Friday, March 15, 2019

IS ISAIAH 53 ABOUT ISRAEL OR THE MESSIAH?





It is beyond dispute that the ancient rabbis regarded Isaiah 53 as Messianic. In The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, the Jewish Christian scholar, Alfred Edersheim, provided two references, where these rabbis regarded Isaiah 53 as Messianic – one from the Midrash on Samuel, and the other from a Targum (727).

However, there are many other rabbinic references regarding Isaiah 53 as Messianic. Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, a famous 16th century rabbinic scholar asserted:

·       [Our] Rabbis with one voice, accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet [Isaiah 53] is speaking of king Messiah.  (Rachmiel Frydland, What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah, 53)

Friedland also quotes the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin:

·       The Rabanan [rabbis] say that Messiah’s name is The Suffering Scholar…for it is written, “Surely He hath borne our grief and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.” [Isaiah 53] (54)

·       Generally then, the Talmud, the Targum, the Midrashim, the Zohar and Pesikta Rabbati recognized a suffering Messiah in fulfillment of Isaiah 53 and other similar descriptions in the Tenach. (54)

However today, many rabbis, starting with Rashi, have rallied around the assertion that the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel and not the Messiah.

·       The chief representative of the non-Messianic, collective interpretation was the 11th century French-Jewish scholar, Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki (1040-1105), best known by his initials as Rashi…. In time the non-Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 practically became an official dogma among most Jewish people. (Dr. Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, page 16-17)

Furthermore, instead of the Messiah dying for the sins of the people, Rashi claimed that Israel died for the Gentiles. However, is this assertion at all tenable? I have presented the verses from Isaiah 53 in order and inserted what the rabbinic interpretation suggests to demonstrate how their interpretation violates Scripture and common sense:


Isaiah 53:1-3 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He [Israel] shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we [Gentiles] see Him [Israel], there is no beauty that we [Gentiles] should desire Him [Israel]. He [Israel] is despised and rejected by [Gentile] men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we [Gentiles] hid, as it were, our faces from Him [Israel]; He [Israel] was despised, and we [Gentiles] did not esteem Him. (All of these Isaiah 53 verses come from the NKJV.)

The present rabbinic understanding is highly improbable. The narrator is no longer Isaiah but Gentile spokesmen [“we,” 53:3] who has incredibly slipped in and dislodged the author, Isaiah. However, there is no precedent for such a thing in all of the Scriptures. This alone should disqualify the rabbinic interpretation.

In a vain attempt to eliminate Jesus from consideration, the modern rabbis have stumbled upon an absurd interpretation, in which Israel dies for “we” Gentiles. Is there any Biblical evidence that Israel would die a redemptive death for the Gentiles? No! All of the evidence points to the Messiah as the Redeemer and not sinful Israel! Israel is always characterized as the object of mercy, not its source.

In The Jew and the Christian Missionary, Rabbi Gerald Sigal also argues that this chapter could not possibly refer to Jesus:

·       Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, does not at all fit that of the Suffering Servant of the Lord as portrayed in Isaiah. (39)

Why not? Sigal argues that the Jesus of the Gospels was popular. However the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 was not. In support of this charge, he cites:

·       Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. (p.39, quoting Luke 4:14-15; similarly, Luke 8:4; Matthew 27:57)

However, Jesus’ “popularity” was only temporary and skin-deep. Ultimately, the world turned against Him. Jesus informed His biological brethren:

·       “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.” (John 7:7; 15:18-20)

The crowd only followed Him as long as they could benefit from His miracles and free meals:

·       From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. (John 6:66)

·       Pilate said to [the crowd of assembled Jews], "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said to him, "Let Him be crucified!" (Matthew 27:22)


Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely He [Israel] has borne our [Gentile] griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we [Gentiles] esteemed Him [Israel] stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He [Israel] was wounded for our [Gentile] transgressions, He was bruised for our [Gentile] iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him [Israel], and by His [Israel’s] stripes we [Gentiles] are healed. All we [Gentiles] like sheep have gone astray; We [Gentiles] have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him [Israel] the iniquity of us [Gentiles] all.

According to the rabbinic interpretation, the salvation of God’s chosen people is not an issue, as if Israel didn’t need it, just the salvation of the Gentiles. Remarkably, Sigal, following other rabbis, claimed that the narrators are Gentiles:

·       The Gentile spokesmen depict the Servant (the Nation of Israel) as bearing the “diseases” and carrying the “pains” which they themselves should have suffered. (42)

However, just a quick read through the Prophets of Israel will show that Israel wasn’t in any position to carry the sins of others. They could not even bear their own sins. The Prophets make it plain that it was Israel who has “gone astray” and “turned, every one, to his own way.” The Gentiles could not have been described as “gone astray.” They were never in a position to have “gone astray” from God.

Traditionally, Israel-as-Redeemer hadn’t been the Jewish position. Moses Maimonides, (1135-1204), perhaps the most famous rabbi of all time, in a letter to Jacob Alfajumi, commenting on Isaiah 52:15 and 53:2:

·       What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent…He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth [53:2], . . . in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, at him the kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them they have seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived. (Quoted in The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, pages 374-375 (translations by S.R. Driver and A.D. Neubauer), KTAV publishing House, New York, 1969.)

According to Maimonides, the Redeemer is the Messiah. We even find this thinking reflected in the Day of Atonement Musaf (additional) prayer:

·       “Our righteous anointed [Messiah] is departed from us: horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgression [53:5]. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time that the Eternal will create him as a new creature.”


Isaiah 53:7 He [Israel] was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He [Israel] opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth.

Although we cannot find any Biblical references to affirm that Israel had been silent in the face of oppression, we do find that this is true of Jesus. Nevertheless, Sigal claims that:

·       Jesus presented a strong defense both before the Sanhedrin and Pilate! (50)

In support of this absurd claim, Sigal cites John 18:20-21:

·       Jesus answered him, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said."

This was no defense. Jesus acted provocatively in order to be found “guilty,” as the next two verses indicate:

·       And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, "Do You answer the high priest like that?" Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:22-23)

According to the standards of that day, Jesus had answered confrontationally and was therefore struck. This was the opposite of a defense. Before the Sanhedrin, He remained silent, opening His mouth only to aid the prosecution:

·       But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?” (Mark 14:61-63)

Before Pilate, Jesus admitted He had a kingdom. However, this would place Him in competition with Pilate’s boss, Caesar, who had zero tolerance for any kingdoms besides his own:

·       “What have You done?" [Pilate asked.] Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world." (John 18:35-37)

At this point, to exonerate a “rival” king was to betray Caesar – risky business! Jesus then further infuriated both Pilate and King Herod with His silence:

·       And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" But He answered him not one word [in defense], so that the governor marveled greatly. (Matthew 27:12-14)

·       Then he questioned Him with many words, but He answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. (Luke 23:9-10)

Contrary to Sigal’s claim, we find no semblance of any defense here. Instead, Jesus helped the prosecution to condemn Him.


Isaiah 53:8-9 He [Israel] was taken from prison and from judgment [“By oppression and judgment he was taken away,” ESV, NIV], and who will declare His generation [his future offspring]? For He [Israel] was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My [Gentile] people He [Israel] was stricken. And they made His [Israel’s] grave with the wicked--but with the rich at His [Israel’s] death, because He [Israel] had done no violence. Nor was any deceit in His [Israel’s] mouth.

Jesus was deprived of justice (“judgment”) and was killed. Therefore, no one could talk about His progeny (“generation”). However, this hadn’t been the case with Israel. Israel was not “cut off from the land of the living.” Israel remained to produce progeny. It is also clearly untrue that Israel “had done no violence. Nor was any deceit in His [Israel’s] mouth.” At times, the Prophets charged that Israel had morally descended below the Gentiles.

How was Israel’s grave with both the wicked and the rich? Sigal claims that, somehow, this was figuratively true. However, the Gospels declare that this was literally the case with Jesus, dying with sinners and buried in a rich man’s tomb. These are claims that could have been very easily disproved had they not been true!

However, Sigal claims that this description could not fit Jesus because Jesus had done much “violence,” contrary to Isaiah’s description of the Suffering Servant. In support of this charge, Sigal cites Jesus’ “violence” to the money-changers (Matthew 21:12), His casting demons out into swine (Mark 5:13), and His teaching about bringing a sword to divide families (Matthew 10:34-35).

However, this is a desperate attempt to disqualify Jesus. In none of these three instances did Jesus perform or advocate sinful violence. Clearly, there was no attempt to bring charges against Him for expelling the money-changers. If Jesus had broken the law, the Sanhedrin would have promptly brought charges against him.

Sigal then claims that “no deceit in his mouth”(53:9) could not apply to Jesus! This is because Jesus had been misleading when He promised to raise the Temple up in three days (John 2:19-21), which He didn’t do, simply because He was talking figuratively about His body as the Temple.

Sigal also indicts Jesus because He hid the truth, talking in parables (Matthew 13:10-11). According to him, this practice was deceitful. However, according to this thinking, poets are also deceitful.


Isaiah 53:10-11 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him [Israel]; He has put Him to grief. When You make His [Israel’s] soul an offering for sin, He [Israel] shall see His seed (”offspring”), He [Israel] shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge [of Israel] My righteous Servant [Israel] shall justify many, for He shall bear their [Gentile] iniquities.

In place of the Messiah, the rabbis have made Israel into the savior of the world. However, there is no reason to suppose that Israel’s death could represent “an offering for sin.” Sin offerings had to be without any blemish. Meanwhile, Israel was covered with moral blemishes.  Consequently, Israel could not qualify to “bear their [Gentile] iniquities.”

We should also ask how it could possibly be that the knowledge about Israel “shall justify many?” There is absolutely no Biblical precedent for such an idea. However, it is true that faith (knowledge) in the Messiah will “justify many!” (Psalm 2:12).

Also, throughout, the masculine singular pronoun “he” is used to designate the suffering servant. Such a pronoun is very rarely used in regards to Israel. More usually, Israel is referred to as “you,” she/her.” and “they/them.” However, there is absolutely no problem at all in using “he” in reference to the Messiah.

Sigal claims that “offspring” or “seed” (53:10) could not pertain to believers in Christ, as Christians allege, because, according to him, this term is always used to designate one’s own children and not figurative or spiritual children.

However, even though this is the usual usage for “offspring,” there are exceptions. Sometimes, it can be used figuratively:

·       But come here, you sons of the sorceress, you offspring of the adulterer and the harlot! Whom do you ridicule? Against whom do you make a wide mouth and stick out the tongue? Are you not children of transgression, offspring of falsehood? (Isaiah 57:3-4)

It is also interesting to note that this Servant, who dies as a burnt offering for the people, will eventually “see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.” This implies that He will again live subsequent to His death. Therefore, this prophecy also represents a cryptic reference to the resurrection.

In fact, all of the verses envisioning the death of the Messiah also seem to contain a cryptic reference to His subsequent resurrection! I’ll just offer one more example:

·       Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. (Psalm 16:9-10)

Interestingly, this verse cryptically portrays the Messiah’s death and subsequent life. As David, He too will be in the grave (death). However, He will not remain and decay there (resurrection) as David’s body had!

If this isn’t enough, let’s take a look at the preceding verses, which have also been regarded as Messianic:

Isaiah 52:13-15 Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He [Israel] shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; So shall He [Israel] sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths [in humility] at Him; for what had not been told them they shall see, and what they had not heard they shall consider.

“He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.” This is true for the Messiah but not for Israel. Instead, Israel will mourn when they look upon the Messiah whom they have “pierced” (Zechariah 12:10). Yet, they will also be forgiven.

“His visage was marred more than any man” describes what had happened to the Messiah. He had been so terribly beaten that when Pilate re-introduced Him before the people, he needed to inform them that this marred man was Jesus: "Behold the Man!" (John 19:5)

The passage also claims that, “So shall He sprinkle many nations,” something that Israel’s blood could not accomplish. This Hebrew term refers only to ceremonial/sanctifying sprinkling of blood or water.

“Kings shall shut their mouths” in fear before Him. This is something that would be true for the Messiah (Isaiah 49:7, 23) but not for Israel.

This entire discourse will raise the question, “Why then isn’t God more explicit about these critical matters?” While I think that there are many reasons for this, I’ll just address one. There is knowledge that we are not ready to handle. The Apostle Paul writes:

·       No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." (1 Cor. 2:7-9)

It is not just God’s enemies who are kept in the dark. It is we too, and I trust for good reason! Meanwhile, He has granted “those who have eyes to see” a body of knowledge, which are we mandated to defend (Jude 3) against the Gospel’s many detractors. May our Lord enable us!

No comments: