Isaiah 53 is a famous Messianic prophecy of Christ in the Bible, hundreds of years before Christ was born His death and the meaning of what His death accomplished is taught in this chapter.
Yet someone said the following:
God didn’t crush His own Son. At least that’s not whats found in the Septuagint of Isaiah 53:10, which is what the Apostles used.
Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
This individual also said this:
The Apostles couldn’t have used the masoretic text because it didn’t exist yet.
The Masoretic text refers to the Hebrew medieval manuscripts of the Old Testament.
Before answering here’s what the New American Standard Bible says for Isaiah 53:10=
But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
I think the phrase “the Lord was pleased To crush Him” is part of what Isaiah 53:10 contrary to what the person said in his comment. Here’s my response:
- Remember the Old Testament including the book of Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew. Long before the existence of the Masoretic texts the Hebrew Old Testament was already existing and being used.
- The Greek translation of the Old Testament came about during the period between the Old and New Testament; but it is not the original language of the Old Testament and is itself a translation of the Hebrew. Don’t forget that.
- For the Greek translation of the phrase “But the Lord was pleased To crush Him” it is καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν. I translate that as “And the Lord wish to cleanse Him.” (You can see a transliteration of Isaiah 53 here). Instead of the verb “crushed” the Greek translation uses the verb καθαρίσαι which is grammatically an infinitive Aorist active of καθαρίζω that has the meaning of ceremonial cleansing.
- While in what follows below I will be dealing with the Hebrew, Greek and textual criticism I want to say a plain reading of the English text of the context of the chapter of Isaiah 53 reveals the guy’s objection already has a problem. In Isaiah 53:5 the passage states “He was crushed for our iniquities.” The Hebrew verb for “crushed” is דּכא. This is the same verb for “crush” in Isaiah 53:10. Even the Greek Septuagint translated Isaiah 53:5 as “crushed” so there’s no denying that it isn’t there. Of course all the actions of the Messiah’s suffering mentioned in Isaiah 53 is the work of the Messiah that God wanted; we know this because of the end of Isaiah 53:10 which states “the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand” and verse 12 talks about God rewarding the Messiah. That is because the Messiah is following the plan of God the Father laid out in this chapter of how God will save man from their sins. Don’t miss the fact that the verb “crushed” is in the Pual stem, indicating it is a passive and likely a divine passive (God is doing it). So looking at it contextually we see the guy is wrong to assert “God didn’t crush His own Son.”
- Going back to Isaiah 53:10 I would be cautious with thinking that the verb καθαρίζω must necessarily be fully contradictory with the Lord crushing the Messiah Jesus. Again καθαρίζω is tied with the context of sacrifice, see here. Christ’s death of course by being crushed was done as a sacrifice for our sins, to save us from our sins. So both have sacrifical dimension with His act.
- One must realize that the reason why the New Testament at times quote from the Septuagint is because readers of the New Testament would be more familiar with the Greek translation of the Old Testament hence we shouldn’t be surprised with its usage in the New Testament.
- While the Greek Septuagint is used by the New Testament it does not mean it is “better” than the Hebrew text of Scripture. In fact examination of the Septuagint shows very clearly that many times it patterns itself after the Hebrew text (and something similar to what we see in the Masoretic texts). We know this because verses in the Septuagint mimics the Hebrew syntax contrary to traditional Greek syntax. For instance in Isaiah 53:5 in the Septuagint it says in the Greek τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν which is translated as “by His wound we are healed.” Note the indirect object “By His wound” (τῷ μώλωπι) appears first even though typically indirect object follows the subject and verb. This syntax is mimicking what is seen in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:5= וּבַחֲבֻרָת֖וֹ נִרְפָּא־לָֽנוּ׃ which is translated as “by His wound He heal for us” with the phrase “by His wound” (וּבַחֲבֻרָת֖וֹ) appearing before the verb. This should make us strive to find out what the Hebrew passage says and not just rest with the Greek translation as final.
- Also while the Greek Septuagint is used by the New Testament this does not mean the New Testament writers and the Apostles only used the Greek Septuagint, or used the Septuagint rigidly and uncritically (though they do have a high view of the Old Testament as Scripture and God’s Word). The Septuagint is a translation but there are many instances in the New Testament the writers have their own Greek translation that isn’t from the Septuagint either. For instance 1 Peter 2:24 quotes Isaiah 53:5 and says “οὗ τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε” which translated is “whom his wound you are healed.” The meaning is the same as the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoertic texts. But the wording is not the same as the Septuagint (use of the relative pronoun οὗ, etc). So the guy’s thesis about the Septuagint being the Bible of the Apostles should be taken with a grain of salt; and even if the Apostles did use the Septuagint it does not mean it supersede the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
- The guy dismisses the Masoretic text of Isaiah 53:10 saying “the Lord was pleased To crush Him” by saying this appear in the Mideval age while the older Greek Septuagint does not mentioned that phrase. But the guy seems to be unaware that we have older Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah 53:10 than the Masoertic texts. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls of the book of Isaiah. The scroll 1QIsa does have “the Lord was pleased To crush Him” in Isaiah 53:10. You can verify that here and here. The Dead Sea Scroll is a powerful evidence for the reading “the Lord was pleased To crush Him.“
- One of the rule of textual criticism is the harder “reading” is the preferred reading. Certainly for the scribes translating Isaiah 53:10 it is easy for the Jews to have a hard time of the Messiah being crushed by the Lord and the Lord be pleased with it. The tendency might be to soften it by inserting the Greek translation of the verb “cleanse.” Even on the basis of the canon of textual criticism there is not a strong textual critical basis for the guy here to say Isaiah 53:10 shouldn’t read “the Lord was pleased To crush Him.“
The fact that God the Father crushed the Messiah to save us from our sins should make us love Christ and God more. Oh how precious is the Gospel.
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/qumran/isaiah-53-qumran.pdf
Amen! So true, Jim! With this truth/call to action, we should strived to love the Triune GOD more although His love for us is far far greater than ours. Thank you for examining this thoroughly. We are so expensive and the sins we commit yesterday, today, and tomorrow is not cheap either as it is paid by JESUS–GOD the SON’s precious blood.
I hope you use this as the germ of a sermon. The focus that hit me was point 8, where God was looking beyond the suffering of his co-equal Son to our healing through his stripes.
When Jesus was on the cross, He proclaimed “It is finished.” However, as an eternal being, who was, and is, and is to come, can God ever escape a moment of experience? In some way, does he still suffer for our sins even though Christ has gone to sit at the right hand of His Father?
Good question! The incarnate Christ of course had two nature: Divine and Human. I think it’s His humanity that suffered on the Cross; His humanity, being truly human, was finite just as we are finite. So I think when it affected His humanity it does not mean His suffering is infinite, going on before and after the moment on the Cross. A good question and certainly a profound one Mark! Seems you have thought about this and meditated upon for some time…
Is this a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” question?
Jim, great job with this including the Pual. I am proud of you for sure! There is a lot happening in this passage. There are many passives and participles as well. Thanks for your time and research on this!
I’m always glad for a Berean who knows Hebrew better than I reading and commenting! I stayed up late till four thirty to finish this and was glad to review one more time before sleeping since the autocorrect made it say “Paul” instead of Pual lol. Did your computer did that a lot for you in seminary? Strangely I don’t recall having a problem with Qal…
Even typing you my response I had to fight to get to say pual rather than paul!
This was so neat to read. Thanks for all the effort you put into this, dear friend.
Thank you for your thorough research on this extremely important verse and doctrine. The Catholic apologist who I used to listen to for research purposes, David Anders, REGULARLY impugned the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ and mocked the God of evangelicals as an unjust God for punishing Jesus Christ in our place.
The person I’m responding to turn Eastern Orthodox. Don’t know much about E.O. I wonder if EO is similar to RC in not liking Penal Substituionary Atonement. But I think Isaiah 53 lend support to this doctrine. I imagine you did cover Anders attack on PSA. I recall fondly your posts responding to the many problems Anders had in attacking Biblical Christianity. I hope and pray God uses those posts to reach the lost who think they have a Christian Gospel but it is not. Yes that is my prayer for you and your blog today besides for your health and work search.
RE: EO like RCC re: Penal Substitutionary Atonement?
That’s a good question! I imagine so but I have to research that.
Thanks so much for your prayers, brother! I’ll be praying for you and your ministries this afternoon.
Thanks for the great insight. Wow! This helped a lot.
Blessings.
Thinking out loud, what if the Septuagint is more of an interpretative translation here in 53:10 (keeping in mind that all translation involves a bit of interpretation)? Accompanying the infinitive katharisai, “to purify” (from katharizō) is the finite verb bouletai, a middle present indicative meaning “will”, “want”, “desire”. What if it’s a true middle? The subject is Kyrios, Lord (YHWH in the Hebrew of the MT here), the same designation used for Jesus in the NT. In other words, what if the subject is meant to be a Trinity inclusive YHWH (including Jesus’ Divine nature) with the middle voice of the verb indicating subject focus (sort of like a quasi-reciprocal relationship between subject and object with respect to the verb, a sort of boomerang effect)?
A cognate of katharizō is katharsis, which means “purification”. We recognize this word in the English “catharsis”: purification through emotional turmoil. Another cognate is katharsios, which is used in 4 Maccabees 6:29 as “expiation”, according to Chamberlain’s The Greek of the Septuagint: A Supplemental Lexicon and the LEH.
Food for thought.
Good observation about the middle voice with “want, desire,” wow didn’t catch the middle voice and its implication! Wow its interesting to see 4 Macc 6:29; and how the use of the cognate parallel with the next clause that suggests it has a synonymous range with expatiation. Good digging, it show that it doesn’t cancel out an atonement idea. Do you have LXX and Chamberlain in your Bible software?
https://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=lxx&book=4Mc&ch=6
Yes, my software has the LXX, and I have it tabbed to the MT (though I have no proficiency with Hebrew). It also includes the LEH, but the Chamberlain is a hardcover I bought on the cheap (glad I did).
Of note, too, the final clause in this sentence (first half of the verse) is the genitive “of-the blow”. The last noun, according to BDAG, can mean “a sudden calamity the causes severe stress.” And since the pronoun preceding it is the masculine accusative, this can be interpreted a number of ways with the preceding infinitive. One such could be “to atone by his ‘calamity'” (accusative of respect/reference; see Wallace 203–5), or something like this.
It is awesome to see you cite and referenced the Dead Sea Scroll. I always heard the Dead Sea Scroll validated the Bible. Seems this is one way it does.
Excellent.
Thanks Maw Maw. God’s Word stands still! Never fade away…
Eternity to Eternity, Sweet Grand.
Thank you for making it easy to understand. Thank you for all the hard work . I have saved it to keep it as a future reference.
You’re welcome! Studying these takes time and is rewarding to learn more of God’s Word and vindicate the Bible but it’s extra rewarding when member of God’s family such as yourself read this and comment. Thanks for that! I’m praying ahead of time for you guys and your evangelism this upcoming Friday
Thank you so much Pastor Jim.
Jim, I couldn’t have enjoyed this post more. Just fascinating. Great thinking and analysis!
Article crushed it. Woe to those who attack the Scripture.
Interesting discussion filled with your scholarly approach. I usually read from a NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible. The verse begins with these words: “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.” When I think of the entire crucifixion of Christ, I see Him crushed with pain . . . throughout every step. It was God’s will for Jesus to suffer greatly for the past, present, and future sins of mankind.
Very ingenious with your analysis of the syntax of the Hebrew and the Greek along with referencing the Dead Sea Scroll
[…] Was the Lord pleased to crush Jesus? Greek translation of Isaiah 53:10 […]