"Do They Know It's Christmas?": An Open Letter from the Angel Gabriel to the Shepherds Abiding in the Field, Keeping Watch Over Your Flocks

To the Shepherds Abiding in the Field, Keeping Watch Over Your Flocks:

Be Afraid! Be Very Very Afraid!

I say this with love but also with frustration.

As a professional messenger it grieves me to no end to see such moments of complete heralding incompetence among you at the very time of the year when more people are reflecting on Christ than any other time.

Granted you are all rank amateurs in comparison with those like myself, but you are far more professional that the sheep you continually shepherd. Thus it would be a somewhat dubious excuse for me to chalk your ineptitude up to simple naiveté, though, I admit, that is part of the problem.

For crissake, lepers and the lame have better announcement skills than your selves!

Every Christmas you conservative shepherds who are admittedly on the fringe of the American Church seem to enjoy the great twirling frustrations you spin yourselves into as you whine and moan about how secular the non-Christian world is during Christmas.

Yes, each Christmas you ascend upon every ever-expanding mode of information dispersal (of which the Angelic Union has thankfully never had to strike over) to decry the fact that the American secular culture doesn’t recognize your particular brand of holiday cheer.

Those of you conservative shepherds who seem to have enough financial support to waste your time proceed to go out and threaten various non-Christian businesses and non-Christian governments not to attempt anything which might be deemed un-Christian during this holiday season; things such as suggesting employees say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” or not allowing a nativity scene or a Christmas tree on particular properties or even not allowing The Charlie Brown Christmas special to be played (which I happen to enjoy).

One can certainly understand why this approach is taken by you shepherds:

1) It works for the ACLU and other interest groups, why not for Christian groups?

2) Surely the fate of the kingdom of God in America rests upon how you all view Christmas and whether you allow the Salvation Army to panhandle (even though most of you conservative shepherds dislike the Salvation Army because it is deemed to be too liberal, ecumenical and focused on the social gospel).

3) It’s not enough that the secular American culture allows you to freely worship God in Christ and preach the Good News; they must be forced to acknowledge and agree with you in this holiday event. Really, why is it you think that it's so hard for non-Christians to acknowledge Christ?

4) It is a lot more fun and easy to gripe and whine than to preach the Good News of Luke 2:14 and 4:18-19.

It’s these last two points which are so interesting to me as an angel. There is this continual historical myopia among you evangelical shepherds (not that it is simply limited to them and not every human and angelic being) that the situation today is so vastly different than it was just the year before you born. Yes, it seems that each of you believe that prior to your own births the entire American culture was completely different with regards to Christmas than it is today. “Back in the day,” you say, "everyone in American cultural life (nearly) recognized Christmas as a Christian holiday. It is only now that our American culture has overlooked this Roman Catholic holiday" that is off by the actual date by some 6 months or so.

A side note:
Actually December 25th is the date of the pagan Roman festival honoring Saturnalia called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun."It is unknown exactly when or why December 25 became associated with Jesus' birth. The New Testament does not give a specific date. Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Jesus was born on December 25 in his Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in AD 221. The identification of the birthdate of Jesus did not at first inspire feasting or celebration. Tertullian does not mention it as a major feast day in the Church of Roman Africa. The earliest reference to the celebration of Christmas is in the Calendar of Filocalus, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome in 354. In the east, meanwhile, Christians celebrated the birth of Jesus as part of Epiphany (January 6), although this festival focused on the baptism of Jesus. Christmas was promoted in the east as part of the revival of Catholicism following the death of the pro-Arian Emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. The feast was introduced to Constantinople in 379, to Antioch in about 380, and to Alexandria in about 430. Christmas was especially controversial in 4th century Constantinople, being the "fortress of Arianism," as Edward Gibbon described it. The feast disappeared after Gregory of Nazianzus resigned as bishop in 381, although it was reintroduced by John Chrysostom in about 400. In the Early Middle Ages, Christmas Day was overshadowed by Epiphany, which in the west focused on the visit of the magi. The prominence of Christmas Day increased gradually after Charlemagne was crowned on Christmas Day in 800. King William I of England was crowned on Christmas Day 1066.


In all actuality, the American (or even the Western) culture has changed very little in their reverence for “authentic” Christmas in the past 1000 years (I should know). Even a casual look at historical traditions (even over the past century) will give evidence of this.

Think about the traditional Christmas complaints:

The TV channels today don’t recognize “authentic” Christmas as they used to.

Nonsense! When have they ever recognized the true meaning of Christmas? Look back at past TV programs from the 50s. Where do they honor Christ? The Honeymooners, I Love Lucy, The Jack Benny Program, etc. Where is Christ mentioned? Nowhere. All of them are secular and commercial.

Recall The Charlie Brown Christmas special. In 1965, the show was complaining about over commercialization of Christmas.

BTW – It was the Coca-Cola Company, who asked Schulz (a Christian) to produce an animated Christmas special for television. Schulz, in turn, suggested hiring animator and director Bill Melendez, whom Schulz had worked with while creating a Peanuts-themed advertising campaign for the Ford Motor Company.

You know the Coca-Cola Company. They are the ones who began promoting Coke with Santa in the 1920s.

The movies today don’t recognize “authentic” Christmas as they used to.

Yes, remember all those great Christmas movies of the past: It’s a Wonderful Life (a grossly inaccurate portrayal of angels, but do you see our Union suing?), Miracle on 34th Street (which, in 1947, referenced the commercialization of Christmas), and all those various versions of A Christmas Carol starting in 1935.

BTW – A Christmas Carol, published in 1946, was the first Christmas story written by Charles Dickens. This was followed by:

o The Chimes (1844)
o The Cricket on the Hearth (1845)
o The Battle of Life (1846)
o The Haunted Man (1848)
o A Christmas Tree (1850)
o What Christmas is, as We Grow Older (1851)
o The Poor Relation's Story (1852)
o The Child's Story (1852)
o The Schoolboy's Story (1853)
o Nobody's Story (1853)
o The Seven Poor Travellers (1854)
o The Holly-tree Inn (1855)
o The Wreck of the Golden Mary (1856)
o The Perils of Certain English Prisoners (1857)
o Going into Society (1858)
o The Haunted House (1859)
o A Message from the Sea (1860)
o Tom Tiddler's Ground (1861)
o Somebody's Luggage (1862)
o Mrs Lirriper's Lodgings (1863)
o Mrs Lirriper's Legacy (1864)
o Doctor Marigold's Prescriptions (1865)
o Mugby Junction (1866)
o No Thoroughfare (1867)

Charles Dickens is a Christian.

In truth, when you get right down to it, both businesses (be it Coca-Cola or Walmart, the TV Networks or the film studios, the cartoonists or book publishers) and politicians (be they Republicans and Democrats or Constantine, Charlemagne and William the Conqueror) want money and votes. In order to get these things they will honor what they want to honor and refrain from what they want to refrain. Most importantly, THEY DO NOT WANT TO OFFEND!!!

Particularly businesses, they do not want at all to be involved in either religion or politics. Businesses do not want to offend either Republicans or Democrats. They certainly do not want to offend the religious, be they Christian or not! “The customer is always right, and let’s not get into a situation that makes the customer think that we think they’re wrong.”

But let us say that businesses did honor “authentic” Christian Christmas:

1) Which “authentic” Christian Christmas tradition should they honor? Roman Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox? Evangelical? Fundamentalist?

2) Should they focus on the shepherds or the Magi or both?

3) What color should each of the Magi be?

4) What color should the baby Jesus be? How about Mary and Joseph?

5) What specific interpretation of the “authentic” Christian Christmas tradition should various businesses focus on?

“They should focus on mine!” I hear you say.

Of course, businesses are quite willing and able to get their selves involved in interdenominational religious disputes. That’s quite good for business.

I recall when Mel Gibson (a Christian) made The Passion of the Christ. Protestant evangelical shepherds complained that it was too Roman Catholic. Protestant liberal shepherds complained that it was too focused on the events and not on the meaning of the events. Roman Catholic shepherds were complaining that it was too pre-Vatican II. Jews complained that it was anti-Semitic. Fundamentalist shepherds complained that it was anti-Semitic enough. I complained that it was too violent and didn't have any angels in the film, but I kept such complaints to myself.

Now imagine having that same dispute over Christmas.

But let us say that businesses did honor “authentic” Christian Christmas in a way that was acceptable to all Christian traditions:

1) Should Nike put Air Jordans on the feet of the Magi?

2) Should Pampers put name-brand diapers on the holy infant?

3) Should the heralding angels hold an Ipod playing the latest version of the Rod Stewart Christmas album? (Do not be afraid of bad Rod Stewart Christmases; we eventually took out John Denver for this reason. Be patient.)

4) Should the stable be cleaned by Mary with a Hoover vacuum?

5) Should the Magi bring an Elmo doll, a DVD of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (a very good adventure film, I think), and a Calvin Klein perfume?

“Of course not!” I hear you say. “That is offensive to my religious sensibilities and it’s the commercialization of Christmas! Businesses should not use the Christian religion to sell goods! Cleanse the Temple!”

Yes, there isn’t any outrage when Santa goes to Home Depot, but imagine if Joseph and a pregnant Mary showed up and got a room at Motel 6 because they’ll “leave the light on for you."

Do you really think businesses want to tempt that sort of fate?

As an anglophile, I frequent the British culture even during the Christmas holiday.

Great Britain (as you all know) has a state-run church. The Church of England is THE church of England and its religious leaders are frequently appointed by the British government. The state-run television networks are dutiful in providing religious broadcasting to the people of England. During the Christmas season, the religious broadcasting provides plenty of religious holiday cheer.

Even more so, the various non-religious television programs are extremely good at devoting their Christmas time to giving the viewing public the true meaning of Christmas.

Yes, the British are traditionalists at heart and have no problem whatsoever in giving public time to religious sentiments of the “authentic” Christian Christmas. Most of the British themselves are not religious even in the traditional and cultural sense of the word but they still have no qualms of televising without derision the view that Christmas is a time to celebrate the arrival of the son of God on earth and will then read the Christmas story from the Bible (I submit to you two recent examples: the episode called “Winter” on the show The Vicar of Dibley and the movie Bernard and the Genie).

Yes, the “authentic” Christian Christmas is recognized in Britain as it has for over 1000 years ... and still the vast majority of Britons are indifferent to Christ on a personal level. Yet, they look “across the pond” to the Western nation with the most commercial of Christmases and marvel at the great percentage of citizens who have a personal relationship with God in Christ.

Therefore, I submit that instead of b*tchin’ about how the secular American culture does not agree with you about how to best interpret and observe this particular Roman Catholic religious observance or whining like a bunch of stereotypical ACLU activists about how you're offended by the lack of “authentic” Christian Christmas observances, why not go out like the good little shepherds that you are and glorify and praise God for all the things that you have heard and seen, and actually tell people the following:

“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:10f.)

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:14)

“Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” (Luke 2:29-32)

“The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18f.)

Stop sitting there sulking like a bunch of wounded sheep bleating and begging beneath the table of public cultural recognition when, in actuality, you are the one’s at the table and the culture is spiritually starving to death by your feet. Tell them how they can eat, offer them the food, invite them to the table. Don’t sit there moaning about the lack of corporate sponsorship for the Good News but actually go out and proclaim the Good News.

THEY WON'T KNOW IT'S CHRISTMAS UNTIL YOU GO OUT TELL THEM. THEY WON’T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET AND OBSERVE CHRISTMAS UNTIL YOU GO OUT TELL THEM.

So make like good little shepherds and get the flock out and into the world.

Yours Truly,

The angel, Gabriel, Esq.

P.S. That “bell-ringing” and “getting wings” nonsense from It’s a Wonderful Life is complete rubbish. We do not have wings. Still, you do not see us suing Frank Capra. Water off a ducks back. Anyway, I prefer Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Another Reason to Understand the Adam of Genesis 1 and 2-3 as Being Figurative and A-historical

In the past I have made known my view that the character of Adam as he is portrayed in the stories of Genesis 1 and 2-3 to be that of an a-historical figure.

This particular view does not necessarily negate the idea that there was indeed a “real” and “historical” person that we would identify as “Adam”. Indeed, basic logic necessitates that there must have been an “Adam”.

“We can all admit that Man currently exists. We can also all admit that there was a time when Man did not exist. Therefore, if Man does exist and there was a time when Man did not exist, I must presume that there was a First Man. From a quasi-historical sense then, this first identified man would be “Adam”. He is the first Adam as Christ is the Second Adam.”

Rather this view focuses on the actual portrayal of the character of Adam as he is portrayed in the stories of Genesis 1 and 2-3, as a symbolic figure and not a particular, historical individual.

One of the arguments made against my view is drawn from Romans 5:12-21:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 5:12-21)

The basic argument from this Scriptural reference is that the comparative relation made by Paul between Adam and Christ necessitates that both figures be understood as historical.

In the past, I have responded to this argument by noting that Paul’s purpose is to point to Christ and not to Adam. Paul is attempting to explain the person and work of Christ and is using the OT figure of Adam in his explanation. Such a purpose by Paul does not necessitate the historicity of Adam in Genesis 2-3. Such a use of Adam is similar to the author of Hebrew’s use of the “legendary” figure of Melchizedek in his explanation of Christ’s priesthood and kingship. See here and here.

That Paul’s purpose is to explain Christ and, as such, does not necessitate the historicity of Adam is bolstered by the apostle’s identification of Adam in Romans 5:14 as “who is the figure of him that was to come.”

I still believe that my counter-argument dispels the view that Paul’s argument in Romans 5 necessitates that Adam in Genesis 2-3 be understood as “historical”.

Regardless, this position in no way contradicts the various definitions of inerrancy that the church father’s formulated in 1979. :-)

Nevertheless, I have conjured another argument which might help others understand the a-historical argument that Paul is making with regards to the relationship between Adam and Christ and perhaps bolster the view of the a-historical nature of the story in Genesis 2-3.

Fundamental to Paul’s theology is Christ’s corporate nature.

Indeed, Paul’s Damascus road experience was fundamental to the formation of his Christian theology.

“And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4; cf. 22:7; 26:14; Gal 6:13-16)

In these words to Paul was revealed not only the truth of the resurrection of Jesus and what this meant to the truth claims of the Christians but also the amazing reality that the Christian community was incorporated in the person of Jesus Christ. Paul’s realization that all believers are “in Christ” becomes foundational to all the theology which follows.

Even the resurrection of Christ (of which Paul is witness) and its significance to the resurrection of the believer hinges upon Paul’s understanding of Christ’s corporate nature.

“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:12-23)

In this passage, Paul makes clear that the reason believers will be resurrected is that Christ is resurrected and all believers are “in Christ”, thus all believers will be resurrected in him.

(On a side note: Christ’s resurrection is the first resurrection of Revelation 20:5-6 in which those who take part are spared the second death. This is one of the many reasons why I understand the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20 to be current and not future.)

It is Christ that God resurrects because only he is worthy to be resurrected. Man is not worthy to be resurrected but deserves damnation for their sins. But by grace God’s resurrection of Jesus includes all those who believe in the Christ. Christ is the grace. He is the one that saves Man. Man is dead without Christ as grace. All who are outside Christ are in Adam and dead. All die in Adam but are made alive in Christ.

This analogy made by Paul is perfect to explain how Christ saves men from death. By taking the character of Adam in Genesis 2-3 and understanding the events of the story as the typological occurrence that damns all men, the apostle can then explain how it is that Christ saves all men.

Now this understanding of the corporate nature of Christ and Adam is one which was generally held among the theologians and scholars during the “golden age” of the SBC. Even today there are professors at SWBTS who still teach this doctrine. Of the more ultra-conservative and fundamentalist professors I have not heard such views espoused. Perhaps it is taught at SBTS since the Reformed traditions have tended to use it more in their theological formulations. Regardless, those SBC professors who do currently espouse the corporate nature of Christ and Adam generally hold to the position that just as Jesus Christ is historical, so the Adam of Genesis 2-3 should be understood as historical as well.

The problem with this argument is that if we take Paul’s argument of Adam as being literal and historical in relation to the literal and historical figure of Christ then we have to accept the idea that ADAM IS DAMNED.

The logic of holding to a literal and historical view of Adam in Paul’s explanation of the corporate nature of Christ results in the position that Adam as a literal and historical person in Genesis 2-3 was damned due to his sin and will not be resurrected with Christ into glory. Indeed, all who are not believers in Christ are damned and are in Adam.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:23)

Thus, all unbelievers are in Adam. They are all dead in Adam. All unbelievers are dead because they are in Adam. If they were not dead in Adam then they would be alive in Christ.

If Adam was a believer and alive in Christ, then all who are in Adam are similarly made alive by being in Adam in Christ. Such an idea is contrary to Scriptural teachings. However, the idea that Adam is not saved but damned (and all those in him) seems to run contrary to our understanding of the events which took place following man’s fall (Gen 3:21; 4:25. Yet, logically this is the position one must take if they are to simultaneously hold to the literal and historical view of Adam in Paul’s explanation of the corporate nature of Christ.

Therefore, it is best to take the character of Adam in Paul’s thinking as figurative and a-historical, while still holding firm to the meaning and truth of the apostle’s explanation. Furthermore, it is indeed best to understand the Adam of Genesis 1 and 2-3 as being figurative and a-historical.

The "Suffering Servant" and the Atonement

Well....I have to ask if you've read Isaiah 49-58. Those chapters are all about the promised Messiah and all matters related to him. Pay special attention to Is.chapter 53, and especially to verse 5. It um...kinda completely debunks your theory. In fact verse 10 says explicitly that it was indeed "the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer...".

Let me also throw in the quote from Psalm 22 in the Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, which is often added with Isaiah 49-58 when discussing penal substitutionary atonement.

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34)

Apparently, Jesus had a few favorite books of Scripture (Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Deutero-Isaiah and Daniel). These are books that he most frequently quotes and which also appear to have had the most important impact on his theology as it was expressed in his message and ministry. I would also suggest that these books were the biggest Scriptural factors in his development of a messianic self-consciousness.

At university, I often enjoyed times of theological discussion with skeptical unbelievers who loved to throw out theological conundrums about as much as I loved to answer them. One such conundrum frequently offered was that Jesus never explicitly declared himself to be God, (i.e., “I am God”). I usually responded with Scripture references such as John 8:58 and 10:38, but I also made the point out that the reason Jesus never explicitly stated that he was God was because he was more than just God. He was God and Man, the God-Man, fully God and fully Man. For him to say “I am God” would be incorrect. However, what he actually did declare was both far more interesting and shocking. Truly, the idea of one declaring himself to be a god was not unknown in the ancient world (think the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, the Roman Caesars and the Greek legends). Jesus declared himself to be the “Son of Man.” While such a title can simply mean a “man” or “human being,” the way in which Jesus used the term in various contexts, unequivocally states that he was identifying himself with the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13.

This is significant because the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13 is an apocalyptic figure of a corporate nature (Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27; cf. 7:14). Just like the other beasts in Daniel 7 represent particular kingdoms and groups of people, the “the Son of Man” represented the saints, the people of God, “true Israel.” The author who wrote Daniel 7 probably did not intend the apocalyptic “Son of Man” figure to be understood as an actual “historical” individual person. Thus, when Jesus appears, proclaiming himself to be the “Son of Man” and making further proclamations about his corporate nature ... THAT is radical. Jesus is not simply saying that he is the king of Israel but he is saying that he IS Israel in the truest sense of the word. He is the Holy One of God whose self incorporates ALL the saints of God from Adam to whomever the last believer ends up being. All believers (including both you and I) are in Christ and are a part of the true Israel which is Jesus Christ.

Now let’s turn to the “Suffering Servant” of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 49-53). These passages are quite similar to the “Son of Man” passage in Daniel 7 in that they reference and portray Israel as a corporate figure. Specifically, the “Suffering Servant” in these passages is the nation of Israel which God is restoring after the Babylonian Exile.

“And said unto me, Thou [art] my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Isa 49:3)

“And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.” (Isa 49:5)

“And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” (Isa 49:6)

“Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, [and] his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, [and] the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.” (Isa 49:7)

“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.” (Isa 52:13)

“He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isa 53:11)


We see this same idea of corporate Israel as the “Suffering Servant” in the previous chapter of Isaiah 41 and 44:

“But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away” (Isa 41:8-9)

“Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen...Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant.” (Isa 44:1)

“Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.” (Isa 44:21)

Just like the author of Daniel 7, the author of Deutero-Isaiah originally intended the “Suffering Servant” to be a representative of ALL Israel. It was Jesus who radicalized these passages and identified the “Suffering Servant” with himself (cf. Luke’s treatment in Acts 8:29-35).

In both of these OT allusions (Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53), Jesus is not saying something about the figures mentioned in the OT books but about himself as the Christ.

Furthermore, these passages were written 700 years prior to the birth of Christ but the tense these passages identifies the events affliction as having occurred in the past and not in the future. Even with the passages which reflect the future tense, the future events describe the “Suffering Servant” in ways which cannot refer to Christ. Notice that verse 10 states that the “Servant” will live a long life and have many children: “he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days” (Isa 53:10).

The original authorial intention and audience understanding of the “Suffering Servant” passages were not referring Jesus Christ. Again, the purpose of Jesus and the Church for making a connection between these passages and Jesus Christ to is not to interpret the OT figures but to interpret Jesus.

Jesus and the apostles do this throughout the NT. Good examples of this would be the identification of Mechilzedek with Christ. See here and here.


Now with specific reference to Isaiah 53 (particularly to verses 5 and 10) and how the meaning concerns the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

“But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isa 53:5)

“Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” (Isa 53:10)

At no time is the reader given the idea that God Himself is punishing the “Suffering Servant”. In neither of these verses or in any of these passages do we get any hint that the Christ took the penalty that should have gone to us because of our sins. Now the absence of penalty does not necessitate that Jesus Christ did not die BECAUSE of our sins or FOR our sins. Indeed, if we had not sinned there would have been no need whatsoever for Jesus Christ to have died at all. Truly, the death of Christ was absolutely necessary and essential for the salvation of Man to atone for Man’s sins.

Was Jesus “wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities” (Isa 53:5)? Yes, the Christ had to suffer for our sins because he was showing the perfect love and devotion in the face of suffering unto death expected of God from Man. But such suffering was not due to punishment from God.

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isa 53:3)

“But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isa 53:5)

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa 53:6)

Notice the NKJV translation of the Hebrew word paga, (“hath laid upon”). However, the NKJV everywhere else translates paga, as forms of “meet” or “intercessor,” particularly in the Hiphil (Isa 53:6, 12; 59:16; 64:4f.). Isaiah 59:16 is especially important because it speaks about an “intercessor” (paga, Hiphil participle) who is Righteous. Indeed, the idea of intercessor speaks to the heart of the purpose of the Atonement.

I do believe that these translations are more formed by theology than by Hebrew grammar.

Yes, it was God’s will because God desired to save Man from their sins (Matt 26:39, 42; cf. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38ff.; 7:17; 9:31). The suffering of Christ saves Man. God desired to allow Christ to suffer to save Man. However, this suffering was not punishment from God. We would all agree that the suffering of an individual does not necessarily mean that the one suffering is being punished. The idea of the innocent sufferer is the point of the book of Job.

Jesus taught on this theme himself when referencing, the tower that fell during its construction, killing the workers:

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-5)

Also, recall the man blind from birth:

“And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:1-5)

Perhaps Jesus is also alluding to his own suffering in this passage.


“thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,” (Isa 53:10)

Also, remember that nowhere in Scripture is offering/sacrifice understood as punishing the offering/sacrifice (Think of it this way: when you tithe at your local church, do you consider the offering a punishment?).

Again, I’ve also thrown in the quote from Psalm 22 in the Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1; Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34)

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Isa 53:4; cf. Isa 49:14)

Notice that this verse states that it is Man that interprets the suffering of the “Servant” that God has abandoned him (note Mark 15:29-32 and Matt 27:39-44, particularly verse 43). But there interpretation is completely wrong.

“For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.” (Psalm 22:24)

“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.” (Isa 49:15)

Too often when we read an OT quote in the NT we take the actual quote itself divorced from its OT context and then interpret its meaning in isolation. This is quite unwise because many isolated quotes do not reflect the intended meaning of the quote’s passage and the intended purpose of the quote by the NT author, particularly in the narrative books.

These passages are not stating that the “Servant” has been abandoned by God in his suffering. These passages are stating that God has not abandoned the “Servant” in his suffering.

In both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, the eschatological “Servant” is afflicted by Man.
In both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, Man sees the “Servant” suffering and believes that the suffering is the result of God either punishing or rejecting the “Servant.”
Both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 end with the revelation that not only has God not forsaken the “Servant”, but, ironically, he suffers because God is with him and this suffering is the reason why God vindicates him.

Couple the aforementioned passages with Ezekiel 18, the NT passages which identify Jesus’ death as non-penal and the general view of sacrifice as devotional, the idea of penal substitutionary atonement runs completely contrary to the actual meaning of the Atonement. To say that God punished Christ is to assert a view that Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and the NT writers who are alluding to these particular OT passages are, in fact, attempting to refute.




[Also, do not forget that the Satisfaction theory of the atonement was not developed until the 11th century by Anselm with his work, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). The Ransom theory of the atonement was generally held for a millennium before Anselm. Historically, traditionally, the Ransom theory has been the oldest, most popular and widespread view of the atonement but, today, no one believes it to be correct. The satisfaction theory was adapted, defended and elaborated upon by both Aquinas in the 13th century and Calvin in the 16th century when it became formalized as the penal satisfaction or penal substitutionary theory of the atonement.]