The Suffering Servant Will See Light: Isaiah 53 and the Ancient Witness to Resurrection
Part 1: When the Dead Sea Scrolls Whispered “Resurrection” (Isaiah 53:11)
Hello brothers and sisters.
This is the first in a multi-part series exploring the significant differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and Masoretic Text (MT) in Isaiah 53, the so-called “Holy of Holies of the Old Testament,” the Bible’s most detailed prophecy of the Suffering Servant. We’ll examine how these ancient textual traditions preserve different theological nuances, and what this means for understanding the full scope of messianic prophecy.
There’s a single Hebrew word— just two letters, אור (‘or) —that changes everything about how we read Isaiah 53.
The word means “light.” And it’s probably missing from your English Bible.
Well, not entirely missing. If you’re reading a modern translation like the ESV, CSB, NIV, or NRSV, you’ll find it there in Isaiah 53:11. But look closely and you’ll see a footnote. That footnote is doing a lot of theological heavy lifting, because it’s telling you something remarkable: the resurrection of the Suffering Servant isn’t just implied in Isaiah 53, it was explicitly prophesied, in black and white Hebrew, almost 3,000 years ago.
Let me show you what I mean.
If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.
The Text Your Bible Probably Doesn’t Have
Open your Bible to Isaiah 53:11. Depending on your translation, you’ll see something like this:
ESV (following the Masoretic Text):
“Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied...”
Notice what’s missing? There’s no object for the verb “see.” He shall see... what? The sentence just hangs there, grammatically incomplete. Most English translations smooth this over by adding “it” in italics (indicating it’s not in the Hebrew), or they follow the ancient versions and add “light.”
But here’s where it gets interesting. Check your footnotes. The ESV footnote says:
“Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls he shall see light“
Wait. The Dead Sea Scrolls say something different than the Masoretic Text?
Yes. And it’s not just the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Ancient Conspiracy of Four Witnesses
When textual critics examined Isaiah 53:11, they discovered something unusual: four independent ancient sources all agree against the traditional Masoretic Text.
Here’s the lineup:
1. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaª) - c. 125 B.C.
The oldest complete manuscript of Isaiah ever found, discovered in Cave 1 at Qumran. Written over a century before Christ was born, this scroll clearly reads:
יראה אור (yir’eh ‘or) = “he will see light“
2. Another Qumran Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵇ) - c. 100-75 B.C.
A second, fragmentary Isaiah manuscript from Cave 1, independently preserving the same reading: “he will see light.”
3. Yet Another Qumran Fragment (4QIsaᵈ) - c. 150-125 B.C.
A third witness from Cave 4, again reading “light.”
4. The Septuagint (LXX) - c. 250-150 B.C.
The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, made by Jewish scholars in Alexandria centuries before Christ. While the LXX translates somewhat freely here, the underlying Hebrew text it worked from clearly contained the word “light,” as the Greek conveys the idea: “to show him light” (δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς).
So we have three Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran spanning roughly 150-75 B.C., plus the Hebrew parent text behind the Greek Septuagint (even older), all agreeing: Isaiah 53:11 originally read “he will see light.”
The Masoretic Text? It’s alone. And it’s roughly 1,000 years younger than these witnesses.
What Does “Seeing Light” Mean?
In Hebrew idiom, “to see light” is a metaphor for being alive; or more precisely, for experiencing life after death.
This isn’t obscure symbolism. It’s used throughout the Hebrew Bible with remarkable consistency:
Job 3:16 - Job laments that he wasn’t like a miscarried child “who never saw light“ (i.e., never lived)
Job 33:28, 30 - Elihu describes God’s redemptive work: God “redeemed his soul from going down to the pit, and his life shall see light.” This is clearly speaking of deliverance from death
Psalm 49:19 - The wicked “will never see light“ (i.e., they face eternal death)
Psalm 56:13 (LXX 55:13) - “You have delivered my soul from death... that I may walk before God in the light of life“
The pattern is unmistakable: to see light = to have life, especially life after death.
When Isaiah 53:11 says the Suffering Servant, after his soul-anguish, after being “cut off from the land of the living” (53:8), after making “his grave with the wicked” (53:9), will “see light,” there’s only one thing this can mean:
Resurrection.
Why Did the Masoretic Text Lose “Light”?
If the reading “he will see light” is original— which is attested by multiple ancient Hebrew manuscripts —how did the Masoretic Text end up without it?
The answer is almost certainly scribal error, not theological tampering. Here’s why:
The Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:11 would have looked like this (reading right to left):
יראה אור
yir’eh ‘or
“he will see light”
Now notice: the word for “he will see” (יראה) and the word for “light” (אור) share some visual similarity in ancient Hebrew scripts. More importantly, the word “light” (אור) is extremely short, being just two letters.
A scribe’s eye could easily skip from יראה directly to the next word, accidentally omitting the tiny אור. This type of copying error— called haplography (writing something once that should be written twice) or parablepsis (eye-skip) —is well-documented in ancient manuscripts.
Textual critic Dominique Barthélemy concluded: “It is more likely that the small word ‘light’ was lost in the MT tradition because of scribal error rather than the reading being a secondary addition.”
The Dead Sea Scrolls, being centuries older than the Masoretic manuscripts, preserve what was accidentally lost in the medieval Hebrew tradition.
The Theological Earthquake
Now let’s talk about why this matters.
Isaiah 53 has always been recognized as a prophecy of death and vindication. The Servant suffers, dies, is buried… and then something happens. But the nature of that “something” has been debated for centuries:
Jewish interpretation (especially post-Christian): The Servant represents corporate Israel, and the “vindication” is national restoration
Christian interpretation: The Servant is the Messiah (Jesus), and the vindication is... well, that’s where it gets interesting
Without the word “light,” the resurrection is implied but not explicit:
Masoretic Text (without “light”):
“Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see [?] and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous...” (Isaiah 53:11)
The servant’s ongoing work (”make many righteous”) suggests he’s alive somehow, but you have to infer the resurrection.
Original Text (with “light”):
“Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see light and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous...”
Now it’s crystal clear: After death, the Servant sees light (he lives again). And from that post-resurrection position, he justifies many.
This is no longer inference. It’s explicit prophecy of resurrection, written centuries before Christ’s birth.
The Apostolic Reading
And here’s where it gets really interesting: The Apostle Paul appears to have known this reading.
Look at Romans 4:24-25, where Paul summarizes the gospel:
“It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”
Notice the structure:
Death → for our trespasses
Resurrection → for our justification
Now look at Isaiah 53:11-12 with “light” restored:
“Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see light and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.”
The logic:
Death → he bore their iniquities
Resurrection (”see light”) → he makes many righteous
The parallel is exact. Paul’s theology of justification-through-resurrection follows the very structure of Isaiah 53:11 with the word “light” included.
This isn’t coincidence. Paul used the Septuagint as his primary Old Testament text. The Septuagint’s Hebrew parent text contained “light.” Paul read it, understood it, and built his resurrection theology on it.
The same pattern appears in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4:
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.”
What “Scriptures” predict both the Messiah’s death and resurrection? Isaiah 53 is the only passage that does both explicitly; but only if you include verse 11’s “he will see light.”
Why Your Translation Probably Has It (But You Didn’t Know)
Most modern translations have adopted the Qumran/LXX reading. Here’s a sampling:
CSB: “After his anguish, he will see light and be satisfied.”
NIV: “After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied.”
NRSV: “Out of his anguish he shall see light.”
NASB: “As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied.” (Note: NASB adds “it” in italics, but the footnote says “Some ancient versions read ‘see light’”)
ESV: “Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied.” (Footnote: “Dead Sea Scroll he shall see light“)
So the scholarly consensus is clear: the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:11 included the word “light,” explicitly prophesying the Servant’s resurrection.
Why don’t more people know about this? Because we don’t read footnotes. We assume our English Bible perfectly reflects the Hebrew, not realizing that sometimes the Hebrew traditions themselves differ, and textual criticism has to adjudicate between competing ancient witnesses.
In this case, the Dead Sea Scrolls— being a thousand years older —win.
The Pattern of Death and Light
Once you see “light” in Isaiah 53:11, you start noticing how it fits the broader pattern of Isaiah’s theology.
Isaiah 9:2 - “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; those dwelling in the land of the shadow of death, upon them light has shined.”
Isaiah 42:6-7 - “I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon...”
Isaiah 49:6 - “I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
Isaiah 60:1-3 - “Arise, shine, for your light has come... The LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. And nations shall come to your light...”
Light imagery saturates Isaiah’s messianic prophecies. The Servant brings light to the nations, opens blind eyes, releases prisoners from darkness. How fitting that after his own journey through the valley of the shadow of death— after the “anguish of his soul” —the Servant himself sees light.
The one who brings light experiences light. The one who dies to bring life receives life.
What This Means for Reading Isaiah 53
When you restore “he will see light” to Isaiah 53:11, the entire chapter snaps into sharper focus:
Verses 1-3: The Servant is rejected, despised, a man of sorrows
Verses 4-6: He bears our griefs, carries our sorrows, is wounded for our transgressions
Verses 7-9: He is oppressed, afflicted, led like a lamb to slaughter, cut off from the land of the living, and buried with the wicked
Verses 10-12: “Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him... if he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, prolong his days, and the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see light and be satisfied. By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, because he poured out his soul to death...”
Do you see it? The narrative arc is complete:
Rejection (vv. 1-3)
Vicarious suffering (vv. 4-6)
Death (vv. 7-9: “cut off,” “buried”)
Resurrection (v. 11: “see light“)
Exaltation and justification of many (vv. 11-12)
This is the gospel in the Old Testament. Not hidden in types and shadows. Not requiring elaborate allegorical interpretation. Just... there. In plain Hebrew. Written down centuries before Jesus walked the earth.
The Christian Case Strengthened, Not Weakened
Some might worry: “If the Masoretic Text has an error, doesn’t that undermine biblical reliability?”
Quite the opposite.
The fact that we have multiple ancient Hebrew manuscripts that preserve a reading the later medieval manuscripts lost actually demonstrates the remarkable care with which the text was preserved across different transmission streams.
Think about it: The Dead Sea Scrolls were copied by a Jewish community at Qumran, isolated from the mainstream. The Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. The Masoretic Text was preserved by Jewish scribes in Babylon and later in Tiberias. These are independent textual traditions, geographically and temporally separated.
When all three agree (as they do in the vast majority of Isaiah 53), it confirms we’re reading what Isaiah actually wrote.
When the older witnesses (DSS + LXX) agree against the younger witness (MT) on a small detail that can easily be explained by scribal error, textual criticism functions exactly as it should: comparing manuscripts, weighing the evidence, and recovering the original reading.
This is why the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a gift to biblical studies. They allow us to check our homework. And in this case, they give us even stronger evidence for the resurrection prophecy than the medieval manuscripts alone provide.
Why This Matters for Your Faith
If you’re a Christian, here’s why you should care about two little Hebrew letters (אור):
1. The resurrection isn’t an afterthought. It was always part of the plan. Isaiah saw it. The earliest manuscripts preserve it. The Apostles preached it. This isn’t New Testament theology read back into the Old Testament, it’s Old Testament theology that the New Testament unfolds. As they say, the New Testament is in the Old Testament Concealed, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.
2. The Bible’s textual transmission is reliable and checkable. We’re not at the mercy of a single manuscript tradition. We can compare, we can test, we can recover original readings. Faith doesn’t require blind trust—it invites investigation.
3. The prophecy is even more specific than you thought. A suffering Messiah who dies for sins and then rises from the dead isn’t inferred from Isaiah 53. It’s stated. Explicitly. In Hebrew. Centuries before Jesus was born.
If you’re not a Christian but you’re curious about the historical evidence for Jesus’s messiahship, here’s what should give you pause:
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove beyond doubt that Isaiah 53— including its explicit resurrection prophecy —was written more than a century before Jesus lived (and study of the language and grammar of the text suggests it is significantly older than that. The most conservative scholarly estimates are that it was completed no later than the 5th century B.C.). So this isn’t Christian propaganda edited into the text. This is Jewish Scripture, preserved by Jews, in Jewish communities, predicting a figure who would:
Be rejected by his people
Suffer vicariously for their sins
Die and be buried
See light (rise from the dead)
Justify many by his knowledge
And then, in the first century, a Jewish rabbi from Nazareth fulfilled it.
You can dismiss that as coincidence if you want (along with the hundreds of messianic prophecies he fulfilled though?). But you can’t dismiss it as a later Christian invention. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that it existed long before Christ.
A Final Word on Textual Criticism
Before we close, I want to address something that might be bothering some readers:
If we’re saying the Masoretic Text got something wrong, aren’t we undermining Sola Scriptura? Aren’t we elevating scholarship above Scripture?
Not at all. Here’s the distinction:
The original text of Scripture is inerrant. What Isaiah originally wrote in Hebrew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was true and without error. Just as each writer who contributed to Scripture did.
Manuscript copies, being made by humans, can contain copying errors. This doesn’t impugn Scripture’s authority, it merely acknowledges the historical reality of how texts were transmitted before the printing press. Although the Jewish scribes were meticulous, they were not perfect.
Textual criticism doesn’t stand above Scripture; it serves Scripture by using the wealth of ancient manuscript evidence to recover what the original text said when multiple copies disagree.
In Isaiah 53:11, we’re not “correcting” God’s Word. We’re using older, better manuscripts to restore what was accidentally lost in later copies.
The irony? By accepting the Qumran reading “he will see light,” we’re actually strengthening the messianic, resurrection-focused interpretation that Christians have always championed. We’re not revising theology, we’re confirming it with better textual evidence.
For Further Reading
If you want to dig deeper into the textual criticism of Isaiah 53:11, here are some scholarly resources:
Peter Flint, “The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaª): A New Reading in Isa 53:11”
William Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible
Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 2: Isaïe
Eugene Ulrich (ed.), The Biblical Qumran Scrolls
Any major commentary on Isaiah that interacts with the Dead Sea Scrolls evidence
The scholarly consensus is strong: Isaiah 53:11 originally read “he will see light,” and this reading is now reflected in most modern English translations.
The resurrection was never an add-on. It was always the plan.
And the ancient witnesses— older than any complete Masoretic manuscript by a thousand years —are there to prove it.
Coming Up Next
In Part 2, we’ll tackle what might be the most significant difference between the LXX and MT in Isaiah 53: verse 10’s “crush” versus “cleanse.” Does God desire to punish the Servant, or to purify him? The two ancient traditions give dramatically different answers, and both can’t be right. Can they?
The theological implications here are huge. And as we’ll see, the Apostle Paul and the early Church Fathers had strong opinions about which reading was correct.
If you’ve found this helpful or insightful, please share it with a friend who loves Scripture as much as you do.
And if you want to go deeper with a full exploration of the “70 Weeks” of Daniel 9 and other exclusive content (including a deep exploration of idolatry, coming soon), consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support makes this work possible.
On the other hand, if you appreciate what I’m doing and want to support this work but aren’t interested in a membership, please consider buying me a coffee as a one-time show of support
© 2025 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.