Isaiah 51–53

Footnotes

1. 1 Or “righteousness” (, , , ); “justice”; “hope for deliverance.”
2. 2 Heb “the excavation of the hole.”
3. 3 The “rock” and “quarry” refer here to Abraham and Sarah, the progenitors of the nation.
4. 4 Although Abraham and Sarah are distant ancestors of the people the prophet is addressing, they are spoken of as the immediate parents.
5. 5 Heb “one”; “was alone”; “was childless.”
6. 6 “Bless” may here carry the sense of “endue with potency, reproductive power.” See Gen 1:28.
7. 7 Heb “and I made him numerous.”
8. 8 Heb “found in” (so , , , ).
9. 9 Or “certainly.”
10. 10 Heb “instruction [or “a law”] will go out from me.”
11. 11 Heb “and my justice for a light to the nations I will cause to rest.”
12. 12 Heb “my righteousness [or “vindication”] is near.”
13. 13 Heb “my deliverance goes forth.”
14. 14 Heb “and my arms will judge [on behalf of] nations.”
15. 15 Or “islands” (); “Distant lands.”
16. 16 Heb “for my arm” (so , ).
17. 17 Heb “will be torn in pieces.” The perfect indicates the certitude of the event, from the Lord’s rhetorical perspective.
18. 18 Heb “my deliverance.” The same Hebrew word can also be translated “salvation” (so , , , , , ); cf. “victory.”
19. 19 Heb “my righteousness [or “vindication”].”
20. 20 Heb “will not be shattered [or “dismayed”].”
21. 21 Heb “people (who have) my law in their heart.”
22. 22 Heb “my vindication”; many English versions “my righteousness”; , “my deliverance”; “my victory.”
23. 23 The arm of the Lord is a symbol of divine military power. Here it is personified and told to arouse itself from sleep and prepare for action.
24. 24 Heb “Are you not the one who smashed?” The feminine singular forms agree grammatically with the feminine noun “arm.” The Hebrew text has ַהמַּחְצֶבֶת (hammakhtsevet), from the verbal root חָצַב (khatsav, “hew, chop”). The Qumran scroll 1QIsaa has, probably correctly, המחצת, from the verbal root מָחַץ (makhats, “smash”) which is used in Job 26:12 to describe God’s victory over “the Proud One.”
25. 25 This title (רַהַב, rahav, “proud one”) is sometimes translated as a proper name: “Rahab” (cf. , , , ). It is used here of a symbolic sea monster, known elsewhere in the Bible and in Ugaritic myth as Leviathan. This sea creature symbolizes the forces of chaos that seek to destroy the created order. In the Bible “the Proud One” opposes God’s creative work, but is defeated (see Job 26:12; Ps 89:10). Here the title refers to Pharaoh’s Egyptian army that opposed Israel at the Red Sea (see v. 10, and note also Isa 30:7 and Ps 87:4, where the title is used of Egypt).
26. 26 The words “did you not” are understood by ellipsis (note the preceding line). The rhetorical questions here and in v. 10 expect the answer, “Yes, you certainly did!”
27. 27 Hebrew תַּנִּין (tannin) is another name for the symbolic sea monster. See the note at . In this context the sea creature represents Egypt. See the note on the title “Proud One” earlier in this verse.
28. 28 The Hebrew text reads literally, “Are you not the one who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made …?”
29. 29 Heb “the redeemed” (so , , , ); “the ransomed.”
30. 30 Heb “[will be] on their head[s].” “Joy” may be likened here to a crown (cf. 2 Sam 1:10). The statement may also be an ironic twist on the idiom “earth/dust on the head” (cf. 2 Sam 1:2; 13:19; 15:32; Job 2:12), referring to a mourning practice.
31. 31 Heb “overtake” (so ); “they will obtain.”
32. 32 Heb “grief and groaning will flee.”
33. 33 The plural suffix should probably be emended to the second masculine singular (which is used in v. 13). The final mem (ם) is probably dittographic; note the mem at the beginning of the next word.
34. 34 Heb “Who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, and of the son of man who [as] grass is given up?” The feminine singular forms should probably be emended to the masculine singular (see v. 13). They have probably been influenced by the construction אַתְּ־הִיא (’at-hi’) in vv. 9–10.
35. 35 Heb “and that you forget.”
36. 36 Or “the heavens” (also in v. 16). The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) may be translated “heavens” or “sky” depending on the context.
37. 37 Heb “and that you tremble constantly all the day.”
38. 38 The question anticipates the answer, “Ready to disappear!” See v. 14.
39. 39 Heb “who is stooped over” (under a burden).
40. 40 Heb “the pit” (so ); , “die and go down into the pit”; , “dungeon”; “prison.”
41. 41 Heb “he will not lack his bread.”
42. 42 The addressee (second masculine singular, as in vv. 13, 15) in this verse is unclear. The exiles are addressed in the immediately preceding verses (note the critical tone of vv. 12–13 and the reference to the exiles in v. 14). However, it seems unlikely that they are addressed in v. 16, for the addressee appears to be commissioned to tell Zion, who here represents the restored exiles, “you are my people.” The addressee is distinct from the exiles. The language of v. 16a is reminiscent of 49:2 and 50:4, where the Lord’s special servant says he is God’s spokesman and effective instrument. Perhaps the Lord, having spoken to the exiles in vv. 1–15, now responds to this servant, who spoke just prior to this in 50:4–11.
43. 43 Heb “I place my words in your mouth.”
44. 44 Heb “with the shadow of my hand.”
45. 45 The Hebrew text has לִנְטֹעַ (lintoa’, “to plant”). Several scholars prefer to emend this form to לִנְטֹת (lintot) from נָטָה (natah, “to stretch out”); see v. 13, as well as 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; cf. , , . However, since the Qumran scroll 1QIsaa, (and Aquila and Symmachus), and support the reading, there is no need to emend the form. The interpretation is clear enough: Yahweh fixed the sky in its place.
46. 46 The infinitives in v. 16b are most naturally understood as indicating the purpose of the divine actions described in v. 16a. The relationship of the third infinitive to the commission is clear enough—the Lord has made the addressee (his special servant?) his spokesman so that the latter might speak encouraging words to those in Zion. But how do the first two infinitives relate? The text seems to indicate that the Lord has commissioned the addressee so that the latter might create the universe! Perhaps creation imagery is employed metaphorically here to refer to the transformation that Jerusalem will experience (see 65:17–18).
47. 47 Heb “[you] who have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of his anger.”
48. 48 Heb “the goblet, the cup [that causes] staggering, you drank, you drained.”
49. 49 The Hebrew text has אֲנַחֲמֵךְ (’anakhamekh), a first person form, but the Qumran scroll 1QIsaa reads correctly יִנַחֲמֵךְ (yinakhamekh), a third person form.
50. 50 Heb “those who are full of the anger of the Lord, the shout [or “rebuke”] of your God.”
51. 51 The Hebrew term translated “sovereign master” here is אֲדֹנָי (’adonay).
52. 52 Heb “the cup of [= that causes] staggering” (so , , ); “the cup of reeling.”
53. 53 Heb “the goblet of the cup of my anger.”
54. 54 That is, to make them drink it.
55. 1 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
56. 2 Heb “Shake yourself free from the dirt.”
57. 3 The Hebrew text has שְּׂבִי (shévi), which some understand as a feminine singular imperative from יָשַׁב (yashav, “sit”). The , , , and the support the reading (the Qumran scroll 1QIsaa does indirectly). Some interpret this to mean “take your throne”: The Lord exhorts Jerusalem to get up from the dirt and sit, probably with the idea of sitting in a place of honor (J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah [], 2:). However, the form is likely a corruption of שְׁבִיָּה (shéviyyah, “captive”), which appears in the parallel line.
58. 4 Heb “and now what [following the marginal reading (Qere)] to me here?”
59. 5 The verb appears to be a Hiphil form from the root יָלַל (yalal, “howl”), perhaps here in the sense of “mock.” Some emend the form to יְהוֹלָּלוֹ (yéhollalo) and understand a Polel form of the root הָלַל meaning here “mock, taunt.”
60. 6 The verb is apparently a Hitpolal form (with assimilated tav, ת) from the root נָאַץ (na’ats), but §55.b explains it as a mixed form, combining Pual and Hitpolel readings.
61. 7 The verb is understood by ellipsis (note the preceding line).
62. 8 Heb “in that day” (so , , , ).
63. 9 Heb “How delightful on the mountains.”
64. 10 Or “has become king.” When a new king was enthroned, his followers would give this shout. For other examples of this enthronement formula (Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular מָלַךְ [malakh], followed by the name of the king), see 2 Sam 15:10; 1 Kgs 1:11, 13, 18; 2 Kgs 9:13. The Lord is an eternal king, but here he is pictured as a victorious warrior who establishes his rule from Zion.
65. 11 קוֹל (qol, “voice”) is used at the beginning of the verse as an interjection.
66. 12 Heb “eye in eye”; , “eye to eye”; “directly, before their eyes.”
67. 13 Or “redeems.” See the note at .
68. 14 Heb “lays bare”; “will demonstrate.”
69. 15 Heb “his holy arm.” This is a metonymy for his power.
70. 16 Heb “the remote regions,” which here stand for the extremities and everything in between.
71. 17 Heb “the deliverance of our God.” “God” is a subjective genitive here.
72. 18 Heb “the vessels of the Lord” (so , ).
73. 19 Heb “or go in flight”; “leave in headlong flight.”
74. 20 Heb “act wisely,” which by metonymy means “succeed.”
75. 21 This piling up of synonyms emphasizes the degree of the servant’s coming exaltation.
76. 22 Some witnesses read “him,” which is more consistent with the context, where the servant is spoken about, not addressed. However, it is possible that the Lord briefly addresses the servant here. The present translation assumes the latter view and places the phrase in parentheses.
77. 23 Heb “such was the disfigurement.” The noun מִשְׁחַת (mishkhat) occurs only here. It may be derived from the verbal root שָׁחַת (shakhat, “be ruined”; see 1007–8 שָׁחַת). The construct form appears here before a prepositional phrase (cf. §130.a).
78. 24 Heb “from a man his appearance.” The preposition מִן (min) here carries the sense “away from,” i.e., “so as not to be.” See 583
79. 25 Heb “and his form from the sons of men.” The preposition מִן (min) here carries the sense “away from,” i.e., “so as not to be.”
80. 26 This statement completes the sentence begun in v. 14a. The introductory כֵּן (ken) answers to the introductory כַּאֲשֶׁר (ka’asher) of v. 14a. Verses 14b–15a are parenthetical, explaining why many were horrified.
81. 27 Traditionally the verb יַזֶּה (yazzeh, a Hiphil stem) has been understood as a causative of נָזָה (nazah, “spurt, spatter”) and translated “sprinkle.” In this case the passage pictures the servant as a priest who “sprinkles” (or spiritually cleanses) the nations. Though the verb נָזָה does occur in the Hiphil with the meaning “sprinkle,” the usual interpretation is problematic. In all other instances where the object or person sprinkled is indicated, the verb is combined with a preposition. This is not the case in Isaiah 52:15, unless one takes the following עָלָיו (’alayv, “on him”) with the preceding line. But then one would have to emend the verb to a plural, make the nations the subject of the verb “sprinkle,” and take the servant as the object. Consequently some interpreters doubt the cultic idea of “sprinkling” is present here. Some emend the text; others propose a homonymic root meaning “spring, leap,” which in the Hiphil could mean “cause to leap, startle” and would fit the parallelism of the verse nicely.
82. 28 Heb “Because of him kings will shut their mouths,” i.e., be speechless.
83. 1 The perfect has a hypothetical force in this rhetorical question. For another example, see Gen 21:7.
84. 2 The speaker shifts here from God to an unidentified group (note the first person plural pronouns throughout vv. 1–6). The content of the speech suggests that the prophet speaks here as representative of the sinful nation Israel. The group acknowledges its sin and recognizes that the servant suffered on their behalf.
85. 3 The first half of v. 1 is traditionally translated, “Who has believed our report?” or “Who has believed our message?” as if the group speaking is lamenting that no one will believe what they have to say. But that doesn’t seem to be the point in this context. Here the group speaking does not cast itself in the role of a preacher or evangelist. No, they are repentant sinners, who finally see the light. The phrase “our report” can mean (1) the report which we deliver, or (2) the report which was delivered to us. The latter fits better here, where the report is most naturally taken as the announcement that has just been made in 52:13–15.
86. 4 Heb “to whom” (so , , , ).
87. 5 Heb “the arm of the Lord.” The “arm of the Lord” is a metaphor of military power; it pictures the Lord as a warrior who bares his arm, takes up his weapon, and crushes his enemies (cf. 51:9–10; 63:5–6). But Israel had not seen the Lord’s military power at work in the servant.
88. 6 Heb “before him.” Some suggest an emendation to “before us.” If the third singular suffix of the Hebrew text is retained, it probably refers to the Lord (see v. 1b). For a defense of this reading, see R. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (), 173–74.
89. 7 The metaphor in this verse suggests insignificance.
90. 8 Heb “that we might see him.” The vav conjunctive prefixed to the imperfect introduces a result clause here. See §166.a.
91. 9 Heb “that we should desire him.” The vav conjunctive prefixed to the imperfect introduces a result clause here. See §166.a.
92. 10 Heb “lacking of men.” If the genitive is taken as specifying (“lacking with respect to men”), then the idea is that he lacked company because he was rejected by people. Another option is to take the genitive as indicating genus or larger class (i.e., “one lacking among men”). In this case one could translate, “he was a transient” (cf. the use of חָדֵל [khadel] in Ps 39:5 [39:4 ]).
93. 11 Heb “like a hiding of the face from him,” i.e., “like one before whom the face is hidden” (see 712 מַסְתֵּר).
94. 12 The servant is likened to a seriously ill person who is shunned by others because of his horrible disease.
95. 13 Illness and pain stand by metonymy (or perhaps as metaphors) for sin and its effects, as vv. 11–12 make clear.
96. 14 The words “for something he had done” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The group now realizes he suffered because of his identification with them, not simply because he was a special target of divine anger.
97. 15 The preposition מִן (min) has a causal sense (translated “because of”) here and in the following clause.
98. 16 Heb “the punishment of our peace [was] on him.” שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace”) is here a genitive of result, i.e., “punishment that resulted in our peace.”
99. 17 Continuing to utilize the imagery of physical illness, the group acknowledges that the servant’s willingness to carry their illnesses (v. 4) resulted in their being healed. Healing is a metaphor for forgiveness here.
100. 18 Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object—the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.
101. 19 The translation assumes the Niphal is passive; another option is take the clause (note the subject + verb pattern) as concessive and the Niphal as reflexive, “though he humbled himself.”
102. 20 This verse emphasizes the servant’s silent submission. The comparison to a sheep does not necessarily suggest a sacrificial metaphor. Sheep were slaughtered for food as well as for sacrificial rituals, and טֶבַח (tevakh) need not refer to sacrificial slaughter (see Gen 43:16; Prov 7:22; 9:2; Jer 50:27; note also the use of the related verb in Exod 21:37; Deut 28:31; 1 Sam 25:11).
103. 21 The precise meaning of this line is uncertain. The present translation assumes that מִן (min) here has an instrumental sense (“by, through”) and understands עֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט (’otser umimmishpat, “coercion and legal decision”) as a hendiadys meaning “coercive legal decision,” thus “an unjust trial.” Other interpretive options include: (1) “without [for this sense of מִן, see 578 1.b] hindrance and proper judicial process,” i.e., “unfairly and with no one to defend him,” (2) “from [in the sense of “after,” see 581 4.b] arrest and judgment.”
104. 22 Heb “and his generation, who considers?” ( similar). Some understand “his generation” as a reference to descendants. In this case the question would suggest that he will have none. However, אֶת (’et) may be taken here as specifying a new subject (see 85 I אֵת 3). If “his generation” refers to the servant’s contemporary generation, one may then translate, “As for his contemporary generation, who took note?” The point would be that few were concerned about the harsh treatment he received.
105. 23 The “land of the living” is an idiom for the sphere where people live, in contrast to the underworld realm of the dead. See, for example, Ezek 32:23–27.
106. 24 The Hebrew text reads “my people,” a reading followed by most English versions, but this is problematic in a context where the first person plural predominates, and where God does not appear to speak again until v. 11b. Therefore, it is preferable to read with the Qumran scroll 1QIsaa עמו (“his people”). In this case, the group speaking in these verses is identified as the servant’s people (compare פְּשָׁעֵנוּ [pésha’enu, “our rebellious deeds”] in v. 5 with פֶּשַׁע עַמִּי [pesha’ ’ammi, “the rebellion of his people”] in v. 8).
107. 25 Heb “one assigned his grave with criminals.” The subject of the singular is impersonal; English typically uses “they” in such constructions.
108. 26 This line reads literally, “and with the rich in his death.” בְּמֹתָיו (bémotayv) combines a preposition, a plural form of the noun מוֹת (mot), and a third masculine singular suffix. The plural of the noun is problematic and the יו may be the result of virtual dittography. The form should probably be emended to בָּמָתוֹ (bamato, singular noun). The relationship between this line and the preceding one is uncertain. The parallelism appears to be synonymous (note “his grave” and “in his death”), but “criminals” and “the rich” hardly make a compatible pair in this context, for they would not be buried in the same kind of tomb. Some emend עָשִׁיר (’ashir, “rich”) to עָשֵׂי רָע (’ase ra’, “doers of evil”) but the absence of the ayin (ע) is not readily explained in this graphic environment. Others suggest an emendation to שְׂעִירִים (sé’irim, “he-goats, demons”), but the meaning in this case is not entirely transparent and the proposal assumes that the form suffered from both transposition and the inexplicable loss of a final mem. Still others relate עָשִׁיר (’ashir) to an alleged Arabic cognate meaning “mob.” See עָשִׁיר. Perhaps the parallelism is antithetical, rather than synonymous. In this case, the point is made that the servant’s burial in a rich man’s tomb, in contrast to a criminal’s burial, was appropriate, for he had done nothing wrong.
109. 27 If the second line is antithetical, then עַל (’al) is probably causal here, explaining why the servant was buried in a rich man’s tomb, rather than that of criminal. If the first two lines are synonymous, then עַל is probably concessive: “even though.…”
110. 28 The meaning of this line is uncertain. It reads literally, “if you/she makes, a reparation offering, his life.” The verb תָּשִׂים (tasim) could be second masculine singular, in which case it would have to be addressed to the servant or to God. However, the servant is only addressed once in this servant song (see 52:14a), and God either speaks or is spoken about in this servant song; he is never addressed. Furthermore, the idea of God himself making a reparation offering is odd. If the verb is taken as third feminine singular, then the feminine noun נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) at the end of the line is the likely subject. In this case one can take the suffixed form of the noun as equivalent to a pronoun and translate, “if he [literally, “his life”] makes a reparation offering.” What constitutes the servant’s reparation offering? Some might think his suffering, but the preceding context views this as past, while the verb here is imperfect in form. The offering appears to be something the servant does after his suffering has been completed. Perhaps the background of the language can be found in the Levitical code, where a healed leper would offer a reparation offering as part of the ritual to achieve ceremonial cleanliness (see Lev 14). The servant was pictured earlier in the song as being severely ill. This illness (a metaphor for the effects of the people’s sin) separated him from God. However, here we discover the separation is not final; once reparation is made, so to speak, he will again experience the Lord’s favor.
111. 29 The idiomatic and stereotypical language emphasizes the servant’s restoration to divine favor. Having numerous descendants and living a long life are standard signs of divine blessing. See Job 42:13–16.
112. 30 Heb “he will be satisfied by his knowledge,” i.e., “when he knows.” The preposition is understood as temporal and the suffix as a subjective genitive. Some take בְּדַעְתּוֹ (béda’to, “by his knowledge”) with what follows and translate “by knowledge of him,” understanding the preposition as instrumental and the suffix as objective.
113. 31 The song ends as it began (cf. 52:13–15), with the Lord announcing the servant’s vindication and exaltation.
114. 32 Heb “he will acquit, a righteous one, my servant, many.” צַדִּיק (tsadiq) may refer to the servant, but more likely it is dittographic (note the preceding verb יַצְדִּיק, yatsdiq). The precise meaning of the verb (the Hiphil of צָדַק, tsadaq) is debated. Elsewhere the Hiphil is used at least six times in the sense of “make righteous” in a legal sense, i.e., “pronounce innocent, acquit” (see Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; 1 Kgs 8:32 = 2 Chr 6:23; Prov 17:15; Isa 5:23). It can also mean “render justice” (as a royal function, see 2 Sam 15:4; Ps 82:3), “concede” (Job 27:5), “vindicate” (Isa 50:8), and “lead to righteousness” (by teaching and example, Dan 12:3). The preceding context and the next line suggest a legal sense here. Because of his willingness to carry the people’s sins, the servant is able to “acquit” them. Some (e.g., H. M. Orlinsky, “The So-called ‘Suffering Servant’ in Isaiah 53, 22,” 14 [1967]: 3–133) object to this legal interpretation of the language, arguing that it would be unjust for the righteous to suffer for the wicked and for the wicked to be declared innocent. However, such a surprising development is consistent with the ironic nature of this song. It does seem unfair for the innocent to die for the guilty. But what is God to do when all have sinned and wandered off like stray sheep (cf. v. 6)? Covenant law demands punishment, but punishment in this case would mean annihilation of what God has created. God’s justice, as demanded by the law, must be satisfied. To satisfy his justice, he does something seemingly unjust. He punishes his sinless servant, the only one who has not strayed off! In the progress of biblical revelation, we discover that the sinless servant is really God in the flesh, who offers himself because he is committed to the world he has created. If his justice can only be satisfied if he himself endures the punishment, then so be it. What appears to be an act of injustice is really love satisfying the demands of justice!
115. 33 The circumstantial clause (note the vav [ו] + object + subject + verb pattern) is understood as causal here. The prefixed verb form is either a preterite or an imperfect used in a customary manner.
116. 34 Scholars have debated the precise meaning of the term רַבִּים (rabbim) that occurs five times in this passage (Isa 52:14, 15; 53:11, 12 [2×]). Its two broad categories of translation are “much”/“many” and “great” ( I רַב). Unlike other Hebrew terms for might or strength, this term is linked with numbers or abundance. In all sixteen uses outside of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 (articular and plural) it signifies an inclusive meaning: “the majority” or “the multitude” (J. Jeremias, 6:536–37). This term occurs in parallelism with עֲצוּמִים (’atsumim), which normally signifies “numerous” or “large” or “powerful” (through large numbers). Like רַבִּים (rabbim), it refers to greatness in numbers (cf. Deut 4:38; 7:1; 9:1; 11:32). It emphasizes the multitudes with whom the Servant will share the spoil of his victory. As J. Olley wrote: “Yahweh has won the victory and vindicates his Servant, giving to him many subservient people, together with their spoils. These numerous peoples in turn receive blessing, sharing in the “peace” resulting from Yahweh’s victory and the Servant’s suffering” (John W. Olley, “ ‘The Many’: How Is Isa 53, 12a to Be Understood,” 68 [1987]: 330–56).
117. 35 The servant is compared here to a warrior who will be richly rewarded for his effort and success in battle.
118. 36 Heb “because he laid bare his life”; traditionally, “because he (+ hath ) poured out his soul (life ) unto death.”
119. 37 The Hiphil of פָּגַע (paga’) can mean “cause to attack” (v. 6), “urge, plead verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25), or “intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16). Perhaps the third nuance fits best here, for military imagery is employed in the first two lines of the verse.