Elusive and Polychromatic Identities of the 'Suffering Servant'
A Historically-Informed Exegetical Manhunt in Second Isaiah
Overview
In Christian tradition, the so-called “suffering servant" 1The term is a modern construct that was introduced in 1892 by Bernhard L. Duhm (1847-1928). For further discussion and references see p 159 of Marc Z. Brettler and Amy-Jill Levine, “Isaiah’s Suffering Servant: Before and After Christianity,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 73, no. 2 (2019): 158–173. of Isaiah 52.13-53.12 has been been identified as Jesus Messiah (i.e. Christ). In the discussion below, I contend that a reading sensitive to the historical context of the original author(s)—whoever they may be—more sensibly identifies the servant with Israel being the budding people group born out of a post-exilic setting in the Achaemenid province of Yehud (i.e. Judah).
The hermeneutical debate is an ancient one, going back at least to the 2nd century CE. 2e.g. Origen Contra Celsum 1.55 There is also firm evidence for a Christological reading going back to the authors of the New Testament and the Church Fathers. 3E.g. Matt 8.16-17, Lk 22.37, Jn 12.37-38, Acts 8.32-35, Rom 10.16, 1 Pet 2.22-25, 1 Clement 16, Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah 12.42. Perhaps Paul is also interpreting Jesus’ crucifixion Christologically in the formula “in accordance with the Scriptures” in 1 Cor 15.3-8. My position seeks not to debase such a reading; rather, I am merely pointing out that, in context, the identification with Israel is hard to deny. Therefore, the traditional Christian reading requires a hermeneutical apparatus that layers additional messianic overtones on top of the immediate historical reading.
Demarcating the Context: Second Isaiah #
Chapters 40-55 of Isaiah are often thought to be a separate source (i.e. Second Isaiah). The main reason for doing so is because Isaiah 1-39 (First Isaiah) assumes a context of Assyrian invasion and conquest whereas these chapters seem to be looking back from a time of Babylonian exile and the restoration under Cyrus. 4See this article for a survey of post-exilic evidence in chapters 40-55. The case against singular authorship stacks up further if we also take into account the fact that chapters 36 to 39 break up the prophetic material before and after it by inserting what is likely an excerpt from 2 Kings. 5Chapters 36-39 are almost a word-for-word duplicate of 2 Kings 18.13-20.19. Whether this is original to Isaiah or 2 Kings is probably impossible to tell for sure. Its usage in 2 Kings is more consistent with the overall historical style of the book. If the excerpt is original to 2 Kings, the composer of the complete corpus of Isaiah was probably writing after a time when the Hezekiah annals in 2 Kings had been composed.
Having said that, no extant manuscripts of Isaiah make this division into separate sources—including the Qumran Isaiah Scrolls, the Masoretic texts and the Septuagint—which suggests a singular tradition going back long before the New Testament. Whether Isaiah as a whole is a composite book or not has no bearing on its status as “Scripture”. All parts of the book share a common theological tradition, and the later parts seem to take up, adapt and respond to announcements made in the earlier parts of the book while staying in that same theological tradition. Certainly, Second Temple Jewish communities, including the early Christians and the authors of the New Testament, had no issues with its scriptural status, quoting frequently from it, although it is unclear to what extent they viewed it as a composite book. Perhaps it was read as a whole in its canonical forms in the synagogues. 6Targum Yonathan contains the whole text of Isaiah as well as the rest of the Nevi’im.
The only reason for making the distinction in composition here, is to demarcate the relevant surrounding context of the “suffering servant” and to reconstruct, as best as possible, the original intended meaning of the author to his immediate audience.
Core Definitions: “Ebed” and “Messiah” #
The noun “ebed” (דבע) refers to someone who is subordinated to another. The type and extent of subordination varies widely, and thus, depending on context is translated “slave, servant, subject, official, vassal, follower (of a god)”. While the word can mean “chattel slave” (e.g. Exod 21.2-6, Deut 15.17), when used in the right context, it can also convey an individual’s close relationship with, and dependence, on God. H. Simian-Yofre, “עֶבֶד,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 10 (Eerdmans, 1999), 387. Precedents in the Hebrew Bible include Moses (Exod 4.10; Josh 1.2), Caleb (Num 14.24), Joshua (Josh 5.14), David (1 Sam 23.10), Job (Job 1.8) as well as Obadiah (“servant of Yah(weh)”). Within Second Isaiah, there are multiple instances where “my servant” is Israel/Jacob (see instances later in this article). Compare this also with the usage of “doulos” (δοῦλος) in the Greek New Testament in reference to Mary (Luke 1.48), Paul (Rom 1.1) and Jesus (Phil 2.7).
In the Hebrew Bible, “messiah” means anointed and is a royal or priestly 7In fact, the very first messiah in the Hebrew Bible is Aaron. designation indicating a person’s divine appointment and empowerment to an office (1 Sam 10.1, 1 Sam 16.12-13, Lev 8). Throughout Second Isaiah, the only person explicitly referred to as YHWH’s “messiah” is Cyrus (45.1) and, indeed, the “servant” in Isaiah 52.13-53.13 is never called “messiah”. 8With the exception of an orthographic error in one Qumram manuscript. See note above. It is also not entirely clear to what extent “messiah” takes on the notion of an ideal Davidic king emerging during the late Second Temple period reflected in texts like the Qumran Scrolls (c. 3rd century BCE - 1st century CE). There is embryonic evidence of something like this concept in Isa 11.1 (“But a shoot shall grow out of the stump of Jesse”) and perhaps Zechariah; however, there is no conflation with “messiah” there. 9Zech 4.14 does have the benei hayyitshar (בְּנֵי הַיִּצְהָר), which literally translates to “sons of fresh oil.” which in the immediate context probably refer to Zerubbabel the royal Davidic governor and Joshua the high priest. Rather, in Second Isaiah, any expectations associated with a “messiah” seem solely embodied in the person of Cyrus.
My View: Contextual and Expanded Interpretations #
In my view, reading Isaiah 52.13-53.12 in its broader context of Second Isaiah, the evidence for the case that “(my) servant” is Israel 10Or Jacob, which seems to be used synonymously. personified is substantive.
Based on the Biblical data, it seems unlikely that the author intended for the “servant/slave” (עֶ֔בֶד) to be read as an ideal messianic figure (nowhere is such a designation applied to him within the text) and it is unclear to what extent pre-Christian/2nd Temple interpreters would have read them as such. 11Targum Yonathan / Nebi’im does preserve a tradition of messianic interpretation going back probably to the 2nd century CE (although it was later redacted likely in the 4th century). “Behold, my servant the messiah [anointed] shall prosper, he shall be exalted and extolled, and he shall be very strong.” (Tg. Neb. Isa 42.13). It is likely an orthographic confusion where מִשְׁחַת (mishchat) [“marred” / “disfigured”] is being confused for משחתי (mashachti) [“anointed”]. This variant is preserved singularly in 1QIsaa with the other ancient manuscripts from Qumran and the LXX preserving the “marred” reading. Hence, “marred” is likely the intention of the author. Broadly, the author interprets the Babylonian exile (43.14) as punishment for the sin which the nation Israel took upon itself on behalf of its people (e.g. 53). Presumably their sin was, in part, neglecting the worship of Yahweh (e.g. 43.22-28). But now, having swept away their sins and refined them (48.9), God will restore Israel as a righteous and flourishing blessing to the nations. God comforts his people by pronouncing his favour and protective power, promising restoration and comfort (ch. 51), and by portraying the meagreness of other deities (i.e. those of the Babylonians cf. 45.20, 46.1-2) who need not be feared. It is clear that the author viewed this restoration as coming under the reign of Cyrus of Persia (44.28-45.1, 45.13, 46.11) and viewed him as the instrument of God’s favour to crush the yoke of Babylon (ch. 47).
Although, as noted above, the text does not lend itself directly to a messianic reading in its original context, there are echoes and (sometimes striking) resonances with the gospel accounts and New Testament traditions. This perhaps is the more interesting phenomenon. A cynical reader might contend that the authors of the New Testament were familiar with these texts and wrote ahistorical correspondences into their portrayals of Jesus’ life, trial and crucifixion. This view cannot be completely written off since there is clear internal evidence within the gospels themselves that the authors had knowledge of this text (Mt 8.16-17, Mat 12.18-20, Lk 22.37, Jn 12.37-38). But this view seems difficult to substantiate without further evidence. After all, why fabricate a crucified Messiah (e.g. 1 Cor 1.18)? 12I do acknowledge that this is not a watertight argument. For instance, there could be real psychological needs that fabrication might address especially if the impulse is to bolster a community’s sense of identity and collective narrative. E.g. Modern Messianism in Chabad may have such impulses in the mix. Nevertheless, I still think the burden of proof remains on those who contend for fabrication.
Contrary to the cynic’s view outlined above, I think that, as a baseline, the historical crucifixion of Jesus spurred early Christians to find scriptural ways of understanding this event and that the gospel writers (and by extension Christians) informed and shaped their ideas about who Jesus was through these passages—e.g. the interpretation of Jesus’ death and suffering as an atoning sacrifice and a fulfilment of the hopes of Israel. It probably is the case that these passages also informed Jesus’ conception of his mission and self. This understanding that Christians interpreted Jesus into the “suffering servant” after the fact, while jarring to our modern interpretive sensibilities, does not necessarily stand at odds with those who maintain a “God-breathed” inspiration of the text. 13See 2 Tim 3.16. Maintaining that these texts are inspired by God does not necessitate that the author(s) had to know anything about Jesus as they penned these words. Rather, if these texts were inspired in a broader sense, correspondences were being embedded into the text without the authors’ knowledge that would later echo something resounding in Jesus’ experience and which later Christians interpreted as clearly pointing to Jesus. 14No doubt, for Christians, the “servant” provided authority and meaning to Jesus’ crucifixion.
References to the Servant in Second Isaiah #
The below is a survey of references to “service, “servant”, “slave” throughout Second Isaiah. I contend that, read in context, the prima facie intended referent seems to be Israel or sometimes the prophet himself. Again, this is not to undermine the validity of other interpretations; only to say that the author did not intend them.
To anchor the interpretation of instances in context, I have summarised broad thematic movements as I could best identify them. Relevant verse excerpts are highlighted and commented on to support my argument. Verse excerpts are from the Revised JPS, 2023.
Theme 1 - “Comfort, oh comfort My people…” (40.1-12) #
The prophet declares comfort for his people, since Jerusalem’s “term of service” has come to an end as an expiation for iniquity 15This evokes images of debt-indentured servitude (Lev 25.39). The restoration being described in Isa 40 may also be drawing on ideas of severance gifts described in Deut 15.13-14. —likely an allusion to the Babylonian exile. The prophet reminds them of the permanency of God’s word (v8) and heralds triumph to Judah (v9-10).
Isaiah 40.2:
Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
And declare to her
That her term of service 16The Hebrew is צְבָאָ֔הּ (tsava) meaning “to wage war, assemble, go forth, or perform mandatory service/duty”. It is unrelated etymologically to עֶבֶד (ebed). is over,
That her iniquity is expiated;
For she has received at GOD’s hand
Double for all her sins.
Theme 2 - God’s sovereignty over other nations (40.13-41.29) #
The prophet describes the unfathomableness of YHWH and his plan. Before YHWH, Judah’s surrounding nations 17The prophet has in mind the “coastlands”, Lebanon, and probably Kedar and Sela (42.11). The “coastlands” is a non-specific term that could extend to a very broad geographical area; possibly, Cyprus and Crete, Asia Minor, Greece and even the Italian peninsula. Lebanon probably refers to the geographical area surrounding Tyre and Sidon. Kedar was a confederation of semi-nomadic Arab tribes controlling trade routes across the northern Arabian Desert holding a tradition of descent from Ishmael’s son Kedar (Gen 25.13). Sela (סֶלַע) meaning “rock” or “cliff” refers to the imposing, high-altitude rock fortress city located in Edomite territory, near modern-day Tafilah in southern Jordan (often associated with or precursor to the later Nabataean stronghold of Petra). are naught, along with their gods. YHWH is pictured as indefatigable, eternal creator, enthroned above the earth, bringing potentates to naught at his will. The “coastlands”—and presumably their gods—are called to witness to the havoc that the “victor from the East” will wreak. YHWH will use Cyrus to benefit Zion, whereas the their gods are powerless to protect them. YHWH promises restoration to the impoverished for his reputation’s sake.
Isaiah 41.2-4.
Who has roused a victor 18Lit. “victory”. from the East,
Summoned him to God’s service? 19Literally means “to his feet”. Again, לְרַגְל֑וֹ has no etymological connection to ebed.
Has delivered up nations to him,
And trodden sovereigns down?
Has rendered their swords like dust,
Their bows like wind-blown straw?
He pursues them, he goes on unscathed;
No shackle is placed on his feet.
Who has wrought and achieved this?
The One who announced the generations from the start—
I, GOD, who was first
And will be with the last as well.
The “victor(y) from the East” is probably Cyrus. Here it seems to be saying that God has already raised this “victor” up and the prophet seems to be comforting Israel by pointing to God as the real power behind the rise of Cyrus, who is portrayed as a mere agent in God’s service. Cyrus will destroy the nations, whose gods are ineffective to preserve them. Meanwhile, God will defend Zion. A similar theme is repeated in chapter 45. Andrew of St Victor echoes this reading.
Isaiah 41.8-9:
But you, Israel, My servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
Seed of Abraham My friend—
You whom I drew from the ends of the earth
And called from its far corners,
To whom I said: You are My servant;
I chose you, I have not rejected you—
The servant is clearly identified with Israel/Jacob.
Theme 3 - God’s vindication of Israel/Jacob for his glory (42.1-43.21) #
A humble and peaceful servant emerges who will teach the true way to the nations. God affirms his covenantal relationship with his people; his “kavod" 20Meaning “transcendence, honour, dignity, power, substance, recognition, splendour, manifest majesty, grandeur, divine glory, gravitas”. Its metaphorical meaning is derived primarily from the basic meaning “be heavy”. See M. Weinfeld, “כָּבוֹד,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 7 (Eerdmans, 1995), 22. will not be yielded to idols (42.8). The prophet calls the nations to praise YHWH’s deeds of vindication for Jacob and Israel from their blindness, despoilment, imprisonment and plunder. 2142.7; 42.17; 42.18-20; 42.22; 42.24; 43.8. The prophet interprets Israel’s state as a result of their disobedience and YHWH’s wrath. Nevertheless, YHWH will surely gather and redeem his people from the four corners of the earth (43.5-6) for his glory and honour.
Isaiah 42.1: 22This text (vv. 1–4) is one of four texts (49.1–7; 50.4-11; 52.13-53.12) that some scholars have identified as “servant songs”. Both the isolation of these songs from their larger context and the identification of the servant in them are contentious. I agree with Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, A Farewell to the Servant Songs (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983), 45. that there is no good reason to demarcate them. Chapter 42 introduces a humble servant figure (42.1-4), who will establish truth and teaching (Torah) on earth so that the nations worship God. God promises vindication, victory and legitimacy to Israel (possibly from the surrounding nations 42.17). Israel’s status as a nation seems one of oppression and deprivation (42.7, 18-19, 22). The context is probably exilic (42.24-25); however, it may also be some form of local dispute with the neighbouring nations.
This is My servant, whom I uphold,
My chosen one, in whom I delight.
I have put My spirit upon him,
He shall teach the true way to the nations.There are several interprative possibilities here. On the one hand, the servant could be Cyrus because of the preceding context in chapter 41. However, this figure seems to be deliberately juxtaposed to Cyrus; while Cyrus seems like an invincible instrument of destruction, the servant in 42 is characterised by constraint neither raising his voice (42.2) nor breaking a bruised reed (42.3). Instead, the author pictures the servant in 42 as a humble—perhaps even humiliated—figure facing existential peril (e.g. 42.4 “He shall not grow dim or be bruised”). This vulnerability aligns well with the comfort and preservation motif in reference to Israel introduced in 40.1-2.
The core theological point seems to be that God possesses the sovereign potency to preserve Israel despite Cyrus’ power to crush the gods of the surrounding nations—indeed, the narrative implies that God commands even Cyrus himself. Read this way, “my servant” functions as a marker of an enduring covenant relationship, ensuring that God will uphold and sustain Israel. This collective interpretation is suppoted by Isaiah 41.8, where God explicitly addresses “Israel, my servant”. While that earlier reference uses the second person, the shift to the third person in chapter 42—as it later does in Isa 53—could suggest a change in rhetorical setting, perhaps with the prophet now vindicating Israel before a broader crowd. This national vocation is affirmed in the immediate context, where the “covenant people” are explicitly charged to be a “light of nations” who will teach the true way to the world.
Jerome confronts this verse’s textual divergence between the Septuagint and Hebrew sources by relying on the precedent of Matthew 12.18-20 (Letter 121, To Algasia, Ch 2). The reading from the Hebrew is therefore preserved in the Vulgate. The Septuagint clearly identifies the servant of the verse with Jacob. 23“Iakob is my servant; I will lay hold of him; Israel is my chosen; my soul has accepted him; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth judgment to the nations.” Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford University Press, 2007).
Some traditional Christian readings have read the servant here as Jesus—e.g. arguably wording of Isaiah 42.1 is echoed in the Synoptics (Mt 3.17, Mk 1.11, Lk 3.22). 24LXX uses προσδέχομαι versus εὐδοκέω It is clear, at least in the immediate context, that Jesus is not the intended referent of the author. Nevertheless, such a reading has merit if Jesus embodies something of the archetype of the servant Israel in both his life and teaching.
Finally, this might be referring to an individual whom the prophet is addressing while pronouncing the prophecy, maybe even a self-reference to the prophet himself. In this reading, “my servant” could function as a marker for an individual who could even double as a kind of synecdoche for the nation. This reading, however, does seem at odds with the context; why use “my servant” for Israel in 41.8 only to switch out its referent here? But words can naturally shift meanings in close proximity to one another. Also, the text could have been redacted or compiled in stages so there is no reason to assume that 41 and 42 share a common thread; in fact, it feels like there’s a natural break between the chapters.
Isaiah 42.18-22:
Listen, you who are deaf;
You blind ones, look up and see!
Who is so blind as My servant,
So deaf as the messenger I send?
Who is so blind as the chosen one,
So blind as GOD’s servant?
Seeing many things, he gives no heed;
With ears open, he hears nothing.
GOD desires his vindication,
That he may magnify and glorify the Teaching.The motif of blindness recurs throughout chapters 42 and 43. When read in conjunction with that context (e.g. 43.8: “Setting free that people, blind though it has eyes and deaf though it has ears”) it seems clear that the prophet has in mind Israel/Judah. In this reading, the “messenger” of 42.20 is the messenger to the nations portrayed in 42.1-4—i.e. by the nation’s vindication, God will glorify the Teaching.
Isaiah 42.24:
Who was it gave Jacob over to despoilment
And Israel to plunderers?
Surely, GOD—against whom they sinned,
In whose ways they would not walk,
And whose Teaching they would not obey—The author claims that God himself gave them up. This conforms with the imagery of the servant in chapter 53 being identified as being punished for the transgressions of its people.
Isaiah 43.10:
My witnesses are you
—declares GOD—
My servant, whom I have chosen.
To the end that you may take thought,
And believe in Me,
And understand that I am the One:
Before Me no god was formed,
And after Me none shall exist—
Isaiah 44.1-2:
But hear, now, O Jacob My servant,
Israel whom I have chosen!
Thus said GOD, your Maker,
Your Creator who has helped you since birth:
Fear not, My servant Jacob,
Jeshurun whom I have chosen, “Jeshurun” (Deut 32.15; 33.5, 26), is an old poetic name for Israel, perhaps meaning “upright one” in Hebrew.
Isaiah 44.21-22:
Remember these things, O Jacob
For you, O Israel, are My servant:
I fashioned you, you are My servant—
O Israel, never forget Me.
Isaiah 44.26:
But confirm the word of My servant
And fulfill the prediction of My messengers.
It is I who say of Jerusalem, “It shall be inhabited,”
And of the towns of Judah, “They shall be rebuilt;
And I will restore their ruined places.”Possibly an allusion to the prophet himself, but seems to fit better in context with the “cities of Judah” being synecdoche for the nation. Andrew of St Victor reads this as an allusion to “some prophet”.
Isaiah 45.4:
For the sake of My servant Jacob,
Israel My chosen one,
I call you by name,
I hail you by title, though you have not known Me.
Isaiah 48.20:
Go forth from Babylon,
Flee from Chaldea!
Declare this with loud shouting,
Announce this,
Bring out the word to the ends of the earth!
Say: “GOD has redeemed
Jacob—God’s servant!”
Isaiah 49.3:
And [God] said to me, “You are My servant, Israel in whom I glory.”
Isaiah 49.5:
And now GOD has resolved—
The One who formed me in the womb to be of service—
To bring back Jacob
And restore Israel.
And I have been honored in the sight of GOD,
My God has been my strength.The first person singular voice is ambiguous here. Probably better read as the prophet which could be suggestive of a clever blurring of categories.
Isaiah 49.6-7a:
And [God] has said:
“It is too little that you should be My servant
In that I raise up the tribes of Jacob
And restore the survivors of Israel:
I will also make you a light of nations,
That My salvation may reach the ends of the earth.”
Thus said GOD,
The Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One,
To the despised one,
To the abhorred nations,
To the slave 25Hebrew is עֶ֔בֶד (ebed) which is the same word that is elsewhere rendered “servant.” of rulers…Here עֶ֔בֶד (ebed) refers to both the prophet and the nation—i.e. “Israel and his Holy One”.
Isaiah 50.10:
Who among you reveres GOD
And heeds the voice of the appointed servant?—
Though walking in darkness
And having no light,
Let them trust in the name of GOD
And rely upon his God.The context of this particular “song” (50.4-11) suggests that the servant here, contrary to usages elsewhere, is the prophet himself.
Isaiah 52.13:
“Indeed, My servant shall prosper,
Be exalted and raised to great heights.Given the preceding context, it seems sensible to read the “suffering servant” as personification for Israel. God had punished Israel to the point that the nations despised it; but now God will restore its fortunes and make it a light for the nations.
Isaiah 53.11:
Out of his anguish he shall see it;
He shall enjoy it to the full through his devotion.
“My righteous servant makes the many righteous,
It is their punishment that he bears;In view of the above citations, this is talking about the nation Israel being punished for the iniquity of its people and thereby making them whole again.
Isaiah 54.16-17:
It is I who created the smith
To fan the charcoal fire
And produce tools for each purpose;
So it is I who create
The instruments of havoc.
No weapon formed against you
Shall succeed,
And every tongue that contends with you at law
You shall defeat.
Such is the lot of GOD’s servants,
Such their triumph through Me
—declares GOD.Reference to servants in the plural referring to God’s people.
Summary of Alternative Readings #
Brettler and Levine’s Brettler and Levine, “Isaiah’s Suffering Servant,” 2019 (see note). seems to provide a fairly comprehensive view of both Christian and Jewish interpretations of the passage throughout the centuries which proposes other alternatives:
We cannot identify the servant. Tryggve Mettinger typified the list of candidates, including Isaiah himself, Moses (b. Sot. 14a), Jeremiah (Saadia Gaon and Ibn Ezra, cf. Jer 10:18–24; 11:19), Hezekiah, the Davidic king in exile or Zerubabbel, the people Israel (b. Sanh. 98a; Numbers Rab. 13.2), the righteous in every generation (b. Ber. 5a), Cyrus, the messiah (b. Sanh. 98b; Ruth Rab. 5.6; cf. Isa 45:1), the faithful remnant mentioned by Isa 10:20–22 (David Kimchi), the high priest Onias, and others, as “resemble[ing] the contents of a successful big-game hunt on the exegetical savannah.”
Perhaps other exegetical game might also include: King Josiah, who was killed by Pharoah Neco at Megiddo (2 Kings 23.29-30) or King Jehoiachin, who was exiled to Babylon (2 Kings 24.10-16). Brettler and Levine themselves don’t read the servant as a collective for a nation, but suggest a single unidentified person:
In sum, Isaiah 52:13–53:12 most likely originally referred to one of the prophet’s exilic contemporaries, whom he viewed as vicariously atoning for the guilt-ridden exilic (or early post-exilic) community. We know neither this individual’s name nor anything about him beyond what this passage says.
In his exegesis of the passages of the “suffering servant” in Isaiah 50.6-9, 52, 53, Andrew of Saint Victor (12th century) is famously silent about Christ, interpreting the passages instead as a dual prophecy about the People of Israel or the prophet Isaiah (an interpretion found in Ibn Ezra’s commentary). On 52.13-14 he says:
When all these things have happened, my servant Isaiah, who through my preaching predicted this, will be considered understanding and wise, and be exalted, and by everyone he will be extolled and considered very glorious.
He then goes on to say:
Or the whole thing may be read about the people thus: After the children of Israel are gathered into the land by the Lord, the people, the servant of the Lord, will understand, that is, will conduct themselves intelligently and wisely. And they will be exalted with riches and power, and be raised up above their enemies, and they will be very sublime in dignity and glory.
In Frans van Liere’s introduction to his translation of Andrew’s commentary:
Only in Is. 50, 6, a verse he interprets as referring to the death of Isaiah, does he mention that ‘our saviour also suffered this’ … [P]ossibly, Andrew did not think that these christological interpretations had a place in a commentary intended to present the literal sense and Jewish interpretation of Isaiah, or he thought that Jerome’s commentary had made these interpretations clear enough. 26Andrew was writing his commentary to supplement Jerome. Still, his refusal to explicitly refute these Jewish interpretations did raise objections from Richard of Saint Victor soon after Andrew’s commentary saw the light. To Richard, it seemed as if Andrew had ‘granted the Jews the victory palm’. Later Christian authors … likewise were scandalized by what they perceived as Andrew’s ‘judaizing’ interpretations.