ISAIAH’S SERVANT & THE SEED PT. 2

I cite the rest of Dr. Michael Brown’s very lengthy defense of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 being a prophecy of the coming Messiah, who is Jesus Christ our risen Lord: ISAIAH’S SERVANT & THE SEED PT. 1.

4.10. Several key words in Isaiah 53 speak of a servant in the plural.

I’m surprised that you’re still using this objection. It is simply not true, as can be seen by checking even leading Jewish translations of the Bible. Those who claim that there are references to a plural servant in Isaiah 53 failed to realize the specific Hebrew grammatical forms being used and consequently mistranslated or misinterpreted the Hebrew text. These objections were answered decisively decades ago.

Readers of English translations of Isaiah 53 might find this argument very surprising. Isn’t the subject of this chapter spoken of throughout in the singular? Well, for hundreds of years now, it has been claimed that there are two words found in two separate verses that hint toward a plural subject: lamo in verse 8 (in the phrase negaʿ lamo, “a stroke for them/him”) and bemotayw in verse 9 (literally, “in his deaths”). It is claimed that these words provide the clue that the singular servant is actually a nation—hence the plurals. The translation of the important part of these verses would then be: “for the transgression of my people [supposedly spoken by Gentile kings; see objection 4.9] there is a stroke for them” (i.e., the people of Israel); “and he [i.e., the servant of the Lord, taken to be Israel] was with the rich in his deaths” (as explained by Radak, the Jews have suffered all kinds of deaths at the hands of their enemies—by the sword, by burning, etc.).

What is wrong with these interpretations? Plenty! First, the phrase negaʿ lamo, as rightly understood by the NJPSV, most likely means that the servant receives a stroke for them—in other words, for those for whom he is suffering. Second, Isaiah elsewhere uses lamo to mean “to it,” not “to them,” (in 44:15: “he makes an idol and bows down to it”). So, even if you wanted to take lamo to refer to the servant (which, as stated, is unlikely), it could still mean “for him” as opposed to “for them.”¹⁴⁰ Third, the reason deaths is in the plural in verse 9 is because it is an intensive plural, referring here to a violent death. Such usage of intensive plurals is extremely common in Hebrew, as recognized by even beginning students of the language.

Thus, the word for compassion is an intensive plural, rahamim, while the word for God is ʾelohim (see vol. 2, 3.1). More specifically, in Ezekiel 28:8 the prophet declares, “And you [singular] will die the deaths [plural] of one slain [singular] in the depths of the sea” (translated literally). It is difficult to question the meaning here! (See also Ezek. 28:10: “the deaths [plural] of the uncircumcised you will die [singular].”) Whenever the Hebrew Bible refers to the deaths of an individual, it speaks of a violent death.¹⁴¹

You might still be thinking, “I know the idea of two ‘hints’ to a plural-yet singular servant in this chapter doesn’t make a lot of sense, and your points on the Hebrew grammar seem clear enough. I guess even Jewish scholars and translators agree with you on this. But why don’t the anti-missionaries accept your arguments?”

Simple. Old arguments die hard. Still, I think this one is just about to give up the ghost.¹⁴²

4.11. Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Jesus because it says no one was interested in the servant of the Lord or attracted to him, yet the New Testament records that large crowds followed Jesus.

Actually, the New Testament record agrees with the picture of the servant of the Lord described in Isaiah 53, despite the fact that great crowds did follow Jesus at numerous times during his ministry. This is because he spent most of his life almost unknown, and then once he became popular, he became the center of controversy and was vehemently rejected by many religious teachers and influential leaders, ultimately dying a criminal’s death on the cross. This is certainly in harmony with Isaiah 53.

At first glance, this objection might seem odd. After all, wasn’t Jesus rejected by his own people, and didn’t he die a horrific, humiliating death on the cross? Doesn’t he clearly fulfill the image of the suffering servant of the Lord described in Isaiah 53? And don’t the anti-missionaries sometimes claim that the authors of the New Testament made up details about the life of Jesus in order to give the impression that he was fulfilling Messianic prophecies? How then can they claim that the picture of Yeshua painted by the writers of the Gospels actually contradicts the words of the prophets?

Obviously, there is something self-contradictory in these two objections: arguing on the one hand that Yeshua, as described in the New Testament, did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies, while arguing on the other hand that the very same New Testament gives a false picture of Yeshua in order to make it appear that he fulfilled those very same prophecies. I address this contradiction directly in vol. 4, 5.14. For now, however, we will simply deal with the objection raised here, an objection based on the fact that the Gospels record that great crowds often followed Jesus, whereas Isaiah prophesied that he would be despised, rejected, and unpopular.

The key relevant verses in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 of the servant of the Lord are these: Just as there were many who were appalled at him his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness …

Isn’t this picture contradicted by New Testament passages stating that “large crowds” followed Jesus? Verses such as these are fairly common: “Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him… . When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him… . Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore” (Matt. 4:25; 8:1; 13:2; see also Matt. 19:2; Luke 14:25, among other passages). How does this agree with the verses from Isaiah, just cited, that say “he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him” and “he was despised and rejected by men”?

Let’s examine these verses in greater detail, without twisting anything, rewriting anything, or taking anything out of context. What does the text actually say? It begins with the servant’s humble, inauspicious origins: “He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isa. 53:2–3). This agrees well with the humble, inauspicious origins of Jesus. He was raised by (apparently) poor parents in Nazareth,¹⁴³ his foster father, Joseph, was a carpenter, and there is only one mention of Jesus doing anything of prominence in his first thirty years of life (Luke 2:41–51; 3:23a). Truly, he grew up like a tender shoot, like a root out of dry ground, and when he began his public ministry, those who knew him were taken aback: “‘Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Miriam, and aren’t his brothers Jacob, Joseph, Simon and Judah? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?’ And they took offense at him” (Matt. 13:55–57 NIV, with Hebraized names).

The fact that Jesus hailed from Nazareth in Galilee also raised some eyebrows. When Nathaniel, who became one of the Messiah’s followers, was introduced to “Jesus of Nazareth,” he exclaimed, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:45–46). And when the religious leaders heard talk about Jesus being the Messiah, some of them protested asking, “How can the [Messiah] come from Galilee?” and again, “Look into it, and you will find that a prophet [or the Prophet] does not come out of Galilee” (John 7:41, 52).

The prophet Isaiah stated, “he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (53:2b), and this too accords well with the Gospel witness, since there is not a single reference to Yeshua’s having a stately appearance or imposing physical presence. This is in clear contrast with the descriptions of some of Israel’s leaders of old, men like Saul, who was head and shoulders above his people in height (1 Sam. 10:23), or David, who was “ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features” (1 Sam. 16:12b). Nothing like this is said of Yeshua!

Isaiah also stated that the servant of the Lord was “despised and rejected by men,” something that very accurately describes the ministry of Jesus. No sooner did he preach his inaugural message in the synagogue in Capernaum than some of the people tried to kill him (Luke 4:16–30). Such murderous plots against Jesus followed him wherever he went—because of both his teachings and his miracles—right up to the time of his betrayal and crucifixion (see, e.g., Mark 3:1–6; Luke 22:47–71). Religious leaders accused him of being a demon-possessed Samaritan and of healing the sick by satanic power (John 8:48; Matt. 12:22–24). This certainly qualifies as being “despised and rejected,” especially when you realize that the rejection followed him more closely than the crowds did!

And there was something else about these crowds: They were fickle! For example, John 6:2 records that “a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick.” But by the end of the chapter, after hearing him teach some hard things, it is written that “many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (John 6:66). In fact, it was common for Jesus to present a hard teaching to the big crowds that followed him in order to expose their hypocrisy and the shallowness of their commitment (see Luke 14:25–34). That’s why it is no surprise that one day great crowds could shout, “Crown him! Crown him!” when he entered Jerusalem and then shout “Crucify him! Crucify him!” only a few days later. As Christian leader Dan Harman pointed out, “So long as Jesus was misunderstood He was followed by the crowd. When they came to really understand Him, they crucified Him.”¹⁴⁴

It is the graphic portrait of a crucified Messiah that Isaiah so powerfully describes: “His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness” (Isa. 52:14b)—the result of the savage beating he endured before his crucifixion (Matt. 26:67; 27:26–30); “we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted” (Isa. 53:4b)—as he hung on the cross dying a criminal’s death; he was pierced and crushed and punished and wounded (Isa. 53:5). “He was oppressed and afflicted, … led like a lamb to the slaughter, … cut off from the land of the living; … he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors” (see Isa. 53:7–8, 12). How could the picture be any clearer? Only transgressors were flogged and nailed to a cross. Jesus was numbered among them! (See 4.12, below.)

It should be perfectly clear, then, to any unbiased reader of the text that Isaiah 53 accurately describes the life, ministry, and sufferings of Jesus the Messiah. Go back and read the chapter again for yourself, or ask a Jewish friend who is unfamiliar with this chapter to read it and then ask him or her, “Who does this describe?” You might be surprised with the response.¹⁴⁵

4.12. Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Jesus because it says the servant of the Lord was sickly and died of disease.

This is the least likely interpretation of the relevant verses in the Hebrew, as confirmed by many major translations, both Jewish and Christian. The text indicates that the servant of the Lord will be a man who is intimately associated with pain, grief, and sickness, a man suffering at the hands of people and crushed by the Lord as a guilt offering on our behalf. Such an understanding of the words is found in some Rabbinic interpretations too.

There are a number of expressions in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 that clearly describe violent acts committed against the servant of the Lord rather than simply describing the servant as sickly. According to 53:5, he was pierced, crushed, and wounded; according to 53:7, he was oppressed and afflicted, led as a lamb to the slaughter; according to 53:8, he was taken away by oppression and judgment.¹⁴⁶ This explains what is written in 52:14: “There were many who were appalled at him—his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness.” This is also in keeping with the New Testament description of the sufferings of Jesus, as he was beaten, flogged, abused, and mocked before his crucifixion.

Classical Rabbinic commentaries that interpreted Isaiah 53 with reference to Israel’s sufferings also emphasized the violent deaths that the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of their enemies rather than speaking only of sickness and disease (see, e.g., Radak). This too agrees with a Messianic Jewish reading of the text.

What then of the passages that apparently speak of the servant’s own sickness? As rendered in the Orthodox Jewish Stone edition, Isaiah 53:3 reads, “He was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness. As one from whom we would hide our faces; he was despised, and we had no regard for him.” This could mean that the servant was sickly to the point of being disfigured and thus rejected. But it could plausibly mean that the servant was hated and misunderstood, totally identified with sick and hurting humanity. The NJPSV renders this passage, “He was despised, shunned by men, a man of suffering, familiar with disease,” a rendering that indicates the ambiguity of the Hebrew. (The rendering in the NIV is very similar: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.”) This interpretation is confirmed by the following verses, which tell us clearly that (1) he actually carried our sickness and bore our pains, bringing healing to us through his wounds, and (2) he suffered the penalty for our sins, bringing us forgiveness and redemption. Thus, the servant himself was not sick, neither did he himself sin; rather, he identified with us in our sicknesses and sins, bringing us restoration in body and spirit.

What then of Isaiah 53:10a, which states, “But the LORD chose to crush him by disease” (NJPSV)? Once again, the original text is certainly not clear and unambiguous, as indicated by the footnote to this verse in the NJPSV, which states that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. That’s why it is no surprise that the

Stone edition renders this verse, “HASHEM desired to oppress him and He afflicted him,” even though this same translation spoke of the servant’s sickness in 53:3 (as cited above). The fact is that there are other, totally valid ways to understand the Hebrew, as reflected once again in the NIV: “Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer.” The reason there are such differences in translation is simply that the Hebrew root hlh can mean “to be sick” or it can mean “to be debilitated,” both definitions coming from a root meaning “to be weak.”¹⁴⁷

An excellent example of the root hlh being used to mean “weak” is found in Judges 16:7, where Samson tells Delilah, “If anyone ties me with seven fresh thongs that have not been dried, I’ll become as weak as any other man” (see also 16:11, 17). The meaning “sick” stems from this root meaning of “weak.” In a similar way, someone who was severely wounded or hurt could say, “I have become hlh”—and it is obvious that the meaning here is not “sick.” Thus, after King Ahab was mortally wounded when he was struck by an archer’s arrow, he said to his chariot driver, “I am severely wounded!” (1 Kings 22:34 and 2 Chron. 18:33 NASB). The Hebrew says hohaleti (literally, “I have been made hlh”), which is identical in form to 2 Chronicles 35:23, where King Josiah, also struck by a fatal arrow, says to his attendants, “I am badly wounded”—the Hebrew word meʾod, “very,” being added here. It makes perfect sense, then, to understand this same verb in Isaiah 53:10 as stating that the Lord severely afflicted his righteous servant, allowing him to suffer in the most terrible and inhumane ways at the hands of wicked men, since the Hebrew verb heheli does not only mean “made sick” but can also mean “made to suffer, made weak, afflicted” (see further the lengthy discussion of the fifteenth century Jewish commentator Don Isaac Abravanel).

Would even an anti-missionary object to such a reading of the passage if it were interpreted with reference to the people of Israel rather than Yeshua? Would the text refer only to those Jews who were smitten with sickness and disease, while it would not refer to those Jews who were expelled from their countries, or imprisoned and tortured, or starved to death in ghettos, or executed in gas chambers? Would not all of these varied sufferings fit under the heading of “being afflicted”? The simple fact is that the Hebrew root does not have exclusive reference to sickness and disease, and even when it does refer to sickness, it can have a metaphorical meaning, as in Deuteronomy 29:22[21], where the text speaks of God’s judgments on the land of Israel as diseases.

How then do we explain Isaiah 53:3, which states that the servant of the Lord was “a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity” (NRSV)? There is actually some ambiguity in the Hebrew text, since: (1) The nouns makʾob and holi can refer to either physical or metaphorical pain and sickness (see, e.g., Exod. 3:7 for makʾob and Eccles. 6:2 for holi). (2) The Hebrew does not say that the servant of the Lord was sick and in pain but rather that he was “a man of pains” and “intimate with sickness/suffering.”¹⁴⁸ This describes Jesus quite accurately: He was often in anguish and pain because of the depth of human suffering (and human sinfulness), sometimes sighing or groaning under the burden of it all, at other times being moved to tears (see, e.g., Mark 7:31–34; John 11:32–36). Truly, he was a man of sorrows and pains, intimately involved with sick and afflicted people. 149 (3) The Stone edition renders Isaiah 53:4b as, “but we had regarded him diseased [naguʿa], stricken by God, and afflicted!” It is this verse—in particular the word naguʿa (rendered here as “diseased”)—from which the Talmud drew the concept of the “leper Messiah” (see b. Sanhedrin 98b).¹⁵⁰ Naguʿa, however, can simply mean “smitten,” with no reference to leprosy or sickness, as can be seen from the use of the word in Psalm 73:14, where it speaks of the psalmist’s spiritual chastisements.¹⁵¹

Jesus spent a tremendous amount of his time pouring himself out for those who were severely ill, crippled, lame, blind, and even demonized—a ministry not nearly as glamorous as it sounds. These were often the outcasts, the untouchables, the beggars, the wretched; people with terrible wounds and sores and disfiguring skin conditions; screaming lunatics and wild men; epileptics tormented with seizures, foaming at the mouth. At times the stench of sickness and death must have been unbearable. At other times the horrific sights of twisted bodies and sightless eyes must have been overwhelming. And the crowds never stopped coming to him with their sick and dying family members and friends, even removing the roof of a house to get a paralytic to Jesus when there was no other way to reach him because of the throngs (Mark 2:1–12). And the text records that Yeshua healed them all! (See, e.g., Matt. 4:24; 8:16–17; 9:35; 12:15; 14:14, 35–36; 15:30–31; 21:14; Mark 6:53–56; Luke 4:40; 6:17–19; 17:12–19.)

This helps us to understand Isaiah 53:4, which states, “He has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases” (NRSV). He did not bear our sicknesses by becoming sick, nor did he carry our diseases by becoming diseased; rather, he bore our sicknesses by healing them and carried our diseases by removing them. And in the agonies of crucifixion, suffering in body and spirit, he became our ideal substitute. As his disciple Peter taught, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:24–25).

4.13. Isaiah 53 does not actually say the servant would die.

This objection actually contradicts two of the previous objections (specifically, 4.10 and 4.12), both of which understand that according to Isaiah 53, the servant of the Lord would die. Many standard Rabbinic interpretations recognize this, either interpreting the text with reference to Israel’s suffering and death at the hands of their enemies or with reference to the suffering and death of the Messiah (either Messiah ben Joseph or Messiah ben David).

Some years ago, I was invited by Christian students at Yale University to speak at an open forum titled “Will the Real Messiah Please Rise?” The object of the forum was to have me compare the Messianic qualifications of Yeshua with those of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson. (The forum took place in 1993, when many of Rabbi Schneerson’s followers were expecting him to miraculously rise up from his paralysis, caused by a stroke he suffered in 1992. At such time, they believed he would declare himself to be the Messiah.) When I finished my presentation, I opened the floor for questions and arguments. Leading the way in this discussion and debate were representatives of the Lubavitch community, including the campus Lubavitch rabbi, who was quite aggressive in his presentation.

At some point in the evening, the discussion turned to Isaiah 53, and the Lubavitch leader and I engaged in a lively debate, going back and forth on the interpretation of the text until something fascinating became apparent to the listening audience: When I argued that Isaiah 53 spoke of the death of Jesus the Messiah, the Lubavitch leader adamantly denied that the text spoke of the death of the servant of the Lord. Then he turned around and argued that the text should be applied to the many deaths suffered by the Jewish people at the hands of their adversaries. How revealing! (Of course, I immediately pointed out this contradiction, and no defense was offered.)

This incident reminds us of the obvious: The text of Isaiah 53 explicitly speaks of the death of the servant of the Lord, using numerous expressions to make this perfectly clear, and there is no valid reason to deny this unless one is trying to evade the obvious sense of the chapter. In addition to the clear expressions describing the servant’s suffering (see above, 4.10 and 4.12), note the following: 53:7 says he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter; 53:8 says he was cut off from the land of the living; 53:9 speaks of his grave and death(!); 53:10 says he will be offered up as a guilt offering; 53:12 says he poured out his life unto death. What could be clearer?

Not surprisingly, when reading the text in terms of Israel, the three most respected Rabbinic commentators, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak, saw numerous references to the servant’s death(s). Radak, for example, claimed that 53:8 spoke of the fact that the people of Israel “used to be put to death in many ways: Some were burnt, some were slain, and others were stoned—they gave themselves over to any form of death for the sake of the unity of the Godhead.”¹⁵² This again reminds us that the text points explicitly to the death of the servant of the Lord, not only to his suffering and pain.

It’s also interesting to note that after the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s death, his followers pointed to Isaiah 53, claiming that it spoke of his death, which is not surprising, given the clear sense of the original Hebrew. Thus, they rightly interpreted it as a prophecy of the death of the Messiah but wrongly interpreted the identity of the Messiah.¹⁵³

4.14. Isaiah 53 does not say the servant will rise from the dead.

If, as we have demonstrated, Isaiah 53 speaks of the servant’s death, then it must be accepted that the text speaks just as clearly of his continued activities after his death. Thus, there is only one possible explanation: The servant rises from the dead!

Professor Flusser has raised an important point: The text clearly speaks of the continued ministry of the servant of the Lord, and since his death is also clearly foretold, his resurrection is also implied.

As we observed previously (see above, 4.13), Isaiah 53 uses almost every possible description to communicate to us that the servant would die, saying explicitly that he would be cut off from the land of the living (v. 8) and making reference to his grave and his violent death (v. 9). Yet in verse 10 we read, “he will see his offspring and prolong his days.” How does someone die and yet prolong his days? There is only one way: resurrection! It is written that the servant of the Lord would be offered up as a guilt offering (v. 10) and pour out his life unto death (v. 12), yet the Lord says of him, “I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong” (v. 12). This can only happen if he is raised from the dead.

Such an interpretation is self-evident, providing the most natural and obvious reading of the text. The wonderful truth is that Yeshua did indeed die and rise from the dead, paying for our sins, bearing our transgressions, and carrying our pains. By his wounds we can be healed (Isa. 53:5). And because he is risen, death can no longer touch him. “Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them” (Heb. 7:25).

4.15. Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Jesus because it says the servant of the Lord did no violence, yet Jesus drove out the Temple money changers with a whip.

Jesus, who was known for his meekness and gentleness—all the way to the cross did not engage in “violence” in the Temple courts. There is no record of anyone being hurt or injured, and in contrast to some of the ancient Israelite prophets like Moses, Joshua, or Samuel, Jesus did not put anyone to death in the name of the Lord. Obviously, he used a whip—not a sword—because his design was to clear the area, not to hurt anyone. This is hardly “violence” according to the standards of the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, it’s unlikely he used a whip to drive people out; rather, the whip was used to drive out the animals.

It is interesting to note that Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. the two twentieth-century leaders best known for putting the principle of nonviolent resistance into practice—both learned this principle from Jesus. He was the ultimate example of a totally nonviolent man involved in radical action and change. The witness of the New Testament is very clear on this, even pointing out that Jesus fulfilled the words of Isaiah 42:1–4:

This is hardly the picture of a violent individual!

The specific question being raised here, however, does not have to do with the whole of Yeshua’s life but rather with his driving out the money changers from the Temple. Was not this an act of violence?

Let’s first consider what the Tanakh means by “violence” (Hebrew, hamas), since Isaiah 53:9b specifically states that the servant did no hamas. What exactly does this mean? The Hebrew noun hamas, “violence,” occurs sixty times in the Hebrew Bible, along with eight occurrences of the verb h-m-s, “to act violently, do violence.” What kind of actions are called “violent”? Actions such as murder, bloodshed, and robbery are, quite clearly, acts of violence, and the subject of Isaiah 53, as stated explicitly in verse 9, could not have committed any such acts. In keeping with this and true to his character, Jesus did not murder or shed blood, neither did he strike, hurt, rob, or assault anyone at any time, nor did he allow his followers to do so. In fact, when the Temple guards came to take him away by force in the middle of the night, his overzealous disciple Peter struck one of those guards, cutting off his ear. But Jesus rebuked him for his violence, telling him to put his sword away before healing the man’s ear (John 18:10–11; see also Matt. 26:52, where the Messiah taught that “all who draw the sword will die by the sword”).

As for Yeshua’s controversial actions in the Temple, the text is clear: He made a whip of cords, drove out the sheep and cattle with that whip, overturned the money tables, scattered the coins, and ordered the money changers to get out, exclaiming, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!… It is written… ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers’ ” (John 2:16; Matt. 21:13). This is hardly “violence”!

It is understandable that some have failed to read the varied accounts in the four Gospels carefully and therefore have failed to put together the fact that John 2 mentions Jesus making a whip of cords (with which he drove out the sheep and cattle) while Matthew 21, Mark 11, and Luke 19 mention that he drove out the people selling. But the whip was for the animals; sharp words of rebuke were for the people. It is interesting that all four Gospels speak of this event (some believe it was actually two separate events), which indicates the great importance attached to the Messiah’s prophetic actions in the Temple.¹⁵⁵ He was cleaning out his Father’s house, and it was a praiseworthy deed motivated by zeal for God and the work of God (see John 2:17). We should also point out that none of the Gospels record a single word of criticism from the Jewish leadership for Jesus’ actions here, even when false witnesses were being brought to slander and attack him (Matt. 26:59–61). Not a word about this incident was spoken by any of his accusers—obviously because there was nothing worth mentioning. (None of the Rabbinic literature mentions this incident either, despite the fact that there are some ugly attacks on Yeshua in that literature. See vol. 1, pp. 136–39, for more on these anti-Jesus hostilities.) word about this incident was spoken by any of his accusers—obviously because there was nothing worth mentioning. (None of the Rabbinic literature mentions this incident either, despite the fact that there are some ugly attacks on Yeshua in that literature. See vol. 1, pp. 136–39, for more on these anti-Jesus hostilities.)

Returning again to the specific nature of hamas, “violence,” in the Tanakh, we must remember that Moses, Joshua, David, Samuel, and other great leaders put people to death at God’s command, yet they were not called “violent” because of their deeds. That is because hamas speaks of illegal violent acts, as opposed to simply carrying out God’s righteous judgments against sinners. Thus, when Moses called on the Levites to put their fellow Israelites to death for their idolatry, they were not committing violence (Exod. 32:25–28); when Joshua killed the five Canaanite kings, he was not committing violence (Josh. 10:16–27), nor was Samuel when he chopped up the Amalekite king, Agag (1 Sam. 15:32–33). How then could anyone say Jesus acted violently when he drove out animals with a whip and overturned the tables of money changers? This is certainly not violence!

What I find most ironic is that anti-missionaries say Isaiah 53 cannot possibly apply to Yeshua because of his alleged violence in cleansing the Temple, yet they freely apply Isaiah 53 to the nation of Israel (or the righteous remnant within Israel; see above, 4.6). Yet our people have been at their most heroic historically when they have used armed, forceful resistance against their adversaries—be it the warring Maccabees in the second century C.E., the courageous fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising during the Holocaust, or the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) who recaptured the Golan in 1973. We commend our people for heroic acts of war! How then can we apply Isaiah 53 to Israel—as a nonviolent people—while disqualifying Yeshua, the greatest example of nonviolence the world has ever known? Obviously, we cannot.

4.16. Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Jesus because it says the servant of the Lord would not lift up his voice or cry out, yet Jesus cried out several times on the cross, once in near blasphemy (Psalm 22:1).

One of the most striking aspects of the suffering and death of Jesus was that he went as a lamb to the slaughter, not resisting those who arrested him, not defending himself before his accusers, and even forgiving those who crucified him. In this, he has become the worldwide symbol of a man who truly “turned the other cheek.” As for his quoting Psalm 22:1 on the cross—a beloved passage of Scripture—how is this “near blasphemy”?

Isaiah 53:7 says of the servant of the Lord: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” This quite accurately describes the actions and attitudes of Yeshua the Messiah when he “was oppressed and afflicted.” In fact, his followers pointed to this very text to indicate that he, quite clearly, was the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke (see Acts 8:26–39). That’s why Peter, an eyewitness of the Messiah’s suffering and death, could write of him, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).

Let’s look for a moment at the specific details of Jesus’ arrest, trials, beatings, mockings, flogging, and crucifixion :

• When Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, he did not allow his disciples to fight on his behalf, saying to Peter, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (see Matt. 26:52). Thus, he went as a lamb to the slaughter.

• When all kinds of false charges were brought against him at his bogus trial before the high priest, the Scriptures record, “The high priest stood up and said to Jesus, ‘Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?’ But Jesus remained silent” (Matt. 26:62–63a). Here is a man being falsely accused, with the death penalty hanging over his head, and he refuses to defend himself! It is only when the high priest orders him to state whether he is the Messiah, the Son of God, that he says, “Yes, it is as you say.… But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64, pointing his accusers to the prophetic picture of the Son of man in Daniel 7:13–14). When some of those at the trial then began to spit on him and punch him, he did not say a word (Matt. 26:67). His trial before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, was conducted along similar lines:

Once again, we see Yeshua going as a lamb to the slaughter—without resistance of any kind—and his refusal to defend himself amazes the governor.156

• After Pilate sentenced him to be crucified, Jesus was flogged and then abused by the Roman soldiers. The Gospels record the picture quite graphically. But note carefully: At no point does Jesus resist; at no point does he respond to his captors; at no point does he raise his voice and revile those attacking him. He suffers silently like a lamb.

• Comparing the verses just cited with some of the other related accounts penned by Yeshua’s followers, we see that in each stage of his suffering, it is stated that he was led away, just as a lamb being led to slaughter: First, he was seized and led away to his trial at the home of the high priest (Luke 22:54); second, he was bound and led away to his trial before Pilate (Matt. 27:2; Mark 15:1); third, he was led away to be crucified after being flogged and abused (Matt. 27:31; Luke 23:26). This is exactly what Isaiah prophesied: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Isa. 53:7).

And what does our blessed Messiah say when he is being crucified? He prays that his Father would forgive those nailing him to the cross! (See Luke 23:34.) And when the soldiers and religious leaders mock him as he hangs there naked and humiliated, challenging him to demonstrate that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, he says nothing in defense. He doesn’t utter a word! Nor does he reply to the two criminals crucified on either side of him, both of whom initially mock him as well (see Matt. 27:38, 44). It is only when one of these men comes to his senses and recognizes that there is something different about Jesus, that he is in fact God’s chosen one, that Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). So, he only speaks to show mercy, not to retaliate. This goes beyond the noncombative qualities of a lamb!

His only other utterances on the cross are (1) his recitation of Psalm 22:1, pointing those listening to the words of the righteous sufferer who would be delivered from death by God (Matt. 27:46; see also below, 4.24); (2) his committing his mother’s care into the hands of his disciple John (John 19:26–27); (3) the words, “I am thirsty” (John 19:28);¹⁵⁷ and (4) his last words, namely, “It is finished” and “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (John 19:30; Luke 23:46; see also Matt. 27:50). None of these utterances, in spirit or in letter, violate the words of Isaiah 53. Rather, like a lamb, he did not resist his oppressors nor did he seek to defend himself. Like a sheep silent before his shearers, he did not raise his voice when mocked, ridiculed, beaten, flogged, and crucified. And when he did speak, it was to commune with his Father, to pronounce mercy and forgiveness for the guilty, and to commit his mother to the care of one of his trusted followers. Truly, this was the Lamb of God! (See John 1:29.)

4.17. Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Jesus because it says the servant of the Lord would see seed, an expression always meaning physical descendants when used in the Hebrew Bible.

Actually, the passage you refer to is the only occurrence of the Hebrew expression “see seed” in the Tanakh, so it is not wise to be so dogmatic about the meaning of the expression, especially since “seed” is sometimes used metaphorically in the Scriptures and since it can sometimes refer simply to a future generation. This much is certain: Through his continued life after his resurrection, we can honestly and fairly say that Jesus the Messiah fulfills the description of “seeing seed.”

It was while debating Rabbi Professor J. Immanuel Schochet on March 30, 1995, that I first heard the argument that the Hebrew expression “see seed” (yireh zeraʿ) always referred to literal offspring in the Hebrew Bible. With all due respect to Rabbi Schochet’s scholarship, I must confess I was surprised to hear this, since this idiom is found only one time in the Tanakh, namely, in Isaiah 53. How then can it be argued that this expression always refers to literal offspring in the Tanakh when it occurs only once? Of course, one could simply argue that the Hebrew word zeraʿ always refers to literal seed (= physical offspring), never to metaphorical seed (such as disciples or spiritual offspring), and therefore the verse would mean that the servant of the Lord had children. If this were true, it would rule out Jesus as a candidate. This argument, however, is not compelling for a number of reasons.

First, zeraʿ, “seed,” is sometimes used metaphorically in the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Book of Isaiah. Thus, Isaiah called Israel “a seed of evildoers,” “a seed of an adulterer,” and “a seed of falsehood” (Isa. 1:4; 14:20; 57:3–4). While some of these phrases could be intended in a literal sense (that is, the Israelites were literally children of evil, adulterous, lying people), more likely they are intended metaphorically (that is, they were wicked, adulterous, dishonest people to the very core of their beings). According to the standard Hebrew lexicon of Brown, Driver, and Briggs, in cases such as these, seed means “as marked by moral quality = persons (or community) of such a quality,”¹⁵⁸ thus, “a seed of evildoers” would really mean “a community of evildoers” or “evildoers to the core.” In the context of Isaiah 53:10, this would mean that the servant of the Lord would see godly, spiritual posterity, true disciples transformed by means of his labors on their behalf. As Isaiah 53:10 explains, this is tied in with his “prolong[ing] his days,” referring to his resurrection (see above, 4.13).

Second, zeraʿ is sometimes used with reference to “a future generation” without referring to the specific descendants of one individual in particular. Thus, Psalm 22 declares that as a result of the mighty deliverance experienced by the righteous sufferer (see below, 4.24), “posterity [zeraʿ] will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn—for he has done it” (Ps. 22:30-31[31-32]).¹⁵⁹ As rendered in the NJPSV: “Offspring shall serve Him; the Lord’s fame shall be proclaimed to the generation to come; they shall tell of His beneficence to people yet to be born, for He has acted.” In the context of Isaiah 53:10, this would mean that the servant of the Lord would see future generations of his people serving the Lord. Cannot this be rightly applied to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who have followed Yeshua, the servant of the Lord, through the centuries? Certainly, this would be true to the context, especially since the text does not say that he would literally father a seed (= offspring), but rather that he would see offspring.

Third, the weakness of this argument is seen when we realize that no less a traditional Jewish authority than Saʿadiah Gaon applied Isaiah 53 to Jeremiah the prophet, yet God commanded Jeremiah never to marry or have children (Jer. 16:1; see above, 4.6). More recently, Isaiah 53 was applied to the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, yet he and his wife were unable to have children. How then could this be applied to either of these two candidates? Obviously, the text does not explicitly state that the servant of the Lord had to bear children of his own, hence the passage could be applied to these other Jewish leaders, albeit incorrectly. (In other words, many of the other specifics of the text cannot possibly apply to either Jeremiah or the Rebbe, while they apply perfectly to Yeshua.) We can see, then, that this argument has very little, if any, force.

Having concluded our discussion of Isaiah 53, let me once again encourage you to read the entire passage for yourself (beginning in Isaiah 52:13) while asking yourself honestly before the Lord, Of whom does the prophet speak? I trust you will see an amazing prophetic portrait of our Messiah, the righteous Lamb of God, who died that we could live. In fact, the description is so clear that you will understand why the charge has been raised that this section of the Bible was removed from the weekly Scripture portions read in the synagogue. It sounds too much like Yeshua! But is this charge really true?

Oxford professor Geza Vermes has argued that the Ten Commandments were once read every week in the synagogues and then were removed because of Hellenizing Jews who claimed that God gave Israel only the Ten Commandments.¹⁶⁰ If true, this would mean there might have been polemical factors that dictated which portions of the Bible would be read aloud in the synagogue—at least in some extreme cases. Similarly, it has been argued that Isaiah 52:13–53:12 was also removed from its place because Christians often pointed to the text as a clear prophecy of Jesus, and it sounded too much like him to be read in the synagogues. More specifically, we see that Isaiah 51:12–52:12 (the section immediately preceding Isaiah 52:13–53:12) was read in conjunction with Deuteronomy 15:1821:9 (called Parashat Shoftim) from the Torah, while Isaiah 54:1–10 (the section immediately following Isaiah 52:13–53:12) was read in conjunction with the next Torah passage, Deuteronomy 21:10–25:19 (called Parashat Ki Tetzei). What happened to Isaiah 53?

It is possible the text was simply skipped because it did not fit properly with the Torah portion in question, since the reading from the Prophets coincided in some way with the reading from the Torah. In keeping with this, the Jewish scholar Raphael Loewe has pointed to ancient synagogal traditions from Palestine that seem to indicate that Isaiah 53 was never read as part of the weekly portion. On the other hand, Loewe pointed to equally ancient synagogal traditions from Egypt that seem to indicate the opposite, namely, that Isaiah 53 was originally read one week out of every year, but it was subsequently removed, apparently for polemical reasons.¹⁶¹ How interesting! Of course, we may never know which tradition is accurate (or if both traditions are accurate, reflecting different customs in different parts of the world). Yet we do know this: Isaiah 53 has not been read aloud in the synagogues for many centuries, but there is nothing stopping you from carefully and prayerfully reading the text for yourself. I urge you to follow the truth wherever it may lead.

Having examined all the major objections that have been raised against the Messianic Jewish/Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, it is clear that none of them have any substance. It is equally clear that the passage describes Jesus the Messiah with striking accuracy. What do you say?

¹⁴⁶ Different translations of the Hebrew in this passage of Isaiah are possible, none of which greatly affect the overall meaning, despite the specious arguments set forth in Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity (New York: Ktav, 1981), 50–53.

¹⁴⁷ A working definition, then, for the root would be, “to be weak, debilitated; to be sick, suffer.” For discussion of the relevant lexical data by a leading authority in the field, cf. Klaus Seybold, “chalah, etc.,” TDOT, 4:399–409; see further the references in Michael L. Brown, Israel’s Divine Healer, Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 36–37, with nn. on 265.

¹⁴⁸ D. Winton Thomas, a leading Hebrew and Old Testament scholar, devoted a number of studies to the root ydʿ (normally translated “to know”), arguing that in some instances it actually masked a different root meaning “to be humbled.” For references, and for a translation of Isaiah 53 incorporating these insights, cf. Loewe, prolegomenon to Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah.

¹⁴⁹ The New Testament portrays Jesus as being intimately involved with human sickness and pain—to the point of causing him grief and anguish—yet full of divine joy (Heb. 1:9, citing Ps. 45:7[8]; see also Luke 10:21). Such a picture is psychologically consistent, given the dual realities with which Yeshua lived: great intimacy with his heavenly Father—producing boundless joy—and great intimacy with the human race producing boundless pain.

¹⁵⁰ The portion of the Talmudic text in question is dealing with Rabbinic speculation about the name of the Messiah. One opinion of the sages is that “his name is the leprous one [Aramaic, hiwwraʾ] of the house of Rabbi”; Isaiah 53:4 is quoted as support.

¹⁵¹ For further discussion of the root ngʿ with bibliographical references, cf. Brown, Israel’s Divine Healer, 317, n. 160. See also Rejected Cornerstone, 166–68, with reference to Delitzsch’s treatment of ngʿ.

¹⁵² As rendered in Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:53–54.

¹⁵³ See the relevant discussion about Messiah son of Joseph in vol. 2, 3.23.

¹⁵⁴ David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 423.

¹⁵⁵ For discussion of the various Gospel accounts of this incident (whether there was one cleansing of the Temple or two), cf. the standard evangelical commentaries on the Synoptics and John.

¹⁵⁶ The account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate is most fully related in John 18:28–40, and at no time in that account does Jesus seek to defend himself, protest, or resist the sentence of death. Rather, he accepts it as his destiny.

¹⁵⁷ As explained in John 19:28a, Jesus uttered these words “… knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled,” with apparent reference to verses such as Psalm 22:15[16], “My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.”

¹⁵⁸ Francis Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (repr., New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1959), 283.

¹⁵⁹ The KJV renders Psalm 22:30a[31a] as, “A seed shall serve him,” bringing out clearly the Hebrew usage and indicating that it does not refer to specific offspring, but posterity in general.

¹⁶⁰ Geza Vermes, “The Decalogue and the Minim,” in his Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, Studies in Judaism in Late AnƟquity, vol. 8 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 169–77.

¹⁶¹ Loewe, prolegomenon to Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 20–22.

FURTHER READING

ISAIAH’S SUFFERING SERVANT

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in Jewish Tradition

Aramaic Paraphrase of Isaiah 52:13-53:12

TARGUM OF ISAIAH 53 REVISITED

ISAIAH 53 IS NOT ABOUT NATIONAL ISRAEL

More Proof that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Cannot Be National Israel

A Leading Jewish Rabbi Exposes the Duplicity of Jewish anti-Christian Missionaries!

How Rabbinic Judaism’s Belief in Two Messiahs proves that Jesus is the Christ

An anti-Christian Rabbi Proves Muhammad is a false prophet! Pt. 1, Pt. 2

Isaiah’s Suffering Servant: More Prophetic Hints for the Messiah’s Divinity and Priestly Role

PRE-CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 52:13-53:12