Tag Archives: Michael Brown

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!

Commentary on Isaiah 52-53 (The Suffering Servant)

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is recognized by many scholars as the fourth of the so-called Servant Songs in the Book of Isaiah. Henri Blocher, in The Servant Songs, entitles the four songs: (1) The Call of the Servant (Isa. 42:1–9); (2) The Commission of the Servant (Isa. 49:1–13); (3) The Commitment of the Servant (Isa. 50:4–11); and (4) The Career of the Servant (Isa. 52:13–53:12). The Servant in these songs is none other than the prophesied Messiah who would redeem both Jews and Gentiles alike, reconciling them to God.

What do these Songs say about the coming Messiah? Larry Heyler, in Yesterday, Today and Forever, summarizes the characteristics and accomplishments of the Servant:

  1. He is elected by the Lord, anointed by the Spirit, and promised success in his endeavor (42:1, 4).
  2. Justice is a prime concern of his ministry (42:1, 4).
  3. His ministry has an international scope (42:1, 6).
  4. God predestined him to his calling (49:1).
  5. He is a gifted teacher (49:2).
  6. He experiences discouragement in his ministry (49:4).
  7. His ministry extends to the Gentiles (49:6).
  8. The Servant encounters strong opposition and resistance to his teaching, even of a physically violent nature (49:5–6).
  9. He is determined to finish what God called him to do (49:7).
  10. The Servant has humble origins with little outward prospects for success (53:1–2).
  11. He experiences suffering and affliction (53:3).
  12. The Servant accepts vicarious and substitutionary suffering on behalf of his people (53:4–6, 12).
  13. He is put to death after being condemned (53:7–9).
  14. Incredibly, he comes back to life and is exalted above all rulers (53:11–12; 52:15).

Let’s zero in on the fourth song contained in Isaiah 52-53. Messianic Jew and biblical scholar Barry Leventhal, writing in Why I Am a Christian, breaks down the passage as follows:

1. In the prologue of the song (Isa. 52:13–15), the prophet Isaiah asserted (on behalf of God) that the Servant of the Lord would ultimately be highly exalted (v. 13), as well as honored among the Gentiles (v. 15), but only after dreadful personal suffering (v. 14).

2. In the body of the song (53:1–9), Isaiah confessed (on behalf of his own people) that (1) Israel utterly rejected the Servant of the Lord in his life (vv. 1–3), (2) as well as in his death (vv. 7–9), because (3) the nation misjudged the meaning of his death by assuming that he died for his own sins rather than for the nation’s (vv. 4–6).

3. In the epilogue of the song (53:10–12), the prophet asserted (on behalf of God) that by the Servant’s completed work of atonement, God would be exalted (v. 10), believers would be justified (v. 11), and the Servant himself would be honored (v. 12).

Do these verses predict the resurrection of the Messiah? Leventhal argues that they do.

It is obvious that a dramatic transition occurs between Isaiah 53:9 and 53:10. The messianic Suffering Servant ‘was cut off out of the land of the living’ [a Hebrew idiom for death] (53:8 NASB), ‘His grave was assigned to be with wicked men, . . . in His death’ (53:9 NASB), and ‘He poured out Himself to death’ (53:12 NASB). And yet in 53:10–12, he is alive and well, “prolong[ing] His days’ (53:10), justifying the many who believe on him (53:11), and sharing in the spoils of his victorious war (53:12).

Without question, this is the messianic Servant’s triumphant resurrection from the dead! This transition is similar to the break in Psalm 22, ‘The Messianic Psalm of the Cross,’ between 22:21 and 22:22. This should not be surprising since the Messiah’s resurrection from the dead was directly prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically in Psalm 16. This psalm was used in the preaching of the early messianic community as an apologetic for the Messiah’s resurrection, with the result that thousands of Jews became believers (cf. Acts 2:25–28; 13:35–37; also, Luke 24:25–27, 44–48; 1 Cor. 15:1, 3–8; 1 Peter 1:10–12).

Perhaps the most astounding insight Isaiah has about the coming Messiah, which had never before been explicated in the Hebrew Scriptures, was the idea that a man (the Servant or Messiah) could suffer and die, and through his suffering and death, bring healing, forgiveness, and righteousness to other people. John F. A. Sawyer, in Isaiah: Volume 2, The Daily Study Bible Series, writes,

The prophet is entering new territory for an Old Testament writer, but what in essence he is saying is that somehow or other the community experiences healing, forgiveness and righteousness, as on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:22). Divine intervention has done what they could not do themselves: it has removed their sins and transformed suffering into a source of hope and healing. Psalm 51:10–17 offers a rough parallel, but there is no other Old Testament passage where such a way of thinking is developed. So unexpected is it that even Matthew quotes verse 4 in a totally different context (Matt. 8:17). Not until 1 Peter 2:24 is the full meaning of the passage appreciated. And Paul discovers the truth about the death of Christ without reference to Isaiah 53: ie ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous’ (Rom. 5:19).

After reading the fourth Servant Song, who is it that immediately comes to mind? Whose life exactly matches the predictions made in Isaiah 52-53? None other than Jesus Christ Himself.

This passage played a major role in the conversion of the Jewish college student, Barry Leventhal. When he was asked by Christians to read Isaiah 52-53 (and other messianic passages) for himself, he was convinced that Christians must have added it to the Hebrew Bible! He accused his Christian friends of fraud and deceit. Only later did he discover that this passage had always been in the Hebrew Bible, but modern Jews have been studiously avoiding it because of its obvious implication that Jesus Christ is the Suffering Servant whom Isaiah prophesied.

Another Messianic Jew and scholar, Michael Brown, in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Volume 3, summarizes:

Isaiah 52: 13– 53: 12 is one of the most important Messianic prophecies in the entire Hebrew Bible, and I would not be exaggerating to say that more Jews have put their faith in Jesus as Messiah after reading this passage of Scripture than after reading any other passage in the Tanakh. To the unbiased reader, it clearly speaks about the death and resurrection of the righteous servant of the Lord on behalf of his sinful people. It speaks of Yeshua [Jesus]!

Does Micah 5:2 Indicate That the Messiah Is Divine?

Micah 5:2 indicates that the future Messiah of Israel would be born in Bethlehem, but it is also indicates that his origins are from a long time ago. Some translations of the Bible translate “a long time ago” as “eternity” and some translate it as “ancient times.” If the text actually means “eternity” this would be strong evidence of the divine nature of the Messiah.

Hebrew biblical scholar Michael Brown analyzes this verse for us in his book, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, Vol. 3:

Which translation is right? It comes down to the rendering of the Hebrew phrase describing the nature of the Messiah’s origins, miqedem miyemey ‘olam. The first word simply means ‘from of old’ and is used elsewhere in Micah to refer back to God’s promises to the patriarchs, which he made ‘from days of qedem’ (Micah 7: 20, rendered in the King James with ‘from the days of old’). The next two words, however, would most naturally be translated ‘from eternity’ (literally, from ‘days of eternity’), unless context indicated a translation of ‘from ancient days’ (in other words, way back in the very distant past). In most cases in the Scriptures, ‘olam clearly means eternity, as in Psalm 90: 2, where God’s existence is described as me‘olam we‘ad‘olam, ‘from eternity to eternity’ (cf. NJPSV). There are, however, some cases where ‘olam cannot mean ‘eternal’ but rather ‘for a long time’ (either past or present). How then does Micah use the word?

Brown continues:

In Micah 2: 9; 4: 5, 7, ‘olam clearly means ‘forever,’ as commonly rendered in both Jewish and Christian versions. This would point clearly to a similar rendering just a few verses later in 5: 2. In Micah 7: 14, however, the expression ‘as in the days of ‘olam’ is used in a non-eternal sense, the whole verse being translated in the King James with, ‘Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.’ This indicates we cannot be dogmatic about the translation of Micah 5: 2, since the context allows for an ‘eternal’ or merely ‘ancient’ meaning.

Brown goes on to cite an influential medieval Jewish scholar, Rashi, as well as two modern Hebrew Bible experts about the meaning of Micah 5:2. First, Rashi.

In this light, the commentary of Rashi on Micah 5: 2 takes on added significance, since (1) he reads it as a clear Messianic prophecy; (2) he makes reference to Psalm 118: 22, which says that the stone rejected by the builders has become the chief cornerstone (a verse quoted several times in the New Testament with reference to Yeshua, who was rejected by the leaders of his people but chosen by God); and (3) he interprets the end of the verse as pointing to the preexistence of the Messiah (or, at the least, of his name) rather than as pointing only to Bethlehem as the ancient city of David (which is made clear at the beginning of the verse).

Next, Brown quotes respected Hebrew Bible scholars David Noel Freedman and Francis Anderson:

. . . the person spoken of here has some connection with the remote past. ‘One whose origin is from of old, from ancient times’ (NJPS). A legitimate sensus plenior [i.e., fuller meaning in the light of unfolding scriptural revelation] is that this Ruler will be a superhuman being, associated with God from the beginning of time. Psalm 2:7 speaks of the king as the one whom God ‘sired’ (by adoption). Psalm 110 places the king on God’s right hand. At the least the language suggests that the birth of the Messiah has been determined, or predicted in the divine council, in primal days. Micah 4– 5 thus has time points in the Beginning and End as well as the Now. Even if mōşâ’ôt means no more than an oracle expressing the divine determination, it does not require a great shift in conceptuality to move to the Son of Man figure of the later apocalypses— the Urmensch— and to the classical Christology of the ecumenical creeds or the heaven-created Adam of the Quran or the Metatron of the Jewish mystics. So Christians did not abuse the text when they found Jesus in it. Or to put it more cautiously in a negative way, this mysterious language relates the mōšēl whose outgoings have been from of the olden days to God () in a special way. He will rule ‘for’ Yahweh.

Thus, although it is not 100% certain that Micah 5:2 indicates a divine origin of the Messiah, it is certainly a plausible interpretation of the verse with support in the Jewish scholarly community.