In the recent video, there was a large amount of conversation surrounding Isaiah 53. I didn’t address one of the arguments they presented for their misunderstanding of Isaiah 53. I have interacted with some of the criticisms, but this one hasn’t come up and I’d figure I would try to beat anyone to it.
They quote from Matthew 8:14-17 to establish that Jesus didn’t die as a legal substitute:
14 Jesus went into Peter’s house and saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15 So he touched her hand, and the fever left her. Then she got up and began to serve him. 16 When evening came, they brought to him many who were demon-possessed. He drove out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick, 17 so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
He himself took our weaknesses
and carried our diseases.
This cites Isa 53:4 as being fulfilled:
Yet he himself bore our sicknesses,
and he carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
Firstly, we should note that Matthew has a particular way he uses the term fulfill. It isn’t always used in a prophetic sense but sometimes takes an interesting function in Matthew’s usage:
Untutored Christians are prone to think of prophecy and fulfillment as something not very different from straightforward propositional prediction and fulfillment. A close reading of the NT reveals that prophecy is more complex than that. The epistle to the Hebrews, for instance, understands the Levitical sacrificial system to be prophetic of Christ’s sacrifice, Melchizedek to point to Jesus as High Priest, and so on. In Matthew we are told that Jesus’ return from Egypt fulfills the OT text that refers to the Exodus (2: 15); the weeping of the mothers of Bethlehem fulfills Jeremiah’s reference to Rachel’s weeping for her children in Ramah; the priests’ purchase of a field for thirty pieces of silver fulfills Scriptures describing actions performed by Jeremiah and Zechariah (27: 9); and, in one remarkable instance, Jesus’ move to Nazareth fulfills “what was said through the prophets” even though no specific text appears to be in mind (2: 23). Add to this one other major peculiarity. A number (variously estimated between ten and fourteen) of Matthew’s OT quotations are introduced by a fulfillment formula characterized by a passive form of plēroō (“ fulfill,” GK 4444) and a text form rather more removed from the LXX than other OT quotations. These “formula quotations” are all asides of the evangelist, his own reflections (hence the widely used German word for them, Reflexionszitate). What explains these phenomena? …
The verb plēroō (“ fulfill”) is discussed in the commentary (see comments at 2: 15 and esp. 5: 17); but when it refers to fulfilling Scripture, it does not lose all teleological force except in rare and well-defined situations. Opinion varies as to exactly how these OT Scriptures point forward. Sometimes the OT passages cited are plainly or at least plausibly messianic. Often the relation between prophecy and fulfillment is typological: Jesus, it is understood, must in some ways recapitulate the experience of Israel or of David. Jesus must undergo wilderness testing and call out twelve sons of Israel as apostles. Even the kind of typology varies considerably. Yet the perception remains constant that the OT was preparing the way for Christ, anticipating him, pointing to him, leading up to him. When we ask how much of this forward-looking or “prophetic” aspect in what the OT writers wrote was recognized by them, the answer must vary with the particular text. But tentative, nuanced judgments are possible, even in the most difficult cases (see comments at 1: 23; 2: 15, 17– 18, 23; 4: 15– 16; 5: 17; 8: 16– 17; 11: 10– 11; 12: 18– 21; 13: 13– 15; 21: 4– 5, 16, 42; 22: 44; 26: 31; 27: 9). Care in such formulations will help us perceive the deep ties that bind together the OT and NT.
Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 2411-2464). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
This plays an important role in reading Matthew’s gospel:
http://spirited-tech.com/2018/07/18/the-law-and-the-new-testament-2/
http://spirited-tech.com/2018/06/21/robert-rowe-on-sensus-plenior/
Warren and his friend are merely assuming that this is a one-to-one fulfillment, but we can see that Matthews use makes it difficult to assume such. Furthermore, Warren recognizes that Isaiah 53 is filled with comments about Christ’s death. If Warren’s interpretation was correct, then Isa 53 isn’t about Christ’s death but his healing ministry. The alternative is that Jesus’ healing ministry is a foretaste of the heavenly kingdom that is inaugurated with his death.
This quotation is Isaiah 53: 4. Matthew’s rendering does not follow LXX or Targum, both of which spiritualize the Hebrew. Most likely, v. 17 is Matthew’s own translation of the Hebrew (Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 106– 7). Because Isaiah 52: 13– 53: 12, the fourth “Servant Song,” pictures the Servant suffering vicariously for others, whereas, on the face of it, Matthew renders the Hebrew in such a way as to speak of “taking” and “carrying” physical infirmities and physical diseases but not in terms of suffering vicariously for sin, many detect in this passage strong evidence that Matthew cites the OT in an indefensible and idiosyncratic fashion. McConnell (Law and Prophecy, 120) sees this as another instance of Matthew’s using an OT passage out of context for his own ends (cf. Rothfuchs, Erfüllungszitate, 70– 72). McNeile suggests Isaiah 53: 4 had already become detached from its context when Matthew used it.
There are, however, better ways of interpreting this passage: 1. It is generally understood since the work of C. H. Dodd (According to the Scriptures [London: Nisbet, 1952]) that when the NT quotes a brief OT passage, it often refers implicitly to the entire context of the quotation. This is very likely here, for Matthew has a profound understanding of the OT. Moreover, Isaiah 53: 7 is probably alluded to in Matthew 27: 12, Isaiah 53: 9 in 27: 57, and Isaiah 53: 10– 12 in 20: 28, the last in a context affirming vicarious atonement theology. Any interpretation of v. 17 that does not take into account the thrust of the entire Servant Song is therefore dubious.
2. Both Scripture and Jewish tradition understand that all sickness is caused, directly or indirectly, by sin (see comments at 4: 24; cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 230– 31). This encourages us to look for a deeper connection between v. 17 and Isaiah 53: 4.
3. Isaiah is thinking of the servant’s “taking the diseases of others upon himself through his suffering and death for their sin” (Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 230). The two verbs he uses are nāśā ʾ (“ took up [our infirmities]”) and sebālām (“ carried [our sorrows]”), which do not themselves necessarily have the force of substitution, though they can be interpreted that way. The LXX spiritualizes “infirmities” to “sins”; and in this sense the verse is referred to in 1 Peter 2: 24 in defense of substitutionary atonement. That interpretation of the verse is legitimate because the flow of the Servant Song supports it. But strictly speaking, Isaiah 53: 4 simply speaks of the Servant’s bearing infirmities and carrying sicknesses; and it is only the context, plus the connection between sickness and sin, which shows that the way he bears the sickness of others is through his suffering and death.
4. Isaiah 53, as we have seen, is important among NT writers for understanding the significance of Jesus’ death (e.g., Ac 8: 32– 33; 1Pe 2: 24); but when Matthew here cites Isaiah 53: 4, at first glance he applies it only to Jesus’ healing ministry, not to his death. But in the light of the three preceding points, the discrepancy is resolved if Matthew holds that Jesus’ healing ministry is itself a function of his substitutionary death, by which he lays the foundation for destroying sickness. Matthew’s two verbs, contrary to some opinion, exactly render the Hebrew: the Servant “took up” (elaben, GK 3284) our infirmities and “carried” (ebastasen, GK 1002) our diseases (Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 109, 111). Matthew could not have used the LXX and still referred to physical disease. Yet his own rendering of the Hebrew, far from wrenching Isaiah 53: 4 out of context, indicates his profound grasp of the theological connection between Jesus’ healing ministry and the cross.
5. That connection is supported by various collateral arguments. The prologue insists Jesus came to save his people from their sin, and this within the context of the coming of the kingdom. When Jesus began his ministry, he not only proclaimed the kingdom but healed the sick (see comments at 4: 24). Healing and forgiveness are tied together, not only in a pericope such as 9: 1– 8, but by the fact that the consummated kingdom, in which there is no sickness, is made possible by Jesus’ death and the new covenant that his death enacted (26: 27– 29). Thus the healings during Jesus’ ministry can be understood not only as the foretaste of the kingdom but also as the fruit of Jesus’ death. It could be that Matthew also judges Isaiah 53: 4 appropriate because it seems to form a transition from the Servant’s being despised to his suffering and death. Certainly at least some rabbinic tradition understood Isaiah 53: 4 to refer to physical disease (cf. Str-B, 1: 481– 82).
6. This means that for Matthew, Jesus’ healing miracles pointed beyond themselves to the cross. In this, he is like the evangelist John, whose “signs” similarly point beyond themselves.
7. But even here there is a deeper connection than first meets the eye. These miracles (ch. 8) have been framed to emphasize Jesus’ authority. This authority was never used to satisfy himself (cf. 4: 1– 10). He healed the despised leper (8: 1– 4), a Gentile centurion’s servant who was hopelessly ill (vv. 5– 13), and other sick people (vv. 14– 15), no matter how many (vv. 16– 17). Thus when he gave his life as a ransom for many (20: 28), it was nothing less than an extension of the same authority directed toward the good of others (cf. Hill, “Son and Servant,” 9, 11, who also points out how reductionistic Kingsbury’s “Son of God” Christology is in light of such intertwining themes). Jesus’ death reflected the intermingling of authority and servanthood already noted (e.g., 3: 17) and now progressively developed. After all, following the momentous miracles of vv. 1– 17, the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head (v. 20). Despite the stupendous signs of kingdom advance, the royal King and Suffering Servant faced increasingly bitter opposition. The Father had committed everything to him, but he was gentle and humble in heart (11: 27, 29). This moving theme needs to be traced out inductively (cf. B. Gerhardsson, “Gottes Sohn als Diener Gottes: Messias, Agape und Himmelherrschaft nach dem Matthäus-evangelium,” ST 27 [1973]: 73– 106). If the Davidic Messiah of Jewish expectation (Pss. Sol. 17: 6) purifies his people by annihilating sinners, Matthew’s Davidic Messiah– Suffering Servant purifies his people with his death, takes on himself their diseases, and opens fellowship to sinners (cf. Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 124– 25).
Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 8363-8412). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
The Council 