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth’ (verse 7). Now, whoever this verse is referring to, one thing is certain – it certainly is not referring to Jesus. If you look at Matthew 27:46, you will see that Jesus, while he was crucified, not only was not silent, but he even seems to be blaspheming, for he cried out with a loud voice ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’ Jesus is crying out to God, and he accuses God of forsaking him. That certainly is not the silent sheep of Isaiah 53, who was not to cry out in a loud voice, nor was he to blaspheme and accuse God in public.” 97Mr. Levine refers to Isaiah 53:7 which deals with the voluntary character of the Servant’s suffering. The Servant is willingly to give His life and die for the sins of mankind. In each of the Gospel accounts, this is exactly the manner in which Jesus was led to His death – Matthew 26:24; 39-54; Mark 14:35,36; Luke 9:51; 22:42; John 10:17; 18:5; 19:11. In no account of Jesus’ trial does He offer speech that was defensive or that resisted the verdict of His judges. Jesus’ trial and death perfectly agree with the description given by Isaiah 53:9. When Jesus uttered the words “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me”, He was by no means blaspheming the Father. Throughout the Gospels, the relationship between Jesus and the Father is described as that of perfect unity (John 10:30; 14:9,10; 17:21-24). But on the cross, Jesus bore the sin of the entire world and experienced the only moment when the Father turned so to speak, His back on the Son. He had literally become “sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21), and felt the awful rejection that would accompany such an event. At that point in time, Jesus uttered these words, which are more than fitting. To suppose that by this utterance, Jesus blasphemes the Father and demonstrates His unwillingness to die is extremely incorrect. Mr. Levine does not believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was a substitutionary atonement for man’s sin nor does he believe that Jesus had a close, unbroken unity of relationship with the Father. But to be consistent with what the New Testament teaches, you cannot use some parts of the New Testament record and reject others and then somehow remain consistent. The only way to understand the agony of Jesus’ at this moment in time is to also understand the significance of what He was doing in taking our sin upon Himself. Over and over again the Gospel’s affirm the obedience of Jesus to do the will of the Father through His suffering and death. In Luke 22:42 Jesus states, “… Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me: nevertheless not My will, but Your’s be done.”3) His violence: The third Jewish objection deals with the description of the suffering Servant in Isaiah 53:9, which states, ‘he had done no violence neither was any deceit in his mouth”Regarding this, Sigal states,“Violence may be defined as causing injury or damage by rough or abusive treatment. If the New Testament account is true, Jesus did commit certain acts of violence. Whip in hand, he attacked the merchants in the Temple area, causing a fracas (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15-16, Luke 19:45, John 2:15). He caused the death by drowning of a herd of swine by allowing demons to purposely enter their bodies (Matthew 8:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33) and destroyed a fig tree for not having fruit out of season (Matthew 21:18-21, Mark 11:13-14) … Whatever the reason for Jesus’ action, it was an act of violence, which is not in conformity with the picture of the nonviolent suffering servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:9.” 98When Isaiah speaks of the Messiah as one who “had done no violence”, he is referring to evil, cruel or wrong acts. The Hebrew word “chamas”, used here for violence, employs exactly this kind of meaning. Jesus never committed evil violence as the word “chamas” implies. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, God at times had to employ violent acts, such as drowning the Egyptian army in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:26-31), disciplining the nation of Israel for their disobedient and sinful acts (Leviticus 10:1-5), judging wicked, evil nations (Nahum 1:1-6). Yet, in none of these instances was the violence of God evil or wrong. Instead, God’s holiness and righteousness was maintained and exalted. The fact that God was wholly without sin, even though violent acts were committed would be strongly supported by these Jewish polemicists. In this exact same sense, Jesus committed acts that were violent; however, they were violent in a godly, righteous manner, and dealt with spiritual principles totally within His authority and power to enforce.The cleansing of the Temple exemplified God’s concern that His Temple not be profaned with thievery and commercial gain. It was to be a place of prayer and worship, giving help and strength to the needy. On this basis, Jesus drove the money-changers and merchants out of the Temple area.The casting out of the demons from the demoniac of Gadara (Mark 5:1-20) and the destruction of the herd of swine which followed also had a purpose behind it. Jesus permits the demons to enter the swine to demonstrate what type of anger demons would inflict upon humans if left to their own liberty and evil. Satan’s total purpose is to destroy mankind and the demonic influence that he exercises in people’s lives has this goal in mind. Jesus does allow the swine to be destroyed. But through this loss a picture is conveyed relating how small of a value temporal riches have in God’s estimation. When the people of the city heard of this apparent disaster, they came to Jesus and asked Him to leave their area (Matthew 8:34). This action demonstrates that the value system of these men placed swine above salvation, for they would rather have had their swine than the Savior. Jesus permitted this event to illustrate to His disciples and all of those who would read of this event within the Gospel record, the importance of the salvation of a human soul when compared to the value of earthly possessions.The destruction of the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-21) was also neither a thoughtless or an evil, violent act. The tree was on the way side; therefore it was not on private property and on this basis any traveler had the right to pick fruit from it. Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree was not based on resentment or disappointment for not finding any fruit on it. Rather, this action was emblematical in nature. Jesus had been preaching the truths of repentance and salvation in Israel for over two and one half years. But by and large, the Jewish nation and its religious leadership had rejected His message. The fig tree, which is very common in Palestine, was used here to represent the nation of Israel. Biblical Scholar Adam Clarke states that this cursing of the fig tree,“… was intended to point out the state of the Jewish people. 1) They made a profession of the true religion. 2) They considered themselves the peculiar people of God and despised and reprobated all others. 3) They were only hypocrites, having nothing of religion but the profession: leaves, and no fruit.” 99Isaiah 53:9 refers to the Messiah as “one who had done no violence”, and by this statement refers to evil, malicious actions, which result in hurtful, harmful destruction. In none of these cases mentioned by the Jewish polemicists, does Jesus commit evil violence. Instead, throughout His life He suffered the hate and malice of others culminating in the death on the cross, where He stated; “ Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).I have offered an interpretation and explanation in each of these cases that demonstrates that these events are not the actions of an evil or violent individual. There may be a better understanding of these passages that demonstrates this truth in a more accurate manner, which I welcome. However ,these answers are provided here as one possible rendering .4) His offspring: Regarding this last objection, Levine states,“In Isaiah 53:10, it says that ‘he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days.’ This means that the subject of Isaiah 53 will have children and live a long life. Since neither of these was true in the life of Jesus, Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Jesus. It could, however, refer quite easily to the Jewish people.” 100The word “seed” that is used in Isaiah 53:10 is the Hebrew word “zera”, and it is used numerous times throughout the Scriptures. It is translated to mean “seed” or “offspring” 101 and implies a literal application. However, there are instances in the Hebrew Scriptures where the word does not follow the strict meaning of a physical seed or offspring. In passages such as Malachi 2:15; Proverbs 11:21; Psalm 22:31; Isaiah 1:4; 57:4; Genesis 3:15; 38:8; Jeremiah 2:21, a somewhat different meaning is employed for the word “zera”. For example, in Genesis 3:15 the “seed of the serpent” hardly refers to a literal serpent and it’s offspring, but rather it refers to Satan and his spiritual followers or offspring. In like manner, Isaiah 53:10 is not to have the strict physical offspring interpretation, but rather applies to a real and literal spiritual seed or offspring.This word “zera” is the proper word to be used in Isaiah 53:10. If we examine the New Testament, we discover that God raised the Messiah from the dead and made Him the head of the new creation or spiritual offspring (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:4; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:15; 4:21-24; 1 Corinthians 15:45-50; John 3:1-8). Isaiah uses the word “zera” to convey exactly this type of meaning, namely that Jesus would “see His seed “ or His Church birthed and then grow and expand (Matthew 16:18; 28:18-20). The word travail “amal” Isaiah 53:10, although not strictly referring to birth pains, most certainly adds to this exegesis of the passage in reference to the spiritual rebirth that faith in Jesus as Messiah, Lord and Savior brings.When all four of these objections are examined carefully, no evidence is presented that invalidates the fulfillment of the “servant” in Jesus’ life and ministry. The life, character and ministry of Jesus perfectly fits with the description of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12.

D. “The descriptions in these verses are not to be taken literally but are metaphors.”

The fourth and last Jewish argument regarding Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is given by Mr. Sigal;“The Christian missionary interpretation of Isaiah 53 posits that such phrases as ‘ for he was cut off out of the land of the living’ (verse 8), ‘his grave was set’ (verse 9), and ‘in his death’ (verse 9) refer to the death and burial of Jesus, with subsequent verses indicating his post-resurrection glorification. Actually, these phrases are not to be taken literally. The metaphor ‘ his grave was set’, describing an event in the life of God’s suffering servant, is similar to the statement, ‘ for he was taken out of the land of the living’ (verse 8). Metaphors of this type used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used for example in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Isaiah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah – ‘cut off out of the land of the living’ and ‘grave’ are also used in Ezekiel’s description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in an apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people exclaim: ‘we are clean cut off’ (Ezekiel 37:11). … It is now clear that Isaiah’s phrase ‘for he was cut off from the land of the living’, refers to the deadly condition of exile. Similarly, the term ‘grave’ in Isaiah ‘and his grave was set with the wicked’ refers to life in exile as used in Ezekiel: ‘I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves’ (Ezekiel 37:12), where ‘graves’ is a metaphor for the lands of exile.” 102The basic reason for the non-literal, metaphorical application of the phrase “he was cut off out of the land of the living” and the words “death” and “grave”, is that a literal exegesis would eliminate the Jewish people as being the Servant referred to in Isaiah 53. The Jewish people have had many terrible periods of persecution and violence, but they have never died or ceased to be. Because of this clear historical fact, a different exegesis for Isaiah 53, other than a literal, obvious one is the only option for Jewish polemicists. There is no question that in the Scriptures, the use of metaphors or figures of speech are employed. Ezekiel 37 is a prime example of this use of metaphors. When a passage is written in such an obvious manner, the text requires the reader to understand this application of metaphorical language because the author makes it clear that this is the intention. The rules of Biblical hermeneutics (rules of interpretation) prove very helpful in solving this type of metaphorical versus non-metaphorical language when one is attempting to understand a text.The following five rules of hermeneutics are listed here to clarify this issue. These principles, which are employed by Jewish and Christian scholars, are based on the fact that the writers of Scripture wrote with the intent of being understood. These five rules are progressive in nature and must be applied to a passage or phrase in the listed order. They are as follows:

• It is necessary, so far as possible, to take the words in their usual and ordinary sense.
• It is necessary to take a word or words in the sense which the setting of the phrase indicates.
• It is necessary to take the words in the sense which the context indicates, that is, the verses which precede and follow the text that is being studied.
• It is necessary to take into consideration the object or design of the book or passage in which obscure words or expressions occur.
• It is necessary to consult parallel passages explaining spiritual things with spiritual. This includes parallels of words, ideas and general teachings. 103

The problem with the Jewish exegesis of Isaiah 53:8,9 is that it bypasses the first four principles and uses only the last rule as it relates to the terms, “death”, “grave” and “cut off”. This procedure proves to be fallacious for it violates the intended order by which these rules are applied. Only when the first three rules cannot render the obvious intent of the author, do the last two become relevant. In this case, if the first three principles are applied to Isaiah 53:8,9, the literal intended meaning is self evident. The first rule states that if possible, we are to take the words in their usual and ordinary sense. The second rule demands that the setting of the phrase be examined and the third rule asserts that the context must be allowed to dictate the intention of the author. By taking the words in their ordinary sense within the setting of the context, a literal interpretation of Isaiah 53 is arrived at. No need for a cross reference or parallel passage such as Ezekiel 37 is needed. The suffering, “the death”, “the grave” and the “cutting off” (an idiom of death) of the Servant work together within this context to make it clear that a literal death is being referred to.As stated earlier, the Servant in Isaiah 53 is referred to in the singular “he” and “him” and is contrasted over against “us” referring to the Jewish and Gentile people (Isaiah 53:3-6). Isaiah 52:14 states that the Servant has a “visage” (appearance) and a “form” and that these were marred and beaten “more than any man” (Isaiah 52:14). Isaiah 53:10 affirms that the Servant has a soul and continues by saying that he will offer his soul as an “offering” “asham” ( a guilt offering) for sin. 104 An offering for sin throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in which an animal was used, was accompanied by the literal death of a sacrifice victim (Exodus 24:5; Leviticus 1:2,10; 4:23-32). Can it ever be said that the Jewish people have offered themselves as an “asham” by literally dying as a sacrifice victim? All of these factors point to a singular individual and a literal death.Lastly, when Isaiah 53:8,9 is coupled with Daniel 9:26, which states that the Messiah will be “cut off”, the literal death and grave of the Servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is strengthened. The Hebrew word used in Daniel 9:26 for “cut off” is the term “karath”, which implies a sudden, violent end. 105 Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, this term refers to a literal, sudden death (Genesis 17:14; Exodus 12:!5; 31:14; Leviticus 7:20-25; Numbers 9:13; Psalms 37:9; Proverbs 2:22; Zechariah 14:2). This is exactly the type of death that Jesus went through in His crucifixion. The literal interpretation of the death of the Servant in Isaiah 53 is the only conclusion that an honest and evidence based examination of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 can render.

7. Summary

The case for the Messianic nature of Isaiah 52:13-53:12,is self evident. It has long been considered a Messianic passage within Judaism. However, because of the obvious similarities between this passage and the life of Jesus, a non-literal exegesis has become the standard Jewish view of Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Jewish polemicists really cannot make up their minds how to refute the Christian position on Isaiah 53. One argument states that in no way do the events of Jesus’ life agree with the facts mentioned in the passage. But a second argument asserts that the agreement between the life of Jesus and Isaiah 53 was the result of proof-texting (making Jesus’ life fit the facts). The contradictions of the Jewish objections to Jesus as the subject of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 are made strikingly clear by the extreme lack of solid reasoning exemplified by the above noted arguments.An honest, non-biased search of the subject matter referred to within this passage will lead one to the Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.