Could it be that the term ’āšām was used here precisely because the holy nation had been expelled (i.e., desecrated) from the land. If so, in this context the purpose of the expiatory sacrifice of the Suffering Servant was to restore the people to the land and to their God. It is parallel to the restoration of the leper in Lev 14. Furthermore, Isa 53 is replete with references to disease and illness, again suggesting a connection between the Suffering …show more content…
8 eventually supports our view of the “we” as the confessional Israel in exile because yM[Þi ; occurs in the immediate context, referring to the people in exile (47:6; 51:4, 16; 52:4, 5, 6). Therefore, the beneficiaries of the servant’s ministry are a confessional group within Israel that responds to the suffering servant. Does the servant consequently suffer only for Israel? Who are the “many (~yBiêr:)” in 52:14, 15 and 53:11, …show more content…
in 52:15 indicates that the ministry of the suffering servant is not only for Israel but also for the nations. The ministry of the servant towards many nations is expressed through the
54For example, McKenzie views the “many” in 52:14 and 53:12 as Israelites and the “many nations and kings” in 52:15 as Gentiles. On the contrary, Whybray regards the “many” of 52:14, 15 and 53:12a as Gentiles, the “many” of 53:11, 12b as Israelites. See, J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1968), 132; Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 170, 181.
55There has been much debate regarding the grammatical or philological ambiguities of the occurrence of the term in the passage. For the sake of space, we will not deal with this issue. Cf. J. W. Olley, “‘The Many’: How Is Is 53,12a to be Understood?” Bib 68 (1987):