home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Gerald Sigal: Isaiah 53

return to previous page

• from Gerald Sigal's The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Chrisitanity

Isaiah 53: 1-12

1. Who would have believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2. For he grew up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry land; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look
upon him, nor appearance that we should delight in him.

3. He was despised, and rejected of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4. Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; but we considered him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5. But he was wounded as a result of our transgressions, he was crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.

6. All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has visited upon him the iniquity of us all.

7. He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and did not open his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; and he did not open his mouth.

8. From dominion and judgment he was taken away, and his life's
history who is able to relate? For he was cut off out of the land of
the living; as a result of the transgression o f my people he has been
afflicted.

9. And his grave was set with the wicked, and with the rich in his deaths; although he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth.

10. And it pleased the Lord to crush him-He made [him] sick. If he would offer himself as a guilt-offering, he shall see seed, he shall prolong days. And the purpose of the Lord will prosper by his hand.

11. From the labor of his soul he shall see; he shall be satisfied. With his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, shall cause many to be just. And their iniquities he shall bear.

12. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he has poured out his soul to death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Introduction

Christian missionaries have often wondered why Jews do not accept their contention that the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is a prophecy of the life and death of Jesus.

What Jews find even more amazing and mystifying is how any person who studies this chapter critically can possibly believe it alludes to Jesus. Based on what they thought the Hebrew Scriptures said concerning the Messiah, the New Testament authors restructured the life of the historical Jesus to make it conform to their preconceived ideas.

However, neither figurative nor literal fulfillment of all that the New Testament authors claim holds up upon close examination of the text of Isaiah 53. In fact, by investigating their assertions, it will be found that the New Testament unintentionally provides evidence that refutes the notion that the prophet's words refer to Jesus.

No contrived resemblance between Isaiah 53 and the life of Jesus will suffice. Only a careful analysis will establish the truth concerning the messianic qualifications of Jesus of Nazareth.

• Let it be stated from the outset that although we believe Isaiah 53 speaks of the nation of Israel, our main concern here is not with the exegetical problem of whom Isaiah is referring to -- whether it is one of the prophets, the people of Israel as a whole, or the Messiah -- but with the investigation of the Christian missionary claim.

Ignoring the fact that Israel is often spoken of as the servant of the Lord (e.g., Isaiah 41:8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3), Christian missionaries often argue that this chapter does not refer to the people of Israel. This, however, is sidestepping the issue. Even if such were the case, it would not prove that Isaiah's prophecy in chapter 53 has any reference at all to Jesus.

• Isaiah's prophecy does not begin with chapter 53, but with chapter 52:13-15, which serves as an introduction and summary.

There, Isaiah prophesies that at a specific juncture in history, the Gentiles will begin to realize the vital part the servant played in their national history.

Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. According as many were appalled at you-so marred was his appearance unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men-so shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive. (Isa. 52: 13-15)

• Isaiah 53:1-8 finds the prophet quoting the astonished exclamations of the Gentile spokesmen as they describe their bewilderment at the unfolding events surrounding the life of the suffering servant of the Lord.

In 53:9 and the first half of verse 10, he reflects upon the tribulations suffered by the servant and states that if the servant remains faithful to God, despite all adversity, God will amply reward him. In the latter part of verse 10 through verse 12, the prophet records the blessings with which God will reward His faithful servant for all the abuse and injury he endured for the sanctification of the Name of God.

Isaiah 53

53:1- 2. Who would have believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry land; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor appearance that we should delight in him.

The verse above speaks of the suffering servant of the Lord as
he is growing up (i.e., the historical development of the Jewish
people). It is a continuation of Isaiah 52:14, where the prophet
states that the servant seems, in the eyes of his enemies, the
Gentiles, to have a repulsive appearance. Judging him merely
on his outward features, they can find nothing positive to say
about him. Suddenly, the Gentile nations and their rulers will be
startled by the glorious transformation that will come about in
the servant's fortunes. In amazement they will exclaim: "Who
would have believed our report? And to whom has the arm of
the Lord been revealed?" They then reflect upon their earlier
reaction to him, attributing to God what was really their own
lack of insight as to the true nature of the servant.

Accordingly, they speak of the servant as one who "grew up before Him
[God] as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry land" which is
stunted and withered and does not produce fruit or distinguish
itself in any way, being both unproductive and unsightly. They
further state their opinion that the servant did not possess any
a physical attribute which should draw people to him.

Does this description fit the one of Jesus as depicted by the
evangelists? Was he a frail, unsightly child? Was he a repulsive
adult? According to them, he was, throughout his entire
lifetime, greatly desired by an ever growing multitude of people,
as is strikingly illustrated in Luke's summation of Jesus' formative years: "And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and in physical
growth [helikia, cf. Luke 19:3], and in favor with God and men"
(Luke 2:52). In this statement, it is asserted that Jesus was tall,
wise, and enjoyed popularity even in the years prior to his active
ministry.

His handsome appearance and charismatic personality, it is intimated, attracted so many followers that the few negative reactions to his teachings that he encountered early in his career were of no consequence. This is contrary to the description of the suffering servant of the Lord found in Isaiah 53:2. There are simply no indications in the Gospels that Jesus,
as he grew up, could in any way be likened to a "tender plant,"
i.e., stunted, or to a "root out of a dry land," i.e., withered, or
that he was extremely repulsive to look at, as the servant was  said to be by his many enemies. We are thus compelled to conclude that the life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, does not at all fit that of the suffering servant of the Lord as portrayed in Isaiah.

53:3 He was despised, and rejected of men ["men of high status"], a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

This verse, continuing the theme of the previous one, speaks
of the servant as being generally despised. He is described as
suffering from pains and diseases with which he is well acquainted. Terms having to do with wounds, sickness, pain, and disease are often used in the Scriptures to describe the humiliations and adversities suffered by the nation of Israel (Isaiah 1:5-6; Jeremiah 20:19, 30:12). The prophet quotes the Gentiles as saying that the suffering servant of the Lord "was despised and rejected" by their leaders, the "men of high status." They then
indicate that this rejection was even more widespread, as
implied in the words: "He was despised and we esteemed him not."

The "we" includes a wider range of enemies than is
expressed by the term "men of high status." Contrary to this
verse, the evangelists insist that Jesus was greatly admired by
large segments from every level of society. True, the evangelists
claim that the Jewish rulers condemned Jesus, but, nevertheless,
they assert that Jesus had many followers from among the ruling
class. The evangelists speak of Jesus as one who, while losing, at
times, many of his followers, always had, even at the end of his
life, a great many adherents. What is extremely significant is
that these adherents came from every segment of society.

When the news about Jesus spread through all the districts
surrounding Galilee, he began teaching in the synagogues and
was "glorified by all" (Luke 4:14-15). "And the news about him
went out into all Syria" (Matthew 4:24). As his fame grew, "a
great crowd came together with those that went to him from the
various cities" (Luke 8:4). "And great crowds followed him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from the
other side of the Jordan" (Matthew 4:25). The press of the
crowds was tremendous (Luke 7:11; 8:19, 45). In the city of Nain,
a large part of the populace calls Jesus a great prophet and says
that God has visited His people (Luke 7:12, 16). Nor was it just
the poor masses that followed him; we find that the wife of
Herod's steward and other women contributed to the needs of
Jesus and his disciples (Luke 8:3). Mark 5:36 informs us how
Jairus, ruler of the synagogue, became a believer. John states
that many of the Jews believed in Jesus (John 12:11), and that
among them were many of the rulers who secretly believed in
him (John 12:42). In Luke 13:31, we are told that even some of the
Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod was planning to kill him and
urged him to escape. Matthew 21:46 and Mark 12:12, 37, inform
us that Jesus taught the crowds in the Temple and that his
enemies were afraid to arrest him because they feared the
multitudes who listened to him enthusiastically. Moreover,
when his enemies made their final plans to arrest him, they
decided: "Not during the festival, lest there be an uproar of the
people" (Mark 14:1-2). When Jesus entered Jerusalem, it was to
the accompanying shouts of "Hosanna" coming from the
crowds (Matthew 21:9) that declared: "This is the prophet Jesus
from Nazareth of Galilee" (Matthew 21:11).
Lest anyone think that all abandoned Jesus in his last hours,
we are told that Nicodemus, a Pharisee and "a ruler of the Jews"
(John 3:1), helped Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man, to prepare
the body for burial (John 19:39). We are told that Joseph of
Arimathaea was not only a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57,
John 19:38), but as a counselor, i.e., member of the Sanhedrin,
"had not consented to their plan and action" (Luke 23:50-51).
Helpless though Joseph and Nicodemus may have been to bring
about Jesus' freedom, they, contrary to Peter, did not deny
knowing him. Indeed, Joseph of Arimathaea's asking Pilate for
the body was a bold, albeit dangerous, move an his part. Nor
should we forget Mary Magdalene and the "other women" who
came to the tomb (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, John
20:1), and the alleged multitude who, throughout it all, it is claimed, believed in Jesus despite his sentence and crucifixion. As he went to be crucified, "there were following him a great multitude of people, and of women who were beating themselves and bewailing him" (Luke 23:27). According to the evangelical accounts, in addition to this "multitude," there must have been, throughout Judea and the surrounding territories, countless people from every level of society who did not know of events in Jerusalem and who still looked to Jesus as the Messiah.

Can such a person be described as one who "was despised and rejected," from whom people fled? The words: "He was despised and rejected of men . . . and as one from whom men hide their face . . . and we esteemed him not" cannot be applied to Jesus if one is to believe the New Testament report of the popularity that Jesus enjoyed during his lifetime among the upper class as well as among the common people. Moreover, the evangelists claim that the chief priests and the scribes sought to take Jesus "by craft" but "not during the festival" because they feared a popular demonstration against them if the people learned of Jesus' arrest (Mark 14:1-2).

Mark has these plans for the arrest of Jesus take place two days before Passover: "After two days was the Passover and Unleavened Bread" (Mark 14:1). Hence, very shortly before his death, Jesus' enemies expressed fear of the wrath of the people if they should arrest him. This confirms that even at that crucial point, just before the end of his life, Jesus had a significant following among the people, regardless of social class. Even if we accept that a crowd actually stood outside the judgment hall demanding that Pilate execute Jesus (Matthew 27:22; Mark 15:13; Luke 23:21, 23; John 18:39-40), it would have constituted only an extremely small fraction of the people then in Jerusalem. Clearly, in this incident, the evangelists have distorted developments in order to condemn the entire Jewish people for their rejection of the messianic pretensions of Jesus. However, the major thrust of their writings argues for popular support, not only in the country as a whole, but even in those last hours in Jerusalem (Luke 23:27).

Present-day Christian missionaries argue that Jesus died without any significant following. This, however, is only an argument of Christian missionary apologists necessitated by theological needs. In contrast to Isaiah's statement, which includes the high-born as well as the common folk rejecting the suffering servant of the Lord, the evangelical record argues that Jesus had a significant following among the well-born as well as among the common people even at the time of his crucifixion. According to the Gospels, this faithful following was not composed of ignorant masses following a mere miracle-working prophet. The Gospels allege that the masses adhered to a messianic belief that Jesus, who was believed to be the son of David (Matthew 9:27), was not only the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 (John 7:40), but was in fact, the very Messiah himself (John 7:41).

Even though there was a division among the crowd over the validity of his claim (John 7:43), and many of his disciples left him (John 6:66), we must assume, the Gospels not telling us otherwise, that besides Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, men such as Jairus, along with thousands of others throughout the country, still believed in him as the Messiah at the time of the crucifixion. To whatever reason one may attribute the belief in Jesus among his followers, the fact still remains that, according to the Gospels, he was not generally rejected by the members of the various social strata of society. On all accounts, there is little resemblance between the life of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels and the life of the servant of the Lord as depicted by Isaiah 53. Any attempt to assert the contrary is fallacious, and forced at best.

53: 4-6. Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; but we considered him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded as a result of our transgressions, he was crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has visited upon him the iniquity of us all.

In verse 4, the Gentile spokesmen depict the servant as bearing the "diseases" and carrying the "pains" which they themselves should have suffered. At the time of the servant's suffering, the Gentiles believed that the servant was undergoing divine retribution for his sins. Now, when the servant has attained glory, the Gentiles come to the realization that the servant's suffering stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. It is not that the servant is without sin, but that the Gentiles speak here of their own treatment of the servant, not God's.

Seeing events unfold, the Gentiles confess, as recorded in verse 5, that they were the cause of the servant's distress and are more deserving of his afflictions than he was. In the verse: "But he was wounded from our transgressions, he was crushed from our iniquities," the preposition "from" is used with the meaning "as a result of," which furnishes the idea that the servant suffered as a result of the evil deeds perpetrated against him by the Gentiles. Both king and commoner persecuted the servant for their own ends. They used him as a scapegoat to hide such things as corruption in government and incompetence in battle, and, in general, to distract the masses from the difficulties of daily life.

Through the persecution of the servant, the Gentiles created the illusion of national unity and the means by which to cover up their own misdeeds. Hence the exclamation: "And with his stripes we were healed." In verse 6, the Gentiles acknowledge that each of their respective nations had gone after its own selfish interests and desires. However, even the evil Gentile nature served the divine purpose. The servant's suffering, inflicted upon him by the Gentiles, was used by God to test the moral and spiritual fiber of the servant vis-a-vis the Gentile nations.

As we shall see, verse 10 further illuminates this point, indicating that it was God's plan to test the servant to see whether he would offer himself to any fate ordained for him in order to sanctify the Name of God.

53: 7 He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; and opened not his mouth.

To understand why Jesus could not be the fulfillment of the above verse, we must sift through the various accounts of his trial. We must first dispense with the notion that Jesus' refusal to answer the statements of what are called the "false witnesses" constitutes a fulfillment of the verse under study. The only two evangelists who mention this event are Matthew and Mark (Matthew 26:59-66, Mark 14:55-64). According to their accounts, the actual charge leveled against Jesus by the high priest concerned his claim to be the Christ, i.e., the Messiah. He was not charged with threatening to destroy and rebuild the Temple, as he had been accused by the "false witnesses."

Therefore, the statements of the alleged "false witnesses" and the subsequent silence by Jesus cannot be construed as a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7. According to Jewish law, the statements attributed to Jesus by the witnesses constituted no punishable offense whatsoever and therefore could not be considered real accusations. The witnesses did not present evidence concerning his messianic pretensions but mentioned an incident having no bearing on the actual charge. Claiming to be able to perform miracles was not punishable by law. Accordingly, the appearance of these witnesses was inconsequential and with no real significance in relation to the actual accusation. Jesus' lack of response to their specific statements was equally inconsequential in relation to the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. That the claim to be the Messiah was the focus of the inquiry is seen from the way the high priest, according to the evangelists, dispensed with the need for witnesses once Jesus admitted to the charge.

The proceedings against Jesus did not constitute a formal trial. Rather, they were an inquiry aimed at learning the details of Jesus' activities as a messianic claimant. Although a number of charges were leveled against Jesus (Luke 23:2, 5), fundamentally each one of them focused, as we shall soon see, on the messianic authority arrogated by Jesus for himself and its ancillary implication of seditious activity against the Roman hegemony over Judea. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was the accusation placed against him before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. For the Jews, this was not a claim deserving of death, but to the Romans, the charge was tantamount to sedition. To the charge of his messianic claim, Jesus answered both the Jews and Pilate in a forceful manner.

Interest in Jesus as a messianic claimant is further illustrated by the alleged encounter between Jesus and Annas, which John, in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, insists took place before Jesus was sent to Caiphas.

The high priest therefore questioned Jesus about his disciples, and about his teaching. Jesus answered him: "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in a synagogue and in the Temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you question me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; behold these know what I said." When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a slap, saying: "Is that the way you answer the high priest?" Jesus answered him: "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike me?" (John 18:19-23)

These accounts illustrate the evangelical emphasis on the purported Jewish and Roman interest in the "teaching" of Jesus, which can only refer to his self-conception as the destined Messiah. "Are you the Christ?" was the question allegedly asked by his Jewish interrogators, and this he answered in the affirmative. From this answer derives the list of accusations to be found in Luke.

Then the whole multitude of them arose, and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him saying: "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king." And Pilate asked him, saying: "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him and said: "You are saying so." And Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes: "I find no fault in this man." But they were insistent, saying: "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee to here." (Luke 23:1-5)

Concerning this same event Matthew and Mark testify as follows:

When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him to Pilate the governor .... Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned him, saying: "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said: "You yourself are saying it." But while he was being accused by the chief priests and the elders, he made no answer. Then Pilate said to him: "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But he did not answer him, not even to a single charge, so that the governor wondered very much. (Matthew 27:1-14)

And as soon as it was morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate. And Pilate questioned him, saying: "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him: "You yourself are saying it." And the chief priests accused him of many things. And Pilate again questioned him, saying: "Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you." But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered. (Mark 15:1-5)

Comparing the three preceding versions we find a number of differences. According to Matthew and Mark, Pilate first asks Jesus if he is the King of the Jews and then the Jewish officials offer their accusations, which are not recorded. Luke, by contrast, has the Jewish officials first accuse Jesus, then list the accusations, and finally has Pilate ask if he is the King of the Jews. Only Luke actually lists the accusations: "misleading our nation," "forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar," and claiming that "he himself is Christ, a king." In the other Gospels the charges are implied.

The first two accusations are expressions of the political aim of the messianic movement to reestablish the kingdom of Israel. These two accusations center around the assertion that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Indeed, this messianic accusation would attract Pilate's special attention for its apparent danger to Roman authority. Clearly, the Sanhedrin, in this instance, functioned only as a grand jury. It merely presented evidence of Jesus' seditious behavior against Rome.

The Gospel of John provides us with alternate information concerning the trial proceedings, while illuminating certain features mentioned by the Synoptic Gospel writers. John says:

They led Jesus therefore from Caiphas into the judgment hall. It was early. But they themselves did not enter the judgment hall, in order that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. Therefore Pilate went out to them and said: "What accusation do you bring against this man?" They answered and said to him: "If this man were not a evildoer, we would not have handed him over." Therefore Pilate said to them: "Take him yourselves and judge him according to your own law." The Jews said to him: "It is not lawful for us to kill anyone." This was in order that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying what sort of death he was about to die. Therefore Pilate entered the judgment hall again and called Jesus, and said to him: "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered: "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?" Pilate answered: "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what did you do?" Jesus answered: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, my kingdom is not from here." Therefore Pilate said to him: "So you are a king?" Jesus answered: "You are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate said to him: "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them: "I find no guilt in him." (John 18:28-38)

John agrees with Luke, in opposition to Matthew and Mark, that Pilate heard the charges from the Jewish officials before interrogating Jesus. They inform Pilate that Jesus has been brought to him because Jesus is an "evildoer." Pilate then asks Jesus: "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" (Matthew 27:13). "Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you" (Mark 15:4). No, Jesus did not hear the charges against him. As a result, he did not answer his accusers. John explains that the reason Jesus did not answer the Jewish accusers before Pilate (Matthew 27:12, Mark 15:3) was because Jesus was in the judgment hall and the accusers were outside the building (John 18:28, 29, 33, 38). This view is further strengthened by Jesus' comment to Pilate: "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?" (John 18:34). This shows that he could not hear what was going on outside, where the Jews were.

The statement: "Therefore Pilate entered the judgment hall again and called Jesus, and said to him: 'Are you the King of the Jews?'" makes it clear that claiming to be the King Messiah was the Jewish accusation against Jesus. Matthew and Mark comment that Jesus did not answer the Jewish accusations when questioned by Pilate: "But he did not answer him, not even to a single charge" (Matthew 27:14); "But Jesus made no further answer" (Mark 15:5).

However, the list of charges made by the Jews, which is found in Luke's Gospel (Luke 23:2), is answered by Jesus. The charges are answered in his defense before Pilate, as found in John's Gospel. There he claimed to head a peaceloving, nonmilitary, otherworldly group which would not countenance revolt against the Roman Empire. The evangelists argue, with the help of alleged quotations from the trial, that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews but not one who sought power in this world, i.e., at the expense of the Roman Empire. Luke contends that Jesus was also questioned by Herod Antipas, the Jewish ruler of Galilee.

But when Pilate heard it [that Jesus had worked in Galilee], he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was himself also in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus he was very glad, for he had wanted to see him for a long time, because he had heard about him and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. Also he questioned him at some length; but he answered nothing. And the chief priests and the scribes were standing by vehemently accusing him. And Herod together with his soldiers, after treating him with contempt and mocking him; dressed him in a bright garment and sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other on that very day; for before they had been at enmity with each other. (Luke 23:6-12)

This event, it is claimed, took place as an interruption in the trial before Pilate. Pilate, it is argued, broke off his own prosecution of Jesus in order to send him to Herod Antipas, continuing with his own trial proceedings upon Jesus' return. This sequence of events is not only logically unlikely but is not found in any other Gospel. Obviously, this episode is an addition to the trial events and is unknown to the other evangelists. They leave no time for this incident in their description of the trial, which was, according to them, conducted in its entirety before Pilate. The other Gospels would certainly not have omitted the story if it had been known.

Luke makes Herod Antipas one of Jesus' interrogators. He is depicted as joining with his soldiers in abusing Jesus. The inclusion of this story in the narrative is obviously an attempt to involve a Jewish ruler in the trial events. The blame for the execution is thereby shifted further away from the Romans and closer to the Jews.

The entire episode before Herod Antipas is spurious. Luke's description of the rough treatment suffered by Jesus is taken from the trial before Pilate. Luke omits completely the harsh treatment Jesus received at the hands of Pilate's soldiers, as mentioned by the other Gospels, and attributes the administration of this abusive treatment to Herod's soldiers. The conclusion to be drawn from the New Testament evidence is that Luke's narrative of the Herodian trial is patterned after the account of the trial before Pilate. There is no justification for believing that Luke's unique reference, thrust suddenly into the middle of the trial before Pilate, represents an actual event in Jesus' prosecution. Accordingly, even though Jesus is portrayed as not answering Herod Antipas, this obviously contrived scene cannot be classified as a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7.

As we have seen, both the Jewish officials and Pilate, when questioning Jesus, directed their inquiry to his messianic pretensions. Far from showing the humility and silence with which Isaiah describes the servant in verse 7, the encounter between the high priest, the elders, and Jesus is highlighted by a vigorous verbal exchange. In addition, Jesus did not show humility and silence during his confrontation with Pilate. At their meeting, Jesus is depicted as skillfully defending himself. Jesus at no time humbled himself, but, on the contrary, presented a clever verbal defense before Pilate (the one man who could condemn him to death), pleading shrewdly that his messianic teaching was a nonviolent, "not of this world" movement, one which the Romans need not fear. Since Pilate was concerned with messianic movements, which posed a political and military threat to the Roman Empire, he would not be interested in a movement which was not of "this world" and which would not be in conflict with the Empire.

Jesus was obviously defending himself by presenting a shrewd verbal response when he tried to convince Pilate that he was not the head of a seditious movement but that his intentions were peaceful.

Thus, in summation, we may say that contrary to what many
Christian missionary theologians would have us believe, Jesus
presented a strong defense before the Jewish officials and Pilate.
Jesus was not "dumb" before his accusers, Jewish or Gentile,
and it is simply not true to say of Jesus that "he humbled himself
and did not open his mouth." Despite the evangelical distortions, made to curry favor with the Romans, Jesus' movement must have appeared to Pilate like any of the other messianic movements which confronted the Roman procurators. He reacted accordingly.

53:8 From dominion and judgment he was taken away, and his life's
history who is able to relate? For he was cut off out of the land of
the living; as a result of the transgression of my people he has
been afflicted.

Generally, the beginning of this verse is rendered: "By oppression and judgment he was taken away." It is meant to indicate that, by means of persecution and judicial decision, the servant was exiled, not only from his own homeland but from the lands of his dispersion as well. The manner in which the early Christians treated this verse affords an example of how
they seized on anything in the Hebrew Scriptures that had even the slightest resemblance to the life of Jesus. But, at best, the prophet's words have no particular application to Jesus, since they could, in actuality, be applied generally to many people who suffered persecution.

However, the general context of this verse indicates that the word may-`otser should not be translated as "by oppression" but in accordance with its derivation from `etser, denoting "dominion, sovereignty," and thus the beginning of the verse should read: "From dominion and judgment . . ."

Accordingly, the verse does not refer to how the servant was taken away but to what he was taken away from. It thus reflects critical events in Jewish history: Taken from "dominion and judgment," i.e., rulership and the right to judge, who can relate Israel's history which followed after "he was cut off out of the land of the living," i.e., the Land of Israel?

Israel's life was filled with innumerable sufferings because of the misdeeds of the Gentiles who afflicted him unjustly. Driven into exile, the servant was deprived of his right to rule and judge. Can this be applied to Jesus? From what dominion and judgment was Jesus taken away? He never had any power as a ruler to lose. He was never deprived of any office. According to the New Testament, Jesus' "first coming" was not as a ruler or judge, but as one who would bring salvation. The New Testament further claims that Jesus will be coming back a second time and it is only then that he will reign as king and judge of the world. Jesus is quoted as saying: ". . . the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28) and "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). It is further stated in the Gospel of John: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him" (John 3:17). The preceding quotations illustrate that Jesus did not lose any dominion or right to judge during his lifetime, since he never had these rights in the first place. Considering verse 7 in its entirety, within the context of the entire chapter, it becomes clear that, no matter which rendering one might prefer, Isaiah did not refer to Jesus.

"And his life's history who is able to relate?" The translation of dor, which is generally rendered as "generation," is to be understood here as meaning "life's history" or "life's cycle." What is involved here is not just the servant's life-span but the entire spectrum of events contained within those years.

This is similar to the use of dor in Isaiah 38:12, where Hezekiah speaks of how he felt about what was believed to be his imminent passing: "My life's cycle [dori] is pulled up and carried from me as a shepherd's tent." He bewails not just his expected loss of life but all that he could still accomplish if allowed to live. Isaiah 53:8 quotes the repentant Gentiles as asking, in effect, the rhetorical question: Who is able to properly relate all the trials and tribulations suffered by the servant during his passage through history?

"For he was cut off out of the land of the living" is not to be taken literally. This is explained in detail in our discussion of verse 9.

"As a result of the transgression of my people he has been afflicted." The literal translation of this verse is: "From the transgression of my people there has been affliction to him." On the basis of studying Isaiah 53 in toto, and comparing it to the life of Jesus, we must conclude that this statement, made by the enemies of the suffering servant of the Lord, does not refer to Jesus, who, it is alleged, suffered as an atonement for mankind's sins. There is no indication in this verse that the servant of God suffered to atone for the sins of others. What this verse states is that he suffered as a result of the misdeeds of others, who treated him unfairly and unjustly.

Hence, the conclusion of the verse, in which the enemies of the servant admit responsibility for the cruel treatment they had meted out to him. This is the confession of the Gentile spokesmen, who now realize that it was they and their people who deserved to suffer the humiliations inflicted on the servant of the Lord, as they stated in verses 4-6. In short, his enemies admit that the servant's suffering stemmed from their own sinful imposition of hardships upon him.

As for Jesus, his afflictions came about, not because of the sins of other men, but because he pressed his messianic claims. The Gospels relate that he entered Jerusalem and proceeded to disrupt the peace of the Temple area in a manner which was openly defiant of the Roman hegemony over Judea. These events, it is said, occurred just before Passover, the very time of year the Romans considered the most volatile in rebellion-prone Judea. By arousing Roman ire, he brought upon himself, not a religious, but a distinctly political death, i.e., crucifixion. In shifting the blame for Jesus' death to the Jews, the New Testament writers were seeking to curry favor with the Romans at Jewish expense.

53: 9 And his grave was set with the wicked, and with the rich in his deaths; although he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth.

The Christian missionary interpretation of Isaiah 53 posits that such phrases as "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8), "his grave was set" (verse 9), and "in his deaths" (verse 9) refer to the death and burial of Jesus, with subsequent verses indicating his postresurrection glorification.

Actually, these phrases are not to be taken literally. The metaphor "his grave was set," describing an event in the life of God's suffering servant, is similar to the statement, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8). Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom.

Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Isaiah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah -- "cut off out of the land of the living" and "grave" -- are also used in Ezekiel's description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in an apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people exclaim: "we are clean cut off" (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: "And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land" (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah's phrase, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living," refers to the deadly condition of exile. Similarly, the term "grave" in Isaiah-"And his grave was set with the wicked"-refers to life in exile as used in Ezekiel: "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves" (Ezekiel 37:12), where "graves" is a metaphor for the lands of exile.

The messages of these two prophets are addressed to God's suffering servant. Although "cut off out of the land of the living" and now living in the lands of exile, the "grave set with the wicked," God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the "land of the living," the Land of Israel. That Isaiah speaks in the singular and Ezekiel in the plural is of no consequence, for the people of Israel may be spoken of in both forms, e.g., Exodus 14:31, Psalms 81:12-14.

If Christian missionaries insist that Jesus went to his death voluntarily, the phrase, "And his grave was set with the wicked," cannot refer to Jesus, because it describes an imposed fate and not something accepted voluntarily by the servant.

Furthermore, this was not a literal death, as the servant was alive when "his grave was set" (cf. Genesis 30:1; Exodus 10:17; Numbers 12:12; 2 Samuel 9:8, 16:9; Jonah 4:9 for examples of figurative death). With the servant representing Israel, this verse informs us that despite the imposed fate of exile, Israel continued to be faithful to God. Accordingly, Israel is to afterwards enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice.

The phrase "in his deaths" signifies that the suffering servant of the Lord experienced figuratively many "deaths" in exile. His anguish was multiplied exceedingly by the constant harassment of his enemies. Jewish history shows us how often Israel, hounded by its enemies, seemed to be in its last throes only to rise again.

"Although he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth." Violence may be defined as causing injury or damage by rough or abusive treatment. If the New Testament account is true, Jesus did commit certain acts of violence. Whip in hand, he attacked the merchants in the Temple area, causing a fracas (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15-16, Luke 19:45, John 2:15). He caused the death, by drowning, of a herd of swine by allowing demons to purposely enter their bodies (Matthew 8:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33) and destroyed a fig tree for not having fruit out of season (Matthew 21:18-21, Mark 11:13-14).

The evangelists agree that Jesus attacked the commercial activity in the Temple courtyard by violent means. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those selling doves, and drove out of the Temple courtyard not only those who sold, but even those who were buying animals, along with the sheep and oxen. Jesus' action was a direct assault, planned in advance, and accompanied by a determined show of force... Mark writes that Jesus took such complete control of the Temple courtyard that he prevented its use as a thoroughfare (Mark 11:16) ...

53: 10 And it pleased the Lord to crush him He made [him] sick. If he would offer himself as a guilt-offering, he shall see seed, he shall prolong days. And the purpose of the Lord will prosper by his hand.

In this verse, the prophet reiterates, in bold terms, a basic biblical concept.

• In suffering there is purification. Thus, there are times that God presents crushing personal challenges to His most loyal followers in order to strengthen their spirit. The lives of the patriarchs, with all their vicissitudes and tribulations, exemplify this process of purification through suffering. The righteous person is frequently confronted with painful experiences, not as a punishment for sins committed, but as a means of refinement. Indeed, suffering has been compared to a refining fire (Zechariah 13:8-9, Malachi 3:2-3).

No person is born pious or righteous. The potential for piety and righteousness can be actualized only through wrestling, over a period of time, with the vexing problems of life, and emerging, not only unscathed, but even strengthened by the experience. Facing adversity and cruel challenges, the individual must overcome all obstacles by nurturing and developing his inner faith and unswerving belief in God's justice.

• By remaining steadfast in his convictions and commitments, he will emerge, in the end, a truly pious and righteous person. His piety and righteousness will then be an essential part of his actual being.

The words of Isaiah, "If he would offer himself as a guiltoffering," do not mean that the servant offers himself vicariously as a guilt-offering for others. The message contained here is that the servant must feel that the suffering he has been experiencing is part of his burden and task in life in order to strengthen him inwardly. Viewing it from this perspective, he will be able to bring out his inner potential, fortify his moral fiber, and, in the end, become spiritually transformed. After having reached this state, the prophet assures him, he will then be the recipient of the most coveted of biblical rewards, namely, having many children and a long life.

Such a task is inappropriate for Jesus, the all-knowing godman. There would have been no reason for Jesus to prove himself, since he began as perfection incarnate. Furthermore, there was no reason to reward one who is said to be an equal part of the triune god with having children and prolongation of days. Satan's temptation notwithstanding (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:13, Luke 4:1-13), the outcome of Jesus' earthly life was assured, since he was incapable of committing a sinful act. Knowing that there was a divine timetable of events, i.e., Daniel's seventy weeks, and knowing God's purpose, Jesus, being aware of his divine origin, could not have done other than what was expected of him. Jesus could not freely go against the will of God and join forces with Satan, thereby abandoning the Trinity, which would then be reduced to a duet. Since he did not have free will, he could not really have been tempted.

Can it honestly be said that Jesus, who, in his final statement on the cross, is quoted as saying: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34), willingly offered himself as a guilt-offering? The evidence points to the contrary. Yet, because Jesus died at the time of the Passover festival, Christian missionaries often refer to him as the paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) who, by his voluntary sacrificial death, takes our sins away. To use the paschal lamb as a typology of Jesus' death (as the paschal lamb represented the redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt, so Jesus' death represents the redemption of humanity from bondage to sin) is at best an arbitrary assumption without a secure basis in the biblical text.

In fact, a closer look at the text should convince any objective student that the annual sacrifice of the paschal lamb is not treated, in any way, as referring to a guilt-offering intended to bring about forgiveness of sin. It was instituted as part of the celebration commemorating the redemption from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 12:14, 26, 27), and in no honest way can it be used in conjunction with a typological redemption from sin. There are several sacrifices whose purpose is the atonement of sin, and there is no need to misappropriate the paschal lamb for this purpose.

Certainly the sacrifice offered on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, affords a more logical symbol of redemption from sin. If the New Testament is a continuation of what Christians call the Old Testament, it must harmonize with the Old Testament. False comparisons will not do. Christian missionaries cannot pick and choose what suits them in order to make it seem as if Jesus willingly offered himself as a guiltoffering. Either Jesus is complete fulfillment of Scripture or none at all-and the verdict, clearly, is none at all.

According to the words "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days," the suffering servant of the Lord is to be rewarded for his selflessness in the service of the Almighty by being blessed with children and prolongation of life. These two promises must be treated as a unit, as described in greater detail in Isaiah 65:20-23. Each promise complements the other, highlighting the ancient Hebraic ideal of viewing children and a long life as the two greatest rewards God gives to man here on earth. This is further illustrated in Job 5:25-26: "You shall know also that your seed shall be great, and your offspring as the grass of the earth. You shall come to your grave in ripe age, as a shock of corn in its season."

From the manner in which the Hebrew word zer'a ("seed") is used in the Scriptures, there can be no doubt that actual physical offspring is meant here. Christian missionary exegetes have interpreted certain verses in the Scriptures (Genesis 3:15, 38:8; Isaiah 1:4, 57:4; Malachi 2:15; Psalms 22:31; Proverbs 11:21) as referring only symbolically to "bodily seed." But such an interpretation is unwarranted, since in each of these verses, the term "seed" can be taken in a literal and physical sense. Yet Christian missionaries would like us to believe that the term "seed" is used metaphorically, meaning, in the verse under discussion, "disciples."

Generally, the Hebrew word bayn ("son") may be employed metaphorically with the meaning "disciples," but never is the term zer`a ("seed") used in this sense. Hence, the latter must be taken literally, which rules out the possibility that it refers to Jesus since he had no children of his own.

Neither can the second part of the promise, ". . . he shall prolong days," be applied to Jesus, who died at a young age. To apply these words, as Christian missionary exegetes do, is not only evasive but meaningless. How can such a promise have any meaning for Jesus, who is viewed as being of divine substance and whose existence is believed, by Christian missionaries, to be eternal? There would be no need for God to assure a fellow member of the Trinity eternal life.

Obviously, there is a difference in meaning between the concept of prolongation of days and that of gaining eternal life. The concept of a prolonged life cannot be treated as the equivalent of eternal life because in an eternal context, time of any duration is of no consequence. Consequently, one cannot speak of an eternal being as having his days prolonged: "Are Your days as the days of man, or Your years as a man's days?" (Job 10:5). God must be referred to as eternal: "The number of His years is unsearchable" (Job 36:26). He is the first, He is the last, He cannot be anything else. Prolonging the days of one who is already supposed to be eternal would make his life longer than eternity. That obviously is an impossibility. If the promise of prolonged days is applied to Jesus, he could not be of divine origin.

Prolongation implies mortality, a cut-off date in the future, while the term "eternal life" refers to immortality. Therefore, the phrase "prolonged life" can only relate to the limited bodily existence in this world, and not to the endlessness of eternal life. We are compelled to conclude that since the blessings of seeing children and prolonging life are only appropriate when applied to a mortal man and not to an immortal being, these blessings cannot be applied to the Jesus of Christian missionary theology. Jesus died young and childless. If, after his alleged resurrection, he returned to heaven to become an eternal heavenly being again, prolongation of days cannot be appropriately applied to this stage of his existence. Thus, Isaiah 53:10 cannot and should not be applied to Jesus.

"And the purpose of the Lord will prosper by his hand." This refers to a time when true religion will prosper. Under the leadership of a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6), all nations will acknowledge and accept God's unity, sovereignty, and commandments (Zechariah 8:20-23).

53: 11 From the labor of his soul he shall see; he shall be satisfied. With his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, shall cause many to be just. And their iniquities he shall bear.

This verse indicates the abundant rewards that God will bestow upon His faithful servant. No longer will he suffer humiliation at the hands of the other nations (Ezekiel 34:28-29). In the past, the servant was physically mistreated by the nations and used as a means of covering up their own sins. At the time indicated in this verse, the servant will still bear the iniquities of the nations. However, he will bear them spiritually, not physically. This will take place through the servant's sacrifices in the reconstructed Temple on behalf of the nations, and through the instruction of the nations in God's laws (Isaiah 2:3-4, Micah 4:2-3, Zechariah 14:16-21).

Christian missionaries claim that the life's work of Jesus is reflected in this verse. However, there is a wide gap between asserting and proving one's claim. Certainly, the New Testament Jesus was not "satisfied" with what he accomplished during his lifetime, as is indicated by what he said on the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34). The argument that verse 11 refers to the heavenly Jesus, following his death, becoming increasingly satisfied as his following grew, is of little help since this verse deals with an earthly being. Furthermore, if Jesus was an equal partner in the Trinity, he would not have had to ask his "Father" to "forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). He himself should have been able to bear iniquities and forgive sins without invoking the assistance of God, the Father.

53: 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he has poured out his soul to death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

As part of the servant's reward for faithful service to God and mankind, "God will divide him a portion with the great." His exile over, the ingathering of the exiles complete, the servant, Israel, formerly despised by the nations, will now attain a place of honor and recognition among "the great," the sovereign nations of the world (Zechariah 8:13, Isaiah 61:9). Indeed, Israel will be recognized as the greatest of all the world's nations (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). The servant, as the true possessor of God's word, assumes a position of leadership among the nations of the world (Zechariah 8:20-23), who now turn to righteousness (Zechariah 14:16).

Parallel with God's promise to "divide him a portion with the great" is the phrase, "he shall divide the spoil with the mighty." The term "the mighty," or "the mighty ones," refers to the mighty nation, the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 18:18). The entire nation of Israel will share the spoils of war (Zechariah 14:14). It will not just be those who actually fought that will partake in the division of the spoils, but the spoils will be equally shared among all Israel (cf. Numbers 31:27, Joshua 22:8, 1 Samuel 30:24-25).

• How is a Christian missionary theological interpretation of Isaiah 53:12 to be reconciled with Daniel 9:26: "And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off, and he shall have nothing"?

Certainly the phrase "he shall have nothing" cannot be reconciled with verse 12, where God divides, for his servant, "a portion with the great." From their respective contexts, it is clear that, if applied to the Jesus of Christian missionary theology, both Daniel 9:26 and Isaiah 53:12 would have to apply to a postresurrection period, and thus cancel each other out. According to Christian missionary theology, Jesus came into his greatest rewards only after his earthly death, and, indeed, as a result of that death. Thus, if verse 12 applies to Jesus, then Daniel's statement, "he shall have nothing," cannot refer to him, for Jesus' rewards could only have been actually guaranteed from the moment he was "cut off." To apply these two verses to one individual would be self-contradictory.

As a human being, Jesus certainly had very little. Yet, because he was allegedly God, he could expect, on reassuming his heavenly role, to exercise his power as God. So what did he, in the final accounting, give up in dying a human death? Christian missionary theology is saying that Jesus gave up a temporary earthly life as a god-man to return to his role in heaven, where, as part of the Trinity, he reigns as God.

In Isaiah 53:12, God speaks of the suffering servant of the Lord, who, as a result of his selflessness, is willing to give up all that he possesses in the service of God. Clearly, it is unreasonable to say that Jesus sacrificed himself for the redemption of mankind when, by his actions, he knowingly gained more than he lost.

There is a gross misuse of the concept of "sacrifice" where one who is alleged to be divine knows that by giving up a flesh-and-blood existence, something essentially unimportant to him, he will receive in return a position of eternal exaltation and power. This cannot be called sacrifice. On leaving his transitory human life-span behind him, Jesus, it is alleged, returned to heaven to once more become part of the eternal Godhead. Why should Jesus be rewarded for his alleged sacrifice, for doing what he himself, as God, wanted done? There is no point for God, of whom Jesus is allegedly a part, to say: "I will divide him a portion with the great" as an actual reward to Himself. Such reward can be properly given to one who is all human and not one who is at the same time divine. The suffering servant is promised "a portion with the great" and that "he shall divide the spoil with the mighty," but if Jesus is God, who can be great enough to share the spoil with him? Is it conceivable that one who is God could possibly have only "a portion" comparable to that of mere earthly rulers, or that "he shall divide the spoil" with anyone?

Even if this could be rationalized, it would then run counter to what is stated in Psalm 2, which Christian missionaries claim refers to Jesus. In that psalm, God offers, to the person in question, the entire earth for a possession (verse 8), and all rulers are told to give homage to that person (verse 10-12). Christian missionary commentators will often try to explain away these irreconcilable contradictions with arguments that have no basis even in their own New Testament. It is for the reader to be vigilant and to be wary of such vain attempts that are based on distortions.

The phrase "because he has poured out his soul to death" cannot refer to Jesus. According to the evidence presented in the Gospels, Jesus "poured out his soul," i.e., died, on the cross unwillingly, saying at the last moment: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34). This final statement from the cross contradicts the assertion that Jesus "learned obedience through what he suffered" (Hebrews 5:8) and that he submitted to God's will (Matthew 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). In those last moments of life, Jesus expressed himself in such a way that his death cannot be considered a voluntary sacrificial death made in response to a call from God. Jesus went to his death feeling abandoned by God. His last words from the cross expressed a sense of frustration, not obedience.

"And he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." The servant was considered to be numbered with the transgressors because living among the Gentile nations he suffered their fate, and worse, when adversity struck. Furthermore, Isaiah's prophecy describes the servant as one who bore the sins of the Gentile nations in that he was blamed for their misdeeds. Yet "he made intercession" for the transgressions of those nations by praying for their well-being (Jeremiah 29:7).

• It is well known that much of what the New Testament claims concerning Jesus was added after his death, as his followers began combing the Scriptures in search of proof-texts. They seized upon Isaiah 53 and built the claims of their faith around it. Stories concerning Jesus were adjusted to agree with Isaiah 53, but, as we have seen from a thorough study of the chapter, they did not really succeed.

The inability to fulfill all that is stated regarding the suffering servant indisputably disqualifies Jesus from any claim to this title.

The suffering of Israel, as visualized by various rabbinic sages, is epitomized in the suffering of a messianic person who, leading Israel in battle, would die. Such is their understanding of the situation described in Zechariah 12:10, where the surviving Israelites will mourn for those killed by the nations and especially for their leader, the fallen warrior Messiah (B. T. Sukkah 52a).

But soon thereafter, the nations of the world will, by virtue of the Israelite triumphs, become aware of God's special relationship to Israel. This will have the effect of causing, first, shock and disbelief, and then, an acknowledgment of the special rewards that God will grant Israel, as is described in the latter part of Isaiah 53.

What is described by the prophet in this chapter refers to Israel as a whole, not to every individual Israelite. Not every Jew will have to undergo every aspect of suffering to be worthy of eventually partaking in the rewards God promises.

If one is to insist, however, that Isaiah 53 refers to a single individual, this person could not be Jesus. He would have to fulfill all the elements in the account of the suffering servant of the Lord. Any individual who fails to fulfill even one aspect cannot be considered the servant. Judged from this vantage point, Jesus is clearly disqualified.

Early Christianity filled in certain elements in the life of Jesus so that Jesus could fulfill all the biblical passages that the early church considered to contain messianic prophecies. The events of Jesus' life have been arranged and amplified to accord with early Christian doctrines and to serve apologetic needs. Yet for all the early church's efforts, a careful scrutiny of the texts will reveal that Jesus cannot be considered the embodiment of the biblical Messiah.

In the New Testament, arguments are presented to show fulfillment of this chapter of Isaiah in the life and death of Jesus. Yet what is the proof? Is there any reason to believe that the Gospel presentation conforms to the historical facts? If we are to evaluate the New Testament proof honestly, we must treat and interpret Isaiah's prophecy in all its parts, and as a whole, to see whether Jesus actually fulfilled all that it contains.

What is called for is verification on the basis of actual fulfillment of the Scripture rather than an imaginary verification based on blind faith. The New Testament record itself contains far too many inconsistencies vis-a-vis this chapter for anyone to honestly take the Christian missionary claim seriously.

• Christian missionaries will find answers, rationalize wherever possible, and relegate what cannot be explained away to the realm of unanswerable mysteries.

When all is said and done, one important fact remains: the events of the life of Jesus are simply not in harmony with the whole tenor of Isaiah 53.