Source: "Isaiah's Suffering Servant: Before and After Christianity" by Marc Brettler and Amy-Jill Levine, Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 2019, Vol. 73(2) 158–173, 2019.
Jewish and Christian views od second Isaiah.wav
This journal article, "Isaiah's Suffering Servant: Before and After Christianity" by Marc Brettler and Amy-Jill Levine, explores the multifaceted interpretation history of the "Suffering Servant" passages in Isaiah 52:13–53:12. The authors trace the figure's meaning from its likely original context as a reference to an individual or the exilic Judean community whose suffering brought forgiveness, through its repurposing in Second Temple Jewish texts like Daniel, to its central role in the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus. The article further examines post-biblical Jewish understandings, particularly in rabbinic and medieval periods, often as representing the collective experience of Israel. Ultimately, Brettler and Levine emphasize the diversity of these readings, advocating for mutual respect between Jewish and Christian interpretations and suggesting contemporary applications of the Suffering Servant figure to those unjustly suffering today.
Jewish interpretations of the Suffering Servant passage (Isaiah 52:13–53:12) have evolved significantly over time, often in response to Christian interpretations.
Early Postbiblical Jewish Interpretation:
• Targum Jonathan, an Aramaic translation of the prophets likely composed before the Bar-Kochba revolt (132–135 CE), translates "Behold, my servant" in Isaiah 52:13 as "Behold, my servant, the Messiah". This interpretation casts the servant as a messianic figure who serves as an intercessor for Israel.
• Early rabbinic texts generally understood the servant as an individual rather than collective Israel. For example, the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 98b) suggests the Messiah could be "the scholar with leprosy," citing Isaiah 53:43 . Midrash Ruth Rabbah interprets Isaiah 53:5 messianically in relation to Ruth 2:14, referring to "the king Messiah" suffering chastisements. Other Talmudic texts identify the servant as anyone God punishes or as Moses.
• One notable midrash, Pesiqta Rabbati (likely 5th-6th centuries CE), describes the willing, vicarious suffering of the Messiah ben Ephraim, though not his death. This midrash, seen by some as a response to Christian claims, does not cite Isaiah 53 but interprets Isaiah 60:1 in this context.
Medieval Jewish Interpretation: • Most medieval Jewish interpreters understood the servant as representing all Israel.
• Rabbi Solomon son of Isaac (Rashi) (1040–1105), a highly influential commentator, interpreted the servant in light of the persecution of Rhineland Jewish communities during the First Crusade (1096–99). For Rashi, the servant explained their suffering and promised a reward for their fidelity. His commentary became standard, leading most subsequent writers to follow his view of the servant as Israel punished in exile and destined for restoration.
• Some commentators, like Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–ca. 1167), explicitly rejected Christian interpretations that saw the passage as referring to Jesus, arguing that a dead person could not "see his offspring" (Isaiah 53:10). The emphasis on the collective interpretation also served as a response to Christian claims that Israel's exile signified divine abandonment, with Jews arguing that their diminished status reflected their role as God's chosen servant.
• Despite the dominance of the collective interpretation, personal and even messianic interpretations persisted, though less prominently, in medieval Jewish thought, particularly in Karaite commentary. Yefet son of Eli (10th century) cited earlier Karaite views claiming the passage referred to the Messiah.