The Fourth Servant Song of Isaiah in the Theological Discourse of Medieval Jewish Spain

Abstract

This study analyses the theological debates surrounding the Servant Songs in the Book of Isaiah, with particular attention to the fourth song, as interpreted in medieval Jewish literature. These passages, fundamental to both Jewish and Christian tradition, became a central focus of controversial dialogue in medieval Spain. Through a systematic analysis of Hebrew commentaries, the article examines key theological issues that emerge in these debates: the universal mission of Israel, the meaning of suffering, the concept of kenosis in Pauline theology, and the doctrine of original sin. Jewish exegetes such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Moses Ha-Kohen of Tordesillas, and Abravanel offered critical responses to Christian claims, often proposing alternative readings based on Hebrew philology and rational anthropology. The study highlights how these exchanges contributed to a deeper understanding of divine justice, human action, and incarnation, while emphasising the importance of precise theological language in interreligious dialogue. Some anthropological and metaphysical questions briefly addressed here point to new lines of research. Ultimately, the Servant Songs reveal themselves as a privileged space for theological reflection and manifest the enduring resonance of prophetic revelation.

1. Introduction

The Servant Songs are four passages from the second part of the book of Isaiah that mention a mysterious Servant who is both suffering and triumphant: Isaiah 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9 and, especially, 52:13–53:12.

These four passages are closely interconnected (Steck 1985, pp. 36–58) but are not independent of the context in which they are inserted and with which they maintain strong structural relationships (Berges 2021; García Fernández 2019, pp. 364–66). They have been extensively studied and discussed (Haag 1985; Varo 1990; Brettler and Levine 2019; Dillon 2023, pp. 9–11; López González 2025, pp. 2–9). Brevard S. Childs says that the fourth song is “…probably the most contested chapter in the Old Testament” (Childs 2001, p. 410).

Most contemporary commentaries on the book of Isaiah, operating chiefly within a historical-critical framework, have devoted their attention to reconstructing the historical circumstances in which these texts were composed and to elucidating the identity of the enigmatic Servant who occupies such a central place within them (Paul 2024, pp. 13–17). In the first part of our study, we offer an evaluative synthesis of the research carried out so far in this area.

In addition to attempts to identify the mysterious Servant, another less explored field of research is that which focuses on the motives and meaning of the Servant’s sufferings in these songs, especially in the fourth (Rembaum 1982).

However, there are still many details to be investigated in these passages. A somewhat less explored line of inquiry is that which delves into the disputes between Christians and Jews, which were frequent in the Middle Ages and in which these songs played a notable role. The Christian side favoured an individual and messianic interpretation of these songs, considering that everything said about the Servant was fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. The Jewish side was more open to all possible interpretations but always denied that these texts contained any reference to the preaching of Jesus and, above all, to his sufferings (Rosenthal 1960; Berger 2021; Horowitz 2012).

Within the framework of these disputes, significant theological questions emerged—some implicitly—alongside others that proved difficult to articulate. These challenges necessitated the use of more precise philosophical terminology and contributed to theological developments across a range of intellectually compelling issues. Moreover, beyond the realm of polemics, the medieval period witnessed numerous instances of collaborative textual engagement between Jews and Christians, aimed at deepening their understanding of biblical scripture (Leyra Curiá 2017). Among the topics warranting further scholarly attention are the literary, historical, and theological dimensions of the Servant Songs in the Book of Isaiah, which have thus far received limited study. These texts may be regarded as true ‘Echoes of the Divine’.

The purpose of this research is to explore the major theological questions raised around these songs in medieval Sephardic exegesis. To this end, we have conducted a systematic review of all the commentaries on the Servant Songs written in Hebrew during the Middle Ages in medieval Spain in order to bring these questions to light and then present them in a systematic manner. These include the existence and effects of original sin, the question of whether all humanity needs redemption, the meaning of suffering, the possibility of God assuming human nature, and the need to clarify philosophical concepts such as ‘nature’ and ‘person’. Subsequent advances in Hebrew philology, philosophical terminology, and theology demonstrate the enduring vitality of this prophetic word throughout time.

2. The Identification of the Servant

In more recent times, following in the wake of older commentaries, the following interpretations have been proposed:

(a)

Individual messianic interpretation. Although in the first half of the 20th century there was some attempt to identify the Servant with a contemporary of the prophet who was accredited by him as the Messiah (Rudolph 1925), most exegetes who can be classified in this line consider that the Servant is the Messiah announced by the prophets and awaited by the people of Israel. This interpretation, which has many centuries of tradition behind it (Alobaidi 1998), continues to be upheld by quite a few authors (North 1963), (Rosenberg 1987; Kalisher 2022).

(b)

Collective interpretation. Also with deep historical roots, especially in polemical literature, it identifies the Servant with historical Israel, although a collective interpretation has also been made identifying the Servant with Zion-Jerusalem (Wilshire 1975). This is one of the most popular interpretations in recent times (Bonnard 1972, p. 41; Mettinger 2021; Knight 1984; Steck 1985; Sawyer 1989).

(c)

Non-messianic individual interpretation. Throughout the history of interpretation, many characters from the Old Testament have been associated with the Servant: Moses, Jehoiachin, Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Cyrus, Zerubbabel, Eleazar, and Job (Lessing 2011). Most of these attempts at interpretation are ancient. In the 20th century, Christopher Begg highlighted the similarities between the figure of Zedekiah and that of the Servant (Begg 1986). However, within this line of interpretation, the most widely accepted proposal is that which sees the Servant as the prophet himself (Orlinsky 1967; Von Waldow 1981).

(d)

Open meaning. The multiplicity of elements that converge in the poem makes many different interpretations possible. In more recent times, the theory of multiple meanings was proposed in the work “I, He, We & They. A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53” (Clines 1976), and followed by Remaud who sees in the Servant both Jesus and present-day Israel, especially after the experience of the Shoah (Remaud 1981).

Although made from contemporary methodological perspectives, these proposals are not new but rather inherited from interpretations made in both Jewish and Christian exegesis over twenty centuries.

Closely linked to the determination of the individual or collective nature of the Servant and his possible identification is the question of whether that Servant refers to Jesus, as has traditionally been considered in Christian readings. This interpretation has had numerous echoes in the polemical literature of the Middle Ages, where Jews and Christians have debated the pros and cons of this interpretation. Most studies of polemical literature focus on the arguments put forward in favour of one position or the other (Loeb 1888; Urbach 1935; Maccoby 1993).

3. Theological Questions Raised Regarding the Interpretation of the Servant Songs

The question most frequently raised in medieval disputes between Jews and Christians, and which is very present in all commentaries on the Servant Songs, is whether Jesus was the expected Messiah and whether the prophecies were fulfilled in him, but we will not deal with this question now, as it has been sufficiently studied (Janowski and Stuhlmacher 2004; Switek 2025).

However, the dialogues between Christians and Jews, and on some occasions also with Muslims, were not only a source of conflict, but often led to a fruitful exchange of ideas (Cano and Molina 2000, pp. 231–32). With regard to the subject at hand, the search for who the Servant is who features in these songs is important, but there are also other questions of interest that have arisen in the exegetical dialogue they have sparked and which are of particular interest to our current research.

Indeed, while discussing the identity of the Servant and how each of Isaiah’s statements in that song can be understood, phrases, expressions, objections and dialogues arise around profound theological questions that are left aside in more general studies, but which are of great interest to the history of thought and ideas (Lasker 2007). Our research is now focused precisely on these questions. At first glance, these topics are as follows:

(a)

Considerations regarding Israel’s mission in favour of the Gentiles and, closely related to this question, the meaning of suffering on behalf of others.

(b)

In the context of controversy with Christians, there is a need to clarify details concerning the divinity and humanity of Jesus, as well as the mystery of the Incarnation. Closely related to this question is the doctrine of the Trinity.

(c)

Closely related to the previous topic, and to the justice of God, is the question of whether there is an original sin that requires a saving intervention to redeem humankind.

The questions raised about the humanity of Jesus and those related to original sin also require further clarification of certain anthropological details, as well as questions about God’s creative activity, good and evil angels, and eternity.

Let us now look at what the texts say about these three main themes.

3.1. Israel’s Mission in Favour of the Gentiles

The idea of a Servant who suffers unjustly but who, thanks to his meek suffering, achieves a great triumph expresses Israel’s experience in the Babylonian exile, but also in its historical journey to all corners of the world.

Some authors have pointed out, although not all agree with this dating of events (Grossman 2012; Berger 2021), that while Rashi (Rabbi Schlomo Yitzhaki) was writing his Commentary on Isaiah, beginning in 1096, he was receiving news of the massacres of Jews that were taking place in Europe following the announcement of the First Crusade. When, in November 1095, Pope Urban II called on Christians to recover Jerusalem and the Holy Places from the Muslims, crazed mobs in France and Germany, who had no intention of travelling to the Holy Land to wage war there, decided to take justice into their own hands and kill the ‘infidels’ closest to them, the Jews living in their towns. In the face of such unjust suffering, a profound thinker like Rashi found in the fourth song of Isaiah’s Servant a light that gave meaning to what they were enduring (Sicherman and Gevaryahu 1999; Brettler and Levine 2019, p. 171).

Amidst these sufferings, the image of the suffering Servant took on a precise meaning for Rashi: it is the people of Israel suffering in exile. This interpretation, which had its roots in older texts (Bemidbar Rabbah 13:2), (Hengel 2004), served, on the one hand, to refute the Christian interpretation by asserting that the Servant is not Jesus but Israel. But it also offered comfort to Jews who were being tormented by these events by showing them that their sufferings served a sacred purpose.

Rashi explains this song in terms of a “universal vicarious atonement” by Israel for its transgressions and for the sins of humanity, not only or primarily those of Israel (Rembaum 1982, pp. 296–97). In the classical sources of Judaism, there is the notion that righteous Jews atone for their co-religionists, and there is also talk of the responsibility of Jews to save the world, although there is no mention of this being accomplished through suffering. The classical Christian interpretation of the Fourth Song in patristic and scholastic theology, referring to Jesus suffering for the salvation of the world, together with the dramatic persecutions of the Jews that were taking place while he was writing his Commentary on Isaiah, opened up universal horizons in Rashi’s reflection on the meaning of Israel’s unjust sufferings on behalf of all humanity:

“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”.

(Rembaum 1982, p. 299)

This idea was later widely disseminated in various commentaries on the songs of the Servant. This is already reflected, for example, in Yehudah ha-Levi’s Kuzari (Ha-Levi and Imirizaldu 1979, pp. 90–91 and 200–1).

Its use can also be attested to in the book ‘Ezer Ha-’Emunah, where Moses Ha-Kohen of Tordesillas, commenting on Isaiah 53:4, emphasises that it is the righteous who are called upon to bear the sufferings for which others are guilty:

“’Yet he bore our infirmities’. This means that the multitude of Israel says that all the sufferings and infirmities that we had to endure for our sins were endured by the righteous for our sake”.

(Shamir 1972, p. 74 [Hebrew])

However, these interpretations raise a fundamental problem: is God a vengeful being who, when offended, demands that someone suffer to make amends for the offence, whether it be the offender or the righteous in their place?

This leads later authors, such as Shem Tov ibn Shaprut, to qualify their comments further, pointing out from Isaiah 53:5 that these sufferings are מוסר, but not so much in the sense of “chastisement” but rather “correction, instruction” so that when Israel was at peace, “they were then to be warned not to sin, lest the same fate should befall them which Israel’s sin had drawn down upon him” (Neubauer 1876, p. 91 [Hebrew]; Neubauer and Driver 1877, p. 95).

3.2. Philological and Philosophical Clarifications Regarding the Incarnation and the Trinity

We have already said that in the controversy with Christians, arguments are sought in these texts to reject that the Servant spoken of can be identified with Jesus. On this point, Christian statements were categorical and unequivocal. A good example of this is the statement by Inghetto Contardo, the Christian spokesman in the Mallorca Dispute:

“Therefore, Jews, leave here and go to your homes. Search your books and you will find the passion of Jesus Christ, son of God; and in this matter you will not be able to find or contradict anything that has not been fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ”.

(Limor 1985, pp. 113–14 [Latin])

In response to this, Jewish authors point out contradictions that would arise if the principles of the Christian faith concerning Jesus were accepted, and in this context, they mention questions about the Incarnation and the Trinity.

Among the Spanish-Hebrew commentators, perhaps the first to open the Christological debate on the fourth song of the Servant is Abraham ibn Ezra, when he comments with his singular conciseness and sharpness:

“The passage which follows presents great difficulties. The Christians refer it to Jesus, and explain ‘my servant’ to indicate the body. This is wrong; the body cannot be wise, even during the life of man. Again, what is the meaning of ‘he shall see his seed’ (Isaiah 53:10), ‘he shall prolong his days’ (Isaiah 53:10)? This was not in fact the case. Again, ‘and he shall divide the spoil with the strong’ (Isaiah 53:12)”.

(Ibn Ezra and Friedländer 1960, p. 239 and p. 90 [Hebrew])

He points out that there are phrases in the fourth song that were not literally fulfilled in Jesus, since he had no children, did not live a long life, and did not divide the spoils of war. But the main point is that he points out philosophical problems that would arise from Christian claims. If the text applies to Jesus, who is claimed to be God, how can he be called a Servant? But then that word would have to refer to a dimension of him that is not divine, which is why Ibn Ezra says that Christians refer to “the body”. May be referring to what Christian writers call the “human nature” (ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις) of Jesus (Athanasius [370] and Opitz 1940, p. 165). This observation points to a complex problem: how is it possible for a single person to be said to possess qualities that are appropriate to humanity and divinity, but not to both? The tension between divine impassibility and human suffering, between eternal life and temporal death, requires a nuanced theological and philosophical framework, which Western Christian theology addresses through the doctrine of hypostatic union and the distinction of natures within the single person of Christ.

Ibn Ezra’s critique, although rooted in medieval Jewish polemics, addresses recurring questions in Christology and philosophical anthropology. His observations invite reflection not only on the exegetical coherence of Isaiah 53, but also on the metaphysical presuppositions underlying Christian claims about the Incarnation and the Trinity.

This type of questioning will be developed more extensively in the first major polemical work that circulated in the Jewish communities of Sepharad, composed in 1168 by Jacob ben Reuben and entitled Milchamot Ha-Shem. In it, he raises objections to the application to someone who is said to be God of the statement that “‘he shall be exalted, and lifted up, and very high’ (Isaiah 52:13)? Is not the divinity always exalted and lifted up? (…) Who has seen the divinity from the beginning as flat, humble and disfigured, and then raised up through his knowledge [Isaiah 53:11, FV]?” (Ben Reuben and Rosenthal 1963, pp. 104–5 [Hebrew]). He also considers it impossible that someone who is God could be described as “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3) (Ben Reuben and Rosenthal 1963, p. 105 [Hebrew]).

But the apparent contradictions in applying to Jesus what the fourth song says do not end there:

“If these verses are said about your Messiah, whom you say is God, it turns out that the verses themselves refute your words, for it is written: ‘struck, touched by God and afflicted’ (Isaiah 53:4), and if he is ‘struck and touched by God’, it follows that God strikes him and is struck by him,” and the same contradiction would arise when the text says, “and ‘Adonai decided to crush him’ (Isaiah 53:10), for he is crushed and Adonai crushed him”.

(Ben Reuben and Rosenthal 1963, p. 105 [Hebrew])

He also considers that if Jesus were God, he could not be called “my servant,” since this is a term that implies opprobrium for the divinity (Ben Reuben and Rosenthal 1963, p. 106 [Hebrew]).

These objections are not merely rhetorical. Ben Reuben’s critique probes the metaphysical coherence of attributing human suffering, servitude, and mortality to a figure who is professed to be divine. His arguments reveal the difficulties posed by Christian claims about the Incarnation and the Trinity, especially when these doctrines are related to prophetic texts interpreted from rational categories and historical experience.

Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin offers a critique of Christian interpretation from a philosophical perspective:

“‘My servant’. I may begin by remarking that we find this term used in Scripture of an individual prophet, as Moses (Numbers 12:7), and Job (Job 1:8), of all the prophets generally (Amos 3:7), and of the whole of Israel (Leviticus 25:42). In each of these cases, it is plainly applied to the sons of men born of human parents; but we do not find it used of angels, known clearly to be such, because it is only applicable to one who enslaves himself assiduously to the service of God, and directs both his person and his thoughts ‘to serve him with all his heart and with all his soul’ and with all the members of his body (for this is the meaning of ‘all his strength’). (…) A fortiori, then, the expression cannot possibly be applied to the substance of the Creator himself, as is done by our opponents in their theory of the Trinity, according to which, this man was of the substance of the Creator”.

(Neubauer 1876, p. 96 [Hebrew]) (Neubauer and Driver 1877, p. 100)

This criticism is directed against the Christian doctrine of hypostatic union, which asserts that in Jesus there is one person with two natures: divine and human (ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστόν […] ἐν δύο φύσεσιν […] εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης) (The Chalcedon Formula [451]; Bettenson 1947, p. 73). Ibn Crispin’s argument suggests that the term “servant,” as used in Isaiah, cannot coherently refer to a figure of divine nature, since the condition of servant implies ontological subordination and limitation, which is incompatible with divinity. His analysis reflects the medieval Jewish concern to preserve divine transcendence and immutability in the face of Christological formulations, which are perceived as contradictory.

At this juncture, the difficulties raised above in relation to the Incarnation are extended to broader challenges related to Trinitarian theology. Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin, in his commentary on the fourth Servant Song, articulates a critique based on what he perceives as internal contradictions in Christian doctrine:

“For they hold that the whole is of one substance (עצם), but that it is divided into three substances (עצמים), the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that the Son took flesh and came down to the earth: now, even granting all this, which, though it is impossible to speak about, still less to conceive, you nevertheless maintain, how could he describe himself as ‘my servant’, i.e., to serve himself? since, for a man to be called his own servant is a palpable absurdity”.

(Neubauer 1876, p. 96 [Hebrew]; Neubauer and Driver 1877, p. 100–1)

But Christians do not speak of ‘one substance’ that ‘is divided into three substances’, which would be an obvious absurdity, but of one divine nature that subsists in three distinct persons (Μία θεότης ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν) (Gregory of Nazianzus [380] and Moreschini 1997, p. 96). The problems posed by the use of the same Hebrew term (עצם) for both “nature” and “person”, concepts that Trinitarian theology had carefully defined over several centuries highlights the importance of using theological language with precision, but above all underscores the absence of substantive theological dialogue, which might have enabled Ibn Crispin to engage more accurately with concepts long established in Christian theology.

Towards the end of his commentary on the fourth song, Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin returns to a difficulty already pointed out by Ibn Ezra:

“Moreover, the expression ‘shall prolong days’ (Isaiah 53:10) evidently has reference to a limited space of time: but there are no limits to God’s infinity; and had the prophet been speaking of God he must have said, ‘he will endure for ever and ever’ (like Ex. 15:18, Ps. 9:8), and often similarly”.

He thus raises another question: God is not limited by a period of time, but is eternal, hence it does not befit God to say that “he will prolong days”. “It is, however, certain that the Parashah alludes to none but a mortal man, born beyond reach of doubt of human parents” (Neubauer 1876, p. 107 [Hebrew]; Neubauer and Driver 1877, p. 113).

Christian doctrine affirms that in Jesus there are “two natures,” one divine and one human, united in “one divine person,” and that each nature retains its properties “without confusion, change, division, or separation” (ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως) (The Chalcedon Formula [451]; Bettenson 1947, p. 73). This Chalcedonian formula allows temporal experiences (such as suffering and death) to be attributed to Jesus’s human nature, while preserving the integrity of his divine nature.

Later, the terminological limitations of medieval Hebrew led Moses Ha-Kohen of Tordesillas, in his work Ezer ha-Emunah, to adopt Aristotelian philosophical categories and even to incorporate Latin terms transcribed into the Hebrew alphabet. This strategy reflects his effort to address Christian theological claims more precisely and to highlight what he perceived as internal inconsistencies:

“Beginning with this objection, is it not written at the beginning of the same passage, ‘Behold, my servant shall understand’ (Isaiah 52:13)? How can you say that this is said of your Messiah, calling your God a ‘servant’? Does not your Gospel testify that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are three in ‘personas’ (בפירשונאס), and one ‘Eloah in substance (עצם), and ‘potensiam’ (פוטינסיאם), and in ‘habito’ (אביטו), and how do you make the King of kings, who is the Creator, a ‘servant’? And if you say that when he was in the form of a man he was ‘a servant’ and after his death he became ‘Eloah and king, does not the verse where Solomon says: ‘for three things the earth trembles, etc.: for a servant who becomes king’ (Proverbs 30:21–22) apply to him? And you also introduced change and accident (מקרה), into him, something that does not exist in the Creator, for it is written: ‘I, Adonai, have not changed, etc.’ (Malachi 3:6). Nor can you place the Creator under the definition of accident, for he is substance. Behold, the beginning of your words refutes all your arguments”.

(Shamir 1972, p. 77 [Hebrew])

Of particular relevance is that in his dialogue with the Christian, he realised how imprecisely the word עצם had been used in the sense of “substance”, “nature” and even “person”, which here, in the absence of a Hebrew term that everyone understands to designate the person, he decides to leave in Latin written with the Hebrew alphabet: in ‘personas’ transliterated as בפירשונאס.

In Moses Ha-Kohen of Tordesillas’ commentary on Isaiah 53:10, serious difficulties arise once again due to the lack of conceptual precision, which leads to the simplistic rejection of a more profound interpretation. These are his words:

“And furthermore: ‘if he offers his soul as a guilt offering’ (אשם) (Isaiah 53:10). Since he was ‘Eloah, how can you place guilt (אשם) upon him? And if you say that ‘offering as a guilt offering’ refers to his death, you would have to say: ‘you offer his body as a guilt offering’, or ‘his flesh’, for surely you say that his soul was divinity, and therefore divinity sinned. And if you say that אשם is death, then certainly his divinity suffered death”.

(Shamir 1972, p. 78 [Hebrew])

According to the Christian faith, Jesus has a human body and soul (that is, a human nature) united in his divine person. Thus, divinity is not his soul (Οὐ γὰρ ἡ θεότης ἀντὶ ψυχῆς ἀνθρωπίνης) (John Damascene [742] and Kotter 1973, p. 88). This misunderstanding in the debate shows that terminology for the precision of concepts is fundamental to approaching the topic being discussed. In fact, attempts to clarify anthropological concepts such as ‘body’ or ‘soul’, and even ‘spirit’, continued in subsequent philosophical debate (Brugarolas 2023; Bissoli 2025).

3.3. Clarification of the Concept of Kenosis as Applied to Jesus

Before concluding this section, it is also fair to note that the Jewish exegetes’ discourse made some clarifications that help us to better understand certain expressions that are difficult to interpret in Christian theology.

A good example can be found in the well-known Christological hymn in St Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, where it is said that ‘Christ Jesus, being in divine form, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but ἐκένωσεν (emptied) himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness’ (Philippians 2:6–7). What does this ‘emptying’ of himself mean? Did he, even temporarily, cease to be God and take the form of a ‘servant’ (δούλος, in Hebrew עבד)? The echo of the fourth song of Isaiah is evident.

Well, the last verse of the fourth song reads: “Therefore, I will give him multitudes as his inheritance, and he will divide the spoil with the strong; for he ‘emptied’ (הֶעֱרָה) his soul unto death” (Isaiah 53:12). What does this “emptying” consist of? The key is provided by Menaḥem ben Saruq in his Maḥberet (Ben Saruq and Sáenz-Badillos 1986, p. 290 [Hebrew]) when he says that it has the same meaning as what is said in Genesis 24:20 (“and she ‘poured’ her pitcher into the trough” in the sense that she offered her water for the camels to drink). This interpretation would be taken up again by Abraham ibn Ezra:

“‘He poured out’. Some render it ‘he has discovered’, that is, ‘he has done publicity’. I think it is to be compared with ותער (‘and she emptied,’ Genesis 24:20), though of a different conjugation, and specially with אל תער נפשי (‘do not pour out my soul,’ Ps 141:8), and to be rendered ‘he poured out’”.

(Ibn Ezra and Friedländer 1960, p. 246 and p. 93 [Hebrew])

Ramban further clarifies the concept with the phrase מסר עצמו—“he gave himself” (Ramban and Chavel 1964, p. 90 [Hebrew]).

That is, it is a matter of an “emptying” like that of a pitcher that generously offers its contents. It is tantamount to “he offered himself”.

In light of these parallels, St Paul’s text is illuminated and clarified. It would not allude to any “emptying” of the divinity, since Jesus never ceased to be divine, even on the Cross, but rather its meaning would be as follows: “Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but rather ἐκένωσεν (הֶעֱרָה—offered) himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Philippians 2:6–7).

3.4. Original Sin and the Universal Need for Redemption

There is a theological question that is closely related to the two discussed so far. We have examined the mission of a ‘servant’ who undergoes suffering for the sake of others, ultimately for all humankind. According to the most common collective interpretation among Jewish commentators, that Servant would be the people of Israel. For most Christian commentators, it is Jesus, the Son of God made man, who suffered until he died on the cross to bring about the redemption of humankind. But did humankind, the whole of humanity, need to be redeemed from something, or is all this merely a theological construct to try to make sense of texts that would otherwise lack meaning?

The Christian response refers to the idea of an inherited ‘original sin’ that is present in every human being from the first moment of life, and from which they need to be redeemed. From this perspective, the messianic prophecies are interpreted as voices preparing for the coming of that Redeemer, who was, in fact, Jesus, the expected Messiah. However, from a Jewish perspective, the Messiah’s mission is limited to Israel and not precisely to liberation from a hypothetical ‘original sin’. Sooner or later, this issue should come up in the commentaries on the songs of the “servant,” especially the fourth. In fact, the difficulties that arose in that debate were a powerful incentive to continue deepening the reflection on the foundations and implications of this doctrine.

In Spanish-Hebrew literature, this question appears explicitly for the first time in the 14th century when Moses Ha-Kohen of Tordesillas puts the following statement in the mouth of his Christian opponent, commenting on the first song:

“Furthermore, [the apostate] said: ‘Behold my servant, whom I will uphold, etc.’ (Isaiah 42:1), and this is truly our Messiah, who gave us a new law. Furthermore, he said: ‘I, Adonai, have called you, etc.’ (Isaiah 42:6), ‘to open eyes, etc.’ (Isaiah 42:7), and so he did, for he freed his children who were imprisoned and locked up there by the authority of Satan because of the first sin, which is called ‘original’ (אוריגינאל)”.

(Shamir 1972, p. 66 [Hebrew])

In this text, according to the author’s custom, he leaves the technical term he wants to emphasise in Spanish (sometimes in Latin) but written in the Hebrew alphabet.

At the beginning of the commentary on the fourth song, he again puts the allusion to original sin into the Christian’s mouth with a somewhat more detailed formulation than the previous one:

“The apostate said: although you are searching and investigating behind my back to refute the coming of Jesus, our Messiah, I will now give you clear arguments based on the prophecy of Isaiah, who prophesied how he would come and receive great torment and then a death sentence to free his creatures who were in Gehenna and save them from the hand of Satan, the famous one, as I said earlier, as a consequence of the original (אוריגינאל) sin committed by Adam and Eve, which could not be atoned for except by someone greater than the first Adam, and no one can be greater than Adam except Jesus our Messiah, who was both man and God”.

(Shamir 1972, p. 72 [Hebrew])

This passage articulates several key elements of Christian soteriology: the universality of original sin, its origin in the transgression of Adam and Eve, and the need for a redeemer. The identification of Jesus as the ‘second Adam’—a theological motif rooted in Pauline thought (Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 15:45)—is used here to speak of the redemptive efficacy of Christ’s suffering and death.

The appearance of this theme in Spanish-Hebrew polemical literature reflects the depth and complexity of medieval theological debate. It also illustrates how the Servant Songs served as fertile ground for exploring fundamental doctrines such as sin, redemption, and the nature of the Messiah.

But let us continue. The Christian interlocutor in ‘Ezer ha-Emunah returns to Isaiah 53:5 to reinforce the theological assertion that Christ’s death healed original sin:

“‘And he was dishonoured, etc.’ That is to say, by his death he has healed us of original (אוריגינאל) sin, for the righteous were delivered to Gehenna because of that sin”.

(Shamir 1972, p. 54 [Hebrew])

This statement reflects the Christian doctrine that original sin, inherited from Adam, affects all human beings and requires redemptive intervention. The fourth song of the Servant is thus interpreted as a prophetic anticipation of Christ’s atoning death, which frees humanity from the consequences of this primordial fault.

In his response, Moses Ha-Kohen of Tordesillas does not accept the idea of an inherited original sin, although he does recognise, in accordance with Jewish tradition, the existence of a יֵצֶר הַרַע, an instinct for evil rooted in the human heart but which does not need to be redeemed because human being himself can overcome it through personal effort:

“It can be said, following a rational path, that the eminence of the righteous is greater than that of the angels of service, since after man was created from four elements, there is in him an instinct of evil (יֵצֶר הַרַע) that comes from matter and the animal soul, but he conquers his instinct and overcomes his carnal appetites and is strong and dominates his intelligence over his matter, and occupies himself with intellectual matters and in the service of his Creator”.

(Shamir 1972, p. 78 [Hebrew])

This view reflects a fundamental divergence between Jewish and Christian soteriology. While Christianity posits a universal need for redemption from inherited sin, Judaism emphasises the moral struggle within each individual and the possibility of achieving righteousness through personal effort and divine guidance.

In the 15th century, Abravanel would return to this topic at some length at the beginning of his commentary on the fourth song (Varo 1991, pp. 603–5). There he says that Christian scholars in their commentaries affirm that “he [Jesus] was God and ‘wounded, beaten and struck down’ (Isaiah 53:4), and that, since he took away the spiritual punishment we bore for the sin of the first man, it is written: ‘he will bear their iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:11), and ‘he bore the sin of many and pleaded for the transgressors’ (Isaiah 53:12)” (Abravanel 1979, p. 242 [Hebrew]).

In this case, he does not speak directly of original sin but of “the spiritual punishment we bore for the sin of the first man.” The formula reflects well the Christian position that original sin is not a personal sin with regard to guilt in every human being, but that the punishment due, which is the deprivation of original grace and the state of friendship with God that it implied, falls on everyone.

On this point, he offers important information regarding the roots of the doctrine of original sin in ancient Judaism, although he considers that it should be discarded as unfounded:

“But this whole opinion is in accordance with the now obsolete notion of the early rabbis, who confess that the first man was condemned because of his sin to a spiritual punishment that would send his soul down to Gehenna and make it remain there forever. However, this is not stated in the texts, neither in the commandment that imposes it, nor in the account of his punishment and curse”.

(Abravanel 1979, p. 242 [Hebrew])

Yitzhaq Abravanel, in his commentary on the fourth Song of the Servant, criticises the Christian doctrine of original sin and its implications for divine justice and Christology. In response to the claim that all humanity bears the penalty for Adam’s transgression, he raises the following objection:

“Even if we confess that Adam earned spiritual punishment for his sin, what have the humans who come after him done to be condemned to Gehenna? For they have not sinned, and the soul of the son shall not bear the guilt of the father [Ezekiel 18:4, FV]. For man in his body is the son of his father and mother, but his soul was not begotten by his father’s soul, as the prophet said in the name of the Name, blessed be he, ‘both the soul of the father and the soul of the son are mine’. And if Adam’s soul acted wickedly, Abraham’s soul was united with God and did the opposite of what Adam did. How can divine judgement punish both indiscriminately? But both the righteous and the sinner agree in having each of them (a soul) that at birth is clean and pure of all filth”.

(Abravanel 1979, p. 242 [Hebrew])

This objection deserves consideration. It is true that, according to the biblical text, Adam sinned. But can it be said that Abraham always lived in sin, when the biblical texts present him as a man faithful to God, who always trusted in him? The difficulty raised by Abravanel is also based on biblical anthropology and on the principle of individual moral responsibility. He invokes Ezekiel’s rejection of inherited guilt and affirms that each soul is created directly by God, not from its parents. It would not, therefore, be transmitted through human generation.

Furthermore, it would question the coherence of the doctrine of divine mercy:

“Even if we confessed that this spiritual punishment existed and was transmitted to Adam’s descendants, behold, in the intention of the Name, blessed be he, is to atone and forgive. Would his arm be too short [Isaiah 50:2, FV], with his unlimited power, to save?”.

(Abravanel 1979, p. 242 [Hebrew])

How is it possible that a merciful and forgiving God did not intervene to cancel the punishment for sin and stop its transmission to all generations of Adam’s children?

At this point, Abravanel brings up the Christian belief that Jesus is not merely a man, but also has a divine nature, and from that perspective, too, perplexities arise:

“And if they said that it was fitting that one particular man of the human race should receive the punishment to atone for all, then it was necessary that a man like one of us, a prophet or a sage, should receive that punishment and those chastisements, not the First Cause, blessed be he, for even if it were true that he took on flesh, he was not a man like one of us, all the more so since this is impossible in itself”.

(Abravanel 1979, p. 242 [Hebrew])

Abravanel’s critique raises profound questions about the compatibility of divine transcendence with the doctrine of the Incarnation. He argues that the infinite cannot be contained within the finite, and that attributing suffering and limitation to the divine nature contradicts both reason and Scripture. Furthermore, he questions the theological necessity of such an incarnation, especially when the pain it purports to eliminate is not clearly attested to in the biblical text.

All these objections call for many clarifications in the doctrine of original sin so as not to contradict the content of Holy Scripture or what we know about God himself. In fact, the debate had been open in Christian theology for several centuries and would become even more acute with the doctrines of Luther and Calvin, until it was resolved for Catholic theology with the decrees of the Council of Trent (Siewerth 2020; Caballero 2014).

Abravanel’s reflections, although critical of Christian doctrine, contribute to a deeper understanding of the theological tensions inherent in the interpretation of the Songs of the Servant. They reveal the intellectual rigour of medieval Jewish exegesis and its commitment to fundamental issues such as sin, justice and divine action.

4. Conclusions

The echoes of the divine emanating from prophetic revelation continue to resonate through theological dialogue throughout the centuries. The study of Isaiah’s Servant Songs—especially the fourth, where the figure of the suffering and triumphant servant emerges with provocative clarity—gave rise to a rich and multifaceted debate in medieval Spain. This exegetical engagement not only underscored the importance of terminological precision in theological discourse but also contributed to significant advances in doctrinal understanding.

Among the most notable advances are:

(a)

A deeper awareness of Israel’s universal mission on behalf of humanity. This mission, though marked by suffering, is ultimately oriented toward triumph and spiritual service to the nations.

(b)

A philological clarification of the concept of “kenosis” in Pauline theology. Jewish exegetical interpretations of Hebrew terms such as הֶעֱרָה suggest that Paul’s use of ἐκένωσεν can be better understood not as a ‘emptying or divesting’ of divinity, but as an ‘offering of oneself’, a voluntary act of generosity and self-giving.

(c)

A nuanced distinction in the doctrine of original sin. Although original sin is not a personal fault in the descendants of Adam, it implies the loss of original holiness and righteousness, a deprivation that calls for the need for redemption.

The questions raised about the humanity of Jesus and those related to original sin also made it necessary to clarify certain anthropological details, as well as questions about God’s creative activity, good and evil angels, and eternity. These topics, which were also dealt with in the commentaries on the Fourth Song of the Servant, albeit in less depth, would also merit specific study at a later date.

In short, the commitment of medieval Jewish exegesis in Spain to the Servant Songs of Isaiah—through polemical, exegetical, and philosophical reflection—represents a profound moment in the history of theological thought. It reveals how prophetic texts, when interpreted with rigour and reverence, can illuminate enduring mysteries and foster meaningful dialogue between traditions.