“As a follow up, give me your critique of this article on Isaiah 53.”
It is held by most commentators that the passage refers to the Servant as one who has been put to death by his enemies, but who will, astonishingly, be restored to life by Yahweh, who accepts his suffering and death as vicariously atoning for the sins of others. This view might be tenable if the Servant were an allegorical figure representing the nation of Israel, though it would then ascribe to Isaiah a view of the mission of Israel to the world which would be quite unparalleled. But Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6 show that the Servant in this group of passages cannot be Israel. If on the other hand this passage is interpreted as referring to a historical individual whose death is regarded as bringing atonement for the sins of others so that the guilty might go free this, to an Israelite, would be contrary to their interpretation of the principles of justice in the Old Testament. Further, who is it that goes free? The speakers can hardly be representatives of the heathen nations; and if they are Israelites, they have not escaped punishment for their sins, but have on the contrary, as Isaiah states elsewhere, paid in full. A further difficulty concerns the supposed resurrection of the Servant. As a metaphor of the restoration of Israel after exile this might be conceivable (Ezek. 37:1-14), but with reference to an individual it is totally foreign to the Judaism of the sixth century BC and today as witness your cited commentary.
The specific historical setting of Isa. 52:13-53:12 is described at some length in Ezra 3-6, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. Darius had successfully established his rule and now appears in Jerusalem in 518 B.C. Zerubbabel had set to work diligently (Ezra 3:1-13). But the governor of the territory and Judah’s neighbors did not understand (Ezra 4:1-5). They intervened and stopped the work on the Temple (Ezra 4:24). In the second year of his reign, 520 B.C. (Ezra 4:24 and Hag/Zech), Darius seemed to be firmly in control of the Empire, so Zerubbabel and his helpers set to work immediately (Ezra 5:1-2). Tattenai, governor of the satrapy Over the River, and Shether-Bozenair interfered again (Ezra 5:3-4). But work was allowed to proceed while a report was requested from Persian officials at court. Before work was resumed with official support, Zerubbabel’s name disappears from the account. This scene in the vision suggests that he was beaten and killed in an encounter with authorities who had no idea that the emperor would support his work. Undoubtedly this brought increased bitterness in Judah toward the empire. Darius, who showed the kind of religious toleration that characterized his predecessor, Cyrus, was also concerned to stabilize his position in Palestine for the coming Egyptian campaign and for the sake of increased naval activity from Phoenician ports. The scene portrays the emperor’s intervention to set matters right in Jerusalem, not simply with a letter (as in Ezra 6:1-13) but by a personal appearance there during a military campaign in that region.
Yahweh notes Darius’s status and work with satisfaction (v 13). Then Darius hears an inquiry into complaints of Zerubbabel’s death. The sufferer does not speak because he is already dead. A remarkable feature of the accounts is the leadership of Zerubbabel in the early work on the Temple and in the conflict with the territorial governor and leaders of neighboring districts. But his name totally missing in the accounts of the completion of that work.
But from that specific historical setting emerges a universal truth about God and his ways that is vital for the faith of Jew and Christian: the principle of substitutionary atonement, not only through animal sacrifice as in the Day of Atonement, but supremely through a willing person. This is effective atonement when the recipients of the benefits gained through the sacrifice confess their guilt and recognize that one has died for them (53:4-6) and when the sovereign agrees to recognize the atoning effect (53:10-12). Christians have viewed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in these terms and used this passage to interpret and appropriate that meaning (Luke 22:37; Mark 10:45; Matt 20:28; Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20. The deacon Phillip interpreted this Isaiah 53 passage as referring to Jesus (Acts 8:32-35) as did Jesus and Paul.