All right. These two are really very clear prophecies, together with their clear fulfillment. But now? Have we now dealt with all prophecies that exist in the Scriptures? For Shulman says: "Let's examine two prophecies and their fulfillment in the Tenach and see what they will tell us about how prophecy works." Is the whole system of prophecy and fulfillment explained by selectively taking two very simple examples? Surely, in that way we have not explained how prophecy works. This is a misleading simplification.

There are also prophecies that are much more difficult. There are even prophecies whose fulfillment cannot be found in the Old Testament. An example of such a one is this one. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (Daniel 9:26). The fulfillment cannot be found in the Tanach. Here is another example. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15) Where is the fulfillment of this prophecy recorded in the Old Testament?

From these two examples, which are more difficult, and which are put next to the simple examples of Shulman, it appears that the system of prophecy is sometimes simpler and sometimes more difficult.

Now he begins to give a misrepresentation of the Christian faith. After he has distorted our faith, he begins to compare this distortion with the prophecy of Isaiah. The outcome is then that Isaiah says something different from what Shulman calls Christian faith. Of course Isaiah says something different from the misrepresentation, for our faith is based upon the Old Testament. And Isaiah didn't teach a distorted, but a true faith.

This distortion of our faith and doctrine needs some correction.

Correction 1. The Son was from eternity. He already existed before His incarnation. The incarnation does add nothing to the concept "Son". Already in the Godhead the Father generated the Son. This appears from the text. His dear Son (...) who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (Colossians 1:13,15). If the Son is the firstborn of every creature, and if the world was created thousands of years before Christ's incarnation, then the Son already existed before His incarnation. Moreover, since also time is created, and the world is created, and if God's Son is the firstborn of every creature, then it follows that He existed before the world and before the time. He is then from eternity.

Correction 2. Shulman says, "the Son is equal to the Father". He also says, "neither is greater or lesser then the other". This statement that the Son is equal to the Father, needs some correction and addition. It should be added that, though the Son and the Father are equal in essence, yet the Son is less then the Father with regard to His human nature. This appears from this text. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man (Luke 2:52). If Jesus increased in wisdom and in favour with God and man, then it appears that He was less in wisdom and favour in the beginning then in the end. So there is increase in Him. From this follows that the Son, with regard to His human nature, was less then the Father.

Afterwards Shulman needs this misrepresentation. He needs it to prove that the Son cannot be referred to in Isaiah 53. He reasons that, when the Son is equal to the Father, then He cannot be less. Then Isaiah 53 would not apply to Jesus.

The real and undistorted doctrine of the Son is that He is equal to the Father according to His divine nature, but less then the Father according to His human nature.

Yes, but only with regard to Their divine natures. According to his human nature Jesus is less then the Father.

I think also this is a beforehand set up trap, to demonstrate that, according to his misrepresentation of the Christian faith, the suffering of Jesus has no atoning function, while it does have an atoning function in Isaiah 53. He wishes to prove then, that since Jesus' suffering does not atone according to him, Jesus cannot be meant in Isaiah 53.

Let it be clear that we Christians teach that not only His death atoned, but also all His sufferings, during His life on earth. What Shulman says about Jesus' suffering, which occurred to Jesus before the crucifixion, is therefore false. To prove that Jesus' sufferings were included in the whole process of atoning for our sins, the next verses may help.

What about His resurrection? Shulman maintains that the resurrection of Jesus atoned for sin. Is this true? No, this is false. His resurrection had no redeeming function. Instead of that it was a proof of His victory. When sin entered the world, as a sign of that sin also death entered the world. So, when sin was removed, also death was removed. Jesus' removal of death, His resurrection, was a proof that He had defeated sin and death. So, the resurrection is not atoning, but it is a proof of the completed redemption.

This statement comes somewhat closer to the truth. Yet, it needs correction and completion. For if one merely believes that Jesus' death was for the purpose of atonement, he will not receive that atonement. Only the rebirth, which has the faith as a result, is sufficient. One has not merely to believe the doctrine of atonement in general, but also with a personal appropriation. Not merely "Christ has died for sinners", but also "Christ has died for me, and has atoned for me".

Hear him! First give a distorted representation of the Christian faith, and then tell us that the verses of Isaiah cannot be applied to Jesus! That's the way Mr. Schulman works: by deception. But when once the doctrine is put right, you will see that everything fits perfectly. Starting from Isaiah 53 it appears how Jesus ought to be, and when we look in the New Testament, everything appears to fit the description.

Since the rules shown above are not Christian rules, we reject them entirely, together with the conclusions Shulman will draw.

It's true. That's what we also say. For the Son is different from the Father. The Father is another Person then the Son, Jesus. Jesus was no Servant of Himself, but of the Father. The unity is not in the Persons but in the Essence of God. It is true that God cannot be a Servant of God. We also don't say that. We say that Jesus, as the Son, as the second Person, was different from the Father, and was His Servant.

Yes, this is true. Jesus, as Mediator, as Servant, according to His human nature, was inferior in position to the Father.

Well said. Jesus, as the Servant of the Father, always did the Lord's will. Proofs:

Agreed, this is true. You can see this in the life of Jesus. See the next text.

Jesus is God, it's true, but that does not mean that the whole Essence of God did incarnate. The Father did not incarnate, neither the Spirit. Only the Son, Who is God, did incarnate. God did incarnate because Jesus was God.

He is inferior, namely as human and as Servant of the Father.

Shulman is now questioning the Christian doctrine of the trinity. But since we are here discussing Isaiah 53, let us stick to the subject. It's sure that the New Testament teaches that Jesus is the Servant of God, and that He is God. Since Jesus is God's Servant, He can be meant by Isaiah 53.

To repeat again, as a human Jesus was God's Servant, but as God He was equal. As Person He was a part of the Godhead.

As many heretics do, also Shulman subjects the Word of God to his own intelligence, understanding and power of reason. When he does not understand the divine matters of the trinity, he simply rejects them.

The solution is simple. Jesus is lifted up after His humiliation. First He is lifted by His resurrection, and later by His ascension to heaven. Also His sitting at God's right hand is a very great elevation and honor. Further we expect His return to judge the quick and the dead. Also this is a great elevation.

No, we confess that there are only three Persons:

1. Father,
2. Son and Servant,
3. Holy Spirit.

The Son and the Spirit are united in one Person.

A clear text that speaks of Jesus' humiliation and exaltation, is in Philippians 2:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God,

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation,

And took upon him the form of a servant,

And was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,

And became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,

And given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

Of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth,

And [things] under the earth;

11 And [that] every tongue should confess

That Jesus Christ [is] Lord,

To the glory of God the Father.

The error in the reasoning of Shulman lies in the jump from "function" to "member". He stated, "we have a fourth function and hence a fourth member". But this does not follow. When there is a fourth function, then it does not follow that there is also a fourth member. One Person, the Son in this case, can have more functions. Shulman misleads here by jumping from "function" to "member", and then to "Person". Wisely he does not directly go from "function" to "Person", lest his deceit stands out too much.

Erroneous; it has happened. Previously the gentiles had not heard of God and His salvation. But after the apostles and their fellow-laborers had gone through the world, preaching the gospel, many have heard that, which was unknown to them previously. You may read this in Romans 15:20,21. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: 21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

Since his previous statement already was in error, and this statement builds on the previous one, also this one is false. Further, this second statement falsifies his first one. Here he says: "Is there anyone in the world who has not heard of the story of J and the claims made about him?" So everybody has heard it. Yet, before he wrote, "This recognition and astonishment of verse 15 has not occurred yet". Now, how is it, Shulman: have they heard it or not?

The answer is that, what had not been told them they have seen; and that which they had not heard they have considered. Previously they didn't know it, but presently the gospel is preached throughout the world. At the receipt of the gospel there was and is great astonishment. How it is possible that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16.

No, it's about the gentiles, as the text says, So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him.

This above saying is entirely superfluous. The great astonishment has already happened when the gospel was preached to the gentiles. But this above saying is based upon the statement that the astonishment has not yet taken place: an erroneous statement.

The text says that the servant is a "man of sorrows". In Hebrew this is an "'ish mach'ovot". What does this word mean? What is an "'ish mach'ovot", a man of sorrows? By comparison with other places it will become clear what it means. We will go through some texts and see whether this sorrow is of a spiritual or a physical nature, or of both.

From these texts it appears that a man of sorrows, an 'isch mach'ovot, is a man that suffers both spiritual and physical sufferings and pains. And so it works in a human. We know that when somebody has pain in his body, also his spirit is troubled. Body and spirit are connected together.

Other text that prove that Jesus suffered both spiritual and physical pain, are Luke 19:41,47; 22:28; John 8:46. See also the next texts.

He was a man of sorrows, and "acquainted with sickness" (wiydu'a choliy). We know that Jesus was very well known with sickness. In all places where He came, the sick came unto Him, and He healed them. He had compassion on the sick and healed them. And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick. (Matthew 14:14) When somebody pities another, he does so because he sees and knows the sorrows that person bears. He is acquainted with their sorrows and sicknesses. Rightly it is said of Jesus Christ that He was "acquainted with sickness", for during His whole ministry on earth He was often occupied with the sick.

He says, "stricken by the Romans", intimating that the words "stricken of God" only apply to His crucifixion. Why only His crucifixion and not the rest of His life? But even when we restrict His being stricken of God to only the crucifixion, then it is still possible to say that Jesus was stricken of God. Though the Romans nailed Him to the cross, yet God works also through those human actions. Yes, Jesus was stricken of God.

Further, the statement that Jesus was stricken by the Romans is only true when it does not exclude that the Jews also struck Him. See Matthew 26:65-68. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. 67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

There are no sources? Certainly there are sources. Matthew 26:65,66. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. They said Jesus was guilty of death because He had, according to their wrong view, blasphemed.

Certainly this was the view of the Jews. The text in Isaiah means that we (the Jews) thought He was stricken of God because of His Own sins. But we were in error. He was not stricken because of His, but because of our sins. Note that the verse in Isaiah says that he was considered stricken of G-d. This means that He was not really stricken of God; we only meant it, though erroneous. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4).

Some more proofs that they esteemed Him smitten of God follow here.

1. Jesus was crucified, hanged on the tree. And one that is hanged is accursed of God. Every observant Jew did know that. The hanged is cursed of God, or stricken and smitten of God. See Deuteronomy 21:23: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; for he that is hanged is accursed of God. Not without reason Jesus is called in the later literature: "the hanged", or with other words "the cursed of God".

2. It was a general accepted thought, when somebody received an uncommon punishment, that he then was a great sinner. See Luke 13:1-5 for this idea. There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

This is a wrong representation of the matters. Shulman says that only the inherited sin of Adam needed atonement, and no other sin. This is not right. The truth is that not only the inherited sin of Adam needed atonement, but also the individual sins. Therefore it is rightly said that He was stricken for the sin of 'my people', meaning in this text the Jews.

The next texts clearly show that Jesus has died for our sins, and not merely for Adam's sins.

Now we have read these New Testament testimonies, let us read again what Isaiah said. What does the prophet say? For the transgression of my people was he stricken. (Isaiah 53:8) We see to our great joy that Isaiah precisely says the same as the quotes of the New Testament. Again does it appear that the New Testament is based upon the Old Testament.

I am commending Shulman that he, as a Jew, finally does admit that the suffering of the Servant of God was for sin. By the way, also the New Testament does say that. Again agreement.

That also the suffering of Christ atoned, besides His death, appears from this. Christ has borne the punishment for the transgressors, namely through His death. But He also has done the good works, which the transgressors were obliged to do, but had neglected. This happened during His whole life on earth.

An example may clarify this. When one has stolen $ 1,000,000,000,000, and he is put to death for that, then He still hasn't settled the matter with the owner of the money. The money ought also to be paid back to the legitimate owner. The same is it with Christ. When He was put to death for our sins, then He still hadn't settled the matter with the LORD. The obedience due should also be paid. And this is that which Christ did during His whole life on earth.

By the way, there are many Christian groups, whose doctrine would surely fall for the criticism of Shulman. We see how important it is that we have sound and pure doctrine. This is emphasized here again.

It should be noted first that the translation Shulman gives is not entirely correct. The Hebrew has: "wayiten et-resha'im kivro". When Shulman this translates as "His grave is with the wicked", then the subject is missing. This subject is included in the word "wayiten": he gave, or it gave, or one gave. A right translation would therefore be, "and one made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His deaths" (Isaiah 53:9). These words exactly tell what happened in the New Testament. "One made His grave with the wicked". This happened in the New Testament. For they had appointed His grave to be with the wicked, namely on the place where He was crucified. When Jesus had died, they intended to bury Him on the place called Golgotha, also called a place of a skull. They intended to bury Him there together with all the wicked people that already lay buried there. So, "one made His grave with the wicked". Then Isaiah continues: "and with the rich in His deaths". That means, everything went differently then they had appointed and prepared. For Jesus' body, that was destined to be buried with the wicked on Golgotha, was taken off the cross, and laid in the grave of a rich man. See this history Matthew 27:57-60. When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: 58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. 59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. Certainly, Isaiah's words are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

As already said, this translation is not correct. The subject is lacking. A right translation is" "and one had given His grave with the wicked". So, they had given His grave with the wicked, but their desire was not carried through. So His grave was not with the wicked, but they had appointed so. Shulman gives a wrong translation, and then begins to draw wrong conclusions.

Shulman is quoting Isaiah 11:10. Here is the text. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. It clearly does appear that this prophecy does not speak of His death in the grave. By the way, this death was also glorious, for it was with the rich. It does appear that the prophecy does not speak of Jesus' death in the grave, but it speaks of the rest of the Messiah. Not the rest wherein He lies, but the rest that comes forth from Him; the rest He gives to the gentiles that seek Him. According to the text, the gentiles shall seek Him, and when they have found Him they experience that the rest He gives is glorious. Everybody who has found the "root of Jesse", will experience that His rest is glorious.

Shulman mixed up two texts. He compares two saying that are not related but separated. And then He draws the wrong conclusion. Isaiah 53 speaks about His sufferings, but Isaiah 11 of His elevation and glory. Isaiah 53 says that they had appointed His grave on Golgotha, and Isaiah 11 says that they, that have found the Messiah, will experience that His rest is glorious. All these elements are found in the Christian doctrine of the Messiah. Through His sufferings He came to glory; and all that found Him experience His glorious rest.

We will see if "seed" (Hebrew zerah), when that is applied to humans, does only refer to their physical descendants. After investigation this appears to be so in the majority of the cases. But there are some exceptions. Here the exceptions follow:

They speak about a seed of holiness, about seed of falsehood, and about seed of God. Here we speak not about physical descendants of holiness, physical descendants of falsehood, and physical descendants of God. But these are abstract ways of speaking.

The word "seed" is also used as a collectivity. With the seed of Israel is then meant all the people that descend from Israel. See this in an example.

As for the verb to sow, that is not used only for material seed. One can also sow wind; one can sow righteousness; one can sow iniquity and reap vanity; one can sow sin. See some examples.

It is no problem to indicate the children of God with "God's seed". We've seen that above. Likewise we can indicate the children who are spiritually born or born again from Christ, with the words, Christ's children, or Christ's seed. In short: "He shall see seed"; that is: Christ will see His descendants, His spiritual children.

Isaiah 53 teaches that the suffering Servant of the LORD will see offspring. Does the New Testament also say that? Surely it does. See the examples. One can be a son of the kingdom; one can be a child of God, i.e. born of God. The natural children are called the seed of a father, and have received life from that person. Likewise has a spiritual child received life from God, and so belongs to God's seed.

We again see that the New Testament teaches the same as Isaiah 53.

Instead of explaining if of disciples, it would be better that Christians explain it as children. Children are born of God. Being born of somebody corresponds better to the word seed. De real meaning of seed is, children who are born from Him. So we speak of the children of Jesus, who are born again by Him.

Shulman compares the word ben (son) with the word zerah (seed). But this comparison is not possible in this context. Why is that? Because the verses speak about the ben of the house, and not of Abraham; and about the zerah of Abraham, and not of the house. Shulman may try to prove that zerah refers to children, but he will not succeed in proving that only physical children are meant. Also, since we explain the seed of the suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 of His children, any proof Shulman produces is in our advantage.

There is an error in the last part of the translation Shulman gives. He translates the Hebrew words "zerah sheker" as "the offspring of liars". The word sheker is in the singular, but he translates it as liars, in the plural. This is error number one. The second error is that sheker cannot be translated as liar(s). The word means lie, deception, disappointment, falsehood; not liar. The most literal translation is then: seed of falsehood. Another possible translation is false seed. The most literal translation, seed of falsehood, shows us that seed can refer to spiritual offspring. But does one prefer the other translation, false seed, then seed refers to physical offspring.

Clarification: contingent means dependent on. With this I agree. Look to the verse. "If thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see seed, he shall prolong days." or: "If his soul shall have make itself an offering for sin, he shall see seed, he shall prolong days."

Shulman makes these words refer to Jesus' divine nature. Then he continues to say that a divine nature cannot be prolonged. His conclusion is then that this verse of Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. But the error lies herein, that he makes the words refer to the divine nature. This is wrong. The words do not refer to Christ's divine nature, but to His human nature. The context requires this. Look to the first part of the verse. "If thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin". Without doubt making His soul an offering for sin refers to the human nature. Then follows: "he shall see seed, he shall prolong days". Since the first part refers to the human nature, also the second part does. The days of Christ's human nature can be prolonged. And we know that this did happen. After His death He arose again. He says of Himself: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death (Revelation 1:18).

Well said. This long live does not refer to the divine nature. That's what I am asserting. It refers to Christ's human nature. His soul has made itself an offering for sin. This happened in His human nature. The connection of the text requires that also the following verses refer to His human nature. The whole chapter speaks of the suffering of the Servant of the LORD. The Person of the Mediator did not suffer in His divine nature, but only in His human nature. All things, which we read in this chapter, should be explained of His human nature.

He indeed died quote young, namely to make "His soul an offering for sin", but after that "He prolonged days". It does perfectly agree. Do not make problems, Shulman, where are no problems. 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. (Isaiah 53:10) "He will prolong days" simply means that He, after He is killed, lives on. Surely, Jesus is lengthening His days. He will go on living. This is called "He will prolong days".

In the following examples you can see that "to prolong days" means nothing else then "to live on". So Jesus, after He had offered up His soul, lived on. Here you have the examples showing that to prolong days means to live on.

Correction: the Hebrew does not have ki, but im-, which means if. If thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see seed, verse 10.

There was no choice. Also the text allows not for a choice. For it does not offer another option. It just says, if this happens, then that follows.

There is something to say concerning the conditional 'im (if). When this conditional if is used of men (if he does this, then that will happen), then it is possible that the condition is not fulfilled, and that also the consequence does not come to pass. But when it is said of God (if He does this, then that will happen), then no doubt is possible. Some examples prove this.

First example

Compare both verses; verse 15 en 20. In verse 15 God promises that He will be with Jacob. Yet Jacob uses, in the 20th verse, the conditional 'im. It is not so that there is some doubt in Jacob. For a few verses ago God has promised it. So he does not doubt, but yet uses the word 'im. Therefore it must be interpreted as "God has promised it, but when I indeed will see the promise fulfilled, then I will…". So there is no doubt; yet the conditional 'im is used. If God will be with me.

Second example

Elijah says: 'im Adonai ha'elohim. It is not so that he doubts that. He is wholly sure of it. But he means something like: "if according to you the LORD is God, then follow Him".

Both these examples use 'im for God, without doubting but one moment that the condition would be fulfilled. If these things are so then also we need not doubt the fulfillment of the condition in Isaiah 53. The more because it is a prophecy. And we also need not doubt it because verse 11 continues to assume that it will happen.

Shulman keeps explaining the verses of Jesus' Godhead. But as soon as one will begin to understand that the verses speak of Jesus as a Servant of the LORD, then everything is in harmony. It pleased the Lord to smite Him, namely the Servant of God. The Servant is in a certain degree different from the Godhead, though He is not separated from the Godhead. The idea of that it pleased to Lord to smite the Servant does not in the least degree contradict the trinity.

I know Jesus will teach His people to be righteous. But this is not the most simple sense and translation of the Hebrew verse. See below for a more detailed explanation.

Here is some deceit. It does not say that He will bring the people to righteousness "by His knowledge and teaching", but by His knowledge only. Moreover this does not exclude His suffering, death or blood. Shulman however seems to exclude this. But there is no need for it in the text.

Also the translation Shulman gives is not the simplest sense. The Hebrew has:

Shulman said: It is his knowledge and teaching that brings people to righteousness. Against this are the following objections.

1. He says that it is His knowledge and teaching. But the word "teaching" is not in the text.

2. It cannot be interpreted in this way, that He brings people to righteousness, in the sense that they will act justly, and merely by that will be righteous. Then it would be the act of these people. But the text speaks about yatzdik, to make righteous, as an act of the Servant.

3. It should be interpreted just as the text says. De Servant will make the people righteous by His knowledge. Evidently they were unrighteous. But through His knowledge they are made righteous. This is no work of the people, but it is the work of the Servant. The people occur as passive objects here, to whom happens something: they are made righteous.

4. Right after that it is explained how that making righteous takes place. How does that take place? He shall bear their iniquities, says the text. Their iniquities are borne through the Servant. By that the original transgressors are saved from it, and are made righteous in that way.

In short, Shulman gives a twisted and distorted explanation. It's an explanation according to the Jewish errors, and an explanation against the text of Isaiah.

Translated this is:

That Jesus has defeated the strong ones, and that their property belongs to Him, is patently obvious from the following texts.

Well said. Jesus does appear as the Servant of God, distinguished from God. And as already said, Isaiah speaks in these verses about the suffering of Christ, not according to His divine nature, but according to His human nature. And in that human nature He indeed was subjected to God. As a Mediator He stood between God and men. This is what Isaiah says here. "And he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12)

This is wrong. Every word of Isaiah 53 is clearly fulfilled by Him. Saying He did not clearly fulfill Isaiah 53 rests on a misrepresentation of the Christian doctrines, or on inaccurate reading of the New Testament. Surely, He has fulfilled everything very clear.

All the details of the prophecy are fulfilled by Jesus Christ. He is the Servant of God.