Isaiah 53: Who Is the Servant?

By Gerald Sigal

Who is the servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12? Answering this question is what this study is all about. Through the centuries countless commentaries have been written, tracts have been distributed, debates have raged over the identification of the servant in this passage. Here we investigate the evidence presented over the last 2000 thousand years for the two leading candidates for this role of servant of the Lord. The two are Jesus and the Jewish people. Christians see in this passage the literal fulfillment by Jesus of all it contains. Jews see it in its plain meaning as a historical overview of Jewish history and the suffering to be endured by the nation of Israel until the final redemption. Source materials used by opposing sides in discussing this passage are thoroughly reviewed. In particular, each verse in the passage is studied in depth. But, the purpose of this volume is not simply to have an intellectual discussion of the issues involved. Its intent is to make it an unavoidable issue for Christians that there are very real disqualifications of Jesus from being the suffering servant and to identify the subject of the servant passage as none other than the nation of Israel. Furthermore, we seek to educate Jews so they do not fall prey to those who would have them believe Jesus is the Messiah.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: May 10, 2007
• ISBN: 9781503581364

Book preview

Copyright © 2007 by Gerald Sigal.

Library of Congress Control Number:      2006910297

ISBN:        Hardcover          978-1-4257-4457-1

                  Softcover            978-1-4257-4456-4

                  Ebook                 978-1-5035-8136-4

Bibliography: p. 253

Includes index.

1. Christianity—Controversial literature. 2. Judaism—Apologetics, Isaiah 53. 3. Bible—Criticism, Textual. 4. Atonement—Biblical. 5. Sin—Biblical.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

36026

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Introduction

PART I

Understanding Source Materials

PART II

Isaiah 52:13-15 The Unfolding Of Events: Behold My Servant

Isaiah 53:1: Who Would Have Believed Our Report?

Isaiah 53:2: A Tender Plant

Isaiah 53:3: He Was Despised

Isaiah 53:4 Our Diseases He Did Bear

Isaiah 53:5: He Was Wounded

Isaiah 53:6 All We Like Sheep

Isaiah 53:7 As A Lamb That Is Led To The Slaughter

Isaiah 53:8 He Has Been Afflicted

Isaiah 53:9 He Had Done No Violence

Isaiah 53:10: He Shall See Seed

Isaiah 53:11: Their Iniquities He Shall Bear

Isaiah 53:12: He Bore The Sin Of Many

The Message Of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 To Israel

Appendix I Psalm 22

Appendix II Zechariah 12:10: Who Was Pierced?

Appendix III Who Or What Died On The Cross?

Appendix IV The Son Of Man Coming In His Kingdom (Matthew 16:28)

Bibliography

Scriptural Index

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge with deep appreciation Bernard Yadlovker of Gybec Systems for his many hours of tireless work in producing the cover design art and preparing the manuscript for publication. His invaluable comments have gone far to improve the stylistic and grammatical form of this work. I also wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by Mark Powers in making this book possible, least of which was his careful reading and commenting on the manuscript. Further acknowledgements go to Michael J. Alter and M.S. respectively who diligently read and commented on the grammar and content of the manuscript. Most of all I wish to thank my wife Frances who, as always, has selflessly sacrificed and put up with my endless hours at the computer.

INTRODUCTION

Who is the servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12? Answering this question is what this study is all about. Through the centuries countless commentaries have been written, tracts have been distributed, debates have raged over the identification of the servant in this passage. Here we investigate the evidence presented over the last two thousand years for the two leading candidates for this role of servant of the Lord. The two are Jesus and the Jewish people. Christians see in this passage the literal fulfillment by Jesus of all it contains. Jews see it in its plain meaning, as a historical overview of Jewish history and the suffering to be endured by the nation of Israel until the final redemption. Source materials used by opposing sides in discussing this passage are thoroughly reviewed. In particular, each verse in the passage is studied in depth. But the purpose of this volume is not simply to have an intellectual discussion of the issues involved. Its intent is to make it an unavoidable issue for Christians that there are very real disqualifications of Jesus from being the suffering servant and to identify the subject of the servant passage as none other than the nation of Israel. Furthermore, we seek to educate Jews so they do not fall prey to those who would have them believe Jesus is the Messiah.

The Christian folk myth of Jewish treatment of Isaiah 53 goes something like this:

Did you know that the rabbis expunged Isaiah 53 from Jewish Bibles? Did you know that the rabbis do not allow Jews to read Isaiah 53 or they will punish them? Do you know the rabbis live in fear that Jews will find out the contents of Isaiah 53? Do you know why? Because Isaiah 53 contains the Gospel in the Old Testament—the good news of the work of Jesus Christ!

Those who perpetuate the myth allege that just as Jewish religious leaders conspired against Jesus when he was alive so today they conspire against the message of the Gospels. These conspiracy theory advocates explain that it must be recognized that, as a defensive measure to preserve the Jewish people, Jewish leaders have set obstacles, both intellectual and social, to prevent Jews from considering the claims of Christ.¹ The Jewish community leaders, they say, sensing the gospel to be a threat, have fostered attitudes which would cause Jews to ignore the statements of the gospel.²

These missionary-minded seekers of Jewish converts to Christianity allege: Judaism without Jesus cannot explain adequately Isaiah 53.³ What is more they contend that Jewish leaders know the truth of the Gospels but withhold that information from the Jewish people and live in self-denial of that truth. As one missionary stated: To Jewish scholars… Isaiah 53 is a stumbling-block of difficulty and more or less of an enigma. As one Orthodox Rabbi told me recently, ‘If I accept the Old Testament as I should, I must confess that you are right. It does portray many facets in the life of Jesus Christ. But since I do not believe in Jesus, I do not accept this portion of Isaiah.’⁴ Yet, another missionary wrote: I recall a discussion of this passage with a rabbi. He reached for his Bible as we were discussing the qualifications of the offerings [in relation to Isaiah 53]; he read in the Hebrew, pondered for a moment, then closed the Bible and said, ‘Let’s not discuss this any further.’⁵ As still another missionary summed up their world-view: Only a few rabbis wrote of the Messiah as bringing spiritual bliss, or salvation, not only for the Jewish people but for all mankind. These confusing and conflicting conceptions have been the main reasons that deterred our people from accepting Jesus as Messiah.⁶

In the fantasy world of missionary-minded Christians the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 as referring to the people of Israel is anathema. Missionaries rejoice if they can find a Jewish commentator who says this passage in whole or in part refers to the Messiah. They reason that if we could all agree that the servant of Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah then we can all agree that it refers to Jesus since Jesus is the Messiah. But, let us imagine for a moment that the servant of this passage is the Messiah—it does not follow that the servant is Jesus or that Jesus is the Messiah.

There is enough blurring of the truth in Christian claims concerning this passage to satisfy the uncritical reader ready to accept Jesus without question. Certainly, those who intend to believe in Jesus without question will get a false sense of security out of the Christian apologetic. Nevertheless, it is hoped that such readers will examine the issues for themselves and will come to the understanding of the true meaning of this passage.

Oh! And by the way, for those who are not already familiar with the role of the rabbis concerning this passage—the rabbis did not remove Isaiah 53 from the Jewish Scriptures. The rabbis do not forbid or punish anyone for reading Isaiah 53. The rabbis do not live in fear that Jews will find out the contents of Isaiah 53. Do you know why? Because this passage predicts the good new that God will redeem the nation of Israel, His suffering servant, from all adversity.

In evaluating the biblical text, it must be asked: What makes a passage a messianic reference? There are no passages in the Jewish Bible which directly refer to the Messiah by name or title. In truth, all such identifications are by interpretative consensus on the part of Bible commentators. (Here as elsewhere when reference is made to the Bible it is a reference to the Jewish Scriptures.) This does not mean that there are no references to the Messiah in the biblical text. But, we understand them through interpretations handed down to us by tradition. Sometimes there is agreement among commentators and sometimes there is disagreement as to meaning. We also have to differentiate between midrashic and literal interpretations of the text. In particular, there are Jewish sources that identify parts of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as either midrashically or literally referring to the Messiah. A few have even identified the whole passage as being a reference to the Messiah. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Jewish commentators when taking this passage in its plain, literal sense have followed the indicators in the Jewish Scriptures. As such, the passage generally refers to Israel not in its intra-communal relationship but in its relationship to the nations among whom Israel is exiled. It ends with a description of God’s rewards to His faithful servant.

Often Christians have dismissed the thought of Israel as being the servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12. They ask:

• When did Israel suffer and not open his mouth (verse 7)? Did Jews never complain about their oppression?

• When was Israel cut off from the land of the living (verse 8)? Did they not always have a remnant that survived?

• When was Israel assigned a grave with the rich (verse 9)?

• When can we say that Israel did no violence (verse 9) given that Isaiah 1:15 states: Your hands are full of blood?

• How does the Jewish nation bear its own iniquities (verse 11)?

This series of questions and others are answered in the course of our investigation of the passage. But, for Christian theology, the critical question is not if this passage refers to Israel. The issue is does it actually refer to Jesus? Among the unavoidable problems presented by the Christian interpretation of this passage are:

• Did Jesus ever humble himself? (verse 7)

• Did Jesus open his mouth in protest against his situation? (verse 7)

• From what dominion and judgment was Jesus taken away? (verse 8)

• Did Jesus die for mankind’s sins? (verses 8 and 12)

• Was Jesus buried with the wicked? (verse 9)

• How could Jesus be buried with the rich if he was buried in an empty tomb? (verse 9)

• Did Jesus use violence? (verse 9)

• Was Jesus deceitful? (verse 9)

• Did Jesus see seed? (verse 10)

• Were Jesus’ days prolonged? (verse 10)

• What portion did Jesus have with the great? (verse 12)

• What spoil did Jesus divide with the mighty? (verse 12)

• Can God or part of God die? (verse 12)

Christians fail to differentiate between what fulfillment of the servant passage by a group would require and what fulfillment of the passage by an individual would require. In group fulfillment the single individual need not fulfill every aspect of what is to occur to the group as a whole. In singular fulfillment the individual is required to fulfill every aspect of what is to occur. If the passage does not refer to Israel it would leave no void in Jewish belief. However, if the passage does not refer to Jesus it does leave a huge void in Christian belief since there are a number of New Testament citations of verses supposedly fulfilled by Jesus and there are also later Christian claims that Jesus fulfilled the passage in every detail. It is the intention of this volume to show how this passage is to be fulfilled in the history of the Jewish people. But, its main purpose is to show in detail how Jesus did not fulfill the description of the servant.

We now present the text of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in translation. As always, in studying a biblical text, it is best if one can consult the passage in the original Hebrew.

THE TEXT: ISAIAH 52:13-53:12

13. Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.

14. 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.

15. 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.

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 [e-shim: 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.

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 wounds 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 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.

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.

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 had 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.

Notes

¹ Lausanne Occasional Papers, No. 7: Thailand Report—Christian Witness to the Jewish People, Wheaton, Illinois: Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, 1980, p. 9.

² Lausanne, p. 10.

³ Rachmiel Frydland, When Being Jewish Was a Crime, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978, p. 81.

⁴ Sanford C. Mills, Isaiah Fifty-Three, New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1971, p. 1.

⁵ Louis Goldberg, Our Jewish Friends, Chicago: Moody Press, 1977, p. 126.

⁶ Jacob Gartenhaus, Traitor?: A Jew, A Book, A Miracle, Chattanooga: International Board of Jewish Missions, 1980, p. 97.

UNDERSTANDING SOURCE MATERIALS

The place of commentary in Jewish tradition

One cannot underestimate the value of midrashim, the ancient rabbinical commentaries and explanatory notes on the Jewish Bible for understanding the biblical text. It is essential to know exactly what is midrash and how midrashic homiletics work in order to understand its place in ascertaining the identity of the servant depicted in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Often midrashic literature cites biblical verses with seemingly total disregard of the rules of logic, the plain sense meaning of original context, and/or (historical) chronology. The rabbinic use of biblical verses for the purposes of derash¹ did not adhere to conventional rules that otherwise were applied in order to understand the plain sense meaning of the text. Nevertheless, the rabbis who authored and redacted the midrashic literature carefully differentiated between the plain sense meaning of the biblical text (peshuto shel mikra or simply peshat²) and the use of the text as a starting off point for imaginative homiletics (derash).³ The rabbis had complete command of every aspect of the biblical text and this encyclopedic knowledge serves as the foundation for the ingenious exegesis featured in midrashic homily. In taking such wide latitude in their midrashic elucidation of biblical texts the rabbis assumed they were addressing an audience as thoroughly familiar with the distinction between peshat and derash as they were and that understood the manner in which they made use of biblical verses in formulating their midrashim. To fully appreciate the midrashic method of exegesis, one must study a midrashic citation of a biblical verse in its original context and understand the plain sense of the text. Only then one can understand why the biblical verse was used in the midrash. Those who understand the difference between the plain meaning of the text and its use in midrashim will not confuse the two.

In Jewish commentary tradition an exegetical nuance may add further insight into a text but not all interpretations are of equal value or purpose. One must differentiate between homiletic and literal exegesis. Acceptance of one is not a rejection of the other; it is a matter of choosing what level of understanding of a text one wishes to attain. Neither the targum (the Aramaic interpretive rendering of the Scriptures) nor the midrash (the homiletical interpretation of scriptural verses) was the last word, nor meant to be taken as the literal meaning. The presence of many commentators working within normative Jewish tradition shows that there is wide diversity of opinion in explaining certain biblical texts and one is not unfaithful to Jewish tradition to accept one over another, so long as it is within the parameters set by that tradition. What need would there be for the commentary of Saadiah if all was said in the midrash? Indeed, if his was the last word what need for commentators such as Rashi or Ibn Ezra or Alshech? In this study, we will be most particularly interested in understanding the literal meaning of the text before us—Isaiah 52:13-53:12.

Understanding parallelism and literal fulfillment

New Testament authors apply select biblical verses to Jesus on the assumption that he is the Messiah and the literal fulfillment of what is stated in the scriptural text. This methodology is found for example in those psalms considered by the early church to be prophetic statements referring to the Messiah and therefore applied by these authors to Jesus. This opens up a problem: Some of the psalms used in this fashion also speak of the psalmist’s sins. If applied to Jesus this would imply that he is a sinner as well. Some Christian commentators explain that the New Testament is not applying every verse in these psalms to the Messiah. The alleged principle being followed is that as it was with the psalmist so it is with the Messiah. The New Testament authors are showing the parallel between the life of the psalmist and the Messiah, who, of course, they identify with Jesus. Hence, as David was betrayed by a close associate, so too Jesus was betrayed by a close associate, as Jesus himself is alleged to have said (cf. Psalms 41:10 with John 13:18).

Thus, Christian commentators allege with no regard for context that an isolated verse is a prophetic fulfillment. There is on careful consideration a difference between parallel situations in the lives of individuals and a fulfilling of prophecy. What the New Testament claimed for Jesus is not simply parallel incidents in the life of David but a total fulfillment of those verses by the former. On the non-literal level this method of parallel comparisons is an acceptable form of interpretation. In the case of the psalms, parallel comparisons make their content all the more relevant to the lives of those who seek comfort in the psalmist’s words (e.g. the rabbis found parallels between the lives of David and Esther in Psalm 22). However, parallel comparison is not a legitimate fulfillment of the context historically and it is unacceptable in a literal sense.

A surgical selection from a biblical passage is the hallmark of midrashic exegesis. However, when speaking of literal fulfillment the entire context must be taken into account and fulfilled. For example, Matthew alleges that the child Jesus literally was brought by Joseph and Mary out of Egypt to fulfill a supposed prophecy to be found in Hosea 11:1: And he [Joseph] arose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed for Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod; that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, ‘Out of Egypt did I call My son’ (Matthew 2:15). However, the context of Hosea’s verse indicates that the prophet’s reference is to the Exodus, and to an unfaithful Israel. The biblical passage continues with a verse that states that The more I called them, the more they went from Me, they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols (Hosea 11:2). The author of Matthew uses the Jewish Scriptures as a source for predictions and usable quotations but he does more than simply draw parallels between situations. He alleges that what is being recorded in his Gospel is the literal fulfillment of the biblical event in the life of Jesus. Similarly, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews 10:5-7 makes use of Psalms 40:7-8 (6-7 in some versions), seeing David as prefiguring Jesus. That is, he draws a parallel: what was true to a limited degree in David found greater expression in Jesus. But, when Psalms 40:13 (12 in some versions) speaks of the psalmist’s iniquities, Christians maintain the passage is no longer applicable to Jesus. Imaginative fulfillment bordering on the midrashic method though it may be such exegesis is not historical reality.

Differing interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12

The differing interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 found in Jewish sources can be divided into four opinions: (1) the servant is Isaiah himself; (2) that he is an outstanding past Israelite leader, such as Moses, Josiah, or Jeremiah; (3) that he will be the king Messiah who is yet to come to redeem Israel at the end of days and whose triumph will only be acknowledged at the price of great sufferings⁴; (4) and last, the most ancient opinion being that the servant is the people of Israel, whether the nation as a whole or its righteous remnant.

Even before the advent of Christianity there was uncertainty in some quarters concerning the identification of the servant described in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. An example of uncertainty is illustrated in Acts of the Apostles 8:27-35 (written c. 85). In this story, one of Queen Candace’s court officials is described as reading Isaiah 53. He asks the apostle Philip: Please, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else? And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. Thus, he gave the eunuch the Christian answer. But the eunuch’s question is essentially a Jewish one. We are told that this Ethiopian had come to Jerusalem to worship (verse 27). He was in all likelihood a semi-proselyte (Godfearer) who was attracted to Judaism and studied the biblical text. Apparently he was confused as to the identity of the servant. Whether the story told in Acts 8 is factual or not, it shows that already in the first century C.E. Jewish exegesis linked parts of Isaiah 53 to historical or symbolic personalities.

According to the text of Acts 8, the court official wonders if the servant is Isaiah. Indeed, this is understandable since Isaiah 50:4-10 refers to Isaiah himself as My servant (cf. 20:3). There he is described as ready to be crushed by suffering and disgrace: I gave my back to smiters and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, I did not hide my face from embarrassments and spittings (50:6); this is just as the other servant described in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The text does not say Isaiah actually underwent harsh treatment as does the servant of 52:13-53:12. It may simply be stating Isaiah’s willingness to suffer humiliation in carrying out his prophetic mission. There is no evidence in the Scriptures that Isaiah ever underwent physical suffering and humiliation.⁵

They did not know the Scripture

There are no clearly identifiable messianic prophecies in the Bible. All such references are based on interpretation. As such, they are subjective understandings of the texts. Therefore, what needs to be investigated is: (1) to whom did Isaiah 52:13-53:12 initially refer; (2) does this identification still apply; (3) in what way if any does it have messianic application; and (4) does it in anyway apply to Jesus?

Isaiah having identified the servant as Israel (e.g. Isaiah 41:8-9) it is correct to say that at the time of the composition of Isaiah 53, it had no messianic connotation whatsoever. With the increased persecution of Jews in the centuries following the Second Temple’s destruction the concept of a suffering Messiah developed. As we shall see, he would be an individual who would suffer with and for the Jewish people. Some Jews turned to Isaiah 53 and using the midrashic method took verses out of context in order to use them as descriptive examples of suffering. However, there is no concrete evidence that the idea of a suffering Messiah was part of first century C.E. Jewish belief.⁶ This is even indicated by the New Testament.

When Jesus supposedly informed the twelve apostles that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer, Peter allegedly protests saying: God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you (Matthew 16:22). Peter did not break out in joyful praise exclaiming: Praise God, you are the fulfillment of the expected messianic suffering servant, as it is written by the prophet. Peter and the rest of the apostles never heard or believed that the Messiah was destined to suffer and be killed, otherwise why the protest? Why were they deeply grieved to hear that they will kill him (Matthew 17:23), and on hearing of his forthcoming suffering: understood none of these things… and they did not comprehend the things that were said (Luke 18:34), and, explicitly, did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead (John 20:9).

Much of what the New Testament claims concerning Jesus was developed after his death, as his followers began combing the Scriptures in search of texts that could be used to justify their continued loyalty to him. Initially, they were at a loss as to how to explain his apparent failure to fulfill the acknowledged messianic prophecies. But, they soon overcame the problem. An indication of this is found in John’s comment: For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead (John 20:9). Over a period of seven weeks following his death a group of disciples began developing their answer. Then, according to the author of the Book of Acts, on the Jewish holy day of Shavu‘ot (Pentecost) they announced their initial claim. They alleged Jesus was not dead, but had been resurrected after his death in accordance with the Scriptures (Acts 2:22-36, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). But, what Scriptures means is not the canonical Hebrew Bible as we know it today. It more than likely includes literary works and the ideas they present which are not included in our biblical canon.

Authoritative interpretation of the disciples’ scriptural claims was said to ultimately derive from Jesus himself. Thus, after his alleged resurrection, Jesus is said to criticize two of his disciples for not believing what the prophets had announced, asking: Did not the Christ have to suffer all this so as to enter his glory? (Luke 24:26). The author of Luke then states that Jesus began instruction as to the meaning of the Scriptures. He writes: Beginning, then, with Moses and with all the prophets, he interpreted for them every passage of Scripture which referred to him (Luke 24:27). Later, it is again emphasized that Jesus literally: was speaking to us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us (Luke 24:32). Attributing the initial instruction on the meaning of the Scriptures to Jesus creates a superlative basis of authority. However, in actuality, it was not Jesus but the church over a period of years that searched, interpreted, and explained the Scriptures. This is tacitly admitted to in the statement: they did not understand the Scripture.

Who this Jesus was who died, was buried, and then supposedly rose needed to be spelled out in more detail. The formulation quoted by Paul as tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 indicates not only a ritualized formula but also a larger context of narrative and interpretation. In this passage, Paul states that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (verse 3) and that he was raised according to the Scriptures (verse 4). This says two things: (1) Paul believed Jesus’ death was a vicarious offering for sins; (2) Paul also believed this death was foretold in literary works he considered to be part of the Scriptures of Israel. References to the same Scriptures are also evident in the formulation: this is my body which is [given] for you (1 Corinthians 11:24) which indicates the vicarious nature of this death. The reference to the supposed new covenant (verse 25) establishes a break with the ancient covenant of Israel.

A number of scriptural passages are interpreted in the New Testament as of one who suffered and died on behalf of others. These passages are the foundation for the interpretation of the death of Jesus and they provide the language for the telling of the story about him. The life of Jesus was retold to make it appear as if Jesus fulfilled all the biblical passages that the church considered messianic prophecies. The supposed events of Jesus’ life as recorded were designed to serve apologetic needs, not to record historic facts.

Among the scriptural texts the disciples seized upon to justify their continued loyalty to Jesus following his death was Isaiah 52:13-53:12. They then proceeded to build many of the claims of their faith around it as part of their attempt to prevent total disintegration of the group still loyal to his memory. During those crucial weeks between Passover and Pentecost Jesus’ followers first began developing the claim that he fulfilled the Isaianic text (cf. Acts 1:2-3, 2:1-4). They wished to explain first to themselves and then to others how it came about that he who they thought to be the Messiah could have died the ignoble death of crucifixion without accomplishing that which was expected of the true Messiah. They fused in their unique way the concepts of messiah and suffering servant to give themselves a rationale to explain Jesus’ death. Stories concerning Jesus were developed to suggest fulfillment of the passage. In the years that followed, additional supportive material was contrived. But, as we will see from a thorough study of the passage, they did not succeed in achieving a correlation between the biblical text and the Jesus stories that developed. The claim that Jesus literally fulfilled the prophetic utterances of the Isaianic passage simply does not prove acceptable under scrutiny. His inability to fulfill all that is stated regarding the servant indisputably disqualifies Jesus from any claim to this title. This is, because if Isaiah 53 refers to a single individual, whether literally or metaphorically, that person would have to fulfill without qualification all the elements in the account of the servant. Any individual who fails to fulfill even one aspect cannot be considered the servant. On the other hand, a