Psalm 110: Who is speaking?

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/psalm110rts.html

The psalm 110 lecture of rabbi Tovia Singer’s “Let’s get Biblical” series is not about all of Psalm 110 but about the first verse. It is also one of the easiest to refute, simply because it is abundantly clear that David is the speaker here and speaks of the Messiah and of no one else. This is one of the lectures where I really wanted to be in the audience asking the very same question that was asked him. Namely, that there is more to the subject of this chapter than one might think. Of course he would tell me then that it was obvious from my question that I didn’t read or understand a word of Hebrew. If you didn’t know already, this is the standard anti-missionary scare tactic. They will challenge you on the Hebrew! Although the rabbi is right about one thing, which is that this verse doesn’t prove that the Messiah is God. But it does affirm the view that the Messiah was to be more than human. Because who can be more than king David? King David is the greatest king ever known to mankind. He was the king of kings. And yet he speaks here of someone as “his lord/master”. There is not a king that can come forth from the Gentiles, nor from the Jewish people, that could excel David. All the kings that followed him, were always compared to him in their righteousness. As the rabbi said it correctly “he was their measuring rod”.

You might say “this isn’t King David speaking, but the Levites for whom the Psalms were written to sing in the Temple”, just as the rabbi claims, hereby following the reading of the Ramban (aka Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman or Nachmanides). This is what the Ramban wrote (emphasis mine)

King David was the composer who wrote the Psalms with the aid of the holy spirit. He composed them for the purpose of having them sung before the altar of God. He himself did not sing them, nor was he permitted to do so, for that function was forbidden to him by law of the Torah. (Deuteronomy 18:6-7) Instead, he gave the Psalms to the Levites, so that they would sing them. This is clearly written in the book of I Chronicles 16:7 Therefore, King David perforce expressed the psalm in the language appropriate for utterance by the Levites. Thus, if King David had said; “The Eternal said to me”, the Levites repeating these words would be uttering falsehood. Instead, it is proper for the Levite to say in the Temple: “The Eternal saith unto my lord: (that is to King David) Sit thou at My right hand.” The purport of the term ’sitting’ is to state that the Creator, blessed be He, will protect him during his lifetime and that He will save him and cause him to prevail over his enemies. So it was, for he lifted up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. This is the right hand of God.

Is this reading actually valid? Let’s examine the text:

L’David, mizmor: N’um Yahweh l’adoni, shev limini; ad-asit oyveycha, hadom l’ragleicha

1 A Psalm of David.
The LORD saith unto my lord: ‘Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’

This is how rabbi Singer’s argument goes: This is a verse speaking about king David, who wrote it for the Levi’im (Levites) to sing in the Temple. And because he wrote it for them to sing in the Temple it was necessary for him to write it from their perspective, because would he write it from his perspective and said “the LORD said to me” and the Levi’im would say it likewise, then they would be lying. So that’s why he wrote it from their perspective and therefore had to write “the LORD said to my lord” referring to king David and then they would be truthful. (9:00)

Again, we ask the question: Is this a valid reading? Let’s look at the validity of this claim:

It starts out with (L’David mizmor) which means “a psalm of David”. It can also mean ”a psalm for/to David”. This is actually subject of dispute. The more likely form is the former, however, as mentioned, it can also mean the latter. The first claim is that it was exclusively written for the Levi’im to sing in the Temple. Well, the common phrase “lam’natseach” [for the leader], meaning the leader of the worship, is completely absent here. We find it in a lot of Psalms. We find it in Psalm 51 through 65, for example. The second claim is that this is written from the perspective of the Levi’im. But I couldn’t find one instance where David did this. In fact, he had a lot of Psalms where he could have used this method of writing. Let’s take the most striking example of all the Psalms: Psalm 51. This is a Psalm David wrote after he had sinned greatly and taken Batsheva, the wife of the Hittite Uriah, whom he murdered. He there goes all out to confess to God and what does he write?

Lam’natseach. Mizmor l’David

1 For the Leader. A Psalm of David;

This is beyond any doubt a Psalm written for the Levi’im to utter in the Temple. But what does king David do next? You would think that, if the rabbis were right, he would go on to write from the perspective of the Levites, right? Not so! He then goes on to speak from his own perspective and not from the perspective of the Levi’im. So according to the reasoning of rabbi Singer and the Ramban, the Levi’im would be lying if they uttered this Psalm in the Temple, because it didn’t happen to them, but to someone else, and therefore they couldn’t sing this as if it happened to them. That would be misleading. But this is not at all implied by the psalmist and this never occurred to him even once, otherwise he would have written this in the third person. Notice the expression in verse 16:

Hatsileini midamim, Elohim

16 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God….

Where is the perspective of the Levi’im when it is needed the most? How about Psalm 59? Let’s look at how David writes there and never considers the perspective of the Levi’im:

1 For the Leader; Al-tashheth. [A Psalm] of David; Michtam; when Saul sent, and they watched the house to kill him. 2 Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God; set me on high from them that rise up against me. 3 Deliver me from the workers of iniquity, and save me from the men of blood. 4 For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul; the impudent gather themselves together against me; not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O LORD.

Well, do you see David writing from the perspective of the Levi’im? I certainly don’t! And we can’t imagine the Levi’im singing these Psalms, saying “Deliver him from his enemies” or anything of that kind. So it’s obvious that David never considered their perspective in the first place. And where does this leave the charge of deceit made by rabbi Tovia Singer? Absolutely nowhere! David wrote this Psalm, not for the Levi’im to sing in the Temple referring to him, but what God said about the Messiah.

Then there is of course the charge of the New Testament account that the Messiah raises this question to the Pharisees and says to them “if he is supposed to be the son of David, then how come David calls him “lord”?” According to rabbi Tovia Singer this is an unlikely event because the people who know a little Hebrew would point Yeshua to the fact that the two “lords” aren’t the same. But is that the point Yeshua wanted to make? That both “lords” in that psalm are the same and therefore the Messiah is God? Not at all! All he was trying to tell the people is exactly what he said there; how come that David, the greatest of kings in the history of all of Israel, calls the Messiah, who is supposed to be his son by many generations, his lord?

So whether the first lord and the second lord are or aren’t the same has never been the question. The question was if the Messiah is actually king David’s lord, then what does this tell us about the Messiah? So it is clearly demonstrated that rabbi Tovia Singer is totally wrong in his analysis and wrongly points us to the Ramban. But because it is the Ramban, the rabbi takes his analysis as the absolute truth and doesn’t ask any questions. If he would have been half as critical towards the commentary of the Ramban as he was to the New Testament, he would have seen that this analysis is, sad but true, wrong and therefore their conclusion is false. Apart from HaShem, it is the Messiah and the Messiah only who is David’s lord. Who else fits the bill?

What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!

Zechariah12:10 - Who is pierced?

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/zecharyah1210rts.html

Zechariah12:10 - Who is pierced?

In this essay we will examine more claims of rabbi Tovia Singer and see if they are accurate. This time we are going to look at Zechariah 12:10. This verse is also quoted in the New Testament. Let’s take a look at it from Zechariah:

Wehibitu elai, et asher-daqaru, wesafdu alaaw, kemisped al-hayachid, wehamer alaaw, kehamer al-habechor

and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.

Charge #1: John needed to change Zechariah 12:10 to make it fit Yeshua. (2:45)

This is the first claim of rabbi Tovia Singer. But did John really have to change the text? The way John quotes Zechariah 12:10 actually doesn’t change anything about the meaning of the verse. The point John wants to make is that Yeshua is the pierced one. It would have been a loose/loose situation anyway, cause had John quoted it as in Zechariah, then he would have been accused of trying to say that Yeshua was God and that therefore God was pierced, etc, you name the accusations. Instead, all John was trying to communicate to his readers is that Yeshua is the pierced one.

Notice also that John doesn’t quote the entire verse, but leaves out the mourning part. John is not saying that this prophecy is fulfilled there and then. He is trying to make clear that He is the one they will look upon, the pierced one. It is in Revelation that he actually quotes the entire verse including the mourning and then this prophecy will come to it’s fulfilment. But whether it says “they will look upon me” or, “they will look upon him” makes no difference to the message of John. Also the verse from Zechariah doesn’t say that they will look upon the pierced one there and then, meaning that the pierced one is pierced there and then. In order for them to look upon the pierced one, he must be pierced first and when this will happen is not told in the text. If this must still happen, then this will be very unusual in this time and age of guns and missiles. Rarely is someone in current wars being thrusted through. Bottom line is that John didn’t have to change anything to try to make Yeshua fit this prophecy. The point he wanted to make remains the same.

Charge #2: Et asher (11:20)

Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the words “et asher” means “because of the one”. Is this true? And if it isn’t, is this just a slip of the tongue by the rabbi? Since there is an enormous pride in the anti-missionary community and an emphasis of knowledge of the Hebrew language, one may be lead to the logical conclusion that rabbi Singer either knows enough Hebrew to know what the meaning is or that rabbi Singer studied this out enough to know what he is talking about and, most importantly of course, we would find nothing to contradict that view the Tenach. The fact, however, is that rabbi Singer is completely wrong! The meaning of the words “et asher” is totally dependent on the context it is written in. Meaning, that it depends on whether it refers to a situation or it refers to a person. If it refers to a situation it means “because of” or “regarding” or “that which” (or anything similar), but if it refers to a person it means “whom” or “who” or “whosoever” (or anything similar).

I could find a total of 18 instances in 17 verses where the words “et asher” is used in relation to a person and I have noticed one thing: not 1 single instance can it be translated with “because of the one”, the translation rabbi Singer so confidently recommended, without making a total mess of the verse. I will give you some key examples of the application of “et asher” which clearly show the false claims of rabbi Singer:

The first example from 1 Samuel 16:3 is a striking example of what I have been saying above. The first “et asher” refers to a situation and is translated as “what”, whereas the second refers to a person and can’t mean “because of the one”, but plainly “whom”. The last example of Jeremiah has an exact same grammatical structure as Zechariah 12:10! I wonder how rabbi Singer can put his strongly suggested translation in this verse if “et asher” really means “because of the one”:

So where does this leave the claim of rabbi Singer? And I wonder how rabbi Singer can put his strongly suggested translation in this verse if “et asher” really means “because of the one”. How did he come to that conclusion? Fact is that rabbi Tovia Singer’s claim is false. The correct translation of this verse is: “And they will look to Me, Whom/the One they have pierced, …”. Since rabbi Singer practically accuses others for not knowing Hebrew and therefore unable to know the true meaning of certain words, didn’t rabbi Singer really know the meaning of the simple Hebrew words “et-asher” himself? I will let you decide if this was just a “slip of the tongue” of rabbi Singer or that this was a deliberate attempt to misinform his audience. But to me, this reveals to what lengths he will go to try to disprove Messianic Jewish faith.

Additional comments

As for the interchangeable use of “Me” and “Him”, this is common in the Hebrew Bible. I would point you to Genesis 18:17-19

And YHWH said: ‘Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of YHWH, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that YHWH may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.’

In addition, I would like to address a common charge of anti-missionaries. It goes “Jews never pierced Jesus, it were the Romans. So this prophecy couldn’t possibly be about Israel piercing Jesus because nothing like that ever happened.”

This argument is also contrary the testimony that the Hebrew Bible gives us. Let’s look at the story of David and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11. David sleeps with the wife of Uriah and wants to cover up his adultery, because he tried to have Uriah sleep with Batsheva so that people would think that Uriah was the father of the child she was carrying. But when Uriah didn’t go along with the game, David decided to get rid of Uriah in order to take Batsheva as his wife and all would be well. So he ordered to have Uriah put in the line of fire in the war with the Ammonites and make sure that he wouldn’t survive. And so happened. But look at how God thought about this act of David in 2 Samuel 12:9;

Wherefore hast thou despised the word of YHWH, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon.

So we see here that God smashes David for the death of Uriah although David was many miles removed from the battlefield. However God knows that David ordered and arranged the death of Uriah and God reckoned it as if David himself had personally slain Uriah. Likewise there is no denying that Yeshua’s death was ordered and arranged by leading men amongst the Jewish community.

Another common argument is the “mourning of the living”. This is how the anti-missionary argument basically goes: “If Jesus was to appear and we would see him alive, then why would we mourn? We would rejoice instead because Moshiach has finally arrived!”

I would say that, considering the way anti-missionaries think about Yeshua and all they have spoken against him and how they have resisted him to the extend that his name is even forbidden to be mentioned in a lot of traditional Jewish homes and is even a curse word! (Remember that Hitler and Muhammad are names that aren’t banned from Jewish homes and are persons that can be discussed freely!) If this same despised Yeshua would appear and reveal himself as Moshiach, whom the Jewish people have been longing for, for centuries and centuries and if everything we have said about him appears to be true and everything rabbinic Judaism has been saying about him appears to be wrong, from the moment he was rejected up until this day, do you really think that there would be a rejoicing? Just go to a search engine on the internet and type in the word “anti-missionary” or “counter missionary” and go to those websites and see what is the basic consensus among those groups about Yeshua. Now bare in mind that those aren’t words just to be making a statement, casual words. Those are words from the very heart! If all that violent rejection of what would suddenly appear to be Moshiach [i.e. Moshiach of “… - Ani ma’amin…], all this time actually has been the rejecting of the Anointed of YHWH, I doubt very strongly that there would be any rejoicing whatsoever taking place. Just listen to the lectures of rabbi Tovia Singer and his insults when he repeatedly speaks about “leaving skid marks”! Just think about that, that when reality hits home and reality shows that Yeshua is the One, Melech Moshiach ben David. What will your reaction be?

What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!

Email me!

Isaiah 53

This article was originally written by Nakdimon, a Dutch believer in Jesus. I give full credit to Nakdimon!

Here are the the original links:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/isaiah53pt1rts.html

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/isaiah53pt2rts.html

Isaiah 53 – Who is this servant?

Part I: What rabbi Tovia Singer failed to tell his audience.

This chapter must be the most discussed section of any book of any religion in any time. There has been much speculation about this chapter as to who is this servant the prophet is talking about. Who IS this servant? Let’s consider the claims that rabbi Tovia Singer comes up with to prove that Isaiah 53 couldn’t be talking about Yeshua.

First I want to point to the fact that the rabbi always speaks of “fundamentalist Christians” or “fundamentalist Evangelicals” when he speaks of the people that take their faith in the Messiah of Israel seriously (1:50). All this because the word fundamentalist has a very negative charge. Think of what he would say if CNN would cover a story about devout Orthodox Jews calling them “fundamentalist Orthodox Jews” all the time. Let’s go to the arguments rabbi Singer raises in the first part of his lecture and see if there is any truth to them.

Charge no 1: Who is speaking? (7:40)

Rabbi Singer raises the question to the audience about who the think is the speaker. The people all come up with their options and the rabbi explains why their options wont work. But when someone says that Israel is the speaker, he denies that Israel is the speaker but fails to explain why Israel can’t be the speaker! Why doesn’t the rabbi explain this as he did in the other cases? Simply because he can’t. This is just subject to interpretation and therefore there is no argument he can come up with besides theological preference. Israel can’t be the speaker, because if it is then it can’t be the servant.

Charge no.2: Identity of the servant. (35:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer wants to identify this servant and to know who this servant is, he comes with an analogy about a book he read and started somewhere on page 273, where the book spoke of a Danny and Sally. He didn’t know who they were so he started to back paddle as little as possible to show who they were. So he does too with this servant. There is only one problem with this analogy: that book spoke of specific names and there was only one Danny and one Sally, but in the book of Isaiah has not but one servant. Isaiah, Eliakim and David are also called Gods servant. Also curious is the fact that the rabbi says he wanted to back paddle as little as possible and starts reading towards Isaiah 53 (37:15, 40:00) and deliberately skips the one time the word “servant” is mentioned that is closest to the “4^th servant song”, namely Isaiah 50:10! And who is this servant?

4 The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to sustain with words him that is weary; He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth mine ear to hear as they that are taught. 5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away backward. 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my checks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting. 7 For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore have I not been confounded; therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. 8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand up together; who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. 9 Behold, the Lord GOD will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? Behold, they all shall wax old as a garment, the moth shall eat them up. 10 Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of His servant? though he walketh in darkness, and hath no light, let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God. 11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that gird yourselves with firebrands, begone in the flame of your fire, and among the brands that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of My hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow. (Is 50:4-11)

This servant is not Israel. Notice the last sentence where this servant speaks of “This shall ye have from my hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” The servant is the speaker! How can this be about Israel?

When it comes to the servant, rabbi Singer wants to disprove Yeshua and so he goes on to emphasize the differences rather than the similarities. However, when it comes to Israel being the servant he points us to the similarities but disregards the differences. But what do those similarities say? Nothing at all. We must keep in mind that the majority of the Tenach is about the history of the relationship between God and His people Israel and that therefore there is a lot written about Israel. So since there is so much written about Israel, there is a lot of material that can be taken as a parallel to the servant. To illustrate what I mean, here are some similarities between Cyrus and the Unnamed servant in the Servant Songs.

- Taken by the hand (45:1 – 42:6)
- Called by his name (45:4 – 49:1)
- he will make God known all over the worlld (45:6 – 49:6)
- he will cast down nations (45:1 – 52:15))

And this is from just 6 verses written about Cyrus in Isaiah 45 and I still could find up to 4 similarities, whereas there is much more written about Israel. Which means you can find anything you want about Israel to apply on any situation at any time in history. Theologically, though, you have a problem. Rabbi Tovia Singer’s examples of resemblance say absolutely nothing.

What IS interesting though is that there are major differences between the unnamed servant and Israel. Namely:

-Israel is called blind and imprisoned (422:19) – the servant will open the eyes of the blind and release prisoners (42:7)
-Israel is called deaf and is rebellious ((42:19,20,25) – the servant has opened ears and isn’t rebellious (50:5)
-Israel walks in darkness and looks for liight (59:9) – the servant brings people from out of the darkness and will be a light (42:7, 49:6)
-Israel is punished for their disobediencee (42:24-25) – the servant is rewarded for his obedience (49:4-6)
-Israel speaks lies (59:3) – the servant hhas not spoken deceitfully (53:9)
-Israel has lost its way (59:7-8) – the seervant leads Israel back on track (49:5-6)
-Israel suffers for their own sins (42:25)) – the servant suffers for the sins of others (53:3-9)
-Israel suffers to their own shame (50:1-33) – the servant suffers and knows he will not be ashamed (50:7)
-Israel is in need of salvation (59) – thee servant will bring salvation. (49:6)
-Israel needs an intercessor (59:16) – thee servant IS an intercessor (53:12)

Charge no.3: Israel suffers because of the sins of the gentiles? (29:25)

So rabbi Tovia Singer argues. This cannot be! Allow me to illustrate and please pay close attention to the following:

When you say that hitting someone goes too far and will not be tolerated and on the other hand say that hitting someone is acceptable behaviour, then these two are contradictory statements for obvious reasons, right?

When you tell your child that you will discipline him when he steals and on the other hand you say that he can steal and you will not discipline him, then these two are contradictory statements for obvious reasons, right?

When you say that Isaiah 53 is about events such as the Holocaust, etc [events where the gentiles have gone too far] and that God isn’t pleased about these events or caused them to come upon Israel and these events were entirely due to the wickedness of the gentiles and, on the other hand, the prophet says that God was indeed pleased with whatever happens in Isaiah 53 and God did indeed cause it to come upon the servant, then these two are contradictory statements for the same obvious reasons!

What do I mean by all this? Well, rabbi Tovia Singer boldly says:

“the reason why the Jews have endured the suffering and persecution and pain and unwanted death is not because of their iniquity of their rejecting Jesus, of killing God, but it’s gonna be because of as a result of the sins of the world. When the gentile kings sinned what did they do? They punished, they persecuted the Jews. Am I right? That was their sin? Who suffered as a result of that sin? The Jewish people! And that is going to be their recognition at the end of days!”

Listening to his words a little later he quotes Zechariah 1:15 (1:18:12) saying:

“’I am very angry with the nations…’ why? ‘…because they’re at ease. And I was wroth a little but they helped to do harm.’ They did far more than Israel ever deserved.”

In other words, rabbi Tovia Singer says that God is angry with all the persecution and the harsh and cruel treatment Israel got from the nations, and the nation’s wickedness was the cause of the suffering of Israel and it was not God’s intention to cause Israel to suffer as much as they have by the hands of the nations. Every time the nations went too far and overstepped their boundaries against the Jewish people to bring them great suffering, even to the point of annihilation, it was because of their own iniquities rather than by Gods cause and God had nothing to do with it. But this view is contradictory to what the prophet Isaiah is saying! This is what the prophet says:

6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all…

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease…

There is clearly a contradiction here. Did God cause the Gentiles to overstep their boundaries against Israel? Was God pleased with the extreme cruel treatment of the Gentiles against His people? Of course not! If what rabbi Tovia Singer says, and therefore the entire anti-missionary position, is true, then the prophet is wrong! But that is not an option since we are trying to figure out what the prophet is trying to say. So if the prophet says that, whatever he is describing in Isaiah 53, God has caused it to come upon the servant (v.6) and was pleased with it (v.10), then how can the rabbinic Jewish position say the exact opposite and claim that it is saying exactly the same as the prophet? LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN: It is the exact opposite of what Isaiah is saying! Obviously this can’t be about Israel suffering from the exceedingly cruel behaviour at the hands of their persecutors, because if it was about that, then God would not be pleased with it and so the rabbi and Isaiah are in disagreement with each other, to say it politely. Cause where rabbi Singer claims that God is angry with the nations for such behaviour and God didn’t have anything to do with it, the prophet Isaiah says God was pleased and that God caused it to come upon the servant. So who do we believe: Y’shayahu ben-Amots hanavi or rabbi Tovia Singer? So from the Traditional Jewish (anti-missionary, Talmud, etc) position, if what they are saying is true and this is about Israel, then God would be pleased with events such as the Holocaust! Therefore, this simply can’t be about Israel as the rabbi, in trying to prove Israel as the servant, contradicts what the prophet says.

Let me be more specific: If the rabbinic Jewish position is flawed about Israel being the servant, then who IS the prophet really talking about? And seeing that they are clearly wrong, and have merely been echoing the voice of the Sages and rabbis of the past, then this does serious damage to the infallibility accredited to these Sages and rabbis of the past as far as their interpretation of other texts goes.

Additional comments:

To elaborate on the analysis of verse 6 and 10 above, some anti-missionaries take Deuteronomy 28:63 as a parallel to those verses claiming that God seems to be saying that He is pleased to destroy Israel to cause them to repent, even to the point of annihilation. Obviously Deuteronomy 28:63 isn’t about events such as the Holocaust, but for the sake of argument we will accept that claim, then we still have a major problem at our hands. Israel did not repent after the Holocaust! In fact, more Jews have lost their faith in HaShem BECAUSE of the Holocaust to the point that Israel is a secular state, from the day it declared it’s independence up till now. So if the Holocaust was God’s plan for teshuvah (repentance) then that whole plan backfired! In addition, this grasping at Deuteronomy 28:63 blows another hole in the anti-missionary position that rabbi Tovia Singer uses in this lecture, namely, the Gentile king’s recognition in the end of days that God had nothing to do with the severe persecution and that it was solely the wickedness of the Gentiles that caused Israel to suffer as much as they did. Either way you put it, Israel as the servant will not work!

In his zeal to prove that Israel is the servant (51:44) rabbi Singer quotes from a couple of Nazi source about their opinion on the appearance of the Jew in comparison of to the appearance of the ape where man supposedly has come from. Rabbi Singer then actually sees this as proof and a parallel to Isaiah 52:14 by quoting it. Now this is actually the best he could do, as he says so himself! The only major problem is, that this is supposed to be the opinion of the gentiles, according to rabbi Tovia Singer, but Isaiah 52:14 isn’t the gentiles speaking, but it is God speaking about his servant! According to rabbinic Judaism’s views, the gentiles don’t start speaking until two verses later in Isaiah 53:1! So unless one wants to argue that God shares the opinion of the Nazi’s about the appearance of His people, we can safely conclude that rabbi Tovia Singer totally made this up! This verse has nothing to do with Nazi opinion. This verse is about God speaking about His servant’s marred appearance from the humiliating suffering, not about his ugliness, as the Nazi paper reports.

In order to prove that the Christians will come up to Jews in the end of days, rabbi Tovia Singer quotes Jeremiah 16:19, proving that Christianity is a false religion.

(19) O YHWH, my strength, and my stronghold, and my refuge, in the day of affliction, unto Thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say: ‘Our fathers have inherited nought but lies, vanity and things wherein there is no profit.’

However, let’s consider where Christianity started: In Israel with a handful of Jews. This isn’t a gentile faith, this is from the Hebrew Bible and thoroughly recognizes the Tenach as the sole word of God. If anything this verse speaks of those gentiles of the religions apart from the Hebrew Bible and the gentiles that are atheists and have adapted the views that there is no such thing as a God and that man is the highest level or all organisms “so make sure you live your life to the fullest, cause you only live once”. So this verse doesn’t prove anything against Messianic Jewish beliefs.

Isaiah 53 – Who is this servant?

Part II: What rabbi Tovia Singer failed to tell his audience.

Charge # 4: Lamo (10:40)

Rabbi Tovia Singer promised (9:40) that even if he only had Isaiah 53 and nothing else he could prove that this wasn’t talking about Yeshua. He starts with the famous “lamo” argument and lashes out to the translators of the KJV translation, who translate it as “him”. The verse that rabbi Singer reads to his audience goes:

for the transgression of my people a plague befell them (vs

This above translation is the translation the rabbi suggests in his lecture. Notice that I have given the translated words parallel colours. Take note that he makes a big deal (1:14:00, part 1) about the KJV translating verse 5 (…we are healed) in the present tense while that sentence is in the past tense and condemns those translators, but now rabbi Singer uses the past tense where there is no past tense at all! The word “befell” is nowhere to be found in the text, that’s why it’s left in the colour black. I thought that was a bad thing! So when the KJV does it, it is one of the great Christian deceiving tactics, but now the rabbis does it and it is considered an accurate translation, acceptable at worst. But to continue with the word “lamo”, we can be very brief: the rabbi is right! Lamo means “for them”. BUT, how is it consistently used in the scriptures? The rabbi goes on to give us examples of other verses where lamo is used and they are, of course, all plural. Now the following is interesting. There are 3 instances of lamo being applied to a single individual or item and guess what the KJV does in all those instances. It translates it accordingly! If the word lamo refers to a single person, then it should be translated in the singular form, which is exactly what the KJV does! Here are the quotes:

#1 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen 9:26)

#2 he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. (Isaiah 44:15)

#3 for the transgression of my people was he stricken (Isaiah 53:8)

So what is rabbi Tovia Singer complaining about? The KJV has no agenda here, it just translates it in accordance with the context and thus follows a consistent pattern. But rather than the KJV having an agenda, it is the rabbi who has an agenda. He not only blatantly lies about the KJV translating the word “lamo” as “them” in all other places, as has clearly been demonstrated, but he then goes on to ignore the use of lamo in Isaiah 44:15! WHY? Because it doesn’t support his claim! Look at the context and you will see it is totally singular. I have put all the singular Hebrew words in brackets and made them red:

10 Who hath fashioned a god [el], or molten an image [uphesel nasach] that is profitable for nothing?

11 Behold, all the fellows thereof [chaveraav] shall be ashamed; and the craftsmen skilled above men; let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together.

12 The smith maketh an axe, and worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it [yitserhu] with hammers, and worketh it [wayif´alehu] with his strong arm; yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth; he drinketh no water, and is faint.

13 The carpenter stretcheth out a line; he marketh it [y´ta´arehu] out with a pencil; he fitteth it [ya´asehu] with planes, and he marketh it [y´ta´arehu] out with the compasses, and maketh it [wa´ya´asehu] after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in the house.

14 He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the ilex [tirzah] and the oak [w´alon], and strengtheneth for himself one among the trees of the forest; he planteth a bay-tree [oren], and the rain doth nourish it [y´gadel].

15 Then a man useth it [w´hayah] for fuel; and he taketh thereof (i.e. from the pieces of wood), and warmeth himself; yea, he kindleth it , and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god [el], and worshippeth it; he maketh it [asahu] a graven image [pesel], and falleth down thereto [lamo].

And then it goes on and tells the same story in the singular. So it looks like the KJV translates lamo correctly. You might say “but this is about idols in general hence the plural lamo”. But the context is singular, uses a substantial number of singular words to describe the idol and the actions of the worshipper and so it should be translated accordingly. Likewise, the language of Isaiah 53 is thoroughly singular and therefore lamo should be translated accordingly. So why does rabbi Tovia Singer ignore this passage? And where does this leave his claims of distortion? Also, there are translations that translate it as saying “for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due”, making it clear that this servant got the punishment that the speakers deserved.

Charge #5: b’motav (19:00)

Rabbi Tovia Singer makes the claim that the word must be changed to the singular because it is a “nuisance to the cross”. But again, I must give the rabbi credit where credit is due: he is right again. “B’motav” means “in his deaths” and “b’moto” means “in his death”. But does this indicate plurality? NO! If it were “b’moteihem/b’motam”, then he would have a point beyond any doubt, since this would mean “in their deaths/in their death”, which is indisputably plural. But this word in Isaiah 53:9 does not support anything he goes on to say. The rabbi then goes on to say that he can’t prove his point from the Tenach because the word “b’motav” doesn’t appear in the rest of scripture. But the plural expression of that word is indeed used elsewhere in scripture. But rabbi Singer doesn’t quote that and we will see why he doesn’t. Let’s look at Ezekiel 28:

(8) They shall bring thee down to the pit; and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain, in the heart of the seas….

***

(10) Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers; for I have spoken, saith the Lord YHWH.’

These are examples of a single person being addressed and threatened to die deaths (plural). Now it is often said that these are instances that the word “deaths” refer to the plural “uncircumcised”. Well, that doesn’t excuse the plural use either, because the Tenach shows us that the singular is used in reference to a multitude [e.g. Numbers 23:10; Let me die the death (singular; moth) of the righteous (plural; y’sharim)]. And also verse 8 is a striking example of the plural being applied to a singular person. It speaks of “m’motei chalal b’lev yamim” which translates “in the deaths of one slain in the in the hart of the seas”. The plural (chalalim) is not used here (e.g. Isaiah 66:16, Daniel 11:26). Again, rabbi Tovia Singer claimed that this was an exceptional word and this form doesn’t appear in the rest of the Tenach so that means he must have studied it out. So if he has studied this out, how come he “forgot” to mention these two instances? So again, rabbi Tovia Singer’s charge of deceit is yet again without any substance whatsoever and I again leave it up to you to decide if this was just an accidental mistake or he deliberately left out the information.

Charge #6: God promises God

Rabbi Singer keeps arguing that God is making promises to God, that is, God making promises to Himself. For starters, this is not a deal that is made. It is a description of what awaits the servant when he has fulfilled his task. But if you want more on the concept of the Devine nature of the Messiah, please see my response on the “Trinity” lecture.

Charge #7: Deal? (27:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer makes a big deal about a word that can be translated any way you like. Since this is a prophecy and this is surely to happen it isn’t a question of “if” the servant will do something, but “when” he will have done it! (for example Isaiah 4:4) So the word “אִם” (im) actually wont prove neither the rabbinic reading nor the messianic reading. So there is no deal as far as the messianic reading is concerned. The servant will do that and when he has done it that will be the result. Sure prophecy, sure fulfilment. Also notice that the servant will live and see generations after he has made his soul a “guilt-offering”, in other words, after he has died. This can only be speaking of a resurrection.

Charge #8: Seed/ זָרַע (Zera) (30:15)

Rabbi Singer then goes on a rampage about the fact that Yeshua didn’t have any seed when the prophet explicitly says this, that is, according to the rabbi. The rabbi says that the servant has to have children. Rabbi Singer argues that the word “בֶן” (ben) is the proper word to refer to non-physical children, not “זָרַע” (zera). He actually goes so far to say that

“the word ‘zera’… can only mean physical children, NEVER spiritual children. By definition the word ‘zera’ means ‘seed’. It’s talking about that which leaves the loins of a man. It’s not talking about those people that follow his teachings. ‘Zera’ only means PHYSICAL children. NEVER does it mean someone’s gonna have spiritual children, that’s IMPOSSIBLE! And therefore it’s clear here that this is talking about physical children. ‘Prove it to me!’ Boy, am I gonna prove it to you!”

Then the rabbi gives us some verses that prove his point and then drills his point home with an account in Genesis 15, a dialogue between God and Abram where God appears to Abram and Abram mistakes Eliezer for his son (בֶן/ben) and says that God didn’t give him any seed (זָרַע/zera). Sounds like a pretty convincing story, doesn’t it? However… yet again rabbi Tovia Singer is not telling the whole story and plays with the mind of his audience. Look at the quotes above again:

zera only means physical seed…

never spiritual seed…

that’s impossible …

boy am I gonna prove it to you…

If what rabbi Singer says is actually true, then we won’t be able to find a single instance where zera is used metaphorically (referring to non-physical seed) in the Tenach since he told his audience that was impossible, right? Okay! Now what the rabbi failed to tell his audience and conveniently left out is the following. A few chapters after Isaiah 53 we see the word seed used again. This is what Isaiah 57:4 says:

עַל-מִי תִּתְעַנָּגוּ עַל-מִי תַּרְחִיבוּ פֶה תַּאֲרִיכוּ לָשׁוֹן | הֲלוֹא-אַתֶּם יִלְדֵי-פֶשַׁע זֶרַע שָׁקֶר

Against whom do ye sport yourselves? Against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood,

Now unless rabbi Tovia Singer is going to argue that the people of Israel are direct descendants and physical offspring of falsehood, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical use of the word “zera”, something that rabbi Tovia Singer, who has great knowledge of Hebrew, said that was IMPOSSIBLE! Why does Isaiah then seem to think otherwise? Didn’t he know enough Hebrew to know what rabbi Singer knows? No, it’s simply because Isaiah doesn’t have to disprove or discredit anyone, but rabbi Singer clearly does! Again, is this just a slip of the tongue or deliberately left out? Now we will proceed to the next example, which comes from Psalm 22:31:

A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation.

Unless you believe that God married some hot goddess and will have physical children, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical usage of the word “zera”. At least it looks like the word zera is used to describe to other peoples’ offspring and not of the subject itself, God. “But…”, you object, “…this doesn’t speak of Gods children at all. This just says that “a seed” (zera) will serve Him and not that “his seed” (zero) will serve Him!” To which my answer is; don’t you do the exact same thing regarding the servant in Isaiah 53? What does it say?

He will see seed

Exactly! It says “yir’eh zera” and not “yir’eh zero”, so why does rabbi Singer claim that the servant must have children or that he is promised children? The text doesn’t say that at all! Now I am aware of instances that the prophet doesn’t use the possessive form but it is still implied. But who says that he is implying it here? Nowhere in the text of Isaiah 53 is there ever a promise to the servant that he will have children. Maybe people with a double agenda may think so, but looking at the Hebrew text, which is the source of rabbi Singer’s arguments, there is no basis for that argument. Except theological bias, of course. Here are more references to metaphorical uses of zera in Isaiah:

“4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly…” (Isaiah 1)

“20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever.”(Isaiah 14)

“3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the harlot.” (Isaiah 57)

Unless one is going to argue that all the parents of the ones being addressed here are truly considered harlots and evildoers, you are going to have to concede that it’s implied here to refer to people who follow the evil works and the ways of adultery like the generations before them, regardless if they are their physical children or not. For all we know most of the parents of those being addressed here have been righteous while they wandered off. This clearly refers to the works of their predecessors rather than their origins.

So this charge remains without teeth, is made up from thin air and rabbi Singer is caught lying yet again!

Charge #9: Vindication by blood alone?

Rabbi Singer claims that Yeshua has only vindicated His followers through His blood. The rabbi says that it can’t refer to Yeshua because according to the Gospels “christians are healed by the blood of Jesus and not by his knowledge, as is said of this servant” (my rendition). This is a totally inaccurate position, because we believe it all goes hand in hand. Yeshua knew he had to give up his life in order for us to be saved. It was his knowledge that made him say “Let this cup pass me by… but it is not as I want but as You wish”. Without this knowledge, things would have been very different and either one is completely blind to this fact or just chooses to nitpick in order not to come to this conclusion. We believe that through his life, suffering, death and resurrection all good things have come to mankind. They are all a piece of the big puzzle. So clearly rabbi Singer wants to nitpick and he can go just head. He makes a claim of vindication through knowledge based on one verse and ignores all the other verses that speak of this servants suffering bringing vindication and atonement to the speakers. This is a point even Rashi makes in his commentary on Isaiah 53. I advice anyone to read it on http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.html . This is his commentary (in italics, all emphasis mine):

4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses Heb. אָכֵן, an expression of ‘but’ in all places. But now we see that this came to him not because of his low state, but that he was chastised with pains so that all the nations be atoned for with Israel’s suffering. The illness that should rightfully have come upon us, he bore.
yet we accounted him We thought that he was hated by the Omnipresent, but he was not so, but he was pained because of our transgressions and crushed because of our iniquities.

5. the chastisement of our welfare was upon him The chastisement due to the welfare that we enjoyed, came upon him, for he was chastised so that there be peace for the entire world.

Now this is not “the big prove” that this speaks of the suffering of the servant bringing atonement, but since rabbi Singer claims that the Christian reading is flawed, he is obviously also in contention with Rashi’s reading.

Charge #10: The New Testament slips! (1:04:20)

In order to demonstrate that the Israel interpretation was common and the Messianic interpretation was not rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the New Testament slips by showing that the Messianic reading of Isaiah 53 was new at that time and everyone knew that Israel was the subject of that chapter. So he brings us to Matthew 16 where Yeshua announced His suffering and death and Kefa (Peter) took him aside and rebuked Him, saying “that should not be unto thee”, showing clearly that the Messianic interpretation was unknown in that day. Well, once again, the rabbi is right. There was no teachings that the Messiah, son of David, was to die. This is also something that the New Testament teaches. Sha’ul (Paul) makes this point in his letter 1 Corinthians 2:7-9:

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

So Paul makes it emphatically clear that it was not known that the Messiah, son of David, had to die, this was hidden in Scriptures. But does this support the claim of the rabbi that “everyone” knew that it was speaking of Israel in the singular? Of this the New Testament gives us a conclusive answer also. Let’s look at the account of the book of Acts, chapter 8, where Philip meets the Ethiopian who happens to read the chapter of Isaiah 53:

“29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this,

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;

and like a lamb dumb before his shearer,

so opened he not his mouth:

33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away:

and who shall declare his generation?

for his life is taken from the earth.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”

This man didn’t know what Isaiah 53 was speaking about either! When it was read he asked of whom it spoke, “the prophet himself or some other man”. He asked of which individual it spoke! It never occurred to the man that it could be speaking about a nation in the singular. What he should have said is “of course I know who this speaks of. It speaks of Israel in the singular”. But he never thought of that. So, no, this Israel interpretation was not commonly known in those days.

Charge #11: Rashi invented Israel interpretation. (52:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer goes on with the argument that the Israel interpretation is invented by Rashi and then goes on to tell us how that claim is wrong, quoting other sources that should date before Rashi. Now there is something fishy going on here, because those same sources claim that this chapter is about the Messiah as well. Yet, if you would raise this to an anti-missionary, he would be quick to point you to the fact that these interpretations are mere “midrash” or homily and not the “p’shat” (straight forward) meaning of the text and therefore irrelevant. Including rabbi Singer, who blatantly lied about there not being one rabbi that said that Isaiah 53 was about Messiah ben David in a debate with Dr Michael L. Brown. (listen http://www.realmessiah.com/Listen/Entries/2008/12/11_Debate_-_DR_brown_and_Rabbi_Singer.html at about 48:50 in the debate) So where they will disregard the midrash saying it’s about the Messiah, the same midrash is taken to be valid evidence that the Israel interpretation is actually pre-Rashi.

Now let’s look at the sources rabbi Singer comes up with:

The Zohar: is quoted as pre-dating Rashi. But the Zohar isn’t ancient, although rabbinic Judaism claims it is. It’s most likely 12^th century, composed by Moses de Leon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar )

Midrash Rabbah: This is actually just a side reference to a midrash on Ruth and is actually the closest any pre-Rashi traditional Jewish source comes to the Israel interpretation.

Brachot 5a: isn’t about the “righteous remnant” of Israel nor is it about “all Israel”, but just righteous people in general. It has nothing to do with a particular group of righteous people.

Targum: I have the Aramaic at home but I haven’t read it, because I don’t know Aramaic. But I have read some translations (Driver & Neubauer; Levey) of the entire the Targum and there is nothing that indicates that Israel is the servant. Yes, Israel suffers, but so do the Gentiles! What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing! What IS evident is the intercessory role that is allotted solely to the Messiah and absolutely absent in relation to Israel. Instead, just as the servant in Isaiah 53 intercedes for the transgressors, so does the Messiah intercede for his people in the Targum. The intercessory role is ascribed solely and totally to the Messiah and this shows us whom the Targum understands to be the servant. But because the Targum obviously doesn’t believe that the Messiah would die, it ascribes some of the sufferings to the gentiles and some to Israel. If, according to the Targum, the suffering of the servant was the main theme of the chapter, i.e. to identify the servant, then it wouldn’t have ascribed any suffering to the gentiles. So according to the Targum, the servant, who intercedes for the sins of his people, is the Messiah.

Origen: Now this is the only pre-Rashi source that I have been confronted with in my years of debating anti-missionaries that gives us a literal reading of Israel being the servant in Isaiah 53. Note that it’s not even a rabbinic source! That’s how rare this view was. But let’s see what Origen is saying exactly in chapter 55 of his book:

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, “Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;” and then, “They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;” and the expression, “A man under suffering.” Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, “This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;” and this, “But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;” and to whom the expression properly belonged, “By His stripes were we healed.” For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour’s sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, appiled these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, “Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death.” For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when “He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?” At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus.

Notice Origen says that it was on this one occasion that he was presented with this weird interpretation. He starts with “I remember”, which is not something that you say when you hear something all the time. This tells us that he had to dig it up from deep in his memory. Origen speaks of “on one occasion” debating with “certain Jews”. What is also evident is that he speaks of these Jews claiming this is about “the whole people”, and not about “a righteous remnant”. We also see that this wasn’t regarded as intercession, but “in order that many proselytes might be gained”. This is a whole other interpretation than that of modern day Judaism. Take note also that according to Celsus, who was anti-Christian this was reckoned as “the language of the Jew”, and thus Israel is speaking here and this was not seen as being the language of the gentile kings. There is nothing in this chapter that would indicate that this was “the” Jewish view of that time.

What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!

A little summary:

1. Rabbi Singer claimed that Israel isn’t the speaker but fails to tell us why when this option is suggested, whereas he does explain why the other options can’t be the speakers. He couldn’t tell us why, because there is no reason to think that Israel can’t be the speaker other than theological bias, since Israel being the speaker would disqualify it from being the servant
2. rabbi Singer claimed that, based on Isaiah 52:14 Israel is considered “sub-human” and brings out a Nazi paper to back up his claim, saying this was the best way to demonstrate Israel fitting the description. This argument is totally fabricated! Isaiah 52:14 is God speaking about His servant and not the opinion of the Gentiles thinking Jews are ugly people. Therefore the verse is totally misapplied by rabbi Singer.
3. rabbi Singer claimed that the chapter is about Gentiles recognizing in the end of days that their persecution of the Jews has brought them healing, etc. However, from verse 6 and 10 we learn that this can’t be true, since God didn’t cause Gentiles to overstep their boundaries of persecuting the Jewish people to the point of near extinction (per verse 6) and subsequently wasn’t pleased with the persecution of the Jewish people in events such as the Holocaust (per verse 10).
4. rabbi Singer claimed that the word “lamo” is translated incorrectly because the KJV has an agenda. This claim is proven to be false. The KJV has translated it correctly in all instances where the subject is singular. Likewise, the subject in Isaiah 53 is singular and therefore the singular translation is correct. Furthermore, it is rabbi Singer that hasn’t been fair towards his audience, since he conveniently “forgets” to mention the “lamo” in Isaiah 44:15, which refers to a single idol.
5. rabbi Singer claimed that he was back-paddling as little as possible to find out who the servant was. However, he conveniently “forgot” to mention the reference to the “eved” closest to Isaiah 53, namely Isaiah 50, that in no way refers to Israel.
6. rabbi Singer claimed that because the plural “bemotav” is used, the servant must be a multitude addressed. But, again, he conveniently “forgets” to mention the two examples in Ezekiel 28.
7. rabbi Singer claimed that the word “zera” could impossibly refer to spiritual children, i.e. used either metaphorically or of people following the ways of their predecessors. This claim has proven to be false. I have given several examples of metaphorical use where “zera” (seed) refers to spiritual descendants or metaphorical usage, of people following the ways of their predecessors.
8. rabbi Singer, proving himself to be a true anti-missionary, dismisses the rabbinic sources, that say that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah, as being irrelevant because they are merely midrash (or homily), but uses the same sources that allegedly enforce his POV and presents them as valid evidence, although they are also midrash.

It’s funny to see how rabbi Singer fails to tell the whole story all the time and only gives his audience the part that fits his agenda and then claims that others try to deceive their readers by asking “why play with my holy scriptures”. If anyone is playing with scripture – and with the mind of his listeners - it is obviously rabbi Singer, who is clearly enjoying his one sided story. You may say: “well, cut the rabbi some slack. He might have missed it”. Then he shouldn’t go and accuse others of deliberate distortion and then go hiding behind the excuse that people make mistakes when it comes back to him, because the examples are right there in the book of Isaiah and it is highly unlikely that he missed it. If he wants people to be considerate towards him, he should be considerate towards them. But if anyone in his audience knew Hebrew and was half as critical to his views as he was against the Messianic view, then he would fall on his face right there.

As for that comment that they “play with our Bible” and about “leaving skid marks”, which rabbi Singer uses repeatedly, my answer would be: if any system has “played with our Bible” it is the Talmud, that added and subtracted tons of laws from the Written Law and given us numerous crooked interpretations of the Tenach. If anyone with half the critique one has towards the New Testament is let loose on the Talmud he would need at least quadruple the amount of time and paperwork to criticize it as one needs to criticize the New Testament.

Nakdimon

Go to Part I Go to rabbinic section of Isaiah 53

Jesaja 53

THE FIFTY-THIRD CHAPTER OF ISAIAH ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH INTERPRETERS

Translations by S.R.Driver and Ad. Neubauer

But the chiefmost answer to all of the above objections, and to the very conception that the one spoken of in Isaiah 53 must be the people of Israel, instead of the messiah, is that the sufferer must be righteous; without sin; and suffering innocently. And yet never is Israel’s exile said to be without cause, or wanton; but rather, as the punishment for sins. And the principal reason provided for the delay in the messiah’s arrival is the continuance of sin among them. Thus, they cannot be both innocent and suffering without cause, yet at the same time be guilty of such sins as warrant their exile and the delay of the messiah.

Ibn Crispin complains of “the forced and far-fetched interpretations, of which others have been guilty. . . [those who would interpret this passage collectively of Israel] distort the passage from its natural sense, [since] the singular is used throughout”; and whereas the prophet calls the people, “Israel, my servant” previously, in this passage he says only, “My servant”. [And this is also the only place in scripture where the express phrase, "My righteous servant", is to be found.] Further, he says, “These expositors shut the doors of the literal interpretation against themselves, and wearied themselves to find the entrance.” He himself goes back to “the teachings of our rabbis, [who affirm that it speaks of] the King Messiah.”

Rabbi Isaac b. Eliyyah Cohen, while speaking strongly against the Christian interpretation, says, “I have never in my life seen or heard an interpretation by a clear or fluent commentator, with which my own judgement, and that of others who have pondered the question, might completely concur.” Saadiah Ibn Danan (a contemporary of Abarbanel), says, “I set before myself the notes of those who had commented upon this chapter. . . and pondered over them, and examined the opinions they contained. But all alike, I found, lacked solidity and soundness.” (For example, the Karaites interpreted the section of their own sages, on the grounds that they were persecuted. Some rabbinic Jews applied it to the righteous among themselves. Others thought it might refer to Isaiah himself, or Jeremiah, or Hezekiah, or Job; some, to the seed of David in exile.)

Abraham Farissoll apologizes for those who interpreted it of the messiah. “Whatever justice there may be in the expressions of our sages, who applied the prophecy to the messiah [note, therefore, that some sages did in fact apply this passage to the messiah], it should be borne in mind that although they themselves and their words are both truthful, yet their object was [only] allegorical.”

Moses Elsheikh says, “The verses in the chapter are difficult to fix or arrange in a literal manner, so that the various parts, from the beginning to the end, may be combined and connected closely together.I see commentators going up and down among them, and yet neither agreeing on the subject to which the whole is to be referred, nor disentangling the words with any simple plan.” He himself then plans, in “all humility”, to set himself to “apply to it a straightforward method, according to the literal sense of the text, such as should be adopted by one who would rightly unite the several words and periods, and determine what view is legitimate, and what not.” He then interprets it of the Messiah; yet, when he comes to verses 9-12, all of which speak of the death, he says, “These verses are all of them hard, though we shall not touch on everything which might be noticed.”

Shlomo Levi says, “Throughout this prophecy, all the commentators exert their utmost on its interpretation, and are at no small variance as to its import.” Even in later times, R. Napthali Altschuler expresses his surprise that “Rashi and David Kimchi have not, with the Targum, applied them to the Messiah likewise.”

Passani expresses his surprise at former commentators, and says, “Not one of the explanations is in complete accord with the language of the text, or succeeds in satisfying us–still less the [Christians].” He thinks that, like all other prophecies, most of Isaiah’s also point to the latter days, when the Messiah shall have appeared, but exhorts caution how it should be interpreted. “Take heed, O wise man, in your words, even though the language be meant to be metaphorical and indirect.”

Rabbi Tanchum seems to be carefully ambiguous. He uses the phrase, “any person or nation”, but speaks of the subject as being “one of the generation in exile”, who had died, yet “a guide and a deliverer”, who “rescues them from captivity and their enemies generally”, and speaks of “his hidden nature, the mystery connected with him not being revealed to them.” He concludes with a protest against there being anything allegorical, and seems to think that the intention of the prophet was, not to be understood.

Ibn Amran says, “As relates to the Jews, there is no little difficulty in giving a sense to these most obscure words of Isaiah at the present; they manifestly need a prophetic spirit; thus our older and more abstruse masters went apart from one another to different explanations. But,” he satisfies himself, “each very far removed from the exposition of the Christians.”

For error is manifold, truth but one.

(Oxford, 1876)

Mosheh El-Sheikh

Isaiah 52:13 The verses in this parashah are difficult to fix or arrange in a literal manner, so that the various parts, from the beginning to the end, may be combined and connected closely together. . . I see the commentators going up and down these parts, yet neither agreeing about the subject to which the whole is to be referred, nor disentangling the words in any simple plan.

I, therefore, in my humility, am come after them; not with any sense of the wisdom that I am about to utter, but merely with the object of applying to its elucidation a straightforward method, in accordance with the literal sense of the text, such as ought to be chosen by one who would rightly unite the several words and periods, and determine what view is legitimate and what not.

I may remark, then, that our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view; for the Messiah is of course David, who, as is well known, was “anointed”, and there is a verse in which the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, says expressly, “My servant David shall be king over them” (Ezekiel 37:24). The expression My servant, therefore, can justly be referred to David; for from what is explicit in one place we can discover what is hidden or obscure in another.

Our rabbis say that of all the suffering 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. If we examine the meaning of this saying, we shall see that there are punishments for iniquity, and also punishments of love, the latter being endured by the righteous for the wickedness of his own generation. Now those who do not know how far the reward of the righteous really extends feel surprised at this. . . wondering whether it can be true that He will be wroth with a just and perfect man who never sinned, and heap on him the iniquities of wrong-doers, in order that they may rejoice, and he, the just man, be pained; that they may be ’stalwart in strength’ while he is stricken and smitten; that they may exult at his calamity, and mock during their feasts at his distress, while he is smitten for their sakes.

In order to put an end to the “fear from this thing”, God declares in these verses how far the merits of those who suffer for the sins of their own age extend their effects, adducing a proof from the case of the Messiah who bore the iniquities of the children of Israel, “and behold his reward is with him” The Almighty argues with Israel, saying, “. . . look and learn how great is the power of the man who suffers for a whole generation; you shall see then from the exaltation which I shall confer upon the King Messiah how vast are the benefits of the chastisements of love to him that endures them.”

Behold my servant (i.e., the Messiah) will prosper–this prosperity of his will extend through four worlds, viz., the lower world; the world of angels; the world of stars; and the highest world of all; in each of which the same prosperity will attend him. He will be high in this world; exalted in the world of the stars; and lofty in the world of angels; exceedingly because prosperity will accompany him in the uppermost world as well, in the presence of God, according to the saying of the rabbis on Psalm 2:8, that he will be ‘like a dear son, delighting himself before the Creator’; He says therefore, Ask of me, etc. [Psalm 2:8] , because of the good fortune which is to be his in each of the four worlds.

Our rabbis further say, “He shall be higher than Abraham . . . lifted up above Moses. . . and loftier than the ministering angels.” As Moses ruled even in the world of the stars–for the rabbis say that for this reason the hail, the locusts, and the grasshoppers were sent through his instrumentality–so, even more fully, will the Messiah hold sway over these likewise. This does not imply that he will be superior to Moses in wisdom or in prophecy, nor again, that at the time alluded to Moses will not in every respect be the greater (indeed anything different from this will not be credited by those who have real knowledge), but only that he will be more exalted than Moses was previously, in his own lifetime.

And he is to be loftier than the angels, according to the text (Ezek. 1:18), for these had “loftiness and fear”, i.e., in spite of their high position, they still stood in awe of the Almighty, not venturing, like the righteous one who “played before him, as a son before his father”, to make request of their Creator.

Isaiah 53 The Almighty, however, says that there is no need for surprise at their attitude of incredulity in the presence of these marvels [of the restoration of Israel], for who believed our report–the report, namely, which we made known to you from heaven, but which the kings had not heard of? So fearful was it, that in the eyes of everyone who did hear it [of the restoration of Israel], it was too wondrous to behold; and upon whom was the arm of the Lord revealed as it was upon the King Messiah? The sum of the whole is that he obtained this honor for himself owing to his merits in enduring for Israel (as has been said) chastisements of love. The contents of this and the following verses show unmistakably that they are the words of the prophet, instructing or guiding the people, and not the words of God. From the fact that the rabbis expounded the previous verses of the Messiah, it may be seen that these speak of the righteous who endures in the present world the chastisements of love; and therefore I maintain that up to this point we have had the words of God announcing the greatness of the Messiah in return for his sufferings.

Here, however, the prophet seems to set before us the words of Israel endorsing the Divine declaration, and affirming in their own persons its entire truth. “The ‘tried saying of the Lord’ ” , they exclaim, “which He has made known to us concerning the King Messiah, has opened our ears and removed the blindness of our eyes; 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 has forsaken him!’ ; he must surely, therefore, we thought, be ‘despised‘ likewise in the eyes of the Almighty, and this is why He has made him ‘an offscouring and refuse’ (Lam. 3:45). But now the Lord has awakened our ear, and taught us that the chastisements of love are infinitely great; henceforth, then, will ‘his strength be magnified’, when we see him just, and humble in spirit, stricken, and smitten; for them we shall all agree in concluding that what we had seen before meant nothing except that he was carrying our sicknesses; and that his sufferings were for the protection of his generation.”

Such is the substance of what the prophet puts into the people’s mouth. And first of all they say, “He came up as a tender shoot”, etc. ; i.e., we see one who was as tender shoot with water for it to absorb, and growing great and tall; he was like this, however, only in the upper world; for though this just and perfect sufferer flourished and grew great before God in the upper world, yet in the earth which we see below, he was as a root coming forth out of the dry earth, where there was no water for him. Being lowly, therefore, in the sight of our eyes, he was without form and comeliness in the world; his form was “darkened” by the blackness of his sufferings (cf Lam. 4:8), and “his own leanness bore witness in his face”; neither had he any beauty that we could desire him on account of his righteousness, but, on the contrary, he was rejected in our eyes.

But besides this, he was despised, also, in is own eyes; it is not stated that he was humbled for his pride, since in reality men hid their faces from him, nor from any fault of his own, but for the iniquity of his generation; though he himself looked upon the matter differently, imagining in his goodness that he must be guilty, and thus was punished for his sins. Accordingly he was both despised in his own eyes, and we esteemed him not. Yet in truth the cause of this “face-hiding” lay not in him, but in the people, for, as we learn from the expression used in the preceding verses, he carried our sicknesses, that he was ready to carry them of his own accord.

We, however, thought that he was not bearing them of his own accord, but that he was stricken and smitten of God, by a judgement of retaliation for his own iniquities, and not out of love. Yet it was because he was wounded for our transgressions that he was “broken by sickness”; and because he was bruised for our iniquities that he became “a man of pains”; and he was “afflicted” with poverty, because the chastisement of our peace was upon him. His being wounded and bruised for our iniquities had merely the negative effect of rescuing us from our punishment; in order for us to enjoy positive peace and prosperity, further sufferings were needed, and these consisted in his being “afflicted” with poverty. For while the direct consequences of our sins had been averted by his sickness and stripes, something still was needed in order to confer peace upon us.

All we like sheep had gone astray–like sheep which all follow after their leader, so that if the leader strays, they all stray with him, because of the unity of the whole flock; as the rabbis say, “When the shepherd is angry with his flock, he makes their leader blind.” (Baba Kama 52a) But in this case, we learn from also that “each turned to his own way“, showing that with us this was not so, but that it resulted from the separate action of each individual. Had it indeed been otherwise, our guilt would not have been so great. But see now the mercy of God: after we had individually gone astray, he might have been expected to punish us individually likewise; yet the Lord did not look to this, but counted us as one man, reckoning up the iniquity of us all together, and causing it to light upon this just one, who was accordingly sufficient to bear the whole of it, which would not have been the case had each one’s iniquity been reckoned up against himself.

As for his generation, would that someone would declare to them how it was cut off from the land of life for the iniquity which the just one had before averted, because they did not repent. Hitherto, he means to say, this just one had been stricken for the people’s transgression; but henceforward the stroke would be upon themselves, for there would be no one else to be smitten for them. It is possible, from his use of the singular “transgression“, that Isaiah means to allude to their sin in supposing that he had died for his own iniquity, and in not having brought themselves by his death to repentance.

And he made his grave with the wicked. I will show you an instance of this in the chief of all the prophets [Moses], who, by still suffering after his death, endured a heavier penalty than others who had suffered for their generation. Moses was buried away from the Promised Land, together with the wicked ones who died in the wilderness. For these were unworthy to enter the world to come, had not Moses borne the disgrace of being buried at their side, in order that he might bring them into it with himself. [A story--found in Deuteronomy Rabba 2.9-- illustrates this belief, by telling of a man who dropped some pennies and a single gold piece on the floor of a darkened room. He had a light brought and collected up all the coins. Had he dropped only pennies, however, he would not have bothered to fetch the light and search for them. So for the sake of the gold piece, the rest were also collected.]

Moses was not, however, buried solely with these. In the wilderness also rested Korah, who was “rich“, along with all those who perished with him (Num. 17:6). With all these Moses made his grave, in order to bring them likewise into the future world. For it is well known that even Korah and his deaths, i.e., those who died in his cause, will all rise up with him. The prophet thus appeals to a known case: he, Moses, made his grave with the wicked, for he was buried in profane ground in order to bring them in with him into the future world.

Because he afterwards died for the iniquities of his generation, therefore with the mighty, the patriarchs and those like them, he will divide spoil, because he poured out his soul to die for the sake of Israel, and also because he was numbered with the transgressors; for people said when they saw his sufferings that he was smitten of God for his sins, and classed him with the transgressors. This he knew, yet went on enduring, and carried this sin of many, not caring to be vexed with them, but, on the contrary, interceding with the Holy One for–that is, on behalf of–the transgressors; the ones, namely, who spoke thus of him; not, like some, from ignorance, but from actual malice. And therefore by his knowledge, i.e., in accordance with his will, the just one, my servant, will justify many and bear all their iniquities without solicitude, and without inquiring whether it is not a strange thing to endure distress for the sake of others after death. (For if this be the case, why did Moses our master endure, for the sake of those who perished in the wilderness, to be buried with the wicked in a foreign land?)

And do not wonder, if this is an excessive reward for him to receive. Had it not been for him, they would never have entered into the world: did not Moses [likewise]“pour out his soul to die” when he “put his soul into his hand”, saying, “But if not,–blot me, I pay you, out of the book you have written.” (Exodus 32:32), where he expresses his willingness to die in their stead? Moses was also on their account “numbered with transgressors”; Accordingly it is said that “he was numbered with them”, i. e. he felt no anxiety at having given his soul for them, and, besides this, that “he carried the sins of many”, as God said to him, “Go, get you down” (Exodus 32:7), as though to say, Descend from all your greatness, because Israel has sinned; but still, in spite of this, “he made intercession for the transgressors”, because in every place that Israel sinned he interceded for them. And this is the prophet’s meaning when he writes, “And he carried the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

YEPHETH BEN ALI

Isaiah 52:13 The commentators differ concerning this section. The Fayyumi [Sa'adyah Gaon of Fayyum] lost his senses in applying it to the prophets generally, or, according to some authorities, in supposing that it referred to Jeremiah. Some of the learned Karaites apply the prophecy to the pious of their own sect. Others think that the subject of it is David and the Messiah, saying that all the expressions of contempt, such as “many were desolated at you“, refer to the seed of David who are in exile; and all the glorious things refer to the Messiah. As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne.

The expression “My servant” is applied to the Messiah as it is applied to his ancestor in the verse, “I have sworn to David My servant” (Psalm 89:4).

“As many were desolated at him” (verse 14) His condition is described as being such that anyone seeing him would be desolated at him, on account of the sicknesses which had befallen him. The prophet explains the cause of their desolation concerning him by saying, “His countenance was marred beyond any man“, in other words, the complexion of his face was so changed as to become like that of a corpse. He adds further, “And his form beyond the sons of Adam”. In other words, he was so altered in form as to resemble a corpse; and alluding to the same fact, he says, towards the end of the section, “For he was cut off out of the land of the living.”

“At him the kings shall shut their mouths“. (verse 15) This means that the kings of the world will close their mouth when he lays a command or prohibition upon them.

Isaiah 53 Here begins Israel’s words; they ask, in their amazement, Which of the nations believed the report that was among us? Not one of them; for they all agreed that there would be for Israel no recovery. “Upon whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”, in other words, through which nation has the might of God revealed itself?

Israel now (verse 2) turns back to describe the manner of the Messiah’s birth, comparing him to a young twig or shoot because he is one of the children of David, and to a root because he will become a root like his father David. “And . . . out of the dry earth” means that he resembles a root emerging, sickly and weak, out of the arid soil. This comparison relates to the beginning of his career; and the same is the case with the words, “he had no form or comeliness“.

By the words, “surely he has carried our sicknesses“, they mean that the pains and sicknesses which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. The next words, “yet we did not esteem him“, intimate that they thought him afflicted by God for his own sins, as they distinctly say, “smitten of God and afflicted“.

And here I think it is necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel. We say that God makes known to the people of their own time the excellence of the prophets who intercede for a period of adversity in two ways. First, while Israel’s empire lasted, it was shown in prayer and intercession, as in the cases of Moses, Aaron, Samuel, David, Elijah, and Elisha, whose prayers for the nation were accepted by God. Second, in a time of captivity and extreme wickedness, though their intercession showed no such traces as these, yet the burden of the nation’s sins was lightened; such was the case with Ezekiel when God obliged him to sleep 390 days on his left side and forty on his right (Ezekiel 4:4). He carried on the first occasion the iniquity of Israel, and on the second the weight of that of Judah. The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it (as Amos says, “O Lord, forgive, I beseech you; how can Jacob endure, for he is small?”) the prophet had to alleviate it.

Inasmuch as now at the end of the captivity there will be no prophet to intercede at the time of distress, the time of the Lord’s anger and of his fury, God appoints His Servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated. Thus, from the words, “he was wounded for our transgressions“, we learn two things: first, that Israel had committed many sins and transgressions, for which they deserved the indignation of God; and second, that by the Messiah bearing them they would be delivered from the wrath which rested upon them, and be enabled to endure it, as it is said, “And by associating with him we are healed.”

The expression “smitten of God” signifies that these sicknesses attacked him by the will of God; they did not arise from natural causes. And the word “afflicted” corresponds to “despised” in verse 3, the meaning being that he was afflicted with poverty.

Verse 6 exhibits Israel’s wickedness in not awaking to repentance after God had punished them with his plagues. They are compared in this respect to sheep without a shepherd, wandering from the way, and torn by wild beasts, going astray among the mountains without any to lead them back,. In like manner Israel in captivity has no one to call him, and lead him back to the right way, and if a guide rises up to them, desiring to bring them back, they hasten to kill him, and so cause their captivity to be prolonged. By the words “we have turned every one to his own way“, they mean that each is occupied with the necessities of life and with establishing his fortune. And while God looks upon their work, and they do not think of their sicknesses, their guilt is thrown upon this guide, as it is said, “And the Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all.” The prophet does not mean literally “the iniquity“, but rather the punishment for this iniquity.

Verse 9 says, “And he made his grave with the wicked.” This means that he sometimes despaired so much of his life as either to dig for himself a grave among the wicked (i.e., the wicked Israelites), or at least desire to be buried among them. The general sense is that he resigned himself to die in exile.

It was said, “The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all“, and the prophet repeats the same thought here, saying that God was pleased to bruise and sicken him, though not in consequence of sin. The prophet next says, “When his soul makes a trespass offering“, indicating thereby that his soul was compelled to take Israel’s guilt upon itself, as it is said, “And he bore the sin of many“.

I must here give a compendious account of the whole of the Messiah’s career. It is as follows: his first advent will be from the north, as we have explained upon Isaiah 41:25
“I have raised one up from the north and he came“. Then with his arrival in the land of Israel the period of affliction and violence will cease from Jacob, and at the same time all the things mentioned in the present section will happen to him. Every good quality will be united in him, but in spite of all this the people will not recognize in him the will of God. For his sake, however, God will deliver Israel from all her afflictions.

And when the season of redemption comes, our lord Elijah will appear to the people and anoint him, and from that moment he will begin to be prosperous, as it is said, “Behold My servant shall prosper“. His forces will then spread in every direction and be victorious; and then at last Israel will dwell in safety. When news of this reaches Gog, they will rush forth and “gather themselves together against the Lord and his Anointed” (Psalm 2:2); but when he prays to God in the midst of his people, God will come to him with deliverance, as his forefather prophesied, “The Lord will answer you in the day of trouble“, etc. (Psalm 20). And then he will be “high and exalted and lofty exceedingly“.

MYSTERIES OF RABBI SHIMON BEN YOHAI +/-161 C.E

And Armilus [i.e., the devil] will join battle with the Messiah, the son of Ephraim, in the East gate. . . and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, You speak falsely; already is the Messiah slain, and there is none other Messiah to stand up (after him). And so they will despise him, as it is written, “Despised and forlorn of men“; but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, “Like one hiding his face from us“.

THE ZOHAR

The souls which are in the Garden of Eden below go to and from every new moon and Sabbath, in order to ascend to the place that is called the Walls of Jerusalem. . . After that they journey on and contemplate all those that are possessed of pains and sicknesses and those that are martyrs for the unity of their Lord, and then return and announce it to the Messiah.

And as they tell him of the misery of Israel in their captivity, and of those wicked ones among them who are not attentive to know their Lord, he lifts up his voice and weeps for their wickedness, as it is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions”, etc.

There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the sons of sickness. This palace the Messiah enters ,and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for transgression of the Law; and this is that which is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.”

The children of the world are members of one another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world ,he smites one just man among them, and for his sake heals all the rest. From were do we learn this? From the saying, “He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities”, i. e. , by the letting of his blood–as when a man bleeds his arm–there was healing for us–for all the members of the body. In general a just person is only smitten in order to procure healing and atonement for a whole generation.

At the time when the Holy One desires to atone for the sins of the world, like a physician who to save the other limbs, bleeds the arm, he smites their arm and heals their whole person, as it is written, “He was wounded for our iniquities”, etc.

MOSHE KOHEN IBN CRISPIN

This Parashah the commentators agree in explaining of the captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used throughout. The expression My Servant they compare rashly with Isaiah 41:8, “you Israel are My servant”; here, however, he does not mention Israel, but simply says, My servant; we cannot therefore understand the word in the same sense. Again in verse 41:8 he addresses the whole nation by the name of their father Israel (or Jacob, as he continues, “Jacob whom I have chosen“), but here he says My servant alone, and uniformly employs the singular, and as there is no cause restraining us to do so, why should we here interpret the word collectively, and thereby distort the passage from its natural sense?

Others have supposed it to mean the just in this present world; but these, too, for the same reason, by altering the number, distort the verses from their natural meaning. As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that “they wearied themselves to find the entrance“, having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the “stubbornness of their own hearts“, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense; thus, possibly, I shall be free from the forced and far-fetched interpretations of which others have been guilty.

My servant. I may begin by remarking that we find this term used in scripture of an individual prophet, as Moses; of all the prophets generally (Amos 3:7), and of the whole of Israel (Lev. 35:42). But we do not find it used of angels, known clearly to be such, because it is only applicable to one who enslaves himself assiduously to the service of God, and directs both his person and his thoughts “to serve Him with all his heart and with all his soul”. This service is implanted in the heart; it cannot, therefore, be said of an angel, for [this service] has its seat in a bodily organ, in the heart, and nowhere else, and an angel has no body. As obviously, then, the expression cannot possibly be applied to the substance of the Creator Himself, as is done by our opponents in their theory of the Trinity (according to which this man was of the substance of the Creator). Yet even granting all this, which, though it is impossible to speak about, still less to conceive, how could he describe himself as “My servant“, since for a man to be called his own servant is a palpable absurdity.

He shall be high, etc. These words likewise afford an answer to our opponents, for they refer exclusively to the future. And this language clearly cannot be applied to God. For how could it be said of Him that, like a mortal man, He will at some future time be high and exalted, as though he had not been so before? The prophet says that he is to be “high and exalted“; but during the whole time that he [Jesus] is reported to have been incarnate, we do not find that exaltation or supremacy ever fell to his lot, even to the day of his death.

He shall be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly. He will be more exalted than Moses; for when he gathers together our scattered ones from the four corners of the earth, he will be exalted in the eyes of all the kings in the whole world, and all of them will serve him, as Daniel prophesies concerning him, “All nations, peoples, tongues shall serve him.” (Dan. 7:14). He will be loftier than Solomon, whose dignity was so lofty that he is said to have “sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chron. 29:23), and our rabbis say that he was king over both the upper and the nether world. (Sanhedrin 20b) But the King Messiah, in his all-comprehending intelligence, will be loftier than Solomon. Exceedingly above the ministering angels, because that same comprehensive intelligence will approach God more nearly than theirs.

And when this “servant of the Lord” is born, from the day when he comes to years of discretion, he will continue to be marked by the possession of intelligence enabling him to acquire from God what it is impossible for any to acquire until he reaches that height wither none of the sons of men, except him, have ever ascended; from that day he will be counted with his people Israel, and will share their subjugation and distress; “in all their affliction” (Is. 53:9) he will be exceedingly afflicted; and because of their being outcasts and scattered to the ends of the earth, his grief will be such that the color 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 (11:2ff) .

Truly all his pains and sufferings will be for us; continually he will be prostrating himself, and stretching out his hands to God on our behalf, and praying to him to hasten the time of our redemption, until in compassion upon him, and in order to shorten the intense grief felt by him for us, the Creator “speeds” the time of our deliverance.

And so great will be his grief and pain endured thus on our behalf, that those who see him will despise him, thinking that in consequence of his many deficiencies and sins God brought all those chastisements upon him; for they will never believe that such sufferings could be caused merely by grief. And because of their attributing them to these deficiencies and sins, he will be despised in their eyes, and they will count him as nothing, not perceiving the great perfection that is in him, who will be a compassionate father to have compassion on us, even more than Moses our master, and in the multitude of his compassion for us will draw to himself all those sicknesses and chastisements, until the Creator hears his prayer, and looks upon all his pain, and has compassion on us for his sake, and speeds our redemption, and sends him to redeem us.

So will he sprinkle many nations. As his countenance is marred beyond man when he comes to redeem us, so he will scatter many nations and disperse them to the ends of the earth, like one who sprinkles, i.e., who scatters blood. The expression sprinkle means that he will scatter them without difficulty, like one who sprinkles blood.

Who has believed our report? Who was able to believe the report which we heard of him, when they said to us that , as the prophets had announced, he had at last come to redeem Israel ,”with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm“, until we saw the matter with our own eyes?

Verse 53:2 states how the servant of the Lord grew up, like a branching tree which had sprung up out of the dry earth. The King, thus, through the grief and sorrow which he bore on our account from the time of his coming to years of discretion, and which clung to him until it left him no form or comeliness, resembles either the branching tree coming up out of a root planted in the dry earth, or both the branches and the root together, which sprang up out of the dry soil.

A man of pains and known to sickness, i.e., possessed of pains and destined to sickness; so all that see him will say (murmur) 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 we, when we see what he is like, shall despise him till we no longer esteem him. 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.

Surely our sickness he has carried. These words explain the cause of his sufferings; they will all come upon him on account of the grief and sorrow which he will feel for the sickness caused by our iniquities. It will be as though he had borne all the sicknesses and chastisements which fall upon us. Or, perhaps, “carry” may mean take away, forgive, as in Exodus 10:17; from his pity and his prayers for us he will atone for our transgressions. And our pains he has borne, as a burden upon himself; all the weight of our pains he will carry, being himself exceedingly pained by them. And we esteemed him stricken, smitten of 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; and therefore we shall account him “smitten of God“. But it is not so; they are not a penalty sent from God, but he was panged for our transgressions–pangs, as of labor, will seize him for the distress that has come upon us for our transgressions. And by union with him we are healed. Although he is in the utmost distress from pain and sickness, yet by union and nearness to him, we are healed from all the diseases to which our afflictions give rise. God will have mercy upon him and, by sparing him fro the sake of his sufferings endured on our account, heal us.

Like sheep which have no shepherd, and which wander hither and thither on the plain, so we were wandering in our own works and ways, each going after his own business, and none caring for the service of God. Our iniquity was “too great to be forgiven”, and because in our exile we had incurred the most extreme penalty, behold it was as though this penalty, which was deserved by all of us, had been laid by God upon him.

For he, is cut off, etc. The nature of this Messiah is truly wondrous. He soul is “cut off from the land of the living“, in other words, it is derived from the living angels who exist forever, from these abstract intelligences. These form the source from which his own intelligence emanates, and gradually, in virtue of its comprehensive wisdom, ascends to an elevation which, as we have already explained, none else has ever attained.

His body, on the other hand, is composed of griefs and pains and sicknesses–of grief for the transgression and affliction of his people (which was so great as to disfigure his appearance), and of pains and sicknesses greater than those of other men. And it is an indication of his perfection that he does not care for the pain of his own body, for he recognizes its proper rank, and its deficiencies, in this nether world–a world which has no permanence. And therefore, all that hear of him, or know him, will marvel at him exceedingly, because never in the world had a prophet or wise man been heard of who was compounded of two natures such as these.

This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the express purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come an deliver Israel, and his life from the day he arrives at the age of discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone 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.

RABBI SHLOMOH ASTRUC

My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man–it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah My servant, speaking as the One who sent him. Or he may call the whole people My servant, as he says above My people (52:6). When he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it. And when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then, is that My servant the King Messiah will prosper.

Our rabbis declare that he will be higher than Abraham; more exalted than Moses; and loftier than the angels. Lofty through the angels, in that he will depend upon the intelligent powers which belong to him and are his ministers, and which tend to attach themselves to God, so that he will be like the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. Of him also, it is said, that “His angels He will appoint for you, to keep you in all your ways.” (Psalm 91:11).

In verse 52:14, the prophet, speaking of Israel as a whole, says, Just as all who saw you were amazed at the greatness of your distress, and said, What is the heat of this fierce anger (Deut. 29:24) that is upon this people more than any other people? and, Is this the city which men used to call the perfection of beauty (Lam. 2:15)? [so will they now be amazed at your glory]. For as before the Lord gave full measure in smiting you, so now he will give you full measure of prosperity, so that the dignity of this Annointed One, when he is annointed, will surpass that of all others who are annointed, by the radiancy of his countenance which will shine like that of Moses (Ex. 34:30).

[Normally this verse is translated, "he was marred beyond any other man"; but with a slight change in the spelling of one word it could read, "he was annointed beyond any other man". Apparently this is how the verse is being interepreted in the above passage. It is interesting to note that one of the versions of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls also has this alternate reading--ed.]

Chapter 53: A continuation of the words spoken by the gentiles and their kings. Who, at the time when our [gentiles'] exaltation and prosperity seemed secure to us, would have believed this report brought to us? Such a wondrous change could have been anticipated by no one. And upon whom was the arm of the Lord ever revealed to raise him to such dignity as this Messiah? For when we looked at him, and gazed upon his countenance, it had no beauty, and we did not desire him. (The prophet means to say here that there was nothing in him to cause us–the gentiles– to desire him. Or, the meaning may be, “and now we desire him”, on account of the many desirable qualities which he possesses.

He was despised and forlorn of men. He was not permitted to enter the society of men, because he was a man of pains, and broken by sickness. Or perhaps this denotes that he was so well known generally for the sicknesses which he endured that in imprecation men would say, “May such a one be like him!”

The next words assign the reason why Israel was rejected and cast aloof and hated in their [gentile] eyes. They say, “When we saw the face-hiding, the manner in which God hid His face from him [i.e., from Israel], and carried him [Israel] far away captive among the gentiles, he [Israel] was then despised and cast aloof by us [i.e., the gentiles], and we esteemed him [Israel]not–he had no value in our eyes”. Or, “We did not think of him [Israel] that God would again open his eyes and have mercy upon him, after having thus rejected and removed him far from his own place.”

SA’ADYAH IBN DANAN (to +/- 1493)

I was perusing the book of the prophet Isaiah, and when I came to the Parashah Behold My servant, I set before myself the notes of those who had commented upon it, and pondered over them and examined the opinions they contained. But all alike, I found, lacked solidity and soundness; as was the more palpable, since each differed from the rest in the subject to whom he supposed it to refer, some expounding the Parashah of the congregation of Israel as a whole, and others, in one way or another, of the King Messiah, who will speedily be revealed in our days. This, in fact, is done by our rabbis, who , in the section Heleq (Sanhedrin 94a), on the words To the increase of his government (Isaiah 9:7), expound as follows: The Holy One sought to make Hezekiah the Messiah, and [to make] Sanacherib, Gog and Magog.

And the heretics explain it of their messiah, by their method of interpretation, discovering in its arguments relating to his passion and death, and their false belief in him, which, however, have been refuted oftentimes with unequivocal proofs by learned Jews. One of these, Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi, was led so far as to say that those who expounded it of the Messiah, who is shortly to be revealed, gave occasion to the heretics to interpret it of Jesus.

May God, however, forgive him for not having spoken the truth! Our rabbis, the doctors of the Talmud, deliver their opinions by the power of prophecy, possessing a tradition concerning the principles of interpretation, so that their words are the truth. The principle which every expositor ought to rest upon is never to shrink from declaring the truth. And now I will make known what has been communicated to me from heaven, namely, the Parashah was originally uttered with a reference to Hezekiah, king of Judah and Israel, but being “a word deftly spoken” (Prov. 25:11), nevertheless alludes covertly to the King Messiah. . .

Says the author: Behold, we have explained the several parts of this Parashah in an elegant and plausible manner; and the interpretation here given is the one that is revealed and open to all, but there is a secret one, sealed and treasured up in its midst, which sees throughout allusions to the King Messiah (who is assuredly to be speedily revealed in our own days). And in the same sense it is expounded by our rabbis.

We cannot, however, interpret each individual detail in it of the Messiah, because we do not know all the incidents of his advent, or the precise manner of the redemption which he will then accomplish for Israel. Still, what our rabbis teach in this respect, we must accept, for, like all their other opinions, it will be true and right; but anyone who imagines himself able to apply every single particular in the Parashah to the Messiah is in error, and feeling after darkness rather than light, as is the case with the heretics who struggle vainly to refer it to their messiah in detail. We see then their error and delusion, which has already more than once been sufficiently replied to by our wise men. May God, for His Name’s sake, lighten our eyes with the illumination of his Law, and bring us forth out of darkness into light, and redeem us with a perfect redemption!

MOSHEH BEN MAIMON (MAIMONIDES)

Iggeret Teiman, translated by Boaz Cohen, notes by Abraham S. Halkin

Messiah culminates in the following manner “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalms 2:7). All these statements demonstrate the pre-eminence of the Messiah.

Transcendent wisdom is a sine qua non for inspiration. It is an article of our faith that the gift of prophecy is vouchsafed only to the wise, the strong, and the rich. Strong is defined as the ability to control one’s passions. Rich signifies wealthy in knowledge. Now if we dare not put trust in a man’s pretensions to prophecy, if he does not excel in wisdom, how much less must we take seriously the claims of an ignoramus to be the Messiah. That the man in question is a sciolist is evident from the order he issued, as you state, to the people to give away all their possessions for eleemosynary purposes. They did right in disobeying him, and he was wrong inasmuch as he disregarded the Jewish law concerning alms-giving. For Scripture says, “If a man will devote anything of all that he has” and the rabbis explain in their comment on this verse, “part of all that he has, but not all that he has,” (Sifra ad locum). The sages accordingly set bounds to the bounty of the beneficent in an explicit statement which reads “He who is inclined to be liberal with the poor, may not part with more than a fifth of his possessions. (Ketubot 50a). There is no doubt that the process of reasoning which led him to claim that he is the Messiah, induced him to issue a command to his fellow-men to give away their property and distribute it to the poor. But then the affluent would become destitute and vice-versa. According to this ordinance, it would be necessary for the nouveaux riches to return their recently-acquired property to the newly impoverished. Such a regulation, which would keep property moving in a circle, is the acme of folly.

As to the place where the Messiah will make his first appearance, Scripture intimates that he will first present himself only in the Land of Israel, as we read, “He will suddenly appear in His Temple” (Malachi 3:1). As for the advent of the Messiah, nothing at all will be known about it before it occurs. The Messiah is not a person concerning whom it may be predicted that he will be the son of so and so, or of the family of so and so. On the contrary he will be unknown before his coming, but he will prove by means of miracles and wonders that he is the true Messiah. Scripture in allusion to his mysterious lineage says, “His name is the Shoot, and he will shoot up out of his place” (Zechariah 6:12). Similarly, Isaiah referring to the arrival of the Messiah implies that neither his father nor mother, nor his kith nor kin will be known, “For he will shoot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of the dry ground.” (53:2). After his manifestation in Palestine, Israel will be gathered in Jerusalem and the other cities of Palestine. Then will the tidings spread to the East and the West until it will reach you in Yemen and those beyond you in India as we learn from Isaiah. “That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of papyrus upon the waters, go, ye swift mesengers [sic], to a nation that has been pulled and plucked to a people that suffered terribly from their beginning onward.” (18:2). The process of the final redemption will not be reversed so that it will first appear in distand lands, and ultimately reach Palestine.

What the great powers are, which all the prophets from Moses to Malachi ascribe to the Messiah, may be inferred from various statements in the twenty-four books of Scripture. The most significant of them all is the fact that the mere report of his advent will strike terror into the hearts of all the kings of the earth, and their kingdoms will fall, neither will they be able to war or revolt against him. They will neither defame nor calumniate him, for the miracles he will perform will frighten them into complete silence. Isaiah refers to the submission of the kings to the Messiah in the verse, “Kings shall shut their mouth because of him.” (52:15). He will slay whom he will, none will escape or be saved, as it is written, “And he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth.” (Isaiah 11:4). Revolution and war in the entire world, from East to West, will not cease at the beginning of the Messianic era, but only after the wars of Gog and Magog, as was indicated by Ezekiel. I do not believe that this man who has appeared among you posesses [sic] these powers.

You know that the Christians falsely ascribe marvelous powers to Jesus the Nazarene,¹⁸ may his bones be ground to dust, such as the resurrection of the dead and other miracles. Even if we would grant them for the sake of argument, we should not be convinced by their reasoning that Jesus is the Messiah. For we can bring a thousand proofs or so from the Scripture that it is not so even from their point of view. Indeed, will anyone arrogate this rank to himself unless he wishes to make himself a laughing stock?

Notes

¹⁸Cf. Krauss, J.E. VII.171, Ha-Shiloah 45:130, G. Levi della Vida, “Gesu e il teschio (leggenda Musulmana) in Bilychnis,” Rivista mensile de Studi Religiosi, Rome 1923, pp. 116-121 and Giustiono Boson, “La leggenda di Gesu e il re di Tiro” in Revue de l’Orient Chretien, XXI (1918-19) 225-240.

MEIR BEN SHIMON

Behold My servant, etc. This Parashah is applied by the Nazarenes to Jesus; such an explanation, however, is untenable even on the ground of their own allegations. For example, they assert Jesus to be the Son of God, and to be himself God, but if so, how is he called my servant? Almighty God is not a servant; on the contrary, all are His servants. If to this it be replied that Jesus is termed servant, as being a servant of the Godhead, do not the Christians assert that he is God? How, then, can one who is the Creator of all and the Lord of all receive such a title?

Again, how can it be said that he should prosper? In what did his prosperity consist? Were not his misfortunes and general ill-success clear to all, when the Pharisees and the doctors condemned him to death (as is related in their own book), and he was slain with his disciples? And how can it be said that he should be high and exalted and lofty exceedingly? Jesus in his lifetime was only thus exalted at the time of his crucifixion.

YOSEPH ALBO 1380-1444

Sometimes, too, misfortunes light upon the righteous not as a punishment, but for the sake of a whole nation, that atonement might be made for it. This is because the Almighty takes pleasure in the preservation of the world, and knows that the righteous will bear his sufferings cheerfully, without quarreling with any of his attributes. He therefore brings sufferings upon the just, as a satisfaction for the evil [otherwise] destined to afflict a whole people, in order that it may be thus averted. This is what our rabbis mean by their saying (Moed Katan 28a), “The death of the righteous works atonement“.

We find the Law stated clearly in scripture. God says to Ezekiel (4:4-6), “Lie on your left side, and I will place upon it the iniquity of the house of Israel”, etc., and you will bear it; and when you have finished these things, then you shall lie again on your right side, and shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah.” In accordance with the same principal, the statements found in the Parashah, Behold My servant shall prosper, are all to be referred to Israel (who is here called My servant, as in Isaiah 44:2, 41:8). When the prophet says, Surely he carried our sicknesses, etc., but we thought him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, he means to say that when men see sufferings falling upon the righteous, they think they fall on them of their own account, and are hence naturally surprised. It is not so in fact, however; they do not fall upon them for any sin they may have committed, but as an atonement, whether for all the world, or for the entire people, or for some single city.

DON YITZCHAK ABARBANEL 1437-1508

The first question is to ascertain to whom [this passage] refers; for the learned among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple, and who, according to them, was the Son of God, and took flesh in the virgin’s womb, as stated in their writings. But Yonathan ben Uzziel interprets it in the Targum of the future messiah; and this is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their midrashim, although one of the verses (verse 12) is referred to Moses our master.

In the same way I see in the exposition of Rabbi Mosheh ben Nachman that he explains the prophecy [as being about] the King Messiah. The Gaon Rabbi Sa’adyah, however, interprets it entirely of Jeremiah. And Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, and also Rabbi Menachem [ben Shlomoh] Meiri speaks of this interpretation as “excellent”, though what may be the goodness or excellence that they see in it, I do not understand.

Rashi, however, and Rabbi Joseph Qamchi, and his son, the great Rabbi David Qamchi, all with one voice explain the entire prophecy of Israel.

The opinion held by the learned among the Nazarenes is that the prophecy refers to Jesus of Nazareth, who was put to death at the end of the Second Temple. . . However, the simple sense of the words themselves will not bear the interpretation put on them. And this for several reasons.

1) First, how could the prophet say of God, “He will become wise” (verse 52:13)? If the word here means “to acquire knowledge“, then God, just because He is God, knows all from eternity. How then can the prophet testify of him, “He will be intelligent“, as though he were devoid of intelligence now? And if this word is taken to mean, “prosperity” or “success“, what was the success which came to him as something new? Was it in things carnal or in things spiritual? For “successful” and “not successful” are terms which cannot rightly be used of the First Cause. Moreover, so far as the manhood [of Jesus] is concerned, it is evident from the history of his last moments, that he did not have “success”.

2) He is called “My servant“. Now how could God call one who was the self-same substance with Himself, His “servant“? Because “master” and “servant” are two distinct terms, each exclusive of the other. And it cannot be replied that the word is used relative to his manhood, because both the “prosperity” named previously and the “exaltation” are attributes applicable to him only in so far as he is (as the Christians think) God; the expression, “My servant“, therefore, which stands between the two, must perforce be understood in the same sense. An object is, moreover, not defined or described except by its “form”. A “man“, for example, is so called not on account of his material body, but because of his rational soul. Even, therefore, from the point of view of those who assert that God became incarnate, He could never be termed a servant.

[But see Isaiah 43:24, "You have caused Me to serve"--reduced Me to servitude--"by your sins". Thus the redemption was effected by One who, "being in the form of God", "took upon Himself the form of a servant" (Phil. 2: 6,7)--ed.]

3) Isaiah says, he will be “high and exalted“, the verbs being, as you know, all future. I wish I could learn whether this “exaltation” was to show itself in things pertaining to the body (relative to his manhood) or in those things pertaining to his Godhead. For, insofar as his manhood was concerned, he enjoyed no exaltation or dignity, but rather suffered humiliation and death. While if, on the other hand, the words relate to his Godhead, then the announcement is an idle one, for God is forever “high and exalted”. How then can a period be predicted when he will become high and exalted afresh?

4) He says that “his countenance was marred beyond man“; and again, that “he had no form or comeliness“, etc. Such phrases show that he was troubled naturally by melancholy ,and was also of weak constitution, and a feeble frame. This account of him, however, is not in accordance with fact: for Jesus was young and handsome–even their own teachers saying that his constitution was of a normal state. And if the words have reference to his death, everyone ’s countenance is altered when he is dead. He could not, then, on this account alone, be spoken of as “marred beyond men“.

5) He says, “He has borne our sicknesses and carried our pains”. These expressions cannot be understood of the sufferings borne by the souls of the just for sin, from which Jesus released them; because a spiritual penalty is never called “sickness”. [But see Isaiah 1:4-6; 9:12/13; 33:24, etc.--ed.] The natural sense of the words is that he took upon himself the sicknesses which he removed from them; accordingly, it is said, “We thought him smitten, stricken of God, and afflicted“–he was not stricken and smitten himself. If again, the words be understood of the sufferings inflicted upon Jesus at the time of his death, then the terms themselves present a difficulty, for the death did not consist of “sicknesses” or “pains”.

6) He says, “And he made his grave with the wicked.” This is referred by the Christians to Jesus of Nazareth, whose death was accomplished by the hands of the wicked; but according to their view, it ought to have been, “made his death with the wicked”, not his grave. The following words, “And the rich in his death“, have plainly nothing to do with him.

7) “The Lord was pleased to bruise him.” Now, if he had been God, and had consented to endure these sufferings in order (as the Christians hold) to rescue the souls of the righteous from the pit, how could it be said to be God’s pleasure thus to bruise and sicken him? Moreover, what is done without any assignable cause is attributed to “pleasure”, and not what is done for some definite purpose.

“He shall see seed, shall lengthen days“. Yet, according to what is related of his life, Jesus died in youth, and had neither son nor daughter. Or, if “seed” be explained of those who follow his doctrine, then such as these are never in the whole of scripture so named. [But see Gen. 3:15; Isaiah 1:4--ed.] And, if it be supposed to refer to God, it is well known that God sees and observes both future and past; how, then, can it be said that he “will see seed“, as though such “seeing” were something new for him? And if Jesus died in his youth, when not more than thirty-two years old, where are his “long days”?

It will be clear now from these considerations that, in accordance with its simple and straightforward sense, and as rightly understood, this prophecy cannot possibly be interpreted as is done by Christian expositors.

As regards the course taken by Yonathan ben Uzziel and our other wise men, who interpret it of Messiah our righteousness, I do not know whether in saying this they mean Messiah ben Joseph, who they believe is to come at the commencement of the deliverance, or whether they intend Messiah son of David, who is to arrive afterwards. In either case, however, the sense of the words will not admit of such an explanation. Of Messiah, son of Joseph, it could not be said that he would be “high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly”. And how could it be said he was to “lengthen his days” when he was to die at the beginning of his career?

If, on the other hand, our rabbis have in view Messiah the son of David, then a difficulty arises from the words “marred beyond man“, “without form or comeliness”, for Isaiah himself, so far from calling him “despised” or “forlorn of men“, describes him as God’s “chosen one, in whom his soul delights” (42:1). Then again, how could he be said to have “borne our pains”, or to be “stricken and smitten“? Rather, he is to be a righteous king–not “stricken and smitten“, but “righteous and victorious” (Zech. 9:9). And if this is the case, what can be the sense of the verses which teach how he will bear sufferings and death for Israel’s sake?

In a word, the interpretation of Yonathan, and of those who follow him in the same opinion, can never be considered to be the true one, in a literal sense, because the character and drift of the passage as a whole will not bear it. These learned men were concerned only with allegorical or adventitious expositions, and hence merely applied the traditions they had received respecting the Messiah to the present passage, without in the least imagining it to be its actual meaning.

RABBI SHMUEL LANYADO

My servant, i.e., the King Messiah, shall be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly–he shall be higher than Abraham; lifted up above Moses; and loftier than the ministering angels. Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel was unable to comprehend how the Messiah could be lifted up above Moses, of whom it was said that “there arose no prophet in Israel like him“. (Deut. 34:10); and still more how he was to be greater than the angels, who are spiritual beings, whereas the Messiah is born of a woman. It is, in fact, upon that expression that the idolators [Christians] rest the chief article of their faith, the divinity of the Messiah. Abarbanel rejects also the opinion of the learned En Bonet, who explains it of the doctors, “for how”, he asks, “could it enter into anyone’s mind to speak of the doctors as exalted above Abraham or Moses?”

In my own humble opinion it seems that in this instance En Bonet is right; for in point of nobility the Messiah will excel even Abraham, and therefore it is promised that he shall be high. And in the ability to guide Israel he will be superior to Moses. For Moses, when he was a shepherd, had compassion on the kid which escaped from him in order to drink, and brought it to his bosom; and for that purpose the Almighty had chosen him (Shmoth Rabba)–how much more then that he might guide and tend Israel?

As regards En Bonet’s explanation of “loftier than the angels“, my judgement coincides with that of Rabbi Yitzchak Aramah and Rabbi Yitzchak Arbarbanel, who reject it on two grounds. I think that the words should be understood in their natural sense, but believe also that they involve a mystery which no mouth can utter.

It is, however, revealed in the Zohar, in the section on Deut. 22:6 (”When a bird’s nest chances before you”, etc.); so that we need not wonder if, as is the fact, he is to be loftier than the angels. The text appears to me to refer simply to the fear and dread which he will inspire into all flesh even more than the angels, who are yet so awe-inspiring that, as we know, when one appeared to Manoah and his wife, they exclaimed, “We have seen God; we shall surely die!” (Judges 13:22). Accordingly the Messiah is said to be loftier than the angels in respect of the terror which their presence creates, since everyone who beholds them, like Ezekiel, is “afraid and trembles”.

And then, lastly, he is called “the great mountain, which is greater than the patriarchs”, because each of the patriarchs in his turn helped to restore the world after it had been corrupted by the sin of our first parents. Isaac, for example, made atonement for bloodshed, inasmuch as, for the fear he felt, his own blood was as good as poured out on the altar. And Jacob averted the consequences of a forbidden marriage by preserving peace between two sisters, where anyone else would only have been a cause of rivalry and discord.

The opinions of our wise men on the interpretation of this verse have now been discussed. But we do not gather clearly from their language whether they are speaking of Messiah son of Ephraim or of Messiah son of David. The same doubt is suggested by Abarbanel, who thinks however that the former cannot be intended. For how, he asks, could it be said of him that he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly? If, on the contrary, we refer the prophecy to Messiah son of David, there is a difficulty in the expression, marred beyond man; for Isaiah says, “Behold My servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one, in whom my soul delights.” (42:1) How, too, can he say of him, Stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, for Messiah son of David will be just and victorious (Zech. 9:9), and so far from being despised and forlorn of men, that unto him will the gentiles seek (Isaiah 11:10)? Nor are the other verses more applicable to him, which declare how he will endure sufferings and death for Israel’s sake.

In a word, the explanation of the rabbis and of the Targum of Yonathan cannot possibly be conceived as being truthful in the sense of being literal; it is allegorical and adventitious, consisting, as it does, in the adaptation of one of their traditions to the language of the text. And a proof of this lies in the fact that the Targum itself refers the subsequent verses to Israel, and not to the Messiah, and that one verse , the last, is referred by our rabbis to Moses.

In my own humble opinion, I believe that they mean to assert that the verse speaks solely of Messiah son of David, to whom all the gorgeous language in it will apply. The prophet next addresses the people of Messiah son of Ephraim, and encourages them not to be afraid of the myriads which were against them; that even though the son of Ephraim were slain, the Almighty would avenge him by the hand of Messiah son of David, who would sprinkle the blood of many nations.

The words mean, then, As when you, O Messiah son of Ephraim, went forth into the world, many were astonished at you, wondering how it could possibly be that his countenance was so marred beyond men, and his form beyond the sons of men, whether also such was the usual appearance of a conqueror–as they thus mocked you without measure, so will the Messiah son of David sprinkle the blood of many nations.

The Messiah, son of Ephraim, who will come up before him, and in comparison with Messiah son of David (who will follow after him) will be as a shoot or a root out of dry ground. He is to have no form, to be despised, forsaken of men , and afflicted with endless pains–as our rabbis relate of him, he will stand in the gate of Rome, binding up each wound separately by itself, lest the season of Deliverance arrive too suddenly; and his pains and sicknesses will make it seem as though the faces hidden from them were averted because of himself and his deeds, which had been the cause of our esteeming him not. Yet in truth it was otherwise. In all his sufferings he was guiltless. It would our sicknesses that he bore–the sicknesses and pains which were in readiness to come for our iniquities upon us were carried by him instead, and we were in error thinking him stricken and smitten of God, i.e., as Rashi explains, an object of his enmity.

After his advent, to use again the words of Rashi, the son of Ephraim, who for a while had held sovereignty and executed judgement over Israel and the gentiles, was taken away, because the gentiles resolved to slay him; and who then could tell of his generation and the travail which befell him? For he was cut off out of the land of the living, and slain for the transgression of my people, the stroke intended for them being borne by him instead. He was not to be put to death speedily, but tortured by every conceivable method of producing a severe and painful end; and hence it is that the prophet says not in his death but in his deaths. And all this happened not because he had done no wrong in word or deed, but because it was the Lord’s good pleasure to bruise and sicken him.

Such is the sense of these verses, according to the opinion of those among our wise men who apply them to Messiah son of David, and to Messiah son of Joseph, who is of the tribe of Ehpraim.

But in my own humble opinion, the verses must be supposed to describe the righteous worshipper of God. Israel now asks, Who believed the glad tidings which they heard of our future exaltation? And upon whom were revealed the prophecies of vengeance about to be executed by the arm of the Lord upon them that hate him? Were they not revealed solely to us Israelites? And the gentiles, when they heard that we were to attain security and prosperity, would not believe; so that when they do perceive our successes, they will be seeing things which had never been told them. All this will happen on account of the one righteous who is here called My servant. But before the sons of men he will appear simply as a root devoid of moisture, rising out of the dry earth, without form or bodily beauty.

He himself carried our sicknesses, and bore our pains, and by saying he himself, the prophet indicates that the righteous, of his own free will, was pleased to carry them for Israel. We however thought him stricken of God for his own sins, whereas in reality he was stricken for ours, being himself just and perfect. The view here taken obviates the surprise felt by Abarbanel, as to how one man could possibly suffer for another, if even “the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father, nor the father for the iniquity of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20); for the righteous voluntarily and of his own accord bears the sicknesses of his generation, in order to merit the never-ending pleasure of making atonement for them.

THE MIDRASH KONEN

The fifth mansion in Paradise is built of onyx and jasper, and set stones, and silver and gold. . . there dwells Messiah son of David, and Elijah, and Messiah son of Ephraim. There is also the “litter of the wood of Lebanon” , like the tabernacle which Moses made in the wilderness; all the furniture thereof and “the pillars thereof of silver, the bottom of gold, the seat of purple“, and within it, Messiah son of David who loves Jerusalem. Elijah takes him by his head, and lays him down in his bosom, holds him, and says, “Bear the sufferings and wounds with which the Almighty does chastise you for Israel’s sake”; and so it is written, He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, until the time when the end should come.

ASERETH MEMROTH

The Messiah, in order to atone for them both [for Adam and David] will make his soul a trespass-offering, as it is written next to this, in the Parashah Behold My servant. And what is written after it? He shall see seed, shall have long days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

YAKOV YOSEPH MORDECHAI CHAYIM PASSANI

I am much surprised at those commentators who have applied themselves to investigate the meaning of this Parashah. One, for example, maintains that it was the intention of the prophet to allude to Moses; another, that he referred to the Israelitish people; a third applies it to king Josiah; a fourth dwells much upon the King Messiah, and so brings the Midrash into the text. For ourselves, however, we know with certainty that scripture never bears any other than the simple and literal meaning.

Moreover, not one of the explanations mentioned is in complete accordance with the language of the text, or succeeds in satisfying us, still less does the opinion of the disbelievers who make these verses the foundation of their faith.

Thus the words had no form or comeliness cannot possibly be interpreted of Moses, for everyone is well aware that Moses had a fine form and the strength of a lion. And if (as is indeed the case) the words, For the transgression of my people were they smitten allude to Israel, then the person described as suffering for the nation cannot be the nation itself.

And as regards the explanation which refers it to the Messiah, we may say, Take heed, O wise men, in your words, even though the language be meant to be metaphorical and indirect.

I have therefore been led to the conviction that the Parashah may after all be referred intelligibly and naturally to Hezekiah.

RABBI NAPHTHALI BEN ASHER ALTSCHULER

Behold my servant. Since I see that unfortunately the gentiles have built upon this Parashah a heap of vanity, I have undertaken the task of refuting their errors by a true and convincing method in accordance with the teaching of my relation, the great and illustrious Rabbi, Nachman of Belsitz. If the opinion of the Christians is correct, why is he [Jesus] called My servant? Is he not by their own arguments God? And if it be replied that he is called servant in reference to the time during which he was still a man, why does Isaiah say he will be high and exalted? For even, by their own accounts, Jesus was never during his whole life in any position of authority. If again it be supposed that the expression relates to what will take place after the Resurrection, even then there is a difficulty; for even the gentiles say that at that time he will be altogether God; how then could he be called a servant?

I will now proceed to explain these verses of our own Messiah, who, God willing, will come speedily in our days. I am surprised that Rashi and Rabbi David Kimchi have not, with the Targum, applied them to the Messiah likewise.

He was despised in our eyes, and the most insignificant of men (or, forlorn of men, because they would not associate with him); a man of pains, who passed all his days in anxious dread lest the gentiles should appear suddenly and attack them; and taught of sickness, being accustomed to have the yoke pass over him. The prophet uses the singular, referring to the Messiah who is their king. Thus the Messiah is termed despised as representing Israel.

And he was as though we hid our faces from him, for we would not look at him because of the loathing which we felt for him; and we accounted him, i.e., Israel, for nought. But now we see that this was not a consequence of his depression, but that he suffered in order that by his sufferings atonement might be made for the whole of Israel, as it is said of the prophet Micah, that the blood issuing from him made atonement for all Israel. The sickness which ought to have fallen upon us was borne by him. The prophet means to say here, that when Messiah son of Joseph shall die between the gates, and be a marvel in the eyes of creation, why must the penalty he bears be so severe? What is his sin, and what his transgression, except that he will bear the chastisements of Israel, according to the words smitten of God?

Others consider that the passage speaks of the Messiah who is smitten now with the pains of the world to come (as it stands in the Gemara), and so endures the suffering of Israel. And yet we–it is Israel who are speaking–thought he had been hated of God. But it was not so. He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement which was afterwards to secure our peace was upon him.

Like sheep, i.e., like sheep without a shepherd so long as the Messiah had not arrived, we all went astray. Yet the Lord let himself be entreated by him and propitiated for the iniquity of us all, in that he refrained from destroying us.

From the confinement in which he was kept by them, and from the judgement or sentence of punishment, he was taken; and who said or suspected that his generation would ever attain such greatness that it has attained now? For at first it was cut off from the land of the living, that is, the land of Israel. Because for the transgression of my people had this stroke come upon the Messiah. He resigned himself to be buried in whatever manner the wicked might decree, who were always condemning Israel to be murdered; and was ready for any form of death (or deaths), according to the decision of the rich, that is, of the [wealthy] magistrate.

Why, however, should he have been thus punished although he had done no violence, except that the Almighty was trying him? The words allude to Israel who are now in exile; though others hold that they allude to the Messiah.

By his knowledge he will justify the just. The King Messiah will mete out right judgement to all who come to be tried before him; and My servant will also become a prince over many–the word ebed [i.e., servant] being used as in the Gemara, When I make you a prince, I make you also a slave.

(It may be remarked that Rashi explained this Parashah of the righteous who are in exile, and who endure there suffering and affliction.)

LEVI BEN GERSHOM

It follows necessarily from this verse (Deut. 34:10) that no prophet whose office was restricted to Israel alone could ever arise again like Moses; but it is still quite possible that a prophet like Moses might arise among the gentile nations. In fact the Messiah is such a prophet, as it is stated in the Midrash on the verse, Behold My servant, etc. , that he will be “greater than Moses”, which is explained to mean that his miracles will be more wonderful than those of Moses. Moses, by the miracles he wrought, drew but a single nation to the worship of God, but the Messiah will draw all nations to the worship of God. And this will be effected by means of a marvelous sign, to be seen by all the nations even to the ends of the earth, that is, the resurrection of the dead.

RABBI LIWA OF PRAGUE

The Messiah, who is the perfection of the world, will be high and lofty and exalted. Now, inasmuch as he is the perfection, he is also the consummation, and the consummation is above all things; and this is why it is said of this Messiah that he will be high and exalted and lofty.

A star shall proceed out of Jacob, and there shall arise a scepter in Israel. (Numbers 24:17) The King Messiah is here spoken of as a star, for (as we have explained above), his position and dignity will be of the highest, since it is said of him, He will be high and exalted and lofty exceedingly. He is here, therefore, compared to a star, because a star is elevated over all things.

Back to Isaiah 53 Back to Index