|
|
Jews for Jesus publish in their literature that Rashi, a Jewish Rabbi around 1000 A.D., is responsible for the altering of the interpretation of Isaiah 53 for all of Israel whereby they, after his influence, no longer interpreted Isaiah 53 as an "individual" but as a "nation."
Answer for yourself: Is such a statement made by Jews for Jesus accurate?
The following is from Contra Celsum 1:55 …from around 248 C.E./A.D. [long before Rashi] by the early Church Father Origen:
“Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies (Isaiah 52:13-53:8); to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions [referring to Isaisa 52 and 53] bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, "Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;" and then, "They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;" and the expression, "A man under suffering." Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, "This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;" and this, "But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;" and to whom the expression properly belonged, "By His stripes were we healed." For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour's sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, applied these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, "Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death." For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when "He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?" At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus.”
Now if you read this close you see two opinions concerning the interpretation of the text: the Jewish and the Gentile Church Fathers. But without a doubt, the Jews, at this early date, believed that the Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 53 passages dealt with corporate Israel and not an individual.
This is all the more important because the Christians [Jews for Jesus] teach that the Jews interpreted Isa. 53 as referring to the Messiah (individual) until the medieval commentator Rashi who began to explain it as referring to the people of Israel, thus changing the prior interpretation that the passages referred to only an individual. Nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence speak for itself. So when Christians claim that it was only with the commentary of Rashi (1040-1105) that the Jews began to refer to Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as referring to the entire nation of Israel then they are in error and their message is false.
This misconception began with Edward Pusey, who wrote in his 1876 introduction to The Suffering Servant Of Isaiah According To Jewish Interpretations (trans. Driver and Neubauer, New York: Hermon Press, 1969) that “The new interpretation began with Rashi” (p. XLIV).
As you have seen the interpretation of corporate Israel for Isa. 52 and 53 is neither new, nor did it begin with Rashi. Over 800 years before Rashi the Church Father Origen records for us that the Jews contemporary with him interpreted this passage as referring to the entire nation of Israel.
This material can be found on the Internet or by obtaining Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, Book 1:55, 1965, p. 50).
So the bottom line is this: Jewish Biblical exegesis subscribing to the belief that the people of Israel was the suffering servant spoken of throughout the entire passage pre-dates Rashi by many centuries and Jews for Jesus, or anyone who says different is simply wrong. Shalom.