Basic
Worldview:
104
Why Christianity?
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts
Christian Interpretations (Part 2)
Judaism
and Christianity Introduction and History
History
of Judaism Continued
Scholarly
Objections and Historicity of Daniel (P. 1)
Historicity
of Daniel (P. 2) & Judeo-Christian Syncretism
A
Few Words on Gnosticism
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 1)
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 2) & Prophecy in Judaism
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 1)
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 2)
List
of Messianic Qualifications & the Resurrection of Jesus
(P. 1)
The
Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
Study
Conclusions and Overall Comparisons
Additional
Material
The
Sufferings of Eyewitnesses
Comparison
of Mystical Religions to Judeo-Christianity
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 1)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 2)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 3)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 4)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 5)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 6)
Introduction | Section 1
| Section 2 | Section
3
(Continued)
4.
On a Suffering and Dying Messiah –
Typical
Perception of Traditional Judaism:
New
Testament Christianity erroneously interprets Isaiah 53 as
a reference to the Messiah. Isaiah 53 is a reference to the
nation of Israel as a whole. The Messiah will not suffer and
die, but will be a conquering King. Likewise, Isaiah indicates
that the Messiah will have children. Jesus did not have children,
so Isaiah cannot be speaking of him. New Testament Christianity
erroneously interprets Zechariah 12 as a prophecy of the Messiah.
It is not. Likewise, Psalm 16 does not speak of the Messiah
or resurrection from the dead.
Actual
Interpretations of Talmudic (or Rabbinic) Judaism:
Old
Testament passages such as Isaiah 53 prophesy that the Messiah,
even the King Messiah, will suffer and die to atone for our
sins as Priest, but he will be resurrected from the dead.
The interpretation that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of
Israel as a whole and not to a specific individual is a relatively
recent view that does not appear in rabbinic literature until
the eleventh century A.D. For nearly a thousand years rabbinic
tradition understood Isaiah 53 to refer to a specific Messianic
individual. The reference in Isaiah 53 to the Messiah seeing
his seed does not indicate actual physical descendents. For
instance, this passage has been interpreted by some to refer
to Jeremiah who was commanded by God not to marry or have
children and to the late Lubavitcher Grand Rabbi who also
had no children. Most likely, the passage is speaking of persons
of the same spiritual qualities. Zechariah 3 does refer to
the Messiah and identifies him with Joshua the High Priest
through the use of the Messianic term “the Branch.” Zechariah
12 does prophecy that the Messiah will be pierced and die
for the sins of Israel who will mourn for him as for a firstborn
son. Psalm 16 does refer to the Messiah indicating that his
body will not decompose. (Some of the ultra-orthodox Lubavitcher
Hasidic movement taught that their deceased high rabbi, who
they claimed was the Messiah, would be resurrected and return.)
4.
This becomes even more interesting when we realize that the
Jews who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls were looking for two
Messianic figures, called the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.
30 In addition to this, the important first-century document
called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in particular
the Testaments of Levi and Judah, also had much to say about
this priestly Messiah, speaking of him in highly exalted terms.
31 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
1, Historical Objections, p. 85
Footnote
30: For refutation of the idea that the authors of the scrolls
expected only one Messiah of Aaron and Israel, see John J.
Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York:
Doubleday, 1995); note also L. H. Schiffman, “Messianic Figures
and Ideas in the Qumran Scroll,” in The Messiah: Developments
in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 116-29. It is also noteworthy
that in several other Qumran texts, there is reference to
a Davidic Messiah and a priest (see Collins, Scepter
and the Star, 74-101); note further b. Sukkah 52b, interpreting
Zech. 1:20 with reference to the two Messiahs, Elijah, and
the righteous High Priest.
Footnote
31: See conveniently Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts
(Detroit: Wayne state Univ., 1979), 191-92, for important
excerpts. For full editions of the Testament of the Twelve
Patriarchs, see James H. CHarlesworth, ed., the Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1983), 775-828 (ed. and trans. by H. C. Kee, who dates the
fundamental writing of the Testaments to around 100 B.C.E.);
H. F. D. Sparks, ed., M. de Jonge, trans., The Apocryphal
Old Testament (Oxford: Claredon, 1984), 505-600.
5.
Interestingly, when the Rebbe [the Lubavitcher Grand Rabbi,
Menachem Mendel Schneerson] died in 1994 without being revealed
as the Messiah, many of his followers announced that his death
served as an atonement for our sins, and they eagerly awaited
his resurrection. 58 In fact, some Jewish leaders criticized
them, stating that their views about the Rebbe sounded like
Christian teaching about Jesus. They replied: “Not at all!
The Christians got their ideas from us. These beliefs are
really Jewish!” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 1, Historical Objections, p. 97
Footnote
58: In fact, the first major biography of the Rebbe put out
by Lubavitch contained the Rabbinic prayer: “May his death
serve as an atonement,” right in the front of the book; for
more on this traditional Jewish concept that the death of
the righteous atones, see vol. 2, 3.15.
6.
There was only one ingredient lacking from the story: the
hope that the Rebbe would one day return. Here, too,
the Rebbe’s followers have followed suit, with one of his
disciples concluding his biographical sketch of Rabbi Schneerson
by writing, “May we merit his immediate return, even before
going to press.” 59 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 1, Historical Objections, p. 97
Footnote
59: Staiman, Waiting for the Messiah, 250.
78.
Writing a few decades before Hai Gaon, an even more prominent
scholar, Rav Sa’adiah Gaon, also addressed the question of
the Messiah. He explained that there would actually be two
Messiahs, the Messiah son of Joseph (mentioned explicitedly
in the Talmud in b. Sukkah 52a), who was associated with a
time of victory mixed with hardship and calamity, and the
Messiah son of David, who would establish God’s kingdom on
the earth. However, if the Jewish people would be God-fearing
and obedient, it was possible that there would be only one
Messiah, the son of David, and no Messiah son of Joseph, meaning
less suffering for Israel. 354 J. I. Schochet provides a useful
summary:
Quite
significantly, R. Saadia Gaon (one of the few to elaborate
on the role of the Mashiach ben Yossef) notes that the sequence
is not definite but contingent! Mashiach ben Yossef
will not have to appear before Mashiach ben David,
nor will the activities attributed to him or his death have
to occur. All depends on the spiritual condition of the Jewish
people at the time the redemption is to take place. 355 –
Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 212-213
Footnote
354: To this day there are many religious Jews who hold to
this doctrine of the two Messiahs, which is quite understandable
in light of the fact that this belief can be traced back to
the Talmud; see below, 3.23-3.24.
Footnote
355: J. Immanuel Schochet, Mashiach: The Principles of
Mashiach and the Messianic Era in Jewish Law and Tradition,
expanded edition (New York/Toronto: S.E.E, 1992), 98.
87.
There are many rich, beautiful, and theologically moving traditions
in Jewish literature about the sufferings of the Messiah.
In fact, the learned Jewish scholar Raphael Patai devoted
an entire chapter to the subject in his unparalleled collection
titled The Messiah Texts. 378 More than fifty years
earlier, Gustaf Dalman, a Christian scholar of Judaica whose
reference works are used by Jewish scholars to this day, devoted
an entire volume to the subject of the suffering Messiah in
Jewish tradition. 379 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 221
Footnote
378: See above, n. 84, for publication information. The section
dealing with the suffering Messiah runs from 104-21.
Footnote
84: Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts [Detroit: Wayne
State Univ., 1979], 319
Footnote
379: Gustaf H. Dalman, der leidende und der sterbende Messias
der Synagoge im ersten nachchristlichen Jarhtausend (Berlin:
Reuther, 1888). Cf. also idem, Jesaja 53: der Prophetenwort
vom suhnleiden des gottesknechtes mit besonderer Berucksichtung
der judischen Literatur, 2d ed. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’,
1914). For a thorough bibliography on the subject through
the early 1980s, see Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D.
135), rev. Eng. Vers. By Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and
Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-1987), 2:547-49.
88.
Patai makes this startling statement regarding the Messiah’s
sufferings:
The
sufferings Israel must face in the days of the Messiah are
temporary and transitory. They will last, according to the
Talmudic view…seven years; a later Aggada…reduces this period
to a mere forty five days. The Messiah himself, on the other
hand, must spend his entire life, from the moment of his creation
until the time of his advent many centuries or even millennia
later, in a state of constant and acute suffering. 380 – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 221
Footnote
380: Patai, Messiah Texts, 104.
89.
Summarizing the key Rabbinic teachings on the sufferings and
afflictions of the Messiah, Patai writes:
Despised
and afflicted with unhealing wounds, he sits in the gates
of Great Rome and winds and unwinds the bandages of his festering
sores; as a Midrash expresses it, “pains have adopted him.”
According to one of the most moving and psychologically most
meaningful, of all Messiah legends, God, when He created the
Messiah, gave him the choice of whether or not to accept the
sufferings for the sins of Israel. And the Messiah answered:
“I accept it with joy so that not a single soul of Israel
should perish.”…In the later Zoharic [i.e., mystical] formulation
of this legend, the Messiah himself summons all the diseases,
pains, and sufferings of Israel to come upon him, in order
to thus ease the anguish of Israel, which otherwise would
be unbearable. 381 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 221-222
Footnote
381: Ibid.
90.
According to the Talmud (b. Sukkah 52a), this Messiah would
perform many mighty acts of valor for his Jewish people before
dying in the great war that would proceed the reign of Messiah
ben David. In fact, Zechariah 12:10 (“They will look on me,
the one they have pierced”), quoted with reference to the
death of Yeshua in the New Testament, is applied to Messiah
ben Joseph in this Talmudic text (for further discussion of
Zech. 12:10, see vol. 3, 4.31). The Talmud also goes on to
say that God would hear the prayer of Messiah ben David and
would raise Messiah ben Joseph from the dead. 382 – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 222
91.
Later Jewish traditions expanded on the sufferings of Messiah
ben Joseph. This Midrash, describing one of the houses in
heavenly paradise, is typical:
…there
sit Messiah ben David and Elijah and Messiah ben Ephraim.
And there is a canopy of incense trees as in the Sanctuary
which Moses made in the desert. And all its vessels and pillars
are of silver, its covering is gold, its seat is purple. And
in it is Messiah ben David who loves Jerusalem. Elijah of
blessed memory takes hold of his head, places it in his lap
and holds it, and says to him, “Endure the sufferings and
the sentence your Master who makes you suffer because of the
sin of Israel.” And thus it is written: He was wounded
because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our
iniquities (Isa. 53:5) – until the time the end comes.
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 222
92.
Yet here the Midrash applies this text to Messiah ben Ephraim,
exactly as the Zohar did with reference to the Messiah’s sufferings:
“In the hour in which they [i.e., the souls of the righteous
sufferers] tell the Messiah about the sufferings of Israel
in exile, and [about] the sinful among them who seek not the
knowledge of their Master, the Messiah lifts up his voice
and weeps over those sinful among them. This is what is written,
He was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed
because of our iniquities (Isa. 53:5). 384 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 223
Footnote
384: Zohar 2:212a, as translated by Patai, ibid., 116, his
emphasis.
94.
The Schottenstein Talmud, an extensive and highly valuable
Orthodox commentary being published by Artscroll-Mesorah,
offers this striking commentary on the passage:
They
[namely, those sitting with Messiah] were afflicted with tzaraas
– a disease whose symptoms include discolored patches on the
skin (see Leviticus ch. 13). The Messiah himself is
likewise afflicted, as stated in Isaiah (53:4):…Indeed,
it was our diseases that he bore and our pains that he endured,
whereas we considered him plagued (i.e. suffering tzaraas
[see 98b, note 39], smitten by God, and afflicted.
This verse teaches that the diseases that the people ought
to have suffered because of their sins are borne instead by
the Messiah [with reference to the leading Rabbinic commentaries].
388 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 224
Footnote
388: Tractate Sanhedrin, Talmud Bavli, The Schottenstein
Edition (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah, 1995), vol. 3, 98a5, emphasis
in original.
95.
In this regard, Patai noted that “the Messiah become heir
to the Suffering Servant of God, who figures prominently in
the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah” (i.e., Isaiah 40-55). 389
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 225
Footnote
389: Patai, Messiah Texts, 104-5.
96.
Even traditional Jewish commentaries referred Isaiah 53 to
the Messiah, meaning the Messiah son of David. 391
What were some of the commentaries to which I referred? 392
Most prominently, I pointed to Moses ben Nachman (called Nachmanides
or the Ramban), one of the greatest of all medieval Jewish
scholars and famed for his Barcelona debate with the Catholic
Jew Pablo Christiani (see vol. 1, 2.12). He claimed that Isaiah
spoke of “the Messiah, the son of David…[who] will never be
conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies.” 393 In spite
of this victorious description of the Messiah, however, Nachmanides
also spoke of his suffering:
Yet
he carried our sicknesses [Isa. 53:4], being himself sick
and distressed for the transgression which should have caused
sickness and distress in us, and bearing the pains which we
ought to have experienced. But we, when we saw him
weakened and prostrate, thought that he was stricken,
smitten of God.…The chastisement of our peace was upon
him – for God will correct him and by his stripes
we were healed – because the stripes by which he is vexed
and distressed will heal us: God will pardon us for his righteousness,
and we shall be healed both from our own transgressions and
from the iniquities of our fathers…He was oppressed and
he was afflicted [v. 7]: for when he first comes, “meek
and riding upon an ass” [Zech. 9:9], the oppressors and officers
of every city will come to him, and afflict him with reviling
and insults, reproaching both him and the God in whose name
he appears. 394 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 226-227
Footnote
393: Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah,
2:78,
Footnote
394: Ibid., their emphasis.
97.
Quite strangely, when interpreting the verses that speak clearly
of the Messianic servant’s death, Nachmanides goes out of
his way to avoid the obvious fact that the servant did, indeed,
die. Instead, he attempts to explain that the Messiah was
willing to die, that he expected to die, that
it would be reported that he was cut off by from the
land of the living, and that evil Israelites, together with
wicked Gentiles, would devise all kinds of deaths for
him. 395 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 227
Footnote
395: See further vol. 3, 4.10-12, 4.14, on the prophesied
death of the servant of the Lord according to Isaiah 53.
98.
Other significant commentators interpreting this key passage
with reference to the sufferings of Messiah son of David include
Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin (or Ibn Krispin), who first
described the highly exalted nature of the Messiah (following
a famous midrash to Isaiah 52:13; see above, 3.22) and then
spoke of his sufferings in great detail, explaining that he
would share Israel’s “subjection and distress” and be “exceedingly
afflicted”:
…his
grief will be such that the colour of his countenance will
be changed from that of a man, and pangs and sicknesses will
seize upon him…and all the chastisements which come upon him
in consequence of his grief will be for our sakes, and not
from any deficiency or sin on his part which might bring punishment
in their train, because he is perfect, in the completeness
of perfection, as Isaiah says (xi. 2 f.) 398
Commenting
on some of the central verses, Ibn Crispin writes:
A
man of pains and known to sickness, i.e., possessed of
pains and destined to sicknesses; so all that see him will
say of him. They will also, it continues, on account of his
loathsome appearance, be like men hiding their faces from
him: they will not be able to look at him, because of
his disfigurement. And even we, who before were longing to
see him, when we see what he is like, shall despise him
till we no longer esteem him, i.e., we shall cease
to think of him as a Redeemer able to redeem us and fight
our battles because of all the effects which we see produced
by his weakness.
…it
will be as though he had borne all the sickness and chastisements
which fall upon us…Or, perhaps…from his pity and prayers for
us he will atone for our transgressions: and our pains
he hath borne, viz., as a burden upon himself…i.e, all
the weight of our pains he will carry, being himself pained
exceedingly by them. And we esteemed him stricken, smitted
by God, and afflicted. We shall not believe that there
could be any man ready to endure such pain and grief as would
disfigure his countenance, even for his children, much less
for his people: it will seem a certain truth to us that such
terrible sufferings must have come upon him as a penalty for
his own many shortcomings and errors. 399 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 227-228
Footnote
398: Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah,
2:103.
Footnote
399: Ibid., 2:107-8, emphasis in original. Amazingly, Ibn
Crispin ends his comments by saying, “This prophecy was delivered
by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making
known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah
who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day
when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer,
in order that if any one should arise claiming to be himself
the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can
observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here:
if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that
he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot
do so.” Even more amazingly, the scribe who copied out Ibn
Crispin’s interpretation was troubled by it, although he hoped
that “an answer may be found in it against the heretics who
interpret it of Jesus.” And so he added that “it does not
seem to me to be right or permissible to apply the prophecy
to the King Messiah (for reasons which an intelligent man
will easily find out); it must, in fact, be referred either
to Israel as a whole, or to Jeremiah.” See ibid., 2:114.
99.
Much more could be quoted, along with selections from the
commentary of Rabbi Mosheh El-Sheikh (or Alshekh), who claimed
that “our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion
that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah,” also referring
to a midrash that stated that “of all the sufferings which
entered into the world, one third was for David and the fathers,
one for the generation in exile, and one for King Messiah.”
400 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 228
Footnote
400: Ibid., 2:259. According to Alshekh, the Jewish people
will say of the Messiah, “We beheld a man, just and perfect,
bruised and degraded by suffering, despised in our eyes, and
plundered verily before God and man, while all cried, ‘God
hath forsaken him;’ he must surely, therefore, we thought,
be ‘despised’ likewise in the eyes of the Almighty, and this
is why he hath made him ‘an offscouring and refuse’ (Lam.
Iii. 45).” See ibid., 2:264.
100.
In our own day, Isaiah 53 was applied directly to Menachem
Schneerson, hailed as Messiah ben David by his devoted followers
worldwide, with specific reference to his suffering. Thus,
when Rabbi Schneerson (known simply as the Rebbe, in keeping
with Hasidic tradition) suffered a stroke in 1992 and could
not speak, his followers pointed to Isaiah 53:7, “He was oppressed
and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like
a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers
is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” When his paralyzed
condition showed little or no improvement, they pointed to
other verses in Isaiah 53 that speak of the sickness of the
servant of the Lord. The Rebbe became sick, they claimed,
so that we might be healed! When he died in 1994 at the age
of ninety-two, some of his most loyal disciples proclaimed
in writing that his death was an atonement for us, in keeping
with the traditional teaching that the death of the righteous
atones (see above, 3.15) – and then they began to pray fervently
and wait expectantly for his resurrection and/or return. 401
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 228
Footnote
401: See the quote from Mordecai Staiman, below, 3.24, with
reference to the Rebbe’s hoped-for return. Cohn-Sherbok, The
Jewish Messiah, xv-xvi, summarizes some of the key events
as follows: “When the Rebbe suffered a stroke, his
followers were not deterred; indeed, the Rebbe’s incapacity
fueled the flames of messianic enthusiasm. His illness was
invested with redemptive significance: the suffering servant
in Isaiah 53 was perceived as being a reference to the Rebbe’s
debilitated state…Even the Rebbe’s death did not daunt
those who were convinced of his Messiahship. He would return!
In the view of one Israeli newspaper, those who had lost faith
in the Rebbe were like the worshippers of the golden
calf who had given up hope of Moses’ return from Mount Sinai.
Within a few months of the funeral, two volumes appeared,
explaining the grounds for continuing faith in his Messiahship.
Eventually, as time passed, a number of messianists became
convinced that the Rebbe had not in fact died: in their
view he remains alive but concealed. Hence what happened on
3 Tammuz5754 (the Jewish date of his death) was an
illusion. The Rebbe’s corpse, they argued, was a test
for carnal eyes; but in truth there was no passing away or
leave-taking at all.”
101.
As Patai observes:
There
can be little doubt that psychologically the Suffering Messiah
is but a projection and personification of Suffering Israel…Similarly,
the Leper Messiah and the Beggar Messiah [spoken of in the
Talmud]…are but variants on the theme of Suffering Israel
personified in the Suffering Messiah figure. And it is undoubtedly
true in the psychological sense that, as the Zohar states,
the acceptance of Israel’s sufferings by the Messiah (read:
their projection onto the Messiah) eases that suffering which
otherwise could not be endured. 402 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 229
Footnote
402: Patai, Messiah Texts, 105.
102.
The final text we will read actually gives the fullest and
most detailed description of the Messiah’s sufferings found
anywhere in the major Rabbinic sources. I refer to chapters
34, 36, 37 of the important eighth- to ninth- century midrash
known as the Pesikta Rabbati. In fact, the descriptions of
the Messiah’s sufferings found there are possibly stronger
than anything found in the New Testament. 403 Some scholars,
basing their position on the fact that the Messiah is called
Ephraim in these chapters, believe that the reference is to
the Messiah ben Joseph. Others, however, point out that he
is referred to as “My righteous Messiah,” which would normally
be taken to mean Messiah ben David. Thus, Rabbi Schochet notes
that “the term Ephraim, though, may relate here to collective
Israel, thus referring to Mashiach ben David.” 404 In any
event, what we have before us is indisputable: a Rabbinic
text prized by traditional Jews and outlining in graphic detail
the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah. Here are selections
from Pesikta Rabbati chapter 36 as translated by Patai:
They
said in the septenary [i.e., seven-year period] in which the
Son of David comes they will bring iron beams and put them
upon his neck until his body bends and cries and weeps, and
his voice rises up into the Heights, and he says before Him:
“Master of the World! How much can my strength suffer? How
much my spirit? How much my soul? And how much my limbs? Am
I not flesh and blood?...”
In
that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: “Ephraim,
My True Messiah, you have already accepted [this suffering]
from the six days of Creation. Now your suffering shall be
like My suffering. For ever since the day on which wicked
Nebuchadnezzar came up and destroyed my Temple and burnt My
sanctuary, and I exiled My children among the nations of the
world, by your life and the life of your head, I have not
sat on My Throne. And if you do not believe, see the dew that
is upon my head….”
In
that hour he says before Him: “Master of the World! Now my
mind is at rest, for it is sufficient for the servant to be
like his Master! 405
The
Fathers of the World [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] will in the
future rise up in the month of Nissan and will speak to him:
“Ephraim, our True Messiah! Even though we are your fathers,
you are greater than we, for you suffered because of the sins
of our children, and cruel punishments have come upon you
the likes of which have not come upon the early and the later
generations, and you were put to ridicule and held in contempt
by the nations of the world because of Israel, and your skin
cleft to your bones, and your body dried out was like wood,
and your eyes grew dim from fasting, and your strength became
like a potsherd. All this because of the sins of our children.
Do you want that our children should enjoy the happiness that
the Holy One, blessed be He, allotted to Israel, or perhaps,
because of great sufferings that have come upon you on their
account, and because they imprisoned you in the jailhouse,
your mind is not reconciled with them?”
And
the Messiah answers them: “Fathers of the World! Everything
I did, I did only for you and for your children, and for your
honor and for the honor of your children, so that they should
enjoy this happiness the Holy One, blessed be He, has allotted
to Israel.”
Then
the Fathers of the World say to him: “Ephraim, our True Messiah,
let your mind be at ease, for you put at ease our minds and
the mind of your Creator!” 406 – Brown, Answering Jewish
Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 229-230
Footnote
404: Schochet, Mashiach, 92-93, n. 2, where he also
points out some overlap in terminology in the descriptive
titles of the two Messiahs.
Footnote
406: Patai, Messiah Texts, 113-14.
115.
Interestingly, the national interpretation is not found once
in the Talmuds, the Targums, or the midrashim (in other words,
not once in all the classical, foundational, authoritative
Jewish writings). In fact, it is not found in any traditional
Jewish source until the time of Rashi, who lived in the eleventh
century C.E. 105 That is saying something! For almost one
thousand years after the birth of Yeshua, not one rabbi, not
one Talmudic teacher, not one Jewish sage, left us an interpretation
showing that Isaiah 53 should be interpreted with reference
to the nation of Israel (as opposed to a righteous individual,
or righteous individuals, within Israel), despite the fact
that these verses from Isaiah are quoted in the New Testament
and were often used in Jewish-Christian debate. – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy
Objections, p. 41
Footnote
105: As we will see in 4.8, the Christian scholar Origen in
the second century made reference to Jewish leaders who interpreted
Isaiah 53 with regard to the people of Israel as a whole,
and there is one midrashic reference to Isaiah 53:10 being
applied to the righteous in general.
116.
This servant is obedient and righteous, setting captive free,
and according to the Targum, this servant is none other than
the Messiah. 107 This is confirmed by Rabbi David Kimchi –
one of the so-called “big three” medieval Rabbinic commentators
– who also interpreted the words “Behold my servant” in Isaiah
42:1 with specific reference to “King Messiah.” 108 – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic
Prophecy Objections, p. 43
Footnote
107: The Aramaic reads, “Behold my servant the Messiah.”
Footnote
108: Note also that Metsudat David interprets Isaiah 42:1
with reference to King Messiah.
117.
First, we must remember that many traditional Jewish interpreters
– from the Targum until today – had no problem reading Isaiah
52:13-53:12 with reference to the Messiah, thus reading this
section of Isaiah as a distinct passage in its own right.
In other words, the passage was interpreted independent of
the preceding context of the return from the Babylonian exile.
Otherwise, how could followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in
our day interpret this passage with reference to their leader
who lived and died twenty-five hundred years after
the return from exile? Or how could the Targum paraphrase
this passage to reflect the events of the Bar Kochba War,
which took place more than six hundred years after the return
of the exiles? 113 And why did Rashi begin his comments on
Isaiah 52:13 by stating that the passage applied to the righteous
remnant within Jacob who would prosper at the end of days?
114 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 45
Footnote
113: See Samson H. Levey, The Messiah, an Aramaic Interpretation:
The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College/Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), 63-67.
Footnote
114: Note also Rashi’s comment on Isaiah 53:8: “For because
of the transgressions of my people [this is allegedly a Gentile
king speaking] this plague came to the righteous among them.”
118.
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 117
– while the Talmud generally interprets the passage with reference
to the Messiah, or key individuals (like Moses or Phineas),
or the righteous (for details on this, see 4.8). 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
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.
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 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 (for references, see
below, 4.8). – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 49-50
Footnote
117: See above, n. 113 (Level); cf. further vol. 2, 3.23.
119.
Most recently – really, from the early 1990s and right up
to this day – Isaiah 53 has been applied to Menachem Schneerson
(1902-1994), the Grand Rabbi of Lubavitcher Hasidic movement.
Obviously, his followers had no problem applying the prophecy
to him as an individual (as opposed to the people of Israel
as a whole), in keeping with the most ancient Jewish traditions.
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 50
121.
Most prominently, I pointed to Nachmanides (the Ramban), one
of the greatest of all medieval Jewish thinkers, a commentator,
a mystic, and philosopher, and a legal scholar. He claimed
that Isaiah spoke of “the Messiah, the son of David…[who]
will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies.”
128 Other commentators have interpreted this key passage with
reference to the sufferings of Messiah son of David.
Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin (or Ibn Krispin), first described
the highly exalted nature of the Messiah (following a famous
midrash to Isaiah 52:13, see vol. 2, 3.22) and then spoke
of his sufferings in great detail, explaining that he would
share Israel’s “subjugation and distress and be exceedingly
afflicted.” 129 Rabbi Mosheh El-Sheikh (or Alshekh), claimed
that “our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion
that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah” and also
referred to a midrash that stated, “of all the sufferings
which entered into the world, one third was for David and
the fathers, one for the generation in exile, and one for
the King Messiah.” 130 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p.
58
Footnote
128: See S. R. Driver and Adolf Neubauer, eds. and trans.,
Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters,
2 vols. (New York: Ktav, 1969), 2:78.
Footnote
129: For a more extended quote from Ibn Krispin on this subject,
see vol. 2, pp. 215-16.
Footnote
130: Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah,
2:259.
122.
The Rabbinical evidence is as follows:
Targum
Jonathan interprets Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (which for simplicity
in this discussion, we will simply call Isaiah 53) with reference
to the Messiah, despite the fact that the Targum virtually
rewrites the servant’s sufferings so that they speak instead
of the suffering of the nations. This means the Messianic
interpretation of the passage must have been quite prominent
when the Targum was being formed, since it would have been
much easier to not add the explicit reference to the
Messiah (in 52:13) rather than to virtually rewrite the verses
that seemed to contradict the expected role of the Messiah.
131
The
Talmud interprets various verses in this section with reference
to righteous individuals within Israel (including the Messiah)
but never once with reference to the nation of Israel
as a whole. 132 The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) applies
53:12 to Rabbi Akiva, while the Babylonian Talmud applies
53:4 to the Messiah in Sanhedrin 98b, 53:10 to the righteous
in general in Berakhot 5a, and 53:12 to Moses in Sotah 14a.
Midrash
Rabbah interprets 53:5 with reference to the Messiah (Ruth
Rabbah 2:14) while interpreting 53:12 with reference to Israel
in exile (Numbers Rabbah 13:2). This last interpretation,
offered in a passing interpretation of Song of Solomon 5:1,
is the one and only time in the first thousand years
of recorded Rabbinic literature that any portion of any verse
in Isaiah 53 is applied to Israel as a nation.
Yalkut
Shimoni (a thirteenth-century compilation of earlier midrashic
writings) applies 52:13 to the Messiah, stating that the Messiah
– called the great mountain according to Yalkut’s interpretation
of Zechariah 4:7 – is “greater than the patriarchs…higher
than Abraham…lifted up above Moses…and loftier than ministering
angels” (2:571; see also 2:621). Isaiah 53:5 is applied to
the sufferings of “King Messiah” (2:620), 133 while 53:12
is applied to Moses (2:338), as in the Talmudic passage referred
to above. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 59-60
Footnote
131: Cf. the discussion in Levey, The Messiah, an Aramaic
Interpretation; see further Pinkhos Churgin, Targum
Jonathan to the Prophets, repr. With Leivy Smolar and
Moses Aberbach as Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets
(New York: Ktav, 1983).
25.
The Stone edition renders Isaiah 53:4b as, “but we had regarded
him diseased [nagu’a], stricken by God, and afflicted!”
It is this verse – in particular the word nagu’a (rendered
here as “diseased”) – from which the Talmud drew the concept
of the “leper Messiah” (see b. Sanhedrin 98b). 150 – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic
Prophecy Objections, p. 73
Footnote
150: the portion of the Talmudic text in question is dealing
with Rabbinic speculation about the name of the Messiah. One
opinion of the sages is that “his name is the leprous one
[Aramaic, hiwwra’] of the house of Rabbi”; Isaiah 53:4
is quoted as support.
126.
Not surprisingly, when reading the text in terms of Israel,
the three most respected Rabbinic commentators, Rashi, Ibn
Ezra, and Radak, saw numerous references to the servant’s
death. Radak, for example, claimed that 53:8 spoke of the
fact that the people of Israel “used to be put to death in
many ways: Some were burnt, some were slain, and others were
stoned – they gave themselves over to any form of death for
the sake of the unity of the Godhead.” 152 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy
Objections, p. 75
Footnote
152: As rendered in Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter
of Isaiah, 2:53-54.
127.
It is also interesting to note that after the Lubavitcher
Rebbe’s death his followers pointed to Isaiah 53, claiming
that it spoke of his death, which is not surprising,
given the clear sense of the original Hebrew. Thus, they rightly
interpreted it as a prophecy of the death of the Messiah
but wrongly interpreted the identity of the Messiah.
153 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 76
Footnote
153: See the relevant discussion about Messiah ben Joseph
in vol. 2, 3.23.
129.
According to the standard Hebrew lexicon of Brown, Driver,
and Briggs, in cases such as these, seed means “as marked
by moral quality = persons (or community) of such a quality,”
158 thus, “a seed of evildoers” would really mean “a
community of evildoers” or “evildoers to the core.” In the
context of Isaiah 53:10, this would mean that the servant
of the Lord would see godly, spiritual posterity, true disciples
transformed by means of his labors on their behalf. As Isaiah
53:10 explains, this is tied in with his “prolong[ing] his
days,” referring to his resurrection (see above 4.13). – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic
Prophecy Objections, p. 84
Footnote
158: Francis Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon (repr., New York: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1959), 283.
130.
Third, the weakness of this argument is seen when we realize
that no less a traditional Jewish authority than Sa’adiah
Gaon applied Isaiah 53 to Jeremiah the prophet, yet God command
Jeremiah never to marry or have children (Jer. 16:1; see above,
4.6). More recently Isaiah 53 was applied to the late Lubavitcher
Rebbe, yet he and his wife were unable to have children. How
then could this be applied either of these two candidates?
Obviously, the text does not explicitly state that the servant
of the Lord had to bear children of his own, hence the passage
could be applied to either of these other Jewish leaders,
albeit incorrectly. (In other words, many of the other specifics
of the text cannot possibly apply to either Jeremiah or the
Rebbe, while they apply perfectly to Yeshua.) – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy
Objections, p. 84
143.
In fact, David Kimchi, interpreted David’s words in verse
9 (“my body rests secure,” my translation) to mean that “when
the Psalmist dies his body will not decompose.” 224 As Rosenberg
and Zlotowitz explain:
The
Talmud points out that seven biblical heroes were preserved
whole in the earth: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Miriam,
and Benjamin. Regarding David this is a difference of opinion
as to whether the expression, “my body” includes David among
the others, which would make eight or that David’s prayer
was wishful thinking (B.B. 17A). 225 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy
Objections, p. 115-116
Footnote
224: Martin S. Rosenberg and Bernard M. Zlotowitz, The
Book of Psalms: A New Translation and Commentary (Northvale,
N. J.: Aronson, 1999), 79.
Footnote
225: Ibid. The abbreviation B.B. refers to the Talmudic tractate
b. Baba Bathra.
152.
Let’s focus in on Zechariah 3:4, “Listen, O high priest Joshua
and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic
of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch.”
The Targum renders this closing phrase as, “Behold I bring
my servant the Messiah.” The Branch – understood to be the
Branch of David – is the Messiah. Abraham Ibn Ezra provides
an interesting interpretation on the identity of the Branch:
He
is Zerubbabel, as it is said, “His name is branch” [Zech.
6:12], and the end of the passage proves it, [stating] “before
Zerubbabel” [Zech. 4:7]. And many interpreters say that this
branch is the Messiah, and he is called Zerubbabel because
he is from his seed, as in, “and David my servant will be
their prince forever” [Ezek. 37:25[. And I too can interpret
this homiletically [derek derash], for tsemach
[branch] by Gematria [i.e., numerically interpreted] equals
Menachem, that is, Ben Ammiel [in the Talmud Menachem Ben
Ammiel is a name for the Messiah; see b. Sanhedrin 99b, and
notes of Ibn Ezra that the numeric values for the Hebrew words
branch and Menachem are identical, both equal
to 138]. 291 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 144
153.
Zechariah 12:10 is discussed in the Talmud in b. Sukkah 55a.
The verse – read with a singular, not plural, subject – is
first interpreted to mean that it is the evil inclination
(i.e., the sinful tendency in man) that was slain, and the
people wept when they saw how easily it could have been overcome.
The second interpretation states that the people wept over
Messiah son of Joseph who was slain fighting in the last great
war (i.e., the last great future war) for his people,
after which Messiah son of David asked God to raise him from
the dead, and his request was granted. From this we learn
two significant points: (1) The Hebrew was understood to be
speaking of an individual person or thing, not of a plural
subject (in other words, the one who was pierced through and
slain, not those who were pierced through and slain); and
(2) there was an ancient Jewish tradition interpreting the
text in terms of a Messiah figure who died and then was raised
from the dead. Recently, the Stone edition and the NJPSV translated
Zechariah 12:10 with a plural subject: “They shall look toward
Me because of those whom they have stabbed; they will mourn
for him” (Stone); 301 and, “They shall lament to Me
about those who are slain, wailing over them” (NJPSV). 302
But these interpretations are not reflected in some of the
most ancient Jewish sources (cf. the Septuagint and the Talmud,
b. Sukkah 52a; the Targumic rendering is similar to those
just cited), nor are they a grammatically natural reading
of the text. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 148-149
Footnote
301: The footnote to the translation reads, “The salvation
will be so complete that people will be astonished if even
one man is killed by the enemy (Radak).”
Footnote
302: A note to the word “lament” states that the meaning of
the Hebrew is uncertain, which is odd, since the Hebrew wehibitu
simply means “they shall look.” Apparently the translators
saw something else in the text that made them think the Hebrew
here was ambiguous.
154.
Either the text shifts from the first person (lit., “look
to me”) to third person (lit., “mourn for him”), something
that is not uncommon in biblical texts, 305 or we should follow
the reading preserved in some Masoretic manuscripts, reflecting
the tiniest variation in the Hebrew but resulting in a very
different translation in English, namely, “they shall look
to him whom they pierced.” 306
Footnote
305: It is actually so common that the preface to the NIV
states that “the Hebrew writers often shifted back and forth
between first, second, and third personal pronouns without
change of antecedent, this translation often makes them uniform,
in accordance with standard English style and without the
use of footnotes” (cited in the EBC endnote to Zech.
7:13, providing a case in point). Note also that in Zechariah
12 the Lord speaks in the first person a number of times,
as cited above, but alternating with third-person language
as well – in other words, going from “I” to “the Lord;” cf.
verses 7-9.
Footnote
306: The difference in the Hebrew is from ‘elay (“to
me”) to ‘elayw (“to him”). This reading is also supported
in John 19:37. As to why this is quoted in John’s gospel as
a past event (“These things happened [i.e., the Messiah’s
crucifixion] so that the scripture would be fulfilled: ‘Not
one of his bones will be broken,’” and, as another scripture
says “They will look on the one they have pierced.”), cf.
George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary
(Dallas: Word, 1987), 355.
161.
We have addressed this objection elsewhere (see vol. 1, 2.1
and vol. 2, 3.23), demonstrating that the Hebrew Bible pointed
to a suffering then-reigning Messiah, while many Jewish traditions
also spoke of a suffering Messiah. Recently, some prominent
biblical and Semitic scholars, Israel Knohl of the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem and Michael Wise of the University
of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, have argued that even
before the time of Jesus, there was a Jewish belief in
a suffering Messiah, something which scholars have debated
for many decades. 331 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p.
167-168
Footnote
331: Michael O. Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the
Savior Before Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999);
Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant
of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkley: Univ. of California
Press, 2000); for a summary of research through the mid-1980’s,
see Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c-a.d. 135), rev. ed., Geza
Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1973-87), 2:547-49.
(Continued...)
