A Summary of Isaiah 53 – The Nations’ View

We now come to the final part of this three part series of articles. It is interesting that this is what most of the discussion is about. When looked at properly, it is the least important. Whatever the seeming disagreements as to the meaning of the words that we find, they do not effect the essential issues in Isaiah 53. We all agree that Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:10-12 are God’s words/opinion. But for some reason everyone ignores those verses and just jumps straight into 53:4-9; ignoring what God had to say. They interpret the words of God based on what the speaker here is saying instead of the opposite.

In the last article I showed how God’s view as stated explicitly in Isaiah 53:10-12 is that the servant, national Israel, is suffering in her exile for her sins, as stated in the Torah. The result of that suffering is national repentance and redemption from exile. This suffering is a process of purification to bring them to repentance and that after that time they will be redeemed from exile and receive great rewards. Some of these rewards will actually filter to the rest of the world who will follow the lead of the Jewish people as we point out from Isaiah 2:2-4, or as Isaiah says in chapter 11:

11:9. They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea bed.

We also have seen from my first article that in Isaiah 53:1-3 the nations do come to some type of realization of the truth with regards to Israel. In verse 3 they confess to having had a low regard for Israel. Now the big question is do the nations really get what was going on or not? We know what God has said. In 53:10-12 He makes clear what His intentions had been. In 4-9 we are going to see what the nations think God meant by this all. Do they fully comprehend what God’s plan had been with regards to Israel being in exile or not?

There is one point we need to have in mind as we read the words of the nations. This is that while Israel was sent into exile by God for her national sins, that does not mean the nations were innocent for their actions. While the exile was necessary to bring Israel to repentance, the nations acted far beyond that which was desired by God. We see this from various verses in Tenach. In Isaiah 40 at the very beginning of the section 40-66, which deals with Israel in exile; God’s comforting of His people in that exile and her eventual redemption, we find God saying:

40:2. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem and call to her, her time has been completed, for her iniquity has been appeased, for she has taken from the hand of the Lord double for all her sins.

We see the same thing in the same context in Zechariah 1:

1:14. And the angel who was speaking to me said to me, "Proclaim, saying: 'So said the Lord of Hosts, I am jealous for Jerusalem, and for Zion-great jealousy.

15. And I am very angry with the nations that are at ease, for I was angry a little, and they helped to do harm.'

16. Therefore, so said the Lord: 'I have returned to Jerusalem with mercy; My house shall be built there,' says the Lord of Hosts. 'And a plumb line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem.'

Here we see that while God had decreed exile, the nations went far beyond what was required, and they aroused God’s anger on themselves for that. This is very similar to the case of Israel in exile in Egypt, which was the result of the decree of God to Abraham. Yet because the Egyptians cruelty went well beyond what was needed to fulfill the prophecy of exile, they were punished and God showed mercy and love to Israel.

Because of the ambiguity of the language used in these verses in some places, it is possible to understand the verses differently, with two basically different views[1] as to the meaning. I will explain each verse in a way to bring out these two views. One view sees what happened to Israel as having been for their (the nations) benefit. Another view sees that they just hadn’t understood what God intended, and because of that they sinned in their relationship to Israel. Although the first does not exclude the second, the opposite is not the case[2]. As I go through the verses then they disagree we will look first at the view that indicates that the nations don’t get it, and then we will look at view indicating they are remorseful and realize they were wrong.

Here is a translation of the verses 4-9. I have translated them in a way that the ambiguity is still there, and as I go through them I will point these ambiguities.

53:4: Truthfully, he bore our illnesses, and carried our pains: but we did consider him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was pained for [alt. by] our transgressions, he was oppressed for [alt. by] our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his bruises we were healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; everyone has turned his own way; and HaShem afflicted upon him (Alt. found him) the sin of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep silent before her shearers, so he did not open his mouth.

8 From prison and from judgment he was taken: and about his generation who would relate (about him)? He was removed from the living land: for (alt. from) the transgression of my people he was [lit. they were] stricken.

9 And he was given to the wicked for his grave, and with the rich in his death [lit. deaths]; for he did not do any violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

* * *

53:4: Truthfully, he bore our illnesses, and carried our pains: but we did consider him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted.

There are two parts to this that need to be explained:

1.    Truthfully, he bore our illnesses, and carried our pains

2.    but we did consider him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted.

The first part: “Truthfully, he bore our illnesses, and carried our pains”; is seen differently by the two different views. The first view is that the nations, who don’t get it; they see the suffering of Israel as substitution, and as atoning for them. Here they are saying: “We (the nations) have sinned and should have been punished, but Israel suffered in our place”. The second view sees that their actions were the cause of the suffering, and that Israel suffered from their sinful actions. As I pointed out in the second part of these articles ‘illness’ and ‘pains’ as refer to the types of suffering the nations afflicted Israel with in her exile.

The second part: “we did consider him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted”; applies to both views equally. The nations confess that they considered Israel enemies of God. Whether these nations are Muslims who considered them Dhimmis, and distorters of God’s original word in the Torah of Moses; or Christian who considered them rejected because Israel rejected Jesus and his message, both agreed to Israel’s being cursed and their subjection being a sign of that. They thought that all of their suffering, even the holocaust, was for their sin of rejecting their religion. In a sense both miss the point. The suffering of Israel was not a curse, but a blessing from God to allow them to atone for their national sin.

* * *

53:5 But he was pained for [alt. by] our transgressions, he was oppressed for [alt. by] our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his bruises we were healed.

This verse is also in two parts as follows:

1.    But he was pained for [alt. by] our transgressions, he was oppressed for [alt. by] our iniquities

2.    the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his bruises we were healed

In the first part we see again how there are two views of the nations’ understanding of Israel’s suffering. First, those who still don’t get it; they think that the servant, Israel, suffered in the place of them. In this case we read it as: But he was pained (in place of us) for our transgressions, he was oppressed (in place of us) for our iniquities.

The second view is that his suffering was the result of our (the nations’) sinful actions. In this sense we read it as: But he was pained (by us ;) by our transgressions, he was oppressed (by us ;) by our iniquities. This means that they sinned and in so doing caused Israel to suffer.

In the second part we see the first view as understanding that by the servant, Israel, we (the nations) have had peace, physically and spiritually and were spared injury. According to the second view, this reflects the intentions that they had. We thought that by causing Israel to suffer we would have peace, and be spared from suffering God’s anger. This is why Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 and many other lands over the centuries.

* * *

53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; everyone has turned his own way; and HaShem afflicted him (Alt. found him) with our sins.

In this verse there are two parts, one where both agree, and the other where they have a different perspective.

1.    All we like sheep have gone astray; everyone has turned his own way

2.    HaShem afflicted upon him (Alt. found him) the sin of us all

Both views see this first part; “All we like sheep have gone astray; everyone has turned his own way”; as an indication of how they were in error thinking Israel was cursed, and that God was desirous that the nations should oppress and kill Israel. They went their own way and never recognized the true God.

The second part: “HaShem afflicted upon him the sin of us all” is seen differently by the two views. The first sees it as meaning that God placed their sins on Israel and Israel suffered in order to bring a benefit; atonement. While the second sees it with the alternate meaning: “HaShem found him with the sin of us all”. The meaning being that God allowed our sins to find him; He allowed that we should sin and oppress Israel.  

* * *

53:7 He was oppressed, and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep silent before her shearers, so he did not open his mouth.

Here both witness to the passivity of Israel over the centuries. From the time of the Bar Kochbah rebellion which tried to reestablish the Kingdom and the temple until the state of Israel was established, the Jewish people have suffered in many lands and at many times. In all those years, through persecution, expulsions, crusades, and outright slaughters, there are no examples before the 20^th century of any attempts to make a military stand. Even in the second world war when 6 million were killed all over Eastern Europe there was barely any resistance to the Nazis. Millions got into ditches or on the trains and went to their death in Poland, Russia and Hungary without struggle.

* * *

53:8 From prison and from judgment he was taken: and about his generation who would relate (about him)? He was removed from the living land: for the transgression of my people he was [lit. they were] stricken.

Here we again see two parts.

1.    From prison and from judgment he was taken: and about his generation who would relate (about him)? He was removed from the living land

2.    for (alt. from) the transgression of my people he was [lit. they were] stricken

The first part; “From prison and from judgment he was taken: and about his generation who would relate (about him)? He was removed from the living land” there is agreement by both views. Both see this as relating the suffering that Israel had: imprisonment, judgments, exile (the living land is a euphemism for Israel) and death. Who could have understood at the time the true meaning of this?

The second part is again the disagreement with both views. The first view sees:” for the transgression of my people he was [lit. they were] stricken“, meaning that they suffered for their sins. While the second view sees: “from the transgression of my people he was [lit. they were] stricken” meaning that Israel suffered by the sinning of the nations. The word למו literally means ‘to them’, but either translation works as Israel is many times used in the singular.

* * *

53:9 And he was given to the wicked for his grave, and with the rich in his death [lit. deaths]; for he did not do any violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Here again they are both are in agreement that this refers to Israel. Israel was considered wicked when they were killed, but they were innocent of what they were being persecuted for. Just like Pharaoh was wicked to persecute the Jewish people even though there was a decree of exile, so it was here. As we saw before they were not guilty of what they were being persecuted for. There was a decree of exile, but NOT of persecution and death. They should have been in exile as they were in Babylonia, in their own homes and in peace.

* * *

Here we see that all of what appears here conforms to what we have seen before, the only problems occur in how we interpret the views stated by the nations. Either they do not ‘get it’ and think that the punishment was to help them, or the more truthful view that it was just the sins of the nations that put Israel through this suffering, when their exile was supposed to be peaceful, and the nations are repentant for their actions.

We have now come to the end of this three part series. The conclusion is clear, there is no alternative we can only say that the suffering servant is Israel, who bore the suffering at the hand of the nations while in exile, and by so doing merited great rewards.

© Moshe Shulman 2014 http://www.judaismsanswer.com    

For more information, questions answered, or help with missionaries you can reach Moshe Shulman at outreach@judaismsanswer.com.