What do you think?
Rate this book
Isaiah 53: Who Is the Servant?
Who is the servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12? Answering this question is what this study is all about. Through the centuries countless commentaries have been written, tracts have been distributed, debates have raged over the identification of the servant in
278 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 17, 2026
A VERY DETAILED JEWISH ANALYSIS OF THESE IMPORTANT PASSAGES
Gerald Sigal is a Jewish researcher who has written probably the most in-depth book-length critiques (‘The Jew and the Christian Missionary’; 'The Seventy Weeks of Daniel’; ‘The Virgin Birth Myth’; 'The Blood Atonement Deception'; ‘Trinity Doctrine Error’; ‘Anti-Judaism in the New Testament’) of certain arguments that SOME Christian "missionary" types use against traditional Jews.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2007 book, “Who is the servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12? Answering this question is what this study is all about… Here we investigate the evidence presented over the last two thousand years for the two leading candidates for this role of servant of the Lord. The two are Jesus, and the Jewish people. Christians see in this passage the literal fulfillment by Jesus of all it contains. Jews see it in its plain meaning, as a historical overview of Jewish history and the suffering to be endured by the nation of Israel until the final redemption… each verse in the passage is studied in depth. But the purpose of this volume is not simply to have an intellectual discussion… Its intent is to make it an unavoidable issue for Christians that there are very real disqualifications of Jesus from being the suffering servant and to identify the subject of the servant passage as none other than the nation of Israel. Furthermore, we seek to educate Jews so they do not fall prey to those who would have them believe Jesus is the Messiah.” (Pg. 9)
He continues, “These missionary-minded seekers of Jewish converts to Christianity allege, ‘Judaism without Jesus cannot explain adequately Isaiah 53.’ What is more, they contend that Jewish leaders know the truth of the Gospels but withhold that information from the Jewish people and live in self-denial of that truth… In the fantasy world of missionary-minded Christians the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 as referring to the people of Israeli is anathema. Missionaries rejoice if they can find a Jewish commentator who says the passage in whole or in part refers to the Messiah. They reason that if we could all agree that the servant of Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah then we can all agree that it refers to Jesus since Jesus is THE Messiah. But, let us imagine for a moment that the servant of this passage is the Messiah---it does NOT follow that the servant is Jesus or that Jesus is the Messiah…” (Pg. 10)
He adds, “Oh! And by the way, for those who are not already familiar with the role of the rabbis concerning this passage---the rabbis did NOT remove Isaiah 53 from the Jewish Scriptures. The rabbis do not forbid or punish anyone for reading Isaiah 53. The rabbis do not live in fear that Jews will find out the contents of Isaiah 53. Do you know why? Because this passage predicts the good news that God will redeem the nation of Israel, His suffering servant, from all adversity.” (Pg. 10-11)
He outlines, “The differing interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 found in Jewish sources can be divided into four opinions: (1) the servant is Isaiah himself; (2) that he is an outstanding past Israelite leader, such as Moses, Josiah, and Jeremiah; (3) that he will be the king Messiah who is yet to come to redeem Israel at the end of days and whose triumph will only be acknowledged at the price of great sufferings; (4) and last, the most ancient opinion being that the servant is the people of Israel, whether the nation as a whole or its righteous remnant. Even before the advent of Christianity there was uncertainty in some quarters concerning the identification of the servant…” (Pg. 17-18)
He asserts, “There are no clearly identifiable messianic prophecies in the Bible. All such references are based on interpretation. As such, they are subjective understandings of the texts. Therefore, what needs to be investigated is: (1) to whom did Isaiah 52:13-53:12 initially refer; (2) does this identification still apply; (3) in what way if any does it have messianic application; and (4) does it in any way apply to Jesus?” (Pg. 18)
He goes on, “Isaiah having identified the servant as Israel (e.g., Isaiah 41:8-9) it is correct to say that at the time of the composition of Isaiah 53, it had no messianic connotation whatsoever. With the increased persecution of Jews in the centuries following the Second Temple’s destruction the concept of a suffering Messiah developed… he would be an individual who would suffer with and for the Jewish people… However, there is no concrete evidence that the idea of a suffering Messiah was part of first century C.E. Jewish belief. This is even indicated by the New Testament. When Jesus supposedly informed the twelve apostles that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer, Peter allegedly protests saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ (Mt. 16:22) … Much of what the New Testament claims concerning Jesus was developed after his death, as his followers began combing the Scriptures in search of texts that could be used to justify their continued loyalty to him.” (Pg. 18-19)
He argues again. “First, who says that any particular passage or verse in the Bible refers to the Messiah? As previously mentioned there are NO clearly identifiable messianic prophecies in the Bible, and NO direct mention of the Messiah. All such references to the Messiah are based on interpretation. This is not to dismiss all interpretative texts as really non-messianic. Nonetheless, they are subjective understandings of the texts. It means that when we are confronted by such a text we have to ask: Who says so and what is the reasoning behind the commentator’s determination? Second, when the subject of a verse or passage is identified in the surrounding context it should be assumed that the literal interpretation (is correct) as opposed to any midrashic identification that disregards the plain sense meaning.” (Pg. 6) He also notes, “the order in which the prophecies are recorded is NOT necessarily the order in which they will be fulfilled. For example, Isaiah 42:1-4 fits very well right after 53:12. The rest of Isaiah 42 (5-25) then recapitulates some of the theme of Isaiah 52:13-53:12.” (Pg. 26-27)
He states, “In the entire Jewish messianic literature of the tannaitic period [1st- 3rd centuries] there is no trace of a ‘suffering Messiah.’ All the references to the suffering Messiah found in rabbinic literature belong without exception to the post-tannaitic period… There is not a single tannaitic saying that can be interpreted as proof that the notion of the suffering Messiah is to be found before the post-tannaitic period. When, therefore, we are dealing with the earlier Jewish traditions about the Messiah, we should omit the concept of the ‘suffering Messiah.’” (Pg. 41)
He points out, ‘Some Christians claim that Isaiah 53 was removed from the haftarah reading cycle because the rabbis feared that the Jews who heard Isaiah 53 being read would accept Jesus as the Messiah. They point out that Isaiah 53 is not read in the synagogues, while portions of Isaiah 52 (51:12-52:12) and Isaiah 54… are read on consecutive Sabbaths. But is this absence a reaction to Christian polemics?… Only a fraction of the prophetic books are read in the course of the weekly synagogue services for the year… The 54 [portions]… that are read were chosen for specific reasons. Forty-one… bear some relation to the Torah portions that are read the same weeks. In this way, the prophetic portion …. complements the Torah portion… The remaining thirteen belong to the seasons of mourning, consolation, and repentance. Isaiah 53 bears no relation to any particular portion of the Torah nor does it fit into the seasonal categories… In addition, there is NO evidence that any portion of Isaiah 53 was ever a haftarah reading.. prior to the birth of Christianity…” (Pg. 42-43)
He says, “Some Christians claim that since the servant in Isaiah 53 is referred to as ‘he’ (in the singular) the suffering servant passage cannot refer to Israel. They are simply disregarding that Israel may be referred to as a collective group using the singular pronoun… Pronouns used in Isaiah 52-54 of the servant are in the singular, yet refer to the collective nation of Israel.” (Pg. 104)
He deals with individual verses: [53:5 – ‘he was crushed as a result of our iniquities’] “The Jesus of the Gospels did not suffer because of the iniquity of others, but because he challenged Roman sovereignty over Judea… his messianic pretensions was… a challenge to Roman rule.” (Pg. 130-131) [53:9 – ‘although he had done no violence’] “Jesus was not averse to using violence and held no general principle against violent action… He proudly avowed that his is a mission that will cause strife and discord and disturb the universal peace and bring war to the world… (Mt 10:34-35)” (Pg. 175)
He asks, “Why were all four evangelists so intent on shifting the blame for the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews? Why did the evangelists claim Jesus was tried and condemned for treason by the Romans, but only at the instigation of the Jews?… The authors of the Gospels were attempting to hide the fact that Jesus was a violent revolutionary bent on destroying Roman power. The Jews became a convenient scapegoat…” (Pg. 157)
He contends, “Jesus never forgave anyone who wronged or criticized him. At best, he only forgave those who wronged others.” (Pg. 177) “How much more meaningful would his injunction have been if the Gospels contained even a single story about his doing good to or praying for even a single scribe or Pharisee that opposed him.” (Pg. 190)
He says of Psalm 22, “Having been foretold in Psalm 22, the messiah of Christian mythology would have known that death by crucifixion was essential to his mission… Jesus’ life ends on a note of disappointment, whereas the psalmist… concludes on a positive note… If he fulfilled literally all of Psalm 22… [his] depression [should] give way to joy as he realizes God’s purpose has been attained through his act of sacrificial death.” (Pg. 232-233)
For those interested in other ‘anti-missionary’ books, you might check out Tovia Singer, Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz, and Rabbi Stuart Federow.
Gerald Sigal is a Jewish researcher who has written probably the most in-depth book-length critiques (‘The Jew and the Christian Missionary’; 'The Seventy Weeks of Daniel’; ‘The Virgin Birth Myth’; 'The Blood Atonement Deception'; ‘Trinity Doctrine Error’; ‘Anti-Judaism in the New Testament’) of certain arguments that SOME Christian "missionary" types use against traditional Jews.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2007 book, “Who is the servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12? Answering this question is what this study is all about… Here we investigate the evidence presented over the last two thousand years for the two leading candidates for this role of servant of the Lord. The two are Jesus, and the Jewish people. Christians see in this passage the literal fulfillment by Jesus of all it contains. Jews see it in its plain meaning, as a historical overview of Jewish history and the suffering to be endured by the nation of Israel until the final redemption… each verse in the passage is studied in depth. But the purpose of this volume is not simply to have an intellectual discussion… Its intent is to make it an unavoidable issue for Christians that there are very real disqualifications of Jesus from being the suffering servant and to identify the subject of the servant passage as none other than the nation of Israel. Furthermore, we seek to educate Jews so they do not fall prey to those who would have them believe Jesus is the Messiah.” (Pg. 9)
He continues, “These missionary-minded seekers of Jewish converts to Christianity allege, ‘Judaism without Jesus cannot explain adequately Isaiah 53.’ What is more, they contend that Jewish leaders know the truth of the Gospels but withhold that information from the Jewish people and live in self-denial of that truth… In the fantasy world of missionary-minded Christians the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 as referring to the people of Israeli is anathema. Missionaries rejoice if they can find a Jewish commentator who says the passage in whole or in part refers to the Messiah. They reason that if we could all agree that the servant of Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah then we can all agree that it refers to Jesus since Jesus is THE Messiah. But, let us imagine for a moment that the servant of this passage is the Messiah---it does NOT follow that the servant is Jesus or that Jesus is the Messiah…” (Pg. 10)
He adds, “Oh! And by the way, for those who are not already familiar with the role of the rabbis concerning this passage---the rabbis did NOT remove Isaiah 53 from the Jewish Scriptures. The rabbis do not forbid or punish anyone for reading Isaiah 53. The rabbis do not live in fear that Jews will find out the contents of Isaiah 53. Do you know why? Because this passage predicts the good news that God will redeem the nation of Israel, His suffering servant, from all adversity.” (Pg. 10-11)
He outlines, “The differing interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 found in Jewish sources can be divided into four opinions: (1) the servant is Isaiah himself; (2) that he is an outstanding past Israelite leader, such as Moses, Josiah, and Jeremiah; (3) that he will be the king Messiah who is yet to come to redeem Israel at the end of days and whose triumph will only be acknowledged at the price of great sufferings; (4) and last, the most ancient opinion being that the servant is the people of Israel, whether the nation as a whole or its righteous remnant. Even before the advent of Christianity there was uncertainty in some quarters concerning the identification of the servant…” (Pg. 17-18)
He asserts, “There are no clearly identifiable messianic prophecies in the Bible. All such references are based on interpretation. As such, they are subjective understandings of the texts. Therefore, what needs to be investigated is: (1) to whom did Isaiah 52:13-53:12 initially refer; (2) does this identification still apply; (3) in what way if any does it have messianic application; and (4) does it in any way apply to Jesus?” (Pg. 18)
He goes on, “Isaiah having identified the servant as Israel (e.g., Isaiah 41:8-9) it is correct to say that at the time of the composition of Isaiah 53, it had no messianic connotation whatsoever. With the increased persecution of Jews in the centuries following the Second Temple’s destruction the concept of a suffering Messiah developed… he would be an individual who would suffer with and for the Jewish people… However, there is no concrete evidence that the idea of a suffering Messiah was part of first century C.E. Jewish belief. This is even indicated by the New Testament. When Jesus supposedly informed the twelve apostles that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer, Peter allegedly protests saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ (Mt. 16:22) … Much of what the New Testament claims concerning Jesus was developed after his death, as his followers began combing the Scriptures in search of texts that could be used to justify their continued loyalty to him.” (Pg. 18-19)
He argues again. “First, who says that any particular passage or verse in the Bible refers to the Messiah? As previously mentioned there are NO clearly identifiable messianic prophecies in the Bible, and NO direct mention of the Messiah. All such references to the Messiah are based on interpretation. This is not to dismiss all interpretative texts as really non-messianic. Nonetheless, they are subjective understandings of the texts. It means that when we are confronted by such a text we have to ask: Who says so and what is the reasoning behind the commentator’s determination? Second, when the subject of a verse or passage is identified in the surrounding context it should be assumed that the literal interpretation (is correct) as opposed to any midrashic identification that disregards the plain sense meaning.” (Pg. 6) He also notes, “the order in which the prophecies are recorded is NOT necessarily the order in which they will be fulfilled. For example, Isaiah 42:1-4 fits very well right after 53:12. The rest of Isaiah 42 (5-25) then recapitulates some of the theme of Isaiah 52:13-53:12.” (Pg. 26-27)
He states, “In the entire Jewish messianic literature of the tannaitic period [1st- 3rd centuries] there is no trace of a ‘suffering Messiah.’ All the references to the suffering Messiah found in rabbinic literature belong without exception to the post-tannaitic period… There is not a single tannaitic saying that can be interpreted as proof that the notion of the suffering Messiah is to be found before the post-tannaitic period. When, therefore, we are dealing with the earlier Jewish traditions about the Messiah, we should omit the concept of the ‘suffering Messiah.’” (Pg. 41)
He points out, ‘Some Christians claim that Isaiah 53 was removed from the haftarah reading cycle because the rabbis feared that the Jews who heard Isaiah 53 being read would accept Jesus as the Messiah. They point out that Isaiah 53 is not read in the synagogues, while portions of Isaiah 52 (51:12-52:12) and Isaiah 54… are read on consecutive Sabbaths. But is this absence a reaction to Christian polemics?… Only a fraction of the prophetic books are read in the course of the weekly synagogue services for the year… The 54 [portions]… that are read were chosen for specific reasons. Forty-one… bear some relation to the Torah portions that are read the same weeks. In this way, the prophetic portion …. complements the Torah portion… The remaining thirteen belong to the seasons of mourning, consolation, and repentance. Isaiah 53 bears no relation to any particular portion of the Torah nor does it fit into the seasonal categories… In addition, there is NO evidence that any portion of Isaiah 53 was ever a haftarah reading.. prior to the birth of Christianity…” (Pg. 42-43)
He says, “Some Christians claim that since the servant in Isaiah 53 is referred to as ‘he’ (in the singular) the suffering servant passage cannot refer to Israel. They are simply disregarding that Israel may be referred to as a collective group using the singular pronoun… Pronouns used in Isaiah 52-54 of the servant are in the singular, yet refer to the collective nation of Israel.” (Pg. 104)
He deals with individual verses: [53:5 – ‘he was crushed as a result of our iniquities’] “The Jesus of the Gospels did not suffer because of the iniquity of others, but because he challenged Roman sovereignty over Judea… his messianic pretensions was… a challenge to Roman rule.” (Pg. 130-131) [53:9 – ‘although he had done no violence’] “Jesus was not averse to using violence and held no general principle against violent action… He proudly avowed that his is a mission that will cause strife and discord and disturb the universal peace and bring war to the world… (Mt 10:34-35)” (Pg. 175)
He asks, “Why were all four evangelists so intent on shifting the blame for the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews? Why did the evangelists claim Jesus was tried and condemned for treason by the Romans, but only at the instigation of the Jews?… The authors of the Gospels were attempting to hide the fact that Jesus was a violent revolutionary bent on destroying Roman power. The Jews became a convenient scapegoat…” (Pg. 157)
He contends, “Jesus never forgave anyone who wronged or criticized him. At best, he only forgave those who wronged others.” (Pg. 177) “How much more meaningful would his injunction have been if the Gospels contained even a single story about his doing good to or praying for even a single scribe or Pharisee that opposed him.” (Pg. 190)
He says of Psalm 22, “Having been foretold in Psalm 22, the messiah of Christian mythology would have known that death by crucifixion was essential to his mission… Jesus’ life ends on a note of disappointment, whereas the psalmist… concludes on a positive note… If he fulfilled literally all of Psalm 22… [his] depression [should] give way to joy as he realizes God’s purpose has been attained through his act of sacrificial death.” (Pg. 232-233)
For those interested in other ‘anti-missionary’ books, you might check out Tovia Singer, Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz, and Rabbi Stuart Federow.
Displaying 1 of 1 review