The Servant's Suffering Was Substitutionary

From Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, “seven noteworthy features of the text that clarify the substitutionary character of the Servant’s suffering” in Isaiah 53:

1. The Servant is explicitly said to suffer ‘for’ others (pp. 54-56).
2. The suffering of the Servant brings great benefits to those for whom he suffers (pp. 56-57).
3. The Servant suffered willingly and deliberately, not as a passive victim of the actions of others (p. 58).
4. It is God himself who acts to lay the people’s sin upon the Servant and to punish him (pp. 58-59).
5. The suffering Servant is himself sinless and righteous (p. 59).
6. The Servant suffered not for his own sin, but for the sins of others (p. 60).
7. The phrase ‘guilt offering’ is used of  the suffering Servant (p. 61).

Putting it all together:

Plainly, Isaiah 53 teaches that God’s Servant willingly took the place of his people, bearing the penalty for their sins in order that they might escape punishment.

Several years ago I had a bloggy discussion/argument with someone over whether there was penal substitution in Isaiah 53. I tried to prove that there was, but I could have done a much better job if I’d read this book first. It seemed to me, way back then, that my opponent argued around the text rather than from it to make his points. You know, lots of reasons why doesn’t have to mean what it seems to mean, but no explanation of what it really does mean and why. It pleased me, then, to read here that those who deny penal substitution in this text are “guilty of special pleading.” Yes. Exactly.