Isaiah 53 and Developments in Old Testament Theology

______________________________

A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Mark McGinniss

_____________________________

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
OT2: Old Testament Theology

______________________________

by
Vincent M. Bradshaw
10 December 2017
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Why Isaiah 53? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Old Testament Theology, Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Jewish Old Testament Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Toward a Jewish Old Testament Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Dialogue in Old Testament Studies and Isaiah 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Historic Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 1: Isaiah 53:4b, 8 – 11b in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint . . . 18 – 19
Isaiah 53 in Other Sources in the Pre-Christian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Jewish Interpretation of Isaiah 53 in the Christian Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Medieval Foci on Isaiah 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Exegetical basis of the National Interpretation of Isaiah 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Isaiah 53 in the Old Testament Studies Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Who and What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The Results of Hebrew Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Back to the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Why Isaiah 53?

The Fourth Servant Song, Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12, or simply Isaiah 53, is one of the most debated

Bible passages ever. At least one well known commentator abandoned a commentary on the book

because of controversy over this one passage.1 H. H. Rowley, who surveyed the history of opinions on

this passage said: “No subject connected with the Old Testament has been more discussed than the

question of the identity of the Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah.”2 Historically, among commentators

who take the Servant to be an individual, there have been no less than 15 different identifications.3

Controversy has existed not only among Christians. According to Joseph Alobaidi, “the Jewish

community across the centuries . . . did not develop a unanimous understanding as to the identity of the

LORD’s servant.”4 For the Jews also, “the servant’s passage . . . is clearly one of the most controversial

sections that the Bible contains.”5 Isaiah 53 was at the center of the Rabbanite v. Karaite controversy

during the 9 – 11th Centuries AD, the “golden era of Jewish intellectual activity,”6 when these “equally

divided manifestations”7 engaged in a “life-threatening struggle for the soul of the Jewish religion,”8 the

Rabbanites defending the authority of Talmudic writings against the Karaites who held Tanakh alone to

be authoritative. The Rabbanites and Karaites, opposed as they were, viewed the Servant as an

individual. Later in the 12th Century, the collective interpretation became dominant, the view that the

suffering servant was the Jewish community.

These differences present the difficulties that every interpreter has had to face. Is the Servant of

the LORD a collective or individual figure? Either choice involves further difficulties. If the servant is a

1
Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: A Historical and Critical Study, 2nd ed. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1956), B.
2
H. H. Rowley,The Servant of the LORD and other Essays on the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952), 3.
3
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Volume 19a of Isaiah 40 – 55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New
York: Doubleday, 2000), 355.
4
Joseph Alobaidi, The Messiah in Isaiah 53 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1998), 9.
5
Ibid, 12.
6
Ibid, 20.
7
Ibid, 18.
8
Ibid, 20.

3
collective, then what about the graphic expressions so apt for an individual? If the Servant is an

individual, how does one explain grammatical features that recur in the plural (“stroke on them,” 53:8;

“in his deaths,” 53:9)? Either way, there is the paramount difficulty of how to explain the tension of

unmistakable suffering, even death, coupled with renewed life and prosperity.

In recent decades, interpretation of this passage is again prominent. Jewish theologians have

entered into the discipline of Old Testament Theology for the first time. The growing historical

awareness of Christian interpreters, who have welcomed them into the new dialogue that characterizes

Old Testament Studies, has prompted a concern with a ‘correct’ interpretation of Isaiah 53, unfettered

by Jewish tradition or the Christian New Testament. Isaiah 53 even showcases different Christian

approaches. Charles Shepherd recently chose the Fourth Servant Song as the passage to contrast the

historical approach of Bernhard L. Duhm, the literary approach of Brevard S. Childs and the theological

approach of J. Alec Motyer. According to Shepherd, Isaiah 53 has become “the locus classicus of Old

Testament theological interpretation from a Christian frame of reference.”9

With regard to the new prominence of Isaiah 53 in Old Testament interpretation, this paper will

address three issues. First, why have Jewish theologians entered into Old Testament Theology for the

first time? Second, how have Jewish theologians interpreted Isaiah 53 through the ages? Finally, what

are some aspects of recent Christian exegesis of this passage?

Old Testament Theology, Past and Present

For several decades, especially since the onset of Post Modernism (1990),10 scholars and

theologians have wondered if Biblical Theology had any future. All seemed to recognize that the

9
Charles E. Shepherd, Theological Interpretation and Isaiah 53: A Critical Comparison of Bernhard Duhm, Brevard
Childs, and Alec Motyer (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 5.
10
Elmer A. Martens, “The Shape of an Old Testament Theology For a Post Modern Culture,” Direction 25, no. 2
(Fall 1996): 8; Enlightenment (1648 – 1789), Modernity (1789 – 1989) and Post-Modernity (1989 – present).

4
discipline was in decline.11 In his 1990 essay, J. J. Collins even posed the question: “Is a Critical Biblical

Theology Possible?” He concluded that it was, but not in its present state. The discipline was in need of

new direction. Besides the facts that Biblical Theology seemed to be in a permanent state of crisis, with

no agreement on how to capitalize on the great works of Eichrodt or von Rad,12 Collins identified as the

main reason for languor that scholars increasingly did not see theology as the main or even a necessary

focus of Biblical Studies. The focus had shifted to literary and sociological criticism so that “not only is

theology no longer queen of the sciences in general, its place even among the biblical sciences is in

doubt.”13

The focus on the literary and sociological instead of the theological comes from what Collins

describes as “the perennial tension between biblical theology and the historical critical method.”14 Since

the ‘birth’ of biblical theology in 1787, when Gabler gave his University of Altdorf address, “The Proper

Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” Biblical

Theology was conceived as a “descriptive, historical discipline, in contrast to dogmatic theology” which

incorporated material from non-biblical sources and included the normative (applicational) aspects of

theology. Biblical Theology, restricting itself to the historical and descriptive, embraced the historical-

critical method, or the “history of religions” approach, for the next 100 years or more. This method

considered faith unscientific and contrary to historical findings. Goshen-Gottstein calls this, “the

carving out a place for ‘biblical’ theology, as separate from dogmatic theology,”15 the latter (dogmatic

theology) embracing faith and rejecting doubt and the former celebrating skepticism and rejecting

11
John J. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, edited by
William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern and David Noel Freedman, 1 – 17 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 1.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Tanakh Theology: The Religion of the Old Testament and the Place of Jewish
Biblical Theology” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, edited by Patrick D. Miller,
Jr., Paul D. Hanson and S. Dean McBride, 617 – 644 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 618.

5
dogma. During this time, Biblical Theology divided into Old and New Testament components with Old

Testament theology submerging itself into critical study. As Goshen-Gottstein states: “For about a

century, from Vatke until Eichrodt, Old Testament theology was practically identified with a critically

reconstructed inquiry into Old Testament religion.”16 Old Testament theology was a lot of history and

not so much theology.

After World War I, there was a revival of Old Testament theology as scholars righted the

balance. Prior to the revival, Hayes and Prussner write:

The application of the historical-critical and history-of-religion approaches to the Scriptures

effectively undercut the traditional claims which had been made about the unity, authority,
inspiration, revelatory quality, and distinctiveness of the Old Testament. Instead of an inspired
work full of infallible statements, reliable historical depictions, truths transcending ages, unified
perspectives, and unique contents, the Old Testament, as seen through the lens of historical
criticism, turned out to be a very human book . . . diversified and contradictory in its contents,
scientifically primitive in its outlook, often inaccurate in historical details, and frequently
surprisingly parallel to the literature of other ancient cultures.17

Old Testament Theology after Word War I retained some historical-critical influence, but there was

definitely a revival. Charles Allen Dinsmore wrote in 1931:

The Bible in recent times has passed through two distinct phases and is entering upon a third.
There was a period when it was regarded as an infallible authority, the divine element was
emphasized and the human overlooked; then came the age of the critic with his search for
authors, dates, and documents; his main contentions having been established, his battle is
losing it heat and absorbing interest. Now we are entering upon the era of appreciation.
Educators are beginning to realize that Hebrew literature is not inferior to Greek and Roman in
cultural value.18

This balance of faith and fact grew into the period after World War II, which some call the

“golden age” of Old Testament theology.19 During this time, a prominent theologian like G. E. Wright

might insist that Biblical Theology must start with the historical, but must progress to faith, a “history

16
Ibid.
17
John H. Hayes and Frederick Prussner, Old Testament Theology: its History and Development (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1985), 144 – 145.
18
Charles Allen Dinsmore, The English Bible as Literature (London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1931), 1.
19
Ibid, 221.

6
interpreted by faith,”20 a “projection of faith into facts that is then considered as the true meaning of

the facts.”21

However, even as Old Testament Theology peaked, there were still detractors. Many regarded

the blending of history and faith incompatible, “allowing dogmatic convictions to undercut its avowedly

historical method.”22 Thus, Old Testament theology once again faced how to balance history and faith.

The result is that, according to Goshen-Gottstein, the two agreed to split and exist side-by-side as two

legitimate areas of inquiry, “differently aimed yet cooperating,”23 one historical and the other faith-

based. Just as Biblical Theology split from Dogmatics under Gabler, and then from New Testament

theology after him, Old Testament theology began to split along cooperating yet distinct historical and

faith-based lines. Gerhard Hasel declared that the “two great turning-points in the development of

Biblical Theology” were “the freeing of Biblical Theology from the fetters of dogmatics (systematic

theology) in the time of Gabler and the separation of OT theology from the fetters of the history-of-

religions approach during the beginning of this [20th] century.”24 Old Testament Theology had now split

into the historical and the faith-based as “an irreversible fact,”25 and the only question was how the

parts would get along. Goshen-Gottstein stresses the symbiotic relationship between the two. He

writes:

No Old Testament scholar can afford to ignore the relationship existing between different parts
of each scholar’s work in Old Testament studies. It is my conviction that even the more remote
subspecializations of biblical scholarship – philology, archaeology, literary study, and others –
cannot be tightly compartmentalized. In any case, areas such as literary criticism, tradition
history, canonical studies, history of religion, and theology are so strongly intertwined with the
paramount exegetical endeavor – the very heart of all Bible study – that it would be

20
G. Ernest Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM Press, 1952), 128
21
Ibid, 117.
22
Collins, 4.
23
Goshen-Gottstein, 619.
24
Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 1663, Kindle.
25
Goshen-Gottstein, 619.

7
 unacceptable for me to think of Old Testament theology as beyond the pale of academic Old
Testament studies.26

An example of a faith-based approach in today’s Old Testament discipline is that of Brevard

Childs. According to Collins, “Childs does not reject historical criticism or dispute its results, but he

grants it no theological importance. For theological purposes the text is not to be read in its historical

context but can confront the reader directly as the Word of God.”27 Prominent in Child’s approach is his

view of the biblical Canon which is not “normative, even in Protestant Christianity, not to mention

Catholicism or Judaism” and is “not an objectively demonstrable claim but a statement of Christian

belief.” As Collins notes: “Childs fails to give reasons why anyone should adopt this approach to the text

unless they happen to share his view of Christian faith.”28

Many, like Collins, criticize Childs’ approach as too narrow. According to Collins, Childs’

approach isolates biblical theology from “much of what is vital and interesting in biblical studies.”

Childs’ approach is sectarian, “of interest only to those who hold certain confessional tenets that are not

shared by the discipline at large,” and “provides no basis for advancing dialogue.”29 Collins, and the

discipline as a whole, has opted for an emphasis on the historical-critical side of the split since it

accommodates the best of the “other branches of biblical scholarship” and provides the “context for

debate between different viewpoints.”30

This is where the field of Old Testament theology lies today. Although accepted, it has become

just one chip in the broadening and burgeoning field of Old Testament studies. According to Collins,

“some of the most suggestive biblical scholarship in recent years has been in the areas of sociology and

feminism, and its power has lain in the perception that biblical texts, like any other, serve and legitimate

26
Ibid, 620.
27
Collins, 6.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid, 6 – 7.
30
Ibid, 6.

8
specific human interests.”31 Collins’ conclusion is that theology is no longer vital or even necessary as

scholars increasingly focus on the literary and sociological.32

Following the trend of Biblical Theology in general, Old Testament Theology now has become a

passenger on the bus of Old Testament Studies. Norman Porteous observed that even during its

“golden age,” Old Testament Theology had “no general agreement as to what a theology of the Old

Testament should aim at providing.”33 As it now stands, Ollenburger observes that 1) options for

studying the Old Testament have proliferated; 2) Old Testament Theology has drawn on a wider range of

resources outside of biblical studies, and 3) Old Testament Theology has a much wider range of

participants in its discussions.34 In sum, Old Testament theology is now subordinate to the broader and

more historically-inclusive field of Old Testament studies. Whereas “traditionally . . . study of the Old

Testament was naturally understood as part of theology . . . in the twentieth century, Old Testament

studies do not belong anymore to theology; rather, Old Testament theology is viewed by many as a

major constituent of Old Testament studies.”35 According to Collins, Old Testament Theology in the 21st

Century has gone from a major constituent to near irrelevance. Since Old Testament Theology is no

longer central, neither is its quest for a unifying center within the Bible.36 Its place now is at the table

with a growing number of voices from related disciplines.

Jewish Old Testament Theology

Although some would accuse Old Testament Theology of selling its soul to the broader field of

Old Testament Studies, the inclusion of new voices has advantages and disadvantages. On the

31
Ibid.
32
Ibid, 4.
33
Norman Porteous, “Old Testament Theology,” in The Old Testament in Modern Study, edited by H. H. Rowley,
311 – 345 (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), 311.
34
Ben C. Ollenburger, Introduction in Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future, edited by Ben C. Ollenburger,
377 – 380 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 377 – 378
35
Goshen-Gottstein, 620.
36
Colllins, 5.

9
downside, there is for some a disinterest in the biblical text because of superseding literary and

sociological concerns. On the upside, particularly for Jewish theologians, there is the unique

opportunity to develop their own text-based Biblical Theology and have others accept it in the growing

context of Old Testament dialogue.

Historically, Jewish theologians have been uninterested in biblical theology. John D. Levenson

has explored many of the reasons in his chapter, “Why Jews are not interested in Biblical Theology.”37

Goshen-Gottstein agrees, that previously “the whole issue of ‘biblical theology’ in its ups and downs was

beyond their ken and interest.”38 However, the current climate in Old Testament Studies has provided

unique opportunities for the Jewish theologian. If Old Testament Studies can accept the work of non-

Jewish scholars, how can it reject the voice its oldest adherents and exegetes, namely, the Jews?

According to Goshen Gottstein, the current climate of broad-based dialogue means that “we [Jewish

theologians] are being offered, for the first time in the past generation, an understanding of the Old

Testament from within” and “Jewish Bible scholarship cannot but attempt to create its alternative

position.”39

Thus, the stage is set for the first Jewish Old Testament theologies. As far back as 1978, Ronald

E. Clements proposed that:

Christians and Jews should study the Old Testament together, and should seek to understand
how each has drawn from the older faith and writings of ancient Israel . . . each should have the
opportunity to view its intellectual convictions in the light of the distinctive ancient religion from
which they both sprang.”40

Thus, within Old Testament Studies, there is the budding field of Jewish Old Testament Theology

and a focus on the Hebrew text aside from the usual polemic diatribes. Along with Collins, Hayes and

37
Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical
Studies (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 33 – 61.
38
Goshen-Gottstein, 621.
39
Ibid, 625.
40
Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978), 10.

10
Prussner observe that Old Testament Studies has moved from a fixation on discovering a “single

perspective or concept for elucidating the theology”41 toward and an approach that embraces

contrasting views and voices.

Toward a Jewish Old Testament Theology

As a result of these developments, Jewish theologians have begun to seize the opportunity to

study and dialogue within the broadening context of Old Testament Studies. Ollenburger mentions

many of the ‘new’ voices in Jewish Old Testament Theology: Goshen-Gottstein, Levenson, Frymer-

Kensky, Sweeney and Kalimi.42 John Sailhammer lauds a recent major work on Tanakh theology by Rolf

Rendtorff.43 Theologians like Clements have made pleas to drop the historical polemics between Jew

and Christian in the cause of mutual edification and constructive dialogue.44 Theologians like John

Sailhammer have made pleas to renew Old Testament Theology as a distinct discipline before relating

the results to New Testament Study.45

It is important to distinguish these new Jewish theologians from some in the past. Ollenburger

mentions some of the “monumental” past works of Jewish biblical theology and philosophy, those by

Rosenzweig, Buber, Heschel and more recently, Fishbane.46 These works have been monumental, but

they are not that for which the new voices are clamoring. What the new voices, especially of Goshen-

Gottstien, are for is an explicit Tanahk Theology, or a theology based exclusively on the Old Testament

text. Everyone, past and present, seems to recognize that such an endeavor by Jewish theologians,

“historical or otherwise, is a novelty.”47

41
Hayes and Prussner, 252.
42
Ollenburger, 378,
43
John H. Sailhamer, “Canon and Composition” in Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future, edited by Ben C.
Ollenburger, 425 – 435 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 425.
44
Clements, 10.
45
Sailhamer, 426, 431.
46
Ollenburger, 378.
47
Goshen-Gottstein, 622.

11
 The reason is, in order to have a strictly Biblical or Old Testament Theology, one must believe or

embrace the primacy of the Old Testament text. Simply put, Judaism, with few exceptions, has never

done this. According to Frymer-Kensky:

The Bible is the source of halakic authority, but it does not function on its own and is not an
independent source of authority in traditional Judaism. A new reading of the Bible has never
had the power to upset rabbinic laws or attitudes. The rabbis turn to biblical passages to
legitimate and give great weight to rabbinic concepts or provisions. The Bible is of paramount
importance as a source of legitimation. But it does not have the power to delegitimate or to
invalidate rabbinic provisions.48

There has been no exclusive Old Testament or Tanakh theology because Judaism never

considered the Tanakh to have exclusive authority. For Judaism, and even for Catholicism, there is no

doctrine of Sola Scriptura which would give rise to an exclusively Biblical or Old Testament Theology.

Voices, new and old within Judaism, are quick to note this. According to Levenson:

The motivation to state the scriptural doctrines precisely and purely without the admixture of
other parts of tradition . . . this inner-Protestant dynamic that is the mother of biblical theology .
. . the unending Protestant quest for repristinization that spawns this great involvement in the
Christian Bible, finds scant parallel among the Jews.49

Goshen-Gottstein adds: “Judaism has no prior history of trying to describe the content structure of any

Part of Tanakh in ways other than what tradition took it to mean.”50 Until the past century, similar

developments have characterized Roman Catholicism. Levenson writes:

The Christian Bible bears a greater weight in Protestantism than in Catholicism. Although the
Bible has become more important in Catholicism in the decades since the Second Vatican
Council, the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura (by scripture alone), if it lives at all, lives only
in Protestantism, and one cannot overestimate the connection of this doctrine with the study of
biblical theology.51

The new voices clamoring for an exclusively Tanakh Theology are clamoring for something that

48
Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Emergence of Jewish Biblical Theologies,” in Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the
Hebrew Scriptures, edited by Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky, 109 – 121 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2000), 111.
49
Levenson, 46.
50
Goshen-Gottstein, 627.
51
Levenson, 45.

12
never existed before. Until the bifurcation of Old Testament scholarship into a distinct theological

branch and a more dominant historical branch, there was no such endeavor. Goshen-Gottstein reports:

Until the first movements toward testing the idea of a Tanakh theology, during the past decade
or so, the bifurcation that had developed in Christian Old Testament study was never taken note
of. I stress the fact that there was never an issue of rejection or conscious avoidance; theology
was a nonissue in an academic environment that conceived of itself as secular and objective, so
that the very idea of Tanakh theology was totally unthinkable.52

This endeavor into a text-based, exclusively Tanakh theology, means that Jews would be delving

into something historically Protestant Christian. Until recently:

The great impulse to develop a distinctly biblical theology that the quest for repristinization
gives Protestants, found no parallel in classic Reform Judaism. It also finds none in the Reform
Judaism of today, which, in general, continues to prize progressivism over fidelity to the classical
sources of the tradition.53

According to Goshen-Gottstein, “Theologizing is nothing inherently Christian, but the specific

way in which it has developed in the context of biblical studies is very much part of the Christian

tradition of dealing with Scripture – hence the almost intuitive avoidance of the term by Jewish Bible

scholars.”54

However, now that the atmosphere is more safe – Old Testament Studies has become more

historical and less faith-based – and there are active calls to put away the polemic, there is an

imperative for Jewish theologians to develop Tanakh Theology and come to the table and dialogue.

Christians scholars have invited them. Considering their own perspectives too restrictive, non-Jewish

biblicists have “put forward the idea . . . that there might be a Jewish biblical theology, because they

regarded their own academic work as faith-community anchored.”55

If non-Jews have been the most active in making comments on the Hebrew Scriptures, then the

Jews themselves could hardly reject the invitation to comment on that which is exclusively their own.

52
Goshen-Gottstein, 622.
53
Levenson, 48.
54
Goshen-Gottstein, 626.
55
Ibid.

13
Goshen-Gottstein stresses: “It is Tanakh only that serves as the common practical basis for Jews; and for

no one else but for Jews.”56 No other faith has the Tanakh alone as its basis. Goshen-Gottstein

observes: “Old Testament Theology has remained tied to the umbilical cord of Christian traditional

theology . . . it is precisely this fact which makes us [Jewish theologians] claim that Tanakh Theology

must be created as a parallel field of study.”57

Dialogue in Old Testament Studies and Isaiah 53

Now that Old Testament Studies has become more historically focused and cooperative, interest

in Isaiah 53 is again prominent.58 Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher call Isaiah 53 “one of those

leading Old Testament theological texts that . . . will continue to have, an extraordinary influence or

‘effective history’ in Judaism and Christianity.”59 Among the many reasons for this, first, is that it is a text

of theological weightiness. In it are the theological concepts of sacrifice, vicariousness and atonement.60

According to Hermann Spieckermann, “vicarious suffering” in the Old Testament is inextricably linked

with it.61 It is also a key text with respect to the doctrine of individual salvation, which some Jewish

scholars like Goshen-Gottstein claim is due to Christian influence, rather than “the facts in Tanakh,

where it would probably emerge as a relatively minor issue.”62

Second, it is also a very practical text. According to Joel E. Rembaum, Isaiah 53 has:

Long served Jews and Christians as a source for the resolution of questions resulting from
seemingly inexplicable human suffering and death . . . from the Patristic Age Isaiah 53 was

56
Ibid, 627,
57
Ibid, 626.
58
Richard E. Averbeck, “Christian Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering
the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 33 – 60 (Grand
Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012), 33.
59
Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, Preface to The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian
Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), vii.
60
Ibid.
61
Hermann Spieckermann, “The Conception and Prehistory of the Idea of Vicarious Suffering in the Old
Testament,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and
Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 1 – 15 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
2004), 1.
62
Goshen-Gottstein, 632.

14
 interpreted so as to provide a rationale for Jesus’ suffering on the cross. Medieval and modern
Jewish exegetes saw in this prophecy an explanation for the tragedies which the Jews
experienced in exile.63

According to Rembaum, it is a key source of truth in humanity’s quest to find meaning in its suffering.

Finally, Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 is a key text regarding methodology for the upstart discipline of

Tanakh Theology. Both Christian and Jewish theologians seem to want to discover, in the new dialogue

of Old Testament Studies, the answer to the question posed by a Gentile in the New Testament: “Of

whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” (Acts 8:34). Bellinger and Farmer

pose this question in the introduction to their book: “Did the influence of Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 upon

Christian faith begin with Jesus?”64 Put another way, what was the influence of Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12

before Jesus and the New Testament? What influence did it have, if any, on its own? A reexamination

of Isaiah 53 is a fresh start for both Jewish and Christians theologians in the current dialogue that

characterizes Old Testament Studies.

So far, Christian theologians have taken the lead. In the introduction to his exegesis of Isaiah 53,

Richard E. Averbeck writes:

I approach the discussion as a scholar of the Old Testament in its ancient Israelite context. I am
concerned with interpreting Isaiah 53 (1) exegetically, in the specific details of the passage itself
and in relation to the literary context provided by the larger unit of Isaiah 40 – 66; (2)
historically, in light of the situation of ancient Israel in the day of its writing; (3) institutionally in
accordance with the experiences and practices of the Old Testament prophets; and (4)
theologically, as it draws from and contributes to the themes already apparent within the canon
of the Hebrew Bible. But the reader should keep in mind that I am an Old Testament scholar
who is also a Christian, so the Greek New Testament is just as much inspired Scripture to me as
the Hebrew Old Testament. Although I will leave the exegesis and interpretation of the related
New Testament passages to others, the fact that I am a Christian means that I take seriously
passages like Acts 8:30 – 35.65

Methodologically, Goshen-Gottstein would concur. He writes:

63
Joel Rembaum, “The Development of a Jewish Exegetical Tradition Regarding Isaiah 53” Harvard Theological
Review 75, no. 3 (1982): 289 – 311): 289.
64
William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, Introduction to Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and
Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 1.
65
Averbeck, 34.

15
 I claim that what I am talking about is a matter of strict scholarly methodology, which should be
acceptable without denominational restriction, but I am ready to accept the judgment that I am
biased . . . as long as we all agree to accept our respective biases as students of the Old
Testament and Tanakh . . . The Tanakh theologian, like the Christian theologian, has a legitimate
interest in the way a given phenomenon is mirrored, reinterpreted in a post-Tanakh structure –
rabbinic, New Testament, or otherwise . . . but it is not necessary to close one’s eyes to later
structures even as the earlier ones are analyzed so long as one does not confuse the facts.66

In the new Old Testament Studies dialogue, the parties are in agreement. The Jewish Tanakh

theologian desires to interpret Isaiah 53 in the light of Rabbinic writings which is the historic method of

his faith tradition. The Christian Old Testament theologian desires to interpret Isaiah 53 in light of the

New Testament, which is the historic method of his faith. However, at least as a starting point, both

agree to limit their inquiry to the Old Testament text without the “admixture of other parts of

tradition”67 as the methodological common ground of the new rapprochement.

Historic Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53

If one of the goals of interpreting Isaiah 53 is to interpret it exegetically without interference or

read-in from either Christian or rabbinic sources, then one place to start is with the Septuagint. The

Septuagint is not rabbinic literature – it is Scripture. However, as a translation, it is an uninspired work

of men, and can contain theological bias. As David A. Sapp comments: “The LXX, after all, is a translation

with all the strengths and weaknesses of a translation. A translation is sometimes influenced by

theological bias, and that is the case with Isaiah 53.”68

Isaiah 53 is a difficult passage in the Masoretic Text, with many textual disagreements among

rabbinic commentators. Therefore, the interpretational decisions of the LXX and the theology of the

final product is one indication of how Jewish exegetes understood Isaiah 53 aside from the New

Testament. Since this translation/ interpretation existed before Jesus’ first Advent, it is impossible for

66
Goshen-Gottstein, 633.
67
Levenson, 46.
68
David A. Sapp, “The lXX, 1Q1Isa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian Doctrine of Atonement,” in Jesus
and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer,
170 – 192 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 188.

16
the New Testament to have influenced it. As Levenson comments: “Christianity is not the historical

context for a single religious idea in the Hebrew Bible, the latest of whose writings predates the earliest

Christian material by a full two centuries.”69 Therefore, the Septuagint has the potential of being one of

the most purely ‘Jewish’ historical records of what Isaiah 53 meant before subsequent traditions

influenced it.

The translational bias of the LXX version of Isaiah 53 is the subject of David A. Sapp’s, “The LXX,

1Q1sa, and MT versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian Doctrine of Atonement.” Sapp begins with the

simple observation that if Isaiah 53 clearly expresses the Christian doctrine of substitutionary

atonement, then why does the New Testament refrain from directly quoting those verses, 53:10 – 11,

which seem to express it most directly? His conclusion is that the early Christian evangelists could not

quote Isaiah 53:10 – 11 from the LXX because the Jewish translators had translated any doctrine of

atonement out of it. Scholars generally agree that “the translator of the Septuagint version of Isaiah 53

softened the vicarious atoning suffering of the servant in many places.”70

They did not do this as an apologetic – the ministry of Christ and His Apostles did not yet exist.

Why they did it is a matter of debate. Some attribute it to the poor quality of the Hebrew exemplars or

to an imperfect knowledge of Hebrew.71 Sapp’s conclusion is that these factors, although tenable,

cannot explain the amount of diversion between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. The differences

are so significant and consistent that only outright theological bias can account for it. He writes:

“Scholars generally view the theologies of the two texts as fundamentally similar” and “attempt to

reconcile them and read one as much like the other as possible.”72 However, he concludes that “the

69
Levenson, 39.
70
Antti Laato, Who is the Servant of the LORD? Jewish and Christian Interpretations on Isaiah 53 from Antiquity to
the Middle Ages (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 84.
71
Sapp, 184.
72
Ibid, 171.

17
differences are actually greater than we have realized”73 and the two versions represent completely

“different textual traditions of Isaiah 53, one Hebrew and the other Greek.”74 Although the LXX

translation “still carried many statements implying atonement that could be used when explaining the

Christian Gospel,”75 the differences are such that “the Christian doctrine of atonement rests upon an

understanding of Isaiah 53 that is fully preserved only in the Hebrew versions”76 and that “only the

Hebrew texts preserve the language and theology that would make such allusions possible.”77 In fact,

atonement is so lacking in the LXX version, that “when the early Christians wanted to tell the message of

Christ’s sacrificial death using vv. 10 – 11b, they could not quote the Greek.”78 Furthermore, the

variants between the Masoretic Text (fifth – tenth centuries C.E.) and the two Qumran Isaiah scrolls,

1QIsaa and 1QIsab (second – first centuries B.C.E.) are exegetically minor, while there are several major

variants where the LXX runs counter to all three Hebrew versions (MT, 1QIsaa and 1QIsab). Below is a

reproduction of Sapp’s comparison:

Table 1: Isaiah 53:4b, 8 – 11b in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint79
Masoretic Text LXX
4b And we considered him stricken, And we considered him to be in distress
and smitten by God and afflicted and under a blow of misfortune and under
oppression . . .
8a By coercion and by judgment he was taken By humiliation his justice was taken
away . . . away . . .
8b For he was cut off from the land For was taken up from the earth his life;
of the living; by/for the transgression of my by the lawless deeds of my people
people the stroke was upon him he was led to death
9a And he [the servant] makes with the And I [the LORD] will give/hand over the
wicked his grave and with the rich in his wicked instead of his grave, and the rich
death instead of his death
9b Although he did no wrong, and no deceit Because he did not do wrong nor was found
was in his mouth deceit in his mouth

73
Ibid, 172.
74
Ibid, 171.
75
Ibid, 188.
76
Ibid, 187.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid, 188.
79
Sapp, 183; vv. 12b, d – f are from the NASB and Brenton LXX, respectively.

18
 10a And the LORD desires to bruise/crush him;
he will make [him] suffer
10b If/although you [sg., the LORD] make an
offering, of his soul, he will see offspring;
and he will prolong days
10c And the desire of the LORD
in his hand will prosper
11a After the suffering of his soul, he will see
light and he will be satisfied
And through his knowledge
11b Will justify the righteous one my servant
the many.
12a Therefore I [the LORD] will give a portion to
him in/among the many/great
12b and he will divide the booty with the strong
12c he poured out his soul to death
12d And was numbered with the transgressors
12e Yet he himself bore the sin of many
12f And interceded for the transgressors
and the LORD desires to cleanse him of the
plague
If you [pl., the wicked] make an offering
your [pl.] soul will see offspring long-lived
And the LORD desires to take away
From the agony of his soul, to show to him
light and to fill [him]
With understanding, to vindicate the
righteous one who well serves the many.
Therefore he [the servant] will inherit much
and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty
Because his soul was delivered up to death
And he was numbered among the
transgressors
And he bore the sins of many
And was delivered because of their
iniquities

Even a cursory reading of both the Hebrew and Greek versions reveals significant differences.

However, the differences are not random – they follow a predictable pattern. According to Hermann

Spieckermann and Michael L. Brown, there are five primary aspects of vicarious suffering in Isaiah 53 in

the Hebrew text:

a. One person intercedes for the sins of others.

b. The one who intercedes for the sins of others is himself sinless and righteous.
c. The vicarious act of the one occurs once for all.
d. One intercedes for the sins of others of his own will.
e. God brings about the vicarious action of the one for the sins of the others intentionally.80

Of the five, the LXX translation effectively negates them all.

The LXX’s obfuscation of e. is perhaps the most important. The LXX accomplishes this in three

significant ways. First, the LXX of 4b blatantly omits any mention of God, so that there is no hint that

80
Spieckermann, 5 – 7; Michael L. Brown, “Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah
53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser,
61 – 83 (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012), 79.

19
God has caused the servant to suffer. There is no mention of “smitten by God” in the LXX as in the MT.

Second, in 10b, there is no mention of the LORD making the servant a sacrifice. Instead, a group of

people (‘you,’ plural, two times) are making and offering (penance) for themselves. Third, in 11b, the

servant is not causing the justification of others as in the MT. Instead, the LORD is vindicating the

servant because he served others so well. Sapp’s conclusion is that “the LXX has made the LORD’s

vindication of the servant and his righteousness the dominant theme in v. 11b, not the servant’s

justification of sinners.”81 If Isaiah 53 is ultimately about God justifying His one righteous servant alone,

than any Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement for a larger group of helpless sinners ends right

there.

The LXX further negates d. In 12c, there is no mention of the servant giving himself over to

death voluntarily. Instead of the reflexive of the MT, “he poured out his soul,” there is simply a passive:

“his soul was delivered up.” In Sapp’s words, “the LXX uses the weaker passive voice where the Hebrew

has employed the active causative hiphil verb.”82 The LXX makes it seem as if the servant experienced

persecution from others as opposed to offering himself in self-sacrifice.

The LXX also negates c. In 9a, instead of the servant dying by making his grave in his death, the

LXX inserts the 1st person singular, the LORD, Who puts the wicked and the rich to death instead of the

servant. As Sapp observes, “The LORD . . . renders justice apparently by substituting the wicked and the

rich for the servant at the point that he is about to die at their hands.”83 Thus, there is no substitution or

vicarious atonement but merely ultimate justice against the persecutors. It is not even clear whether

the servant dies at all.

81
Sapp, 176.
82
Ibid, 177.
83
Sapp, 179.

20
 The LXX obscures, if not negates b. In 10a, instead of God bruising the servant and making him

suffer, the LXX has the LORD desiring to cleanse the servant. The fact that the servant has a ‘plague’

from which he needs cleansing brings into doubt whether he was sinless.

Finally, the LXX obscures a. Starting in 10c and running through 11b, instead of the desire of the

LORD prospering through the sacrifice of the servant, the LXX makes the desire of the LORD the

vindicating of the servant because he served others so well. There is no explicit aim to benefit others

aside from vindicating the servant.

Sapp is just making observations from a parallel comparison of the two texts. With him, one can

agree that:

The LXX has created a significantly different theology of the servant in Isaiah 53:8 – 11 as
compared to the Hebrew. In the Hebrew, the righteous one, the LORD’s servant, gives
righteousness to the many through a divinely intended sacrificial death inflicted on him by
wicked people . . . in the LXX the LORD vindicates the righteous one who serves the many well
by cutting short his agony and saving him from death at the hands of wicked people.84

For obvious reasons, the major English Bible translations follow Isaiah 53 in the Hebrew rather

than the Greek. Sapp comments: “The Hebrew Masoretic Text . . . is more Christian-friendly and leans

more toward atonement theology” than the LXX.85 No doubt the Apostle Paul, trained in Hebrew, knew

the difference. Since the LXX of Isaiah 53 still carried many statements implying atonement, it was still

useful for explaining the Gospel. However, when the “early Christians wanted to tell the message of

Christ’s sacrificial death using vv. 10 – 11b, they could not quote the Greek directly,” but would allude to

the Hebrew.86 Then, as now, the LXX of Isaiah 53 shows the reluctance of many Jews to accept the fact

that God could allow a truly righteous man to die like a criminal, and then attach atoning significance to

it. This reluctance predominated in Jesus’ day and extends up to the present time.

84
Sapp, 182.
85
Sapp, 171.
86
Ibid, 188.

21
Isaiah 53 in Other Sources in the Pre-Christian Period

Although the translation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53 by the Septuagint translators is one

witness to how Jews in the Pre-Christian period understood the Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13 –

53:12), there are many other Pre-Christian documents that serve as witnesses. This is the subject of

Martin Hengel and Daniel P. Bailey’s study, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian

Period.” They survey some 12 sources including Zechariah 12:9 – 13:1, and 13:7 – 9, the Book of Daniel,

1 Enoch, the two Qumran Isaiah scrolls, 1QIsaa and 1QIsab, the Aramaic Apocryphon of Levi 4Q540 – 541,

the LXX, the passio iusti, including Wisdom 2 and 5, the Testament of Benjamin 3:8 and the Self-

Glorification Hymn, 4Q491 Fragment 11 Column I = 4Q491c in order to understand the influence of

Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian era. Their findings are too lengthy to quote, but one can summarize them

briefly.

First, the authors insist that the Pre-Christian interpreters understood Isaiah wholistically. They

agree with Jeremias that: “the modern isolation of the Servant Songs, like the division of the book into

Proto-, Deutero-, and Trito-Isaiah, was completely unknown in that day.”87

Second, Isaiah 53 did have an influence in the Pre-Christian period contra the “widespread

assumption that Isaiah 53 was without much influence.” 88 However, the influence varies in its type and

direction. Hengel and Bailey comment: “the passage’s influence in early Judaism is not all of the same

type, nor all of the type that would necessarily support the preaching of Christianity regarding a

suffering, atoning figure who bears the sins of others vicariously.”89

Finally, there is enough evidence in “demonstrated uses and echoes of this text” to suggest that

some understood the text to refer to a “suffering and atoning eschatological Messianic figure” especially

87
Martin Hengel and Daniel P. Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period,” in The
Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher,
translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 75 – 146 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 79.
88
Ibid, 75.
89
Ibid.

22
in Palestinian Judaism, to which early Christianity appealed in its teaching.90 Although such an

interpretation existed, in general, the “the motif of vicarious suffering tends to recede into the

background in the Jewish tradition, especially where the Savior’s exaltation or his role as judge is

prominent.”91 Early Judaism, as is the case today, had trouble holding in tension the twin ideas of a

suffering and a triumphant Messiah. When the interpretation was Messianic, to the extent he was

shown as victorious, the theme of his suffering receded.

Jewish Interpretation of Isaiah 53 in the Christian Era

Beginning in the Christian era, Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 split into two distinct types.

First was the interpretation of Isaiah 53 in rabbinic literature. Interpretations in this first group tended

to be early, unsystematic, few and focused on the Messiah as the servant.92 A second group consisted

of the extensive commentaries on the passage in medieval European Jewish exegetical works.

Interpretations of this second group were later, systematic, numerous and focused on the servant as the

Jewish people suffering in exile. It is important to consider the factors that gave rise to these

differences.

The rabbinic writings of the early Christian era had a unique character. First, they were

unsystematic. According to Goshen-Gottstein, Jewish ‘biblical theology’ has always been “a matter of

piecemeal observations appended to the text and subordinate to it particularity.”93 According to

Rembaum, “the non-legal [non-Pentateuch] midrashic works of the rabbinic period were primarily

oriented toward homiletical purposes, were not as focused as the medieval works, and were hardly

systematic.”94

90
Ibid, 76.
91
Ibid.
92
Rembaum, 290 – 291.
93
Goshen-Gottstein, 54.
94
Rembaum, 291.

23
 These writings were also unsystematic in that they had no theological ‘center.’ In Judaism, the

Pentateuch is always the center: the prophets apply the Pentateuch but never deviate from it.

Regarding a single thematic center, the idea that “all the literature of the Hebrew Bible, which was

composed over a millennium, has one message (mitte)” is “foreign to Judaism,” “presents grave

historical problems” and is “in contradiction to the Jewish prioritization of the Torah over the rest of the

Tanakh.”95 The “bewildering array of candidates” that non-Jewish theologians have put forward as the

“one idea into which the Hebrew Bible is to be subsumed” Jewish theologians find amusing.96 Levenson

concludes: “the search for the one great idea that pervades and unifies the Hebrew Bible is unlikely to

interest Jews.”97

The rabbinic writings were also unsystematic in that their interpretational tradition was open-

ended and focused almost exclusively on the Pentateuch. Goshen-Gottstein writes: “Judaism has no

prior history of trying to describe the content structure of any part of the Tanakh in ways other than

what tradition took it to mean, and tradition was interested in the ‘Law’ only. Contrary to popular

imagination, even Karaites [the Jewish sect that adheres to Tanakh alone as having legal authority] did

not proclaim sola scriptura.”98 What Goshen-Gottstein is describing is a tradition where the rabbis

continue the commentary and application of the Pentateuch that the prophets began, in an open-ended

authoritative tradition that focuses on the Pentateuch alone. Goshen-Gottstein continues: “Judaism

boasts a strong tradition of systematization, but that is a matter of law and observance and is of no

relevance to us.”99 Jewish tractates that presented doctrinal beliefs in a “systematic description that

95
Levenson, 55.
96
Ibid, 54.
97
Ibid.
98
Goshen-Gottstein, 627.
99
Ibid, 627.

24
could . . . be termed ‘theological’” did not appear until some tractates patterned themselves after the

Islamic Kalam in the Medieval period.100

The almost sole focus on the Pentateuch in the rabbinic writings helps to account for the paucity

of writings on Isaiah 53. Levenson comments that the “ubiquitous assumption of the biblical

theologians that one might learn the biblical message better from a book in another section of the

canon and then utilize that book to correct or counterbalance the Torah” contradicts “the Jewish

prioritization of the Torah over the rest of the Tanakh.”101 For the rabbis, anything non-Pentateuchal

was secondary. Levenson cites the humorous example of John L. McKenzie, a Roman Catholic scholar

who set out to write “the theology of the Old Testament as if the New Testament did not exist” and

ended up with only 25 out of 341 pages devoted to the prophets.102 The concept of spending a lot of

commentary on non-Pentateuchal writings for their own sake would not take hold until much later.

What did exist regarding Isaiah 53 in this early period was the beginnings of an anti-Christian

apologetic tradition that would come to blossom later in the Medieval period. Basic to the diatribe in

this early period were two main contentions. First, if Jesus were God, how could He have allowed

Himself to undergo such suffering and such a shameful and humiliating death? Second, if Jesus were the

Messiah, should he not have reigned in glory rather than dying like a criminal?

In answering these questions, Christians had the perfect proof text in Isaiah 53. However, there

was one problem. Isaiah 53 did not explicitly mention crucifixion. The Jews did not have a problem with

a suffering Messiah per se, especially one that would come out victorious. They did have a problem with

a Jewish Messiah that died in way that the Pentateuch defined as cursed. That a god could die and

resurrect was a common theme in ancient mythology.103 That was not the rub for the Jews. They were

100
Ibid.
101
Levenson, 55.
102
Ibid, 54 – 55.
103
Rembaum, 290.

25
familiar with that theme. It was that a Jewish Messiah could die on a cross that seemed intolerably

blasphemous and atheistic. As Trypho contented with Justin Martyr:

That the Scriptures do say that Christ should suffer, is plain, but we wish to learn if you can
prove also, that it should be by a kind of suffering which is cursed in the Law? That he should
suffer and be led as a sheep to slaughter, we know; but if he was to be crucified, and die so
shamefully and dishonorably by a death which is cursed in the Law, prove to us, for we cannot
bring ourselves to conceive this.104

What made writings on Isaiah 53 so copious in the later Medieval period despite a rabbinic focus

on the Pentateuch was this constant contention with Christians who used the Fourth Servant Song as a

proof text for the Crucified Messiah.

Medieval Foci on Isaiah 53

Because the rabbinical writings heavily prioritized and systematized the Pentateuch, the early

rabbinical writings on Isaiah 53 were few and unsystematic. However, as the Medieval Period

approached, the writing of Jewish exegetes on Isaiah 53 became extensive and systematic. These

exegetes, many following Solomon ben Isaac, (Rabbi Shlomo ben Isaac, Rashi, ‫)רש״י‬, of Troyes, France

(1040 – 1105 AD) began to interpret the servant of Isaiah 53 as the Jewish people suffering in exile.

Anti-Christian apologetic and historical tragedy were the main reasons for this new, prominent

interpretation.

By the Middle Ages, Christian dogma contended that the Jewish exile was proof of God’s

punishment and permanent abandonment of the Jews for crucifying Christ.105 In scholastic disputations

especially, the Crucifixion of Christ and His vicarious suffering and atonement were the only true

interpretations of Isaiah 53. Although some Jews tried to ignore this Christological polemic, as the

attacks increased, Jewish apologists started to counter.

104
E. B. Pusey, Introduction in The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters, translated by S. R.
Driver and AD. Neubauer, xxix – lxv (Oxford: James Parker and Company, 1877), xli.
105
Rembaum, 292.

26
 Also around this time, a severe persecution occurred. The First Crusade (1096 – 1099), during

Rashi’s life, expressed to two strong religious sentiments of the time: a fanatical zeal on behalf of all

faiths, Jews, Christians and Muslims and a violent intolerance of the other faiths. In 1096, the “cauldron

of religious and social tensions boiled over” and Christians attacked Jewish communities in France and

Germany. Some call this The First Holocaust.

Ultimately, Jewish persecution was not the goal. The violence was the overflow of the fanatical

zeal of the times. Although some sought the conversion of the Jews and did not seek violence at all,

others sought money and plunder, while most attacked because they considered the Jews as co-

enemies of Christ along with Muslims. Regardless, Christians ended up killing several hundred Jews. In

Mainz, Germany, one woman killed her own children in anticipation of a slaughter, and the chief rabbi

Kalonymus Ben Meshullam committed suicide. In the aftermath, Jewish communities sought an

explanation in theology. They would come to embrace suffering and persecution as a sign of God’s

special favor. Martyrdom would become the ultimate expression of religious conviction with great

rewards in the World to come106 and Isaiah 53 would become the proof text.

It was Solomon ben Isaac who was the first to interpret the servant of Isaiah 53 as the Jewish

people in exile.107 He wrote his commentary on Isaiah 53 directly after the massacre of The First

Crusade. He had two purposes: 1) to refute the Christian claim that Jesus was the Servant of God; and

2) to comfort Jews with the a scriptural conviction that God had prophesied their sufferings and

assigned it a holy function.108 These are his comments on Isaiah 53:3: “He was despised and forsaken of

men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face; he was

106
Rembaum, 294.
107
Ibid, 295.
108
Ibid.

27
despised, and we did not esteem Him: this prophet customarily refers to all Israel as one man . . . and

even here he said, ‘Behold, my servant shall prosper’ in reference to the House of Jacob.”109

Rashi had 3 major emphases in his interpretation which later gained the names 1) ‘cathartic’; 2)

‘missionary,’ and 3) ‘soteriological.’110 The first, the cathartic, was that the Jewish people were exiled111

because of their own guilt and were suffering as a means of propitiating (53:10: ‘asham, ‫אׇ שׇ ם‬, ‘guilt

offering’) YHWH. The second, the missionary, is that the exile was a necessary stage in God’s plan to

bring Torah to the nations and that the Jews had a responsibility for influencing and saving the world.112

These first two concepts were not new: they existed in Judaism even before Rashi tied them explicitly to

Isaiah 53.

The third, the soteriological, was new with Rashi. This is the idea that God had assigned the

Jewish people the role of suffering to atone for the sins of humanity. He writes regarding Isaiah 53:4 –

11: “Israel suffered in order that by his sufferings atonement might be made for all other nations; the

sickness which ought to have fallen upon us was carried by him . . . he was chastised in order that the

whole world might have peace . . . He refrained from destroying the world.”113 In this apologetic, the

Jews, not Christ, were to atone for the sins of the world and the Jews, not the Christians, were to be the

converters of the world.114

This ‘new’ explanation of “universal vicarious expiation’ occurs nowhere in earlier Jewish

sources.115 Previously, there were concepts of righteous Jews expiating the sins of fellow Jews, and Jews

109
S. R. Driver and AD. Neubauer, trans, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters (Oxford:
James Parker and Company, 1877), 37.
110
Rembaum, 299.
111
Isaiah 53:8: “he [Israel] was cut off from the land of the living” – Rashi interprets ‘land of the living’ as the land
of Israel; Ibid, 296.
112
Efraim Elimelech Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), 531 – 532;
Rembaum, 297, 299.
113
Driver and Neubauer, 37 – 39.
114
Pusey, xlii.
115
Rembaum, 297.

28
having a role in saving the world.116 However, starting with Rashi, it was the Jews in exile who were

blameless, who were maintaining their guiltlessness in the midst of persecution, who were suffering as a

sacrifice to atone for humanity, and who would gain great rewards in the world to come. Funkenstein,

Rembaum and others see a “distinctly Christian coloration” in this soteriological interpretation.117

Rembaum opines: “It is precisely because the idea of an innocent human sacrifice affording universal

atonement and reconciliation of humanity with God became so prominent in early twelfth-century

France, that Rashi was moved to incorporate it into his Isaiah 53 exegesis.”118 Jewish writers following

Rashi, including Ibn Ezra and David Kimchi, have maintained these three emphases in Isaiah 53. These

emphases have persisted from the 12th Century to the present day.119 Ibn Ezra (1089 – 1167) even

added a fourth, that Gentile persecution of the Jews in exile was the ultimate basis for God punishing

the nations.

Prior to the 12th Century, Jews had mainly identified the Servant of Isaiah 53 as an individual.

The Karaites had always held the Servant to be to be the Messiah,120 and the Rabbanites, many of whom

followed their champion, Rabbi Saadia Gaon (882 – 942 AD), the head of the great Rabbanite Academy

in Sura in Babylonia, thought it was the prophet Jeremiah.121 Many Jews in the 12th Century continued

to believe that the Servant of Isaiah 53 was the Messiah or another individual based on previous

rabbinical influence. However, there was always the tension of how one person could die and also

prolong his days and reign. Many, then and now, tried to explain away the Messiah’s death because

they cannot satisfactorily explain it. Ibn Crispin said the Messiah was near to death; Herz Homberg said

116
Ibid.
117
Amos Funkenstein, “Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Later Middle Ages,” in Biblical
Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, edited by Scott J. Hafemann, 373 – 382 (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2002), 376; Rembaum, 299.
118
Rembaum, 299.
119
Ibid.
120
Alobaidi, 26.
121
Ibid, 14.

29
that others intended to kill him; Moses Elsheikh thought the servant was the Messiah but that the death

verses applied to someone else.122 In contrast, Rashi’s collective interpretation removed this difficulty

and “was too flattering to national feeling not to be extensively adopted.”123 Pusey adds, “It might have

become universal, but for its unsatisfactoriness.”124

Exegetical basis of the National Interpretation of Isaiah 53

Moving from a Messianic to a national interpretation of the servant in Isaiah 53 was not just

convenience and flattery. It had an exegetical basis. The exegetical basis consisted of four primary facts:

1) the word ‘grief’ in 53: 3, 10 (‫ )חלי‬occurs in Scripture only with regard to bodily ailment; it never

occurs metaphorically for death and so fits the context of persecution of the nation better than

crucifixion of a person; 2) the word ‘on him’ in 53:8 is plural (ׄ‫‘ ;למו‬the stroke on him [them]’); 3) the

word ‘death’ in 53:9 is a plural (‫‘ ;במותיו‬with a rich man in his deaths’) and 4) the word ‘seed’ in 53:10

never occurs metaphorically, but always of physical offspring, and thus cannot refer to spiritual

regeneration of believers (‫‘ ;זרע‬see his offspring’).

There were counters to these points. With regard to the plurals, 2) and 3), it seemed

inconsistent to some to insist that the singular servant had a plural sense only to turn around and insist

that the plurals in these verses could not be singular when they had a singular sense in other verses (Job

20:23; 22:2).125 There were conceptual objections to 1) and 4). Ultimately, there was an exegetical basis

for the national interpretation which gave it cogency. However, it did not satisfy all of the Jewish

interpreters. Many still clung to the individual interpretation, whether of the Messiah, Isaiah (Ibn Ezra at

122
Pusey, xlii.
123
Ibid, xliv.
124
Ibid.
125
Pusey, liii.

30
one time), Jeremiah (Saadiah Gaon), Hezekiah (Saadyah Ibn Danan), Josiah (Abarbanel) or Job (Eliezer

the German).126

As Jewish and non-Jewish theologians approach Isaiah 53 in the spirit of Old Testament Studies

dialogue today, the national (collective) and myriad individual interpretations of the Servant in Isaiah 53

persist. However, the Medieval Period of Isaiah 53 interpretation made signal contributions in

preparation for the current dialogue. First, it was no longer usual for Jewish commentators to focus only

or primarily on the Pentateuch. Beginning in the Middle Ages, Jewish exegetes wrote comprehensive

and systematic commentaries on books and sections throughout the Bible.127 Also, no longer were

Jewish writings just “piecemeal observations appended to the text”128 or just homiletically oriented.129

After centuries of fierce disputation, Jewish writings developed painstaking precision and exegetical

depth.

Isaiah 53 in the Old Testament Studies Dialogue

As Old Testament Theology has given way to a focus on Old Testament Studies, theologians,

Jewish and Gentile, have come back to Isaiah 53 starting with a mutual fascination with that which is

historical. Yerushalmi sees this as somewhat of a historical reversal. He writes that in the Middle Ages:

The most profound intellectual synthesis [between Jew and Gentile] took place in the realm of
philosophy . . . in modern times we have, as it were, the reverse. There has been little genuine
interpenetration between Jewish and general philosophy, but a deep and ubiquitous interaction
with modern historicism. By this I mean simply that while there was a common realm of
discourse and mutual influence among Jewish, Muslim, and Christian philosophy in the Middle
Ages, this has not been true of Jewish and general philosophy in modern times. The primary
intellectual encounter between Judaism and modern culture has lain precisely in a mutual
preoccupation with the historicity of things.130

126
Pusey, lvi, lxi – lxii.
127
Rembaum, 291.
128
Levenson, 54.
129
Rembaum, 291.
130
Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington Press,
1982), 85 – 86.

31
This historical reversal has produced a novel result: Jewish theologians are now engaging in the

historically Christian Protestant endeavor of doing Old Testament theology exclusively on the biblical

text.

Although Jewish theologians have answered the call to do Tanakh Theology (Rolf Rendtorff),

non-Jewish scholars, with their historical focus, have taken the lead in reassessing Isaiah 53. Although

some insist on approaching the Servant Song from the standpoint of the New Testament (Averbeck

writes, “For some interpreters simply making reference to the New Testament is all we need to do when

handling Isaiah 53,”131), the remainder of this paper will focus on some points of exegesis that

approaches Isaiah 53 “in its literary, historical and theological context . . . directly from the Isaiah 53

text.”132

Who and What?

Due to the intense scrutiny that Jews and Christians have put on Isaiah 53 for over a Millennium,

there are not many ‘new’ exegetical insights as both Jewish and Christian theologians reassess the text.

However, there are a few. There is also a consensus on where the cruxes of interpretation, the major

disagreements and difficulties, in the new dialogue lie. They have historically remained the same: who

the servant is, and what he has accomplished.

Although the issue of who the Servant of Isaiah 53 is has always been a crux, what new study

brings to the old debate is a clarification of who the servant is based on an analysis of the Four Servant

Songs in Isaiah (Isaiah 42:1 – 4; 49:1 – 6; 50:4 – 9; 52:13 – 53:12). This clarification is ‘new’ because the

identification and isolation of the four Servant Songs began in the modern era, with Bernard Duhm’s

commentary on Isaiah in 1892. According to Reventlow, it is this next level of context that is necessary

131
Averbeck, 36.
132
Ibid.

32
“to understand the content and significance of Isaiah 53.”133 Averbeck considers the four songs together

as necessary “in order to capture all the data,”134 especially with respect to the identity of God’s Servant,

an issue that is of “special importance” and “in sore need of further clarification.”135

Averbeck, who believes that the Servant in Isaiah 53 is Jesus Christ, ‘captures the data’ from the

four Servant Songs as to who the Servant is in Isaiah 53 in a 3-level scheme that Franz Delitzsch first

proposed. The ‘servant’ has 3 distinct references in the four Servant Songs:136

A Single Servant who suffers vicariously for true Israel

A spiritual remnant within the nation

The ethnic nation as a whole

The scheme of Delitzsch and Averbeck is helpful. However, some have interpreted the data

from the four Servant Songs contrary to Averbeck. The data has caused some to militate against the

interpretation that the Servant in Isaiah 53 is Jesus Christ in favor of the collective interpretation.

Regarding the book as a whole, most scholars recognize a change in Isaiah beginning with

Chapter 40. In the first 39 Chapters, Isaiah mentions himself 16 times and in Chapters 40 – 66, not once.

This is mostly due to the fact that Isaiah Chapters 1 – 39 are in the past, and the rest of the book looks to

the future. Whether the mention of Isaiah’s name and the shift from the past to the future indicates

another author starting with Chapter 40 is a matter of debate. Nevertheless, even those who hold to

single authorship agree that Isaiah himself entered subsequent stages of his prophetic ministry starting

with Chapter 40. A typical scheme of Isaiah’s prophetic stages would recognize a stage of futuristic

133
Henning Graf Reventlow, “Basic Issues in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant:
Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, 23 – 38 (Eugene, OR: Wipf
& Stock, 1998), 23.
134
Averbeck, 37.
135
Ibid, 36.
136
Ibid, 37.

33
prophecy about the Babylonian Captivity in Chapters 40 – 55 and another stage that reaches further into

the future from 56 – 66, although there are many different variations of this basic pattern.137

What is important with respect to identifying the Servant of Isaiah 53 is that the “Servant of the

LORD” references begin after Chapter 40. The word ‘servant’ (‫ )עבד‬occurs three times in Isaiah prior to

Chapter 40, but have explicit references each time. In 20:7, there is the phrase, “My servant, Isaiah,”; in

22:20 the phrase, “My servant, Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah” and in 37:35 the phrase, “for My servant

David’s sake.” However, after Chapter 40, the unidentified “Servant of YHWH” references begin. The

first two occurrences refer to Israel: “But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen” (41:8) and

“You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called from its remotest parts and said to you,

‘you are My servant’” (41:9). After these, one occurs within an actual Servant Song, “You are My

servant, Israel” (49:3) and most of the others refer to Israel: “now listen, O Jacob, My servant” (44:1),

“Do not fear, O Jacob My servant” (44:2), “Israel, for you are My servant” (44:21), “For the sake of Jacob

My servant” (45:4), “the LORD has redeemed His servant Jacob” (48:20), etc. The last occurrence is the

occurrence in question: “My servant will justify the many” (53:11). However, the majority of the

previous occurrences refer to Israel.138

Thus, one cannot prove the identity of the servant of Isaiah 53 based on word usage alone. If

anything, the lexical aspect favors the collective interpretation. This is even true of the term “Messiah.”

Although Christians understand the servant of Isaiah 53 to be Jesus the Messiah, the word “Messiah”

occurs only once in all of Isaiah, when YHWH calls Cyrus ‘His anointed [ׄ‫משיחו‬, ‘His Messiah’] in 45:1:

“Thus says the LORD to Cyrus, His anointed.” Lexical arguments supporting the Servant as Jesus Christ

are not strong.

137
Averbeck, 40 – 41.
138
Ibid, 41.

34
 In order to ‘decide’ the issue, interpreters have increasingly focused on the word ‘guilt offering’

[‫אׇ שׇ ם‬, asham] in 53:10 and the phrases “bear their iniquities” [‫ ]יׅ סבל עונתׇ ם‬in 53:11 and “bore the sin”

[‫ ]נשא חטא‬in 53:12. Since the noun ‫ אׇ שׇ ם‬and the verbs ‫ נשא‬and ‫ סבל‬do not occur in the other Servant

Songs, this is an issue that confines itself to Isaiah 53. In the words of Averbeck, the ongoing debate is

whether Isaiah 53 expresses vicarious, sacrificial substitution to make atonement.139 If it does, then the

interpretation of the Servant as Jesus the Messiah is much more credible.

The contention rests on the words ‫אׇ שׇ ם‬, ‫ נשא‬and ‫ סבל‬and whether they carry cultic, atoning

significance in Isaiah 53, because the usual verb for atonement, ‫כפֶּר‬, does not occur. In addition, there

is no explicit mention of crucifixion. There is no mention of shed blood so the “equation of the Servant

with a sacrificial animal” is a “dead end.”140 The verb ‫דכא‬, ‘ to strike’ or ‘to crush’ in 53:10 is not a term

of sacrifice.141 Therefore, there is much inquiry as to whether the phrases “bear their iniquities” [‫עונתׇ ם‬

‫ ]יׅ סבל‬in 53:11 and “bore the sin” [‫ ]נשא חטא‬in 53:12 might be terms of atoning sacrifice. An explicit

‘atonement formula,’ ‫עון‬ ‫נשא‬, occurs in Leviticus 10:17 and the great Day of Atonement Chapter,

Leviticus 16:22. The problem is, the exact ‘formula’ does not occur in Isaiah 53, and the ‘free’

substitution of terms like ‫ סבל‬and ‫ חטא‬into the formula may indicate a poetic use of the verbs more

than a strict cultic one.142

With regard to ‫ אׇ שׇ ם‬, although it is often a sacrificial term, it also occurs in 1 Samuel 6:4, 8, 17

for the Philistines offer of golden mice and tumors which removed YHWH’s plague from them. In this

139
Averbeck, 45.
140
Bernd Janowski, “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place,” in The Suffering
Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by
Daniel P. Bailey, 48 – 74 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 67.
141
Ibid, 67 – 68.
142
Spieckermann, 3.

35
context, there is no blood, death or sacrifice and the term refers to restitution and removal of culpability

but not removal of sin. Several scholars see the significance of ‫ אׇ שׇ ם‬in this non-cultic use, as

‘restitution’ or wiping away of guilt, rather than atonement.143 Joined with the facts that the word

‘grief’ [‫ ]חלי‬in Isaiah 53:3, 4 is always a term for bodily sickness and never a term, literally or figuratively,

for death, and that to many, it is not even clear whether the servant dies, as opposed to suffering

persecution, many conclude that what is occurring in Isaiah 53 is not a man dying to atone for others,

but a man suffering persecution so that God can lighten His punishment on others. There is no

atonement, just vicarious suffering. Returning to Averbeck’s statement, Isaiah 53 expresses vicarious,

sacrificial suffering, but not removal of sin by death or atonement.

For many, this theme of a choice individual suffering physically so that God’s punishment will be

lighter on others is a ‘typical’ theme in the major prophets. One example is Jeremiah, whom YHWH

commanded not to intercede for others: “do not pray for this people” (Jeremiah 7:16). According to

Spieckermann, in Jeremiah’s case, “intercession no longer has a chance.”144 The sin of the people had

reached such a state that only the vicarious suffering of Jeremiah the prophet would appease YHWH. In

Jeremiah’s case, there was vicarious suffering but no atonement or salvation from sin.

Spieckermann also points to Ezekiel to whom YHWH says: “Thus you shall bear the iniquity of

the house of Israel” (4:5). In this verse, the exact Levitical formula for sacrificial atonement (Leviticus

10:17; 16:22) ‫עון‬ ‫ נשא‬occurs. For these scholars, Isaiah 53 is a climactic expression of what increasingly

grew to be a staple of the prophetic office: vicarious suffering but not vicarious atonement or removal of

sin by death. Hermisson writes: “The other line of tradition is characterized by the experience of

143
Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, “The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah,” in The Suffering Servant:
Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P.
Bailey, 16 – 47 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 37; Janowski, 66.
144
Spieckermann, 11.

36
prophetic suffering, which increasingly – especially in the case of Jeremiah – becomes a non-negotiable

part of the prophetic office.”145

The Results of Hebrew Exegesis

Hebrew Exegesis of Isaiah 53 and especially, Greek exegesis from the LXX do not require an

identification of the Servant of Isaiah 53 with the LORD Jesus Christ. There is no mention of crucifixion,

of shed blood, of the title Messiah, or any verbs or phrases that unambiguously fit a cultic, sacrificial

context. There is nothing in the passage that points to vicarious atonement and removal of sin as

distinct from vicarious prophetic suffering to lighten punishment on others. What seems to necessitate

an identification of the Servant with Jesus Christ is the testimony of the New Testament, which many

consider as irrelevant to Old Testament Theology. Even inclusion of the New Testament has caused

disagreement. North observes that until 1800, Christians were almost unanimous that the Servant was

the Messiah. However, with the talk of a ‘Second-Isaiah’ and Duhm’s identification of Four Servant

Songs, many Christian interpreters began to adopt the collective identification (the nation Israel) while

individual identifications proliferated to include: Zerubbabel; Meshullam, the son of Zerubbabel;

Sheshbazzar, Jehoiachin, Moses, Uzziah, Ezekiel, Eleazar, a martyr in the time of the Maccabees, Cyrus,

Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, Hezekiah and an unknown teacher of the Law.146 Duhm thinks the servant is an

unknown teacher of the Law;147 Childs and Motyer think it is Jesus Christ;148 Blenkinsopp thinks it is

Deutero-Isaiah.149 Isaiah 53 is still one of the most debated Bible passages ever.

Back to the New Testament

If the fourth Servant Song of Isaiah (52:13 – 53:12) does not refer to Jesus Christ the Messiah,

what is the cost? There are three perspectives. From the perspective of Old Testament Theology, there

145
Hermisson, 44.
146
North: 2, 47 – 57, 89 – 90.
147
North, 48.
148
Shepherd, 152, 209.
149
Blenkinsopp, 356.

37
is only gain. Jewish and non-Jewish theologians study and dialogue and come to a more sharpened

understanding and appreciation of the Old Testament text.

From the perspective of the New Testament Gospel, there could be a cost, but a small one. The

New Testament Gospel is true and clear according to its own Scriptures and no harm is done unless an

Old Testament passage contradicts it. If Isaiah 53 were talking about the vicarious suffering of someone

other than Jesus, the passage would not contradict the Gospel. It would be talking of someone else or

the suffering of the Jewish nation, and in either case, would point to Jesus as the only One Who can

actually atone for sin by a vicarious death. Hermisson says that if Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus, “no

violence is done to them . . . the Servant Songs is a ‘type’ of the Servant Jesus Christ.”150

The most difficult is the perspective from Biblical Theology. When the Ethiopian eunuch asked,

“Of Whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” (Acts 8:34), Philip’s answer was

clear: Isaiah was speaking not of himself, but of Jesus Christ. This reintroduces the “endless discussion

among biblical theologians as to the relationship between the Testaments” which “has not found and is

unlikely to find a parallel among Jewish scholars.”151 In the words of Reventlow, “Looking at the role of

Isaiah 53 in biblical theology it can be said that its main importance did not emerge until the time of the

New Testament.”152 According to Sailhammer, one of the most pressing issues in Biblical Theology is: “Is

there an exegetically warranted unity between the Hebrew Bible and the NT?”153

Hermeneutically, it is a question of context. There is the context of the immediate passage, the

context of the Four Servant Songs, the context of the futuristic section of Isaiah, Isaiah 40 – 66, and the

more remote contexts of the Book of Isaiah and the Pentateuch. Finally, there is the relationship

between the Testaments. In the current climate of constructive dialogue, Jewish and non-Jewish

150
Hermisson, 47,
151
Levenson, 39.
152
Reventlow, 37.
153
Sailhamer, 425.

38
theologians would still have much upon which they could agree. They would disagree mostly over the

New Testament, which not only interprets the Servant of Isaiah 53 as Christ Jesus, but also does away

with the Temple, the High Priest, the sacrifices, circumcision, Kosher and sabbath. It would be a modern

replay of the dialogue between Paul and the Jews in the ancient synagogues of Asia Minor and Europe –

but hopefully, a lot less violent.

39
 Bibliography

Ǻdna, Jostein. “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: the Reception of Isaiah
52:13 – 53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah,” in
The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and
Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 189 – 224. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2004.

Allen, David L. “Substitutionary Atonement and Cultic Terminology in Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel
According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology,
edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 171 – 189. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012.

Alobaidi, Joseph. The Messiah in Isaiah 53. Bern: Peter Lang, 1998.

Averbeck, Richard E. “Christian Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53:
Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock
and Mitch Glaser, 33 – 60. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012.

Bailey, Daniel P. “Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the
Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William
R. Farmer, 223 – 250. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998.

____________. “’Our Suffering and Crucified Messiah,’ (Dial. 111.2): Justin Martyr’s Allusions to Isaiah
53 in His Dialogue with Trypho with Special Reference to the New Edition of M. Marcovich” in
The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and
Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 324 – 417. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2004.

____________. “The Suffering Servant: Recent Tübingen Scholarship on Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the
Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William
R. Farmer, 251 – 259. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998.

Bellinger, William H., Jr. and Farmer, William R., Introduction to Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah
53 and Christian Origins. Edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer. Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 1998.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Volume 19a of Isaiah 40 – 55: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Brett, Mark G. “The Future of Old Testament Theology” in Old Testament Theology: Flowering and
Future, edited by Ben C. Ollenburger, 481 – 494. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

Brown, Michael L. “Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53:
Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock
and Mitch Glaser, 61 – 83. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012.

40
Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “Forgiveness and Salvation in Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53:
Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell L. Bock
and Mitch Glaser, 191 – 210. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012.

Clements, Ronald E. “Isaiah 53 and the Restoration of Israel,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah
53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, 39 – 54.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998.

________________. Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978.

Collins, John J. “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, edited
by William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern and David Noel Freedman, 1 – 17. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Dinsmore, Charles Allen. The English Bible as Literature. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1931.

Driver, S. R. and AD. Neubauer, trans. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters.
Oxford: James Parker and Company, 1877.

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “The Emergence of Jewish Biblical Theologies,” in Jews, Christians, and the
Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, edited by Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky, 109 – 121.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.

Funkenstein, Amos. “Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Later Middle Ages,” in Biblical
Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, edited by Scott J. Hafemann, 373 – 382. Downer’s Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Goldingay, John. “Isaiah 53 in the Pulpit.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 35, no. 2 (Summer 2008):
147 – 153.

Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “Tanakh Theology: The Religion of the Old Testament and the Place of
Jewish Biblical Theology” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross,
edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson and S. Dean McBride, 617 – 644. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1987.

Hanson, Paul D. “The Word of the Servant of the LORD in Isaiah 40 – 55,” in Jesus and the Suffering
Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R.
Farmer, 9 – 22. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998.

Hasel, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. 4th ed. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.

Hayes, John H. and Frederick Prussner. Old Testament Theology: its History and Development. Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1985.

41
Hengel, Martin. The Atonement: A Study of the Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament.
Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, Ltd, 1981.

Hengel, Martin and Daniel P. Bailey. “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period,” in
The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and
Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 75 – 146. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2004.

Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. “The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah,” in The Suffering
Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter
Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 16 – 47. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2004.

Hooker, Morna D. “Did the Use of Isaiah 53 to Interpret His Mission Begin with Jesus?” in Jesus and the
Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William
R. Farmer, 88 – 103. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998.

Ibn Ezra, Abraham ben Meir. The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah, translated by Michael M.
Friedlander. London: Publication for the Society of Hebrew Literature, 1873.

Janowski, Bernd. “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place,” in The
Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter
Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 48 – 74. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2004.

Janowski, Bernd and Peter Stuhlmacher, Preface to The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and
Christian Sources. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher. Translated by Daniel P.
Bailey. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

Kaiser, Walter C. “The Identity and Mission of the ‘Servant of the LORD,’” in The Gospel According to
Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, edited by Darrell
L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, 87 – 107. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012.

Kirchhevel, Gordon. D. “Who’s Who and What’s What in Isaiah 53.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13, no.
1 (2003): 127 – 131.

Laato, Antti. Who is the Servant of the LORD? Jewish and Christian Interpretations on Isaiah 53 from
Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969.

_____________. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice
in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

_____________. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in
Biblical Studies. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

42
Martens, Elmer A. “The Shape of an Old Testament Theology For a Post Modern Culture.” Direction 25,
no. 2 (Fall 1996): 5 – 15.

North, Christopher R. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: A Historical and Critical Study. 2nd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Ollenburger, Ben C., Introduction in Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future, edited by Ben C.
Ollenburger, 377 – 380. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

Porteous, Norman. “Old Testament Theology,” in The Old Testament in Modern Study, edited by H. H.
Rowley, 311 – 345. London: Oxford University Press, 1951.

Pusey, E. B ., Introduction in The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters, translated
by S. R. Driver and AD. Neubauer, xxix – lxv. Oxford: James Parker and Company, 1877.

Rembaum, Joel E. “The Development of a Jewish Exegetical Tradition Regarding Isaiah 53.” Harvard
Theological Review 75, no. 3 (1982): 289 – 311.

Reventlow, Henning Graf. “Basic Issues in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the Suffering
Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R.
Farmer, 23 – 38. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998.

Rowley, H. H. The Servant of the LORD and other Essays on the Old Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1952.

Sailhamer, John H. “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Theology:
Retrospect and Prospect, edited by Scott J. Hafemann, 25 – 37. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2002.

_______________. “Canon and Composition” in Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future, edited
by Ben C. Ollenburger, 425 – 435. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

Sapp, David A. “The lXX, 1Q1Isa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian Doctrine of
Atonement,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited by
William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, 170 – 192. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998.

Schreiner, Stefan. “Isaiah 53 in the Sefer Hizzuk Emunah (‘Faith Strengthened’) of Rabbi Isaac ben
Abraham of Troki,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by
Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 418 – 461. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

Shepherd, Charles E. Theological Interpretation and Isaiah 53: A Critical Comparison of Bernhard Duhm,
Brevard Childs, and Alec Motyer. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.

Spieckermann, Hermann. “The Conception and Prehistory of the Idea of Vicarious Suffering in the Old
Testament,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by Bernd
Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by Daniel P. Bailey, 1 – 15. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

43
Sweeney, Marvin A. “Reconceiving the Paradigms of Old Testament Theology in the Post-Shoah Period”
in Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, edited by Alice Ogden Bellis and
Joel S. Kaminsky, 155 – 172. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Theology of the Old Testament: A Jewish View.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 8, no.
2 (December 1986): 33 – 50.

Urbach, Efraim Elimelech. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975.

Wright, G. Ernest, ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961.

______________. God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital. London: SCM Press, 1952.

Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington
Press, 1982.

44