Isaiah 53 — An Answer to the Objections of "Jews for Judaism"
Friend, this article is a detailed argument. It is not a meditation on the chapter — the meditation is in a companion article titled "Isaiah 53: The Wounded Servant and the Love That Will Not End" — but a reasoned defense, point by point, of the messianic reading of Isaiah 53, against the strongest objections raised by the writers of the Jewish counter-missionary movement.
We will take twenty-four objections, encompassing the whole of what Jews for Judaism raises against Isaiah 53 in both of its articles together: "Debunking the Forbidden Chapter Conspiracy" by Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz, and "Isaiah 53 — A Jewish Perspective"; together with objections from other writers in the same movement — the Aish website, Outreach Judaism, Rabbi Tovia Singer, and others. Our method with each objection is consistent: we state the objection exactly as its authors wrote it; then we answer it with a multi-layered response from the Hebrew text; then — and here lies the difference — we anticipate the counter-rebuttal with which the other side will answer our answer, and we answer that too. For a true defense does not merely say its piece; it reaches the opponent's reply before he does.
Before We Begin — A Word to the Brother Seeking Truth
Friend, if you have arrived at this article, you are most likely a person not satisfied with feeling alone. You want to examine. You want to hear the strongest case against the messianic reading of Isaiah 53, and the strongest case in its defense, and then judge for yourself. This is an honorable posture, and we respect it deeply. The book of Proverbs itself says: "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him" (Proverbs 18:17). This article is "the neighbour who comes and searches."
This article is a companion to another — a long meditation on Isaiah 53 titled "The Wounded Servant and the Love That Will Not End." That article is for the heart; this one is for the mind. If you have not read the meditation yet, you may wish to read it first, for the cross is felt before it is fought. But if your mind is full of objections, you are entirely welcome here — because honest objections deserve an honest answer, detailed, with no evasion.
We will state every objection in complete honesty, exactly as its authors wrote it, not as we wish they had said it. Then we will answer it with a multi-layered response. Then — and this is the most important part — we will anticipate the counter-rebuttal, the objection with which the other side will answer our answer, and we will answer that too. This is how an attorney works before a court: it is not enough for him to present his argument; he must reach his opponent's objection before it is spoken, and refute it in advance. And the honest attorney does not hide the strongest form of his opponent's case; he puts it in its clearest possible form, then answers it. That is what we do here: we will not weaken an objection to make it easy to refute; we will strengthen it to the fullest form its authors gave it, and then answer.
And let the tone of this article be fire and love together. Fire, because the truth deserves to be defended with all our strength. And love, because the person we are addressing — the Jewish brother who is zealous for his heritage — deserves every respect and every warmth. We do not argue against an enemy; we argue with a brother whom we love, and we are jealous that the truth should reach him whole.
Objection One — There Is No Rabbinic Decree Forbidding the Reading of Any Part of the Tanakh
The objection as it is raised: Rabbi Kravitz says that missionaries claim there is a "conspiracy" to hide Isaiah 53; the truth is that there is no rabbinic decree forbidding any Jew from reading any part of his book. The whole Tanakh — Isaiah included — is available to anyone who wishes. So the claim of a "forbidden chapter" is false.
The answer: We agree with this objection completely — indeed, we insist on it before the rabbi does. There is no "forbidden chapter." There is no seal, no decree, no prohibition. Any Jew can open the Tanakh this very moment and read Isaiah 53. Whoever told you there is a "ban" was mistaken, and we correct that error ourselves, plainly, at the head of this article and in its companion. So if all the rabbi wishes to establish is that "there is no official ban," he has established it, and we testify to it for him.
But notice carefully what this objection does: it answers a charge we never made — the charge of "official prohibition" — and leaves the real question unanswered. This is what logicians call the "straw man fallacy": one builds an imaginary opponent, easy to topple, topples it, and imagines he has toppled the real opponent. We did not say "conspiracy"; we said "omission." And the difference between them is the difference between a charge and an observation. A charge needs a hidden intent; an observation needs only a visible fact. And the visible fact is this: a Jew who attends synagogue faithfully his whole life, who hears the Haftarah every Sabbath, over whom the cycle of prophetic readings passes year after year, never once hears Isaiah 53 read aloud publicly — because the cycle jumps from Isaiah 52:12 to 54:1, skipping the passage between them (52:13–53:12). This is a fact the rabbi himself does not deny. So the correct word is not "forbidden," but "omitted" or "skipped" from the public reading cycle. And we use the correct word.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The rabbi will say: "But omission from the reading cycle means nothing; most of the book of Isaiah, indeed most of the Prophets, is not included in the Haftarah. The cycle is short by nature and cannot hold everything." This is a sound reply on its face, and we take it seriously. But it does not survive one question: of all the un-included passages, why is this particular passage the most theologically profound and the most closely matched to a substitutionary death and a resurrection? We do not say every omitted passage hides a secret. We say that one particular passage — the most precise description of a sinless servant scourged, silent, dying, buried with a rich man, then seeing his seed — is the one absent from the pulpit. And when the absent one is precisely this, the honest seeker has every right to ask: why? We do not accuse; we ask. And the question remains standing after the word "conspiracy" falls away. Indeed, the passages immediately surrounding Isaiah 53 — chapter 52 and chapter 54 — are both read in the Haftarah. The cycle approaches the chapter from both sides, then leaps over it alone. And this pattern — not a "ban," but this precise pattern — is what calls for an explanation.
Objection Two — The Prophetic Readings Arose in the Time of Antiochus for an Innocent Reason
The objection as it is raised: The rabbi says the weekly prophetic readings (the Haftarah) were established in the second century BC, when the Greek king Antiochus forbade the Jews to read the Torah; so the sages chose passages from the Prophets that shared the Torah's theme, so that the forbidden Torah reading would not be forgotten. The chosen passages follow the annual Torah cycle, the festivals of the year, and the weeks of consolation after the commemoration of the Temple's destruction; and Isaiah 53 was not chosen because it does not specifically address consolation.
The answer: This is a reasonable historical explanation, and we do not dispute its origin. Yes, this is most likely how the Haftarah arose, and yes, the passages were chosen to match Torah themes and occasions. We accept all of this. But notice carefully what this explanation proves and what it does not. It explains why the passages that were chosen were chosen. But it does not explain the continuation of the omission for two thousand years afterward.
Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that Isaiah 53 matched no Torah reading in the second century BC. Very well. But the Haftarah cycle did not freeze in that century; it grew, was adjusted, and had occasions added to it over the centuries that followed. And the rabbi himself mentions the "seven weeks of consolation" in which passages from Isaiah are read. So if there are seven whole weeks devoted to reading Isaiah as consolation — and Isaiah 53 sits at the heart of this part of the book, between chapter 52 and chapter 54, both of which are included — the question grows sharper: how were the chapters surrounding it on both sides chosen, and it alone left in the middle?
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The rabbi will say that Isaiah 53 "does not address consolation" — it is a text of pain and crushing, not a text of comfort, and therefore does not suit the weeks of consolation. This is a clever reply — but it actually hands us a precious point. Why is Isaiah 53 not considered a text of consolation? Because its subject is not an oppressed nation being comforted in its sufferings, but a sinless individual servant crushed for the sins of others, who then — in verses 10 and 11 — "sees his seed, prolongs his days" and "justifies many." So if the chapter, by the rabbi's own admission, is not a text of consolation for a nation — that is precisely what we are saying: it is not about the nation. It is a text of atonement for a suffering servant who dies and rises. The argument advanced to explain its absence testifies, when completed, that its subject is of an entirely different kind. Then notice a deeper irony: the weeks of consolation are about the consolation of Israel after the Temple's destruction. So if Isaiah 53 described suffering, oppressed Israel — as the collective objection claims — it would be the single most fitting text of all for the weeks of consolation! How can the text be, at the same time, "about suffering Israel" and unfit for the weeks of Israel's consolation? The two positions cannot stand together. Either the chapter is about suffering Israel and so fits consolation, or it is not about her. And the tradition's choice not to place it in consolation favors the latter.
Objection Three — If There Were a Conspiracy, Isaiah 9:6 Would Not Have Been Included
The objection as it is raised: The rabbi says that if the rabbis had conspired to hide the prophecies Christians claim are about the Messiah, they would not have included Isaiah 9:6 — "unto us a child is born" — in the Haftarah of "Yitro," as is customary in many communities; their including it proves there is no conspiracy to hide messianic texts. And the rabbis know that Isaiah 9:6, when read in its context, is understood of King Hezekiah, not of the Messiah.
The answer: This is a clever objection, and we accept it with all gladness — indeed we thank the rabbi for it, because it clarifies an important point. Yes, the inclusion of Isaiah 9:6 proves there was no comprehensive, organized conspiracy to hide every text with a messianic ring. And we — let this be entirely clear — do not hold the theory of a comprehensive conspiracy, and never have.
But see how this very argument rebounds to strengthen our position rather than weaken it. Why could Isaiah 9:6 be included without discomfort? The answer is in the rabbi's own article: because Isaiah 9:6, as he says, can be read of King Hezekiah. That is, it is a text susceptible of being redirected to a historical Jewish figure, so it causes no embarrassment when read publicly. And this is precisely the essential difference. Isaiah 53 is not redirectable with the same ease. A sinless servant scourged, silent, cut off out of the land of the living, buried with a rich man, then seeing his seed and prolonging his days, and justifying many — this description does not adhere to Hezekiah, who sinned (2 Kings 20), died an ordinary death, and justified no one.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The rabbi will say: "But this only means Isaiah 53 is harder to apply to a historical Jewish individual — not that there is embarrassment in it. Its absence from the Haftarah is due to subject, not embarrassment." Well, but this reply returns us to the same point from another angle. You say Isaiah 9:6 is easy to apply to Hezekiah, and Isaiah 53 is hard to apply to any Jewish king. Excellent — that is what we are saying. The text that "escapes" to a comfortable figure was included, and the text that "resists" every comfortable interpretation remained in the shadow. We do not claim that anyone convened and decided to hide it; we claim only that the pattern is clear: what could be redirected was read, and what resisted redirection was not read. And the honest seeker asks: and why does Isaiah 53 resist every interpretation but one — a sinless individual servant who dies substitutionally and then rises?
Objection Four — The 4Q176 Scroll Refutes the Rabbinic Conspiracy
The objection as it is raised: The rabbi says that among the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a scroll called 4Q176, also known as "4QTanhumim" — "Consolation Passages" — which gathers texts from Isaiah read as consolation over the Temple's destruction. This scroll does not include Isaiah 53. And since the Qumran scrolls belong to a non-rabbinic Jewish sect, the absence of Isaiah 53 from the consolation scroll refutes the claim that the rabbis "removed" the chapter; it was not included even among a non-rabbinic sect.
The answer: Yes, we accept this, and we accept it with joy. The 4Q176 scroll does indeed refute the idea of a rabbinic conspiracy — and we do not hold the conspiracy idea to begin with. So if the rabbi cites this scroll to topple the theory of "the rabbis removing the chapter," he has toppled it, and we agree with him.
But let us complete what this scroll began, for the citation stopped at half the conclusion. What does 4Q176 actually tell us, when we complete the reading? It tells us that an ancient Jewish sect — predating rabbinic Judaism by centuries — gathered the consolation passages from Isaiah, and did not include Isaiah 53 among them. That is, Isaiah 53 was not classified as a "consolation text" even before rabbinic Judaism. And this topples one argument, and leaves standing — indeed doubles — another.
It topples the claim that the rabbis "removed it"; it was not within the consolation category to begin with. But it leaves the real question standing with greater force: why was Isaiah 53 never classified — not before rabbinic Judaism and not after, not among the Qumranites and not among the rabbis — among the texts of consolation for the nation? The honest answer before the text is the one consistent with all the evidence: because Isaiah 53 is not a text of consolation for an oppressed nation. It is a text of atonement for a suffering servant who dies for the sins of others. Even the sect that wrote 4Q176 seemed to sense that this chapter is of another kind.
Indeed, in the Qumran scrolls there is something more eloquent than this silence. In the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa) — the oldest complete copy we possess of the book of Isaiah, dating to about 125 BC — Isaiah 53 is present in full, letter for letter, more than a century before the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. So the sect that did not include the chapter among the "consolation passages" is the same sect that preserved its text complete and unabridged. They did not omit it out of ignorance of it; they omitted it from the consolation category while knowing it thoroughly. And this strengthens our observation: Isaiah 53 was never, in the consciousness of the ancient Jews themselves, a "text of consolation for a nation."
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: Someone will say: "But the absence of Isaiah 53 from one particular consolation scroll may be mere chance in the scribes' selection, or because the scroll is incomplete and eroded." This is a sound methodological objection, and we take it seriously. That is why we do not build on 4Q176 alone. Rather, we observe that the same picture repeats everywhere: neither the rabbinic Haftarah included it in consolation, nor did Qumran include it in consolation. When one text is absent from one source, that is chance. But when the same text is absent, consistently, from every "consolation" classification in two independent Jewish traditions separated by centuries and by doctrinal disagreement — that is a pattern that demands an explanation. And the explanation that explains the whole pattern at once is that the subject of Isaiah 53 is not the consolation of a nation, but the atonement of an individual. And the scroll cited against the messianic reading testifies for it, when completed.
Objection Five — The Bible Calls Israel "the Servant of the LORD" Repeatedly
The objection as it is raised: This is the strongest objection in the whole field, and Rabbi Kravitz, the Aish website, and Rabbi Tovia Singer raise it forcefully. They say: whoever reads the book of Isaiah from its beginning finds that "Israel" is explicitly called "the servant of the LORD" — "But thou, Israel, art my servant" (Isaiah 41:8), and "thou art my servant: O Israel" (Isaiah 44:21), and "Ye are my witnesses... and my servant whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 43:10). And Rabbi Singer says that Isaiah 53 is the fourth in the series of "Servant Songs," that it is "umbilically connected" to what precedes it, and that the servant in the three previous Servant Songs is explicitly and repeatedly Israel. So why would the meaning suddenly change in chapter 53?
The answer: This is a substantial objection, and it deserves a substantial, multi-layered answer, not an evasion.
The first layer: We fully acknowledge that Israel is called "the servant of the LORD" in Isaiah 41, 43, 44, and elsewhere. We do not deny this; we affirm it and build on it. But one word can carry two distinct roles within one book, and context is the judge. The proof of this is from Isaiah himself: in Isaiah 42:19 he describes "the servant who is Israel" as "Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent?" — a blind, deaf servant, a servant who himself needs redemption and healing. So is the Servant of Isaiah 53 — who "had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth" — the same as that blind, deaf servant? It is logically impossible. The text itself, in the same book, describes two distinct servants: a broken, blind nation that needs to be restored, and a perfect, flawless individual who does the restoring. The mere occurrence of the word "servant" does not settle identity; context settles it.
The second layer: The Servant Songs in Isaiah distinguish the individual Servant from the nation explicitly. In Isaiah 49:5-6 the Servant says of himself that he is sent "to bring Jacob again to him" and "to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel." The Servant whose mission is to "bring Jacob again" and "raise up the tribes of Jacob" cannot logically be Jacob himself. No one is sent to save himself. Here, at the very heart of the Servant Songs, are two parties: a Servant who restores, and a nation that is restored.
The third layer: The Servant of Isaiah 53 is sinless — "he had done no violence." But Isaiah describes the nation, in his own book, as "a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity" (Isaiah 1:4). So the nation whom Isaiah describes as laden with iniquity cannot be the Servant whom Isaiah describes as without violence. The two descriptions contradict, and cannot meet in one subject.
The fourth layer — the "four Servant Songs" argument breaks on Isaiah 42: Rabbi Singer says Isaiah 53 is umbilically connected to the preceding Servant Songs, and that the servant in all of them is Israel. But notice carefully what he does when he counts those Songs: he cites Isaiah 41, 44, and 49 — and passes over Isaiah 42. And why does he pass over it? Because the Servant Song in Isaiah 42 describes the Servant as one who "shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street" — a Servant who brings forth justice to the nations and is "a light of the Gentiles" — and then, in the same chapter (42:19), describes the servant Israel as blind and deaf. So in Isaiah 42 itself the two servants stand side by side: a righteous Servant, a light to the nations, and a blind servant who is the nation. That is why the objection avoids citing Isaiah 42: because this chapter alone is enough to demolish the claim that "the servant of the Songs" is one figure who is Israel. The series of Songs itself distinguishes one servant from another.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The rabbi will say that Isaiah 49:3 settles the matter in his favor, for it says "Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified" — so the Servant in the Song itself is explicitly named "Israel." This is a strong objection, and we face it directly without evasion. Yes, verse 3 names the Servant "Israel." But read the two verses immediately following (49:5-6): this same "Israel" is sent "to bring Jacob again to him." So if "Israel" in verse 3 were the nation, the meaning would become: "the nation is sent to bring back the nation" — an empty circle with no meaning. The only solution consistent with the text is that the Servant is called "Israel" because he is the "true Israel" — the individual who embodies and completes what the nation failed to complete, and who brings the nation back to the LORD. The same name, two different roles; and the context — especially the mission of "bringing Jacob again" — separates them sharply, with no ambiguity. The very verse thought to settle the objection is the one that settles it against the objection.
Objection Six — The Tanakh Speaks of the Nation in the Singular, So the Singular Servant Is the Nation
The objection as it is raised: The rabbi says it is common in the Tanakh to refer to the nation of Israel as if it were a single individual — as in "all the people gathered themselves together as one man" (Nehemiah 8:1). Indeed, in Isaiah 43:10 the people are mentioned first in the plural "ye are my witnesses" and then in the singular "my servant." So the singular form by which the Servant is described in Isaiah 53 does not prove he is a specific individual; the nation may be personified.
The answer: This is a correct observation in itself, and we grant it without hesitation: yes, the Tanakh sometimes uses the singular for the nation. This is a known linguistic feature. But the issue in Isaiah 53 is not merely the occurrence of a grammatical singular — the issue is that the text places the singular and the plural in one sentence, opposite each other, distinct, on the two sides of a single act.
Consider the difference. "All the people gathered themselves together as one man" is a simple simile: the whole people did one thing together, so they were likened to one man. There are not two parties in the sentence; there is one party (the people) likened to a singular. But Isaiah 53 says nothing of this kind. It says: "for the transgression of my people was he stricken." Here "he" is on one side, and "my people" on another, and the striking falls upon the first for the transgression of the second. And it says: "Surely he hath borne our griefs," "with his stripes we are healed" — so who are the "we" whose griefs were borne and who were healed? And who is the "he" who bore, and by whom they were healed? The bearer is not the borne, and the healer is not the healed.
If the Servant were the nation, the meaning of verse 8 would become: "the nation was stricken for the transgression of the nation," and the meaning of verse 4: "the nation bore the nation's griefs and by the nation's stripes the nation was healed." This is an empty circle, draining the text of its meaning. The singular form for the nation may be valid when the nation stands alone in the sentence; but when "he" stands opposite "we" and "my people" in the same text, on the two sides of the act of bearing and the act of healing, the singular here is a person distinct from the group, not the group itself.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "Rather, the speakers of 'we' are the nations, and they confess that Israel suffered for them; so 'he' is Israel, and 'we' are the nations, and the two parties do exist but with this distribution." This is the strongest form of the objection, and we answer it directly. Notice that the deciding clue is present in the text: in verse 8 the speaker says "the transgression of my people." The first-person pronoun "my people" identifies the speaker. And who is this speaker? Throughout the entire book of Isaiah, the phrase "my people" on the lips of the prophet or on the lips of the LORD means Israel, the people of the LORD — not the nations. There is not one place in Isaiah where the nations say "my people" and mean Israel. So the speaker in the chapter is a Jew — Isaiah and those with him — and he says the Servant was stricken for the transgression of "my people," that is, the transgression of Israel. And so the two parties remain: a distinct Servant, and a people who are Israel. As for the reading "the nations are speaking," it breaks on one explicit word: "my people."
Objection Seven — The Preposition "From" Means Israel Suffered "From" the Violence of the Nations
The objection as it is raised: This is the most precise linguistic objection in the field, and Rabbi Kravitz raises it clearly. He says: Christians translate the Hebrew preposition "mem" (מ) in Isaiah 53:5 as "for/on account of," so the meaning becomes that the Servant was wounded "for" our sins substitutionally. The correct translation — as the modern Jewish translation (NJPS) and even some Christian translations such as the Oxford Annotated say — is "from/because of": "wounded because of our transgressions." So the meaning is that Israel was wounded "from" the violence of the nations, not that she atoned for anyone. And the speakers are the nations confessing that they themselves wronged the Jews.
The answer: This is the strongest objection in the article, so let us give it the most precise answer, layer by layer.
The first layer — the language: We do not deny that the Hebrew preposition "מ" can bear both meanings. This is a linguistic fact, and we are honest, so we acknowledge it. The preposition "מ" has a wide semantic range: it may mean "from" (separation), it may mean "because of," and it may mean "as a result of." So the decision does not come from the preposition alone in isolation — the decision comes from the context. And whoever builds a whole interpretation on one chosen meaning of a letter that admits both ways has built on a fragile foundation. This applies to us and to them alike — and that is why we look to the context.
The second layer — context settles it for substitution: The text does not only say the Servant was "wounded"; it says far more. It says "the chastisement of our peace was upon him" — that is, the punishment that achieves our peace fell "upon him." This is not the language of a victim suffering from an aggressor; this is the language of transferring a punishment from one party to another. And it says "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" — and the Hebrew verb here (hifgia) means that the LORD "caused to fall" the iniquity upon him, loaded it on him, made it meet him. The LORD — not the nations — is the agent; the Servant is the one it is laid upon; and the iniquity is our iniquity. Three elements that combine only into the meaning of substitution. So when the context is saturated with the language of "chastisement upon him" and "the LORD laid on him the iniquity of us all," the preposition "מ" in verse 5 is settled in favor of the substitutionary meaning, not the bare meaning "because of."
The third layer — if we grant "because of" for argument's sake: Suppose an insister insisted on the translation "because of" in verse 5. Does the messianic reading collapse? Not at all. Because the larger picture does not change: there remains in the text a "he" distinct from "we"; there remains that "the chastisement of our peace" fell "upon him"; and there remains that the LORD "hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Substitution in Isaiah 53 is not hung on one letter in one verse — it is woven through the whole chapter, from "borne our griefs" in verse 4, to "he shall bear their iniquities" in verse 11, to "he bare the sin of many" in verse 12. Whoever would remove substitution must remove it from six verses, not from one preposition.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The rabbi will say the speakers are the nations and their kings, on the evidence of Isaiah 52:15 "the kings shall shut their mouths at him"; so the astonished kings are the ones who confess in chapter 53 that Israel suffered from their violence. This reply — a foundational pillar in the work of Rabbi Tovia Singer — has surface plausibility, but it breaks from three directions. The first: Isaiah 52:15 says the kings "shut their mouths" — that is, they fall silent in astonishment. So how can chapter 53 be their speech, when it was just said of them that they shut their mouths? The text describes them silent, not speaking; to make the whole chapter their speech is to make the silent ones into orators. The second: the speaker says "my people" (53:8), and "my people" throughout all of Isaiah means Israel, not the nations. If the speaker were the kings of the nations, they would say "our peoples" or "our nations," not "my people." The third: the speaker says "Who hath believed our report?" (53:1) — and this "report" in Hebrew is the message carried by the prophets of Israel; the one who laments that his report was not believed is the prophet and those of his people with him, not the kings of the nations. So the kings do not speak (for they shut their mouths), nor does "my people" mean their nations, nor is "our report" their report. The speaker is a Jew confessing in the name of his people: we have gone astray like sheep, and he bore our iniquity. And substitution stands whether we read "מ" one way or the other.
Objection Eight — "Lamo" Is a Plural Word, So It Means "Them," That Is Israel, Not "Him"
The objection as it is raised: This is the most famous linguistic objection against the messianic reading, and Rabbi Kravitz, the Aish website, Outreach Judaism, and Rabbi Singer raise it with great confidence. They say: in Isaiah 53:8 "for the transgression of my people was he stricken," the last Hebrew word is "lamo" (לָמוֹ). And "lamo" — as they say — is always a plural word, meaning "to them," and never refers to a single individual. So the literal meaning is "the stroke was to them" — that is, to the nation. And since the word is plural, the Servant is plural, that is the nation, not an individual, so he cannot be the Messiah. And Rabbi Singer says the prophet speaks of the Servant "in the singular and the plural together," and that the Church changed "them" to "him" to make the text messianic.
The answer: We answer in complete honesty, then with firmness. And we answer on six layers.
The first layer — the honest acknowledgment: The form "lamo" in Hebrew poetry is a matter of genuine discussion among scholars. It is used in most of its occurrences with a plural meaning; this is true. So we will not deny that the plural meaning is possible. But to say it is "always plural, never referring to an individual" is an overstatement, and inaccurate, as we shall see.
The second layer — "lamo" itself is used for the singular: The proof is from Isaiah himself. In Isaiah 44:15 he describes the idol-maker: "he maketh an idol, and falleth down to 'lamo'" — and the idol mentioned is a single one. That is why many translate it "falls down to it" (the singular idol). Indeed the great Rabbi Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi) himself, in his commentary on Isaiah 44:15, acknowledges that "lamo" there equals "lo" (to him, singular). So if "lamo" admits the singular in Isaiah 44 — by the acknowledgment of one of the great Jewish commentators themselves — it admits it in Isaiah 53; and its mere occurrence does not "settle the matter beyond all doubt," as is claimed.
The third layer — the suffix "mo" comes as a singular in Hebrew: The Hebrew suffix "mo" (ـמוֹ), from which "lamo" comes, occurs in Hebrew poetry with a singular meaning in several places, and the great scholars of Hebrew grammar have catalogued them. The grammarian Gesenius, in his standard reference Hebrew grammar, and likewise the grammar of Joüon-Muraoka, cite examples in which the suffix "mo" is singular, not plural: "panemo" in Psalm 11:7 means "his face" (singular), and "kappemo" in Job 27:23 means "his hands" (singular), as well as the place in Job 22:2. So the suffix on which the objection turns is not exclusively plural; it is mostly plural, but it does come as a singular, and this is established in the most reliable Hebrew grammatical references — not in a Christian reference.
The fourth layer — the reading of the Septuagint and the Qumran manuscript: The Jewish translators who rendered Isaiah into Greek in the Septuagint, two centuries before Christianity, read this place not as "to them" but as "to death" — as if they saw "lamavet" (to death). And in the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran, the form in this place is most likely a passive form meaning "he was stricken for them / on their behalf" — that is, a substitutionary stroke. So the oldest textual witnesses — all of them Jewish, predating Christianity — do not read the place in the way on which the whole objection is built. And the claim that "the Church changed the text" breaks here completely: the Hebrew text we possess is the Masoretic text preserved by Jews, over which the Church has no authority; and the Jewish Qumran manuscript, predating Christianity, witnesses to the substitutionary reading. Whoever charges "the Church with changing the text" must explain how a Jewish manuscript written a century and a half before Christianity witnesses to the same reading.
The fifth layer — one word does not overturn the chapter: And this is a decisive layer. Suppose we granted, for argument's sake, that "lamo" is plural here. Does the chapter overturn? Not at all. First, because the surrounding sentence settles the meaning: "stricken for the transgression of my people" — and the word "my people," an explicit singular in the construct, places one party (the guilty people) opposite another party (the stricken one). Second, because the whole chapter is written in the singular about the Servant in dozens of places: "he grew up as a tender plant," "he hath no form," "despised," "he opened not his mouth," "his grave," "his death," "he shall see his seed, prolong his days." So is it conceivable that dozens of explicit singular forms be annulled because of one word whose parsing is itself disputed? The methodological rule in all sound interpretation: the ambiguous is read in light of the clear, not the clear in light of the ambiguous. The one possible word is interpreted in light of the dozens of explicit ones — not the reverse.
The sixth layer — even the official Jewish translation does not rescue the objection: And this is a layer many overlook. The authorized Jewish translation of the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translates Isaiah 53:8 itself in the singular about the Servant — "he was cut off out of the land of the living." So the objection that "the Church changed 'them' to 'him'" collides with the fact that the official Jewish translation itself, over which the Church has no authority, reads the place of a single individual. The dispute, then, is not between a "falsifying Church" and a "faithful Judaism"; the dispute is within the Jewish house itself, between one Jewish translation and another. And this topples the charge of falsification at its root.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say that the text's shift from the singular to the plural in verse 8 specifically is a "deliberate signal" from the prophet that the Servant is a collective, and that the dozens of singular forms are mere "poetic personification" of the nation. And we reply: this is an interpretation that assumes what must be proven. Why do we assume that one disputed word is "the intended key," and assume that dozens of explicit expressions are mere "personification"? The reverse method is the correct one: the overwhelming explicit majority is the rule, and the rare possible word is read in light of it. And had the prophet wished to say "a collective," the simplest way would have been to use the explicit plural form throughout the whole chapter — not to write dozens of singular forms and then hide his "key" in an ambiguous poetic suffix over which grammarians differ. The part does not demolish the whole; and the ambiguous word does not topple the explicit chapter.
Objection Nine — Even the Commentators Who Said He Is the Messiah Meant the Easing of a Collective Punishment, Not Death for Sin
The objection as it is raised: Rabbi Kravitz says: it is true that some Jewish commentators saw the Servant as the Messiah, but they saw it so only on the "allegorical level," while the "direct" interpretation among all Jewish commentators is that the Servant is Israel. And whoever among them saw him as the Messiah meant that the Messiah, as a member of the nation, bears a portion of the nation's punishment and eases it — as the sons of Kohath bore the responsibility of carrying the Ark at risk to themselves on behalf of the people (Numbers 4:19-20), and as Israel is called just before the chapter "the bearers of the vessels of the LORD" (Isaiah 52:11). And the rabbi adds that easing a collective punishment is one thing, and removing sin is another; and there is no Jewish interpretation that says the Messiah dies for our sins or that we must believe in him to benefit.
The answer: Here we stand with love and clarity, and we answer on five layers.
The first layer — thanks for a precious admission: We thank the rabbi, because he has admitted something often denied: that there are Jewish commentators — not one or two — who read the Servant as the Messiah. This admission demolishes the claim that the messianic reading is a Christian heresy. The Targum Jonathan places the word "Messiah" in Isaiah 52:13 explicitly. And the Talmud in Sanhedrin 98b links the Messiah to "the man of sorrows," resting on Isaiah 53:4. The messianic reading was in the Jewish house before it was ever in the Christian debate.
The second layer — the claim of "the direct interpretation" needs scrutiny: The rabbi says the "direct" interpretation among "all" the commentators is that the Servant is Israel. This is historically inaccurate. Until about the year 1000 AD, we find not a single rabbinic source explicitly advancing the collective reading. Indeed, the first written source attributing the collective reading of Isaiah 53 to the Jews is a Christian source — the writer Origen in the third century, in Contra Celsum, where he records that his Jewish interlocutors applied the prophecy "to the whole people as though to a single individual." So the oldest witness to the existence of the collective reading is a witness from outside Judaism, in the context of the debate with Christianity. And the systematic collective reading of Isaiah 53 became associated with the name of Rashi (1040–1105), who himself — in his commentary — testifies that teachers before him read it of the Messiah. Indeed great commentators, such as Abarbanel, mention the messianic reading as a serious traditional option that still stands. So the claim that the collective reading is "always the direct interpretation" reverses the historical sequence: the messianic is older, and the collective came later, in the time of the sharp debate with Christianity.
The third layer — the example of the sons of Kohath serves substitution, it does not demolish it: The rabbi cites the sons of Kohath (Numbers 4:19-20) who carried the Ark at risk on behalf of the people so that no one else would die. But consider: this very example is, at its core, substitution — an individual (or a group) bears a dangerous burden for others so the others do not perish. So the rabbi, while arguing against substitution, cites an example of substitution! The only difference is that the sons of Kohath carried an Ark (an external thing), whereas the Servant of Isaiah 53 carried iniquity itself: "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," "he shall bear their iniquities." So if carrying an Ark substitutionally is acceptable in Jewish thought, then carrying iniquity substitutionally — which is what the text says plainly — is not foreign to the Tanakh. Indeed the whole law of Moses is built on this principle: an innocent victim dies for a guilty one, blood is shed for atonement, and a hand is laid on the head of the sacrifice to transfer the guilt.
The fourth layer — the text raises the meaning from "easing" to "complete atonement": And here is the decisive distinction. The rabbi says that easing a collective punishment is not like removing sin. True — but Isaiah 53 does not speak of mere "easing." Look at the words of the text itself: it says the Servant "shall justify many" — and justification in the Bible is a judicial declaration of complete acquittal, not a partial easing. And it says he "made his soul an offering for sin" — and the Hebrew word "asham" is a technical term in the law of Moses meaning a sacrifice that atones for guilt and removes it, not eases it. And it says he "bare the sin of many." The text itself — not the Christian — raises the meaning from "partial easing" to "an offering for sin" and "complete justification." So whoever confines the chapter to "easing" reads into the text what is not in it, and ignores its clearest words.
The fifth layer — "and no one was called to believe in him": The rabbi says there is no Jewish interpretation that calls for belief in the Servant. But the text itself opens with a question about belief: "Who hath believed our report?" (53:1). The question is about who "believed" — who had faith in the message. And the chapter describes two groups: a group that "esteemed him stricken of God" and so erred, and a group that realized he was "wounded for our transgressions" and so was right. The difference between the two groups is faith in the reality of the Servant. So the call to faith is not imposed on the text; it is its opening.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The rabbi will say that "an offering for sin" (asham) may be used metaphorically, and that "justify many" may mean merely that the example of the righteous Servant inspires many to righteousness. And we reply: this is an interpretation that weakens the language of the text without warrant. The word "asham" in the law of Moses has a strict, defined meaning: a sacrifice involving the transfer of guilt and atonement. And when the prophet — who knows the law — chooses this very word, the default is to read it in its known ritual sense, not in a softened metaphor. And "justify" in Hebrew is a judicial verb — its opposite is "condemn" — and it does not mean "inspire." And most importantly: the text does not say the Servant is "a good example"; it says he "bare their iniquities" and "the LORD laid on him the iniquity of us all." A good example does not have the "iniquities" of others "laid upon" it. The language is the language of transfer and atonement, not the language of inspiration and example. And it is the softening interpretation that departs from the text, not we.
Objection Ten — The Servant Drew the Crowds, So He Was Not "Despised and Rejected"
The objection as it is raised: The Aish website raises a striking objection: Isaiah 53:3 describes the Servant as "despised and rejected of men." But the Gospels describe the Lord Jesus Christ as one followed by "great multitudes," so that he had to get into a boat lest they crush him (Mark 3:7-9), and one who was "glorified of all" (Luke 4:15). So how can he be "despised and rejected" while loved by the crowds? This is a contradiction — as the objection says — between the prophecy and the life of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The answer: This objection seems strong at first glance, but it collapses when we read the prophecy of Isaiah in full and the life of the Lord Jesus Christ in full.
First: Isaiah himself does not describe the Servant with perpetual contempt only; he describes him in two opposite states. In Isaiah 52:13 the Servant "shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high," and in 52:15 "so shall he sprinkle many nations" and "kings shall shut their mouths" before him. Then in 53:3 he is "despised and rejected." So the prophecy itself combines exaltation and contempt in one Servant. So if Isaiah describes a Servant who has a moment of drawing and glory and a moment of contempt and rejection, then the life of the Lord Jesus Christ — in which crowds follow him and then a crowd cries "crucify him" — matches the prophecy, it does not contradict it.
Second: The "contempt and rejection" in Isaiah 53 is concentrated in the hour of the passion, not in every moment of the ministry. And the Gospels are explicit in this: the crowds that hailed him on the day of his entry into Jerusalem are the same — or of the same kind — that abandoned him days later. His own disciples fled. Peter denied him three times. And he stood alone before Pilate. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not" (John 1:11). The temporary drawing does not cancel the final rejection; rather, the prophecy anticipates both.
Third: Notice that this objection, when the Aish website argues it, implicitly assumes that the Servant is an individual against whom the life of the Lord Jesus Christ is measured — and this is a concession of the collective reading. If the objection compares the Servant with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ detail by detail (did the crowds draw to him?), then it is treating the Servant as an individual, not as a nation. And a nation is not "despised and then glorified by crowds" in the personal sense the objection assumes. The objection concedes, without intending to, that the text describes an individual.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say that the Hebrew word "rejected" (chadal) means "forsaken" in a permanent forsaking, and so does not fit a period of drawing crowds at all. And we reply: the Hebrew word in 53:3 describes one from whom people withhold themselves and turn away, and from whom "we hid as it were our faces." And this is precisely what happened in the hour of the passion: those who hailed turned away, and those who followed hid themselves, until even his closest disciples "all forsook him, and fled" (Matthew 26:56). The prophecy does not say the Servant was never loved; it says that in his decisive hour he became forsaken. And the Gospel describes this with astonishing precision: from "Hosanna" on Sunday to "crucify him" on Friday, in five days. Prophecy and history match.
Objection Eleven — "He Shall See His Seed" Means Physical Offspring, and the Servant Had None
The objection as it is raised: The Jews for Judaism website says that Isaiah 53:10 says the Servant "shall see his seed," and the Hebrew word "zera" (seed) always means in the Tanakh literal physical offspring (as in Genesis 12:7; 15:13). And the Lord Jesus Christ died young with no physical offspring. So how does he "see his seed"? And they add: how do "his days" prolong if he died young?
The answer: This objection is easily handled from the Tanakh itself.
First — "zera" does not always mean physical offspring: In Psalm 22:30-31 — a thoroughly messianic psalm — the word "seed/offspring" is used for those who serve the LORD and are told of to the generations to come: "a seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the LORD to a generation to come." This is a spiritual "seed," not necessarily a literal physical offspring. So the Tanakh itself knows the spiritual "seed." And when Isaiah says the Servant "shall see his seed" after he poured out his soul to death, the seed is everyone born spiritually from the fruit of his death — and they are today in the millions, from every nation.
Second — "he shall prolong his days" after "he was cut off out of the land of the living": The objection falls into a logical trap. The text itself says in verse 8 that the Servant "was cut off out of the land of the living" — that is, he died. Then it says in verse 10 that he "shall see his seed, prolong his days." So how does he die and then have his days prolonged? There is no answer but one: the resurrection. The text describes a Servant who dies and then lives. So the objection "how do the days of one who died young prolong?" is itself the proof of the resurrection, not against it. The Servant who was "cut off" and then has his "days prolonged" is a Servant risen from the dead.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say that "cut off out of the land of the living" is a metaphor for exile and captivity, as Israel is described in Ezekiel 37 as "dry bones" in "graves" whose graves are then opened. This reply has a face, but it breaks here: in Ezekiel 37 the context explicitly states it is a symbolic vision of the nation ("these bones are the whole house of Israel" — Ezekiel 37:11). But Isaiah 53 never says it describes a nation; rather it describes an individual with "his grave" (singular) and "his death" (in an individual context), and surrounds him with dozens of singular expressions. There is no clue in Isaiah 53 making the death a metaphor; rather all the clues — the grave, the burial with a rich man, the absence of violence, the absence of deceit in the mouth — make it a real death of a real individual. And when the objector needs to borrow from another book (Ezekiel) a clue not present in Isaiah 53 itself in order to make the death a metaphor, he is implicitly admitting that Isaiah 53 in itself does not carry that clue.
Objection Twelve — "In His Death" in the Plural ("His Deaths") Means a Nation
The objection as it is raised: Some objectors note that Isaiah 53:9, in Hebrew, says literally "in his deaths" (bemotayw — in the plural), not "in his death." And they say: the plural form "deaths" indicates a multitude of dead — that is, a nation that has died many times throughout history, not an individual who died once.
The answer: This is a precise linguistic objection, and we take it seriously, and we answer it from the rules of Hebrew itself.
First — the intensive plural in Hebrew: Hebrew uses the plural form not only for number, but for intensification and magnification. This is a feature known to every student of Hebrew. The word "Elohim" (God) is plural in its form, and indicates one. And the word "rachamim" (mercies/mercy) is plural, and indicates one intense mercy. And the word "chayyim" (life) is plural in its form. And the plural form in "his deaths" is an intensive plural indicating a violent, severe death — not a multitude of persons.
Second — the decisive proof from Ezekiel 28: This is the conclusive reply. In Ezekiel 28:10 the LORD says to the king of Tyre: "the deaths (plural) of the uncircumcised shalt thou die (singular)." The word "deaths" is plural, the one addressed is a single individual (the king of Tyre), and the verb "die" is singular. So Hebrew itself uses the plural "deaths" to describe the death of a single individual. This proves beyond dispute that the plural form "his deaths" in Isaiah 53:9 does not require a multitude of persons; it describes a violent death of a single individual, exactly as in Ezekiel 28. And notice the irony: the objector reads the plural form "his deaths" as proof of the nation, while Ezekiel — a Hebrew prophet — uses the very same form for a single individual. So Hebrew interprets Hebrew.
Third: Notice that Objection Eight (lamo) and Objection Twelve (bemotayw) rest together on the same method: extracting one word with a poetic or intensive plural form, and building the whole collective interpretation on it, despite dozens of explicit singular expressions in the chapter. And the sound method is one: the possible word is interpreted in light of the explicit majority, not the reverse. Two disputed words do not topple dozens of explicit witnesses.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say that the text also says in verse 8 "stricken" in a form that may be read as a plural, so the clues of plurality combine. And we reply: even if the possible places for plurality multiply, each of them is possible both ways, and each is interpreted by the same rule — the ambiguous in light of the clear. And the chapter settles itself by itself: it says "his grave" (one grave), and "neither was any deceit in his mouth" (one mouth), and "he made his soul an offering for sin" (one soul). A whole nation does not have one "grave" nor one "mouth." The accumulation of the explicit singular — a grave, a mouth, a soul, an appearance, a form — settles that the subject is an individual, and that the few plural forms in it are intensive plurals after the manner of Hebrew.
Objection Thirteen — Ezekiel 18:20 Says the Son Does Not Bear the Father's Iniquity, So Substitutionary Atonement Is Forbidden in the Torah
The objection as it is raised: This is one of the strongest objections raised by the counter-missionary writers, and Rabbi Tovia Singer in particular brandishes it. They say: the Torah itself forbids that an innocent person die for a guilty one. The prophet Ezekiel declares plainly: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20). And they also cite Deuteronomy 24:16. So if the Bible forbids anyone to bear the iniquity of another, how can it be said that an innocent Servant bore the sins of others? The messianic reading of Isaiah 53 — as the objection says — contradicts the law of God Himself, so it is invalid.
The answer: This is an objection that seems strong, and it deserves the deepest answer. And it is in truth a double-edged sword, which, when grasped well, turns upon the one who wields it. We answer on five layers.
The first layer — Ezekiel 18 speaks of individual moral responsibility, not of the atoning sacrifice: Read Ezekiel 18 in full, and notice its context. The children of Israel were saying a common proverb: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Ezekiel 18:2) — that is, they are punished fatalistically for the sins of their ancestors through no fault of their own, so repentance is useless. So Ezekiel came to answer this fatalistic despair, and to declare a great principle: every soul is responsible before God for its own choices; the repentant does not perish by his father's sin, and the wicked is not saved by his father's righteousness. This principle speaks of justice in ordinary moral life — of the truth that a person is not judged fatalistically for the guilt of another. It does not speak at all of the atoning sacrifice that God Himself appoints. Ezekiel says: you shall not be punished by force for a sin you did not choose. And this is true. But Isaiah 53 describes something entirely different: a Servant who voluntarily, by his own free choice, makes himself an offering for sin. The two subjects are different: Ezekiel is about an imposed judicial justice, and Isaiah is about a redemption offered freely.
The second layer — if the objection were true, it would demolish the whole law of Moses: And here is the decisive layer. If Ezekiel 18:20 absolutely forbids that one party bear the consequence of another — then what shall we do with the whole law of Moses? The system of sacrifices in the book of Leviticus, which God Himself commanded through Moses, has at its very core that an innocent animal dies for a guilty human. The sinner lays his hand on the head of the sacrifice (Leviticus 1:4; 16:21), so that his sin is symbolically transferred to it, and then it dies in his place. And the whole Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) is built on two goats: one is slaughtered, and one is sent away bearing "all the iniquities of the children of Israel" into the wilderness. So if the principle "no one bears the iniquity of another" were absolute with no exception, God would have contradicted Himself: He would have commanded the sacrificial system with one hand and forbidden it through Ezekiel with the other. And God does not contradict Himself. So the only consistent solution: Ezekiel 18 speaks of personal moral responsibility in ordinary life, not of the atonement system that God Himself appointed. Substitutionary atonement is not a violation of the Torah — it is the heart of the Torah. And Isaiah 53 does not contradict the law; rather it describes its summit and completion: the final sacrifice to which all the sacrifices of Leviticus pointed.
The third layer — the objection turns upon the collective reading itself: And here the second edge of the sword is revealed. The proponents of this objection say that the Servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel — specifically, as many of them say, the "righteous remnant" of Israel suffering for the sins of the wicked nations, or for the sins of the nation's transgressors. So let us grasp the objection and apply it to them: if Ezekiel 18:20 forbids that an innocent bear the iniquity of a guilty one, then it forbids, by the same measure, that the "righteous remnant of Israel" bear the iniquity of the "wicked nations." Indeed their interpretation fares worse before Ezekiel: for they make not one innocent individual suffer for the guilty, but a whole group of innocents suffer for a group of the wicked. So if Ezekiel's principle topples substitution, it topples their interpretation first and more severely. The objection they raised to demolish the messianic reading demolishes their collective reading at its foundation. So either they retreat from using Ezekiel 18 as a weapon — and then the objection falls — or they insist on it, and then their own interpretation falls. There is no escape from this dilemma.
The fourth layer — substitution is woven into the Tanakh outside Isaiah 53: Substitution is not an orphan idea in Isaiah 53 alone. Moses himself offered to be blotted out of God's book as a ransom for his people: "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book" (Exodus 32:32). And David, when the people were struck by the plague, said: "Lo, I have sinned... but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me" (2 Samuel 24:17). And in the book of Jonah, the sea grew calm when Jonah alone was cast into it on behalf of all who were in the ship. And the high priest bore the names of the tribes on his breast and his shoulders before God (Exodus 28). The idea that one should stand in the breach for many is not foreign to the Tanakh; it is woven through it. And Isaiah 53 takes this thread and raises it to its completion.
The fifth layer — voluntary substitution does not abolish Ezekiel's justice but completes it: Ezekiel guards a precious principle: that a person not be crushed by force for a sin he did not commit. And Isaiah 53 does not breach this principle, but completes it, because the Servant was not coerced. The text says: "he made his soul an offering for sin" — it is he who made his soul so. And it says he "hath poured out his soul unto death" — by his own act. Nothing was taken from him by force; rather he gave. And a voluntary gift is not an injustice. When a man throws himself before a car to save a child, no one says "the child wronged the man"; rather we say the man loved. Ezekiel forbids that an innocent soul be taken by force; and Isaiah describes an innocent soul given in love. There is no contradiction between the two — rather between them is the most beautiful harmony: justice says that guilt deserves a punishment, and love says that the innocent is able, in the fullness of his freedom, to bear that punishment for another.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But the sacrificial system in Leviticus concerns animals, not human beings; and the Torah forbids human sacrifice absolutely. So the Servant cannot be a human being slaughtered as an atonement." This is the strongest form of the reply, and we answer it directly. First: it is true that the Torah forbids the offering of human beings as sacrifices at the hands of human beings — that is, that a man take a man and slaughter him as an offering. And this is not at all what is in Isaiah 53. In Isaiah 53 there is no human priest who seizes the Servant and slaughters him on an altar; rather the Servant himself "makes his soul" an offering for sin, and "the LORD" is the one who "laid on him the iniquity of us all." It is an act between the Servant and God, voluntary on the Servant's part, ordained by God — not a pagan rite offered by men. Second: the animal sacrifices in Leviticus were all a symbol and a shadow — the blood of bulls and goats does not in itself remove sin, but points to what is to come. And the text itself in Isaiah reveals that the animal symbol is at last replaced by something greater: a rational, righteous "Servant" who completes what the blood of the animal could not. So Isaiah 53 does not call for a pagan human sacrifice; it describes God Himself offering the complete atonement to which every shadow before it pointed. And the difference between a pagan human sacrifice and this is the difference between a crime a man commits against a man, and a redemption that God ordains and the Servant offers in the fullness of his will.
Objection Fourteen — Circular Reasoning: No One Saw His Death as an "Atonement," So Isaiah 53 Is Not Proof but a Contrived Confirmation
The objection as it is raised: Jews for Judaism says in its article "Isaiah 53 — A Jewish Perspective" that the Christian argument is circular. Even granting the Christian reading, the most that can be said is that the chapter is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen him die — but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? No; this is a meaning the New Testament gave to his death. You cannot conclude that Isaiah predicted an atonement unless you already believe the New Testament interpretation. So Isaiah 53 is no "proof" at all, but a contrived confirmation for someone who already chose Christianity.
The answer: This is a clever philosophical objection, and we take it seriously, because it touches the very nature of prophetic proof.
The first layer: The objection confuses "sensory observation" with "prophetic signification." It is true that the atoning meaning of the death is not something seen with the eye as blood is seen; but this applies to every prophecy interpreted by a historical event. No one "sees" that a child born in Bethlehem is the Messiah merely by looking; the signification is known by the match of event to text. The right question is not "did anyone see the atonement with his eyes?" but "does Isaiah 53 describe an atoning death, and does a historical event match it?" The answer to the first half is in the text itself: "he made his soul an offering for sin" — and an offering for sin, in the Law, is atonement. So the atonement is not a meaning the New Testament added; it is in Isaiah's words centuries before the New Testament.
The second layer: The alleged circularity turns equally upon the collective reading. The one who says the Servant is "suffering Israel on behalf of the nations" did not "see" with his eyes that Israel's sufferings were "for" the nations as an atonement; he too imposes a meaning upon history. So if imposing a meaning invalidates the Christian reading, it invalidates the Jewish reading with it. But if the text itself determines the meaning — and it does — then look at its words: a Servant without violence upon whom the iniquity of others is laid, so that he justifies them. This meaning is in the text, not in the eye of the beholder.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But the matching of event to text is itself selective; the Christian picks from the life of Christ what matches and ignores what does not." And we reply: this is a claim tested by detail, not by generality. We have examined the details in this article and the companion: the silence before the judge, the scourging, the burial with a rich man, the absence of deceit, the cutting off out of the land of the living and then the seeing of seed and prolonging of days. When a long chain of precise, independent details converges in one person, the possibility of "selection" collapses, because selection explains a detail or two, not a whole integrated chain. Prophetic proof rests not on one verse interpreted by an event, but on a cumulative match that cannot be fabricated.
Objection Fifteen — The Disciples Themselves Did Not See Isaiah 53 as a Messianic Prophecy
The objection as it is raised: The article says that the disciples of Christ, consistent with the Jewish teaching of their time, did not understand Isaiah 53 as a prophecy of a dying Messiah. When Peter declared the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Messiah (Matthew 16:16) and was then told he would be killed (Matthew 16:21), Peter answered: "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you" (Matthew 16:22). It cites also Mark 9:31-32 and John 20:9. So if Isaiah 53 were a clear prophecy of an atoning death, the disciples would not have been astonished at the mention of death.
The answer: This objection, when examined, testifies for the Christian reading, not against it.
The first layer: The disciples' astonishment at the idea of a suffering, dying Messiah is the very thing Isaiah 53 describes in its opening: "Who hath believed our report?" — that is, the prophet himself anticipates that his report will be met with disbelief. So the disciples' initial failure to understand is not evidence the prophecy is false; it is its fulfillment. The prophecy says few will believe, and history says even the disciples did not understand at first. Another match.
The second layer: The objection cites John 20:9 — "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." But notice exactly what this verse says: they "knew not yet" — that is, there was something in the Scripture they ought to have known about his resurrection, and had not yet grasped. The verse does not deny the prophecy exists; it establishes that it was there, in the Scripture, and that the disciples were late to grasp it. This is exactly what we say: the prophecy is in Isaiah, and the grasping came after the resurrection.
The third layer: As for Peter's "God forbid" (Matthew 16:22), the text itself records that Christ rebuked him for precisely this understanding, saying he "savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." So the Gospel does not present Peter's objection as a correct reading; it presents it as an error Christ corrected. To cite it against the messianic reading is to cite a stance the text itself condemned.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But Christ himself asked that the cup be removed (Mark 14:36); if he knew Isaiah 53 made his atoning death necessary, he would not have asked for the cup to be removed." And we reply: his request itself completes the sentence in a way that demolishes the objection — "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39). He did not ask to escape death; he submitted his will to the Father's and went to the cup by his own choice. And this is exactly what Isaiah 53:10 describes: a Servant who "makes himself" an offering for sin, voluntarily. The human dread of the cup does not negate the voluntary obedience; rather, both texts — Isaiah and the Gospel — describe the same voluntariness.
Objection Sixteen — The Context: Isaiah 53 Sits Amid the "Messages of Consolation" About Israel's Restoration, and Chapter 54 Proves It
The objection as it is raised: The article says: look at the setting of the chapter. Isaiah, after foretelling exile and calamity, places chapter 53 in the heart of the "Messages of Consolation" that speak of the restoration and glory of Israel. In chapter 52, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" and "taken away," then God promises a brighter future. And chapter 54 elaborates the redemption awaiting the nation of Israel and closes: "This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD." So since what comes before and after the chapter is about the nation of Israel, chapter 53 is about her too.
The answer: The observation about context is correct and important, but the conclusion does not follow from it.
The first layer: The chapter's presence amid the messages of consolation does not make its subject the nation; it makes it the cause of the consolation. The larger context is Israel's salvation and glory — and Isaiah 53 reveals the means by which that salvation is accomplished: an individual Servant who bears iniquity and justifies many. So the nation is consoled because the Servant suffered. Notice the logic: if the Servant were the nation itself, the consolation would become "Israel is consoled because Israel suffered for Israel" — an empty circle. But if the Servant is an individual, the consolation has content: Israel and the nations are consoled because a Servant bore their iniquities.
The second layer: As for the close of chapter 54 — "This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD" — notice the plural: "servants." And this is a decisive distinction. Chapter 54 speaks of "the servants of the LORD" in the plural — that is, the people of the LORD. But Isaiah 53 speaks of "my servant" in the singular — one distinct Servant. The text itself distinguishes: the individual Servant in chapter 53, and the many "servants" in chapter 54. And chapter 54 does not say the servants' heritage came from their own suffering; it describes the redemption they receive. So where does that redemption come from? From the individual Servant in the chapter before it. The two chapters are complementary, not identical: the one Servant suffers (53), so the many servants receive the heritage (54).
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But chapter 52 explicitly describes Israel as oppressed and taken away; so the continuation of the speech in 53 about a sufferer is a continuation of the speech about Israel." And we reply: rather, chapter 52 itself makes the transition. In 52:13 a new and explicit speech begins: "Behold, my servant" — singular — "shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high," then "so shall he sprinkle many nations, the kings shall shut their mouths at him." This Servant, at whom the nations are astonished and before whom kings fall silent, is not the oppressed, taken-away Israel of the chapter's opening; he is a person before whom nations are lifted and kings' mouths are shut. Chapter 52 itself moves from "oppressed Israel" to "the exalted Servant," in preparation for chapter 53. So the context, read in full, distinguishes the Servant from the nation rather than merging them.
Objection Seventeen — If Christ Is God, Is God His Own Servant? And Does Reward or Prolonged Days Have Any Meaning for God?
The objection as it is raised: The article poses a series of questions all resting on the deity of the Messiah: if Christians say Christ is God, how can he be "the servant of the LORD"? Is God His own servant? And Isaiah 53:10 says the Servant "shall prolong his days" — how can the days of one alleged to be the eternal God be prolonged? And 53:12 says God "divides him a portion" as a reward — what meaning has a reward given to God? So the concepts of servanthood, reward, and prolonged days all collapse if the Servant is God.
The answer: These are substantial questions, and their answer lies in the reality of the incarnation that Scripture proclaims — which is not a contradiction but the mystery of redemption.
The first layer — how can God be a servant? Scripture proclaims that the Son, being in the form of God, took the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. The Servant in Isaiah 53 is not God as un-incarnate; he is God manifest in the flesh, having taken a true human nature in which he serves and suffers. So servanthood is described of the assumed nature, not as an abolition of the deity. This is no contradiction: the same one is God in his nature, a servant in the form he took for the sake of redemption. The text describes this humbling precisely: he who "shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high" (52:13) is the same who "hath no form nor comeliness" (53:2) — exaltation and humiliation in one person.
The second layer — how are his days prolonged? This question assumes "prolonging of days" is impossible for the incarnate one. But the verse itself places the prolonging of days after the cutting off out of the land of the living (53:8) — that is, the meaning is not a long natural lifespan, but life after death: the resurrection. The incarnate Servant truly died in his body, then rose, so his days were prolonged forever in the resurrection body. The question "how are God's days prolonged?" confuses the eternal deity with the incarnate body that died and rose. The text describes the latter.
The third layer — what meaning has the reward? Verse 12 does not speak of a reward God needs in Himself, but of the declared result of the Servant's work: "because he hath poured out his soul unto death... and he bare the sin of many." The reward here is the fruit of the redemption — the many who are justified — not an addition to the perfection of the deity. When the Father gives the incarnate Son "a portion with the great," this is a declaration of the success of his redemptive work, not the filling of a lack in God.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "All this is theological maneuvering; the text simply describes a human servant (the nation), and there is no need for a complex theology of two natures." And we reply: it is not the text that forces upon us the simplicity he proposes; rather the text itself combines what cannot be combined in a nation or an ordinary man — exalted so that nations are astonished, yet humbled without comeliness, and without sin, dying and being buried, then having his days prolonged and justifying many. These descriptions together require a person who unites the heavenly and the earthly — and this is exactly what Scripture proclaims about the Lord Jesus Christ. The theology is not imposed on the text; the text summons it. And the simpler is not always the truer when the simpler is unable to carry every word of the text.
Objection Eighteen — "The Arm of the LORD" Means the National Redemption of Israel, Not an Individual
The objection as it is raised: The article says that Isaiah 53:1 asks, "And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?", and that "the arm of the LORD" in Isaiah and throughout Scripture refers to the physical, national redemption of Israel from the oppression of the nations (Isaiah 52:8-12; 63:12; Deuteronomy 4:34; 7:19; Psalm 44:3). So since "the arm of the LORD" is a symbol of national salvation, the chapter is about the salvation of the nation, not an individual.
The answer: The observation is correct in its root, but it does not produce what is required.
The first layer: Yes, "the arm of the LORD" is an expression of God's revealed saving power. But the question in 53:1 is not "what is the arm of the LORD?" but "to whom has it been revealed?" — that is, who believed and grasped it. And the immediately following context answers: the revealed arm is the Servant himself, described in the rest of the chapter. So the arm — God's saving power — is embodied in this Servant. And it is not strange for "the arm of the LORD" to be a person: for in Isaiah itself, salvation comes by "his arm" that works, and chapter 53 reveals that this working arm is a Servant who bears iniquity.
The second layer: Even if "the arm of the LORD" refers to redemption, the redemption in Isaiah 53 is accomplished by means of the Servant, not by Israel. And the arm "revealed" to a believing few contradicts the idea that the whole nation is the arm — for how can the nation be the arm and at the same time be the ones asked "to whom has the arm been revealed?" The one to whom it is revealed is other than the revealed thing. So the arm is revealed to those who believed, and it is the Servant; and the nation is the body of hearers, of whom few believed.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But all the proof-texts of the arm of the LORD we cited are national without exception; so why deviate here to an individual?" And we reply: there is no deviation. The arm of the LORD is always His saving power; what is new in Isaiah 53 is not a change in the meaning of the arm, but a declaration of how it works: the saving power is embodied in a Servant who bears iniquity and so accomplishes salvation. The arm remains the arm of the LORD — but it is revealed in a person. And Scripture does not forbid God to embody His power in a person; rather this is what the rest of the chapter does when it describes "the arm" with the traits of a person who is scourged, falls silent, dies, and rises.
Objection Nineteen — Israel's Sufferings Are Likened to Sickness, and Matthew 8:17 Applies 53:4 to Physical Healing, Not Atonement
The objection as it is raised: The article says two connected things. First: "a man of pains and acquainted with disease" (53:3) applies to Israel, because Israel's adversities are frequently likened to sickness (Isaiah 1:5-6; Jeremiah 10:19; 30:12). Second — the stronger blow: the Gospel of Matthew itself, in 8:17, quotes Isaiah 53:4 and applies it to Christ’s healing of the physically sick — "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." So Matthew understands the verse of a real physical sickness, not a spiritual atonement; and this contradicts the Christian spiritual translation of 53:4.
The answer: This is a precise objection, and its second part especially is clever, so let us answer carefully.
The first layer — the sickness simile: Yes, the Tanakh sometimes likens adversities to sickness. But Isaiah 53 does not say the Servant is "sick" in himself; it says he "bore" our griefs and our sorrows — that is, the sorrows of others, not his own. And the substitutionary bearing of others' sorrows is something different from a person being sick with his own adversities. A nation sick with its own calamities is a self-contained condition; but the Servant bears the sorrows of others — and this is a distribution between a bearer and one borne for, not a single condition.
The second layer — Matthew 8:17: The citation of Matthew 8:17 does not contradict the atonement; it reveals its depth. The Gospel sees in Christ’s healing of the sick a visible sign of a deeper bearing: he who came to bear sin (the root) also bears its effects (sickness). The physical healing in Christ’s ministry was a tangible proof of his authority to bear what is deeper — sin. So Matthew does not confine the verse to the body instead of the soul; he shows it fulfilled on the visible level first, in preparation for its full fulfillment on the cross where sin was borne. The two do not conflict: the Servant bears griefs and sicknesses as a sign, and iniquity as atonement — and the chapter itself states the latter plainly: "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
The third layer: Notice that the chapter does not stop at bearing griefs; it moves explicitly to bearing iniquity: "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," "he shall bear their iniquities." So whoever confines the chapter to physical healing reads half of it and leaves half. Griefs and sicknesses are mentioned in verse 4; but iniquity and iniquities are mentioned in verses 6, 11, and 12. The atonement is not an imposed interpretation; it is in the explicit words of the text.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But Matthew specifically chose to apply 53:4 to physical healing, not to the cross; if he understood it as atonement he would have applied it to the death." And we reply: Matthew wrote a whole Gospel, not a single verse. He himself narrates the cross and applies the language of atonement to it (Matthew 26:28 — "my blood... which is shed for many for the remission of sins"). So Matthew does not confine Isaiah 53 to healing; he sees the prophecy fulfilled in two stages: a visible sign in the healing, and full fulfillment in the cross. To cite Matthew 8:17 alone while ignoring Matthew 26:28 is itself "selection" — the very thing of which the Christian reading was accused in Objection Fourteen. The full text of Matthew joins healing and atonement together.
Objection Twenty — Christ "Opened His Mouth" and Answered at His Trial, So "He Opened Not His Mouth" Was Not Fulfilled; and Psalm 44 Makes Israel "Sheep for the Slaughter"
The objection as it is raised: The article says two things. First: "like a lamb led to slaughter" applies to Israel, for chapter 52 describes her as oppressed and taken away without cause, and Psalm 44 explicitly describes Israel as "sheep for the slaughter" among the nations. Second: the claim that Christ "opened not his mouth" is false, because the Gospels record that he spoke at his trial — he answered the high priest, said things to Pilate (John 18:23, 36-37), and even cried out on the cross (Matthew 27:46). So how did he "not open his mouth" when he spoke?
The answer: We answer both parts.
The first layer — Psalm 44: Yes, Psalm 44 describes Israel as sheep for the slaughter, and we do not deny that Scripture uses this image for the nation in its context. But the occurrence of the image in a passage about the nation does not confine it to the nation in every passage. The difference is that Psalm 44 describes a nation that suffers and complains and asks "Why sleepest thou, O Lord?" — a speaking, protesting nation. But Isaiah 53 describes a silent Servant who does not protest: "he opened not his mouth." The nation in Psalm 44 cries out; the Servant in Isaiah 53 is silent. The two images are opposite in speech and silence.
The second layer — "he opened not his mouth": The prophecy does not mean an absolute silence from every word, but silence from protest, self-defense, and resistance. And the Gospels describe this with astonishing precision: when false accusations were brought against him before the high priest and before Pilate, "he answered nothing," so that the governor marveled greatly (Matthew 27:14). The words he did speak were not a defense of himself nor a plea for rescue, but a witness to the truth. "He opened not his mouth" in Isaiah describes one who does not resist his oppressors nor seek his own deliverance — and this is exactly what he did: he did not call for help, did not insistently exonerate himself, did not curse his tormentors. The silence intended is the silence of non-resistance, and it was literally fulfilled.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But Christ in John 18:23 objected to the one who struck him, saying, 'Why smitest thou me?' — and that is self-defense, so he opened his mouth." And we reply: his words "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" are not resistance nor a plea for rescue; they are a question that exposes the injustice of the blow without returning it, and without summoning power to defend himself — he being the one who said he could ask the Father and be sent more than twelve legions of angels, yet did not (Matthew 26:53). He who has power to call legions of angels and chooses not to is precisely the one who "opened not his mouth" in the sense of non-resistance. A word that exposes injustice is not a breaking of the prophetic silence; resistance and the seeking of rescue are what did not happen — and they are what is meant.
Objection Twenty-One — "Taken from Dominion and Judgment" Means Stripped of Rule, and Christ Had No Kingdom at His First Coming
The objection as it is raised: The article says the correct translation of 53:8 is that the Servant was "taken away from dominion and judgment" — that is, stripped of a position of authority and rule. And Christians are forced to mistranslate, because Christ — by his own testimony — had no right to rulership or judgment at his first coming (John 3:17; 8:15; 12:47; 18:36). So how was he taken from a rule he never had?
The answer: This is a linguistic objection about the meaning of the phrase, and we answer it from the text.
The first layer: The Hebrew phrase in 53:8 admits the meaning "from oppression and (unjust) judgment he was taken" — that is, taken away unjustly through a corrupt trial, not "stripped of a judicial office he held." The standard translation (Van Dyck) reads: "from oppression and from judgment he was taken" — that is, taken by force and an unjust judgment. And this describes the victim of an unjust trial, not a ruler stripped of his throne. So the meaning on which the objection builds is neither the only nor the more likely meaning.
The second layer: Even if we read it "taken from dominion and judgment," it describes his being snatched away from any possibility of a fair trial — denied justice, seized from under the protection of fair judgment and handed to death. And this is exactly what happened: a hurried night trial, false witnesses, an unjust verdict. There is no need to assume he was a ruler who lost his rule; it is enough that he was denied justice. And the verses the objection cites (John 18:36, "my kingdom is not of this world") confirm rather than refute: his kingdom was not earthly, so he did not defend it with the sword, so he was taken unjustly without resistance — which is exactly what the verse describes.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But the national reading is simpler: the nation was taken from its land and rule into exile." And we reply: yet the rest of the verse itself breaks the national reading — "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." Who is "my people"? The speaker is a Jew, and "my people" is his people Israel; so the Servant was stricken "for the transgression of my people," meaning a party other than the people was stricken for the people's transgression. If the Servant were the nation, it would become "the nation was stricken for the transgression of the nation." So the very verse whose opening is cited for the national reading is broken by its own conclusion.
Objection Twenty-Two — "He Had Done No Violence" Does Not Apply to Christ, Who Cleansed the Temple with Force and Said "I Came Not to Bring Peace but a Sword"
The objection as it is raised: The article says that 53:9, "he had done no violence," does not apply to Christ. For the Gospels record that he cleansed the temple with force and overturned the money-changers' tables (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15-16; Luke 19:45), said "I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51), and even said in a parable, "those mine enemies... bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). So judge for yourself — is this consistent with "he had done no violence"?
The answer: This objection confuses "force" with "violence/injustice," and the literal with the figurative.
The first layer — the cleansing of the temple: "He had done no violence" (Hebrew: chamas — wrong, sinful aggression) means the absence of iniquity and unjust aggression, not the absence of any firm action. The cleansing of the temple was not violence; it was a defense of the holiness of God's house against those who had turned it into a market. Zeal for God's house is not chamas; injustice is aggression against the innocent, and that he never did. He harmed no innocent, robbed no right, told no lie. Overturning the tables of a trade that defiled the temple is a righteous act, not a wrong.
The second layer — "but a sword": His saying "I came not to send peace, but a sword" is an explicit metaphor explained by its context: the meaning is that the truth produces division even within one household between those who accept it and those who reject it — as the verse continues: "a man against his father." It is not a call to physical violence; the proof is that he rebuked Peter when he actually drew a sword, saying, "Put up again thy sword into his place." He who orders his disciple to sheathe the sword is not calling for the literal sword. And the parable in Luke 19:27 is speech on the lips of a king in a parabolic story about the coming judgment, not a command Christ carries out himself.
The third layer — a Jewish and a Gentile witness: Those who tried him testified to his innocence against their will. Pilate said, "I find in him no fault" (John 19:6). And the one crucified beside him said Christ "hath done nothing amiss." And the New Testament apostle wrote that he was "who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). So the testimony of enemy and friend alike is that no wrong was found in this man — which is exactly "he had done no violence."
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But overturning the tables is a violent act by any measure; and the national reading avoids this whole embarrassment." And we reply: the national reading does not avoid the embarrassment; it replaces it with a greater one. For Israel, by the admission of her own prophets, is not without wrong: Isaiah describes her as "a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity" (1:4). So if "he had done no violence" requires complete righteousness, the nation described as laden with iniquity is less able to bear it than a man whose enemies testified to his innocence. The description "he had done no violence" applies to a sinless righteous one — which the nation does not claim for herself, and which the Gospel claims for the Lord Jesus Christ, and to which the mouths of his enemies testify.
Objection Twenty-Three — "He Shall Cause Many to Be Just," Not "Justify Many": Israel's Mission Is to Be a Light to the Nations by Example and Teaching
The objection as it is raised: The article says the correct translation of 53:11 is that the Servant "shall cause many to be just" (that is, lead them to walk in righteousness), not "shall justify many" (a judicial declaration of acquittal). And Israel's mission is to be "a light to the nations" that leads the world to the knowledge of the one true God, both by example (Deuteronomy 4:5-8; Zechariah 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isaiah 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3). So the Servant reforms people by teaching and example, not by vicarious atonement.
The answer: This is a linguistic and a theological objection together, and we answer both sides.
The first layer — the language: The Hebrew verb in 53:11 (yatzdiq) is judicial in its root, its opposite being "to condemn." And even if it is translated "cause to be just," the verse does not stop there; it continues: "and he shall bear their iniquities." So the Servant causes them to be just by bearing their iniquities — not merely by teaching them. Example and teaching do not involve "bearing the iniquities" of others; a teacher does not have his students' iniquities "laid upon" him. So the joining of "cause to be just" with "their iniquities he shall bear" settles that the justification here is by atonement, not by instruction.
The second layer — the theology: Israel's mission to be a light to the nations is a truth we do not deny. But the chapter does not describe a teacher who enlightens by instruction; it describes a Servant who "made his soul an offering for sin" and "poured out his soul unto death." A teacher does not die as an offering for sin in order to teach. The language is the language of sacrifice and atonement and bearing of iniquity, not the language of a school and an example. And the light to the nations itself — in Isaiah 49:6 — is entrusted to the Servant who brings Jacob back, that is, to an individual distinct from the nation, not to the nation itself.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But 'bearing iniquities' may mean enduring the consequences of the nations' sins — that is, Israel's suffering under the nations' persecution — not an atonement for them." And we reply: this interpretation collides with the preceding verse 10: "he made his soul an offering for sin." "An offering for sin" (asham) is a defined ritual term in the Law of Moses for a sacrifice that atones for and removes guilt. So when "he shall bear their iniquities" is joined to "he made his soul an offering for sin," the bearing becomes an atoning bearing, not merely a suffering. And the suffering of the oppressed at the hands of his oppressor is not called "an offering for sin" in the language of the Law. The text chose the ritual term precisely, and so settled the meaning.
Objection Twenty-Four — Isaiah 42:4 Says the Servant "Shall Not Fail nor Be Crushed," So the Crushed Servant of 53 Is Not He
The objection as it is raised: The article points out that the Servant in Isaiah 42:4 is described as one who "shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth." So if the Servant of the Songs is one, how can the same one be "shall not be crushed" in chapter 42, then "bruised and wounded" in chapter 53? The contradiction shows that "the Servant" is a flexible collective symbol, not a single individual.
The answer: This is a clever objection that plays on a surface contradiction, but it falls when the precise meaning is read.
The first layer: "Shall not fail nor be crushed" in Isaiah 42:4 describes the Servant's resolve and his perseverance in his mission until he completes it — not a physical immunity from pain. The context makes this clear: the verse speaks of one who "shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth" — that is, he does not despair nor retreat from his purpose. And this does not contradict his suffering physically in chapter 53; rather it completes it: the Servant is crushed physically (53) and yet his resolve is not broken from completing salvation (42). Physical crushing is not the same as the breaking of the will. He suffered in his body, and his will did not fail.
The second layer: Indeed the two chapters together draw the complete picture: in 42 a quiet Servant who "shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street," patient and untiring; and in 53 the same Servant "opened not his mouth," silent under pain, not retreating. The silence and patience in the two chapters are identical, not contradictory. The Servant who "shall not fail" is the same who "opened not his mouth" — both describe a steadfastness under pressure, not an immunity from pressure.
And here we anticipate the counter-rebuttal: The objector will say: "But the surface wording 'shall not be crushed' contradicts 'bruised'; and it is not valid to reconcile them by reading one as a metaphor." And we reply: it is not a forced reconciliation; it is reading each word in its context. "Shall not be crushed" in 42:4 has the context of completing the mission ("till he have set judgment in the earth") — so it is about resolve. And "bruised" in 53:5 has the context "for our iniquities" — so it is about substitutionary pain. Two words in two different contexts describe two aspects of one Servant: his resolve is not broken, and his body is crushed for us. And this is the mystery of the Servant: strongest in resolve in the weakest condition of body. The apparent contradiction between the two chapters is itself the depth of the picture, not a proof of multiple servants.
A Final Word in This Argument — To the Rabbi and to Every Jewish Reader
We have reached the end of the argument. We have taken twenty-four objections, each as its authors wrote it, and answered each on layers, then reached ahead to the counter-rebuttal and answered it too. Let us now pause for a final moment.
Rabbi Kravitz's article closes with a wisdom from the book of Proverbs: "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him" (Proverbs 18:17). It is a beautiful verse, and we accept it with all gladness — indeed we wish it to be applied here exactly. We have searched the first claim and the second, and found that the denial of a "ban" does not answer the question of the "omission." We searched the argument of 4Q176, and found it, when completed, testifies for us and not against us. We searched the argument of "the nation is the Servant," and found the text itself — in Isaiah 42:19 and Isaiah 49:5-6 — placing a Servant who restores opposite a nation that is restored. We searched "lamo" and "his deaths," and found two disputed words that cannot stand against dozens of explicit singular pronouns. And we searched Ezekiel 18, and found it — when grasped well — turning upon the collective reading rather than the messianic. This is the searching to which Proverbs called — and we have accepted it with joy and conducted it with honesty.
Dear Jewish brother: we do not speak to you from outside your heritage, but from within your book. Isaiah is your prophet. The Targum is your tradition. Sanhedrin is the book of your rabbis. The Psalms are your prayers. And we do not ask you to betray your people — the first apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ were all Jews, who read Isaiah from their mothers' laps, and never once felt they had left Israel, but that they had found her Messiah.
We ask of you one thing only, the very thing the book of Proverbs itself asks: search. Read Isaiah 53 alone, in silence, with no one dictating to you — neither a rabbi nor a missionary — and ask your heart: who is this one who was esteemed stricken of God, and bore the transgression of "my people," and was cut off out of the land of the living, and was buried with a rich man, and had done no violence, then saw his seed and prolonged his days and justifies many?
We say it with fire, because the truth deserves fire: all of history knows of none but one who matches this description completely, in every detail — the Lord Jesus Christ, a Jew from Bethlehem, esteemed stricken, silent before his tormentors, who died cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of his people, was buried in the tomb of a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea, in whose mouth no deceit was found, then rose on the third day, and who has today a spiritual seed beyond number from all the nations of the earth. And we say it with love, because you deserve love: this Servant is no stranger to you; he is the son of your people, and the Messiah of your prophets, and he stands at the door of your heart and knocks. And the companion article — "The Wounded Servant and the Love That Will Not End" — opens that door wide for you.
Behold Him — A Final Invitation to Your Heart
Friend, if you have read this argument in full, you are a person who respects his mind and respects the truth. And you have seen that every objection to the messianic reading of Isaiah 53 has an answer, and that every anticipated counter-rebuttal has an answer too. But this argument, however long, was not written to win a debate. It was written because behind the arguments stands a Person — and the Person is more important than the argument.
Arguments can remove the obstacles that stand in the way of the mind, but they cannot, by themselves, open the door. The door is opened by the heart. And Isaiah 53, when read in silence after all the obstacles have fallen, poses one question: "But whom say ye that I am?" (Matthew 16:15). This is the question of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and He poses it to you now.
The Servant whose identity we have defended through twenty-four objections is not an idea you settle in your head; He is a living Person. He was esteemed stricken of God, and bore the transgression of His people, and was cut off out of the land of the living, then rose. And He is today not in a grave nor in a textbook, but standing at the door of your heart:
And if your heart is moved now, you need no particular formula to speak to God; it is enough to tell Him honestly that you have believed that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Servant Isaiah saw, and that His wounds were for you, and that you receive Him as your Saviour and trust in Him alone. And the Book declares: "He that believeth on him is not condemned" (John 3:18). And the companion article — "The Wounded Servant and the Love That Will Not End" — completes this journey with you. Behold Him, friend. Behold the Servant whom we have defended. He is for you.
An Invitation to Receive Divine Salvation — Accept The Lord Jesus Christ as Your Personal Saviour
Dear reader — if these words have touched your heart and you have recognised that you are a sinner in need of a Saviour, know that God is calling you to Himself in this very moment. You do not need a priest, or a human mediator, or a holy place, or rituals or works. The Lord Jesus Christ paid the full price on the cross, and the promise of God is certain and clear:
What saves you is not the words of this prayer — but the faith in your heart that the Lord Jesus Christ died for you and rose from the dead. But if you want to express your faith in sincere words, read this prayer with a humble heart as though you are speaking to the living God:
The Prayer of Salvation
"O Great, Holy, and Loving True God,
I come to You now with complete humility, confessing that I am a sinner. I have broken Your commandments many times in my thoughts, in my words, and in my deeds. I know that my sin deserves eternal death and eternal separation from You. I have no good work I can offer that is able to redeem my soul, and no righteousness of my own to cover my nakedness before Your holiness.
But I believe with all my heart in the testimony of Your Word that Your only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, died on the cross for my sins — bearing in my place the punishment I deserved. I believe that He was buried, and that He rose from the dead on the third day, alive and victorious over death and the grave, and that He is alive now unto the ages of ages.
In this blessed moment, I receive the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour. I trust in Him alone — not in my works, not in my religion, not in rituals or any person or angel or saint. On the Lord Jesus Christ alone, and on His precious blood shed on the cross, I build the hope of my eternal salvation.
I thank You, my Father, that You have now received me in the Lord Jesus Christ, and have forgiven all my sins, and have given me eternal life as a free gift by Your grace. I thank You that You have sent Your Holy Ghost to dwell in my heart, bearing witness to me that I have become Your child. Give me grace to know You more day by day, and to live the rest of my life for Your glory alone.
I pray all this in the name of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
After You Have Prayed — What Now?
If you prayed this prayer from a truly believing heart, the greatest miracle in all your history has happened in this moment: you have passed from death to life, from darkness to light, from the kingdom of sin into the kingdom of the beloved Son of God. You have become a child of the living God, and God's own promise guarantees this to you in His trustworthy Word:
Notice the power of this promise: "gave he power" — a settled right, guaranteed, not a wish or a possibility. And notice "them that believe on his name" — not "those who performed great deeds," not "those who completed rituals," but simply "them that believe." You are now one of them — with absolute certainty.
Here are five simple steps to establish you in your new life with the Lord Jesus Christ:
First — Read the King James Bible every day. Begin with the Gospel of John, then continue through the rest of the New Testament, then the Psalms and Proverbs. God speaks to you through His Word as a father speaks with his son. Do not read quickly — read with meditation and prayer. "The holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15).
Second — Pray every day. Speak to God as a loving Father — not with memorised words, but with words from your heart. Share with Him your joys and sorrows and questions and fears. Prayer is the breathing of the Christian life. "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17).
Third — Join a Bible-believing church. Do not walk this road alone. Faith grows in the fellowship of believers, where the Word is preached faithfully and baptism and the Lord's Supper are practised according to the King James Bible. "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" (Hebrews 10:25).
Fourth — Be baptised according to the King James Bible. Baptism is not a condition for salvation, but it is the first step of obedience after faith. It is a public declaration that you died with the Lord Jesus Christ and were buried with Him and rose with Him to a new life. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16) — faith first, then baptism as its natural fruit.
Fifth — Witness to others about the Lord Jesus Christ. What you have experienced of salvation and love cannot remain hidden. Begin with your family and friends. Tell them simply and honestly how the Lord Jesus Christ changed your life. "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you" (1 John 1:3).
And finally, remember always that your salvation is not built on your feelings or on any work you perform — but on the unchanging promise of God:
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life."
— 1 John 5:13
Notice: "that ye may know" — not "that ye may hope," not "that ye may wish," not "that ye may wait in anxious fear." But that ye may know with complete, unshakeable certainty that you have eternal life. This is the difference between all the world's religions and the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ: religions say "work and perhaps you will be saved" — and the Word of God alone says: "believe and know that you are saved."
✉ Share Your Testimony of Salvation
"Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." — Luke 15:10