Vicarious Atonement in Isaiah 53?

This will be my final post on Fredrik Hagglund's Isaiah 53 in the Light of Homecoming and Exile. For my previous posts on this book, see here, and here.

As we've seen in my previous posts, Hagglund argues that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the exiled Jews, whereas the speakers in the chapter---the ones who reflect on how the Servant was good and suffered unjustly, whereas they were bad---are the Jews who stayed behind in Palestine.

Hagglund does not believe that the Servant atones for the sins of the speakers by suffering (or dying) vicariously for them. Indeed, he believes that the Servant suffers vicariously: the exiled Jews suffered in exile, whereas the Jews who stayed behind in Palestine did not experience God's punishment, even though they deserved it. But Hagglund denies that the vicarious suffering of the exiled Jews had any atoning value, in the eyes of the author of Isaiah 53. For Hagglund, the message of Second Isaiah is that God forgives Israel for his own sake (Isaiah 48:11), and because Israel is precious to him (Isaiah 43:4), not because God was appeased by the sacrifice of the Servant.

How, then, does Hagglund deal with certain verses in Isaiah 53 that appear to imply that the Servant is atoning for the sins of others? Like R.N. Whybray, Hagglund holds that v 5 means that the Servant was wounded from (as a result of) the transgressions of the speakers, not for them. According to Hagglund's interpretation, on account of the sins of the Israelites in the land, God punished the nation with exile, which innocent Israelites experienced. As far as Hagglund is concerned, when v 5 says that "in his stripes there is healing for us," that does not mean that the speakers were healed through the atonement brought about by the Servant's stripes; rather, the speakers are expressing awe that the innocent Servant was being beaten, whereas they (the guilty ones) were being healed. For Hagglund, the stripes do not cause the healing; rather, the speakers are contrasting their own situation with that of the Servant.

When v 6 says that the LORD laid on the Servant the aon of us all, Hagglund interprets that to mean that the Servant is suffering the consequences of the speakers' iniquity (aon can mean iniquity and the punishment for it), not that the Servant is atoning for the speakers.

When v 10 says that the Servant will be an asham, Hagglund views that as "guilt," not "guilt offering." On page 72, Hagglund appears to suggest that v 10 means that the speakers once viewed the Servant as guilty, but they have changed their minds. Hagglund also disagrees with the view that v 11 means that the Servant will justify many; appealing to Isaiah 50:8, Hagglund says that Isaiah 53:11 should be translated as "the righteous one, my servant, will show himself righteous before the many." Hagglund views yatzdiq as an internal hiphil (cp. Psalm 35:26; II Chronicles 26:8---which Waltke and O' Connor cite).

Hagglund disagrees with the view that v 12 means that the Servant will intercede for the transgressors, for he notes that the Servant of Isaiah 53 is silent, which (for Hagglund) precludes him praying to God on behalf of the speakers. Hagglund translates that part of v 12 to say that the Servant "intervened for the transgressors," which (for Hagglund) means that the Servant "has suffered the consequences of the actions of others, in spite of what...the servant [has] done for these others" (80). But I'm not sure what Hagglund believes the Servant has done for the others. Hagglund's point seems to be that the Servant suffered unjustly, but, in Hagglund's scenario, his suffering had no atoning value. Then again, Hagglund does make the point that the Servant's suffering has provoked the speakers to recognize and confess their own sin and to turn to God. That sounds to me like a "moral influence" view of the atonement!

That brings me to my next point: I don't understand one of Hagglund's interpretations. On page 94, Hagglund says regarding v 11 (in which the Servant bears iniquities):

""...Isaiah 53 describes the people in exile as a sheep that transports the sins from the land, just as the scapegoat in Lev 16:22, who bears away the sins of the people. Isa 53 is not a scapegoat ritual. The similarity lies in the removal of guilt from the community and not in a vicarious or atoning suffering."

So is Hagglund saying that the Servant performed an act of atonement, in that he carried the guilt of Israel away from the land? That doesn't mesh with Hagglund's view that, in Second Isaiah, God forgave Israel unilaterally---out of his love for Israel and a regard for his own name, not in response to an act of atonement.

This was an interesting book to read. I like alternative ways of reading the text. But Hagglund doesn't convince me in a couple of areas.