Sprinkle or Startle? The Priest and the Prophet in Isaiah 52:15
Part 3: When One Hebrew Word Hides Two Identities
Hello brothers and sisters.
In Parts 1 and 2, we discovered how the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls preserve an explicit resurrection prophecy (”he will see light”) and how the LXX presents a medical rather than penal vision of atonement (”cleanse” vs. “crush”).
If you missed them, you can catch up on the series below.
Now we encounter perhaps the most linguistically fascinating textual puzzle in Isaiah 52/53: a single Hebrew verb that can mean two completely different things. What are we to do with this apparent dichotomy?
Here’s a riddle: When is a priest also a prophet? When is cleansing also astonishment? When is a ritual also a revelation?
Answer: Isaiah 52:15.
This verse contains one of the most debated words in the entire Old Testament: a Hebrew verb that scholars have been arguing about for centuries. The controversy isn’t about whether the text is corrupted, or whether different manuscripts disagree. It’s about something far more interesting:
The verb can legitimately be translated two completely different ways, and nobody’s entirely sure which one Isaiah meant.
Or— and here’s where it gets really good —maybe he meant both.
Let me show you the problem, and then we’ll explore why the solution might be “yes.”
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 That’s Split Down The Middle
Open your English Bible to Isaiah 52:15. Depending on your translation, you’ll see one of two completely different readings:
Reading #1: “Sprinkle” (Priestly/Sacrificial)
ESV: “so shall he sprinkle many nations”
NASB: “Thus He will sprinkle many nations”
KJV: “So shall he sprinkle many nations”
NKJV: “So shall He sprinkle many nations”
Reading #2: “Startle” (Prophetic/Revelatory)
NABRE: “So shall he startle many nations,”
NLT: “And he will startle many nations”
JPS Tanakh: “Just so he shall startle many nations.“ (but footnote: “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.”)
NRSV: “so he shall startle many nations”
As you can see, it really is split pretty much down the middle. About half the major English translations say “sprinkle” and the other half say “startle.” And many of them include a footnote admitting the other reading is possible.
This isn’t a textual variant, the Hebrew manuscripts all agree. This isn’t a Septuagint vs. Masoretic issue, although we’ll get to what the LXX does in a moment. This is a case where a single Hebrew word legitimately means two different things, and context alone can’t tell us which one Isaiah intended.
Let’s dig into the linguistics.
The Hebrew Mystery: נָזָה (nazah)
The Hebrew verb at the center of this controversy is נָזָה (nazah).
The problem? There are TWO different Hebrew verbs that look identical but have completely different (though semantically related) meanings:
Nazah #1: “To Sprinkle” (Priestly/Cultic)
This verb appears 24 times in the Old Testament, mostly in Leviticus and Numbers, always in contexts of ritual cleansing and priestly service:
Leviticus 4:6 - “The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the LORD”
Leviticus 8:11 - “And he sprinkled some of it on the altar seven times, and anointed the altar”
Leviticus 14:7 - “And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease”
Numbers 8:7 - “Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them”
This is priestly vocabulary, the language of sacrificial atonement, ceremonial purification, blood sprinkling. It evokes the entire sacrificial system of the Torah, where priests would sprinkle blood or water to effect ritual cleansing.
Nazah #2: “To Sprinkle/Spurt” → “To Startle” (General Usage)
Interestingly, the same consonants (נזה) also form a verb that means “to spurt” or “to splash,” like water suddenly spurting out.
Because of the sudden, unexpected nature of spurting water, this verb took on a secondary meaning: “to startle,” “to cause to leap,” or “to make someone spring back in surprise.”
Think about it: Have you ever been unexpectedly sprayed with water? Your immediate reaction is to jump back, startled. That semantic connection— from “spurt” to “startle” —gave Hebrew speakers two nazah verbs.
The crucial question: Which one is Isaiah using in 52:15?
The Grammatical Clue (That Doesn’t Quite Settle It)
Here’s where Hebrew grammar almost helps us, but not quite.
In Isaiah 52:15, the verb nazah appears in the Hiphil stem, a Hebrew verb form that typically makes a verb causative. So:
If the basic verb means “to sprinkle,” the Hiphil would mean “to cause to sprinkle” or “to sprinkle upon”
If the basic verb means “to leap/spring,” the Hiphil would mean “to cause to leap/spring” = “to startle”
Now here’s the grammatical problem that has scholars in (sometimes quite heated) debate:
When nazah means “to sprinkle” (the cultic/priestly usage), it normally requires a direct object (the liquid being sprinkled) and a prepositional phrase (the person or thing being sprinkled upon).
Example structure: “He sprinkled blood upon the altar“
But Isaiah 52:15 says: “So shall he nazah many nations“
There’s no liquid mentioned. There’s no preposition (like “upon” or “onto”). The structure is just verb + direct object: “nazah many nations.”
This is grammatically awkward for the “sprinkle” meaning. You don’t normally say “he will sprinkle nations” without specifying what he’s sprinkling and how he’s sprinkling it.
On the other hand, “he will startle many nations” is grammatically perfect. You absolutely can say “startle + direct object” with no problem.
So grammar seems to favor “startle.”
But— and this is a big but —poetic Hebrew is flexible. Isaiah could be using “sprinkle” metaphorically, with the object of the sprinkling (blood? water? the Spirit?) implied rather than stated. Poetry does this all the time.
Result? Grammar tilts toward “startle,” but doesn’t rule out “sprinkle.”
What Did the Septuagint Choose?
Now let’s see what the ancient Greek translators (250-150 BCE) decided.
The LXX of Isaiah 52:15 reads:
οὕτως θαυμάσονται ἔθνη πολλὰ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ
“So shall many nations marvel/be astonished at him”
The Greek verb is θαυμάζω (thaumazō) = “to wonder at, to marvel, to be astonished”
The LXX chose “startle/astonish,” not “sprinkle.”
This is significant because:
The LXX translators were native Hebrew speakers working from Hebrew manuscripts centuries older than our medieval Masoretic texts.
They would have understood which nazah Isaiah intended through oral tradition.
They unambiguously chose the “startle/astonish” meaning.
But there’s more.
The LXX doesn’t just translate nazah as “astonish.” Look at the whole sentence structure:
MT: “So shall he nazah many nations; kings will shut their mouths because of him”
LXX: “So shall many nations marvel at him; and kings will shut their mouths because of him”
The LXX makes the nations the subject (they marvel) rather than the Servant (he sprinkles/startles). This is a different reading entirely. There’s a possibility that this reflects a different Hebrew Vorlage (parent text), or it may simply be an interpretive translation.
Either way, the LXX clearly understood this verse as being about prophetic astonishment, not priestly sprinkling.
The Case for “Sprinkle” (Priestly Interpretation)
Despite the grammatical awkwardness and the LXX’s choice, there are strong reasons to read this as “sprinkle”:
1. Thematic Continuity with Leviticus
The immediate context of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is saturated with sacrificial language:
“He was wounded for our transgressions” (53:5)
“The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6)
“Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter” (53:7)
“When his soul makes an offering for guilt” (53:10)
“He bore the sin of many” (53:12)
This is priestly, sacrificial vocabulary. It makes perfect sense that Isaiah 52:15 would precede that theme by depicting the Servant sprinkling many nations, performing a priestly act of cleansing.
2. Hebrews 9-10 Interprets Isaiah 53 This Way
The author of Hebrews explicitly connects Christ’s work to the priestly sprinkling rituals:
Hebrews 9:13-14 - “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ... purify our conscience“
Hebrews 10:22 - “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water”
Hebrews 12:24 - You have come “to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel”
The theological framework is clear: Christ’s atoning work involves sprinkling His people clean through His blood. If this is how the New Testament interprets the Suffering Servant’s work, then Isaiah 52:15’s “sprinkle many nations” fits perfectly.
3. 1 Peter Echoes the Imagery
1 Peter 1:2 - “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood“
Peter directly connects sprinkling with Christ’s blood as part of the Christian’s spiritual identity. This strongly suggests he read Isaiah 52:15 as “sprinkle many nations.”
4. It Answers “How” the Nations Are Cleansed
If Isaiah 53:10 (LXX) says God desired to “cleanse him from his wound,” and Isaiah 53:11 says “by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous,” then Isaiah 52:15 provides the mechanism: He will sprinkle many nations, ritually cleansing them through His priestly work.
The logic flows beautifully:
52:15 - He will sprinkle many nations (the priestly ACT)
53:10 - God will cleanse him from his wound (God’s RESPONSE to the Servant’s sacrifice)
53:11 - He will make many righteous (the RESULT)
The Case for “Startle” (Prophetic Interpretation)
But the other reading is equally compelling:
1. The LXX Chose It
As we’ve seen, the Septuagint translators— who were closer to the original language and context than we are —chose “astonish/marvel,” not “sprinkle.”
This carries weight. These weren’t hacks. They were Jewish scholars translating for the Diaspora Jewish community. If they read nazah as “startle,” that’s a strong data point.
2. Grammatical Fit
As noted earlier, “startle many nations” is grammatically smooth while “sprinkle many nations” is grammatically awkward (no direct object liquid, no preposition).
Hebrew poetry does allow for ellipsis (leaving things implied), but all else being equal, the simpler grammatical reading is more likely.
3. The Parallel with Isaiah 52:14
Look at the literary structure of verses 14-15:
Isaiah 52:14:
“As many were astonished at you—
his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance”
Isaiah 52:15:
“So shall he [startle/astonish] many nations;
kings shall shut their mouths because of him”
There’s a beautiful parallelism here:
Verse 14: “Many were astonished” (past)
Verse 15: “He will astonish many nations” (future)
The same Hebrew word for “many” (רַבִּים, rabbim) appears in both verses. The structure is:
As many were astonished → So he will astonish many
If we read verse 15 as “startle/astonish,” we get perfect literary symmetry:
First, people were shocked by His suffering
Then, nations will be shocked by His exaltation
If we read it as “sprinkle,” we break that parallel.
4. Paul Quotes This Verse... and Emphasizes Revelation
Here’s the kicker: The Apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 52:15 in Romans 15:21 to describe his own ministry to the Gentiles:
“but as it is written, ‘Those who have never been told of him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.’” (Romans 15:21, quoting Isa 52:15b)
Notice what Paul emphasizes: Seeing and understanding; that is, prophetic revelation to those who hadn’t heard.
Paul doesn’t say anything about “sprinkling” here. He’s focusing on the proclamation aspect: the nations who were in darkness now see; those who hadn’t heard now understand.
This suggests Paul read Isaiah 52:15a as “he will startle many nations,” ergo the Servant’s exaltation will shock the Gentiles into recognition.
Then verse 15b explains how: “For what they had not been told they will see, and what they had not heard they will understand.”
Paul’s use of this verse supports the “startle” reading.
Could Both Be True? (The “Yes, And” Solution)
Here’s where I’m going to propose something that might sound like cheating, but I think it’s actually the right answer:
What if Isaiah deliberately chose a word that carried both meanings?
Ancient Hebrew poets loved double entendres—words that work on multiple levels simultaneously. The prophets (Isaiah more than most) were masters of wordplay. So when Isaiah came to this climactic moment in the Suffering Servant song, as he transitioned from the Servant’s humiliation (52:14) to His exaltation (52:15), what if he chose nazah precisely because it evoked both priestly sprinkling and prophetic astonishment?
Think about what’s happening in the narrative:
The Servant’s dual role:
Priest: He offers Himself as a sacrifice, sprinkling His blood (metaphorically) to cleanse many nations.
Prophet/King: His exaltation startles the nations, who suddenly see and understand what had never been told them.
Isaiah 52:15 could be saying:
“So shall he [as Priest] sprinkle many nations [with his atoning blood], [and as exalted Lord] startle many nations [by his unexpected vindication]; kings will shut their mouths because of him, for what had not been told them they will see, and what they had not heard they will understand.”
The verse works both ways:
As Priestly Sprinkling:
The Servant performs the ultimate atoning sacrifice, sprinkling His blood upon the nations to cleanse them. This fulfills and transcends the Levitical priesthood.
As Prophetic Astonishment:
The Servant’s sudden exaltation (after His humiliating suffering) will shock the Gentile nations into silence and understanding. They’ll finally “get it.”
Both are true. Both are necessary. Both are Isaiah’s point.
Theological Implications: The Servant as Priest-Prophet-King
If we accept that Isaiah 52:15 intentionally evokes both meanings, it reveals something profound about the Suffering Servant’s identity:
He is not just a Priest, or just a Prophet, or just a King. He is all three.
The Servant as Priest (”Sprinkle”)
The priestly reading connects to:
Hebrews 7-10: Jesus as our Great High Priest who offered Himself.
1 Peter 1:2: Sprinkling with His blood.
Revelation 1:5-6: He has freed us by His blood and made us a kingdom of priests.
The Servant cleanses the nations through His sacrificial blood.
The Servant as Prophet (”Startle”)
The prophetic reading connects to:
Romans 15:21: Paul’s use of this verse for gospel proclamation.
Isaiah 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news.”
Acts 3:22-23: Peter identifies Jesus as the Prophet like Moses.
The Servant reveals God’s truth to the nations, shocking them into recognition.
The Servant as King (52:15b)
The second half of the verse clinches this:
“Kings will shut their mouths because of him“
This is royal language. Earthly kings fall silent in the presence of the King of kings. They see what they had never been told; they understand what they had never heard.
Isaiah 52:15 presents a Servant who is Priest-Prophet-King… the ultimate Messiah.
How Should We Translate It?
Given all this, how should we translate Isaiah 52:15?
Here are some options:
Option 1: Choose “Sprinkle” and Footnote “Startle”
This is what most traditional translations do (ESV, NASB, KJV). It preserves the cultic/priestly emphasis but acknowledges the alternative.
Option 2: Choose “Startle” and Footnote “Sprinkle”
This is what many modern translations do (NLT, NRSV). It follows the LXX and the grammar, but risks losing the sacrificial imagery.
Option 3: Translate Both (My Preference)
What if we tried something like:
“So shall he sprinkle-and-startle many nations;
kings shall shut their mouths because of him”
Or more expansively:
“So shall he (as priest) sprinkle many nations (with his atoning blood),
and (as exalted Lord) startle many nations (by his unexpected glory);
kings shall shut their mouths because of him,
for what had not been told them they will see,
and what they had not heard they will understand.”
This preserves both meanings and shows how they complement each other.
Option 4: The Passion Translation’s Approach
The Passion Translation footnotes this beautifully:
“so now he will startle many nations. The words startle and sprinkle share a homonymic root. The idea is that Jesus would sprinkle to cleanse many with his redeeming blood and also that he would startle the nations with his resurrection power and endless life.”
This is exegetically sound. It acknowledges the wordplay and affirms both theological truths.
What the New Testament Knows
The New Testament writers clearly understood the Servant’s work as involving both priestly cleansing and prophetic revelation:
Priestly Cleansing (Hebrews):
Hebrews 9:13-14 - Sprinkling that purifies conscience.
Hebrews 10:22 - Hearts sprinkled clean.
Hebrews 12:24 - Sprinkled blood.
Prophetic Revelation (Paul):
Romans 10:15 - “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news” (quoting Isa 52:7, same context).
Romans 15:21 - “Those who have never been told... will see and understand” (quoting Isa 52:15).
Both Together (Peter):
1 Peter 1:2 - “for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood.”
1 Peter 1:12 - “things into which angels long to look” (the gospel as astonishing revelation).
The apostolic witness is unanimous: The Servant both cleanses through sacrifice AND reveals through proclamation.
Isaiah 52:15 captures both in a single, brilliant word.
Practical Application: Two Ministries of Jesus
What does this mean for us practically?
Jesus’s dual work as Priest and Prophet defines the Christian gospel:
1. He Sprinkles Us Clean (Priestly Ministry)
We come to Christ defiled by sin, unable to cleanse ourselves. The sacrificial system of the Old Testament foreshadowed a reality: only blood can atone. Only a priest can mediate.
Jesus, our Great High Priest, sprinkled His own blood to cleanse us. Not literally, of course. He didn’t grab a hyssop branch and flick blood on the Gentiles. But mystically, spiritually, effectively, His blood cleanses all who come to Him by faith.
Hebrews 10:19-22 - “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus... let us draw near with a true heart... with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.”
Application: When you feel the weight of your sin, remember that Jesus has sprinkled you clean. His blood avails. You don’t need another sacrifice. You don’t need to earn cleansing. You’ve been sprinkled. Act like it.
2. He Startles the Nations into Faith (Prophetic Ministry)
But cleansing alone isn’t enough. People need to know. The nations need to see and understand (Isa 52:15b). That requires proclamation, revelation, gospel preaching.
Jesus doesn’t just cleanse us privately. He sends us out to startle the nations with the good news. Paul saw himself as fulfilling Isaiah 52:15 by preaching where Christ had not been named (Rom 15:20-21).
Romans 10:14-15 - “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’” (quoting Isaiah 52:7, two verses before our text).
Application: The gospel is meant to startle. It’s supposed to be shocking, astonishing, counter-intuitive. A crucified Messiah? A suffering Servant who becomes King? Salvation by grace through faith? This should blow people’s minds.
Don’t domesticate it. Don’t make it boring. Preach it so that kings shut their mouths in wonder.
If you found this helpful, enlightening, or even challenging, share it with a friend who needs to hear it.
A Note on Baptism
I can’t close this post without addressing the elephant in the room: baptism.
For centuries, Christians have argued about the proper mode of baptism:
Immersionists say baptism must be by full immersion
Paedobaptists and those who practice sprinkling say baptism can be by sprinkling or pouring
Isaiah 52:15 has been a battleground in this debate.
Here’s my take: This verse isn’t about baptism at all. Isaiah is talking about the Servant’s atoning work and the nations’ response to His exaltation. He’s not giving instructions for Christian sacramental practice.
But— and this is important —if Isaiah 52:15 does use “sprinkle” to describe how the Servant cleanses many nations, then the New Testament’s use of sprinkling language for spiritual cleansing (Heb 10:22; 1 Pet 1:2) and the early church’s practice of baptismal sprinkling are not arbitrary. They’re drawing on prophetic imagery.
So while I don’t think Isaiah 52:15 prescribes a mode of baptism, I do think it informs our understanding of baptism’s symbolism. Whether by immersion or sprinkling, baptism pictures the cleansing work of Christ’s blood, which Isaiah poetically describes as “sprinkling many nations.”
Bottom line: Don’t fight about baptism. Just get baptized. And know that whether you were immersed or sprinkled, Christ’s blood has effectively cleansed you.
The Beauty of Ambiguity
Sometimes, the Bible’s “problems” aren’t problems at all, they’re merely invitations to see more.
Isaiah 52:15’s nazah isn’t a textual error or a translational mistake. It’s a prophetic masterstroke—a single word that captures the dual nature of the Servant’s work:
As Priest, He sprinkles the nations clean with His atoning blood.
As Prophet/King, He startles the nations into recognition of God’s glory.
The medieval Masoretic scribes preserved “sprinkle.” The ancient Septuagint translators chose “startle.” The apostles applied both meanings.
And we get to inherit the riches of both readings.
When you come to Isaiah 52:15, don’t choose. Embrace both. See the Servant as Priest-Prophet-King, cleansing and revealing, atoning and astonishing.
See Jesus.
Coming Up Next
We’ve now examined three major textual differences between the LXX and MT in Isaiah 52-53:
“He will see light” (53:11) - Explicit resurrection prophecy
“Cleanse” vs. “Crush” (53:10) - Medical vs. penal atonement
“Sprinkle” vs. “Startle” (52:15) - Priestly vs. prophetic ministry
In Part 4, we’ll wrap up the series by examining how these differences work together to give us a fuller, richer portrait of the Suffering Servant. And why both ancient traditions (LXX and MT) are gifts to the Church, not problems to solve.
We’ll also address the big question: If there are differences between these texts, what does that mean for biblical inerrancy and authority?
Stay tuned.
The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:
Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.
Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.
Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.
Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.
© 2025 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.