Chapter 6

Introduction: The Most Important Old Testament Text on the Atonement

If you had to choose just one passage from the entire Old Testament that captures the heart of what the cross is all about, it would be Isaiah 52:13–53:12. This ancient poem—often called the Fourth Servant Song—stands as the single most important Old Testament text for understanding the atonement. In it, we encounter a mysterious figure: a servant of the Lord who suffers and dies, not for anything he has done wrong, but for the sins of others. He is pierced for their transgressions. He is crushed for their iniquities. God lays on him the sin that belongs to everyone else. And through his suffering, healing and peace come to those who deserved judgment.

It is no exaggeration to say that this passage is the theological backbone of the New Testament's understanding of why Jesus died. The earliest Christians returned to it again and again. The apostle Paul built his foundational proclamation—"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3)—on its framework. Peter, Matthew, Luke, John, and the writer of Hebrews all drew from it. Philip the evangelist used it to explain the gospel to a searching Ethiopian official. And Jesus himself appears to have understood his own mission through the lens of this remarkable prophecy.¹

The thesis of this chapter is straightforward: Isaiah 52:13–53:12 depicts a figure who suffers and dies not for his own sins but vicariously, as a substitute bearing the sins and punishment of others. This passage is fundamentally substitutionary in its logic and language, and it provides the primary Old Testament foundation for the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. The language is clear, the theological structure is unmistakable, and the New Testament authors consistently read it this way.

In this chapter, I will walk through the full text of the Fourth Servant Song verse by verse, examining the key Hebrew terms, the theological structure, and the exegetical arguments that establish its substitutionary meaning. I will engage with the scholarly discussion, interact with those who read the passage differently, and show how the New Testament writers understood and applied this text to the death of Jesus Christ. My goal is to demonstrate that when we read Isaiah 53 carefully, on its own terms, the substitutionary meaning is not something later theologians read into the text. It is something the text itself demands.

The Full Text of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 (ESV)

Before we begin our verse-by-verse study, let's read the entire passage. I encourage you to read it slowly, paying attention to the pronouns—"he" and "we," "him" and "us"—because the constant back-and-forth between these pronouns is one of the most important features of the poem.

Who Is the Suffering Servant?

Before diving into the details of the passage, we need to address a question that has fascinated scholars for centuries: Who is this Servant? Isaiah never explicitly tells us. Over the years, at least sixteen different candidates have been proposed, including the prophet Isaiah himself, an unnamed later prophet, King Hezekiah, Moses, Jeremiah, and even the Persian king Cyrus.² One very common suggestion is that the Servant represents the nation of Israel as a whole—suffering at the hands of the Babylonians during the exile. And there are some good reasons for this reading, since earlier in Isaiah, Israel itself is called God's "servant" (Isa. 41:8; 44:1).

However, there are strong reasons to see the Servant in Isaiah 53 as an individual distinct from the nation. For one thing, the Servant in this passage suffers for the people—"he was stricken for the transgression of my people" (53:8). That language makes it very difficult to identify the Servant with the people themselves. You cannot bear your own sin as a substitute for yourself. Additionally, the broader context of Isaiah helps us here. In chapters 49–52, Isaiah speaks of the people anticipating salvation. In chapters 54–55, God invites the people to participate in His salvation. Isaiah 53 sits right between these two sections, identifying the means of this salvation through the Servant's suffering.³ The Servant is linked with the "arm of the LORD" who accomplishes salvation (53:1), a figure clearly distinguished from the people being saved.

Something else stands out in 52:13. The Servant is described as being "high and lifted up, and shall be exalted." In Hebrew, this combination of terms is used in only three other places in the entire book of Isaiah—and in each case, it refers to Yahweh Himself (Isa. 6:1; 33:10; 57:15). As Joseph Groves argues, this suggests that Yahweh's own words declare the Servant to be identified with Yahweh Himself.⁴ From a Christian perspective, this is deeply significant. The Servant is not simply a human figure. He shares in the divine identity. When we put on "New Testament glasses," as David Allen puts it, the Servant in Isaiah 53 is none other than Jesus Christ—and the New Testament authors consistently read the passage this way.⁵

Simon Gathercole helpfully describes the wider context of the Servant Songs in Isaiah. He notes that the people of Israel are described as hard-hearted and disobedient—"deaf" and "blind" (Isa. 42:18–20)—despite having been called as a light to the nations. God nevertheless undertakes to redeem them, promising comfort (ch. 40) and insisting that He will accomplish salvation Himself (ch. 46). As the chapters unfold, it becomes clear that God is raising up a Servant who is distinct from the nation—an individual who will be instrumental in saving the people. This Servant is cruelly forsaken by the nation, and yet the people later come to realize that he accomplished their salvation. Gathercole calls this "a drama of delayed recognition," borrowing the phrase from the German scholar Bernd Janowski.⁶

Verse-by-Verse Exegetical Analysis

The Servant Introduced: Exaltation through Suffering (52:13–15)

The poem opens with a striking paradox. God speaks directly, announcing that His Servant "shall act wisely" and "shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted" (52:13). These are words of triumph and glory. But in the very next verse, we learn the shocking truth: "his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind" (52:14). The Servant will be so disfigured by suffering that he barely looks human anymore.

And yet—"so shall he sprinkle many nations" (52:15). The verb "sprinkle" (yazzeh, יַזֶּה) is priestly language. In the Levitical system, the priest would sprinkle blood for purification (Lev. 4:6; 16:14–15). This is sacrificial vocabulary being applied to the Servant's work. Before we have even reached chapter 53, the text has already hinted that the Servant's suffering will accomplish a priestly, purifying act that extends to "many nations"—far beyond the borders of Israel.⁷ Kings will be astonished into silence (52:15), because what the Servant accomplishes exceeds anything they could have imagined.

The Servant's Humble Appearance and Rejection (53:1–3)

Chapter 53 opens with the voice of the community—the "we" who are looking back on the Servant's life and death with new eyes. "Who has believed what he has heard from us?" (53:1). This is a confession of astonishment. The arm of the LORD—His mighty saving power—was revealed in this unlikely, suffering figure, and nobody recognized it at the time.

The Servant's origins were humble: "he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground" (53:2). There was nothing outwardly impressive about him. "He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." Instead, "he was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" (53:3). The word translated "grief" or "sickness" (choli, חֳלִי) can refer to both physical pain and deep affliction. The Servant's suffering is real, intense, and comprehensive. People turned their faces from him. They wanted nothing to do with him.⁸

"Surely He Has Borne Our Griefs and Carried Our Sorrows" (53:4)

Now we come to the theological heart of the passage. Verse 4 begins a dramatic reversal in the community's understanding of the Servant's suffering: "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted."

Two Hebrew verbs in this verse are critically important. The first is nasa (נָשָׂא), meaning "to bear" or "to carry." The second is sabal (סָבַל), meaning "to carry as a heavy burden." Both are substitutionary terms. They describe the Servant taking upon himself something that belongs to others.

David Allen points out that nasa is the same verb used in Leviticus 16:22, where the scapegoat "bears" (nasa) the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement. The scapegoat carries away what belongs to the community. The connection to the sacrificial system is deliberate. Meanwhile, sabal implies the bearing of a burden for someone else—carrying what is heavy so that the other person does not have to (cf. Isa. 46:4, 7). Allen notes that the combination of these two verbs introduces "a clear note of substitution on the part of the Suffering Servant in the place of the people."⁹

There is another remarkable detail in the Hebrew. Isaiah uses the active voice for the Servant's actions here—"he has borne," "he carried"—which is different from the passive voice in the surrounding context. This shift emphasizes that the Servant's decision to take the sins of the people upon himself was his own choice. He was not a passive victim. He chose to carry what did not belong to him.¹⁰

The verse also tells us something about the community's earlier misunderstanding: "yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted." At first, the onlookers assumed the Servant was suffering because of his own guilt. They thought God was punishing him for something he had done. But they were wrong. That is the whole point. The speakers are confessing their error. The Servant was suffering not for his own sins but for theirs.

"He Was Pierced for Our Transgressions" (53:5)

Verse 5 is one of the most theologically packed verses in the entire Old Testament: "But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed."

Notice the structure that Allen highlights: "He" … "for our …," "He" … "for our …," "our … upon Him," "by His … we are.…" The constant alternation between the Servant and the people hammers home the substitutionary logic. His suffering produces our benefit. His wounds bring our healing. The connection is not coincidental—it is causal.¹²

The Hebrew preposition translated "for" in the phrases "pierced for our transgressions" and "crushed for our iniquities" is min (מִן). This preposition indicates cause or source—the Servant was pierced because of, on account of our transgressions. Our sins were the reason for his suffering. But the passage does not stop with mere causation. It immediately moves to the result: "upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed." The Servant's suffering is not merely caused by the people's sin; it produces a positive benefit for them. That is the logic of substitution.¹³

The word "chastisement" is the Hebrew musar (מוּסָר). This word frequently carries the meaning of corrective punishment or disciplinary action (Prov. 3:11; 13:24; 22:15; Jer. 2:30; 5:3; 30:14). In this context, it implies more than mere suffering. It implies punishment—a penalty that achieves something. Specifically, the chastisement "brought us peace" (literally, "the chastisement of our peace was upon him"). As J. Alec Motyer renders it, this means "the punishment necessary to secure or restore our peace with God."¹⁴ The Servant bore a punishment, and because he bore it, peace was established between the people and God.

This is where I need to be direct with you: the language of verse 5 is unmistakably both substitutionary and penal. "Chastisement" (musar) implies corrective punishment. "Pierced" and "crushed" describe violent suffering. And the result—peace and healing for others—establishes that this suffering accomplished something judicial. The Servant endured what the people deserved, and they received what only he could provide. As J. S. Whale wrote, the song makes "twelve distinct and explicit statements that the servant suffers the penalty of other men's sins: not only vicarious suffering but penal substitution is the plain meaning of its fourth, fifth and sixth verses."¹⁵

Gathercole confirms the substitutionary reading of this verse. Looking at the Hebrew text, he observes that "the substitutionary character of the death in verse 5 is clear enough: the speakers are alive to tell the tale because they were rescued by the one who died for them and bore their guilt in their place."¹⁶ The people deserved death, but the Servant died instead. The people deserved judgment, but the Servant bore the punishment. That is substitution in its purest form.

"The LORD Has Laid on Him the Iniquity of Us All" (53:6)

Verse 6 may well be the single most important verse in the Old Testament for understanding substitutionary atonement: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Allen calls this verse "probably the key verse in the Old Testament asserting the unlimited, universal nature of the atonement."¹⁷ The Hebrew word kullanu (כֻּלָּנוּ, "all of us") appears at both the beginning and end of the verse, creating a literary frame: "All we … us all." The verse begins with universal human sinfulness and ends with universal divine provision. Everyone has gone astray. God has laid the sin of everyone on the Servant.

The critical verb here is a form of paga (פָּגַע), which in this context means "to cause to fall upon" or "to lay upon." The LORD is the active agent. God Himself is the one who places the iniquity on the Servant. This is not something the Servant stumbles into accidentally or something that merely happens as a byproduct of human sinfulness. God intentionally, purposefully transfers the iniquity of the people onto the Servant.

Allen emphasizes the Hebrew grammar: the divine name "Yahweh" is placed emphatically at the beginning of the clause, and the object marker in Hebrew appears before the noun "iniquity." These grammatical features serve to underscore that God is the initiator of this act of substitution. The concept is "heavily reminiscent of sacrificial terminology and practice in the Mosaic covenant." The Servant is, in Allen's words, "the provision and plan of God, who himself superintends the priestly task (Lev. 16:21) of transferring the guilt of the guilty to the head of the Servant."¹⁸

This verse presents us with an important theological truth that must not be missed: God is the one who acts. The laying of iniquity on the Servant is a divine initiative. This connects directly to the theology of the Day of Atonement (as discussed in Chapter 5), where the high priest lays the sins of the people on the scapegoat's head by the command of God. In the same way, God Himself lays the iniquity of all humanity on His Servant. The Servant does not merely suffer as a tragic consequence of living in a sinful world. He suffers because God actively places the weight of sin upon him as part of a deliberate redemptive plan.

The Servant's Willing Submission and Death (53:7–9)

Verses 7 through 9 describe the Servant's path to death, and they emphasize two things: the Servant's innocence and his voluntary submission.

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth" (53:7). The image of the silent lamb is among the most powerful in all of Scripture. The Servant does not protest. He does not fight back. He does not demand his rights. He goes willingly, silently, like a sacrificial animal being led to the altar. This voluntary character is crucial for the theology of substitutionary atonement. As we argued in Chapter 3, any understanding of the cross that treats the Servant (or Christ) as an unwilling victim forced to suffer against his will fundamentally misreads the biblical picture. The Servant's silence is not the silence of helpless defeat. It is the silence of deliberate, purposeful, willing self-sacrifice.²⁰

Verse 8 introduces judicial language: "By oppression and judgment he was taken away." The word "judgment" (mishpat, מִשְׁפָּט) refers to a legal process. The Servant undergoes something that looks like a trial—some kind of judicial proceeding. He is "cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people." Note the striking phrase "my people"—God is speaking, and He identifies the people whose transgressions caused the Servant's death as His own people. The Servant dies in their place.²¹

Verse 9 adds the detail that "they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth." The emphasis on the Servant's innocence is critical. He does not deserve this death. He has done nothing wrong. His death is not the consequence of his own sin but the consequence of the sins of others. Every NT reference to Jesus as the Lamb of God draws on this picture from Isaiah 53:7—the silent, innocent sacrifice being led to the slaughter.²²

"It Was the Will of the LORD to Crush Him" — The Asham (53:10)

Verse 10 is one of the most theologically important—and most debated—verses in the entire passage: "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

There is extraordinary theological tension in this verse, and we must hold both sides of it together. On the one hand, "it was the will of the LORD to crush him." God willed this. The Servant's suffering was not an accident, not a tragedy that spun out of control, not a case of God being taken by surprise. This was God's deliberate plan. On the other hand, this does not mean God is cruel or sadistic, because the purpose is redemptive, and—as we have seen—the Servant goes willingly.

The most remarkable word in verse 10 is asham (אָשָׁם), translated "offering for guilt" or "guilt offering." This is a specific sacrificial term drawn directly from the Levitical system. The guilt offering (also called the trespass offering) was one of the primary expiatory sacrifices in the Levitical system, prescribed in Leviticus 5:14–6:7 for situations where reparation needed to be made for specific offenses.²³ By calling the Servant's death an asham, Isaiah explicitly identifies the Servant's suffering as a sacrifice—not metaphorically, but using the specific technical vocabulary of the sacrificial system. The Servant's death is a guilt offering. His life is given as a sacrifice that makes reparation for sin.

Allen notes that both the sin offering (chattath) and the guilt offering (asham) "are widely regarded as the primary expiatory offerings in the Levitical system of offerings."²⁴ When Isaiah uses asham to describe the Servant's death, he is placing it squarely within the framework of substitutionary sacrifice. The guilt offering involved an animal dying in connection with the offerer's sin, and Isaiah says the Servant's death functions in precisely this way—as a guilt offering for the sins of the people.

Hess argues that the asham should be understood not as a penal sacrifice but as a "reparation offering" designed to repair a broken relationship. He emphasizes the relational and restorative dimensions of the guilt offering.²⁵ I appreciate Hess's attention to the relational dimension—reconciliation with God is indeed part of what the guilt offering accomplishes. But the relational restoration does not happen apart from the sacrifice. The animal dies. Blood is shed. The life of the sacrifice is given up so that the offender can be forgiven and restored. The relational and the substitutionary dimensions are not in competition; they work together. The Servant's death restores the relationship precisely because it is a substitutionary sacrifice.

Verse 10 also contains a note of triumph: despite His death (verse 9), the Servant will "see his offspring" and "prolong his days." Since the dead do not have children, this language strongly implies the Servant's resurrection. His death is not the end. Through his sacrificial death, the Servant will see the fruit of his suffering and live again. The New Testament closely links the atonement accomplished on the cross with the resurrection, as in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4: "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures … he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."²⁶

"He Shall Bear Their Iniquities" (53:11)

Verse 11 brings us back to the language of sin-bearing: "Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."

Two things stand out here. First, the Servant is called "the righteous one" (tsaddiq, צַדִּיק)—he is innocent, upright, without guilt. And yet this righteous one will "bear their iniquities." The verb for "bear" here is sabal (סָבַל)—the same word used in verse 4. He carries what belongs to others. Second, through this sin-bearing, the Servant will "make many to be accounted righteous." The Servant's suffering produces a change in the people's status before God. They are declared righteous—not because of anything they have done, but because the righteous Servant has borne their iniquities.

John Oswalt emphasizes the Hebrew word order: "The object, 'their iniquities,' is placed at the beginning of the clause in the emphatic position, and 'he,' the internal subject of the verb, is emphasized by the addition of the 3rd masculine singular independent pronoun. The sense is, 'it is their iniquities that he carries.'"²⁷ The grammar itself underscores the substitutionary exchange: their guilt, his burden.

"He Bore the Sin of Many" — The Summary (53:12)

The final verse functions as a magnificent summary: "Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."

Verse 12 gathers together virtually every major theme of the poem into a single climactic statement. We find here the Servant's exaltation ("I will divide him a portion with the many"), his voluntary self-sacrifice ("he poured out his soul to death"), his identification with sinners ("was numbered with the transgressors"), his substitutionary sin-bearing ("he bore the sin of many"), and his ongoing priestly ministry ("makes intercession for the transgressors").

Allen observes that the order of the verse is significant: the conclusion about the Servant's exaltation is stated first, followed by the reason—"Because He poured out His soul unto death." This ordering gives "semantic prominence to the stated cause—namely, the Servant's substitutionary death." The language of "pouring out" clearly evokes sacrificial imagery, especially when read alongside the guilt offering in verse 10.²⁸

The verb "bore" in "he bore the sin of many" is now nasa (נָשָׂא)—the same word from verse 4. Allen points out that both phrases—"He shall bear [sabal] their iniquities" (v. 11) and "He bore [nasa] the sin of many" (v. 12)—"speak of the bearing of both guilt and punishment." He then adds a striking observation: "only in Isaiah 53 are these phrases used of a person and not of an animal in this fashion." Everywhere else in the Old Testament, this kind of sin-bearing language is applied to sacrificial animals. Isaiah applies it to a human being—the Servant—who functions as the ultimate sacrifice.²⁹

The Drama of the Pronouns: "He" and "We"

One of the most powerful features of Isaiah 53 is the constant interplay between the pronouns. Throughout the poem, we encounter a "he" who suffers and a "we" who benefit. Gathercole highlights this as a key marker of substitution: "The pronouns are all-important: in particular, there is a 'he' who suffers, and he suffers alone. The people look back on him as an individual. In addition to the 'he,' there is also a 'we' who are responsible for this suffering and yet are miraculously saved by it."³⁰

Let me lay this out plainly. In verse 4: "He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." In verse 5: "He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace; and with his wounds we are healed." In verse 6: "All we like sheep have gone astray … the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." The pattern repeats through the entire passage: he suffers, we benefit. He bears, we are healed. He is pierced, we have peace.

This pronominal structure is not incidental. It is the very architecture of substitutionary atonement. The guilty party ("we") deserves punishment. The innocent party ("he") takes it. And the result is that the guilty party goes free—healed, made whole, at peace with God. Gathercole puts it directly: "The substitutionary character of the death in verse 5 is clear enough: the speakers are alive to tell the tale because they were rescued by the one who died for them and bore their guilt in their place."³¹

The Universal Scope: "All We … Us All"

Before moving to the New Testament use of Isaiah 53, it is worth pausing on a detail in verse 6 that has implications for the scope of the atonement (a topic addressed fully in Chapter 30). The Hebrew kullanu ("all of us") bookends the verse: "All we like sheep have gone astray … the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." To whom do the pronouns "we," "our," and "us" refer throughout the passage?

Allen argues that the referent is intentionally broad. While in its original context it may include Isaiah and the people of Israel, the wider context of Isaiah shows that the Servant's ministry is not limited to Israel alone. Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6 describe the Servant as "a light for the nations." The scope of the Servant's work is universal.³² Calvin's comment on this verse is striking: "On him [Christ] was laid the guilt of the whole world." Calvin also stated, "God is satisfied and appeased, for he bore all the wickedness and all the iniquities of the world."³³

The "many" in verses 11 and 12—"make many to be accounted righteous," "he bore the sin of many"—is sometimes taken to mean "many but not all," thus supporting limited atonement. But as Joachim Jeremias has shown, in Semitic usage "the many" (rabbim) is not a restrictive term. It is inclusive, meaning "the totality, consisting of many." This was, as Jeremias noted, "a (Messianic) concept unheard of in contemporary rabbinical thought."³⁴ The Servant's sacrifice is not for a select few. It is for the many—which in biblical language means everyone.

The Septuagint Translation: Does It Change the Picture?

Because the New Testament authors typically quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, often abbreviated LXX), it is worth asking whether the Greek version of Isaiah 53 supports or undermines the substitutionary reading. Hess makes much of the LXX in his treatment, arguing that certain differences between the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint Greek should affect our interpretation.⁶¹

Gathercole provides a detailed comparison. While the LXX translator (working probably in the second century BC) "struggled a little" with the difficult Hebrew text, "the overall sense is the same." In fact, the death of the Servant is if anything amplified in the Greek: "for the sins of my people he was led away to death" (53:8 LXX). The substitutionary implications are present in both versions: "discipline for our peace came on him; by his wounds we have been healed" (53:5 LXX).⁶²

The most significant difference Hess points to is in verse 10, where the Hebrew reads "it was the will of the LORD to crush him" (daka, דָּכָא), while the LXX reads something closer to "the Lord is pleased to purge him." Hess argues that the LXX reading favors purification over punishment.⁶³ However, as Hess himself honestly acknowledges, the same Hebrew word daka appears in verse 5 ("he was crushed for our iniquities"), and the LXX renders it there as "bruised"—hardly eliminating the idea of violent suffering. Moreover, regardless of which nuance we emphasize for the verb, the verse goes on to identify the Servant's death as an asham—a guilt offering. The sacrificial framework remains intact.

The key Pauline connections to Isaiah 53 work through the LXX as well. Romans 4:25 ("who was handed over for our trespasses") closely mirrors Isaiah 53:12 LXX ("he was handed over for their sins"), using the same Greek verb paradidōmi. Romans 8:32 ("gave him up for us all") mirrors Isaiah 53:6 LXX ("the Lord handed him over for our sins"). The Greek word for "sins" (hamartia) appears six times in Isaiah 53 LXX—precisely the word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15:3. Far from undermining the substitutionary reading, the Septuagint actually strengthens the linguistic case for seeing Paul's atonement theology as rooted in Isaiah 53.⁶⁴

The Old Testament Background: What Does "Bearing Sin" Mean?

To fully appreciate the substitutionary language of Isaiah 53, we need to understand how the phrase "bearing sin" works in the rest of the Old Testament. This is important because some scholars attempt to soften the substitutionary meaning by arguing that "bearing sin" simply means experiencing suffering as a consequence of living in a fallen world, rather than taking on the penalty that others deserve.

The evidence from the Old Testament, however, is strongly against this softened reading. When the Hebrew verb nasa (נָשָׂא, "to bear") is combined with words for sin, guilt, or iniquity (avon, chet, pesha), it consistently refers to bearing the consequences or punishment of sin—not merely experiencing suffering in general. Consider the following examples:

In Leviticus 5:1, a person who fails to testify "shall bear his iniquity"—that is, he will be liable for the penalty of his guilt. In Leviticus 5:17, anyone who sins "shall bear his iniquity"—again meaning he faces the consequences. Numbers 14:34 warns that the Israelites will "bear your iniquity" for forty years—suffering the penalty for their rebellion. Ezekiel 18:20 states plainly: "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor the father bear the iniquity of the son." Here, "bearing iniquity" is explicitly parallel to dying as a consequence of sin.³⁵

Gathercole traces this pattern in detail. He shows that the Old Testament norm is represented by statements like "he died for his sins" (1 Kings 16:18–19 LXX), referring to a person dying as the consequence of their own wrongdoing. The formula follows the pattern: person + death + preposition + sins. Isaiah 53 follows exactly the same pattern—except with a revolutionary twist. Instead of the sinner dying for his own sins, the Servant dies for the sins of others. As Gathercole puts it, this is "the 'aberration' that departs from the rule, namely, that of the suffering servant who dies for the sins of others."³⁶

This is why the "delayed recognition" of the community is so important. Initially, the onlookers assumed the Servant died for his own sins—that was the standard Old Testament pattern. But then they realized the truth: he died for their sins. The same pattern, but with a shocking reversal. Someone else took their place.

The New Testament Use of Isaiah 53

Having established the substitutionary meaning of Isaiah 53 on its own terms, we now turn to the New Testament to see how the earliest Christians used this passage. The evidence is overwhelming: the New Testament authors consistently read Isaiah 53 as fulfilled in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.

Acts 8:32–35 — Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch

One of the clearest and most memorable examples comes in Acts 8. An Ethiopian court official is riding in his chariot, reading from Isaiah 53:7–8: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him." The eunuch asks Philip, "About whom does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" (Acts 8:34). Philip's answer is direct: "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus" (Acts 8:35). For the earliest Christians, Isaiah 53 was the good news about Jesus. There was no ambiguity. The Suffering Servant was Christ.³⁷

Matthew 8:17 — Healing and Sin-Bearing

Matthew 8:17 applies Isaiah 53:4 to Jesus' healing ministry: "This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: 'He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.'" As I noted above, Hess argues that this shows "bearing" means sympathetic identification rather than substitutionary transfer. But Matthew's application does not exclude the substitutionary meaning. Matthew is drawing on one dimension of the Servant's work—his compassion for human suffering—without denying the broader atonement framework of Isaiah 53. The same passage that Matthew quotes (53:4) is immediately followed by verses 5–6, which are unmistakably substitutionary. Matthew himself clearly understands Jesus' death in sacrificial, substitutionary terms (Matt. 20:28; 26:28).³⁸

Romans 4:25 — "Delivered Up for Our Trespasses"

Paul writes in Romans 4:25 that Jesus "was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." As Gathercole demonstrates, this is "the most widely acknowledged parallel to Isaiah 53, with its reference to Jesus 'who was handed over for our transgressions.'" The language corresponds closely to Isaiah 53:12 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), where the Servant "was handed over for their sins" (paredothē dia tas hamartias autōn). The verbal and structural parallels between Romans 4:25 and Isaiah 53:12 are remarkably close—so much so that there is now virtually a scholarly consensus that Paul's formulation draws on Isaiah 53.³⁹

Gathercole also connects Romans 8:32 ("He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all") with Isaiah 53:6 ("the LORD has handed him over for our sins" in the LXX). In both cases, God is the acting subject, and the verb is paradidōmi ("to hand over"). The parallel is striking and intentional.⁴⁰

1 Corinthians 15:3 — "Christ Died for Our Sins According to the Scriptures"

This is arguably the single most important verse for understanding how Paul connected Isaiah 53 to the death of Jesus. Paul writes: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3).

Gathercole's Chapter 2 in Defending Substitution is devoted to demonstrating that this formula is rooted in Isaiah 53. He makes three arguments. First, there is strong evidence that the Suffering Servant is the only Old Testament figure who dies a vicarious death and thereby deals with the sins of others—making Isaiah 53 the most natural scriptural background for "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." Second, the structural pattern in Paul's formula—a person + a verb of dying + a preposition "for" + sins—matches the pattern found repeatedly in Isaiah 53 (e.g., "he bears our sins," "he was wounded for our iniquities," "he was handed over for their sins"). Third, the Greek word for "sins" (hamartia)—Paul's word in 1 Corinthians 15:3—appears six times in Isaiah 53 in the Septuagint.⁴¹

Gathercole's analysis makes clear that when Paul said "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," the primary Scripture he had in mind was Isaiah 53. And the meaning is substitutionary: Christ died the death that sinners deserved, bearing sins that were not his own, so that others might live.

1 Peter 2:22–25 — The Most Direct New Testament Application

Fleming Rutledge rightly notes that "the only unambiguous New Testament use of Isaiah 53 to interpret the death of Christ is 1 Peter 2:21–24."⁴² Peter writes:

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Pet. 2:22–25)

Peter's language draws directly on Isaiah 53 at multiple points: "no deceit in his mouth" (Isa. 53:9), the silent lamb imagery (53:7), "bore our sins" (53:4, 11, 12), "by his wounds you have been healed" (53:5), and "straying like sheep" (53:6). Peter clearly reads Isaiah 53 as a prophecy fulfilled in Christ's substitutionary death. The phrase "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree" is an unmistakable statement of substitution: Christ carried sins that belonged to others, and he carried them on the cross, so that others might "die to sin and live to righteousness."⁴³

Jesus' Own Use of Isaiah 53

Did Jesus himself understand his own mission through the lens of Isaiah 53? The evidence strongly suggests he did. Stott provides a careful survey of the many connections between Jesus' words and actions and the Fourth Servant Song. Jesus said he would be "rejected" (Mark 9:12; cf. Isa. 53:3), "taken away" (Mark 2:20; cf. Isa. 53:8), and "numbered with the transgressors" (Luke 22:37; cf. Isa. 53:12). He would be "buried" (Mark 14:8; cf. Isa. 53:9). His deliberate silence before his judges (Mark 14:61; 15:5) echoes Isaiah 53:7. His intercession for the transgressors (Luke 23:34) echoes Isaiah 53:12. His laying down of his life for others (John 10:11, 15, 17) echoes Isaiah 53:10.⁴⁴

Two sayings of Jesus stand out above all the rest. The first is the "ransom saying" in Mark 10:45: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Here Jesus unites two great Old Testament figures—the exalted "Son of Man" from Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant from Isaiah 53—and declares that his mission is to give his life as a ransom in the place of "many." The second saying comes at the Last Supper, when Jesus declares that his blood will be "poured out for many" (Mark 14:24), an echo of Isaiah 53:12, "he poured out his soul to death" and "he bore the sin of many."⁴⁵

As Stott concludes: "It seems to be definite beyond doubt, then, that Jesus applied Isaiah 53 to himself and that he understood his death in the light of it as a sin-bearing death."⁴⁶ The cross-reference to Chapter 7, where we will examine Jesus' self-understanding in detail, will develop this evidence further. But even here, the connection is clear: Jesus saw himself as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, and he understood his approaching death as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of others.

Engaging Objections to the Substitutionary Reading

Objection 1: The Servant Suffers Because of Others' Sins, Not in Place of Them

Some scholars, such as Orlinsky and Whybray, argue that Isaiah 53 describes the Servant suffering as a result of others' sins—that is, their sins caused his suffering in the sense that sinful people treated him unjustly—rather than suffering as a substitute bearing the penalty due to others. On this reading, the Servant is a tragic victim of human injustice, not a substitutionary sacrifice.⁴⁷

Allen identifies two fatal problems with this reading. First, it violates the broader context. Isaiah 49–52 anticipates salvation for the people, and Isaiah 54–55 invites them to participate in it. Isaiah 53 sits between these two sections, identifying the means of salvation through the Servant's atoning work. The Servant is identified with the "arm of the LORD" (53:1)—the agent of divine salvation—which makes it impossible to reduce him to a passive victim. Second, the text repeatedly describes the Servant's suffering as producing positive benefits for others: "with his wounds we are healed" (53:5), "the chastisement that brought us peace" (53:5), "make many to be accounted righteous" (53:11). Mere victimhood does not produce healing, peace, or righteousness. Only substitutionary sacrifice does.⁴⁸

Objection 2: Isaiah 53 Describes Israel, Not an Individual

We addressed this briefly above, but it deserves further comment. The collective interpretation—that the "Servant" is the nation of Israel suffering in Babylonian exile—has a long history in Jewish interpretation. Some Christian scholars have also been sympathetic to it. But as we have seen, the passage itself distinguishes the Servant from the people. He suffers "for the transgression of my people" (53:8). He is "the righteous one" who will "make many to be accounted righteous" (53:11). He makes intercession "for the transgressors" (53:12). The Servant and the people are distinct: the Servant acts, and the people benefit. If the Servant is the people, the logic of the passage collapses—you cannot be your own substitute.⁴⁹

Objection 3: The New Testament Does Not Use Isaiah 53 as Much as We Think

Rutledge raises an interesting point: despite the passage's central role in Christian piety and preaching, "it has left so small an imprint in the New Testament" compared to what we might expect.⁵⁰ She cautions against using Isaiah 53 uncritically to construct a thoroughgoing penal-substitution model or to divide the Father from the Son. These are fair cautions, and I agree with both of them. The Trinity must never be divided at the cross (as argued extensively in Chapter 20), and no single text should be pressed beyond what it can bear.

However, Rutledge herself acknowledges that "there is theological gold in Isaiah 53" and that "the passage serves as a guide or partial substructure for the New Testament as a whole."⁵¹ While the explicit quotations of Isaiah 53 in the New Testament may be fewer than we expect, the allusions and echoes are pervasive—as Stott and Gathercole have both demonstrated. Paul's foundational formula "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3) is almost certainly modeled on Isaiah 53, and this formula stands at the heart of the earliest Christian proclamation. The influence of Isaiah 53 on New Testament atonement theology is deeper and more far-reaching than a simple count of explicit quotations might suggest.

Objection 4: Hess's "Wrath of Man, Not Wrath of God" Reading

Hess argues that the entire passage should be read from the perspective of onlookers in neighboring kingdoms witnessing the suffering of Israel (or, in its messianic fulfillment, Christ). On this reading, the "iniquity" laid on the Servant refers to the sinful violence committed against him by wicked oppressors, and the passage is dealing with "the wrath of man, not the wrath of God."⁵²

I have already noted the grammatical problem with this reading: verse 6 says the LORD—not human oppressors—is the one who lays iniquity on the Servant. But there is a further problem. Verse 10 says, "it was the will of the LORD to crush him." The verb "crush" (daka, דָּכָא) is the same word used in verse 5 ("he was crushed for our iniquities"). Hess suggests this could mean God willed to "humble" the Servant rather than to punish him, and he appeals to the Septuagint's rendering "to purge."⁵³ But even if we accept that daka can carry the sense of humbling, the rest of verse 10 makes the sacrificial meaning clear: "when his soul makes an offering for guilt" (asham). The Servant's death is explicitly identified as a sacrifice. Whatever nuance we assign to "crush," the verse as a whole describes a sacrificial death that is willed by God and that serves as a guilt offering for sin.

I want to be fair to Hess's concerns. He is rightly worried about portraits of the atonement that pit the Father against the Son—that depict God the Father as an angry tyrant pouring out vengeance on an innocent victim. I share that concern completely. As I have argued throughout this book, the Trinity acted in unified love at the cross. The Father did not pour out His anger on the Son. But rejecting a distorted version of penal substitution does not require rejecting the substitutionary meaning of Isaiah 53 itself. The text can affirm that God willed the Servant's suffering (53:10), that the Servant's death was a guilt offering (53:10), and that the Servant bore the penalty for others' sins (53:5)—all without dividing the Trinity or turning God into a cruel despot. The Servant goes willingly (53:7). God acts out of love, not rage. These truths are fully compatible, and Isaiah 53 holds them together.

Gathercole's Key Contribution: Isaiah 53 as the Foundation of Pauline Substitution

Simon Gathercole's treatment of Isaiah 53 in Defending Substitution deserves special attention because it demonstrates so clearly how the passage functions as the scriptural bedrock for Paul's theology of the cross.

Gathercole's argument proceeds in three stages. First, he shows that Isaiah 53 is the only Old Testament passage where a human figure dies vicariously for the sins of others. This makes it the single most natural candidate for what Paul means when he says Christ died "for our sins according to the Scriptures."⁵⁴

Second, Gathercole lays out a structural comparison between Isaiah 53 and Paul's formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3. In Isaiah 53, we repeatedly find the pattern: he (the Servant) + a verb of suffering or death + a preposition ("for") + our sins/iniquities. Paul's formula follows exactly the same structure: Christ + died + for + our sins. The structural parallel is unmistakable.⁵⁵

Third, Gathercole shows that in the Old Testament, the normal expectation is that people die for their own sins. King Zimri "died for his sins" (1 Kings 16:18–19 LXX). The daughters of Zelophehad said their father "died for his own sin" (Num. 27:3). This is the standard pattern. But Isaiah 53 breaks the pattern: here, someone dies not for his own sins but for the sins of others. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3 taps into this same pattern—but with the revolutionary substitution. The language used for Christ mirrors the language used for sinners dying for their own transgressions, except that Christ dies for our sins rather than his own. As Gathercole observes, Jesus' death is a "mirror image" of the Old Testament norm.⁵⁶

This analysis is extremely significant. It shows that the substitutionary reading of Isaiah 53 is not a later theological invention. It is embedded in the earliest Christian proclamation—the pre-Pauline formula that Paul "received" and "delivered" as "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3). "Whoever first delivered this apparently pre-Pauline formula to Paul," Gathercole writes, "modeled it at least in part on Isaiah 53."⁵⁷ Substitution was there from the beginning.

Isaiah 53 and the Levitical Sacrificial System

Throughout our verse-by-verse analysis, we have repeatedly noticed connections between Isaiah 53 and the Levitical sacrificial system discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. These connections are not accidental. Isaiah deliberately uses the vocabulary and theology of the sacrificial system to describe the Servant's work, signaling that the Servant's death is the ultimate fulfillment of what the Levitical sacrifices foreshadowed.

Consider the connections. The verb nasa ("to bear") in verses 4 and 12 is the same verb used in Leviticus 16:22 for the scapegoat "bearing" the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement (as discussed in Chapter 5). The term asham ("guilt offering") in verse 10 is drawn directly from Leviticus 5:14–6:7. The image of the Servant as "a lamb led to the slaughter" (53:7) evokes the daily sacrificial lambs of the temple. The verb "sprinkle" (yazzeh) in 52:15 is priestly, sacrificial language. And the description of the Servant's death as producing forgiveness and righteousness for others (53:5, 11) mirrors the function of the Levitical offerings: "So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them" (Lev. 4:20).⁶⁵

Allen draws the implication clearly: "The many allusions in Isaiah 53 to aspects of the sacrificial system, especially the Day of Atonement ritual, make it impossible to view the nature of the suffering as anything less than substitutionary."⁶⁶ The Servant's death is not an accident of history, a tragic example of human injustice, or merely a moral lesson about faithful suffering. It is a sacrifice—the sacrifice to end all sacrifices—that accomplishes what the Levitical offerings pointed toward but could never fully achieve.

This matters for the broader argument of this book. Critics of substitutionary atonement sometimes treat the sacrificial interpretation of the cross as a late theological development—an idea imposed on the text by medieval or Reformation theologians. But Isaiah 53 demolishes that claim. Centuries before Christ, the prophet described a figure whose death would function as a guilt offering (asham), who would bear sin (nasa) as the sacrificial animals did, and whose suffering would bring healing and peace to the undeserving. The substitutionary, sacrificial interpretation of the cross is not a later invention. It is written into the very fabric of the Old Testament's most detailed prophecy about the meaning of redemptive suffering.

The Christus Victor Dimension Within Isaiah 53

Before turning to the Trinitarian dimension of the passage, it is worth noting that Isaiah 53 does not present us with substitution in isolation from other atonement themes. The Christus Victor motif—Christ's victory over the powers of sin and death (discussed fully in Chapter 21)—is also present here, woven into the very structure of the poem.

Consider the movement of the passage: it begins with the Servant's exaltation (52:13), descends into humiliation and death (53:2–9), and then rises again to vindication and triumph (53:10–12). The Servant "shall see his offspring" and "prolong his days" (53:10)—language strongly implying resurrection. He will "divide the spoil with the strong" (53:12)—the imagery of a victorious warrior dividing plunder after battle. The Servant does not merely suffer and die. He suffers, dies, and conquers. His death is both a sacrifice and a victory.

Rutledge is helpful here. She emphasizes the importance of holding multiple atonement motifs together rather than isolating one from the others. The Suffering Servant passage itself combines substitutionary sacrifice (the asham), sin-bearing (nasa and sabal), victorious exaltation (52:13; 53:12), priestly intercession (53:12), and the restoration of God's people (53:5, 11). These are not competing themes. They are complementary dimensions of a single, multi-layered reality.⁶⁷

This is precisely the position I have been defending throughout this book. Substitution stands at the center, but it does not stand alone. The Servant's substitutionary death is also a victorious conquest. His sacrifice is also a triumph over the powers that held humanity in bondage. In Isaiah 53, we see in microcosm the multi-faceted atonement that the New Testament will develop in full—with substitution at the heart and every other motif radiating outward from that center.

The Trinitarian Dimension: God as Both Actor and Sufferer

Before concluding, we should note a remarkable feature of Isaiah 53 that Rutledge highlights: verse 10 contains two acting subjects. "It was the will of the LORD to crush him" has God as the active agent. But "when his soul makes an offering for guilt" has the Servant as the acting agent. In a single verse, both the Father and the Servant are active participants in the atoning work. The Father wills it; the Servant offers himself.⁵⁸

This is profoundly important for a right understanding of the atonement. The cross is not something done by the Father to the Son against the Son's will. It is a unified act involving both the divine will ("it was the will of the LORD") and the Servant's voluntary self-offering ("he makes himself an offering for guilt"). Stott's great insight—that the atonement is the "self-substitution of God"—finds its roots right here in Isaiah 53 (a theme developed fully in Chapter 20).⁵⁹ God is not punishing an unwilling victim. God, in the person of His Servant, is offering Himself.

Philippe de la Trinité, writing from a Roman Catholic Thomistic perspective, makes a similar point. He insists that Christ is a "victim of love" who acts "in union with His Father." The Servant's sacrifice is not the result of divine rage but of divine love—a love so deep that God Himself absorbs the consequences of human sin rather than leaving humanity to perish.⁶⁰ This is fully consistent with what we find in Isaiah 53: a God who wills the Servant's suffering (v. 10), a Servant who goes willingly (v. 7), and a result that brings healing, peace, and righteousness to the undeserving (vv. 5, 11).

Conclusion: The Foundation Stone

Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is the foundation stone on which the New Testament's understanding of the atonement is built. In this passage, we encounter a figure who suffers and dies not for his own sins but as a substitute for others. The language of sin-bearing (nasa, sabal), the sacrificial terminology (asham), the judicial vocabulary (musar, mishpat), the emphasis on the Servant's innocence, the explicit statement that God lays iniquity on him, and the clear connection between his suffering and the people's healing—all of this points unmistakably to substitutionary atonement.

The passage is both substitutionary and penal. The Servant takes the place of sinners (substitution), and the language of chastisement, crushing, and sin-bearing indicates that he endures the judicial consequences of their sin (the penal dimension). At the same time, Isaiah 53 does not present us with a God who is cruel or vindictive. The Servant goes willingly. God acts out of redemptive love. The result is not destruction but healing, not punishment for its own sake but "peace" between God and humanity.

The New Testament authors—Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke (in Acts), and Jesus himself—all understood Isaiah 53 as fulfilled in the death of Christ. Paul's foundational formula, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," is almost certainly shaped by Isaiah 53. Peter's declaration that Christ "bore our sins in his body on the tree" quotes the passage directly. Philip explained the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch by starting with Isaiah 53. And Jesus himself appears to have understood his entire mission through the lens of the Suffering Servant.

When we allow Isaiah 53 to speak on its own terms—attending carefully to the Hebrew vocabulary, the pronominal structure, the sacrificial language, and the broader context of Isaiah—we discover that substitutionary atonement is not a later invention forced onto the text by medieval or Reformation theologians. It is embedded in the very grammar and logic of the Old Testament's most important prophecy about the meaning of the cross. The Servant was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace. And with his wounds, we are healed.