Tag Archives: Isaiah

Is Isaiah 52-53 Speaking of National Israel Rather than the Messiah?

Many modern Jews identify the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 52-53 as the corporate nation of Israel rather than the individual Messiah. This raises two questions: 1) Has this always been the Jewish view of the passage? and 2) Does this interpretation make sense of the text?

To answer the first question, we turn to biblical scholar Michael Brown. In his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Volume 3, Brown surveys the historical positions of Jewish rabbis and scholars.

For the last thousand years, religious Jews have often interpreted Isaiah 53 with reference to the people of Israel, but that has by no means been the consensus interpretation, and it is not the interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis. So, for example, the Targum interprets the passage with reference to the Messiah— as a warring, victorious king, even to the point of completely twisting the meaning of key verses — while the Talmud generally interprets the passage with reference to the Messiah, or key individuals (like Moses or Phineas), or the righteous. Note also that Sa‘adiah Gaon, the influential ninth-century Rabbinic leader, interpreted Isaiah 53 with reference to Jeremiah. This means that virtually without exception, the earliest traditional Jewish sources— and therefore the most authoritative Jewish sources— interpret Isaiah 52: 13– 53: 12 with reference to an individual, and in some cases, with reference to the Messiah.

As stated above, this is highly significant. While it is true that Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak all interpreted the passage with reference to Israel, other equally prominent leaders, such as Moses ben Nachman (called Nachmanides or the Ramban), felt compelled to follow the weight of ancient tradition and embrace the individual, Messianic interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis (found in the Midrash, despite his belief that the plain sense of the text supported the national interpretation). Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, ‘Our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.’ This too is highly significant, since Alshech claims that all his contemporaries agreed with the Messianic reading of the text, despite the fact that Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak had all come out against that reading. Could it be that Rabbi Alshech and his contemporaries came to their conclusions because the text clearly pointed in that direction?

The Messianic interpretation is also found in the Zohar as well as in some later midrashic works. Thus, it is clear that there is substantial Jewish tradition— spanning a period of up to two thousand years— that differs with [the] objection. . . .

All this is especially important when you realize that sections from Isaiah 52:13– 53:12 are quoted several times in the New Testament, and the passage as a whole can arguably be called the clearest prophecy of Jesus in the entire Tanakh. Yet many traditional Jewish commentators and teachers have still interpreted the prophecy as Messianic. How tempting it would have been for the Talmudic rabbis and their successors to interpret this passage with reference to Israel— rather than to the Messiah or any other individual— seeing that it played such an important role in Christian interpretation and polemics. Yet they did not interpret the passage with reference to the nation of Israel in any recorded traditional source for almost one thousand years, nor did they interpret it with reference to national Israel with unanimity thereafter.

Thus it seems clear that the idea of Isaiah 52-53 speaking of national Israel is not the original view of Jewish teachers at all. In fact, the more likely explanation is that prominent Jewish scholars one thousand years ago reacted against the rise of Christianity and reinterpreted these verses to avoid the conclusion that they point to Jesus. This view became the dominant position at that time and remains so to this day.

What about the second question? Does the text support this view? Biblical scholar Barry Leventhal, in Why I Am a Christian,  offers four arguments against the view.

In addition, the passage itself yields at least four arguments countering the claim that the nation Israel, or for that matter any other mere human being, is the promised Suffering Servant of the Lord. First is the Servant’s sinlessness (52:13; 53:9): The Servant of Isaiah 53 is described as without sin, that is, completely innocent in thought, word, and deed. He is perfect in his actions as well as his reactions. Where is the Jew who would dare to proclaim Israel, or for that matter even Moses or Isaiah, to be without sin? Why the need for a national Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16)? Or for Isaiah’s indictment against Israel’s sinful rebellion against God (Isaiah 1)? Or for that matter, Isaiah’s confession of his own sinfulness (Isa. 6:5–7)?

Second is the Servant’s submission (53:7): The Servant of Isaiah 53 submits (without any resistance whatsoever) to be slaughtered like a lamb. He lays down his life as a sacrifice, willingly and voluntarily, in an absolute sense. There are few exceptions in secular history and none in biblical history that Israel ever submitted passively to her fate. Quite the contrary, Israel’s heroism is well documented in the annals of history.

Third is the Servant’s cessation (death) (53:8–9, 12): The Servant of Isaiah 53 is ‘cut off out of the land of the living’ (53:8 NASB). ‘He poured out himself to death’ (53:12 NASB). The Servant is also portrayed as alive from the dead and enjoying fellowship with God and his faithful followers (52:13, 15; 53:10–12). Israel as a nation still exists and always has, even as God promised (cf. Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). The nation has never ceased to exist, let alone been raised from the dead in any literal sense of the word.

Fourth is the Servant’s substitution (52:14–15; 53:4–6, 8, 10–12): The Servant of Isaiah 53 is a substitutionary atonement for others, not for himself. He is pictured as dying vicariously, punished for the sins committed by others. Israel, as well as Isaiah and all other individuals, were punished for their own sins. Accordingly, it is not surprising that Jewish prayer books make continual confessions on behalf of the Jewish people.

Leventhal concludes:

[N]o one else in all of history can come even close to fulfilling these, as well as the many other, messianic prophecies, except Yeshua himself. He alone is the promised Messiah who was born in Bethlehem, the totally unique One who died as the final Lamb of God—a vicarious and substitutionary atonement—and who was raised from the grave to enter into all of his own splendor and glory!

Was the Book of Isaiah Written by the Prophet Isaiah?

Although Jewish and Christian traditions, dating all the way back to the 1st millennium BC, all indicate that the 8th century prophet Isaiah wrote the book with his name on it, many modern biblical scholars claim that two, three, or even more authors actually contributed to the book over a period of several centuries.

The most popular theory, according to Walt Kaiser and Duane Garrett in the NIV Archaeological Study Bible, is that three authors contributed.

The first was Isaiah (1: 1), the eighth-century B.C. prophet. Called ‘First Isaiah’ or ‘Proto-Isaiah,’ he is thought to have produced the core of chapters 1– 39.  ‘Second’ or ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ is assumed to have been an anonymous prophet of the sixth century B.C., to whom are attributed chapters 40– 55.  Another postexilic prophet, ‘Third’ or ‘Trito-Isaiah,’ is posited to have composed most of chapters 56– 66, perhaps around 400 B.C.

What arguments and evidence do Trito-Isaiah advocates offer to convince us their position is correct?

Advocates of this theory attempt to demonstrate that the style, theology and background of Isaiah 1– 39 are unlike those of either 40– 55 or 56– 66. Second Isaiah— but not First— they argue, depicts God in purely monotheistic terms. Also, First Isaiah is seen as a prophet of judgment, who placed his hopes on the Davidic king, and Second Isaiah a prophet of comfort who pinned his expectations on the Lord’s suffering servant.

More substantial are the arguments focusing on the backgrounds of the respective chapters. The Old Testament prophets in general are widely understood to have written from their own unique historical situations. Even if one acknowledges that Isaiah could have predicted the Babylonian captivity, it is argued, it is unlikely that he wrote chapters 40– 55, since those texts were written from within the context of captivity. Also, the Persian king Cyrus (c. 539 B.C.) is mentioned by name in 44: 28 and 45: 1, 13, suggesting that Cyrus was a contemporary of the author of chapters 40– 55. The background of Third Isaiah is posited to be different again. By this point Jerusalem had been rebuilt, its citizens no longer under threat from either Assyria or Babylon.

How do critics of Trito-Isaiah respond?

An author’s style depends upon a variety of factors (age, purpose, subject matter, audience, etc.), and stylistic factors like vocabulary are apt to change.

The three ‘Isaiahs’ do share many phrases and words, suggesting stylistic unity. For example, God is called the ‘Holy One of Israel’ throughout (e.g., 10: 17; 41: 14; 60: 9).

The alleged theological differences are artificial. Isaiah is a lengthy book, but it does not incorporate any real internal tension or overt contradiction.

All of Isaiah is concerned with Canaanite idolatry. While scholars would expect such a focus from First Isaiah, they would not anticipate it in Second or Third Isaiah (e.g., 57: 13); it was not a significant issue to postexilic prophets such as Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi.

From early on Isaiah promised that the Gentiles would submit to the God of Israel (e.g., 2: 2– 4), an expectation developed throughout the book (e.g., 42: 4; 49: 6) and a unifying theological motif for the whole of Isaiah.

What about the historical perspective and predictions of Isaiah?

Isaiah did project himself into the future to describe events as though they had already occurred (e.g., 5: 13– 17; 9: 1– 7; 23: 1, 14). In fact, Isaiah 6, a foundational chapter, presents the exile as inevitable. Isaiah assumed that exile was certain and wrote chapters 40– 55 with that in mind.

Isaiah’s mention of Cyrus’s name has a parallel in the prediction of Josiah’s name in 1 Kings 13: 2. It is true that predictions of this kind are fairly rare in the Old Testament, but they do occur.

In contrast to Ezekiel, who lived in Babylon, ‘Second Isaiah’ gave no indication at all that he was familiar with life in Babylon. This suggests that the author of Isaiah 40– 55 did not in fact experience Babylonian exile— which is just what we would expect if the chapters were written by Isaiah of Jerusalem.

Finally, Kaiser and Garrett note that the “only related archaeological evidence comes from a Dead Sea Scroll designated 1QIsaa. This nearly complete text of Isaiah confirms the conservative position in that there is no break between chapters 39 and 40.”

Commentary on Isaiah 6 (Isaiah’s Commission)

The traditional Jewish and Christian view is that the Book of Isaiah was written by the prophet of that name who lived during the 8th and possibly 7th century BC. Isaiah states that he is the son of Amoz and that his ministry coincided with the Judean kings named Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. This indicates a prophetic ministry that lasted from about 740 to 700 BC, which is during the same time that the prophet Micah was ministering. It is likely that these two men were familiar with each other’s writings.

Isaiah’s primary audience was the people of Judah. They were failing to live according to the commands of God recorded in the Torah. Because of this disobedience, Isaiah prophesied future judgment on Judah. Isaiah didn’t stop with judgment, however. He also foretold of God’s salvation for the believing remnant of Israel, and for all those who worship Yahweh.

Isaiah is the most quoted Old Testament prophet by New Testament writers, and his book is the second most quoted in the New Testament, after Psalms.

The first five chapters of Isaiah record the sinfulness of the people of Judah, including greed, arrogance, drunkenness, injustice, oppression and murder. Because of their utter failure to follow the commands of Yahweh, judgment would be brought on them in the form of foreign aggression. God would use surrounding nations to punish Judah, eventually leading to the deportation of most of the survivors.

It is helpful to see Isaiah’s words in context with the historical situation in which he found himself. F. Derek Kidner writes, in the New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition:

In 740 BC the death of King Uzziah (6:1) marked the end of an ‘Indian Summer’ in which both Judah and Israel had enjoyed some fifty years’ respite from large-scale aggression. This would soon be only a memory. The rest of the century was to be dominated by predatory Assyrian kings: Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727), Shalmaneser V (726–722), Sargon II (721–705) and Sennacherib (705–681). Their ambitions were for empire, not for plunder alone; and in pursuit of it they uprooted and transplanted whole populations, punishing any sign of rebellion with prompt and hideous reprisals.

In 735 Jerusalem felt the shock wave of their approach, when the armies of Israel and Syria arrived to force King Ahaz into an anti-Assyrian coalition. Isaiah’s confrontation of the king (ch. 7) brought to light the real issue of this period, the choice between quiet faith and desperate alliances. The king’s decision to stake all, not on God but on Assyria itself, called forth an implied rejection of him and his kind, and the prophecy of a perfect king, Immanuel, to arise out of the felled stock of the Davidic dynasty.

Israel paid for her rebellion with the loss of her northern regions (‘Galilee’; 9:1) in c. 734 and of her national existence in 722. For Judah, bordered now by a cosmopolitan Assyrian province (2 Ki. 17:24) in the territory where Israel had stood, there was every discouragement to patriotic gestures.

After 5 chapters of railing against the sins of Judah, Isaiah recalls a vision he had of God. The year of the vision is about 739 BC, near the beginning of Isaiah’s ministry.

Chapter 6, verses 1-3 record these memorable words:

I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!’

Although God is spirit, He sometimes allows people to see a physical representation of Himself. To Isaiah, God is sitting high upon a throne in the temple that Solomon had built. His robe is so large it fills the entire room in which He is seated. While many Jews wondered where God was, Isaiah’s vision proves that He is reigning over the affairs of Judah and the rest of world.

God is surrounded by seraphim, which are angelic creatures with six wings each. This is the only place in the Bible where seraphim are mentioned. The Hebrew word means “to burn,” so many scholars suppose that the seraphim are burning with zeal for God.

John A. Martin writes, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old Testament:), about the seraphim wings:

Covering their faces with two wings indicates their humility before God. Their covering their feet with two other wings may denote service to God, and their flying may speak of their ongoing activity in proclaiming God’s holiness and glory.

The seraphim are singing to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

Martin continues his description of the scene unfolding in front of Isaiah.

In calling to one another the seraphs, whose number is not given, were proclaiming that the LORD Almighty is holy. The threefold repetition of the word holy suggests supreme or complete holiness. . . . Repeating a word three times for emphasis is common in the Old Testament (e.g., Jer. 22:29; Ezek. 21:27). The seraphs also proclaimed that His glory fills the earth (cf. Num. 14:21) much as His robe filled the temple. By contrast the people of Judah were unholy (cf. Isa. 5; 6:5) though they were supposed to be a holy people (Ex. 22:31; Deut. 7:6).

As the seraphs cried out, Isaiah saw the temple shake and then it was filled with smoke (Isa. 6:4). The thresholds (cf. Amos 9:1) were large foundation stones on which the doorposts stood. The shaking (cf. Ex. 19:18) suggested the awesome presence and power of God. The smoke was probably the cloud of glory which Isaiah’s ancestors had seen in the wilderness (Ex. 13:21; 16:10) and which the priests in Solomon’s day had viewed in the dedicated temple (1 Kings 8:10–13).

What is Isaiah’s reaction to be being in the presence of God? “Woe to me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” Isaiah realizes that his sinfulness, along with the sinfulness of the people of Judah, render him ruined before God. He cannot do anything for God until he is forgiven.

In verses 6-7, a seraph flies to Isaiah and places a burning coal on his lips and proclaims that his sins have been paid for, taken away. As soon as Isaiah repented, God removed his sin. Now that Isaiah is reconciled to God, what will God ask him to do?

In verses 8-10, God asks for a volunteer and Isaiah steps up. What message would God have Isaiah deliver the people of Judah? Isaiah is to preach to Judah just as he has in the first five chapters of the book. He is to pronounce judgment on their sins and demand that they turn back to God.

However, God makes it clear to Isaiah that the more he preaches, the less the people will see, hear, or understand what he says to them. His preaching will be completely ineffective in bringing Judah to repentance. If God knows that the people will not repent, then why bother sending Isaiah?

John Martin explains that the “Lord did not delight in judging His people, but discipline was necessary because of their disobedience.” God does not short-circuit human psychology. He wanted to give the people of Judah every opportunity to hear the message of repentance so that they and their children would have no excuse. Nobody would ever be able to say that God never warned them, that God never commanded that they change their behavior. Isaiah was to make sure of that.

Even though God knows every human decision before it is ever made, in this instance He also allowed Isaiah to know. Perhaps this was grace from God to help Isaiah through the difficult years of his ministry. Isaiah always knew that his preaching was decreed by God, regardless of whether it ever changed anyone’s mind.

Isaiah asks God how long the people of Judah will refuse to repent. God responds that Judah will be destroyed and its people deported. This would occur when the Babylonians attack in 586 BC, some 100 years after Isaiah’s death, thus Judah would not listen to him during his lifetime. Not all will be lost, however. God would preserve a remnant of believers, a holy seed that would someday grow into the renewed people of God.