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.]