"Now the Lord said to Abram,

'Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'"

(Genesis 12:1-3; The New American Standard version, as with all Biblical quotes in this article.)

Part I Servant as Nation

It is possible to interpret the servant described in Isaiah 52 thru 54 as an personification of all Israel. In this sense, the blessing of Abraham, as quoted in the prologue, is to be understood as meaning that the Nation of Israel will, in some sense and through some action, be a blessing to all of the peoples of the earth. That Israel itself will be the servant redeemer of the whole world.

There are certainly other precedents where a group or body of people are treated as if they were one person, such as where God refers to his people as his bride whom he redeemed. Indeed, this comparison is already employed by Isaiah where we read, "'For your husband is your Maker, whose name is the Lord of Hosts; and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, who is called the God of all the earth. For the Lord has called you, like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, even like a wife of one's youth when she is rejected,' Says your God. 'For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you.'" (54:5-7).

This is a common technique used even today, such as employing the figure of Uncle Sam as a way to represent the United States Government. I will begin my discussion by assuming that the servant referred to by Isaiah is indeed to be understood as a literary technique meant to indicate the People of Israel, at that time as well as prophetically indicating their position in the world's history in Isaiah's future.

Going on this assumption, let us begin by exploring the first reference to 'My servant' in chapter 52, verses 13-15.

"Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So his appearance was marred more than any man, And his form more than the sons of men. Thus he will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand."

The analogy of servant to people Israel seems to break down before it even begins, since the servant here is being compared, contrasted rather, with 'My people'. This contrast between people as entity and servant as individual is further emphasized in the next chapter, verses 4 thru 6, where we read that this servant bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, whereas we esteemed him stricken. He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, chastened for our well being. By his scourging we are healed. The Lord caused the iniquity of us to fall on him. And later, in verse 11, we are informed that the Righteous One, who is God's servant, will justify the many, as he will bear their iniquities.

It is possible at this time to say that the technique is still valid even though Isaiah is clearly speaking of two different entities when he refers to the servant as a person and to Israel as people. We could explain Isaiah's treatment of these two entities like this. The servant is referring to what the nation as a whole represents and will accomplish by its corporate existence and suffering. The people is referring to how the individuals within the society will feel and how they will respond to the massive group dynamics of which they are an inseparable part.

For a more modern example, consider this hypothetical situation. The United States Congress, prompted by special interest groups and research organizations, announces to the people of the United States that America has become too wasteful. Its natural resources are being used up at an alarming rate, landfill facilities are becoming filled up and we are poised between starvation and asphyxiation.

America, the entity, here treated as a single person, is in grave danger, and must change his ways if he is to regain his health. This will mean a number of hardships for the people of the United States, such as cutting back on consumption, recycling, and embracing a more frugal life style. In order for America, the entity, to become more ecologically healthy, Americans, the people, must endure hardships and suffer without some things. In this analogy we could say that by their (the people's) stripes, he (the Nation) is healed.

As a matter of fact, this technique is often employed to encourage people to pull together and fight for some cause or work for some global good or suffer for some greater benefit. We can believe during a time of war that sending our sons and daughters to battle and death, enduring shortages, and rationing is an acceptable thing because the sufferings we endure individually will redeem the whole society of which we are but a part as well as that one which is yet to come.

This explains how the suffering of the many can mean salvation for the Whole, but how can the suffering of the Whole buy salvation for the many? The passage in Isaiah, if interpreted in this dual manner, goes against what we have been taught about social responsibility, at least as it is exemplified in the preceding example.

Instead of the good of the many outweighing the good of the few, it seems as if the good of few, indeed, the good of each, is to be procured precisely by the sacrifice of the many! Likewise, it is possible to see how the sins of the many (say, ecological irresponsibility) can be borne by the many (say, by forced conservation, recycling, etc.), and thereby procure the health of the Whole, but how can the sins of the many be born by the Whole and thereby procure the health of the many?

Possibly, this is a foreshadowing of a Welfare State or a Socialistic Society or even a Communistic State, where the needs of the many are provided by the State. In this way, the sins of the many, say in the form of the need of socialized medicine or education or disability care (I am using the term 'sin' more in the sense of 'need' rather than 'infraction'), are provided by the One. In this sense, the State (or Society) takes on the responsibility for the care of its members. By his stripes, we are healed.

So we see how the members may suffer for the sake of the Society by way of self sacrifice, and how Society may suffer for the sake of its members by way of benevolent concern. Both of these are viable dynamics involving people as individuals and people as corporate existence. The second of these could be used as an explanation of Isaiah's suffering servant.

This is a possible explanation for the servant in Isaiah 52 through 54, although it leaves somewhat to be desired. It can be understood how Society might be said to bear our griefs and carry our sorrows, in the sense of providing for our needs, but in what sense can it be said to be smitten of God and afflicted? It is, according to Isaiah; pierced, crushed, chastened, and scourged as recompense for our transgressions and in exchange for our well-being. These are powerful metaphors to heap upon the Department of Health and Human Services and the Welfare Administration.

Had Isaiah said no more about this servant, I might stop here with the resolution that the passage is too ambiguous to determine, yet with an uneasy feeling that the above interpretation, although valid, is not correct. However, Isaiah has more to say about this servant which further elucidates his role in relationship to the many.

In chapter 52 verse 7 we read:

"He was oppressed and he was afflicted, Yet he did not open his mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So he did not open his mouth."

I add this here because I have, so far, interpreted the addressed passage as referring to Society's role in relationship to itself. I have limited myself to the question of the Many to the One and the One to the Many. But what about the Others?

It has also been said of the servant in Isaiah 53, as representing the People of Israel, that he is suffering at the hands of the Nations of the World. And not only this, but it is in part for their sakes that this servant suffers. As God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in them and in their descendants (Gen 12:3, 26:4, 28:14; respectively).

For this reason, the first two interpretations of Isaiah must be disqualified as being irrelevant. The servant is not being presented by Isaiah merely in a societal role, but in a messianic role. And not for himself only. The servant has been and will be afflicted for the sake of the Nations of the World as well as for 'our' transgressions ('our' as understood by Isaiah and his readers: The Jews.)

How, then, does one interpret the statements of the servant's pacifism and willing acceptance of his fate? Does the Nation of Israel willingly allow itself to be oppressed and afflicted, yet not open its mouth? Has Israel not opened its mouth as a sheep that is silent before its shearers?

Flavius Josephus' "The Wars of the Jews" consists of no less that seven books covering the period from the Maccabeean revolt through the siege of Masada, a period of about two hundred years. Before that, we have the Biblical record of the numerous wars, civil and external, fought by the Jews. In the last forty years, we have seen no fewer that four wars fought by the renewed Jewish State after a Diaspora of some nineteen hundred years. Clearly, the patiently suffering servant is not represented by any of these images.

It is possible to interpret the Jewish Diaspora of 70 CE through 1948, and the recurring Jewish persecution therein, culminating in the ruthless torture and murder of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis, as the sufferings that Isaiah is referring to. But even here, this seems to be stretching it quite a bit. In what sense did Israel 'render himself as a guilt offering' (53:10)? How did enduring this pain succeed to 'justify the many' and 'bear their iniquities' (53:11)? And even more enigmatic, how could it be that 'his grave was assigned to be with wicked men, yet with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in his mouth' (53:9)?

And later, Isaiah describes the blessings of the People of Israel after they have been redeemed, how they will prosper and be protected from their enemies. And finally, "This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord" (54:17). But lest one should think that this is the tie in between the People of Israel and the servant in the previous chapters, that Isaiah is about to clearly identify servants with servant, the passage concludes with, "'And their vindication is from Me,' declares the Lord." (ditto). The one who procured their freedom and bore their sorrow is not they, themselves, but the Lord God Almighty.

It seems inescapable that the servant described by Isaiah is clearly an individual separate from the people themselves. Not only this, but he is treated in very personal terms. Terms which do not lend themselves favorably to an allegorical interpretation. Certainly, the images of being despised, forsaken, unesteemed, stricken, smitten, afflicted, pierced, crushed, chastened, scourged, oppressed, and judged can be taken to refer metaphorically to the trials of Jewry in exile.

But how can we rightfully interpret "His grave was assigned to be with wicked men, yet with a rich man in his death" to refer to anything other that a specific man dying and being buried under a specific set of circumstances? How can we interpret the statement "By his knowledge the Righteous One, My servant, will justify the many, as he will bear their iniquities" to refer to anything other that the willing sacrifice of one individual for the sake of those others? I believe we cannot.

Part II Linguistic Considerations

Laying aside the above discussion, let us examine a few of the linguistic structures of the passage in question.

Looking again at chapter 52, verse 13, we read the Lord saying, "My servant will prosper." "YaSCYL AVDY". The verb, YaSCYL, is in the third person, singular, masculine, of the Hiphil derivative. The various translations of this verb include; be prudent, be attentive, look, consider, instruct, understand, make wise, ponder, have insight, teach, act prudently, and have success, to name a few ("A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old testament"; William Gesenius; Clarendon Press: Oxford; 1972, p.968). The noun construction, "AVDY" is a singular noun with a singular possessive suffix and is correctly translated as 'my servant' (singular).

Clearly, this servant is a single entity and he will do all those things mentioned above. But this still does not rule out the interpretation of "AVDY" as the people of Israel.

In the next verse, we read, "Just as they were astonished at you (singular), My people, so his appearance was marred more than any man." (The 'My people' in the previous sentence is in italics in my Bible, which means that it is not in the original, but that the translators thought that there was sufficient justification to believe that it was implied in the text. Accordingly, they felt justified in including it in their translation as such without risk of incurring the curse of Revelations.)

Or literally, "For as they were astounded on your account (ALECHA) the multitudes; so was beaten more than a man, his appearance (MaREHoo)."

The two key constructions in this verse are, "On your account (ALECHA)", and "his appearance (MaREHoo)". Both of these constructions are in the singular, meaning that they are speaking to or about a single entity. Or to paraphrase, 'In the same way that the multitudes were astounded at you, Oh people, so also was his appearance marred beyond anything endured by any human being'.

If we interpret this to be speaking to Israel, the congregation, and about Israel, the people, we immediately encounter a wall of confusion. If the author's intent was to draw a distinction between what the Nation as a whole endured for the sake of it's people or for the peoples of the world, then the first and third references above should be singular, and the middle reference should be plural.

In other words, when the reference is to 'My servant', and 'his appearance', it should be singular, as it is. But when the reference is to 'on your account', which is what is being juxtaposed to 'my servant', then it should be plural. So one would expect the passage to read, "Just as they were astonished at you (plural)." The construction expected would be 'On your account' (ALECHEM, as in 'SHALOM, ALECHEM'; 'Peace, on (to) you (plural)').

A construction as this one would draw a proper distinction between servant as Global Person, and people as many constituent parts.

But Isaiah does not draw this distinction. In both cases, the people and the servant are treated as individuals. Either he is referring to the people of Israel as a whole in both cases, which makes it very difficult to reconcile with the rest of the chapter, or he is talking of two different entities; one of which is a metaphorical representation of Israel, meant by the implied 'My people', and the other of which is a real individual, who is the redeemer servant.

I will not explore any of the other passages in chapter 53 in this essay, which would amount to no more that an exercise in language translation. Suffice it to say that the construction in the original language is sufficiently definite to identify servant as single individual.

Part III Conclusion

In consideration of this evidence, I would conclude that the interpretation of Isaiah, chapters 52 through 54, as concerning the People of Israel is not a plausible explanation. The explanation of People as servant does not make sense and is not internally consistent, either logically or linguistically. The referenced servant seems to be an individual; a person, not a group. I would strongly recommend that you reconsider your interpretation of it as such.

I do not mean to say that you must arrive at the Christian explanation; that, in Isaiah's words, "Your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth," and further that this 'God of all the earth' is one and the same with Jesus of Nazareth, although I would urge you to consider it as a viable possibility. None the less, I believe that the original explanation of servant as People is unsupportable.

Post Script Summer 1991

I originally wrote this essay as a refutation of the assertion that the servant in Isaiah 52 thru 54 should be interpreted as Eretz Israel; the People of Israel, instead of as a single individual; the Messiah. I find that this topic is now being reintroduced, but in the context of what, exactly, this redeemer servant accomplished, according to Isaiah's vision.

This involves, naturally, the work of Christ on the Cross, which is clearly what Isaiah is prophesying in this passage. This servant redeemed His people by His pain: by His stripes we are healed. He was a willing victim for our transgressions, a sin offering for the people.

The question here is: What did Christ do on the cross? If your answer is: Christ paid for our sins, or: He took the punishment, or: He was beaten up so we wouldn't have to be; then I really must express my bewilderment. God is our Father, at least so we are told. Christ is our Brother, the Good Shepherd Who gathers His sheep together in the form of His Church: one Flock, many folds. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. These are images consistent with a loving God.

I cannot accept the image of a God who would allow an innocent person to be beaten up, mocked, and crucified as an expression of divine anger (it is even more ludicrous to consider this an expression of divine love); an anger that He really wanted to vent on us. Instead, He was willing to cruelly torture to death His only Son. An image of a God like this strikes me more as a psychotic megalomaniac than the God of the Universe. I could not love a God like this.

Personally, although I would be very grateful (somewhat incredulously) to someone who wanted to beat me up for something beyond my control; call it original sin, or a 'tendency' to evil, or a fallen nature, or whatever you want: it is still a condition like any other treatable illness; but at the last minute decided not to. I would feel grateful that He changed His mind, but when I found out that He had gone and slaughtered a completely innocent person in my place, like a child throwing a tantrum who wanted to kick Nurse but settled on torturing the cat, instead, my reaction would be to smile wanly to His face--but with an uncomfortable feeling that I was in the presence of One more deranged than divine--and get away from Him as quickly as possible.

I cannot possibly think of a person like this as a Father. I am a father, myself. Not a perfect one, I will admit, but I would never possibly imagine wanting to punish my daughter out of pure, pre-meditated wrath. And certainly not for something that was beyond her control. Much less decide to punish another person because I was mad at her. And if I did something mean to her out of anger, which I have done on occasion, I would go to her and apologize later, which I have also done.

You may at this point say to me: Ah. But the Fatherhood of God is different than your fatherhood. To this I would say: Then please let's call it something else. If that is how God behaves, then He can have it. I will continue to be a father as best as I can, and according to the standards that I know in my heart are correct and loving, but not according to THAT role model. Thank you, no. I would rebel against a God like that. A God like that would earn my derision, not my devotion.

However, I can see myself in the following situation: If my daughter was suffering from an illness, or if she was going into the hospital for an operation because of an accident, and I found out that she needed an emergency blood transfusion, I would gladly and without the slightest reservation volunteer as much of my blood or any organ in my body that was necessary to save her. I would gladly lay down my own life, even, if I thought it would save hers. I see this activity perfectly consistent with fatherhood. And I see it perfectly consistent with the fatherhood of God.

I look at the Crucifixion more as a blood transfusion than an act of Divine passive-aggression. Isaiah tells us that he will sprinkle many nations. By his stripes we are healed. And God caused our iniquities to fall upon him.

The human race is suffering from a condition, called Sin. It's terminal--Sorry. God, however, has managed to find a cure. He will give us His life, because we have none of our own. This is what sacrifice is all about. One person offers the life of a creature, as contained in its blood, to another. The Crucifixion is the transfusion needle entering the arm of man.

But at this point you might say: Yes, but God was, Himself, suffering the punishment for our sins. We committed the crime. We are the criminals. We should be punished. God, a righteous judge, must take a hard stand against sin. He cannot be a holy and a just God and still allow our sins to go unpunished. Mankind's rightful place is on death row. But God is also merciful, so He arranged to take the punishment for our sins into Himself. Remember that Jesus was not a disinterested third party. He was God, himself. So it is not the same thing as you describe. It is not God murdering an innocent person, but God taking our sentence.

This reflects another common theory of the redemptive work of Christ; that being that He was, Himself, receiving the richly deserved (by us) punishment for our sins. In this sense, God has judged us in a strictly penal sense. But instead of executing us, He has decided to inflict Himself with the punishment that He had wanted to visit on us.

God is the judge, jury, executioner.....and the victim, as well!

I still don't buy it. If a man would say to his son, "Look, kid. You've really done it, now. You've broken every rule in the book since the day you were born. Why, you were a miscreant while still in your mother's womb. You deserve to die. Why? Because I said so, that's why! But let me tell you what I'm going to do..... Since I am a Nice Guy (unlike you) I am going to do to *me* what I had really wanted to do to *you*! I will afflict myself with all the pain and agony that I can possibly vent and physically endure, right up to, and including, a violent death! There! See how much I love you?" Such a man would not receive a nomination for father of the year.

Again, I cannot conceive of any love for a God, or a father, like this.

In my previous example, God is a monomanaical, sadistic torturer, ready to kill Peter to pay for Paul, so to speak. In this example, He is seen as psychotic and suicidal as well as masochistic. Not only is He willing to jump on the grenade in the trenches to save His buddies, but He threw the grenade in there in the first place! A person who behaves this way should be recommended to psychiatric therapy. Barring that, a padded cell.

How we can interest people in a God like this is beyond me, and then have the affrontary of referring to Him as a God of Love at the same time.

Yet, in a very real sense, God, in the form of Jesus, did take a vindictive beating, laid on His back--He Who did not deserve it. But God was not the one doing the beating. I think we miss a subtle point when we look at the Crucifixion strictly vindictively.

If you have ever had a child yourself, you will know that sometimes children get angry. Sometimes they get hurt, and sometimes they get upset. There have been times when I have set my daughter on my lap and let her tell me how angry she is or how hurt she is. Sometimes, she is angry at me! I let her tell me. I tell her that it is alright to feel her emotions. That it is alright to let me know how she feels, even if those feelings are against me. Usually, she feels better afterwards. I have been able, just a little bit, to take away some of her bad feelings, and she has been able, just a little bit, to receive some of my good feelings into herself.

Now, in a very real sense, God was doing the same thing to us. He was letting us pour the entirety of our emotions into Himself. He was passive and submissive, behaving like His Father in heaven, who teaches us to turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, and give the cloak as well as the coat. The God Who teaches us to forgive our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Jesus was behaving exactly like His Father in heaven.

In the Crucifixion, we did the judging. We provided the anger. We wielded the flagellum. We drove the nails. In the Crucifixion, God took the full, unbridled fury of our rage into Himself without so much as an objection. And when it was over, He took it far away. We stood, dumbfounded, blinking and staring at the broken body on the Cross. O God. What have we done? How have we so treated the King of Glory? Are these my hands, stained with blood? Is this my crime before me that I see?

God did not pulverize Jesus. We did.

But God did not stop at Good Friday. When He took all of our hurt, our sin, He gave us, in return, His life. The same pipeline through which we conducted our rage and hurt, He delivered His redemption and healing. The Body of Christ, broken for us, became for us our spiritual food: the bread of heaven. The Blood of Christ, spilled out, became for us our spiritual drink: the cup of salvation. Christ, who died for us, was raised for us, as well. And through His resurrection we are born anew and raised with Him.

God is a holy God. I just do not see the holiness of God being anything other than a restating of the love of God. But I don't think a petty, nasty, vindictive God comes into the picture, at all. Except as a picture of *our* nature, not of God's. The vindictiveness, the nastiness, the judgement, is the very thing that God, through Christ, was saving us from.

It is an unfortunate fact that many people in the world today think of God as a cruel, vindictive tyrant who wants to crush us and suppress us, beating us down with a burden of guilt and blame. Shouldn't we be correcting this terrible misconception, which is nothing more that a slur against the divine love and fatherly care that we Christians have been so blessed to receive?

Suppose that you were trying to convince a person you knew of his need for God. Based on this theory of the atonement, a conversation between you and he might proceed something like this:

You: I can see that there is hurt in your life. I know that God can help you.

He: Really? What can God do for me?

You: Well. God is your Father. He wants what is best for you.

He: Don't talk to *me* about fathers! My father used to beat me all of the time. He was never there with anything but criticism.

You: Well. God is not like that. He wants to heal you. You see, He took the penalty for your sins and laid it on Jesus.

He: So, what good is that? What makes God makes any different than my own father?

You: God is much different. You see, when you had sinned, and God had to punish you, Jesus took the punishment, instead.

He: He still doesn't sound like anyone I want to be around. You are telling me that God is just as cruel as my own father, but instead of beating me up, he beat up Jesus, instead.

You: Well, wait a minute. You see, Jesus is God. So, God was really taking the punishment for your sins into Himself.

He: Then He is mad as well as cruel. I can't possibly want to have anything to do with a nut case like that.

You: Well, let's lay that aside for the moment. Maybe it's too personal an issue for you. Let me tell you that Jesus wants us to be like God. That we can be forgiving and loving and accepting, just like God, who is our loving Father in heaven.

He: Now, wait a minute. I'm supposed to become like God?

You: Right!

He: And Jesus has provided a way whereby I can become like our Father?

You: Absolutely! He is our model of everything that is loving and caring and giving about God the Father. He even taught us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek.

He: But you also told me that God is an exacting judge who wants someone, Jesus if not me, to pay a price in agony for my sins. Only Jesus has done the paying instead of me. Am I supposed to be like that, as well? It doesn't sound like this God of yours practices what he preaches.....

At this point, you give up on him as obviously unredeemable.

******** ******** ********

We, as ministers to a sick world, should be spending more time telling people of God's wonderful gift of healing, which was provided to us through Christ.

For He was in the world, reconciling it unto Himself.

Praise God, Who so freely and richly takes our pain away from us and nails it to the Cross of Christ. In exchange, He bestows upon us His unlimited bounty and richness. Such love deserves our unending devotion and heart felt sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

Hallelujah. All Glory, Laud, and Honor to our God and to His Christ; our Blessed Redeemer. In the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.