Isa 53:1-6 | NETfull | STEP | Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the Lord ’s power revealed through him?

Isaiah 53:1-6

1 Who would have believed ^{▼▼ The perfect has a hypothetical force in this rhetorical question. For another example, see Gen 21:7.} what we ^{▼▼ 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.} just heard? ^{▼▼ 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.}
When ^{▼▼ Heb “to whom” (so KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV).} was the Lord’s power ^{▼▼ 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.} revealed through him?
2 He sprouted up like a twig before God, ^{▼▼ 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 (NCBC), 173–74.}
like a root out of parched soil; ^{▼▼ The metaphor in this verse suggests insignificance.}
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, ^{▼▼ Heb “that we might see him.” The vav conjunctive prefixed to the imperfect introduces a result clause here. See GKC 504-5 #166.a.}
no special appearance that we should want to follow him. ^{▼▼ Heb “that we should desire him.” The vav conjunctive prefixed to the imperfect introduces a result clause here. See GKC 504-5 #166.a.}
3 He was despised and rejected by people, ^{▼▼ 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 HT [39:4 ET]).}
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness;
people hid their faces from him; ^{▼▼ Heb “like a hiding of the face from him,” i.e., “like one before whom the face is hidden” (see BDB 712 s.v. מַסְתֵּר).}
he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. ^{▼▼ The servant is likened to a seriously ill person who is shunned by others because of his horrible disease.}
4 But he lifted up our illnesses,
he carried our pain; ^{▼▼ Illness and pain stand by metonymy (or perhaps as metaphors) for sin and its effects, as vv. 11–12 make clear.}
even though we thought he was being punished,
attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. ^{▼▼ 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.}
5 He was wounded because of ^{▼▼ The preposition מִן (min) has a causal sense (translated “because of”) here and in the following clause.} our rebellious deeds,
crushed because of our sins;
he endured punishment that made us well; ^{▼▼ 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.”}
because of his wounds we have been healed. ^{▼▼ 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.}
6 All of us had wandered off like sheep;
each of us had strayed off on his own path,
but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him. ^{▼▼ 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.}