Who is God’s suffering servant?

[roger1440]

I’ll rephrase the question. How was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 interpreted during the 1st century? I’m looking for a Jewish perspective. I know very well most Christians would say, “That’s easy, Jesus.”

 

[arthra]

I'm not Jewish but I think you mean interpreted rather than "interrupted".

 

[Boyd]

I’ll rephrase the question. How was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 interrupted during the 1st century? I’m looking for a Jewish perspective. I know very well most Christians would say, “That’s easy, Jesus.”

There were various interpretations of who the suffering servant was. For some, it was Israel. There is some evidence that there were groups who also saw it as the messiah.

 

[roger1440]

I'm not Jewish but I think you mean interpreted rather than "interrupted".

Opps, I hope I spelled that right. LOL

 

[roger1440]

There were various interpretations of who the suffering servant was. For some, it was Israel. There is some evidence that there were groups who also saw it as the messiah.

Yeah, so I heard. Can you quote some sources please? It’s much easier to find Christian sources. Christians probably out number Jews 1000 to one.

 

[Akivah]

How was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 interpreted during the 1st century? I’m looking for a Jewish perspective.

The original bible did not have chapters. The book of Isaiah is supposed to be read as one unit, all together. Reading from the beginning, it is extremely obvious that the suffering servant is the people Israel. That is how we read it then and read it now.

 

[roger1440]

There were various interpretations of who the suffering servant was. For some, it was Israel. There is some evidence that there were groups who also saw it as the messiah.

Are there any interpretations that had combined both? In other words the suffering servant is both Israel and the Messiah. If so, Israel would be its own Messiah.

 

[roger1440]

The original bible did not have chapters. The book of Isaiah is supposed to be read as one unit, all together. Reading from the beginning, it is extremely obvious that the suffering servant is the people Israel. That is how we read it then and read it now.

Boyd who is also Jewish doesn't seem to agree with you.

 

[Boyd]

Are there any interpretations that had combined both? In other words the suffering servant is both Israel and the Messiah. If so, Israel would be its own Messiah.

Off the top of my head, I can't say for sure. This is a subject I haven't read up on for quite some time. Let me take a look in my library though and I will come back with a few sources.

 

[Tarheeler]

Boyd who is also Jewish doesn't seem to agree with you.

The phrase "two Jews, three opinions" exists for a reason.

For what it's worth, I can't recall coming across a Jewish source that claims the suffering servant is the messiah. It doesn't mean there isn't any, just none that I can recall reading.

Everything that I can recall reading holds the people Israel to be the servant.

 

[Akivah]

Boyd who is also Jewish doesn't seem to agree with you.

So when you said in the OP that you were looking for a "Jewish perspective", what you really meant was a "Jewish perspective that agrees with my own".

 

[Boyd]

Are there any interpretations that had combined both? In other words the suffering servant is both Israel and the Messiah. If so, Israel would be its own Messiah.

Sorry for the delay. It took me a little longer than I expected to find the right sources. The Jewish Study Bible goes into a brief discussion regarding the various views that have been taken up regarding the suffering servant. I would recommend this Bible to anyone who is interested in having a quality source for Jewish thought on the Hebrew Bible. It is just a standard translation of the Tanakh, but the notes are great.

As for interpretation, there are only a couple of Jewish sources that relate the suffering servant to the Messiah. Medieval rabbinic commentary in fact spent quite a bit of time refuting such an idea. The sources though are the Targum, as well as a few midrashim, such as Midrash Rabbah. However, such views are unlikely as Deutero-Isaiah do not refer to the Messiah elsewhere, and Deutero-Isaiah also appears to lack the idea of an individual Messiah.

I have not found any interpretations that equate the suffering servant to both the Messiah and Israel though. Other interpretations suggest that the individual was Moses, as recorded in the Talmud (b. Sot. 14a) and Saadia Gaon argued that it referenced Jeremiah. The Talmud also associates the suffering servant to R. Akiva. There is also the Zohar, which relates the suffering servant to a variety of individuals, such as Moses, the Messiah son of Joseph, Elijah, Metatron, and Jews.

Today, the majority view is that the suffering servant refers to the people of Israel. However, there are still those who see it as Moses, or Jeremiah. There may be other current ideas; however, I'm not familiar with them. I know there are some Messianic Jews who read it as being Jesus, but that is not a mainstream Jewish view, or a view accepted by other Jews.

 

[roger1440]

Sorry for the delay. It took me a little longer than I expected to find the right sources. The Jewish Study Bible goes into a brief discussion regarding the various views that have been taken up regarding the suffering servant. I would recommend this Bible to anyone who is interested in having a quality source for Jewish thought on the Hebrew Bible. It is just a standard translation of the Tanakh, but the notes are great.

As for interpretation, there are only a couple of Jewish sources that relate the suffering servant to the Messiah. Medieval rabbinic commentary in fact spent quite a bit of time refuting such an idea. The sources though are the Targum, as well as a few midrashim, such as Midrash Rabbah. However, such views are unlikely as Deutero-Isaiah do not refer to the Messiah elsewhere, and Deutero-Isaiah also appears to lack the idea of an individual Messiah.

I have not found any interpretations that equate the suffering servant to both the Messiah and Israel though. Other interpretations suggest that the individual was Moses, as recorded in the Talmud (b. Sot. 14a) and Saadia Gaon argued that it referenced Jeremiah. The Talmud also associates the suffering servant to R. Akiva. There is also the Zohar, which relates the suffering servant to a variety of individuals, such as Moses, the Messiah son of Joseph, Elijah, Metatron, and Jews.

Today, the majority view is that the suffering servant refers to the people of Israel. However, there are still those who see it as Moses, or Jeremiah. There may be other current ideas; however, I'm not familiar with them. I know there are some Messianic Jews who read it as being Jesus, but that is not a mainstream Jewish view, or a view accepted by other Jews.

I have a copy of the Jewish Study Bible in the PDF format, also a copy of the Zohar in the PDF format. I don’t think either book would help me with a 1st century view point. The Zohar wasn’t written until around 1,200 years later. The Jewish Study Bible would have pretty much a 20th century view point.

 

[Boyd]

I have a copy of the Jewish Study Bible in the PDF format, also a copy of the Zohar in the PDF format. I don’t think either book would help me with a 1st century view point. The Zohar wasn’t written until around 1,200 years later. The Jewish Study Bible would have pretty much a 20th century view point.

I apologize, I did not see the reference to the first century. The Jewish Study Bible though gives information in regards to ancient views as well. So while it was written in the 20th century, it does relate ancient ideas.

 

[roger1440]

I apologize, I did not see the reference to the first century. The Jewish Study Bible though gives information in regards to ancient views as well. So while it was written in the 20th century, it does relate ancient ideas.

This is where I’m going with this. Christians have been telling Jews for 2000 years Jews do not understand their own scriptures. That is the reasons Jews do not accept the Gospels. I think it’s the other way around. It’s Christians who do not understand the Gospels. The Gospels were written by Jews, for Jews with a 1st century understanding of Jewish scripture. The Gospels were not written for Gentiles. The Jesus in the Gospels is a metaphor for Israel. In other words he is Israel collectively. He represents the Israel that never went astray after the Exodus. He is God’s son, just as Israel is God’s son. They are one in the same. The Gospels are a sort of Midrash. They are a concise sort of Torah. If you read the words of Jesus closely, all he did was point the Jews to the Torah. Then who is the Messiah? If Jesus is Israel and also the Messiah then according to the Gospels, Israel would be its own Messiah. If I’m right then there must be a first century view point of Jewish scripture to validate my claim. I also believe these Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Jews of this period had to rethink what it meant to be a Jew. The Gospels provided the answer. The answer was the Torah.

 

[Akivah]

This is where I’m going with this. Christians have been telling Jews for 2000 years Jews do not understand their own scriptures. That is the reasons Jews do not accept the Gospels. I think it’s the other way around. It’s Christians who do not understand the Gospels. The Gospels were written by Jews, for Jews with a 1st century understanding of Jewish scripture. The Gospels were not written for Gentiles. The Jesus in the Gospels is a metaphor for Israel. In other words he is Israel collectively. He represents the Israel that never went astray after the Exodus. He is God’s son, just as Israel is God’s son. They are one in the same. The Gospels are a sort of Midrash. They are a concise sort of Torah. If you read the words of Jesus closely, all he did was point the Jews to the Torah. Then who is the Messiah? If Jesus is Israel and also the Messiah then according to the Gospels, Israel would be its own Messiah. If I’m right then there must be a first century view point of Jewish scripture to validate my claim. I also believe these Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Jews of this period had to rethink what it meant to be a Jew. The Gospels provided the answer. The answer was the Torah.

Well.....that is creative.

If no first century Judaism viewpoint validates your claim, then a) are you wrong or b) you need to keep searching for a first century viewpoint to affirm your conclusions?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Jewish Study Bible would have pretty much a 20th century view point.

The JSB would have pretty much a 21st century understanding of the text. The idea that anything learned since the writing of [Deutero-]Isaiah should be dismissed as newfangled bias is nonsense in the service of willful ignorance.

 

[metis]

The reason why the Suffering Servant account in deutero-Isaiah cannot refer to Jesus is largely because it's dealing with events that predate Jesus by hundreds of years, including in the chapters covered, plus the theme is Israel restored and the necessity for us to follow the Law. Israel was not restored under Jesus, nor was the Law followed by the church after a short while.

 

[roger1440]

Well.....that is creative.

If no first century Judaism viewpoint validates your claim, then a) are you wrong or b) you need to keep searching for a first century viewpoint to affirm your conclusions?

It’s not all that creative. Scholars have known for years the Gospel of Mathew has some Midrash flavor to it. I have just taken it to the next level. The whole entire concept of Jesus is a sort of Midrash, from the very beginning to the end. Keep in mind, most New Testament scholars are Christians. They examine the text with a magnifying glass fitted with a Christian lens. Most Jewish scholars have very little interest in the New Testament; therefore we get very little input from them. Here are a few examples. One of the most well-known scholars in recent years is Bart Ehrman. He is an agnostic, but he comes from a Baptist background. I have been following Elaine Pagels work for nearly thirty years. I had the pleasure of attending one of her lectures in April of this year. She is Episcopalian. Karen King another scholar was all over the news last year. She was in possession of “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”. She is a Methodist. I take a different approach to examine the Gospels. The Gospels were written by Jews, for Jews using Jewish concepts, during the 1st century. Therefore the Gospels must be examined through a 1st century Jewish lens. One of the problems is that some of the pieces of 1st century Judaism are missing. It’s like putting together a puzzle and we don’t know what the original picture looked like. The Essenes are part of the 1st century Jewish puzzle. We know very little about them.
I have to admit, I may be wrong about my claim, but there seems to be more to point towards my claim then away from it. I’m not saying the Gospel writers interpreted Jewish scripture correctly. That is another issue in itself. What I am saying is that the aim of the Gospels was to use the figurative character Jesus to represent the nation of Israel to point them to the true meaning of the Torah. To explain it another way, Jesus is the righteous Israel that never went astray. In very simple laymen’s terms, he ain’t a real dude. He is a metaphor, much like Uncle Sam.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I am saying is that the aim of the Gospels was to use the figurative character Jesus to represent the nation of Israel to point them to the true meaning of the Torah. To explain it another way, Jesus is the righteous Israel that never went astray. In very simple laymen’s terms, he ain’t a real dude. He is a metaphor, much like Uncle Sam.

:beach: That was creative ...