Anti-Missionary Arguments

Tampering with the Text: Isaiah 53:10

The Anti-missionary’s charge:

Isaiah 53:10 “And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution (acknowledge guilt) he shall see children, he shall prolong his days and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand”. TANAKH

Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he had put him to grief: when thou shall 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”. KJV, implying Jesus.

HaDavar’s response

Jacob, I understand you to be objecting to the King James Version’s rendering of Isaiah 53:10. You point out that the King James differs from the Jewish rendering found in the TANAKH Version. Therefore, you feel that the King James is making a deliberate effort to twist the meaning of the verse. You feel that the verse is being distorted so that it will appear to talk about Jesus when, in reality, it does not.

Let’s take a look at the important phrases and see if the essential meaning of the text is being changed.

1.) I would agree with you that “crush” is a better translation. This would be a figurative use of the word as in Psalm 143:3, 94:5, Isa. 3:15 and Pro. 22:22. “Crush” is the word of choice in the NASB, and the NIV. TANAKH, JPS, NASB, and NIV translations have all done a better job than the KJV rendering this phrase.

2.) The translation “put him to grief” is probably better and to be preferred to “Made him ill” because it communicates the meaning of the phrase. “Chalah” is the word under discussion here. “Chalah” is a word with a fairly broad range of meaning, and, of course, “sick” is the primary thought. The word is in the Hiphil stem here. One of the uses of the Hiphil is in reference to feelings (“hope deferred makes the heart sick,”—grieved (mental anguish)—Prov. 13:12). Isaiah 53:10 (KJV) reads, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief,” i.e. “he has made him sick” in the sense of mental anguish. But it could be in a physical sense, i.e. “he has wounded him.” It appears to me that the KJV is an acceptable rendering of the thought.

3.) Let’s examine the phrase “an offering for sin.” The word used here is the masculine singular noun “asham.” With few exceptions this masculine noun denotes “Trespass Offering” or “Guilt Offering” (22 times in Leviticus). It appears to me that the rendering “offering for sin” is acceptable or even a little weak. The clear cut rendering as a noun would be best, “Guilt Offering” (as in NASB and NIV). The Jewish Publication Society Version renders the phrase “To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution.” This rendering is a rather weak rendering of “asham.” However it does get the idea across. Again, I would say that the KJV does an acceptable job, but I think that the NIV and NASB provide the best translation.

Summary: I see no tampering with the text, but simply some stronger or weaker translations into English. The essential meaning of the text is not changed. The text, Isa. 52-53, is about the Messianic person. Many of our Rabbis agree to that. The Messianic Person will be the ultimate substitutionary sacrifice of sin—a “Guilt Offering.” Isa. 52-53 is used over and over again in the NT to support the fact that the 1st century Jewish believers in Jesus literally understood the passage in that manner and saw in Jesus a literal fulfillment of that expectation.