Rabbinic Thought: At Jesus's Time

The previous section surveyed the pre-Christian evidence for how Isaiah 53 was understood before Jesus. This section narrows the focus to the first century --- the period during and immediately after Jesus’s earthly ministry. Three pieces of evidence are especially important: the Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, the Ethiopian eunuch’s question in Acts 8, and the Septuagint’s interpretive choices. Together, they reveal that Isaiah 53 was a live, debated, and theologically charged passage in first-century Judaism --- not a text with a settled, obvious meaning.

This is significant for the healing question. If the meaning of Isaiah 53 was self-evident to first-century readers, we would expect uniformity in interpretation. What we find instead is diversity, struggle, and creative reinterpretation --- evidence that the passage was difficult, contested, and pregnant with implications that different readers drew out in different directions.

The Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53

What the Targums Are

The Targums are Aramaic translations and interpretive paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible. Because Aramaic had become the common spoken language of many Jews by the Second Temple period (Hebrew remaining the language of scholarship and liturgy), the Targums served as a bridge between the Hebrew text and the Aramaic-speaking congregation. They were not word-for-word translations; they were interpretive renderings that often expanded, explained, or reoriented the meaning of the Hebrew original.

The Targum Jonathan on the Prophets is the most important Targum for our study. Its date is debated --- the final written form likely dates to the second century AD or later, but it incorporates traditions that may go back to the first century or earlier. For our purposes, the Targum represents an early Jewish interpretive tradition of Isaiah 53, whether or not its final written form is precisely contemporaneous with Jesus.

The Targum’s Key Move: Messianic but Not Suffering

The Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 52:13—53:12 is one of the most remarkable and theologically revealing documents in the history of biblical interpretation. It does two things simultaneously:

It identifies the Servant as the Messiah. The very first verse of the passage in the Targum reads: “Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper” --- inserting the word “Messiah” directly into the text. This is an explicit messianic identification.
It systematically removes the suffering from the Messiah. Throughout the passage, where the Hebrew describes the Servant suffering, the Targum reassigns the suffering to the nations, to Israel’s enemies, or to the wicked. The Messiah in the Targum does not suffer; he conquers.

This double move --- affirming the messianic identity while denying the messianic suffering --- is the key to understanding the Targum’s significance.

Key Passages from the Targum

The following comparison highlights the Targum’s reinterpretation. The Hebrew Masoretic Text is given alongside the Targum’s Aramaic rendering (in English translation):

Isaiah 52:13

Hebrew (MT): “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.” (KJV)

Targum: “Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper; he shall be exalted and increase, and shall be very strong.”

The Targum’s addition of “the Messiah” is unmistakable. The Servant is explicitly identified as the messianic figure.

Isaiah 52:14

Hebrew (MT): “As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.” (KJV)

Targum: “As the house of Israel looked to him during many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men.”

Notice the shift: in the Hebrew, it is the Servant’s visage that is marred. In the Targum, it is Israel’s countenance that is darkened. The suffering has been transferred from the Messiah to the nation.

Isaiah 53:3

Hebrew (MT): “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (KJV)

Targum: “Then the glory of all the kingdoms shall be despised and shall cease; they shall be feeble and mourning, behold, as a man of sorrows and appointed for sicknesses; and as when the face of the Shekinah was withdrawn from us, they are despised and not esteemed.”

Again, the suffering is redirected. In the Hebrew, the Servant is despised and acquainted with grief. In the Targum, it is the kingdoms (the Gentile nations) that are despised and mourning.

Isaiah 53:4

Hebrew (MT): “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (KJV)

Targum: “Then he shall pray on behalf of our transgressions, and our iniquities shall be pardoned for his sake, though we were accounted stricken, smitten before the Lord, and afflicted.”

This is a critical verse for the healing question. The Hebrew says the Servant “hath borne our griefs [choliy] and carried our sorrows [makob]” --- using words that can refer to physical sickness and pain. The Targum replaces this with the Messiah praying on behalf of transgressions and pardoning iniquities. The physical-sickness language disappears entirely. The Targum reads the verse as being about intercession for sin, not the bearing of sickness.

Isaiah 53:5

Hebrew (MT): “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (KJV)

Targum: “But he shall build the sanctuary that was profaned for our transgressions and given up for our iniquities; and by his teaching his peace shall be upon us, and when we follow his words our transgressions shall be forgiven us.”

This is perhaps the most striking transformation in the entire Targum. The Hebrew’s “wounded… bruised… chastisement… stripes… healed” --- all language of physical suffering and physical healing --- becomes “build the sanctuary… by his teaching… when we follow his words… forgiven.” The Messiah in the Targum is not wounded; he builds. He is not bruised; he teaches. The healing is not through his stripes but through following his instruction. The physical dimension is entirely replaced by spiritual and didactic categories.

Isaiah 53:10

Hebrew (MT): “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” (KJV)

Targum: “And it was the will of the Lord to refine and to purify the remnant of his people, in order to cleanse their soul from transgressions; they shall see the kingdom of their Messiah, they shall increase sons and daughters, they shall prolong days; and those who observe the Law of the Lord shall prosper by his will.”

In the Hebrew, the LORD bruises the Servant and makes his soul an offering for sin. In the Targum, the LORD refines and purifies the remnant of his people. The Messiah does not suffer --- the people are refined. The sacrificial dimension of the Servant’s suffering is eliminated.

What the Targum Reveals

The Targum Jonathan is significant for several reasons:

1. It confirms the messianic reading. The Targum explicitly identifies the Servant as “my servant the Messiah.” This demonstrates that the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 was a known and accepted reading in Jewish tradition. The Targum does not introduce the messianic reading as novel; it assumes it.

2. It reveals the problem of a suffering Messiah. The Targum’s systematic removal of suffering from the Messiah shows that the concept of a suffering Messiah was difficult for Jewish interpreters. They could accept a messianic reading of the passage, but they could not accept that the Messiah would suffer, be wounded, be bruised, and die. The Targum’s reinterpretation is a response to this difficulty.

3. It raises a historical question. Did the Targum preserve an older messianic reading while sanitizing the suffering element? If so, the original reading may have included both the messianic identification and the suffering --- precisely the combination that Christianity claims. The Targum’s effort to remove the suffering could itself be evidence that the suffering was originally part of the messianic reading and was felt to be problematic.

4. It eliminates the physical-healing dimension. For our specific question, the Targum is especially instructive. In Isaiah 53:5, where the Hebrew says “with his stripes we are healed,” the Targum says “by his teaching… our transgressions shall be forgiven.” The Targum does not connect the passage to physical healing in any way. Even the spiritual-healing dimension is reframed: it is not healing through suffering but forgiveness through teaching and obedience.

The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26—35)

The Passage

The account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch is one of the most important New Testament narratives for understanding how Isaiah 53 was read in the first century:

“And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”

--- Acts 8:26—35 (KJV)

What the Eunuch’s Question Reveals

The Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah 53 --- specifically, verses drawn from Isaiah 53:7—8 (in the Septuagint rendering). His question is profoundly revealing: “Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?”

This question tells us several things about the first-century interpretive landscape:

1. The referent of Isaiah 53 was not settled. If Isaiah 53 had an obvious, universally agreed-upon interpretation --- whether messianic, corporate-Israel, or prophetic autobiography --- the eunuch would not have needed to ask. His question presupposes that multiple readings were possible and that the answer was not self-evident.

2. The eunuch considered at least two options. He suggests the prophet might be speaking of himself (Isaiah as the suffering figure) or of “some other man.” The “some other man” option is open-ended: it could mean the Messiah, a future prophetic figure, a historical king, or a righteous sufferer. The eunuch’s question reflects the genuine ambiguity of the text.

3. Philip’s answer is christological. Philip “began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” Philip’s response identifies the Servant as Jesus --- the suffering Messiah. This is the Christian answer to the eunuch’s question, and it demonstrates how the earliest church read Isaiah 53.

4. The narrative does not mention healing. Philip preaches Jesus from Isaiah 53, but the text of Acts does not indicate that his preaching included a doctrine of physical healing. The eunuch responds by requesting baptism (Acts 8:36—38), not by seeking healing. The christological and soteriological dimensions of Isaiah 53 are in focus; the healing dimension is not mentioned.

The Ethiopian Eunuch and the Healing Debate

The eunuch’s question is relevant to the healing debate primarily because it confirms that Isaiah 53 was a passage in flux --- a text whose meaning was actively debated in first-century Judaism. If the passage was debated in its most basic sense (who is the Servant?), it is hardly surprising that the more specific question (does “healed” mean physical healing?) remains debated today. The eunuch’s story reminds us that Isaiah 53 has always been a passage that demands interpretation --- and that the interpretation has never been obvious.

The Septuagint’s Interpretive Choices

The LXX and Isaiah 53:4

The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, produced by Jewish translators in Alexandria beginning in the third century BC. It was the Bible of the early church --- most New Testament quotations of the Old Testament follow the LXX rather than the Hebrew. The LXX translators’ rendering of Isaiah 53 is therefore enormously important for understanding how pre-Christian Jewish scholars interpreted the passage.

The most significant LXX decision for our study occurs in Isaiah 53:4. The Hebrew reads:

“Surely he hath borne our griefs [choliy], and carried our sorrows [makob].” (KJV)

As discussed in Chapter 1’s analysis of Isaiah 53, the Hebrew words choliy and makob can refer to physical sickness and physical pain. But the LXX translators rendered the verse very differently:

“This one bears our sins [hamartias] and suffers pain for us.”

The LXX replaces choliy (“sickness/grief”) with hamartias (“sins”) --- a completely different word with a completely different meaning. This is not a translation; it is an interpretation. The LXX translators understood Isaiah 53:4 as being about sin-bearing, not sickness-bearing. They read the physical-sickness language of the Hebrew and concluded that it referred to spiritual reality.

Why This Matters

The LXX rendering matters for several reasons:

1. It is a pre-Christian Jewish interpretation. The LXX translation of Isaiah predates Christianity by roughly two centuries. This means that the spiritual reading of Isaiah 53:4 --- the reading that understands “griefs” and “sorrows” as referring to sins rather than sicknesses --- has deep pre-Christian Jewish roots. It is not a Christian invention designed to avoid the physical-healing implications. Jewish translators, reading the Hebrew text in their own language and culture, concluded that the verse was about sin.

2. It shaped early Christian reading. Because the LXX was the early church’s Bible, most early Christians read Isaiah 53:4 as “he bears our sins” rather than “he hath borne our sicknesses.” This LXX rendering influenced the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who consistently read Isaiah 53 in terms of sin-bearing. The spiritual-healing reading of the early church was not created by those writers; it was inherited from the LXX they read.

3. Matthew deliberately rejected it. As discussed in Chapter 1’s analysis of Matthew 8:17, when Matthew quotes Isaiah 53:4, he does not follow the LXX. Instead, he produces his own Greek rendering: “He himself took our infirmities [astheneias] and bore our diseases [nosous]” --- words that are unambiguously about physical sickness. Matthew knew the LXX rendering. He rejected it in favor of a translation that preserved the physical-sickness dimension of the Hebrew. This deliberate departure from the LXX is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that physical healing is part of what Isaiah 53:4 describes.

4. It reveals that the physical-versus-spiritual question is ancient. The LXX translators confronted the same question we are studying: does Isaiah 53:4 refer to physical sickness or spiritual sin? They chose spiritual sin. Matthew chose physical sickness. The question is not a modern invention; it is embedded in the earliest stages of the passage’s transmission and interpretation.

The LXX Rendering of Isaiah 53:5

The LXX’s treatment of Isaiah 53:5 is closer to the Hebrew than its treatment of 53:4:

Hebrew (MT): “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

LXX: “But he was wounded because of our lawlessness, and was made sick because of our sins. The discipline of our peace was upon him; by his bruise we were healed.”

Here the LXX preserves the basic structure and meaning of the Hebrew. “Wounded for our transgressions” becomes “wounded because of our lawlessness.” “With his stripes we are healed” becomes “by his bruise we were healed.” The Greek word for “healed” is iathemen, from iaomai --- the same verb Peter uses in 1 Peter 2:24.

The LXX does not spiritualize verse 5 in the same way it spiritualized verse 4. The healing language remains, and the word iaomai carries physical-healing connotations even in Greek. This creates an interesting tension within the LXX rendering itself: verse 4 is about sin-bearing (hamartias), while verse 5 retains the healing language (iathemen) that could encompass physical restoration.

Jewish Messianic Healing Expectations in the First Century

The Messiah as Healer

As documented in the previous section on Second Temple Judaism, the expectation that the messianic age would bring physical healing was well established by the first century. The evidence from Qumran (4Q521), from Isaiah 35:5—6, and from Isaiah 61:1 converges on a picture of the Messiah as one whose coming brings sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and wholeness to the broken.

Jesus’s Appeal to Messianic Healing Expectations

Jesus Himself appeals to these expectations as evidence of His messianic identity. When John the Baptist sends messengers to ask “Art thou he that should come?” (Matthew 11:3 KJV), Jesus responds:

“Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.”

--- Matthew 11:4—5 (KJV)

This response only works if Jesus and John share a common frame of reference: the Messiah is expected to heal. Jesus’s healings are not random acts of compassion (though they are compassionate). They are messianic credentials --- signs that identify Him as the promised one.

Luke records a parallel account:

“Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.”

--- Luke 7:22 (KJV)

The list of healings in both accounts echoes the language of Isaiah 35:5—6 and the Qumran fragment 4Q521. Jesus is not merely performing miracles; He is enacting the messianic program that Isaiah described. The first-century Jewish expectation of messianic healing provides the interpretive framework within which Jesus’s healings have meaning.

The Question for the Atonement Debate

The first-century evidence establishes that healing was part of what the Messiah was expected to do. But the critical question remains: is the healing connected to the Messiah’s suffering (Isaiah 53) or to the Messiah’s reign (Isaiah 35)?

The distinction matters:

If healing is connected to the Messiah’s reign, then the healings are signs of the kingdom’s arrival. They demonstrate who Jesus is and what His kingdom looks like. They may be available now as foretastes of the coming age, but they are not necessarily tied to the atonement specifically.
If healing is connected to the Messiah’s suffering, then “with his stripes we are healed” describes a direct provision of the cross. The Messiah’s suffering secures healing just as it secures forgiveness. This is the claim of the healing-in-the-atonement position.
If healing is connected to both, then the messianic healing expectations (Isaiah 35) and the Servant’s vicarious suffering (Isaiah 53) converge in a comprehensive redemptive work that addresses the whole person. The atonement is the ground; the kingdom is the sphere in which the atonement’s benefits are manifested.

The first-century evidence does not settle this question. It establishes the messianic-healing connection but does not determine whether that connection runs through the cross or alongside it. The reader must weigh the evidence and decide.

Summary

The first-century evidence reveals a passage in active debate:

The Targum Jonathan identifies Isaiah 53 as messianic --- explicitly inserting “the Messiah” into the text --- but systematically removes the Messiah’s suffering. The suffering is redirected to the nations, the enemies of Israel, or the people who need refining. The Messiah in the Targum does not suffer and is not wounded. The healing language of 53:5 is replaced with teaching, obedience, and forgiveness. This reveals that the messianic reading was established, but the suffering element was deeply problematic for Jewish interpreters.
The Ethiopian eunuch’s question confirms that Isaiah 53 was a debated passage. The eunuch did not know who the Servant was --- and he was reading the text carefully. The answer was not obvious. Philip preached Jesus from this passage, establishing the christological reading that became standard in the church.
The Septuagint’s rendering of Isaiah 53:4 replaces “sicknesses” with “sins,” demonstrating that the physical-versus-spiritual question is as old as the passage’s translation history. Pre-Christian Jewish translators read the physical-sickness language of the Hebrew and rendered it in spiritual terms. Matthew later rejected this rendering and restored the physical-sickness language. This divergence is at the heart of the healing debate.
First-century Jews expected the Messiah to heal, based on Isaiah 35, Isaiah 61, and related traditions. Jesus appealed to these expectations as evidence of His identity. The connection between the Messiah and healing was real and recognized. Whether that connection extends through the Messiah’s suffering (Isaiah 53) or operates alongside it is the question that divides interpreters.

The Targum’s reinterpretation, the eunuch’s question, the LXX’s translation choices, and the messianic healing expectations together paint a picture of a passage that has always been contested, always been difficult, and always been central to Jewish and Christian theological reflection. The first century did not resolve the questions we are asking. It sharpened them.

Cross-References

Isaiah 52:13—53:12 --- Chapter 1’s detailed exegesis of the Fourth Servant Song, including the Hebrew-LXX comparison and the analysis of choliy, makob, and rapha
Matthew 8:16—17 --- Matthew’s deliberate departure from the LXX rendering, choosing physical-sickness language for his quotation of Isaiah 53:4
1 Peter 2:24 --- Peter’s quotation of Isaiah 53:5, using the same Greek word for “healed” (iaomai) that appears in the LXX
Jesus’s Healing Ministry --- The Gospel evidence for Jesus’s healings as messianic credentials, directly connected to first-century expectations
Rabbinic Thought: Before Jesus --- The pre-Christian background to the first-century interpretive debates documented in this section
Rabbinic Thought: The Post-Jesus Shift --- How Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 changed after Christianity adopted the passage as its central messianic proof text
Appendix: Rabbinic Sources --- Extended primary source material for the Targum Jonathan and other rabbinic sources