Isaiah 53:8

The Servant’s treatment at the hands of others would be unjust from start to finish. Oppressive legal treatment and twisted justice would result in His being taken away to suffer and die (cf. Matthew 26:59-61; Luke 23:2-4; Luke 23:13-16). This was not the case in Israel’s suffering in captivity. That suffering was in harmony with what justice prescribed. However, it was for the transgressions of the prophet’s people that the Servant would suffer a fatal blow (cf. Genesis 9:11; Exodus 12:15; Daniel 9:26; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:13-14; Colossians 1:19-20). This does not rule out His dying for Gentiles as well. Perhaps Isaiah identified Israel as the beneficiary of the Servant’s death here because Israel’s sins had been so great and Isaiah’s ministry was to Israel. Miscarried justice would be only the means to that end.

It is quite clear that the Servant did not just die for the Israelites. Some of what Isaiah wrote about "my people" might lead the reader to this conclusion. However, the testimony of Scripture, which statements in Isaiah support, is that the Servant paid for the sins of all humanity (e.g., 1 John 2:2). Note that the Servant referred to here cannot be the Israelites since He would die for the transgression of "my people," namely, the Israelites.

Those of the Servant’s generation who observed Him dying would not appreciate that He was dying as a substitute (cf. Isaiah 53:1-3). The Hebrew of this verse may point to a meaning beyond this. The Hebrew word dor, translated "generation," also means "line." If that is the meaning (or one of the meanings) of this word here, Isaiah may also have meant that no one would consider that the Servant died childless. Childlessness in His culture suggested a futile existence and a curse from God. People would conclude that He died cursed by God rather than as a substitute sacrifice.

". . . the language of the fourth song certainly allows for the servant’s suffering to be vicarious (note esp. ’he will justify many’), but it does not demand such an interpretation in and of itself. The full import of the language awaits clarification by subsequent revelation . . ." [Note: Chisholm, A Theology . . ., p. 331.]