Why does the servant in isaiah 53 suffer

If the Suffering Servant was about someone who already lived and died prior to Jesus, that would seem to imply that at least Israel already had a restored relationship with God. Take a look at how New Testament writers saw this passage in light of the life of Christ. When the New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament, they often quoted from the popular Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint.

Most modern Bibles use the Masoretic Text, believed to be the original Hebrew. So if you look up these references in your Old Testament, you may notice that the wording is a little different sometimes. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.

When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?

But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.

In his letter to the church in Rome, Paul quotes Isaiah along with numerous other Old Testament passages. With the Suffering Servant, Isaiah paints a picture of a coming time when God will pour out the punishment for our sin on one individual—one who has been rejected by the world Isaiah , and through whom people have been healed Isaiah Centuries later, Jesus would fulfill each piece of that prophecy—even occasionally going out of his way to do so Luke — The Messiah was not some fierce warrior come to overthrow the government.

Word Studies. Old Testament Overviews. New Testament Overviews. Book Collections. Visual Commentaries. All Podcasts.

Bible Reader. Croatian Hrvatski. Dutch Nederlands. Finnish Suomi. German Deutsch. Hungarian Magyar. Indonesian Bahasa Indonesia. Italian Italiano. Norwegian Norsk. Polish Polski. Swahili Kiswahili. Swedish Svenska. Back to Blog. Table of Contents. Isaiah That sounds awesome! How will it go down?

What on earth? Am I reading the New Testament right now? Genesis Keep Exploring. The Kabbala teaches that all Tzaddikim suffer for our sins and it does help cleanse us. It may not do a full job, but it definitely helps purify the Jewish people. Anonymous , November 10, PM. Actually, the verse in question is Isaiah Which the Targum renders as a reference to the Messiah. The author in this article has taken great pains to show that the servant song of Isaiah 53 is indeed referring to the nation of Israel.

This is the simple meaning of the verses, however it is not clear from the text itself, since the Hebrew is at times very hard to understand. It is with the help of the context and Rashi that the simple meaning is achieved.

The Targum renders one verse out of the entire song, as a reference to the Messiah, however that does not detract at all from the simple meaning of the verses, which is true. Judaism has a tradition that certain righteous individuals suffer for the sins of the generation.

That is also true, but that context is very different to the Christian context. Christians believe that Jesus died for all mankind, and without which no-one will enter the Kingdom of God. Judaism totally rejects this notion. Yes, we have sins, yes the righteous suffer because of them, that doesn't mean that the death of any righteous person atones for the sins of all mankind to the extent that without such atonement, no-one may go to heaven.

It is absurd theologically from a Jewish perspective. Nonetheless, this digression has nothing to do with the simple meaning of Isaiah The simple meaning is an accepted fact and is undisputed. Layers of meaning beyond that require further inquiry and do not negate the simple meaning.

Any two-bit missionary has heard this before, and without batting an eye will respond to the facts with "right, so there are two servants: the Jews, and, prime among them, Jesus". Of course, Isaiah introduces the Jews and only the Jews as the suffering servant, and Jesus' insertion by Christendom is baseless Bottom line: don't waste your time debating with a missionary--they have no interest in truth and exist only in a self-imposed, voluntary delusional alternative reality with respect to the Bible.

Anonymous , November 7, PM. I was going to print this entire article since, unfortunately I have to have a "Messianic Jew" at my Shabbos table a long story, can't go into the details Now I know not to bother, we'll just talk shtussim instead recipes, fashion, blah, blah, blah much easier!

Leah , November 8, AM. Print it and show it. If you help a Jew turn away from this belief you have saved many Jewish souls. Amir , November 7, PM. Could it be that they so badly want a particular conception of G-d that they therefore will embrace that concept regardless of how illogical and counter intuitive it is? Simchah , November 8, AM. Why would Isaiah switch metaphors like this?

Or are we free to pick and choice according to what we want to listen to? Overall an excellent article and I second the cited sources for further research. As a former Xian minister turned anti-missionary I deal with this topic a lot with family and friends, and other searching souls sent my way. However, one correction needs to be made in the first point under the "Context of Isa.

So in the article where it states that "no one other than Israel is identified as the 'Servant'" it's not entirely true. It's also applied to Mashiach, and our mesorah teaches that Ch. Of course JC doesn't fulfill what's in Ch.

I am debating someonw who says they are an "orthodox catholic xtian" and makes claims such as "xtianity is more in keeping with the tenents of Judaism than modern Judaism is" and "Ancient Judaism knew Isaiah was about Moshiach and only changed their view of it AFTER xtianity came into being so that it would not fit their idea of Moshiach or their triune diety.

Actually he quotes Michael Brown a lot and this article will help me refute him although these people seems convinced that because Brown was born to Jewish parents he has a lock on what is and is not Jewish teachings. At any rate, this helps me a great deal. Great article!!! I will read it several times. Very interesting, and surprising. It bears rereading, and some study for one who can read Hebrew without knowing the language beyond a few words.

I appreciate your open scholarship on christian sources. Things are much better opened than covered up. Thanks for the historical enlightenment -- Christianity has misappropriated this passage for far too long.

Also -- I just ordered my first Tanach from Artscroll. My King James Bible just won't do anymore once I see the contortions the translators had to go through to make the Hebrew scriptures say what the Christians needed them to say.

Shabbat Shalom! You article is immensely important for our Jewish brethren ,who are and have been attacked consistantly with forced untrue and attempted conversions,through lack of understanding. Keep it up. Kol hakavod good on you. The Suffering Servant, at the time of being written is referring to Israel. At the time the only monotheist religion, and the Jewish people praying for those that did not believe in the one true God.

Intercessory prayer, part of the task of repairing the world. Line 12, he prayed for the wicked, and was counted among the wicked because of standing in the gap, teaching others to come to the knowledge of God, was causing great pains to them. Isaiah was a prophet that preached hail and brimstone messages. Being a servant of God, what God requires of his people to love the righteous and the wicked.

Israel, didn't leave the wicked to their own devise, whether through praying, teaching, preaching, and speaking, the servant is suffering for they did not keep the knowledge of God to themselves. Like the saying, "no good deed goes unpunished" Israel could of been the ones who came up with that saying, for they know. Part I discusses at length the midrashic use of this passage when referring to the Messiah.

It also corrects the distortions missionaries have spread in confusing literal fulfillment and midrashic exposition. Early Talmudic Rabbis generally interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah or a key individual such as Moses, Phineas or some righteous.

Saadia Gaon interprets Isaish 53 as referring to Jeremiah. This means without exception that earliest Jewish sources interpret Isaiah 53 as refering to an Individual and in some cases the Messiah. Saying that Messianic interpretation has no basis in Jewish tradition is simply not correct. Jeremiah Michael , May 24, PM. I more then agree.

Of course the Rabbis are not referring to Jesus, no one is that stupid to think they are. And Rashi is not the first one to say it refers to Israel, that is just as ancient as the Talmudic texts that equate it with Messiah. It's sad to me how sometimes because of Christians aggressive use of certain texts we have shied away from certain view points that are espoused in the writings of chazal.

We should be proud that this passage can go both ways. Richard , May 24, PM. There should not be any argument as to who this means. The principle is the same for true believing Christians and Jews.

Antisemitism abounds all over the world today as it did in the past. Today Christian Churches are being attact in muslim countries and very little is ever said about it by our media.

The people we are supposed to be helping have hatred for the Jews and Christians as well. Anonymous , May 26, PM. Wassim , June 4, AM. There are Muslims who hate. There are Muslims who love. There are Christians who hate. There are Christian who love.

There are Jews who hate. There are Jews who love. The days for this anti-Muslim bias are numbered. Marilyn , November 12, AM. This makes sense to me because if it is the truth you are espousing one should not be afraid to be objective, or try and silence those who disagree. I think this discussion has been healthy. To interpret Isaiah 53 as speaking of Messiah in not non-Jewish.

The original interpretation of Isaiah 53 by Jewish rabbis has been that it is speaking of an individual - Messiah Himself. The first one to expound this view was Shlomo Yizchaki, also known as Rashi A. But it was contrary to ALLl rabbinic teaching of that day and of the preceding years. Maimonides stated very clearly that Rashi was completely wrong in going contrary to the traditional Jewish viewpoint.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum - Messianic Christology. Chanya , May 24, AM. Keki Snyman - Hope you're not relying on Fruchtenbaum to interpret this or any other verse.

But they were referring for the most part to Messiah ben Yosef, and it is very clear if you read them that they are not at all referring to J. Also, they knew of J's existence, so in saying that the passage referred to the Messiah, they clearly weren't talking about J since they didn't believe he was the Messiah. Contrary to missionaries like Fruchtenbaum, Rashi was hardly the first to say Isaiah 53 was referring to the Jewish people - there's documentation of that view from nearly 1, years before Rashi.

For anyone who knows Hebrew and Jewish sources, and has read Fruchtenbaum's writings on Isaiah 53 carefully especially how he takes issue with Jewish interpretations , his positions are laughable. Either he is no scholar at all, based on the way he twists and misinterprets the Hebrew and esp.

Either way, it's not a pretty picture, and I would suggest you look elsewhere for guidance if you really are trying to get at the truth. Moshe , May 24, PM. Yes, in the literal sense, it is non-Jewish. The idea that Rashi was the first is ludcirous; fors tarters, the Zohar, in his 2nd book, says it's referring to Israel.

A careful study would also show that the Targum on Isaiah 53 is plainly about Israel. Keki, I've never seen that statement by Maimonides - where did you - or Fruchtenbaum - see it? Penina , May 25, PM. Rashi was not the first to propose that Isaiah 53 was about Israel. Origen, a 2nd century Christen theologian stated that by his time that the Jews believed that this referred to Israel. Your assertion that the traditional Jewish belief was that it was about the messiah until is just not true.

This is a good article and the verse by verse commentary and analysis is very imformative, also many good points and questions were raised about certain Xtian claims. Ok, my critisism s : the author seems to deny or be ignorant willful or otherwise I do not know of a Moshiach b. Yosef; There are dozens, if not hundreds, of commentators and teachers in the annals of Yisroel who have applied it Moshiach b. Hence the arguement can go both ways AND based upon the number of articles I've read on this topic, people usually understand the passage on how it suits them!!!

Another hole in this article is that it mentions that in J-'s day no-one understood Isaiah 53 to refer to Moshiach; but neither did anybody see it as refering to Yisroel until this Origen mentioned above who was the first!!!?! I also found verse 8 to be troubling - where in the world has Yisroel EVER been caught off from the land of the living???