These writ­ings are from Rabbi Moshe Schul­man. Just take a deep breath and read it, for there is much we can learn from it. I will make notes within the text in [*** … ***] brack­ets, except where I expand J. to J[esus]. Hope this writ­ing doesn’t frighten you too much, just be patient, there is much gold here. The arti­cle is quite long, it will take some time to read through and check the rel­e­vant verses.

As expected, the author attacks Chris­t­ian doc­trine. If you are not mature enough to han­dle oppo­si­tion, then don’t read these.

______________________________
ISAIAH 53

The ques­tion of Isa­iah 53 and what it means comes up in every dis­cus­sion with a Chris­t­ian. For that rea­son, I have col­lected infor­ma­tion that I have avail­able and com­piled the fol­low­ing sum­mary. I hope that the read­ers will look at it from begin­ning to end, con­sider the infor­ma­tion pre­sented and judge it favor­ably. Because of the amount of infor­ma­tion, please read all three sec­tions before you pass judge­ment. Some ques­tions that you might have are answered later on.

***

The Prophecy of Isa­iah 53 is con­sid­ered by many Chris­tians the most impor­tant prophecy in the whole Tenach. They feel they have from it their needed ‘proof’ that their Mes­siah was to die. (Manny Brot­man of the Mes­sianic Jew­ish Move­ment Inter­na­tional calls it the ‘main mes­sianic chap­ter in the Jew­ish Bible’) They feel this way even though nei­ther the word ‘Mes­siah’, ‘king’ ‘son of David’ or any of the code names for the Mes­siah that are used in the Tenach are ever men­tioned in this pas­sage. They main­tain this belief even though the belief of a dying Mes­siah is con­trary to ALL the other clearly Mes­sianic prophe­cies, which show that the Mes­siah will appear and suc­ceed, all within a short amount of time.

[*** this is sort of incor­rect, there are argu­ments in the Tal­mud that if Israel is wor­thy, the Mes­siah will come as a king, if she is not wor­thy, he will come on the back of an ass — the idea that the Mes­siah will be revealed, then hid­den, then revealed again is also found there. The Lubaw­itch move­ment redis­cov­ered this inter­pre­ta­tion, and when Rabbi Schneer­son, their leader — whom they hold to be the Mes­siah — died, they expected him to rise on the third day.]

There are many argu­ments and counter-arguments that I will be cov­er­ing here. I would like to approach this impor­tant prophecy from three angles.

1. Why the clear sim­ple mean­ing of the text of Isa­iah 53 indi­cates that it was not and can­not have been ful­filled by J[esus]. Many times mis­sion­ar­ies will read it and assume, it can only mean J[esus]. The prob­lems with asso­ci­at­ing Isa­iah 53 with J[esus] are usu­ally ignored in most dis­cus­sions. I will deal with this first as this is the pri­mary Bib­li­cal text used by Chris­tians, and should be answered before we explore the true mean­ing of this pas­sage. (In fact after this sec­tion it is totally unnec­es­sary to explain any fur­ther, since if it is not J[esus], it is invalid to use it as a proof of Christianity.)

2. Who does Isa­iah 53 refer to and how do I know it. I will go through this impor­tant pas­sage verse by verse start­ing at Isa­iah 52:13 which is acknowl­edged by the over­whelm­ing major­ity of sources as part of the prophecy of Isa­iah 53. It should be noted that the Masoretic Text actu­ally divides this text before Isa­iah 52:13 and not before Isa­iah 53.

3. Finally I will explain the true mean­ing of some of those Rab­binic texts that are used by mis­sion­ar­ies in their claim that the Rab­bis held a dif­fer­ent view as to the sim­ple mean­ing of the prophet then the one I have here pre­sented. We will explore the nature of Rab­binic com­men­tary, and the decep­tions that are used with regards to them by those who would fal­sify their teach­ings. From this we will see that the Rab­bis’ under­stand­ing of the sim­ple mean­ing of this text and the view I present here are one and the same.

***

I. Why Isa­iah 53 can­not be said to have been ful­filled by J[esus].
In order to see the prob­lems with asso­ci­at­ing this prophecy with J[esus]. Let us exam­ine two impor­tant ideas. The first is how the Tenach’s prophe­cies work. Many peo­ple do not real­ize what a future prophecy and it’s ful­fill­ment should be like. Let’s exam­ine two prophe­cies and their ful­fill­ment in the Tenach and see what they will tell us about how prophecy works. The two we will exam­ine are:

1. The prophecy regard­ing what would hap­pen to the per­son who would rebuild Jericho.

In Joshua 6:26 we read: And Joshua swore at that time, say­ing, Cursed be the man before the Lord who shall rise up and build this city Jeri­cho. In his first-born shall he lay its foun­da­tion, and in his youngest son shall he set up its gates.

In 1 Kings 16:34 we see the ful­fill­ment: In his days Hiel the Bethe­lite built Jeri­cho; he laid its foun­da­tion in Abi­ram his first­born, and set up its gates in Segub his youngest, accord­ing to the word of the Lord which he spoke through Joshua the son of Nun.

2. The prophecy regard­ing what would hap­pen later to the alters of the north­ern king­dom of Israel.

In 1 Kings 13:1–2 we read: 1 And behold, there came a man of God from Judah, by the word of the Lord, to Bethel; and Jer­oboam stood by the altar to burn incense. 2 And he cried against the altar by the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar! thus saith the Lord: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he sac­ri­fice the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall be burned upon thee.

In 2 Kings 23:15–17 we see it ful­filled: 15 More­over the altar that was at Bethel, the high place that Jer­oboam the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he broke down; and burned the high place, stamped it small to pow­der, and burned the Asherah. 16 And Josiah turned him­self, and saw the sep­ul­chers that were there on the mount; and he sent and took the bones out of the sep­ul­chers, and burned [them] upon the altar, and defiled it, accord­ing to the word of the Lord, that the man of God had pro­claimed, who pro­claimed these things. 17 Then he said, What tomb­stone is that which I see? And the men of the city told him, It is the sep­ul­cher of the man of God who came from Judah and pro­claimed these things which thou hast done against the altar of Bethel. From these verses we can notice a few things:

1. Each prophecy had clear points that would tell us that it was ful­filled. In the first case, the one who vio­lated the ban would bury his first and last sons. In the sec­ond case a cer­tain named per­son of the descen­dants of David would destroy the alters.

2. All the points described were ful­filled com­pletely and literally.

3. While some specifics were not men­tioned, (for exam­ple the name of the per­son in the first, and when either would occur), after they came to pass it was clear that the prophecy was ful­filled. There was no doubt as to whether it was ful­filled and the exact mean­ing of the prophecy.

[*** I sug­gest you read the arti­cle on RaRDeS, the four lev­els of inter­pre­ta­tion I posted here. The NT uses all four lev­els, not only the lit­eral, and the Tal­mud also uses it. So does the Lubaw­itch movement. ***]

***

The sec­ond idea we should look at is what Christian’s (includ­ing Mes­sian­ics) believe about J[esus]. There are three beliefs of Chris­tians with regards to J[esus]. that relate directly to why this prophecy can­not be said to refer to J[esus].

1. J[esus]. is called the ‘Son’ and is the sec­ond per­son of the trin­ity. With­out going into a deep the­o­log­i­cal dis­cus­sion, let me sum up the main points of this con­cept. The god­head is made up of three ‘aspects’ or ‘per­sonna’ that are sep­a­rate, but are equal and of one essence. They are not three gods. So the ‘Son’ is equal to the ‘Father’ although sep­a­rate. Nei­ther is greater or lesser then the other. This aspect ‘Son’ is what is incar­nate in the body of J[esus]. All three share the same eter­nal and unchang­ing essence.

2. The death of J[esus]. is what brings atone­ment and noth­ing else. Not his teach­ings, nor his mir­a­cles, nor any­thing else has any effect on atone­ment, not even the suf­fer­ing that occurred to J[esus]. BEFORE the cru­ci­fix­ion. It is only the death and resurrection.

3. To receive this atone­ment one must believe that this death was for that pur­pose. You may be famil­iar with the doc­trine, and know that peo­ple believe it, but if you don’t believe in it, then you are not saved.

***

Now we can exam­ine some of the verses that are part of the prophecy and see how they could never be said to apply to J[esus]. Some of these are clearer in their con­tra­dic­tion to the above prin­ci­ples and some are more sub­tle. Each is, how­ever sig­nif­i­cant enough on it’s own to cast doubt on any the­sis claim­ing that J[esus]. ful­filled this Bib­li­cal prophecy accord­ing to the rules we have shown above.

52:13

1. Verse 52:13 (53:11) refers to the sub­ject of these verses as ‘my ser­vant’. The ‘my’ here is refer­ring to G-d. When we say that Tom is John’s ser­vant there are a few things that we under­stand from that. A. Tom and John are not the same per­son. The ser­vant and mas­ter are totally sep­a­rate enti­ties. A per­son can­not be a ser­vant to him­self. B. Tom is infe­rior to John. A ser­vant is always infe­rior in posi­tion to his mas­ter. C. Tom must do the will of John, but John does not have to lis­ten to Tom. The ser­vant is sub­ject to the will of his mas­ter, but the mas­ter need not con­sider the will of the ser­vant. D. Tom may not do what he wants, unless John allows him. The ser­vant is never free to act out­side of the lim­its the mas­ter sets. There are how­ever prob­lems with say­ing that J[esus] is a ser­vant. Since J[esus] is the incar­na­tion of G-d (accord­ing to Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy), a co-equal mem­ber of the trin­ity and not a sep­a­rate entity, he must be the same, he could not be infe­rior. He could not be either sub­ject to the will of another, nor could he be said to lack the free­dom to act in all areas. How could part of the god­head be called a ser­vant to another part of itself, and still be coequal? The ser­vant here can­not be a ‘part’ of the god­head. Either we must assume that J[esus] is not a part of the trin­ity, or the Mes­siah of Chris­tians is not the one meant by Isa­iah 53. The ques­tions of ‘wills’ here is also one that could not relate. How could J[esus] be sub­ject to the will of the Father, when he is, accord­ing to Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy, the same? For these rea­sons it would not be pos­si­ble for a Chris­t­ian to say that J[esus] is the ser­vant of G-d.

2. What does it mean ‘lifted up’, he shall be high? That would imply that at one time he was in a lowly posi­tion and after that he was in a higher posi­tion. Phys­i­cally the only lift­ing up that occurred with J[esus] dur­ing his life­time was when he was put on the cross. That is clearly not what this prophecy means, since that is not a sign of great­ness, but degra­da­tion. If we are talk­ing about the divine nature, how could it be changed and ‘lifted up’, to higher or lower level? G-d was and is great, mighty, and unchang­ing before J[esus] appeared and after he appeared. Who could imag­ine that G-d would be in a state of depres­sion and then be lifted up. Sim­i­larly we have a prob­lem with the word ‘Yaskel’. If we under­stand it as mean­ing to pros­per, we have the pre­vi­ously stated prob­lem. If it is meant as related to the root ‘under­stand’, the mean­ing would be to acquire knowl­edge (or deal pru­dently, i.e. with wis­dom). How could this refer to the god­head, since His knowl­edge is eter­nal and can­not be said to increase. Was there a time when G-d had less knowl­edge? Did he deal impru­dently? Such things are absurd and can­not fit the verses.

3. If the ser­vant here is J[esus] there is another prob­lem. J[esus] is the sec­ond per­son of the trin­ity. If the ser­vant refers to the sec­ond per­son of the trin­ity, we have a fourth func­tion and hence a fourth mem­ber: the ‘son’. That means that there are FOUR per­sons and not three: father, son, holy spirit and servant.

[*** he doesn’t grasp very well the con­cept of the trinity… ***]

52:15

1. What does it mean ‘what had not been told them’? This would mean that we are deal­ing with some­thing that was totally unknown until it is finally revealed as the truth. This recog­ni­tion and aston­ish­ment of verse 15 has not occurred yet, so it must be a future event. It must be refer­ring to when J[esus] comes again and is fully revealed. How­ever this is a prob­lem. Is there any­one in the world who has not heard of the story of J[esus] and the claims made about him? Cer­tainly if this is refer­ring to the Jew­ish peo­ple, they have heard it, they just didn’t believe that it was a ful­fill­ment of the prophe­cies. But the verse claims that they are to have revealed some­thing they never heard, not some­thing they failed to believe in pre­vi­ously. If we say that this refers to the acts of G-d, are they not like­wise known? Even athe­ists are aware of the sto­ries in the Bible. It could not be said that they are in the cat­e­gory of things that were not heard. Just things that were rejected as false. That is not what the verse is saying.

53:3

1. A ‘Man of pains’ indi­cates that the per­son was one who suf­fered from pain often. For exam­ple, Moses is called a ‘man of G-d’ (heb. ish elokim) because of his con­stant asso­ci­a­tion with G-d. We do not con­sider a per­son who suf­fered for a short time before dying as a ‘man of pains’. Even if the death was a very painful one, we would only say that he died a painful death, and not call him a man of pains. [Does pain have to refer to phys­i­cal pain only? What about the grief one feels when he sees his own peo­ple walk­ing the path of sin?] The same is with some­one ‘acquainted with sick­ness’, which can only refer to some­one who suf­fered sick­nesses con­stantly. To say that he was sen­si­tive to oth­ers’ ill­nesses makes him no bet­ter then Mother Teresa or any other of the thou­sands of peo­ple who felt the pain of oth­ers. (Maybe it refers to Pres­i­dent Clin­ton who claimed to have ‘felt our pain’?)

53:4

1. This verse says he was con­sid­ered ‘stricken of G-d’. That is just not true. No one said that J[esus] was stricken of G-d. He was stricken by the Romans. There are no sources where we see any­one claim­ing that the cru­ci­fix­ion of J[esus] was a sign that he was stricken by G-d, or some type of divine pun­ish­ment for him. Cer­tainly that was not the view of the Jews, who are sup­posed to be the speak­ers here (accord­ing to the Chris­t­ian inter­pre­ta­tion). There is just no sup­port for refer­ring this to J[esus] at any time in his life.

53:8

1. Accord­ing to Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy, J[esus] had to die and suf­fer because of the sin of Adam. Since when Adam sinned death came to the world, the death of J[esus] ended this pun­ish­ment. Romans 5:12, 14 “Where­fore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 14 Nev­er­the­less death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the simil­i­tude of Adam’s trans­gres­sion, who is the fig­ure of him that was to come.” So how can we say that he was stricken for the sin of ‘my peo­ple’? It wasn’t the sin of the Jew­ish peo­ple or any peo­ple in par­tic­u­lar. It was the sin of the whole human race from Adam (accord­ing to their belief). The inher­ited sin of Adam needed atone­ment, not any indi­vid­ual sins.

2. Sec­ondly, it does not say his ‘death’ was for sin, but his ‘suf­fer­ing’! What hap­pened to J[esus] before the cru­ci­fix­ion when he suf­fered for a short time IS NOT WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BRING ATONEMENT. It is ONLY his death. That is not what this verse or any of the other verses in this pas­sage says.

53:9

1. There is a con­tra­dic­tion to the NT from these verses. Accord­ing to the NT, J[esus] was killed together with two thieves, but buried in the tomb of a rich man. How­ever verse 9 says the oppo­site. His grave (Heb. kever) is with the wicked, and his death(s) (Heb. meisav) is with the rich.

2. This verse claims that his grave was with the wicked. That means his rest­ing place was one of a lowly and igno­min­ious char­ac­ter. This can­not be a ref­er­ence to the Mes­siah since in a prophecy that is uni­ver­sally accepted as Mes­sianic the prophet Isa­iah says (11:10) that his ‘rest will be glo­ri­ous’. Which is it, glo­ri­ous, or lowly?

[*** Isa 11:10 refers to the time of the mes­sianic Kingdom ***]

53:10

1. Verse 10 says that there are two rewards that the servant’s accept­ing of suf­fer­ing causes to occur. The first is that he shall see ‘seed’. The word ‘seed’ (heb. zarah), when applied to humans refers to their phys­i­cal descen­dants (it is lit­er­ally used to refer to male seed: semen). But J. had no phys­i­cal chil­dren! To answer this many Chris­tians try to counter and say that it refers to dis­ci­ples, and not phys­i­cal chil­dren, but that is not the case. The word zarah (seed) always refers to phys­i­cal chil­dren while the word banim (chil­dren) refers to dis­ci­ples or fol­low­ers. The Torah has an inter­est­ing story which illus­trates this. For a long time Abra­ham had no chil­dren, and G-d came to him and said he would reward him. Abra­ham said of what value is it since he has no son to inherit, only the head of his house­hold Eliezer.

Gen­e­sis 15:2–4: ‘And Abram said, ‘My Lord, G-d, what can you give me see­ing that I am child­less and the son (ben) of my house is the Dam­a­scene Eliezer? 3. Then Abram said, ‘See, to me you have given no seed (zarah — phys­i­cal child), and see the son (ben — son refer­ring to fol­lower) of my house is my heir.” 4. Sud­denly, the word of G-d came to him, say­ing: That one will not inherit you. None but him that shall come forth from within your bow­els shall be your heir.’

So G-d answered him, and told him that not his fol­lower who is referred to as a ‘ben’ will inherit, but his phys­i­cal son, his zarah, will inherit from him. Clearly the Torah is teach­ing that zarah means a phys­i­cal child and if the verse had wanted to say fol­low­ers than it would have used the word ben, as is used in other places in the Tenach.

We like­wise see in 2 Kings 2 where banim is shown to refer to fol­low­ers or students:

3 “And the sons of the prophets that [were] at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Know­est thou that the LORD will take away thy mas­ter from thy head to day? And he said, Yea, I know [it]; hold ye your peace. 5 And the sons of the prophets that [were] at Jeri­cho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Know­est thou that the LORD will take away thy mas­ter from thy head to day? And he answered, Yea, I know [it]; hold ye your peace.”

Clearly we see that zerah is used for phys­i­cal ‘seed’ and ben is used for both phys­i­cal and spir­i­tual offspring.

Isa­iah 57:3–4 is some­times brought as a proof that ‘zerah’ can mean non-physical chil­dren. How­ever by exam­in­ing these verses we see the exact opposite.

Is. 57:3–4: “But you–come here, you sons of a sor­cer­ess, you off­spring (zerah) of adul­ter­ers and pros­ti­tutes! Whom are you mock­ing: At whom do you sneer and stick out your tongue? Are you not a brood of rebels, the off­spring (zerah) of liars?”

How­ever it should be noticed that by the word ‘sor­cer­ess’ the word ‘benei’ (sons) is used. But they were called zerah (phys­i­cal seed) of adul­ter­ers, pros­ti­tutes and liars, since their par­ents had done those sins. When refer­ring to those sins that their par­ents did, the proper word zerah is used, since they were PHYSICAL CHILDREN of peo­ple who were sinners.

2. A sec­ond reward in verse 10 is that he shall have long life. There are two prob­lems here. First, the verse makes the rewards CONTINGENT upon the servant’s per­for­mance. It is very prob­lem­atic to claim that J[esus]‘s suf­fer­ing resulted in his hav­ing long life. If you believe that J[esus] is G-d then the eter­nal exis­tence of G-d is not, and never can be con­tin­gent upon the accep­tance of the suf­fer­ing of this ser­vant or on any other event in the phys­i­cal world. Both Chris­tians and Jews believe that G-d is eter­nal and his eter­nal exis­tence is not con­tin­gent upon any out­side events. Sec­ond, This long life can clearly not refer to the ‘divine nature’. How can we say that G-d’s days will be length­ened? That is basi­cally absurd. He is eter­nal, and this is not some­thing that is sub­ject to change or length­en­ing. If we say this refers to J[esus]‘s human part, he died quite young. He clearly did not lit­er­ally ful­fil this.

3. Also this verse says ‘IF’ his soul makes. The Hebrew word is ‘ki’, which means ‘if’. Do they believe that it was only con­di­tional, and that maybe it wouldn’t have hap­pened? Was there really a choice here? J[esus] could will to do some­thing other than G-d wanted? If J[esus] and G-d are coequal, how could one part have a will dif­fer­ent then the other? It is just not pos­si­ble, but in the verse there is a clear choice. Was there a pos­si­bil­ity that one part of the god­head would not agree to what the other part wanted? Sounds a bit absurd.

4. We see in this verse the words ‘it pleased the Lord to smite him’? If he is part of the god­head it should of said, it pleased HIMSELF to be smit­ten or some­thing like that. The verse implies that the one who is pleased is not the one smit­ten. That would con­tra­dict the trin­ity con­cept as it applies to J[esus].

53:11

1. There is no place in Isa­iah 53 which sup­ports the impor­tant prin­ci­ple that ‘belief’ in the death of J[esus] is needed for for­give­ness of sin. In fact, verse 11 says that he will teach peo­ple to be right­eous. It is his knowl­edge and teach­ing that brings peo­ple to right­eous­ness and not his suf­fer­ing, death or blood. (This can­not refer to his fol­low­ers as the one doing the action here is the ser­vant him­self, and not an agent of the servant.)

53:12

1. How did he ful­fil verse 12 which says that he will ‘divide spoil’ (Heb. sha­lal). This word sha­lal is used for booty of war as the fol­low­ing col­lec­tion of verses clearly illustrates:

Gen­e­sis 49:27 “Ben­jamin shall ravin [as] a wolf: in the morn­ing he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil (shalal).”

Exo­dus 15:9 “The enemy said, I will pur­sue, I will over­take, I will divide the spoil (sha­lal); my lust shall be sat­is­fied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.”

Num­bers 31: “11 And they took all the spoil (sha­lal), and all the prey, [both] of men and of beasts. 12 And they brought the cap­tives, and the prey, and the spoil (sha­lal), unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the con­gre­ga­tion of the chil­dren of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which [are] by Jor­dan [near] Jericho.”

Deuteron­omy 20:14 “But the women, and the lit­tle ones, and the cat­tle, and all that is in the city, [even] all the spoil (sha­lalah) thereof, shalt thou take unto thy­self; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine ene­mies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”

Joshua 7:21 “When I saw among the spoils (sha­lal) a goodly Baby­lonish gar­ment, and two hun­dred shekels of sil­ver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I cov­eted them, and took them; and, behold, they [are] hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the sil­ver under it.”

1 Samuel 30:20 “And David took all the flocks and the herds, [which] they drave before those [other] cat­tle, and said, This [is] David’s spoil (shalal).”

Isa­iah 8:4 “For before the child shall have knowl­edge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Dam­as­cus and the spoil (sha­lal) of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.”

Isa­iah 9:3 “Thou hast mul­ti­plied the nation, [and] not increased the joy: they joy before thee accord­ing to the joy in har­vest, [and] as [men] rejoice when they divide the spoil (shalal).”

Isa­iah 10:6 “I will send him against an hyp­o­crit­i­cal nation, and against the peo­ple of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil (leSha­lal Sha­lal), and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.”

Isa­iah 33:4 “And your spoil (sha­lalchem) shall be gath­ered [like] the gath­er­ing of the cater­pil­lar: as the run­ning to and fro of locusts shall he run upon them.” How did he ful­fil this? How could he? We must con­clude that this prophecy has not been ful­filled by J[esus], since it is not clear that he has ful­filled it.

2. How can we ascribe to him that ‘he inter­ceded for the trans­gres­sors’? To whom could he inter­cede? The word inter­cede implies that there is a per­son who inter­cedes and the one to whom he inter­cedes. Since he is a part of the god­head there is no one to inter­cede with. He him­self should be the one to for­give. This shows that the ser­vant IS NOT G-d, but a ser­vant of G-d.

***

As I men­tioned before, when a prophecy has been ful­filled, it is always clear that it has been ful­filled. How­ever, Isa­iah 53 is not clearly ful­filled by him. Besides the many rea­sons above for deny­ing that he ful­filled this prophecy, how do we know that his death did any­thing? It is claimed, but since so much of Isa­iah 53 can­not apply, why should this be assumed to apply. Now look at the full text of Isa­iah 53, and con­sider if ALL the details of the prophecy has been ful­filled, or even if they could be ful­filled by J[esus] (as we have seen above). Look care­fully where it refers to a ser­vant. Con­sider verse 10, 11, 12. The text below is from the Autho­rized Ver­sion — KJV. (I will later go through verse by verse and give a fuller under­stand­ing of the word­ings and the translation).

Isa­iah 52:13–53:12

oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought13 Behold, my ser­vant shall deal pru­dently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 As many were aston­ished at thee; his vis­age was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: 15 So shall he sprin­kle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for [that] which had not been told them shall they see; and [that] which they had not heard shall they con­sider. 1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a ten­der plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor come­li­ness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sor­rows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and car­ried our sor­rows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smit­ten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he [was] wounded for our trans­gres­sions, [he was] bruised for our iniq­ui­ties: the chas­tise­ment of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniq­uity of us all. 7 He was as a lamb to the slaugh­ter, and as a sheep before her shear­ers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judg­ment: and who shall declare his gen­er­a­tion? For he was cut off out of the land of the liv­ing: for the trans­gres­sion of my peo­ple was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no vio­lence, nei­ther [was any] deceit in his mouth. 10. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offer­ing for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall pro­long [his] days, and the plea­sure of the LORD shall pros­per in his hand. 11 He shall see of the tra­vail of his soul, [and] shall be sat­is­fied: by his knowl­edge shall my right­eous ser­vant jus­tify many; for he shall bear their iniq­ui­ties. 12 There­fore will I divide him [a por­tion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was num­bered with the trans­gres­sors; and he bare the sin of many, and made inter­ces­sion for the transgressors.