PART I: THE BIG PICTURE
Plot Finding: As a whole, the book of Isaiah is focused upon one main idea. That idea seems to be that God is holy and demands holiness from his people.  However, as this idea develops throughout the book of Isaiah, it becomes clear that God’s people were not living in holy obedience to him. Rather, because of their corrupted values, they had turned to other nations and gods. As such, they faced covenant curses for their disobedience. The plot-line of the book climaxes when it declares that the wrath of God against his people will be satisfied by the death of the Servant, in sacrificial atonement. The Servant is declared to be the one who perfectly fulfills the Law, as the Lord, and will make eternal salvation possible for all who believe in him. By his sacrificial atonement, all of God’s true people will be able to enter into and eternally live in the economy of his New Covenant, experiencing all the blessings of his everlasting kingdom.
Motive: The major reason the book was written was to reveal the next stage of God’s plan of salvation for his people. This twofold stage involved, firstly, God warning his disobedient people of their coming exile from the land and subsequent loss of privileged relationship with him, which were the curses related to their breaking of his covenant. Secondly, it included the promise of future deliverance on both a physical, temporal level and a spiritual, eternal level, which would be the blessing related to their obedience in having faith. Altogether, the book of Isaiah serves to bridge the gap between the Old and the New Covenants. Isaiah teaches that although God’s people have not been able to fulfill the requirements of the Old Covenant, God will fulfill the requirements for them, and in so doing will also usher them into a New Covenant.
Author: There is much dispute in critical scholarship regarding the authorship of the book of Isaiah. Many scholars advocate the view that multiple authors were involved in the creation of the book. However, there is not sufficient evidence to doubt the historical, traditional view of single authorship by the prophet Isaiah himself. Others, however, hold to a single-author position, such as the conservative Old Testament scholar J.N. Oswalt, who notes,
"The historic position of the Church was derived from the apparent claims of the book beginning at 1:1. That verse seems to say that everything which follows is a report of the visionary experiences of Isaiah the son of Amoz. Furthermore, in 2:1; 7:3; 13:1; 20:2; 37:6, 21; and 38:1 words are attributed directly to Isaiah. While Isaiah is not named as the source of any of the materials in chs. 40–66, it is evident that the burden of proof is upon those who propose other sources, for no other sources are named." 
With all this in mind, it seems most likely that - as the traditional view holds - the book of Isaiah was written solely by the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz. Oswalt’s view that the book itself seems to be a sort of anthology of Isaiah’s prophecy to Israel, perhaps composed by him over a period of time and then organized in such a way as to make his message most clear to readers, seems to account well for the book’s symmetry and logical, thematic organization. 
Origin: Determining the exact date when the book of Isaiah was written is difficult, as the book seems to have been composed over a long period of time. However, the book itself does identify the time period during which Isaiah himself lived and prophesied, which can help readers to estimate when the book was written down in its entirety. In dating the prophet Isaiah’s life, the conservative biblical scholar M.G Easton asserts,
"He exercised the functions of his office during the reigns of Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (1:1). Uzziah reigned fifty-two years (B.C. 810-759), and Isaiah must have begun his career a few years before Uzziah’s death, probably B.C. 762. He lived till the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, and in all likelihood outlived that monarch (who died B.C. 698), and may have been contemporary for some years with Manasseh. Thus Isaiah may have prophesied for the long period of at least sixty-four years." 
Such information makes it likely that Isaiah lived, prophesied, and composed the book which bears his name sometime before the final exile of Judah - that is, before 586 B.C.
Targeted Audience: The specific, targeted audience of the book of Isaiah was the people of Judah. They were targeted because they were not living obediently as God’s holy people (i.e., his covenant people) and were therefore in threat of exile as punishment for their disobedience.
If Easton’s chronology related to Isaiah’s lifespan and ministry cited above is accurate, then the book would have been written before the exile, if one also assumes that Isaiah himself is the author. And in that the book contains no mention of Isaiah ministering outside o the territory of the nation of Judah, it may also be assumed that Isaiah penned the book that bears his name in that same geographical area.
In addition to its specific purpose for God’s people in Judah, the book of Isaiah also has a more general purpose. It uniquely contributes many ideas about the nature and character of the Servant, and many of these ideas are quoted in the New Testament in order to show how Jesus Christ (in his life, death, and resurrection) fulfilled the role of the Servant. As scholar Brevard S. Childs has correctly observed, “The suffering servant retains its theological significance within the Christian canon because it is inextricably linked in substance with the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is and always has been the ground of God’s salvation of Israel and the world.”  Thus, by studying the book of Isaiah, readers today can gain a deeper understanding of the relevance of the sacrificial atonement to the lordship of Jesus Christ, the one true Suffering Servant.
Format: When considering the type of literature, it seems best to classify the book of Isaiah on a general level as prophetical literature. However, on a more specific level, it should be noted that as prophetical literature the book of Isaiah features such subgenres as narrative, poetry, prose, and apocalypse. Altogether, it is a masterfully composed piece of literature.
Culture: The book of Isaiah could be said to have or be addressing multiple historical settings, in that it was composed over a long period of time and speaks about the past, present, and future of God’s people. Many scholars have divided the book into different parts in order to reflect the different historical settings to which the book relates. However, it seems best to affirm the overall unity of the book and allow for it to stand as one piece of literature useful for all of God’s people.
When the book was written, the social setting of Judah was very troublesome. Obedience to God and his covenant was not popular; people had turned to other gods and other governments that seemed more appealing (on a surface level) to them. The people of Judah did not understand - or simply did not care about - how to be in right relationship with both God and one another. As a result, they had adopted a pagan culture which was only making things worse for them. In how they lived as a whole, they were not really any different from any other nation in the world.
Selected Passage, Situated: In this study, one passage in particular from the book will be examined, Isaiah 53:6-9. This passage addresses both the sin of God’s people and how God will deal with the sin of his people. God deals with the sin of his people by providing the Servant as sacrificial atonement on behalf of them, in an ultimate act of grace. The big idea pointed at by this passage, that a new covenant should be expected by God’s people, foreshadows the climax of the storyline of the Bible (i.e., the advent of Christ).
PART II - THE PASSAGE OBSERVED AND INTERPRETED
Final Hebrew Text: Isaiah 53:6-9
כֻּלָּנוּ כַּצֹּאן תָּעִינוּ
אִישׁ לְדַרְכֹּו פָּנִינוּ
וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בֹּו אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ
נִגַּשׂ וְהוּא נַעֲנֶה
כַּשֶּׂה לַטֶּבַח יוּבָל
וּכְרָחֵל לִפְנֵי גֹזְזֶיהָ נֶאֱלָמָה
וְלֹא יִפְתַּח פִּיו
מֵעֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח
אֶת־דֹּורֹו מִי יְשֹׂוחֵחַ
כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים
מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמֹו
וַיִּתֵּן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים קִבְרֹו
עַל לֹא־חָמָס עָשָׂה
וְלֹא מִרְמָה בְּפִיו
Rationale for Textual Decisions
- The MT seems like the best text for this verse, considering the general lack of variation in the major alternative texts (LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.).
- In 53:7a, the apparatus of the MT proposes that the conjunction (waw) may be prefixed to the wrong word. It suggests that it should not be prefixed to the pronoun but instead to the following verb.  Such a proposal would allow for a smoother reading. However, this proposal is not supported by any variant texts. Therefore, the proposal should be rejected. The more difficult reading should be preferred.
- In 53:7b, 1QIsaa shows an alternative word for the MT’s “his mouth,” and this alternative is also present in 53:7e. 1QIsab supports the alternative, though it is slightly different, but the LXX and other texts do not. 
- In 53:7c, 1QIsaa and 1QIsab show an alternative for the MT word translated “slaughter.” The alternative appears to be a passive participle which possibly would be read as “being slaughtered.”  Since the prepositional prefix does not make much sense with a passive participle, and since other texts do not support the alternative reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the MT is preferred.
- In 53:7d, 1QIsaa shows “like a sheep” where the MT shows “and like a sheep.” That is, there is no conjunction present in 1QIsaa. The conjunction is present in the LXX and 1QIsab though,  so the MT’s reading should be accepted.
- In 53:7e, 1QIsaa does not show an imperfect verb as the MT does.  The MT is preferred because the reading of 1QIsaa is not supported by other texts.
- The apparatus of the MT proposes that 53:7e be deleted,  perhaps in order to smooth out the paragraph because 53:7e seems redundant in light of 53:7b (which is identical). However, there is no support for this proposal in any variant texts. Therefore, the proposal should be rejected. The more difficult reading should be preferred.
- In 53:8a, the LXX offers a variant reading (ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη) that differs in a few ways from the MT.  In English, the LXX could be read as, “In his humiliation the judgment of him was taken.” 1QIsab supports this alternative reading. However, 1QIsaa supports the reading of MT.  In light of this support, and because it makes the most sense grammatically, the reading of the MT is preferred.
- In 53:8a, 1QIsab shows a different form of the verb in the MT translated as “he was taken.” This alternative is not present in other texts, though. The LXX and 1QIsaa support the MT,  and so the reading of the MT is preferred.
- In 53:8c, the LXX reading (ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ) is once again slightly different.  In English, the LXX could be read as, “for the life of him was taken from the land.” Again, the LXX variations seem like scribal interpretation of the MT more than reliance upon a different source, and they are not supported by other main texts. The MT is preferred.
- In 53:8d, the apparatus of the MT proposes a replacement, in order to make “transgression” into the plural “transgressions.”  However, there is no support for this proposal in any variant texts, and it should therefore be rejected. The more difficult reading should be preferred.
- In 53:8d, 1QIsaa and 4QIsad show an alternative reading which could be translated as “his people” instead of the MT’s “my people.” However, the harder reading of the MT is supported by both the LXX and 1QIsab and is to be preferred. 
- In 53:8d, at the end, the LXX shows an alternative reading of “he was led into death (ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον) instead of the MT’s “a plague spot for them.”  The LXX’s reading, which supplies a verb where the MT has a noun, is supported by 1QIsaa and is grammatically smoother than the MT. However, the more difficult reading of the MT is supported by both 1QIsab and 4QIsad,  and is consistent with the other ideas of the line, and so it is preferred.
- It is notable that the idea of the Servant dying or being stricken with a plague “for them” is absent in the LXX. However, as Bartholemy has noted, most variant texts support the reading of “for them,” as it appears in the MT.  Thus, the LXX likely reflects a scribal correction in light of the difficult grammar and idea of the MT. The absence of “for them” causes for the validity of the previously mentioned alternative (“he was led into death”) to be further questioned in its authenticity. Thus, the MT is preferred.
- In 53:9a, there is a lot of controversy amongst the various texts in regards to the subject of the verb. The MT shows a third person, masculine, singular verb. 1QIsab agrees with the MT. The LXX shows the first person form of the verb.  However, 1QIsaa shows a third person, masculine, plural verb. The reading of 1QIsaa makes the most sense logically, considering that a person, after dying, is not able to put his grave anywhere - only the living can do that. Due to the discontinuity amongst the witnesses, the reading of 1QIsaa is preferred.
- In 53:9b, where the MT shows “and with,” 1QIsaa shows an alternative. The alternative is not substantiated by other witnesses and shows evidence of correction. The MT is preferred.
- In 53:9b, the LXX shows, “And the rich for the death of him” (καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ).  Notably, the preposition differs from the MT. The preposition of the MT is preferred. Despite this prepositional difference, the LXX also serves as a witness supporting the reading of the MT when considering another alternative reading proposed by 1QIsaa.  The MT is preferred in both cases.
- In 53:9d, at the very end, 1QIsaa and 4QIsad both support an alternative to a word in the MT translated as “in his mouth,” adding another consonant to the end of the word. However, 1QIsaab supports the MT.  The MT is preferred.
Final English Translation of Isaiah 53:6-9
53:6a All of us like the sheep have gone astray;
53:6b a man to his own way we have turned
53:6c and the LORD has caused to encounter in him the iniquity of all of us.
53:7a He was oppressed and he was being afflicted,
53:7b yet he will not open his mouth;
53:7c like a sheep to the slaughter he will be led,
53:7d and like a sheep to the faces of those shearing her was muted,
53:7e so he will not open his mouth.
53:8a By oppression and by judgment he was taken;
53:8a By oppression and by judgment he was taken;
53:8b but who will consider his generation?
53:8c For he was cut off from a land of living ones,
53:8d by a transgression of my people, a plague spot for them.
53:9a And they put his grave with criminal ones,
53:9a And they put his grave with criminal ones,
53:9b and with a rich one in his death,
53:9c upon no violence he did,
53:9d and no deceit in his mouth.
- The translation “all of us” allows for its parallel usage in 53:6c to be clear in the English.
- In the phrase “like the sheep,” the article (i.e., “the”) has been assimilated and appears only as a daghesh forte. Its appearance should not be ignored, as it draws attention to the simile of God’s people being like “the sheep” (i.e., a flock of sheep),  and thus is translated despite not being entirely smooth English. Also, despite “the sheep” having a singular nature, the line could be understood as meaning “all of us are like a flock of sheep.”
- The verb has been translated as “have gone astray.” It should be noted, however, that the primary idea of the verb is the action of erring by wandering.  Context (esp. 53:6b) lends the idea that that this erring by wandering is expressed through going one’s own way; that is, erring by wandering from God’s way. Thus, to say that “all of us, like sheep, have gone astray” seems like the most correct translation.
- Maintaining the grammatical order of the line - Subject, Prepositional Phrase (Object), Verb - in the English is crucial to proper interpretation, in light of the parallelism with the next line.
- The order of the Hebrew line - Subject, Prepositional Phrase (Object), Verb - is significant for parallelism and should be maintained in the English translation, so that it might be correctly interpreted, despite it seeming a bit awkward according to rules of English grammar.
- The correct English translation of this line is difficult, due to the plurality of the verb and the lack of an explicitly plural subject.
- The literal translation of “a man” allows for the parallelism with 53:6a to be apparent. Also, it allows for the development of the lesser-to-greater comparison of the line (there is a notable shift from “a man” to “we”) to be clear to the reader.
- In the phrase translated “to his own way,” it should be noted that “own” does not appear in the Hebrew. Logic has been used to supply the word “own” in to qualify “his way,” to reflect the correct interpretation of the the Hebrew in English. Normally, this type of interpretation would be left up to the reader, but the English does not make good sense without the supplementation. “Own” makes it clear that man’s way is being contrasted with God’s way.”
- “We” is not explicit (i.e., an independent pronoun) in the Hebrew text but is instead contained within the verb.
- The prepositional phrase including God’s name has been translated as “and the LORD.” It could also read as “and Yahweh.” Regardless of the name chosen for translation purposes, the important thing for the reader to recognize is that the subject of this line is the God of Israel.
- The verb is difficult to translate into English, especially considering that its object is a prepositional phrase. It has been translated as “caused to encounter” in order to convey the causative aspect of the LORD’s work in the encountering of mankind’s iniquity with the suffering servant’s person.
- The word phrase translated as “all of us” is the same one used to begin 53:6a.
- In regards to the verb, context makes it clear that the subject (he) is the recipient of the oppressive action. Thus, the reflexive “He was oppressed” seems appropriate as a translation.
- The participle is difficult to translate into English. It seems best to translate it as “was being afflicted” in order to allow the participle to reflect the past-tense and ongoing action.
- The conjunction has been translated loosely as “yet” because the grammar seems to convey that the Servant’s action (that he will not open his mouth) in 53:7c will occur in spite of the conditions of 53:7a and 53:7b.
- The imperfect tense of the verb is notable for translation. The future aspect of it implies that the Servant will not, at any time in the future, open his mouth in response to the oppression and affliction that he had to endure. Thus, it has been translated as “he will not open.”
- The Hebrew word translated as “sheep” is different than the one used in 53:6a. The particular term used seems to draw attention to one individual sheep in a flock. 
- In the prepositional phrase translated as “to the slaughter,” it is notable that there an assimilated article is extant. If 53:7d and 53:7e are taken as parallel units, this article could be applied to the word “faces” as well, which would make the English translation more smooth.
- The Hophal verb reflects passive action with a causative voice that will happen in the future, and thus has been translated in a way that highlights how the sheep (i.e., the Servant) will be the recipient of action from an outside force. He “will be led” in the same way that a shepherd leads his flock, but in a negative sense, to slaughter.
- Once again, a different Hebrew word for “sheep” is used. Interestingly, the word used here could be translated as “ewe,” meaning that it has a singular and female nature. It should be noted that this feminization has been done by the author for an emphatic effect in the simile - the Servant is clearly a male, as made clear by other verses which are literal.
- There are a couple things to note about the prepositional phrase translated as “to the faces.” First, parallelism with 53:7d has allowed for the article to be used along with “faces.” Second, “the faces” probably should be understood as a phrase of speech meaning “before,” “in front of,” or “in the presence of.” However, “to the faces” has been maintained in order to reflect the parallelism of the Hebrew.
- “Those” has been supplied as the masculine plural subject of the participle. The actual subject is ambiguous. With this ambiguity in mind, it could be said that the third person, feminine, singular pronominal suffix (the recipient of the action) draws special attention to its antecedent (the female sheep).
- It is difficult to determine the correct way to translate the Niphal verb. It could be either passive or reflexive. While a reflexive translation seems consistent with the willingness of the Servant to sacrifice himself, as seen throughout the context of the pericope and poem at large, a passive translation seems more consistent with the verbal system of 53:7 in particular. Thus, the passive translation has been favored.
- 53:7e is identical to 53:7b, and this parallelism must be noted. However, in order for the phrase to make sense logically in English, the preposition has here been translated more strictly as “so,” in that it has more of a comparative force than than the conjunction of 53:7b.
- The word translated “oppression” is rarely used in the OT, but the context of this line helps with determining the correct range of translation for the word. It is a means, related in some way to judgment, by which the Servant will be taken away. In light of the Servant’s apparent willingness to be taken away (evidenced in other verses), this word should not be understood as meaning that he was taken away against his will.
- The Pual tense of the verb identifies the Servant as the recipient of the action, in that it expresses intensive action with a passive voice; he is the one being taken away.
- The conjunction has been translated as “but,” as this seems logical in regards to the grammar. The interrogative pronoun frames the clause (53:8b) as being a question about the nature of what happened in 53:8a.
- “His generation” is the object of the verb (translated “considered”), as indicated by the definite direct object marker.
- The structure (in particular, the word order) of this line is significant in that it draws attention to the generation of the servant, due to its prominence in being before both the interrogative pronoun and the verb. However, a literal translation does not make sense in English (it would read, “but as for his generation, who will consider?”.
- The meaning of this line is somewhat ambiguous, mostly because of the wide range of meaning available for the definition of the Servant’s “generation.” Most likely, in light of 53:8c, the term refers to the fleshly descendants of the Servant who will not be able to be born because of his sacrificial death. The Servant will be the last of his generation; he will not have any fleshly offspring.
- The question, “But who will consider his generation?” seems to be rhetorical. The most logical answer seems to be that none of those who take him away will consider his generation.
- Due to the context (esp. 53:8a), the Niphal verb should be taken with a passive voice, so that it reads, “he was cut off.”
- The prepositional phrase has been translated literally as “from a land of living ones” in order to reflect the singular nature of land and the plural nature of those living. An alternative reading, “the land of the living,” is also possible if the unit is considered to be a figure of speech or to be a proper name.
- The prepositional phrase which begins this line (by a transgression) is interesting for a couple reasons. First, the preposition matches the same one used twice in 53:8a, creating a connection between the ideas there and here. Second, the word “transgression” itself is singular. One transgression is the cause of the Servant being stricken for God’s people. And it is by being a plague spot for them that he was oppressed, judged, and taken away from a land of living ones.
- As Dominique Barthélemy has noted, determining the correct pronominal suffix of “people” is difficult. It could be taken as either “my people” (as in the MT) or “his people” (as in the variant text 1Q-a). However, the easier reading of “his people” is likely the result of scribal corrections to smooth over the reading. The more difficult reading of “my people” is to be preferred, even though it leaves ambiguous the antecedent of “my,” in that it appears to be the more original reading. 
- The Hebrew word translated “a plague spot” is difficult to understand in English, at least in this particular context (i.e., a verbless line). The Servant has been stricken from the sins of God’s people to the extent that he has become a plague spot for them. That is to say, he has become a curse for them, receiving the full wrath of God on their behalf. 
- The prepositional phrase has been translated as “for them,” connecting with the previous three Hebrew words to form the complete phrase which is translated as “from a transgression of my people, a plague spot for them.” 
- It seems that the “waw” could be taken either as a consecutive or as a conjunction here. The consecutive has been preferred because of the overall verbal system of the poem. However, the prophetical nature of the line, which is evidenced by the imperfect verb, should not be ignored in interpretation.
- “His grave” seems like the most logical choice for the object of the verb, despite word order in the line. Word order seems emphatic, focusing attention on the prepositional phrase which describes where the Servant put his grave.
- In light of parallelism with 53:9b (in which “with appears” with a conjunction prefixed), “with” seems like an appropriate translation here. The preposition should not be taken as a definite direct object marker.
- The translation “with criminal ones” makes clear that the Servant’s grave was put with the graves of criminals, rather than with the ambiguous term “criminals,” which leaves open the possibility (in English) that he put his grave with (i.e., in the presence of) living criminals.
- The translation “with” is preferred due to the prefixed conjunction and parallelism with 53:9a.
- The translation of “a rich one” has been used for the same reason as “criminal ones” in 53:9a.
- The prepositional phrase “in his death” seems to modify “and with a rich one” in particular, due to parallelism.
- The preposition has been translated as “upon” in order to reflect how the line is describing the lack of a basis or grounds (in the Servant’s own life) for the Servant’s death.
- The word order of Hebrew line has been maintained in English to show parallelism with 53:9d.
- The word order in Hebrew, which reflects parallelism with 53:8c, draws attention to the prepositional phrase “in his mouth” (a prepositional phrase exists where a verb should), and thus has been maintained in English.
Grammatical Features for Interpretation
- The phrase translated as “all of us” is interesting for at least three reasons. First, the identity of the subject (“us”) is ambiguous. Since it is first person, it includes the speaker, but beyond that it seems to have an unlimited range of inclusion in light of the varying . Though it could be understood specifically as “all of Israel” or “all of Judah,” it most likely means the more general and inclusive “all of God’s people” in light of the theme (sacrificial atonement) and consistent ambiguity of pronouns in 53:6 as a whole. Second, the prefixed qualifier “all” draws emphasis to the guilt of the whole of God’s people - none are excluded from the judgment, not even the speaker. Third, the phrase both begins 53:6a and ends 53:6c, meaning that it functions as a frame for the introduction to the poem.
- It is unusual to see two prepositional phrases (“all of us” and “like the sheep”) in a row at the beginning of a line. The prepositional phrases function together to create a simile. It could be said that the simile (“all of us, like the sheep”) functions as the subject of the verb (to go astray).
- The verb is parsed as Qal Perfect 1CP, which is notable in that it refers to the subject’s action of going astray as having occurred in a past, completed way.
- The common, singular noun translated “a man” signifies a shift in the person and number of the subject being discussed. 53:6a began with a common, plural subject (“us”), which was compared to another plural subject (“the sheep”). The shift in focus to an individual, from greater to lesser, is emphatic and draws attention to the all-encompassing nature of the judgment. All of God’s people are like both a flock (corporate) going astray and a man (private) turning away. The whole people, including each individual, have been found guilty.
- The prepositional phrase “to his own way” could be seen as the object of the verb, despite being fronted. The fact that it is fronted is notable for parallelism.
- Once again, the verb is parsed as Qal Perfect 1CP. The verbal system remains consistent. In this instance, however, the verb’s subject does not have an explicit antecedent in the line. The ambiguous “we” is used instead. The antecedent seems to be “all of us,” found in 53:6a. The lack of “all of us” in 53:6b could be seen as emphatic, in that its absence in 53:6b draws even more attention to its reappearance in 53:6c.
- The subject of the verb, “we,” is evidence of another shift in personhood. The shift here is from the lesser “a man” to the greater “we.” Again, this shift is emphatic in that it conveys the all-encompassing nature of the judgment.
- The conjunction which begins the line, prefixed to the name of the LORD (the subject), has been translated as “and” in order to show how 53:6c continues developing a series of ideas.
- The use of God’s name (Yahweh, or “the LORD”) is emphatic, as it is the only proper name in the whole of 53:6.
- The verb is parsed as Hiphil, Perfect, 3MS. The shift from the use of Qal verbs to a Hiphil verb is significant in that it conveys the causative aspect of the LORD’s work. It means that the Servant’s encounter with the iniquity of the sin of all God’s people has been caused directly by God himself. It was God’s plan that the Servant bear the sins of God’s people. Additionally, the perfect nature of the verb reflects how God’s causative work is a completed action. God, in his sovereignty, had always planned for the Servant to act as a sacrificial atonement for his people.
- The prepositional phrase “in him” modifies the verb, creating a setting for the action (i.e., the encounter) to occur. It is interesting to describe the encounter as occurring in a person. It seems to mean that the Servant bears the consequences of sin on an internal level in his very personhood (that is, holistically), and not just on an external level (as might be reflected by a pronominal suffix on the verb, which does not occur here).
- The antecedent of “him” is unclear and not explicitly revealed in this verse. However, context (esp. the next few verses) makes it clear that is the Servant who is being referred to here.
- “Iniquity” is the object of the verb, as evidenced by the definite, direct object marker. It is part of a construct chain that serves to qualify the nature of the iniquity. The construct chain allows for the addition of the article (i.e., “the iniquity”). Altogether, it is “the iniquity of all of us.”
- “All of us” ends 53:6c, just as it began 53:6a. As a frame to the verse, it surrounds a complex system of nouns and pronouns. Most importantly, it shows that the all-encompassing judgment that God’s people (as a whole, and as individuals) deserve has been atoned for in the person of the Servant alone. Those for Such an argument serves to deify the Servant; only God himself could bear the sins of all his people in a righteous way. Of course, it is important to recognize that the use of “all of us” does not signify universal inclusion in Christ’s substitutionary atonement. It is specific for God’s chosen people (i.e., his elect) which includes the prophet himself. Regarding the definitive range of “all of us,” conservative Old Testament scholar Edward Young observes, “Those for whom he served as substitute are designated all of us. In this phrase the prophet includes himself and all for whom he speaks. It is not warranted to draw from these words a doctrine of universal atonement.”  Thus, in accordance with Young’s observation, it should be concluded that “all of us” was a term referring specifically to those who had been granted faith in Jesus Christ in light of his substitutionary atonement for them.
- There are a few things to note about the verb, translated as “He was oppressed.” First, it is translated as such (i.e., reflexively, with the subject functioning as the recipient of the action) because it is parsed as Niphal, Perfect, 3MS. With the introduction of a Niphal verb, there is a noticeable switch from the verbal system of 53:6 - a new system is introduced. Still, the Perfect nature of the verb communicates a completed action. It seems that the action being described in 53:7 (and in what follows) is a historical, poetical description of 53:6c. Notably, the focus is on the Servant himself. He is the subject of the verb, although ambiguously so.
- The pronoun, which has a conjunction prefixed to it, is emphatic. It draws attention to the Servant the subject of the verb’s reflexive action, and it also functions as the subject of the participle. It is unusual to see a conjunction prefixed in such a way, as it makes the line difficult to understand properly, but it seems appropriate considering how it is emphatic and introduces the participial phrase. The place of the conjunction allows for a contemporaneous action to be communicated, while still emphasizing that the Servant as the subject. 
- The Niphal Participle, which is masculine and singular, conveys the idea of a contemporaneous action in the past. That is, while the Servant was oppressed, he was being afflicted. 
- The conjunction is difficult to translate, as will be discussed below in 53:7e, but has been taken to mean “yet” along with the logic of 53:7a. The Servant not opening his mouth seems to be an action done actively, in spite of what happened to him.
- Along with a negative particle, the author shifts to using a Qal, Imperfect, 3MS verb here (translated “he will not open”). The most notable aspect of this shift is the difference between the reflexive nature of the Niphal verb and participle and the more direct nature of the Qal verb. What this highlights is that the Servant himself chose to not open his mouth (presumably, this means that he chose not to say anything), despite being oppressed and afflicted.
- There is an emphasis on holiness of the Servant’s mouth, in particular. Such terminology refers the reader back to earlier parts of Isaiah.
- The prefixed preposition (“like”) leads into an extended simile, poetically describing 53:7a and 53:7b. The Servant is liked to a sheep. In this simile, there is an evident connection in semantics with the simile of 53:6a, where all of God’s people are liked to sheep who have gone astray. However, the Servant is portrayed in a positive light as a sheep, whereas God’s people were portrayed in a negative light as a sheep. The different word for “sheep” helps the reader to make the distinction between the negative and positive aspect.
- The second prefixed preposition (“to”) introduces a phrase (“to the slaughter”) which functions as the object of the verb (“he will be led”), despite fronting it. The fronting is emphatic and shows parallelism with 53:7d.
- The verbal system shifts once again and uses a Hophal, Imperfect, 3MS verb. Such a verb expresses causative action with a passive voice and thereby focuses attention on what will happen to the subject (i.e., the Servant), creating a situation/setting for him to respond to in an active way. His response eventually is seen in 53:7e.
- The conjunction (“and”) introduces a new line of the poem, continuing the simile about the Servant through its prefixed location on the prepositional phrase (“and like a sheep”). The feminine gender of the sheep is to be understood as a simile as well; the gender of the sheep does not refer to the actual gender of the Servant. This truth is made explicitly clear by the return to the masculine gender in the description of the Servant in 53:7e.
- The second prepositional phrase (“to the faces”) could be considered to function as the object of the verb, but only insomuch as it describes the setting in which the subject (“a sheep”) acts.
- The Qal Participle, which is masculine and singular, has a 3FS suffix. This means that the sheep is receiving the continuous action (of shearers) being expressed by the participle. With this in mind, the verbal system’s return to using the Qal conjugation is interesting in that it communicates direct action by others towards the subject.
- Immediately after the participle, a verb parsed as Niphal, Perfect, 3FS is used. The return to the Niphal is important, as it reminds the reader of 53:7a. In 53:7a, it seems clear that the verb and participle are passive in voice. If the Niphal verb is to be taken as having a similar passive voice, then the implication is that the sheep has been muted by others being sheared in their presence (instead of muting herself while being sheared in their presence). Considering that it would be illogical/impossible (or at least highly unusual) for a sheep to mute herself, it seems correct for the context of the simile to say that the sheep was muted by those shearing her. The idea being conveyed, that a sheep was bound so as to be mute while being sheared, is similar to the idea that the Servant was bound while being afflicted. This translation, of course, makes understanding the conjunction (and thereby general meaning) of 53:7 a difficult task.
- The opening conjunction of the line is once again difficult to translate. The fact that the line is identical to 53:7b must be considered but should not cause the reader to translate the preposition exactly the same, given the difference between 53:7a (a literal description) and 53:7c and 53:7d (an extended simile). If the conjunction here is taken as working along with the prepositions translated “like,” then “so” seems like the most logical translation. The only issue is that the translation “so” communicates that the Servant will not open his mouth because, like the sheep being sheared, he was muted. This means that - assuming that 53:7b’s conjunction is to be taken as meaning “yet” - the Servant will both actively not open his mouth (despite what happens to him) and passively not open his mouth (as a result of what happens to him). Such an insight seems correct, at least within the simile-context of this verse.
- The grammar of this line is a bit unusual in that two prepositional phrases, joined together by a conjunction, are before the verb. Attention is drawn to the circumstances (as described by the prepositional phrases) in which the action occurred.
- Once again, the verbal system shifts, and this time a Pual, Perfect, 3MS verb is used. Using a passive voice, the Pual conjugation here expresses an intensive action that is already completed. Thus, “he was taken” is the correct translation. The significance of the Pual conjugation here is that it works along with the circumstances created by the prepositional phrases to communicate that the Servant was harshly taken by others in ways unbefitting of him. He was taken away by others (according to their own plans), but in an ironic twist ended up truly being taken away on behalf of those others so that he (according to God’s sovereign plan) might be a sacrificial atonement for them.
- In general, the idea of being “taken away,” which is expressed by the verb, relates to and likely would remind readers of their exile from Egypt. Additionally, post-exilic readers (i.e., those reading after 586 B.C.) would have been reminded of their exile from Israel/Judah. The Servant, though undeserving of such a fate, was taken away into exile for the people of God. He was cursed for them, in a Deuteronomic fashion.
- The conjunction (“but”) that is prefixed to the definite, direct object marker at the beginning of the line causes “his generation” to be the first thing of note in the line (rather than a verb or a subject). Thus, “his generation” is the focal point of the line. Such an idea points to and might refer the reader back to the Abrahamic covenant, where the seed/generation of Abraham received a promise. Although many of God’s people would have considered Abraham’s generation, as well as their own, none (it seems) have considered the Servant’s generation.
- The placement of the interrogative pronoun in the middle of the line makes the grammar of the line difficult to translate smoothly into English. Still, it’s placement right after “his generation” is noteworthy. The personal, relational nature of the interrogative pronoun (in that it means “who”) immediately forces the reader to consider the generation that the Servant will not have. Scholar Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. has noted that, as a rhetorical question, it also seems to lament the thoughtlessness by the people in doing away with the Servant. 
- The Piel conjugation of the verb conveys an intensive action with an active voice. That is, it causes the question being ask to essentially be, “who will intensely meditate for an extended period of time on his generation (or lack thereof)”? The point being made by this conjugation is that the generation of the Servant should be meditated upon in an intense, lasting way. When one does truly consider the Servant’s generation, it becomes clear that while he did not have any physical offspring, all who have faith in him (as the Christ) are his spiritual offspring and share in the blessings of the covenant promises offered to Abraham’s offspring.
- The preposition (“for”) causes this line to function the reasoning for asking the rhetorical question of 53:8b. When considering the generation of the Servant, it must be understood that “he was cut off from a land of living ones.” By being cut off from the living, he was not able to have any physical offspring. His physical family line ended with his being “cut off.”
- The Niphal, Perfect, 3MS conjugation of the verb focuses on the passive nature of the Servant being cut off. He was cut off by an outside force. 53:8d goes on to describe the identity of that force. The verb of 53:8c serves to emphasize the power of that outside force.
- The preposition phrase “from a land of living ones” serves to describe how exactly that the Servant was cut off. The author’s use of the word translated “land” likely would have reminded readers of God’s covenant with his people, which tied the people’s inhabitance in the land to their relationship with God. In being cut off from the land (i.e., in being exiled), the Servant was receiving the curse for covenant disobedience, as if he had no relationship with God.
- The opening preposition (“from”) introduce the outside force by which the Servant was cut off from a land of living ones - a transgression of God’s people. The singular nature of the “transgression” is interesting. Committing one transgression alone is enough to be damned according to the code of the holy LORD. Most likely, this one transgression of the people was a failure to love/worship the LORD, a failure to live rightly as the people of God, as is made evident by the construct chain which includes the term “my people.”
- That the Servant became “a plague spot for them” likely would have reminded readers of their exile from Egypt, during which the Egyptians were plagued by the LORD.
- The verbal system’s return to using a verb of the Qal conjugation here (and in 53:9c) is noteworthy in that it is speaks of completed action through the use of the consecutive waw. The completed action of others putting the Servant’s grave with criminal ones is contrasted with the lack of violence done (in a completed sense) by the Servant himself (as seen in 53:9c). The servant was undeserving of having his grave placed with criminal ones; though innocent, he was considered a criminal on behalf of the people of God (who were the true criminals).
- In that the line is verbless, but connected to the previous line (53:9a) through the use of a conjunction prefixed to a prepositional phrase, the verb from 53:9a should be seen as silently functioning here as well. In other words, 53:9b could be interpreted as meaning, “And they put his grave with a rich one in his death.” Thus, a distinction can be seen between the grave in 53:9a and the grave in 53:9b. While the status of the Servant as being alive or dead while at his grave in 53:9a is uncertain, it is certain here in 53:9b that the Servant is dead in his grave. This means that 53:9b does not contradict 53:9a, or even associate the rich with the criminals; rather, 53:9b simply conveys that the grave of the Servant will be moved in his death. Although he died alongside criminals, he was placed with the rich after dying. Such a statement hints at the true nature of the Servant. Of course, the benefit of being buried with the rich must be tempered with the fact that it was still a negative thing for the Servant to have to die at all. As Oswalt has noted, “The point is not that the Servant escaped from injustice (in death), but that his treatment was unjust from start to finish.” 
- The injustice of the Servant’s death is seemingly intended to be held in contrast with the justice of the destruction of Israel and Judah. The injustice is that the Servant is suffering and dying in the place of those who should be suffering and dying, the people of God. 
- The preposition (“upon”) leads into a statement that makes it clear that the Servant himself did nothing to deserve the punishment he received.
- The phrase “no violence” likely refers to the Servant’s innocence in action, in that 53:9d refers to his innocence in speech. In all that he did, the Servant lived according to God’s will. Further, he lived his life so that others could have life, and not death.
- The Qal, Perfect, 3MS verb speaks of the Servant’s actions in a completed (and even ultimate) sense. None of his actions, from start to finish, were violent. Such a judgment could only be made about the Messiah, and could certainly not be made by inhabitants of Judah and Israel.
- The conjunction (“and”) connects this line with the previous one, which has a similar theme - the holiness of the Servant. Along with doing no violence, the Servant is said to have no deceit in his mouth. A notable difference between 53:9c and 53:9d is that 53:9d conveys a similar idea but is actually verbless. This will be discussed below.
- The Servant’s lack of deceit expresses (in a negative way) the fact that everything he said was the truth. The negative aspect of the statement (i.e., saying “no deceit” rather than “truth”) forces the reader to consider those who are deceitful (Satan, demons, liars, false prophets, etc.). Along with the description of his perfect behavior, the description of his perfect speech creates an image of him that is entirely blameless.
- Where a verb would be expected (because of parallelism with 53:9c), there is a prepositional phrase (“in his mouth”). The lack of a verb is emphatic; it seems intended to focus attention upon the mouth of the Servant. The mouth of the Servant had already been talked about in 53:7b and 53:7e, as well as all throughout earlier parts of the book of Isaiah. Most notable in the discourse about the mouth in the book is that the mouth of mankind is contrasted with the mouth of the LORD. Whereas man’s mouth is unclean, the LORD’s mouth is clean. The Servant, despite being a man, has the clean mouth of the LORD. His very mouth is able to utter the Word of the LORD. The Servant is the one whom the LORD, by his Word, covenantally promised would come to redeem his true people and deliver them into their inheritance.
Key Words for Observation and Interpretation
In Isaiah 53:6c, the Hebrew verb הִפְגִּיעַ (Hiphil, Perfect, 3MS) is a key word worthy of further, in-depth study because of difficulty in properly translating it. The verb is derived from the stem פָּגַע and this stem appears in Scripture 46 total times, across 43 different verses, in either the Qal or Hiphil conjugation. The Qal conjugation is by far more common, as it is used in 40 of those total appearances. The Hiphil conjugation is less common, as it is used in only 6 of those total appearances. Further, 3 of those appearances of the Hiphil conjugation occur in the book of Isaiah alone (Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:12; Isaiah 59:16), with the other 3 appearances occurring in Jeremiah 15:11, Jeremiah 36:25, and Job 36:32.  Therefore, the use of the Hiphil conjugation in Scripture could be considered very rare, used almost exclusively in poetry/prophecy, and even particular to the author of Isaiah himself. Such a consideration should influence how the verb is understood by interpreters.
When trying to arrive at the proper definition, Isaiah’s usage of the Hiphil conjugation of the word should be examined first, in order to understand the context of its usage. In Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12, the verb has an object which is either iniquity itself (53:6) or the transgressors who did the iniquity (53:12). These concepts are very related and similar. However, whereas Yahweh is the causative force (Perfect) behind the verb’s action in 53:6, the Servant himself becomes the causative force (Imperfect) behind the verb’s action in 53:12. Together, the two usages lend the idea of the Servant bearing the iniquity of others in such a way as to receive in himself the negative consequences of the iniquity, all for the sake of the transgressors. Isaiah 59:16 makes this idea more clear, adding some additional ideas to the definition. There, where the stem is used to form a masculine, singular participle in the Hiphil conjugation, the idea of the LORD being a provider of righteous salvation to his people is conveyed. As such a person, he is described as acting in a way similar to the action seen in Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12. This helps make it more clear that the Hiphil conjugation of the stem פָּגַע relates to the idea of mankind receiving ultimate atonement for sin through the work of the LORD. הִפְגִּיעַ conveys the idea of mankind’s sin being placed upon the Servant in such a way that it encounters his personhood, becomes associated with him, dies with him in his death, and is wiped away completely as he imputes righteousness upon those who have been atoned for. While the CHALOT sums this idea by using the definition “let strike” for the verb,  BDB is probably more correct in using “cause to light upon.”  However, neither of these dictionaries provide a definition that exactly conveys the meaning described above. In particular, neither of them properly convey how sin is encountered in the very nature of the Servant himself, for the sake of God’s people. Thus, “caused to encounter” has been preferred as the most correct translation of הִפְגִּיעַ in Isaiah 53:6c.
In Isaiah 53:8d, נֶגַע is another another key word worthy of in-depth study because of its lexical significance. As a noun, it appears 78 times total in 62 different verses. Notably, 61 of those appearances occur in the book of Leviticus, chapters 13 and 14.  There, in those passages, the word is associated with the Holiness Code as a label for conditions (e.g., diseases, wounds, etc.) that make a person unclean. The Levitical usage of the term is probably most crucial for understanding the usage in Isaiah 53:8d, due to the connection between the Law’s provision for the uncleanliness in Leviticus 14 (i.e., a sacrificial atonement involving sheep), the sheep similes of Isaiah 53:6-7, and the overall theme of sacrificial atonement in the pericope. The uses of the word in Deuteronomy generally reflect this same theme, as they hint at a priest being able to make clean the unclean condition of a person. Other, earlier usages of נֶגַע are also notable though. For instance, in Genesis 12:17, the word is used to refer to a condition of affliction which God causes to fall upon Pharaoh and his family as a curse/punishment. Similarly, in Exodus 11:1, the LORD himself uses the term to describe to Moses the condition of affliction by which he is going to curse Pharaoh and Egypt. Traditionally, the word in Exodus 11:1 has been understood to mean the one final “plague” that the Egyptians were cursed with before they let God’s people go into their exile (in which they sojourned to the Promised Land).
The CHALOT defines נֶגַע as having three potential meanings, all of which are fairly related in nature. They are “plague, affliction,” “blow, assault,” and “mark, skin disease.”  In a similar fashion, the BDB provides “stroke,” “plague,” “mark,” and “plague-spot” as all being possible definitions. The distinction between the definitions in both lexicons seems to be whether or not context allows for the condition of affliction to be attributed to the LORD.
Considering the context of the pericope (Isaiah 53:6-9), in which one individual - the Servant - gains the identity of being a נֶגַע for the people in accordance with God’s will (to be a sacrificial atonement for them), it seems to best to consider the argument to mean that he becomes a “plague spot” for them. That is, he is stricken by God in such a way that he becomes legally unclean, and so unclean that only God himself could have the power to make him clean again. In becoming a נֶגַע for God’s people, from the iniquity of all of them being encountered in his person, the Servant will certainly die for them. Such is God’s plan for their atonement; his love for his people is so great that he will sacrifice himself (in the form of the Servant), that they might be saved and (in faith) become perfectly obedient servants like him - free from curses, and free for blessings.
The Structure Observed and Interpreted
As a general structure, the pericope could be divided as follows: An introduction to the suffering of the Servant (53:6), and the actual suffering of the Servant (53:7-9).  More particularly, the verses could be seen as fitting into the following outline:
Isa. 53:6a - A simile about the waywardness of all the people of God
Isa. 53:6b - The waywardness of individual people of God
Isa. 53:6c - Atonement for all the people of God in the Servant’s sacrifice
Isa. 53:7a - A description of the Servant’s suffering
Isa. 53:7a - A description of the Servant’s suffering
Isa. 53:7b - The Servant’s response to his suffering
Isa. 53:7c - A simile about the Servant being killed
Isa. 53:7d - A simile about the Servant being silent
Isa. 53:7e - The Servant’s response to his suffering
Isa. 53:8a - The way by which the Servant was taken
Isa. 53:8a - The way by which the Servant was taken
Isa. 53:8b - A question about the effect of the Servant being taken
Isa. 53:8c - The Servant’s exclusion as the ground for the question
Isa. 53:8d - The way by which the Servant was excluded.
Isa. 53:9a - The people’s negative response to the Servant’s sacrifice
Isa. 53:9a - The people’s negative response to the Servant’s sacrifice
Isa. 53:9b - An ironic element of the people’s negative response
Isa. 53:9c - The Servant’s innocent actions as an adversative basis for the people’s response
Isa. 53:9d - The Servant’s innocent speech as an adversative basis for the people’s response
Noticeably, the logical progression of the pericope has many different layers of meaning. Many of these layers exist because of parallelism in the poetry. With that in mind, parallelism in Isaiah 53:6-9 must also be observed in-depth. In particular, the use of semantic parallelism in the pericope will be observed.
Noticeably, the logical progression of the pericope has many different layers of meaning. Many of these layers exist because of parallelism in the poetry. With that in mind, parallelism in Isaiah 53:6-9 must also be observed in-depth. In particular, the use of semantic parallelism in the pericope will be observed.
Semantic parallelism in the pericope can be seen first in Isaiah 53:6, between lines 53:6a and 53:6b. The word order (which is: subject, prepositional phrase, verb) makes the semantic parallelism between the lines very evident. In specific, the type of semantic parallelism that 53:6a and 53:6b seem to display is synonymous parallelism. The second line seems to say the exact same thing as the first line, interpreting the simile of the sheep for readers by stating the point using different, more literal terms. Through the parallelism, the point is made that all of God’s people (like sheep), both as individuals and as a corporate people, are wayward in how they have turned away from their master’s way.
The second and third appearances of semantic parallelism in the pericope occur in 53:7. Most obvious is the semantic parallelism between 53:7b and 53:7e, in that the lines are identical. Such parallelism between these two instances must be considered synonymous, with the first instance (53:7b) functioning to end a literal statement and the second instance (53:7e) functioning to end a simile statement. As the two lines function together in the verse, the surrounding context (i.e., the other lines in between) lends the reader insight regarding the meaning of the synonymous lines. The Servant not opening his mouth during his oppression and affliction is shown (through simile, and then the second instance of the line) to be related to his role in being sacrificial atonement. He has kept his mouth holy, as the Word of God, in order that he might be able (as the perfectly obedient one) to be worthy as the sacrificial atonement for the people of God. The third appearance of semantic parallelism, which is between 53:7c and 53:7d, is what forms the simile used to make that point clear. In those lines, prepositions are what makes the parallelism clear. Since 53:7c and 53:7d each contribute a different idea to the simile, they should be understood as demonstrating synthetic parallelism.
The fourth appearance of semantic parallelism in the pericope is found in verse 53:8, in lines 53:8a and 53:8d. The parallelism is made evident by the repeated use of the same preposition (translated “by”) throughout these two lines. It is used three times total. The syntax of the two lines is not identical but does have enough similarities that the point is made clear: by a transgression of God’s people, the Servant became a plague spot, and it was for that reason he taken away from a land of living ones by oppression and judgment. In this, the ironic nature of the Servant’s death is highlighted; he was killed by the very ones he was dying for, so that they might be saved from themselves and know their God (by his sacrificial atonement).
The fifth appearance of semantic parallelism is found in verse 53:9, in lines 53:9c and 53:9d. The parallelism in those lines, which is synthetic, is made most evident by the similar syntax. 53:9c begins with a preposition, then has a negative particle, then has the object, and then a verb. 539d begins with a conjunction, attached to a negative particle, has the “object” (the line is verbless), and then has a prepositional phrase (instead of a verb). Although there are some slight differences, they are emphatic (in order to draw attention to the second line), and do not take away from the parallelism. For instance, the first line contains a preposition but the second line contains a conjunction, and the first line has a verb where the second line has a prepositional phrase. The parallelism evidenced in the two lines helps to convey the importance of the overall holiness of the Servant by drawing attention to two specific aspects of his holiness, his conduct and his speech. Out of these two things (his conduct and his speech), his holiness in speech gains the most attention. The conjunction in the second line allows the idea of the verb from the first line to carrying over into the second line (as in stating that he did not say anything deceitful), while still allowing the clause to appear as its own line in the poem, and the verbless nature of the second line allows for attention to be drawn to what has not occurred in the Servant’s mouth (the reader would expect a verb there, only to find the prepositional phrase).
In observing the structure of the pericope, it becomes clear that the overall theme is God’s grace in providing the Servant as sacrificial atonement for all of his wayward people. Parallelism in the pericope highlights both the disobedience of God’s people and the obedience of the Servant, making it clear that mankind’s only hope for a redeemed relationship with the LORD is found through placing one’s faith in the Servant. As the Messiah (i.e., The Son of God in the flesh), the Servant is the only one able to atone for the sins of God’s disobedient people.
PART III - THE PASSAGE IN ITS BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
The Passage Situated within Old Testament Literature
Isaiah 53:6-9 includes numerous references to other parts of the Old Testament, importing many themes into the pericope, and these references are important to recognize in light of how they aid in correct interpretation. The major theme imported by the Old Testament references is that of God’s covenant with his people, but minor themes are also imported. Minor themes include the Law, covenant disobedience, curses related to the people’s relationship with God, curses related to the people’s occupation of the land, sacrificial atonement for disobedience, and the Word of the LORD. For this study, in its particular focus, the references that are related to sacrificial atonement will be of most importance.
In Isaiah 53:6a, 53:7c, and 53:7d, there are various uses of the word “sheep” (multiple Hebrew words are used) which reference the Old Testament idea of sacrificial atonement. Of course, it should be noted first that the uses of the words for “sheep” are within the context of similes, in which they are used to convey ideas about the character of either the people of God or of the Servant. Both the people of God and the Servant are compared to a sheep, with the people reflecting the negative characteristics of a sheep and the Servant reflecting the positive characteristics of a sheep. On this subject, Oswalt notes,
"When we are compared to sheep, it is their tendency to get themselves lost that is given prominence (v. 6). But when the Servant is compared to sheep, it is their nondefensive, submissive nature that becomes the basis of comparison. Both he and we may be compared to sheep, but when we are two, different pictures emerge. In us the negative characteristics are seen, whereas in him it is the positive ones. He shares the same nature with us, but in him it is transformed." 
Beyond referencing the nature and characteristics of sheep (as they relate to the Servant and the people of God), the similes about sheep also reference the animals used in the Law’s sacrificial atonement rituals. One notable reference is found in the Passover rituals, where - interestingly - the same various words used for “sheep” in Isaiah 53:6-7 describe the animals being sacrificed. The same word translated “sheep” in 53:7c ( שֶׂה) is used in Exodus 12:3-5 to describe the sheep used by the people of Israel in their household Passover sacrifices, and the word for “sheep” in 53:6a ( צאֹן ) appears in Exodus 12:21 to describe the animals used by the elders for sacrifices. These references are important to recognize because of the role of the sacrifice in the passover - it protected the people from the judgment of the LORD, in which he would cause a plague (and death) to fall upon anyone who had not sacrificed the appropriate animal and spread its blood upon their household’s door. Whereas in the Passover the sacrifice of sheep was intended to be a symbolic expression of the people’s faith in the LORD, and not an ultimate sacrifice for their sins, the sacrifice of the Servant (the true sheep) in Isaiah 53 was the thing to which the symbolic expression pointed; that is, the LORD’s own sacrificial atonement for the sins his people.
Beyond just the reference by the words for “sheep,” though, the sacrificial atonement of the Servant as it is described in Isaiah 53:6 also references other parts of the Old Testament by proclaiming that the Servant became a plague spot for the people of God. Though primarily a reference to both the plagues of the exile from Egypt and the plague of the Passover, the Servant becoming a plague spot also references the unclean lepers in Leviticus 13-14. Through this reference, it becomes clear that the Servant made himself into the most despicable person of all by becoming unclean as a plague spot for them. But, as God, he was also able to act as the sacrificial lamb of atonement for the sin of everyone’s uncleanliness that he had taken upon himself. The Servant was the very provision of God, according to his sovereign plan, who was able to transfer all iniquity upon himself, to satisfy ultimately the wrath of God. 
An additional reference to other parts of the Old Testament that is important to note relates to the nature of the Servant’s suffering (being oppressed and afflicted). Using similar terminology as Isaiah 53 (regarding the nature of the Servant’s suffering), Exodus 3:7 describes the oppression and affliction of God’s people who were suffering in Egypt, and God’s promise of deliverance is offered to them.  In its allusion to that original promise, Isaiah 53:7 could be seen as offering an ultimate promise of deliverance - this time, from the very consequences of mankind’s sin against God. The sacrificial atonement of the Servant, as it is described in the pericope, makes it possible for all of God’s people to be eternally delivered from the oppression and affliction of hell. Furthermore, the suffering of the Servant was something he was willing to do for God’s people without any questioning. For although the people of God cried out in their oppression and affliction, the Servant remained silent when being oppressed and afflicted on their behalf, proving his obedience to the will of the LORD in all things. 
The last reference to other parts of the Old Testament that is important to note is the very death of the Servant himself, as described in Isaiah 53:9. In that verse, the people of God (who were themselves criminals, according to their transgressions of the Law) are stated as being the ones who killed the Servant and put him in the grave. The Servant’s innocence is declared in 53:9c and 53:9d, and his innocence should be taken as relating to the entirety of the Law in the Old Testament. That is to say, he was innocent before both God and men, but was killed for them and put in the grave nonetheless. As such, his death was a sacrificial atonement with the power to cleanse all those whom he atoned for from the entirety of the Law’s consequences. The whole Law was fulfilled by the Servant in his death.
The Passage Situated within New Testament Literature
In the New Testament, Isaiah 5:6-9 and its surrounding context (i.e., the fourth Servant Song) is alluded to and quoted often. This is because the general idea of the pericope - that the Servant has died a death of sacrificial atonement for the people of God - became reality in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. On the cross, Christ perfectly fulfilled all of the prophecies about the Servant. The whole New Testament looks back in remembrance upon that actual event, which is the climax of all history, teaching about its implications for the true people of God. In line with that function, the scholars Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach have noted that, “According to Isaiah 53, the Servant of the Lord is punished in the place of God’s people, as their substitute, to make atonement between them and God. The New Testament uses this passage to speak of Christ’s death in penal substitutionary terms.”  Thus, the role of Isaiah 53:6-9 in the New Testament is incredibly significant, and so the various (direct) allusions, quotations, and echoes of the pericope will be explored below. References in the gospels will be examined first, followed by other books of the New Testament.
Matthew 27:57-60 appears to reference the pericope. Specifically, Isaiah 53:9a and Isaiah 53:9b seem to be referenced. In the ESV, the passage reads:
"When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away."
Notably, if the passage in Matthew 27 is actually a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:9a and Isaiah 53:9b, then it lends the modern reader understanding about how to interpret the Hebrew lines, which are difficult to understand for both textual and grammatical reasons. The rich man of Isaiah 53:9b is not necessarily wicked; rather, he is one who simply takes the body of the Servant from the original grave with criminals and then places it into a new grave, his own.
In the gospel of Mark, there seems to be at least a few references that are worth noting. First, in Mark 8:31 the ESV reads, “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.” This appears to be a claim by Jesus that his ministry will be a fulfillment of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Regarding this claim, Watts has observed,
"Jesus’ predicating his messianic Son of Man identity with Isa. 53’s sufferings was apparently utterly unexpected, as was the consequent notion that Israel’s peace would come through his bearing, even to death, the Deuteronomic wounds and sicknesses of idolatrous Israel’s exilic judgment." 
The statement by Jesus in Mark 8:31 is interesting, as Watts has noted, because by it Jesus made a claim about himself than most of his contemporaries would not have expected. Their idealized view of a Messiah was probably similar to that of the powerful kings of other nations, and yet Jesus - the actual Messaiah - predicted that his suffering, death, and resurrection were essential to the establishment of his reign and his kingdom. This point is important in how it lays the foundation for the second apparent reference to the pericope in the gospel, which can be found in Mark 9:31. The ESV reads, “For he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.’” In that verse, the connection with Isaiah 53:6-9 is made once again, reiterating that Jesus will not only undergo the same sufferings as the Servant in the pericope, but also that he will overcome them through resurrecting from death. Jesus seems to reiterate all of this in Mark 10:33. In the ESV, the verse reads,
“See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
Although the reference is not quite as direct as others, the verse seems to allude mostly to the nature of the Servant’s suffering.  Just like the Servant in Isaiah 53:6-9 was rejected by the very people he came to save, the people of God, so was Jesus rejected and condemned to a terrible death by his contemporaries in the land of Israel. However, as part of God’s plan, he was not confined to the grave, and he rose from it after three days, conquering with it the consequences of sin for all who place their faith in him as Lord.
In the gospel of Luke, the author takes special care to lay forth the prophetical background of Jesus’ death of sacrificial atonement.  This background becomes particularly relevant in the parts of the gospel where Jesus is taken away to be crucified, as it makes evident a few possible references to Isaiah 53. For instance, in Luke 23:9 the ESV reads, “So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer.” This passage contains a possible allusion to the silence of the Servant in Isaiah 53:7b and 53:7e. However, the reference is not explicitly connected by grammar. It is connected thematically, through the nature of Jesus’ response to those accusing him, who would later have him crucified. In such a thematic reference, Jesus is shown to be the innocent Servant who fulfills God’s will.  Beyond that, another possible allusion to the pericope can be found in Luke 23:18-25, where Jesus is delivered by Pilate to the Jews, to be crucified. Christ was delivered to the true criminals (i.e., criminals against God) as a criminal, unto death.  The way Luke describes the scene of the passion narrative connects it to both Isaiah 53:6c and Isaiah 53:8a. These references, when seen working together as parts of the whole structure of the gospel of Luke, make it clear that Jesus’ statement in Luke 24:46 (ESV) that “the Christ should suffer” may allude to Isaiah 53, in that Jesus’ death as a sacrificial atonement is a ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy about the Suffering Servant in the pericope. 
In the gospel of John there is a possible allusion to the pericope in John 1:29. In the ESV, the verse reads, “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” In the verse, there is a very apparent reference to the Servant of the pericope (specifically, Isaiah 53:6c, 53:7c, and 53:7d) which is made clear through the word “lamb.”  John the Baptist’s exclamation is a confirmation that Jesus was the one who actually would fulfill the prophecies and function as a sacrificial atonement for the people of God, just as the Passover Lamb symbolically did for the people of God in the Old Testament. It is noteworthy that another person (specifically, a prophet), and not just Jesus himself, was recorded as connecting Jesus with the idea of the Servant from the pericope. The many testimonies about Jesus serve to show how he was truly the only one fit to act as the Servant, due to his complete innocence. Such truth is reaffirmed by Jesus himself in John 8:29 and 8:46. In these references, the New Testament scholar Andreas Köstenberger has observed,
"Jesus’ challenge in 8:46, 'Who among you can convict me of sin?' (stated positively in 8:29) coheres with the affirmation in isa. 53:9 that there was no deceit in the mouth of the Suffering Servant...Jesus’ calm, nonretaliatory response in 8:49 to the Jewish charge of demon possession, 'I honor my Father, and you dishonor me,' likewise evokes reminiscences of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (cf. 1 Peter 2:23, alluding to Isa. 53:7)." 
As Köstenberger has noted, the references to the pericope in Isaiah by John are numerous and serve to develop the identity of Jesus Christ as the Suffering Servant who would take away the sin of God’s people. His claim to sinlessness supports the notion that he is both God in the flesh and also the only suitable sacrifice for the sins of all of God’s people. Similar to the accounts in the other gospels, too, is the fact that Jesus’ ministry was in line with that of the Servants’ unto the point of death on the cross. In the ESV, John 19:9 reads, “He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, ‘Where are you from?’ But Jesus gave him no answer.” John’s description here of Jesus’ silence before Pilate, and then of his burial in 9:38-42 - first with criminals, then in the grave of a rich man - serve to reinforce the idea that Jesus’ life, death, burial, and resurrection were all in line with the prophecies of the pericope, and with God’s overall sovereign plan for the redemption of his people.
Remarkably, in all four of the gospels, the idea of Jesus’ death being a sacrificial atonement - in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 53 - is clearly observed. In particular relevance to the pericope of Isaiah 53:6-9, it is made clear by all of the gospel writers that the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples was a Passover meal eaten in preparation of Jesus’ death, a sacrificial atonement for the people of God.  That is, it is clearly that Jesus himself is the true lamb of God who - by his death, burial, and resurrection - takes away the sins of God’s people. Clearly, the gospel writers knew Jesus Christ as the Servant who is talked about in Isaiah 53:6-9, and modern readers also should make that connection.
Beyond the gospels, there are many other references to the pericope in the other books of the New Testament. For instance, the book of Acts contains at least a few potential allusions. One instance in which the pericope of Isaiah 53:6-9 (and its surrounding context) might be cited can be found in Acts 3:12-26, where Peter refers to Jesus by using the term “servant” and challenges the people to repent and believe in the gospel. Regarding this matter, New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall has observed,
"The original context of the citation is, of course, the passage in Isa. 52:13-53:12, in which a person described as the Lord’s servant is the object of great suffering and abuse, although in some ways he is bearing the sins of others and suffering because of them; his role is upheld by God, and ultimately he will be glorified...In the present context the language is used to establish who Jesus is and the fact of his glorification....the statement also serves to set the scene for the later use of a citation from Isa. 53 in 8:32-33." 
Truly, the passage in Acts 3:12-26 reflects the idea that Jesus had been accepted early on by the true (i.e., believing) people of God as the Servant from Isaiah 53:6-9. Christ’s death was accepted by the believing community as the sacrificial atonement which allowed them to have a restored relationship with God and be part of his eternal kingdom, as perfectly obedient servants.
Further, as noted in the quote by Marshall, the reference also serves to foreshadow the next reference to the pericope in Acts 8:30-35. In that passage, an Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip to identify the Servant in Isaiah 53:7-8, and Philip replied by identifying the Servant as Jesus Christ. Although many scholars have questioned the identity of the Servant in the fourth Servant Song, Philip makes it simple by stating that the identity of the Servant was Jesus Christ, and only Jesus Christ.  Notably, Philip’s use of Isaiah 53:7-8 allowed for the eunuch to associate himself with Jesus, repenting and believing in him.  Such a fact is notable because it is a demonstration of the true power of the sacrificial atonement of the Servant in Isaiah 53:6-9.
The book of Romans also provides at least one potential allusion to the pericope. In the discourse of Romans 8, there is a description of God that seems to allude to the fourth Servant Song, declaring that just as Christ suffered, so also those who believe in him will suffer.  That is, all those who place their faith in the Servant will be able to share in his nature through his sacrificial atonement. As Christians are obedient as God’s servants that will surely suffer with Christ, like the sheep led to the slaughter in Isaiah 53:7. 
1 Corinthians may also contain an allusion to Isaiah 53:6-9. The potential allusion can be found in the description of Jesus Christ’s death in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Regarding the potential allusion, scholars Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner have observed, “Notwithstanding a reference to the OT in general, the description of Christ’s death as being ‘for our sins’ may be an allusion to or echo of the portrayal of the Suffering Servant in Isa. 53:5-6, 11-12.”  In that verse, it seems apparent that the iniquities of God’s people encountered the person of Christ, and that he died for the sins of God’s people in order to provide them with absolution. The reference to Isaiah seems to be intended to encourage God’s people in the true nature of their lives - that they live for God, having received eternal life through the life, death, burial, and resurrection of the Servant.
1 Peter contains one of the most important references to the pericope, as it declares the absolute success of the Servant’s suffering. In 1 Peter 2:21-25, Peter reflects on Jesus’ suffering by incorporating several statement from Isaiah 53 in his description of the suffering, providing the believers with a model for how they ought to suffer in the world as God’s people.  Believers are called to live like Christ in the world, being an example of his Servanthood to all, expecting nothing more than a death like the Servant’s in Isaiah 53:9. However, Jesus’ suffering was not merely an example for other, already good people to follow. It was, as D.A. Carson has noted, “aimed at rescuing lost people, lost sheep, and it succeeded wonderfully.”  It succeeded to the point that it has the power to motivate Christians everywhere to share the gospel with others who are lost, that they might also become part of the people of God.
The book of Revelation provides the final allusions worth noting. In Revelation 5:6, the “lamb, standing as though it had been slain” seems to reference both the Servant in Isaiah 53:6 and the Passover Lamb (which, as noted, the Servant himself serves as in an ultimate way of fulfilling the Law). In its reference, the passage (along with Revelation 5:5) develops the idea that the slain lamb perfectly fulfilled all of the requirements of the Law by adding that the Servant was of kingly descent. The New Testament scholars G.K. Beale and Sean McDonough have summed this thought up by noting, “The Isa. 53 background especially highlights the atoning aspect of the lamb’s sacrificial death and also applies the metaphors of ‘root’ (cf. Rev. 5:5) to the sacrificial victim.”  The use of the “lamb” terminology continues throughout the book of Revelation, with an increasing amount of value to its definition. With this truth in mind, the nature of the Servant’s death as a sacrificial atonement is able to be seen in an eschatological light. By dying on the cross, the Servant-King ultimately was establishing his reign and his kingdom. Further, as Beale and McDonough have also noted, “The sacrificial victim’s prophesied sinlessness in Isa. 53:9 partly underlies the ‘worthiness’ of Jesus in 5:9 (‘worthy are you...because you were slain.’).”  Such a statement means that Jesus’ death as a sacrificial atonement for God’s people also makes him worthy of praise, and thereby capable of providing lasting joy to all who worship him as the one true Lord. One other potential reference is found in Revelation 14:5, and that reference expresses the idea that all those who have made Jesus their Lord share in his guiltlessness as the result of his death as a sacrificial atonement for them.  In such an idea, the application is made clear that those who remain steadfast in Christ will be able to experience the joys of being with him in the new, heavenly city.
The Passage Situated within a Biblical-Theological Framework
The passage of Isaiah 53:6-9 has a unique biblical-theological function in the New Testament. Above all else, it serves to show how God in his sovereignty transitioned his people from living in one covenant economy (the old) to living in another (the new). In his death as a sacrificial atonement for the people of God, the Servant perfectly fulfilled all the stipulations of the Old Covenant, making it possible for all of God’s people to live in the economy of the New Covenant. The Servant’s death for God’s people made it possible for them to have eternal blessings instead of eternal curses; he made it possible for God’s people to have eternal life. As it functions in the Old Testament, the pericope provides something to which God’s people may look forward in expectation. As it functions in the New Testament, the pericope provides something on which God’s people may look back on in remembrance. That is, it points to the climax of all history, the climax of the storyline of the Bible itself - the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, in the end, all things are being made right by the Servant of Isaiah 53:6-9.
PART IV - SITUATE THE PASSAGE IN THE MODERN WORLD
The Passage Contextualized
Christians are called to share the gospel with everyone in the world, and the message of Isaiah 53:6-9 can be a great aid in this task because of how it points to the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ. However, in culture today - especially in Northeastern America - the message of Isaiah 53:6-9 is one that may be difficult for many people to receive well. There are some common cultural objections underlying this difficulty. In particular, it is likely that many people in the Northeast would not believe that sacrificial atonement for sins is necessary, due to the post-Christian and relativistic nature of the culture.  In other words, many people in this modern culture do not necessarily perceive themselves as sinners (since they believe morality is very subjective) and therefore do not perceive a need for sacrificial atonement.
Just because the audience has changed - from the people of Judah, the original audience, to Gentiles, the modern audience - does not mean that the message is no longer relevant. In fact, the universal truth of God as it is presented in Isaiah 53:6-9 is needed now more than ever, in light of the fact that many people have never heard about their need for the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is important to understand how the truth of Isaiah 53:6-9 can be presented in such a way as to be contextual in the culture of Northeastern America and reach as many people as possible with the message of the gospel.
When presenting the truth of Isaiah 53:6-9 to a modern audience, at least three ideas seem important to emphasize. First, it must be emphasized that the LORD exists and wants to have a relationship with people from all parts of the world, and from all parts of time. That is, when God created mankind, he made men and women to be beings of worship. We have always been beings of worship, and we are all always worshipping - either God or something/someone else. Second, it must be emphasized that all people are sinners and have gone astray from God. Every man and woman has turned to his or her cultural idols, which function as gods. People must be shown how they are trusting in things that will ultimately fail them in both this life and in eternity. Cultural idols like educational achievement and intellectual reform must be exposed for what they are truly, that people might be able to see how they sin. Third, it must be emphasized that God - in his plan, according to his perfect knowledge - has provided a means for all things to be made right. In providing Jesus Christ as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of his people, he - in his foreknowledge of who would come to him - made a way for the people of contemporary culture to have a right relationship with him (despite never knowing of him, their sin, or their need for his reconciling work). All people need to do is have faith in Jesus Christ, as he accomplished the work on the cross that is described in Isaiah 53:6-9.
The Passage Applied
When considering how the passage of Isaiah 53:6-9 applies to everyday life, it is important to recognize that the Christian life itself is a function of the Servant’s death as a substitutionary atonement. His obedience has made possible the obedience of all who have trusted in him as the Lord of their lives. Thus, Christians are responsible for living lives that minister to others in a way that extends the function of his substitutionary death. Following the example of the Servant, Christians must evangelize the lost and work towards bringing about social justice in the world. 
Obviously, for all those who are not Christians, the most important way to apply the truth of Isaiah 53:6-9 is to place faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. By God’s grace, the lost person must recognize his or her own sin, coming to the conclusion that death is the only possible result of disobeying God. As they come to see themselves wandering into death, they must turn their eyes upon Jesus, the one whom has encountered the consequences of all the sin of God’s people in himself. And they must trust in the fact that he - as God - lived a perfect life, died on the cross, and was resurrected from death. By doing so they will make him Lord, and all of the curse they deserve will be resolved in his sacrificial atonement. By faith, the lost person will be found in God and will become part of the eternal people of God.
Ultimately, for both the Christian and the non-Christian, Isaiah 53:6-9 is a call both to trust in the obedience of the Servant and to live obediently like him. In so doing, all those who trust in the Servant will also share in the blessings of the fact that he is also the King. All those who are living as obedient servants as Christ will inherit his kingdom, and be able to live with him for all eternity in the joy of his fellowship.
1 Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Peabody: Prince Press, 1999), 796.
2 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 23.
3 Ibid., 25-26.
4 M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).
5 Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 423.
6 K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, editors, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997), 759.
7 Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (Boston: Brill, 2010), 435.
8 Ibid., 435.
9 Ibid., 435.
10 Ibid., 435.
11 K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, editors, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 759
12 Septuaginta: With Morphology, electronic ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), Isaiah 53:8.
13 Ulrich, 435.
14 Ibid., 435.
15 Septuaginta: With Morphology, electronic ed., Isaiah 53:8.
16 K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, editors, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 759.
17 Ulrich, 435.
18 Septuaginta: With Morphology, electronic ed., Isaiah 53:8.
19 Ulrich, 435.
20 Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 397-398.
21 Septuaginta : With Morphology, electronic ed., Isaiah 53:9.
22 Ibid., Isaiah 53:9.
23 Ulrich, 435.
24 Ibid., 435.
25 Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 838.
26 Ibid., 1073.
27 Ibid., 961.
28 Barthélemy, 397-398.
29 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 619.
30 Barthélemy, 398.
31 Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Volume III: Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 350.
32 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 391.
33 Ibid., 391.
34 Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Isaiah: God Saves Sinners (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005), 358.
35 Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66, 393.
36 Ibid., 393.
37 Research for this Word Study was conducted using Logos Bible Software.
38 William Lee Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 288.
39 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 803.
40 Research for this study was conducted using Logos Bible Software.
41 Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 227.
42 Gentry, Peter J. “The Atonement in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)” in Southern Baptist Theological Journal, Volume 11, Issue 2 (Louisville: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007), 24.
43 Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66, 390-91.
44 J. Alec Motyer. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 431.
45 Young, 350.
46 Ibid., 350-351.
47 Steve Jeffrey, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, Crossway, 2007), 67.
48 Rikk E. Watts, “Mark” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 182.
49 Ibid., 190.
50 Ibid., 201.
51 David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 385
52 Ibid., 393.
53 Ibid., 393.
54 Ibid., 401
55 Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 419.
56 Ibid., 458.
57 Ibid., 500.
58 Howard Marshall. “Acts” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 545.
59 Marshall, 574.
60 Ibid., 575.
61 Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 634.
62 Ibid., 637.
63 Roy. E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “I Corinthians” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 744.
64 D.A. Carson, “I Peter” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1034.
65 Ibid., 1035.
66 G.K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, “Revelation” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1101.
67 Beale and McDonough, 1101.
68 Ibid., 1131.
69 Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach, 218.
70 Ibid., 310.
--Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
--Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2, Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
--Beale, G.K. and D.A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
--Bergey, Ronald. “The Rhetorical Role of Reiteration in the Suffering Servant Poem (Isa 52:12-53:12)” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 40, Issue 2. Louisville: Evangelical Theological Society, 1997.
--Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.
--Brown, Francis and Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, electronic edition. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 2000.
--Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Volume III. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.
--Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.
--Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus, and Notes. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1987.
--Chisholm Jr., Robert B. “The Christological Fulfillment of Isaiah’s Servant Songs” in Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 163. Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006.
--Easton, M.G. Easton's Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996.
--Elliger, K. and W. Rudolph, editors. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.
--Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969.
--Hugenberger, G.P., “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by P.E. Satterthwaite et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1995.
--Jeffrey, Steve and Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach. Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, Crossway, 2007.
--Gentry, Paul J. “The Atonement in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)” in Southern Baptist Theological Journal, Volume 11, Issue 2. Louisville: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007.
--Holladay, William Lee, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1971.
--Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.
--Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
--Ortlund Jr., Raymond C. Isaiah: God Saves Sinners. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005.
--Oswalt, J.N. “Isaiah 52:13-53:12, Servant of All” in Calvin Theological Journal, Issue 40. Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005.
--Oswalt, J. N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.
--Oswalt, J. N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
--Pratico, Gary D. and Miles V. Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar: Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
--Septuaginta : With Morphology, electronic edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.
--Smith, Gary. Isaiah 1-39, The New American Commentary, Volume 15a. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2007.
--Smith, Gary. Isaiah 1-39, The New American Commentary, Volume 15a. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2007.
--The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.
--Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Boston: Brill, 2010.
--VanGemeren, Willem A. Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
--Watts, John D.W. Isaiah 34-66, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 25. Waco: Word Books, 1987.
--Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Comforted, An Old Testament Study. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996.
--Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Volume III: Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.
--Ziegler, Joseph. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, vol. XIV, Isaias. Göttingen: Dandenhoed & Ruprecht, 1939.