Continued from Chapter 22p
53:8: “As a result of the transgression of my people [the nations] he [Israel] has been afflicted.”
The literal rendering of this verse is: “From the transgression of my people the stroke [nega‘] to them.” That is, because of the transgressions of the Gentiles the servant (Israel) suffered. The speaker is the Gentile spokesman.
As regards the word lamo, “to them,” grammarians recognize that it is also in a sense singular, “to him” (as it is in non-poetic usage), because it agrees with certain singular nouns. As in this verse, lamo, the poetic form of lahem (“to them”), is used often in referring to a collective noun. Examples are, Genesis 9:26 (where it refers to Shem, that is, the descendants of Shem); Psalms 28:8 where it refers to the people of verse 9; Psalms 73:10 (also in reference to “people”); Isaiah 44:15 (in reference to ’el [a god] and pesel [a carved image], which are also to be understood respectively as referring collectively to all false gods); and finally Isaiah 53:8.
The translator of the Hebrew, into the Greek Septuagint, understood the proper use of lamo when rendering Isaiah 44:15: “That it might be for men to burn: and having taken part of it he warms himself; and they burn part of it; and bake loaves thereon; and the rest they make for themselves gods, and they worship them.” Lamo is generally rendered “to him” as it refers to the collective noun, servant, that is, the Jewish people, not a single individual. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular. Although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity that is given the appellative servant. The plural nature of the poetic form lamo is supported by the manner in which it is used in the Jewish Scriptures. Isaiah uses lamo eleven times: 16:4, 23:1, 26:14, 26:16, 30:5, 35:8, 43:8, 44:7, 44:15, 48:21 and 53:8. This poetic usage especially works well in verse 8. Although the subject of chapter 53 is given throughout in the singular, the change to the plural form in verse 8 is fully accounted for when the servant of God is considered to stand collectively for the people of Israel. That the plural lamo in verse 8 refers to the servant as a collective noun excludes any possibility that it pertains to an individual. Therefore, it cannot refer to Jesus.
53:9: “his grave was set with the wicked”
The burial of Jesus
How was Jesus’ grave “set with the wicked”? Some Christians connect “wicked” with the two lestai (“thieves,” “brigands”) executed alongside Jesus (Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27; “others,” in John 19:18). Other Christians connect the lestai with, “a company of evil-doers have enclosed me” (Psalms 22:17 [verse 16 in some versions]). But, crucifixion was not the punishment for common criminals. Lestai was a derogatory Roman term for insurrectionists, who, by armed action opposed Roman rule. These two men were more likely put to death for opposing Roman rule of the land of Israel and not for being “wicked.” In any case, the Gospels say, Jesus was not buried with them. The point is made by Christians that he was buried in a new empty tomb. As such, he was buried alone and there is nothing in the New Testament narrative to illustrate how “his [Jesus’] grave was set with the wicked” in fulfillment of this statement.
53:9: “and his grave was set … with the rich in his deaths”
The burial companions: first the wicked now the rich.
How was Jesus’ grave “set … with the rich in his deaths”? Christians identify Jesus as the subject of “with the rich in his deaths” to be in conformity with the Gospel of Matthew. It is only in Matthew’s narrative that Joseph of Arimathea is identified as a “rich man” (Matthew 27:57) who laid the corpse of Jesus “in his own new tomb” (Matthew 27:60). In Mark he is described simply as “a prominent member of the Council” (Mark 15:43). Luke describes him as “a member of the Council, a good and righteous man” (Luke 23:50). In John he is “a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one” (John 19:38). It is not by chance that Matthew 27:57 specifically identifies Joseph as “a rich man from Arimathea.” Given Matthew’s propensity for adding biblical allusion to his narrative it is no wonder that he alone adds that Joseph was rich and that he placed Jesus’ corpse in his own tomb thereby supposedly fulfilling: “And his grave was set . . . with the rich.” Grave refers to the lands of exile; rich refers to the powerful men and institutions of the nations among whom the personified people of Israel are exiled; deaths is descriptive of the horrendous violent suffering of exile. The phrase “in his deaths” signifies that the servant experienced literally and figuratively multiple “deaths” in exile. The character of Joseph of Arimathea was introduced into Matthew’s Gospel narrative as a rich man in order to show a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9, which says that God’s servant will be buried “with the rich.” This is but one more example of Matthew attempting to introduce supposed biblical “fulfillment of prophecy” into his narrative. The material peculiar to Matthew is a creation of its author’s own imagination. It should be emphasized that despite the claim that Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb he was not buried “with the rich.” The Gospels make a point of stating that Jesus alone was buried in the tomb (Luke 23:53, John 19:41). Thus, if Jesus was buried in the new tomb of Joseph then he was buried with neither the wicked nor rich, but alone. Not only was Jesus not buried with the wicked and the rich he was also not the servant.
Continued