But what does it mean to fulfill the Scriptures? This is not as simple as it may sound. Often, the New Testament writers say that Jesus has fulfilled the Scriptures when something in his life is literally predicted by the prophets. For instance, the idea that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Other times, fulfillment is not about prediction but pattern. In his role as Israel’s Messiah, Jesus fulfills the Scriptures when he relives Israel’s story through his own life—when he suffers their pains, endures their hardships, and lives a life of perfect obedience to God’s law.
So, we invite you to explore these passages below from the Jewish Scriptures and their fulfillments in the life of Jesus.
The Prophecies
The Messiah Would Be Resurrected
Psalm 16 expresses King David’s hope, but what was he hoping for?
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Psalm 16:8–11
Fulfillment: Acts 2:22–32; 13:35–37
In rabbinic tradition, there was discussion as to whether David was speaking of immortality in Psalm 16.1 The psalm expresses King David’s hope, but what was he hoping for? Was it for a long and full life in the present—or was it for immortality and to be in God’s presence forever? David affirms that God will not “abandon my soul to Sheol,” implying that God would not leave him to the grave. And his affirmation that God would “not let your holy one see corruption” (“corruption” is literally, “the Pit”) implies that he believed he would not undergo the physical decay that death involves.
A popular Jewish song goes like this: “David, Melech Yisrael, chai, chai, v’kayam,” “David, King of Israel, lives forever” (or “lives and endures”). An online poster (using an alternative spelling for David) posed this question to a Jewish discussion group: “I’m pretty sure David, the king of Israel is dead and buried. If so, what does this song really mean and why do we sing it?” One answer given was: “Perhaps since the messiah is to be from the lineage of King David and has yet to come it is a reference of things to come via King David’s line and a continuation?”2
In the New Testament book of Acts, chapter two, Peter uses a similar thought in addressing Jewish people on the holiday of Shavuot, the day on which, according to tradition, King David was both born and also died. No wonder he takes the occasion to quote Psalm 16 and then mentions that David is dead and his tomb is available for inspection! But, he continues,
Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the [Messiah], that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Acts 2:30–32
King David may have seen ahead to his own resurrection – but David’s resurrection was only possible because of the resurrection of his descendant, the Messiah. His vision of his own resurrection and that of the Messiah’s could well have blended into one glimpse of the future.
In Acts chapter 13, Paul argues similarly. David did see (that is, experience) that corruption of death, because, after all, he died. But it was in his own descendant, the Messiah Jesus, that corruption was not seen. As Paul taught elsewhere, because of Jesus’ resurrection, the resurrection of all other believers is possible.
David looked ahead to a life with God beyond the grave, even if he did not have full clarity of what that entailed. Because Jesus’ resurrection enables the resurrection of all believers, including David, that vision of his own resurrection merged with the resurrection of Jesus.
End Notes
1. For details, see Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 115.
2.
The Messiah Would Bring in a New Covenant
God promised Israel a new covenant, one that would be in some way different.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Jeremiah 31:31–34
Fulfillment: Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 7:22; 8:6–13; 9:15; 10:14-18; 12:24
The expression “new covenant” appears seven times in the New Testament, and the new covenant is even more frequently referred to simply as the “covenant,” with the context showing what is meant. References to this covenant are especially frequent in the book of Hebrews, but also occur during Jesus’ final Passover meal (the Last Supper) and in other passages as well.
All these occurrences go back to Jeremiah 31:31–34, where God promises to Israel that He will initiate a new covenant. God characterizes this new covenant as “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” (verse 32)—in other words, “not like” the Mosaic covenant, the Law of Moses.
The first big question is, when will this covenant begin to take effect? Jesus, at the Last Supper—his final Passover meal—declared that it was going to begin with his sacrificial death:
Likewise [he took] the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
Luke 22:20
In case there is any question, in Matthew Jesus clarifies that his death is indeed for the atonement of our sins:
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:28 (see also Mark 14:24)
Paul also refers to this same occasion when he reminds the believers in Corinth that:
In the same way also [Jesus] took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
1 Corinthians 11:25
Among other things, the covenant made with Israel through Moses was a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt, as seen in these verses:
You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine.
Exodus 19:4–5
As Messiah, Jesus brings in a greater Exodus, yet one that follows the pattern of the Exodus from Egypt. This was the expectation of the Hebrew Bible also – that there would ultimately be a new Exodus greater than the one from Egypt. Because of the redemption Jesus provides, the cup at his final Passover was also meant to be drunk, whenever it was partaken of, in remembrance of him and his redemption.
But it is in the book of Hebrews, written to Jewish believers in Jesus, that the idea of the new covenant is especially emphasized. Coming in for special emphasis is that it will be a better covenant than the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah said as much in his prophecy, and Hebrews in turn quotes from him as well as making other mentions of the new covenant. Here are the relevant verses from Hebrews:
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Hebrews 7:22
The context is the priesthood; Jesus is our kohen or priest, the intermediary between us and God. According to the previous verses, his priesthood is guaranteed by God, making the covenant he brings in better than the Mosaic covenant. In fact, the priests in the centuries leading up to Jesus and in his own day had the reputation – often well-deserved – of being corrupt. Jesus’ priesthood is not subject to corruption or the ups and downs of the human beings who happen to occupy the priestly office at the time. Guaranteed by God Himself, Jesus’ priesthood is forever exercised ethically, in purity and on our behalf. And this is because his priesthood is in the context of a better covenant.
In the following chapter, Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage directly:
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:6–13
This passage shows first, that Israel violated the Mosaic covenant and in response, God planned to institute a better one; and second, that the better covenant has come through Jesus. The writer says that the old covenant is “ready to vanish away,” perhaps because he is writing with the destruction of the Temple shortly ahead or already behind him.
Additional passages to consider are 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15; 10:14–18 and 12:24.
So the first big question was about when the new covenant would begin to take effect. The second is, what is the new covenant like? Though it is “not like” the Mosaic covenant, it is not a destruction of that covenant, but its fulfillment. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In practice, this means that all the ethical and moral principles of the Mosaic covenant are still with us. They reflect God’s character, which is unchanging. What the new covenant brings is an internal awareness of God’s law and the forgiveness of sins. Just as Jesus has brought God’s kingdom in a preliminary but not yet final way, so with the covenant he brings in. Believers, through God’s Holy Spirit, have an internal awareness of God’s requirements, along with atonement for their sins. But that internal awareness is not as complete as it will one day be.
Traditional Jews believe the Torah, as we have it now, will never be changed or done away with.
It’s helpful to compare what Jewish tradition says about the Torah, the Law of Moses. For traditional Judaism, the centrality and eternal nature of the Torah are virtually axiomatic. Traditional Jews believe the Torah as we have it now will never be changed or done away with.
Yet that is not the opinion of all of Jewish tradition. Speaking of Maimonides’ Thirteen Articles of Faith, compiled in medieval times and a bedrock for much of traditional Judaism, scholar Marc B. Shapiro says:
ninth principle teaches that the Torah will never be abrogated, in whole or part, and that God will never give another Torah. Maimonides repeats his insistence that the biblical mitsvot [commandments] and the Oral Law will never be abrogated, not even in messianic days, in a few other places. While this is certainly a popular position among rabbinic authorities, and has a talmudic source, it is hardly unanimously accepted.1
There are various rabbinic opinions that in the “World to Come” or in messianic times, there will be great changes in the Torah. For example:
R. Joseph: “The mitsvot will be abolished in the Time to Come.”
– Babylonian Talmud, Nidah 61bR. Abin ben Kahanah proclaimed: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘A new Torah shall go forth from me,’ that is, a new Torah law shall issue from me.”
— Leviticus Rabbah 13:3“. . . new Torah which will be given through the messiah.”
— Yalkut Shimoni, On Isaiah, no. 429We absolutely do not admit that which Maimonides laid down, that the entire Torah will not change, for there is no decisive proof for this—neither from reason and logic nor from the Bible. Verily, the Sages tell us that the Holy One will give a new Torah in the future. If our King should wish to change the Torah, or exchange it for another, whatever the King wishes, whether it be to descend on Mount Sinai or another of the mighty mountains, or even a valley, there to appear a second time before the eyes of all the living, we would be the first to do His will, whatever be His bidding.
— R. Jacob Emden [18th c. rabbi], Migdal oz, 26b-c and Translation in Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism, 8-9.In the future the mitsvot will no longer have a physical component but only a spiritual one. So, for example, one will be able to wear wool and linen as this is only the external form of the mitsvah, which in the future will be obsolete. Only the spiritual component of the mitsvot is eternal.
— Shapiro’s summary of R. Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye (died c. 1782)
As Shapiro concludes, “From what we have seen so far, it is obvious that there is a significant rabbinic position which declares that the commandments will be abolished in messianic days.”2
If Jesus is indeed the Messiah—as his followers believe—then there is every likelihood that the new covenant of Jeremiah has begun with his sacrificial death and his resurrection, as he himself taught and as emphasized in the book of Hebrews. If so, then we can expect that the Law of Moses as we have in the Torah, has changed as well. Followers of Jesus understand that the moral principles contained in all the 613 commandments of the Torah are still valid, but their expression has changed for a new era. Many of the ceremonial laws and laws that pertained to Israel as an ancient society no longer apply in this new age since the coming of the Messiah, while others have deepened or extended in their application. With this, it seems, many sages in Jewish history would have agreed.
And the knowledge of God has come to us in a new and deeper way, along with the forgiveness of sins, and has overflowed the bounds of Israel to encompass all people from all nations who put their faith in Messiah Jesus. Now that is certainly something “new”!
End Notes
1. Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford; Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004), p. 122.
2. Ibid., p. 130.
The Messiah would be forsaken and pierced, but vindicated
The similarities between Jesus’ death and Psalm 22 are remarkable.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Psalms 22:1–31 [Hebrew, 1–32]
Fulfillment: Matthew 27:35, 39, 43–44, 46; Mark 15:34; John 19:23–24, 30; Hebrews 2:11–12
The first half of Psalm 22 is the psalm of a righteous sufferer, derided by his enemies and feeling forsaken by God. From verse 22 (Hebrew, 23) on, the tone changes radically as the sufferer is vindicated by God and the Lord reigns over all the earth. Beginning with a despondent tone, the psalm ends on a note of triumph.
The New Testament shows Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of this psalm. In Matthew 27:46 we read, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (See also Mark 15:34.) Jesus is not crying out spontaneously in despair, nor was he calling out for Elijah to come and rescue him, as some bystanders thought; he is actually quoting the beginning of Psalm 22. This is for several reasons: (1) many understand that on the cross, as Jesus took on the sins of all humanity, he was momentarily abandoned by God, who cannot look on sin. This is possible, though the text does not say so directly. (2) He was identifying as the righteous sufferer of Psalm 22. It was typical in quoting a verse or two of Scripture to imply the entire passage; and so though Jesus quotes the beginning of the psalm, it implies the end as well, when the sufferer is vindicated by God. Jesus, then, was drawing attention to the entirety of Psalm 22—suffering, but ultimately vindicated, as was seen shortly after at the Resurrection.
Matthew 27:39 and 43 also uses the language of Psalm 22 to describe the reactions of those standing around:
And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads… (Matthew 27:39)
All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads… (Psalm 22:7 [Hebrew, 8])
“He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” (Matthew 27:43)
“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” (Psalm 22:8 [Hebrew, 9])
The Psalm goes on to describe graphically the sufferings of this righteous person:
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet—I can count all my bones—they stare and gloat over me; (Psalm 22:14-17 [Hebrew, 15–18]
Commentators have noted the resemblance of this description of what takes place during crucifixion: the perspiration, the bones being pulled out of joint as the body fatigues on the cross; the possible rupture of the heart; the extreme dehydration. Verse 16 [Hebrew, 17] has been controversial: Most English translations say, “they have pierced my hands and feet,” while the Jewish Publication Society translation reads, “Like a lion, [they maul] my hands and feet”—literally, “like a lion, my hands and feet.” However, the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the first few centuries before Jesus—has “pierced.” And the Hebrew words for “they have pierced” (kaaru) and “like a lion” (kaari) differ by one letter, both similar to the other, so that a scribe could easily have made a mistake in copying the passage.
Psalm 22:18 (Hebrew, 19), includes this: “they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”
Matthew 27:35 says about the Roman soldiers, “And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.” Similarly, John 19:23-24 reads:
When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things…
The correspondences between Jesus’ crucifixion and Psalm 22 are remarkable. Either this was a direct prophetic inspiration on the part of David, or if he was referring in an exaggerated way to his own sufferings, his words went far beyond his own situation to be fulfilled in a very literal and exact way in the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion.
Moving to the second part of the psalm showing how God vindicated the sufferer, in verse 22 (Hebrew, 23) the psalmist says, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you…” Hebrews 2:11–12 refers this to Jesus: “That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, ‘I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.’” In Hebrews 2:9–10, he refers to Jesus’ suffering and death; now he uses the vindication portion of the psalm to explain that Jesus shares our humanity, calls us his brothers, and stands vindicated by God. As verses 14–15 of Hebrews says, Jesus took on our humanity “that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” It is the same story as Psalm 22—suffering and death, then vindication and victory.
Finally, in John 19:30 we read, “When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” This could allude to the final verse of Psalm 22: “They shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.” He has done it—it is finished—the crucifixion gives way to the victory of the Resurrection!
The Messiah Would Be the Rejected Cornerstone
“Everyone who falls on that stone will be shattered, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Psalm 118:22–24
Fulfillment: Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10–11; Luke 20:17–18; Acts 4:9–12; 1 Peter 2:4–8
In Matthew 21, Jesus has just told a parable: the owner of a vineyard sent some servants to collect the produce from the tenants. But the tenants beat and killed the servants. They did likewise with a second group of servants, and finally, when the owner sent his son, they killed him too. The parable is a sad comment on the history of Israel’s leaders (but not all the people!): rejecting the prophets and finally rejecting God’s Son. Jesus then segues into quoting Psalm 118 about a rejected stone.
Perhaps he thought of this psalm because the word in Hebrew for son is ben, while stone is even (rhyming with ben). A play on words leading to an important point!
The psalm is one of the Hallel Psalms (Psalms 113–118) read near the conclusion of the Passover seder. Psalm 118 praises God for His deliverance of Israel and of Israel’s leader, the king. Israel was rejected in the sight of its enemies, as was its king. But Jesus is both the ultimate Israelite and the ultimate leader of Israel. And so he uses the psalm to illustrate that though the leadership of Israel has rejected him, in fact, he is the chief cornerstone of the nation. (Rabbinic literature, in fact, referred to the leaders of Israel as “builders.”) The word “cornerstone” may refer either to the foundation stone or to the keystone holding together an arch. So Jesus is either the foundation or the “stone” holding together the entire structure of Israel; but as he is both, we do not need to decide the exact meaning of the word. And, says the psalm, all this is “marvelous in our eyes” (Psalm 118:23), or in other words, an unusual, wondrous, unexpected thing to think about. It reminds us somewhat of Isaiah 53:1, “Who has believed what he has heard from us?” That a rejected and crucified person should turn out to be the Messiah of Israel!
In his telling, Luke 20:18 adds: “Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” This looks to be a reference to Isaiah 8:13–15: “But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.” Not only is Jesus the rejected stone who becomes the most important stone of all, but that rejection will lead to serious consequences. We are reminded of Luke 2:25–35:
Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s [Messiah].
And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,
“Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother,
“Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
Simeon likewise spoke of the “fall” and well as the “rising” of many in Israel, and the opposition that would happen; the passages we have looked at spell that out more clearly. Interestingly, just as it “is marvelous in our eyes” in the gospel quotation of Psalm 118, Jesus’ parents “marveled” at Simeon’s blessing (using the same Greek word in both cases for “marvel”).
There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
In Acts 4, Peter speaks to a group of leaders: “rulers,” “elders,” “scribes,” “Annas the high priest,” and “Caiaphas and John and Alexander and all who were of the high-priestly family.” Then in verse 11, he refers to Psalm 118, saying, “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Finally, 1 Peter 2:4–8 speaks of Jesus as a stone rejected by people, but chosen by God:
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through [Messiah Jesus]. For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”
Here Peter cites a related verse, Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus says the Lord God, ‘Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: “Whoever believes will not be in haste.” (This verse is also quoted in Romans 9:33.) He also cites Isaiah 8:14 as Luke did. And finally, he quotes from Psalm 118. All these quotes come in the context of encouraging the readers in their faith. Like Jesus, these believers are also chosen by God, even if they find themselves rejected by others for their faith.
The Messiah Would Do Life-Affirming, Redemptive Deeds
Jesus, after reading from Isaiah 61, announced to his synagogue that it was fulfilled in himself.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Isaiah 61:1–2
Fulfillment: Luke 4:16–21
Isaiah 61 and its surrounding chapters speak of a glorious future for Israel. The description spills over into images that suggest nothing less than the final messianic time for the nation. Isaiah 60:20, for example, is echoed in Revelation 21:23 as John describes the very end of history.
In the midst of these passages we come to Isaiah 61:1–2. “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,” writes Isaiah, “because the Lord has anointed me.” Commentators have often wondered who the “me” is in this passage. Is is the prophet? Is it the “Servant of the Lord” with whom we meet in earlier chapters?
In Luke 4, we find the answer to these questions. As verse 16 says, it was Jesus’ “custom” to attend synagogue each Sabbath. Here, he visits the synagogue in his hometown of Nazareth, a poor village of some 400 people.1 The contemporary synagogue has a long-standing practice of reading a Torah portion each week over the course of a year and a corresponding portion from some prophetic or historical book. (In the past, a three-year (triennial) reading cycle was also used and still is in some congregations.) We cannot say for sure what the practice was in the first century, but in Luke 4, Jesus reads from a prophetic passage, what today we would call the haftarah, the passage that goes along with the weekly Torah reading:
And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:17–21)
It has been fulfilled, right then and there, in Jesus himself.
Jesus, after reading from Isaiah 61, announces that it is being fulfilled, in fact has been fulfilled, right then and there, in Jesus himself. And this, he intimates, happens in the ways that Isaiah mentions:
“To proclaim good news to the poor” (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18). Only a few chapters later in Luke, John the Baptist is in prison wondering—given his circumstances—if Jesus really was the Promised One. Jesus sends an encouraging message back to John. Among other things, John should be told that “the poor have the good news preached to them.”
“To proclaim liberty to the captives” (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18). The Greek word in Luke for “liberty” also means “forgiveness” when it is used together with the word “sin.” Using that word, at the Last Supper—his final Passover meal—Jesus said over the wine that “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Using a different word, Jesus also proclaimed that “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). In Luke 13, using still a different word—but a similar concept—we read that in a certain synagogue:
There was a woman who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.” And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God. (Luke 13:11–13)
“And recovery of sight to those who are blind” (Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint or Greek translation; Luke 4:18). Although Jesus undoubtedly read from a Hebrew scroll, Luke (written in Greek) uses the Septuagint version. Again, a few chapters later Jesus’ response to John the Baptist’s questions includes telling John that “the blind receive their sight.” In the gospels, we see Jesus restoring sight to blind people on several occasions, the most dramatic being in John 9 where we have an extended story of one such healing.
One part of the Isaiah passage, however, Jesus does not include: “the day of vengeance of our God.” Judgment will happen in the future; for now, his ministry is one of mercy, forgiveness, and healing, giving people ample opportunity to respond to him in faith.
The Spirit of the Lord was certainly on the prophet Isaiah, and it is true that he proclaimed good news. But the full picture of restoration that he gives in chapter 61 was not fulfilled in his ministry nor in his lifetime. It took the coming of the Messiah to accomplish that.
End Notes
1. Luke, Zond. Exeg. Comm, see under Luke 4:16.
The Messiah Would Be Born of a Virgin
Was this fulfilled in Isaiah’s time, or was it for a later time?
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Isaiah 7:14
Fulfillment: Matthew 1:22–23; Luke 1:31–35
More than most others, this prophecy has occasioned seemingly unending debate: was it fulfilled in Isaiah’s time, or was it for a later time? Does the Hebrew word almah refer to a virgin or a young woman? Was Matthew in the New Testament misquoting it and distorting its meaning?
Two of the four gospels refer to the virgin birth; only Matthew cites Isaiah. Here are both passages in their larger context:
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 1:20–25
And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Luke 1:30–37
Two comments can be made at the outset. First, for those who say a virgin birth is physically and scientifically impossible, Luke remarks that “nothing will be impossible with God.” If we can believe that God made the universe out of nothing, we can certainly believe as well that He can suspend the usual physical laws that apply.
Secondly, some people point out that Jesus was never called “Immanuel” by anyone in the gospels. However, we find that this same phenomenon happened with King Solomon:
Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her, and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. And the LORD loved him and sent a message by Nathan the prophet. So he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD.
2 Samuel 12:24–25
Yet Solomon is never actually called Jedidiah. Rather than being labels, these “extra” names (Immanuel and Jedidiah) tell us something about the nature of the people they were given to even though they were not used in daily life.
The primary points of debate on Isaiah 7:14 concern (1) the meaning of the Hebrew word almah, (2) the person to whom the prophecy refers, and (3) Matthew’s use of the prophecy.
The meaning of almah
Michael Brown, a Jewish believer in Jesus who has studied ancient Near Eastern languages, offers the following helpful point about the word almah: “While the word ‘almah can refer to a virgin, it does not specifically mean ‘virgin.’ Its basic meaning is primarily related to adolescence, not sexual chastity.” (For his detailed reasons, see Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, section 4.3.)1
Some may think this line of reasoning destroys the case for a virgin birth. But it does not. If we translate almah as a “young woman of marriageable age,” in the culture of Isaiah’s time, it was assumed that she would be a virgin! In other words, rather than needing to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that almah linguistically means “virgin,” we can simply point out that an almah in that culture was a virgin.
The meaning of the word betulah
Some have argued that there is another Hebrew word that clearly does refer to a virgin: betulah. If Isaiah really meant “virgin,” the argument goes, he would have been better off using this alternate word.
But Brown shows that betulah, while it could refer to a virgin, often simply means a young woman. Some of his observations:
- Genesis 24:16 includes the phrase, “a betulah whom no man had known.” Here, the qualifier, “whom no man had known” (which means “whom no man had slept with/had sexual relations with”), is added, showing that betulah by itself was not enough to indicate virginity.
- In the following verses, “young woman” makes sense while “virgin” does not: Isaiah 23:4; Ezekiel 9:6; Job 31:1; Joel 1:8 (referring to a widow); Isaiah 47:1 (the betulah loses her husband and her children in verses 8 and 9).
- In cognate (related) ancient languages, the equivalent of betulah often can refer to someone who is pregnant or has had intimate relations.
Thus, the word betulah would not have worked for Isaiah if he meant to indicate virginity. (Again, for more detail, see Brown’s book referred to above.)
To whom does the prophecy refer?
The context of the prophecy in Isaiah
The context of Isaiah 7 is the attack on Judah by the Arameans and the northern tribes of Israel. Note these things:
- The aim of the attack was to depose the king of Judah, a descendant of David, and thereby to end the Davidic dynasty, which God had established and promised to always sustain. In essence, it was an attack on God Himself.
- The current king of Judah, Ahaz, was a man of superficial faith. God’s promise in Isaiah 7:7–9 that both His adversaries (the Arameans and the northern tribes of Israel) would come to an end is met with no response of faith on the part of Ahaz. God even offers to give Ahaz a sign, but Ahaz refuses to take God up on His offer – “I will not put the LORD to the test,” he replies, using Deuteronomy 6:16 as an excuse. It is as though someone warmly invited you to their home for dinner and you responded, “I won’t come because I don’t want to impose!”
- With some exasperation, God then addresses the entire house of David (using plural pronouns, which means He is not addressing only Ahaz). God takes the initiative and gives the sign of the almah who will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel.
Because the sign of Immanuel is meant to be a sign to Ahaz of God’s deliverance of Israel, we can say that it was fulfilled in Ahaz’s day in the birth of a particular person who was born to a young woman of marriageable age – after she was married. The person, though not named Immanuel (see discussion above), was a sign that God was with His people in delivering Judah. It almost does not matter who this person would have been. Ahaz and his court would have known. Yet the prophecy doesn’t end there because it was given to the entire house of David as well. And so…
How did Matthew use the prophecy?
Sometimes a prophecy ends up being far more complex than it first appears. In Exodus 3:16–17, God tells Moses that he will bring Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. But it was not a straight shot by any means as God’s promise was not fulfilled without the wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, the death of the first generation to leave Egypt, and an assortment of other obstacles and incidents along the way, none of which were mentioned when the original promise was given.
Another example is God’s promise to David that He would set David on the throne and that his kingdom would last forever (see 2 Samuel 7:13–18 and 1 Chronicles 17:11–14). And yet, as commentator Craig Blaising notes, “Nothing was said about a line of kings, a later division of the kingdom, trouble with Gentile powers, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and an interruption of Davidic rule for over four hundred years…. Note that throughout that history each of the Davidic kings found legitimacy in the original covenant promise, while subsequent prophecy spoke of one yet to come who would fulfill the promise forever.” Blaising calls this “a divinely directed historical complexification of prophetic patterns.”2
The messianic hope was for an ultimate descendant of David.
Something similar can be seen with the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy. There was a child born in Ahaz’s day who served as a sign that God would deliver Israel. But – “complexifying” matters, in Blaising’s terminology – the deliverance did not last. Israel again came under oppressive rulers and continued to do so with only brief respites up through the rule of Rome in the first century. Similarly, though David’s rule was prophesied to last forever as a time of peace and prosperity, many of the following Davidic kings proved to be evil, bringing destruction rather than deliverance. The messianic hope was for an ultimate descendant of David who would finally fulfill the original promise God gave to David.
And so Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, a promise made not just to Ahaz but to the whole “house of David” – the entire Jewish people. In Matthew’s time, Judah is still oppressed and in need of deliverance by an Immanuel, someone known as “God with us.” This time, the prophecy is fulfilled in all its fullness: Jesus—if you accept the teaching of the New Testament—was indeed God with us as He became incarnate in a human being. And for good measure, Mary literally remained a “young woman of marriageable age”—without having relations with her husband—up through the time of Jesus’ birth. Ahaz may have had his “Immanuel” in his own time as a sign that God was then with Israel, but, with the incarnation of Jesus, the entire Jewish people have now had the ultimate “Immanuel,” God literally with us in Yeshua.
Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 has been a source of lively discussion. The above comments are not intended to be the last word on the subject but rather to point to one way of understanding the prophecy.
End Notes
1. Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), section 4.3.
2. Craig Blaising, “Biblical Hermeneutics: How Are We to Interpret the Relation Between the Tanak and the New Testament on This Question?,” The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016), 100.
The Messiah Would Come According to a Timetable
The angel Gabriel told Daniel about a period of 490 years.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Daniel 9:24–27
Fulfillment: Matthew 24:15–16; Mark 13:14–15; Galatians 4:4
Daniel had been taken captive to Babylon as a young man, where he quickly proved himself both competent and godly. By the time we get to chapter nine, Daniel has spent the better part of his life in exile and is now a much older man. He was also a Bible student and had been studying the book of Jeremiah, where he had read that the Babylonian exile was to last 70 years. As that time was drawing near, Daniel began to pray and fast both for himself and for his nation, that God would forgive them and bring them back to Israel (see Daniel 9:1–3). The bulk of chapter nine then gives us Daniel’s heartfelt prayer.
As he prayed, the angel Gabriel appeared to him to bring an announcement: Gabriel tells Daniel not about the 70 years of captivity (which Daniel knew were coming to an end) but about “seventy sevens,” or a period of 490 years, climaxing not merely in the return from Babylon but in the messianic age. What an encouragement that must have been to Daniel!
Here is the part of Gabriel’s message concerning the 490 years:
“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” (Daniel 9:24–27)
There has been a huge amount of discussion and debate over the chronological details of this passage. In the end, though, no matter what the details come down to, there are only a few main points to be noticed. As pastor Francis Schaeffer noted in another connection, when all is said and done, “There are not many men left in the room.” In other words, the main options are few.
First of all, the “seventy weeks” (literally, “seventy sevens,” understood by almost everyone to mean seventy seven-year periods or 490 years) begin with “the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem.” Commentators have drilled down to the details and dated “the word” at various times in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. In any event, the walls of Jerusalem began to be rebuilt about 457 B.C.
Second, after sixty-nine weeks, Jerusalem and its Temple are destroyed: “The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” After the seventieth week too, we are still talking about desolation and destruction of the Temple: “On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
Therefore, the 490 years begin with the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the fifth century B.C. and take us to the era of the Temple’s destruction which occurred in A.D. 70.
Third, “an anointed one” is mentioned twice. Translations vary: if the punctuation is translated one way, we have two anointed ones, one coming after seven weeks (49 years) and another one—who is killed—after an additional 62 weeks (434 years). If the punctuation is translated a different way, we have only one anointed person, who comes after seven and sixty-two weeks (483 years). A great deal of ink has been spilled over figuring out the best way to translate this, but in the end, the key point is: given the total of 490 years, an anointed one will be killed not long before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
The meaning of ‘Messiah’ is exactly ‘anointed one.’
As to the term, “anointed one,” though the term “the Messiah” was not really in use during the Old Testament period, the meaning of “Messiah” is exactly “anointed one.” Kings and priests were anointed with oil for their service; the ultimate anointed one was known as “the Anointed,” or “the Messiah.”
And fourth, this is no ordinary anointed person. This one accomplishes six things that Daniel enumerates. Since the anointed one had to come before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, if we understand Jesus to be this Messiah who was killed—and there is no other candidate in that time period—then the six things turn out as follows (in the ESV translation):
- Finish the transgression—meaning, to bring it to a climax, rather than to eliminate sin from the earth. Scripture sometimes speaks of God’s waiting for sin to reach a certain point before He takes action. In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abraham that after enduring slavery in Egypt, his descendants will return to the promised land, “for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” As to the sin of Jesus’ generation, he himself said that “on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation” (Matthew 23:35–36). Rabbinic teaching also was that the destruction of the Temple came about because of the sins of the previous generation. God takes action at such a point. But not only was the Temple destroyed, God also graciously provided a means of atonement without the Temple—the atoning death of Jesus.
- Put an end to sin—in the context of Jesus being the Messiah, this would suggest his death that atones for sin. As Paul writes to the Romans: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.… For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Romans 5:8, 10).
- Atone for iniquity—At the final Passover meal, the Last Supper, “[Jesus] took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” (Matthew 26:27–28)
- Bring in everlasting righteousness—As Paul says in Romans 5:17, “For if, because of one man’s trespass [Paul is talking about Adam, the first man], death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Messiah Jesus.”
- Seal both vision and prophet—the meaning can mean either to authenticate something, or to hide it away. Jesus certainly authenticated the words of the prophets in his life, death and resurrection; while he also spoke of the meaning of Scripture being hidden away for those who rejected him. Either meaning fits.
- Anoint a most holy place—literally, “a most holy” which could also refer to “a most holy person.” Interestingly, the medieval sage Nachmanides said that “the Holy of holies is naught else than the Messiah, the sanctified one of the sons of David.”1
Another medieval sage, Rashi—the commentator par excellence in Jewish history – also interpreted this passage at least in part about the Messiah, and also saw its fulfillment before the destruction of the Temple. However, Rashi thought that the anointed one who was killed was King Agrippa, but then applied the very end of the passage to the future Messiah.2 Agrippa, however, did not fulfill the six items that Daniel mentions. If we are going to pick someone in the first century A.D. to be the anointed one, Jesus certainly fits the bill the best!
The New Testament does not refer much to this prophecy. However, we can note these passages:
“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
Matthew 24:15–16
“But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out…”
Mark 13:14–15
The “abomination of desolation” is mentioned not only in Daniel 9:27, but in other passages in Daniel where it refers to the desolations of the pagan king Antiochus Epiphanies in 167 BC. But Daniel 9, and Jesus in Matthew and Mark, look beyond that to a greater desolation. Jesus here is likely referring to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 and may also be looking to the future horizons of history when the ultimate desolation will occur.
The other New Testament reference simply speaks in general terms of the time of the Messiah’s coming:
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.
Galatians 4:4
The “fullness of time” reminds us of the verses we looked at, in which God takes action only when the sins of people have reached a climax. Here, it is not the sins of the people but simply the readiness of the time—Jesus came at the appropriate time as designated by God. Daniel 9:24-27 points us to that very designated time, in the first century AD, when Jesus came among humanity as our atoning sacrifice.
Note: For those who want to go into more depth about the details of Daniel 9:24–27, see these resources:
Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections (Grand Rapids; Baker Books, 2003), sections 4.18–4.21.
Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1977).
Hoehner interprets a bit differently, and sees a gap between week 69 and a still-future week 70. While he sees Jesus as the fulfillment of this prophecy, he believes a substantial portion will yet be fulfilled by Jesus in the future. This view, an alternative to the perspective outlined in this article, is shared by many commentators.
End Notes
1. Cited by Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections (Grand Rapids; Baker Books, 2003), see section 4.19, note 192.
2. Ibid., section 4.18.
The Messiah Would Be the Suffering Servant
Is Isaiah 52:13–53:12 about Israel? Is it about the Messiah?
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Isaiah 52:13–53:12
Fulfillment: Matthew 8:16–17, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Matthew 27:59–60, Mark 10:45, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 12:37–38, Acts 8:32–35, Romans 10:16, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 2:21–25
Part I: What Has the Jewish Community Said About Isaiah 53?
Part II: The Message of Isaiah 53
Part III: Isaiah 53 in the New Testament
Part IV: The Theology of the Servant
Introduction
Isaiah 52:13–53:12 has been a contentious passage between Jews and Christians over the centuries. Is it about Israel? Is it about the Messiah? Is it about someone else? Because of this, and also because the passage has been so influential for many Jewish people who have come to believe in Jesus, we will expand the usual short commentary into a longer four-part article. (For convenience, we’ll refer to the entire passage, as others often do, as simply “Isaiah 53.”)
Part I: What Has the Jewish Community Said About Isaiah 53?
An Early Suffering Messiah
The targums are interpretive translations (sometimes referred to as paraphrases) of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. They date from around the time of Jesus on into the following centuries and have a variety of names. Targum Jonathan is a targum of the prophets, usually dated around the second century AD. This targum identifies the servant of Isaiah 53 as the Messiah; however, it also attributed the sufferings described in that chapter to the nation and the victory to the Messiah.
In the synagogue, the Torah and its accompanying portion from the rest of the Tanakh are generally read in a one-year cycle. In the past, however, a three-year cycle was also used, and in the early cycle of synagogue readings, it seems that a messianic interpretation was given in which the Messiah suffers. Says Asher Soloff, “We know that messianic homilies based on Joseph’s career (his saving role preceded by suffering), and using Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, were preached in certain old synagogues which used the triennial cycle.”1
Scholar Jacob Mann similarly says, “The addition of 53.4–5 [to the cycle of synagogue readings] was evidently of a Messianic purport by reason of the theory of a suffering Messiah. The earlier part the Haftarah (52.7ff.) dealt with the redemption of Israel, and in this connection the tribulations of the Messiah were briefly alluded to by the recital of the above 2 verses.”2
But the sufferings of the Messiah in Jewish contexts have often – though not always – been different than the Christian idea of a vicarious atonement (meaning an atonement by a death made in substitution for one’s own death). For example, the “suffering Messiah” referred to in the Mann quote above may reflect the idea of a Messiah ben Joseph who suffers and dies in battle in preparation for the reign of Messiah ben David. In that conception, the sufferings of the Messiah are not atoning and certainly not vicarious (in our place).
In his Dialogue with Trypho (second century AD), Justin Martyr’s Jewish dialogue partner seems to admit the possibility of a suffering Messiah but cannot agree that it is Jesus.
A Variety of Opinions
By the third century AD, Origen in his work Contra Celsum (Against Celsus), portrays his Jewish opponent as interpreting Isaiah 53 refer to the people of Israel, whereby Israel’s suffering and worldwide dispersion are for the purpose of gaining proselytes.3 Thus speaking very broadly, it seems that two kinds of interpretations – national and individual-messianic – were found in the Jewish community of the first few centuries.
Actually, if we go back to the first century, Acts 8 in the New Testament gives evidence for a third kind of interpretation that we can call biographical, in which Isaiah 53 is taken to refer to Isaiah himself or another contemporary figure:
And the eunuch said to Philip, ‘About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’
Acts 8:34
Back to an Individual Interpretation
An individual interpretation is found in the Babylonian Talmud (compiled in the sixth century AD) in Sanhedrin 98a. There, the Messiah is spoken of as a “leprous one,” and Isaiah 53:4 is cited. Similarly, Ruth Rabbah (mid-first millennium AD) cites Isaiah 53:5 and the Tanhuma (perhaps ninth century AD, though incorporating earlier material) quotes Isaiah 52:13. Both interpret the verses in regard to the “King Messiah.” These are not fully formed commentaries but Midrashic snippets, compiled before the medieval era of Jewish biblical commentary writing had begun.
The Polemics of Medieval Times
Indeed, by medieval times and following, Isaiah 53 played a key role in both Jewish and Christian apologetics and polemics. Most of that discussion focused on whether the servant was Israel or the Messiah. We have already seen that the national interpretation can be found in earlier times alongside the individual interpretation. In medieval times, though, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and David Kimhi (known by his acronym as the Radak), made the national interpretation “go viral” in the eleventh century and following. Today that is the usual interpretation within the religious Jewish community.
Joel Rembaum notes this “shift in the emphasis of the Jewish interpretation.”4 According to him, the shift was catalyzed by (1) the Christian argument that the Jewish diaspora was “proof of God’s punishment”;5 (2) the then-standard Christian messianic interpretation of the chapter as portraying Jesus (thus the need for the Jewish community to offer a differing viewpoint); and (3) the “one-sided struggle” against Christians – for example, in the Crusades.6 This last factor led Jewish commentators to attempt to give meaning to the Jewish suffering that, which accompanied the Crusades in the form of pogroms and massacres. Rashi’s commentary was very possibly compiled following the First Crusade, responding to the events of his time. The national interpretation of Isaiah 53 offered a reason for the great suffering that the Jewish people were enduring. Thus, both the refutation of Christian views and comfort for the people of Israel enabled Rashi’s interpretation to become mainstream.
Interestingly, Rembaum tells us that in Rashi’s view, the Suffering Servant atones for humanity’s sins. This “universal vicarious expiation”7 is a new thought introduced by Rashi. In light of the Crusades, so explains Rashi, the Jews are innocent sufferers and the Gentiles are guilty, but Israel’s sufferings actually atone for the nations of the world. By this time in history, Judaism was teaching that martyrdom, such as what Jews underwent during the Crusades, had atoning value. But now this idea of atonement was applied not just to the sins of Israel but to those of the world – a thought “found nowhere in earlier Jewish sources.”8
Rembaum goes on to speak about three medieval Jewish ways of interpreting the nation’s suffering: the first he calls cathartic (the suffering expiates the sins of Israel); the second is missionary (the diaspora allows Israel to bring Torah to the nations – this was the view argued by Origen’s Jewish interlocutor in Contra Celsum); and the third is soteriological (that is, effecting salvation). In this last view, atonement is for the nations, the persecutors of Israel; this is influenced by a Christian “coloration.” Ibn Ezra adds a fourth interpretation, retaliatory: the nations’ persecution of Israel is a sin justifying God’s punishment, though this is not to do so much with the purpose of Israel’s suffering as with its eventual result.
Recent Developments
An interesting, if isolated, development occurred in the 1990s when some among the ultra-Orthodox Jewish group known as the Lubavitcher Hasidim quoted Isaiah 53 in support of the view that their leader Rebbe Menachem Schneerson was the Messiah. A stroke that left him speechless was interpreted according to Isaiah 53:7: “Like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.”9 The Messiahship of Schneerson has not been universally held by all Lubavitchers, and the entire notion caused an outcry among some other Orthodox Jews. Notably, David Berger took sharp issue with any idea that Schneerson could be the Messiah, even to the point of saying that the idea was outside the pale of Judaism.10
Finally, because the Scripture continues to be read weekly in synagogues worldwide, it is worth noting that according to one Jewish author:
Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians, [Isaiah 53] is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons (Haftarot) of the Deuteronomy Sabbaths. These seven lessons are called the “Seven (Chapters) of Comfort,” and are taken from the preceding and following parts of the book: the omission is deliberate and striking. (H. L.)11
In general, the polemic discussions between Jews and Christians have tended to center more on the particulars of interpreting individual verses and words than on the larger context in Isaiah. The national interpretation continues to dominate Jewish thinking on the subject, especially when expressed in response to missionary arguments. However, modern Jewish scholars continue to offer various other interpretations of the servant’s identity, including that the servant is Jeremiah, Hezekiah, and others. In many cases, these scholars echo the conclusions of some Christian scholars, though also reinvigorating some earlier Jewish interpretations as well. And some have still maintained a messianic interpretation, such as Herz Homberg (eighteenth to nineteenth century) and some early twentieth-century prayer books (called machzorim) for the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).12
This commentary takes the view that Isaiah 53 is messianic, both in its individual verses and in its larger context. In the following section, we’ll take a detailed look at the message of the passage.
Part II: The Message of Isaiah 53
Isaiah 53 is not an isolated chapter but is part of a larger context in the book of Isaiah. To understand this passage, we need to also understand its context.
Isaiah 53 is the final of four “Servant Songs” that occur in Isaiah. The four are:
- Isaiah 42:1–9
- Isaiah 49:1–13
- Isaiah 50:4–11
- Isaiah 52:13–53:12
Looking at all four passages shows us one reason why there is a debate over whether Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel or to an individual (such as the Messiah). Israel the nation is, in fact, called the servant of the Lord in some of these passages. In Isaiah 49:3, for example, we read, “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’”
Let’s step back a moment. Why did God create the nation of Israel in the first place? One reason was to be a “light to the world” (see Isaiah 49:6) in order to show God’s glory, His reality, and His redemption to the nations of the world. To that end, God gave Israel the Torah and asked Israel to “serve” Him (that is, be a servant of the Lord) and obey Him. From the days of the Exodus to the last pages of the Tanakh, the hope was that all the nations of the world would come to worship the God of Israel, the true God of all peoples.
Being a light to the world, however, proved to be a tall order. Isaiah 42:1-9 pictures the servant as bringing justice to the nations, never being discouraged until that happens, and being “a covenant for the people, a light for the nations” – not to mention giving sight to the blind and freeing the prisoners.
Isaiah 49:3 identifies Israel as the servant, yet two verses later, he seems separate from the nation since he is “to bring Jacob back to him [God]; and that Israel might be gathered to him.” Then in verse 6, the servant not only is meant “to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel,” but to again be “a light for the nations.” Though Israel is the servant, in some way, the servant is not Israel.
In 50:6, we read of the suffering of the servant (identified as such in Isaiah 50:10). This then leads into the fourth Servant Song, in which the servant’s suffering is described in detail.
How does it fit together? It seems that the collective servanthood of Israel is crystallized in a particular Israelite who will not only influence the nations of the world, but who will also restore Israel to its own relationship with God. It has been remarked that the ministry of the individual servant eventually will allow Israel (the nation) to take its intended place as God’s servant as a light to the world. In New Testament terms, what Jesus has accomplished not only brings salvation to the nations but also brings salvation to his own Jewish people, allowing them to fulfill their intended role.
With that background, we will now look more closely at Isaiah 53.
The Exalted Servant
52:13
Behold, my servant shall act wisely;
he shall be high and lifted up,
and shall be exalted.
We start out learning that the servant will “act wisely,” which means to show insight or success. The same Hebrew word is used of Joshua (Joshua 1:7–8), David (1 Samuel 18:5), Solomon (1 Kings 2:3), and Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:7). In those verses, nearly every occurrence either mentions following God’s Law or talks about the presence of the Lord in the lives of these leaders. This gives us a clue to the nature of this servant’s life. By the end of the fourth Servant Song, we are given to understand that even the servant’s death is subsumed under his wise life: his death was no failure but instead indicated that he walked in the paths God laid down for him. So 52:13 is a “spoiler” that gives away the plot: the servant will finally be vindicated at the end of chapter 53.
The servant’s vindication in this verse is described by three terms: “high,” “lifted up,” and “exalted.” Two of these terms were previously used together in Isaiah 6:1 in reference to God on His throne (“high and lifted up”), and both are also used in Isaiah 33:10 and Isaiah 57:15 of God. On the other hand, in Isaiah 2:12, Proverbs 30:13, and Daniel 11:12, they are used to describe the arrogance of nations or people. The image is therefore positive when applied to God but negative when applied to human beings. In Isaiah 52:13, the positive vindication of the servant is unusual, spoken of in terms usually reserved for God Himself. This, at the very least, gives us a clue that this servant may be more than meets the eye.
The three terms in 52:13 contrast with three different terms in 53:2, which describe the servant as having no “form” or “beauty” or “majesty.” They are also in contrast with three words in 53:4, which describe how we counted the servant “stricken,” “smitten,” and “afflicted.” This puts the exaltation of the servant in the greatest possible contrast with his suffering. This is going to be some exaltation!
So this verse (1) is a “spoiler” that looks ahead to the end of the passage when the servant is vindicated; (2) implies that God’s hand is at work in the life of this servant, both in the servant’s wisely lived life and in his vindication; and (3) suggests that the exaltation the servant undergoes is of the highest kind, usually reserved for God Himself. Who could this servant be?
Astonishment
52:14
As many were astonished at you –
his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the children of mankind –
The Hebrew literally reads “astonished at you.” Some translations try to smooth over this abrupt change in the same verse from “you” to “his.” In biblical Hebrew, though, we sometimes find unexpected changes from third person to second person and vice versa. This is unnerving to a modern reader but apparently did not pose much of a problem to an ancient Israelite reader.
In the end, the point is clear: the servant will have the kind of appearance that invites a reaction of astonishment.
52:15
So shall he sprinkle many nations.
Kings shall shut their mouths because of him,
for that which has not been told them they see,
and that which they have not heard they understand.
What exactly is the servant is doing with the “many nations” (non-Israelites) in this verse? The English Standard Version (ESV) has “sprinkle,” but other translations say “startle” or “spatter” or something similar.
There are two possibilities here. The first is that the nations are startled. The Septuagint – the translation of the Old Testament into Greek originally made a few centuries before Jesus – has “startle.” This would match the remainder of the verse describing how the kings shut their mouths. The servant will startle the non-Jewish nations, and the kings of those nations will be left speechless.
The other possibility is to translate the word as “sprinkle,” a term from Leviticus that refers to splashing blood, water, or oil over people or things in order to dedicate or cleanse them. A good argument for the Levitical idea of “sprinkle” is that this passage is a chiasm (a concentric unit) with 52:13–15 matching 53:10–12. The first set of verses (52:13–15) speaks of the servant’s vindication and so does the second set of verses (53:10–12). In addition, the second set of verses contains the word asham which refers to a “guilt offering,” one of the prescribed offerings in Leviticus. Before the asham can be offered, the individual making the offering needs to be sprinkled. Therefore, says scholar Richard Averbeck, “The reference to the ‘guilt offering,’ in Isaiah 53:10 echoes the reference to ‘sprinkle’ in 52:15a. The Servant not only offers himself as a guilt offering but also cleanses the nations.”13
On upshot, either possibility is workable. One option emphasizes what the servant does for the nations; the other emphasizes how the nations respond to what the servant does. One focuses on the work of the servant; the other on the response to the servant. Either one fits in with the tone and message of the entire section.
The Servant and “Public Opinion”
53:1
Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Many Jewish interpreters take “us” in this verse to mean the Gentile nations and understand the passage to speak of the value of Israel’s suffering on behalf of the nations of the world. The idea is that the Gentiles are exclaiming, “Wow! The Jewish people are suffering on our behalf! Who knew?!”
Yet, based on its context, the verse is speaking of those who disbelieved God’s word. In Scripture, disbelief in God’s Word relates to God’s people, not to foreign nations. It seems best to take the “us” as Israel. Here, “what he has heard from us” is parallel to “the arm of the Lord,” showing that it is, in fact, a message from God that is in mind. The “arm of the Lord” refers to God’s saving power and actually explains the nature of the message of the first part of the verse. Thus, the content of the message is clear: God’s salvation.
The Servant’s Suffering Described
53:2
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
Here, we begin a succession of verses that utilize Hebrew verbs that are normally rendered in the past tense in English but that grammatically can apply to future events. Often, such a usage is called the “prophetic perfect.” The argument that Isaiah 53 cannot refer to a future person because the verbs are in the “past tense” is not correct.
Verse 2 actually begins the account of “what he has heard from us” mentioned in verse 1. Verses 2-3 explain why the divine message has not been received – just look at this servant! “He grew up” utilizes plant imagery – this is not a healthy-looking plant, as the phrase “dry ground” implies. Yet that is not the end of the story. Even this dried-up plant is “before him,” referring to the Lord and meaning “in God’s presence.” The phrase is used that way some 49 times in Leviticus 1-16, giving us another hint of Levitical and sacrificial imagery in Isaiah 53. Rabbinic commentator Samuel David Luzzatto says that “before the Lord” means “with His help,” as in Genesis 17:18. So God has not abandoned this servant!
In 52:13, the entirety of the servant’s life, including his suffering and death, was focused on the servant (his “wise” or “successful living”). In this verse, it is focused on God: through all the ups and downs of the servant’s life—his suffering, death, and vindication—God was watching over him. While some refused to believe the report (53:1) because of the servant’s appearance, the following verses will show that their response was mistaken.
In the second part of 53:2, the servant has no “form,” “majesty,” or “beauty.” The first and third words are the same ones used in 52:14 to describe the servant. This verse picks up the same thought before beginning an extended description of the condition and suffering of the servant.
53:3
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
“Despised” in Hebrew, nivzeh, is a common word used, for example, to describe Esau’s forfeiting of his birthright in Genesis 25:34, as well as in many other places. In the context of this passage, its use echoes Isaiah 49:7 (“to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation”).
“Rejected by men” has been nuanced in different ways. The Hebrew is roughly more like “rejected of men.” Does this mean rejected as if he were not a man, a human being? Medieval commentator Ibn Ezra interpreted it that way: “so despised that he is not considered even human.” And so did Kimhi in his rendering, “the least of men.” Given the rest of the verse, though, it would be better to understand it as meaning “rejected by men,” as it is translated in the ESV.
“A man of sorrows” could perhaps more accurately be translated as “a man of suffering.” The word “sorrows” is also used in regard to the sufferings experienced in exile (Lamentations 1:12). The connotation is that of an outcast. While in Lamentations, it is Israel cast out from its own land, here it is the servant cast away from his own people.
“As one from whom men hide their faces” again spotlights the reaction of other people to the servant. Among Jewish commentators, Kimhi, Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Luzzatto all also interpret it this way.
In sum, the verse indicates shame, or rejection based on shame. Kimhi, interpreting the passage as refering to Israel, thought that it was Israel’s shame in exile. But interpreting this verse as referring to an individual within Israel, the servant can be thought of as a man in exile from his own people.
Finally, note that we have another link conceptually with an earlier Servant Song: in Isaiah 50:6, also, the servant faces abuse and shaming.
The Meaning of the Servant’s Suffering
53:4
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
“Surely” translates Hebrew achen. Here is what medieval commentator Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir, twelfth century) had to say concerning the same word in Genesis 28:16: “This is the meaning of every achen in the Bible: achen – ach ken – indeed it is thus, and not as I expected.” Rashbam interprets the single word achen to be comprised of the two words ach and ken, which, he says, indicates surprise. So, the idea is: “Wait a minute! We thought one thing about the servant, but the reality is much different!”
The actual reality comes in the next part of the verse: “He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” The first part juxtaposes the words nasa’ (“bear, carry, lift up”) and choli (“sickness” or, in the ESV, “griefs”). The same two words occur together in Jeremiah 10:19, there translated in the ESV as “this is an affliction, and I must bear it.” But unlike Jeremiah, in Isaiah 53, the servant is bearing the affliction of others.
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
Just as verse 3 had “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief,” so now in verse 4, “he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” This is not simply repetition: in verse 4, we find out why the servant was a man of sorrows, why he was acquainted with grief. It was because he was carrying our griefs and our sorrows. His bitter experience was on our account.
Achen – to capture the full implication of the word, we might paraphrase: “Boy, were we surprised to find all this out!” It turns out to be the very opposite of what we originally thought: “We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” The Hebrew word translated “stricken,” nagua’, is used in 2 Kings 15:5 to describe God striking Azariah with leprosy or skin disease, and the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 98a) applies the title of Leprous One to the Messiah based on this passage in Isaiah. The connotation of leprosy is also found in some ancient Greek versions. We find the same word used also in Job and in Leviticus 13–14. Though the servant was not stricken with literal disease (we know this since verse 5 switches the metaphor to injury, not illness), the point is that we considered the servant to be under God’s judgment.
53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
This verse carries the thought still further: not only did the servant experience suffering (verse 3); not only was his suffering on our account, though we misjudged him (verse 4); but now in verse 5, we learn in what way his suffering was on our account: he brings us healing. This verse changes the metaphor to injury: we are healed by “his wounds.” Furthermore, here Isaiah becomes explicit: it is our transgressions and iniquities that have brought the servant to this condition.
“But he was pierced for our transgressions.” Pierced (Hebrew m’cholal ) is used in Isaiah 51:9 as well as Psalm 109:22. It indicates “puncturing the body with a sharp instrument,” literally in Isaiah 51:9, nonlethal or metaphoric in Psalm 109:22. The servant’s death is described as a violent one.
His chastisement also brings us “peace,” shalom. Isaiah 48:22 had previously told us, “‘There is no peace ,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’” Here, we are finally brought shalom through what the servant accomplishes. The implication is that it is our sins and our wickedness that have been standing in the way of our shalom.
53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned – every one – to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
Here, Isaiah becomes explicit: our iniquity is actually laid upon the servant.
“All we like sheep have gone astray.” The word tzon, translated here as “sheep,” denotes a collective; flock might be a better translation. Not just individuals have gone astray, but the entire people – the nation has gone astray. The Targum understands “going astray” to mean exile, which actually points us back to the cause of our exile: our sin.
The nation as a whole has strayed but so also, has each individual: “we have turned—every one – to his own way.” The expression “turning to one’s own way” is found elsewhere, in Isaiah 56:11: “They are shepherds who have no understanding; they have all turned to their own way, each to his own gain, one and all.” In that verse, the shepherds are the leaders, but in 53:6, Isaiah speaks of all Israelites.
“And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” This is not an image of gently placing something on something else. “Laid on him” (Hebrew, paga’ b) indicates an encounter or meeting. The iniquity, which can also mean the punishment for iniquity, “hits,” or “meets” the servant, with even an overtone of violence. Like sheep, the people were vulnerable to attack (not by predators, such as wolves, but by the guilt of their sin), but the servant instead bears the brunt of sin’s attack. The image is, therefore, stronger than the usual “the Lord has laid on him.” Our sin, or the penalty for our sin, attacks the servant. It is quite a dramatic encounter.
53:7
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
Here, we learn how the servant responds to his suffering: he submits to it in innocence.
“He was oppressed, and he was afflicted.” The Hebrew grammar may even imply the thought that, as in the NET translation’s notes, “he was treated harshly even though he humbled himself.” Or, “he was oppressed, yet even so, he remained submissive.” Significantly, the word “afflicted” is also used of the affliction of the Hebrews by the Egyptian taskmasters in Exodus. The servant, who is the nation Israel in some of the earlier Servant Songs, here appears to be an individual who identifies with his people Israel.
“Yet he opened not his mouth.” Like Isaiah 42:2, “He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street.” This does not mean that he lived his life in total silence. What it indicates is his humility and acceptance of his destiny.
“Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent.” The imagery reminds us of the sacrificial Passover lamb in Exodus 12:3, the same imagery that John the Baptist drew on when he spoke of Jesus as the “Lamb of God.” Commentator John Oswalt points out that the lamb metaphor is used throughout this chapter, and writes, “If the author did not intend his readers to think in terms of sacrifice, he certainly made a major blunder in his choice of metaphors.”14 At this point in the passage, we are dealing not merely with general images of suffering but specifically with the imagery of sacrifice.
53:8
By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
“By oppression and judgment he was taken away.” The Hebrew could mean “he was delivered from oppression and judgment” (meaning that he was freed or released) or that “he was taken away because of oppression and judgment” (meaning that he was put in prison). The problem is the Hebrew preposition min which can be interpreted either way.
But it is the context that points us to the more likely translation. This verse is not indicating something triumphant (deliverance from oppression) but continues the idea of suffering unjustly. The second reading is preferable.
“And as for his generation, who considered.” This could mean, “Who among his contemporaries (his generation) ever thought that the servant did what is described in the next part of the verse (that is, allow himself to be cut off from the land of the living) for them?” Or in the words of one commentator, “Who gave a hoot?” In this case, it would reiterate the thoughts of Isaiah 53:1–3.
The second option is: “Who considered his descendants (his generation)?” That is, no one could even think about his descendants: the servant, his life cut short, had no children, a sign of the absence of God’s blessing, hence another instance of injustice surrounding the life of the servant.
Either reading makes sense. Who in his generation cared, took notice, or thought much of it? Or, we can’t even speak about his children, since according to the second part of the verse, his life is cut short. Both readings are true of the servant.
“That he was cut off out of the land of the living.” Here there is debate as to whether “cut off,” nizgar, is literal or figurative. (The interpretation in the previous clause of “Who can speak of his children?” would demand a literal death.)
The word implies death or murder in Jeremiah 11:19 and Psalm 52:7. Given the explicit mention of death in Isaiah 53:9 and the fact that his life is a sacrificial offering in Isaiah 53:10, we are not speaking here of a metaphorical death but of a literal one.
“Stricken for the transgression of my people.” Literally, the phrase is closer to “for the transgression of my people – a stroke to him.” Who are “my people” here? It could be the prophet speaking of his own people, Israel (so says commentator John Oswalt, on the basis that the prophet has already spoken of “our” transgressions), or God speaking of His people (so says commentator Edward J. Young). The Qumran manuscript 1QIsaa reads “his people,” implying the people of the servant, thereby eliminating the problem of the sudden interjection of the first person here. The Qumran scrolls, written about one thousand years before the Hebrew manuscripts of the Masoretic Text show up, often preserves earlier and sometimes more correct readings. Whether “his people” or “my people,” it is a reference to the nation of Israel.
In the phrase literally translated “a stroke to him,” the word lamo (“to him”) can also mean “to them,” and in this verse, it has often been a red herring in the plural/singular debate surrounding the identity of the servant. Michael Brown observes that Isaiah also uses lamo as a singular reference in Isaiah 44:15.15 Walter Kaiser additionally cites16 a singular usage of lamo in Genesis 9:26-27. The grammar here is hardly as decisive as some advocates of the national interpretation think it to be. In the context of all the other individualistic references in this passage, “to him” fits contextually as well as grammatically.
53:9
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
“And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death.” “The wicked” seems clear enough. But who are—or is—“the rich”? (The Hebrew word could refer to a group collectively or to an individual.) Based on the Old Testament background, the rich could be oppressors: the servant is buried even among his oppressors. Or it could mean a wealthy person, reminding us of Matthew 27:57–60, in which a rich man uses his own grave for the body of Jesus. (Matthew, however, does not cite this verse.) As it turns out, there may be irony here: the servant was intended to be buried with his oppressors, the “wicked” and “rich”—but ironically the “rich man” of Matthew was actually a righteous person. This is kind of a variation of, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20).
53:10
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
The same words “crush” and “grief” appear in different forms in Isaiah 53:4–5. Here, some of the key points of the passage are reemphasized. And while verse 6 says that “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all,” here it is put even more strongly: “It was the will of the Lord to crush him.” This is not divine sadism. The end of the verse uses the same Hebrew word for “will” (from the root ch-f-tz) in saying that “the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” How is this possible? It happens because “his soul makes an offering for guilt,” that is, he gives himself as a guilt offering. (Compare how Jesus says in the New Testament that he voluntarily lays down his life.) The Bible often speaks of God as the ultimate cause of something even if there is a secondary cause. The servant willingly gives his life, which dovetails with God’s own will on the matter.
“Offering for guilt” is one word in Hebrew, asham. In Leviticus, it refers to what is variously translated as a “guilt” or “trespass offering” (and sometimes it refers to the trespass itself). We are back to sacrificial imagery here: the servant will be a sacrificial offering for sin.
Final Vindication of the Servant
The second part of verse 10 segues from suffering into vindication: “he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days.”
Much ink has been spilled over whether zera’, “offspring” or “seed,” here refers to literal descendants (hence, excluding Jesus from fulfilling the passage) or spiritual descendants – and whether the latter can be a legitimate understanding of the word zera’. We get some insight from Psalm 22:30, where the psalmist says, “Posterity [literally, ‘seed’] will serve him,” indicating future generations, whether literally descended from the psalmist or not.
Additional insight comes from the inter-testamental book The Wisdom of Solomon, which is usually dated to the second century BC. Preston Sprinkle writes that the rewards and punishment that Deuteronomy ascribes to right and wrong living, respectively, are also in The Wisdom of Solomon but are applied in a different manner:
Transferred to the afterlife, since in this life the righteous are persecuted and the wicked prosper, which is seen clearly in Wisdom 3. Here, the author argues that “the barren woman who is undefiled” and therefore has the appearance of transgression (Deuteronomy 28:4, 11, 18) is actually “blessed” since “she will have fruit when God examines souls” on judgment day (Wisdom 3:13).17
This suggests that before the first century AD, some Jews would have been comfortable with the idea of seed, progeny, fruit, etc. being applied in a non-literal way, or transferred to a time beyond one’s normal lifespan.
Having progeny (literal or not) and a long life were considered indications of God’s favor. The phrases are part of a package of metaphors for restoration, wellbeing, and shalom. This, as well as the view hinted at in Wisdom of Solomon, makes much sense of the passage. As such, it would seem pointless to argue over whether “seed” can be symbolic as well as physical, or can refer to disciples as well as physical children. The point is that the servant will be restored to a normal life – in this case, to a resurrected life.
“The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” The Hebrew words for “prosper” and “will” are found together also in Isaiah 55:11, which says about God’s Word that “it shall accomplish that which I purpose , and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” Just as God’s Word will always accomplish His will and His purposes, so the life and death of the servant will also accomplish the purposes of God.
53:11
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
As a result of his suffering, the servant will “see”—but see what? There is no grammatical direct object. Some Jewish commentators, therefore, suggest that what the servant sees is the “offspring” just mentioned. Among those who interpret it this way, we find Eliezer of Beaugency (twelfth-century French rabbinic commentator), Isaac Abravanel (fifteenth-century Portuguese rabbinic commentator), and Samuel Luzzatto (nineteenth-century Italian rabbinic commentator). Others add tov, “good,” as the object: “he will see good”: we find this interpretation in Ibn Ezra and Kimhi. The Septuagint and the documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls known as 1QIsaa,b have the word or, “light”—“he will see light.” The Dead Sea Scrolls possibly preserve a more original text. Everyone wants to know just what the servant sees, and we cannot be sure!
“By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” The Hebrew words avon (“iniquity”) and sabal (“bear”) are picked up from earlier verses, reinforcing the message of the passage.
53:12
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
The imagery in the first part of the verse suggests a victory parade—just as the suffering was enormous, so now its counterpart is a great victory! Jewish commentators say either that the “many” are his portion of the spoil (Ibn Ezra), or that God will give him a share among the many (Rashi and Luzzatto). Similarly, for the next clause: either he receives the many as spoils or he shares the spoils with the many (depending on whether et is the Hebrew direct object marker or the preposition “with”). The imagery can work in both directions: the servant, whose sufferings were on behalf of the many, now figuratively receives them as the spoils of war, so to speak. He is the victor and he takes them in as a result of his work. Or, the spiritual results of what the servant has accomplished can now be shared with the many on whose behalf he died. Either fits, though the former is a more startling image.
“Because he poured out his soul to death.” Mavet, “death,” and nefesh, “soul,” are picked up again from an earlier verse. This phrase, it would seem, is as strong as one can get to portray a real, physical death.
“And makes intercession for the transgressors.” Peshe’im ,”rebels,” is noted by Oswalt as being a term of condemnation in Isaiah.
“Yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.” There are a number of words here that echo earlier verses in the passage: rabim, “many,” pesha’, “transgression” (used in the previous clause), and nasa’, “bear, carry” – as well as hifgia’, used earlier as “attacking” and here as “interceding.”
Isaiah 52:13-53:12 continues the servant theme found in earlier chapters of Isaiah. But, as some of the earlier Servant Songs have hinted, we are dealing here not with all of Israel but with an individual from within Israel who bears the sins of the nation through a sacrificial death that ends not in defeat but in victory. In this way, the individual servant prepares Israel the nation to continue and ultimately complete its designated role as a servant-nation.
Next, we’ll look at what the New Testament has to say about Isaiah 53.
Part III: Isaiah 53 in the New Testament
The New Testament provides a rich assortment of quotations and allusions to this passage. Thematically, we can break these out as follows:
The Passage as a Whole
Acts 8 records how the entire passage became the basis for a conversation about Jesus, citing the Septuagint (LXX) of Isaiah 53:7–8:
Now the passage of the Scripture that he [the eunuch, an Ethiopian court official] was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.”
Acts 8:32–33
The conversation then follows:
And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
Acts 8:34–35
Several things stand out in the Acts passage:
First, it appears to be the verses on death and humiliation that raise questions in the eunuch’s mind. Who is being slaughtered, deprived of justice, his life taken? It may be the unsettling image of this individual’s cruel fate that prompted his curiosity.
Second, the eunuch’s question gives us a glimpse of first-century interpretations of the passage. It seems that the two options that came to his mind were Isaiah himself or another person. The “biographical” interpretation, in which the passage speaks of Isaiah himself, may have been a widespread one in the first century. In any event, it is significant that the eunuch views the passage as referring to an individual, not to the nation of Israel as a whole.
Third, in explaining about Jesus, Philip begins with, but does not end with, this passage. Clearly the eunuch had questions as to the identity of this suffering person and had been exposed to some individual interpretations of Isaiah 53. This leads Philip to segue into talking about Jesus in this passage before moving on to other ones (which are unfortunately not named).
The Servant’s Sufferings and Their Purpose
And he [Jesus] said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?”
– Mark 9:12, emphasis added here, also in following passages
Jesus often spoke of his impending suffering, death (commonly referred to as his passion), and resurrection. (He also draws on Daniel 7 for his title “Son of Man.”) Similar passion predictions drawing on the general theme of suffering, betrayal, rejection, and death are found in Matthew 26:2, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33, and Luke 24:7.
On what scriptures did Jesus rely for the idea that he, as the Son of Man, must suffer, die, and be resurrected? Isaiah 53 and perhaps some of the other Servant Songs are the likely candidates. In this same cluster of passion predictions, Luke 22:37 explicitly quotes from Isaiah 53:
“For I [Jesus] tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”
The purpose of his sufferings is described in Mark 10:45:
“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
This is more specific than the general theme of suffering seen in some other verses. Scholar Michael F. Bird translates Isaiah 53:12 as “pour out his soul to death” and notes the conceptual parallel with Mark’s “give his life as a ransom for many.”18
The Suffering Servant as an Example
First Peter 2:21-25 brings the passage not so much as a prophecy but as an exemplar. It cites Isaiah 53:9 and also alludes to several other verses in the Isaiah passage:
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Peter is alluding to and cites Isaiah 53 as he recalls specific incidents in the life of Jesus, for example, Mark 15:5: “But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed.” In this way, Peter brings out the import of the servanthood of Jesus to encourage the servanthood in his followers.
The Servant and the Proclamation of the Gospel
John 12:37-41 quotes Isaiah 53:1:
Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
John combines Isaiah 53:1 with Isaiah 6 (in the third paragraph of the quote) to talk about the rejection of Jesus. John 12:38 appears to interpret Isaiah as the preaching and works of Jesus himself, though possibly John is referring to the proclamation by Jesus’ apostles. Here it is not the suffering of the servant that is in view but the proclamation concerning what that servant has accomplished.
In addition, in Romans 15:20-21, Paul cites Isaiah 52:15:
I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation, but as it is written, “Those who have never been told of him will see, and those who have never heard will understand.”
Paul uses this verse to explain his ambition to proclaim the gospel in new regions. In this regard, he sees the proclamation described in Isaiah as coming to fruition within his own gospel preaching.
The Servant and Healing
Matthew 8:16-17 cites Isaiah 53:4–5 in terms of Jesus’ ministry of healing:
That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”
What is interesting here is that Isaiah 53 is most likely portraying human sin under the metaphor of disease rather than describing actual physical ailments, yet Matthew uses the verse to refer to literal sicknesses. We should keep in mind that in the New Testament, physical and spiritual sickness are often seen to be two sides of the same coin. Thus, Matthew’s use of Isaiah is consistent with that view.
The Righteous Servant
Finally, “my righteous servant” of Isaiah 53:11 is reflected in Acts 3:14 (Peter’s speech), Acts 7:52 (Stephen’s speech), and Acts 22:14 (Paul’s speech), as well as in 1 John 2:1. The term “Righteous One” as applied to Jesus was therefore quite widespread, and if it does not directly reflect Isaiah 53:11, it certainly shows influence from various Old Testament passages.
Part IV: The Theology of the Servant
The Servant as the Messiah
Much ink has been spilled in ascertaining the identification of the servant, both in the other three Servant Songs and in this passage. Considering the context of the entire Old Testament, it is clear that Israel was called to be a servant (eved) to God in direct contrast to being a slave of Pharaoh (eved can also have the connotation of slave). The contrast is picked up in the New Testament when being a doulos Christou, a slave of Christ, is contrasted with being enslaved to other things. As the Old Testament proceeds, it becomes clear that Israel does not consistently act as the servant of God (nor does the church in the New Testament!). Some have argued that, in fact, it is actually the intention of the Torah to show that because of Israel’s sins, hope must be pinned on the future eschatological Messiah.19 In the fourth Servant Song, the description no longer matches the nation but a particular Israelite, who according to the New Testament is the Messiah Jesus. There is a certain ambiguity in the description of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 that does not reach clarity until its fulfillment.
The Nature of Fulfillment
Biblical prophecies vary in their nature. In the case of this passage, we can envision a narrowing to Jesus and then a widening out again. Israel was at first the servant, and in time, narrowed down to a particular Israelite, the Messiah. “Out the other side” of the cross, so to speak, followers of Jesus are also servants (and, in fact, as we have seen, Paul applies a verse of the passage to his own ministry) – and the hope remains for Israel to fulfill its servant ministry by coming to faith in its Messiah.
Such a narrowing and broadening is seen in many other ways. For example, Jesus fulfills the priesthood in himself, yet on the other side of the cross, God’s people are meant to function as priests in imitation of Jesus. “Fulfillment” means that Jesus is the apex of God’s promises and commandments to Israel, but in many cases, the people of God are meant to continue the same kind of obedience and roles that Jesus himself embodied.
Another way of envisioning this is the image of a wheel, whereby the Messiah is the hub, and roles such as priest or servant are spokes emanating to God’s people in both Old Testament and New Testament times. This image, perhaps, allows for more Old-to-New Testament continuity by picturing the relationship between God and His people synchronically (what happens simultaneously), while the narrowing and widening is more diachronic (what happens across time).
Messiah as Sufferer
As applied to the Messiah Jesus, Isaiah 53 indicates several things:
- His identification with the people of Israel, who similarly were oppressed. Ultimately his suffering enables the Messiah to identify with all who suffer unjustly.
- His divinity. While not stated outright, the servant is here identified with the “arm of the Lord,” God’s saving power. The startling thing is that while the arm of the Lord typically represents military victory over oppressive foreign states, here God’s salvation is in terms of sacrificial victory over sin, not by might, but by becoming the willing recipient and bearer of Israel’s guilt and sin.
- The Messiah is a martyr. Martyrdom is usually thought of in terms of something Messiah’s followers undergo. Similarly, in Judaism, martyrdom meant dying in the service of God rather than abandoning the Torah or converting to another religion. Thus those who in medieval times refused to convert to Christianity under duress and were therefore put to death were counted as martyrs who hallowed God’s name. But the identification between the Messiah and his people suggests that the image of martyr may not be inappropriate for Jesus, inasmuch as he died in the service of a “cause.” Interpreters have debated whether the servant could be the prophet himself suffering for a righteous cause or Israel suffering martyrdom for the sake of the nations. In the twentieth century, Eastern European Jewish writers and painters often utilized Jesus as a figure to encapsulate Jewish suffering. Inasmuch as Christians as God’s servants are to emulate the Suffering Servant, the Messiah can be viewed in Isaiah 53 as the proto-martyr.
The Trajectory of Messiah and His People
In Isaiah 53, the course of the servant’s life is laid out: humble beginnings, suffering on behalf of others, sacrificial death, and vindication by God afterward. Similarly, the New Testament indicates that we are to imitate Christ in his humility (1 Peter 2:21) and in his sufferings (Philippians 3:10), with the promise of our own eventual resurrection and vindication.
The Nature of the Servant’s Sacrificial Death
Some of the scholarly discussion has turned around the usage of the word asham. Richard Averbeck shows that in the larger context of Isaiah, as well as in the entire Old Testament, the sacrificial imagery here makes sense. “The exile from the Promised Land amounted to a desecration of sancta – the specific sancta being Israel itself as the Lord’s ‘kingdom of priests and… holy nation’ (Exodus 19:6). In this way, the sacrificial suffering of the Servant as an asham makes perfectly good sense in the context of Isaiah 40-66.”20 Moreover, just as the asham restored the status of the person defiling God’s holy things, “the Servant in Isaiah 53 offered himself as a ‘guilt offering’ (Isaiah 53:10b) to make reparation and atonement on behalf of Israel for its sin and corruption so that they could come out of exile to be restored to their Holy Land and to their holy ‘servant’ status. This is what the term when rendered ‘guilt offering’ brings to the interpretation of the passage; not just redemptive atonement and reparation, but actual restoration.”21 In this way, the ultimate Suffering Servant atones for and restores to God’s service and witness (1) the nation as a whole, (2) the remnant within the nation, (3) the prophet Isaiah himself, and (4) the Gentile nations. All need atonement and restoration because of sin. Those who receive atonement and, in the case of Israel, restoration (the Gentile nations were not originally called to be servants of God but now partake of that status for the first time), become the servant(s) of the Lord.
Applications
Theology leads on to applications. On the one hand, there is an unrepeatable nature to what the servant has accomplished for us. He has given his life for the atonement of our sins, and this calls for thankfulness and worship on our part. On the other hand, there is an aspect that is repeatable, namely, the calling to be servants. First Peter makes it clear that we are to emulate the ethical behavior of the servant Jesus in humility and in our willingness to suffer for his sake. These two aspects of Isaiah 53 were noted as well by some of the early Church Fathers who treated the passage in both a “Christological” and an “exemplary” way.22
Several times we have also observed the identification of the servant with the nation of Israel. The nation, though called to be God’s servant, needed its own cleansing in order to serve God as it was intended to. We, Jews and Gentiles, who are identified with Jesus as the Body of Christ, should also take time to come before God for cleansing in order to be equipped to serve Him. Reading the first part of Isaiah 6 on Isaiah’s call and preparatory cleansing from sin can help elucidate the atoning work of the servant in Isaiah 53 and remind us of our shortcomings and sins. Yet we always remember that by his death, Jesus the Servant has “made many righteous” in him and that the ongoing need for cleansing (see 1 John 2:1) and service are two facets of the Christian life that are always before us.
End Notes
1. Rav Asher Soloff, “The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Commentators, to the Sixteenth Century,” (PhD diss., Drew University, 1967), 146.
2. Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (New York: Ktav, 1971, © 1940), 298.
3. Michael L. Brown, “Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, eds. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2012), 64.
4. Joel E. Rembaum, “The Development of a Jewish Exegetical Tradition Regarding Isaiah 53,” Harvard Theological Review, July 1982, 292.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., 293.
7. Ibid, 297. Italics in the original.
8. Ibid.
9. Jim Melnick, “The Struggle within Chabad Lubavitch: Views on King Messiah and Isaiah 53” (conference paper, Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism, 2003), 17,
10. David Berger, The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference (London; Portland: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2001).
11. C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology (New York: Schocken Books, 1974), 544. The initials at the end of the quote indicate that this is Loewe’s comment. Italics added.
12. For additional examples of the messianic interpretation even after Rashi, see Brown, “Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53.”
13. Richard E. Averbeck, “Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, eds. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2012), 56-57.
14. John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), 392.
15. Brown, “Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” 74.
16. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Identity and Mission of the ‘Servant of the Lord,’” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, eds. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2012), 90.
17. Preston M. Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 221.
18. Michael F. Bird, Jesus Is the Christ: The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 37
19. Seth D. Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), and references therein to the work of John Sailhamer.
20. Averback, “Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” 53.
21. Ibid
22. Christoph Markschies, “Jesus Christ as a Man before God: Two Interpretive Models for Isaiah 53 in the Patristic Literature and Their Development,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, eds. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Cambridge; UK: Eerdmans, 2004), 225-320.
The Messiah Would Be Preceded by Elijah the Prophet
“If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Malachi 4:5–6 (Hebrew Bible, verses 3:23–24)
Fulfillment: Matthew 11:14–15; 16:14; 17:9–13; Mark 6:14–16; 9:11-13; Luke 1:16–17; John 1:21
This is the third “forerunner” prophecy. Isaiah 40:3–4 spoke of a voice crying out to prepare the way of the Lord in the desert; Malachi 3:1 prophesied of a messenger preparing God’s way and now in Malachi 4:5–6, God sends the prophet Elijah before the “great and awesome day of the Lord comes.” Elijah’s mission is to bring about reconciliation, as the passage indicates:
“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”
Based on this passage and also on the fact that Elijah did not die but was taken up to heaven directly (2 Kings 2:9–12), Jewish tradition spoke often of the future return of Elijah. As an example, in the Mishnah (Edduyot 8:7), Elijah will come to settle all disputes and reconcile all discrepancies in the holy books. In that passage of the Mishnah, discussion ensues as to what Elijah will accomplish. At the end of the passage, “The Sages say, [Elijah will come]… to make peace in the world, as it is said…”1, followed by quoting the Malachi passage.
He is also involved with the resurrection of the dead in the Mishnah, Sotah 9:15: “The resurrection of the dead shall come through Elijah of blessed memory.”2 The resurrection was expected to happen at the end of history, so Elijah here is definitely associated with the end of time. And of course at Passover, an entire place setting is put out for Elijah as well as a special cup of wine, and the door is opened for him to enter. For the hope at Passover is that if Elijah comes, the Messiah himself cannot be far behind.
In the time of Jesus, messianic expectation was never far from the surface, and speculation was that both John the Baptist and Jesus were the reappearances of ancient biblical figures.
For example, see this passage in Matthew:
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:13–16)
This is quite an interesting assortment of guesses! Some thought John the Baptist had come back to life, having previously been beheaded (Matthew 14:10). Others thought he was Elijah the prophet, while others speculated that he was Jeremiah come back – perhaps because both preached judgment and had hard words concerning people’s trust in the Temple. And “one of the prophets” in general ends the list of guesses.
We see several similar guesses about who Jesus is in Mark, where Herod seems convinced that although he had John the Baptist executed, he was risen from the dead!
King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” But others said, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” (Mark 6:14–16)
To further complicate matters, people similarly wondered about John the Baptist, not only about Jesus. This is from John’s gospel:
This is the testimony of John [the Baptist], when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Messiah.” And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”
So they said to him, “Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”
(Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) They asked him, “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” John answered them, “I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” (John 1:19–27)
Here the speculation runs to whether John is the Messiah, Elijah or the Prophet (probably the prophet like Moses from Deuteronomy 18). John’s response is that he is none of those but rather the one who prepares the way for the Lord, quoting from Isaiah 40:3. The last part of the passage shows that the expectation apparently was that the kind of baptism John was performing was something that would happen at the end of time. They want to know: if you are not one of those figures who appears at the end, why are you doing this? Or perhaps they were after the source of John’s authority: who authorized you to do this? For the Messiah and the end-time-expected Elijah were figures who possessed ultimate authority (see above on Elijah settling disputes, his decision being authoritative). John points them to Jesus, but does not call him by name in this passage. The coming of the Messiah may indeed be near, but John is the Messiah’s forerunner, not some other person.
It is interesting that John the Baptist denies being Elijah in John’s gospel, while in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus tells his listeners that John is indeed Elijah. Let us look at those three gospels and then we will see why John’s gospel is different.
In Matthew 11, Jesus speaks of the greatness of John the Baptist, and includes this in verses 14–15:
“If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Matthew has more to say about Elijah and John the Baptist in chapter 17. This chapter begins with the transfiguration, during which Peter, James and John see Jesus in glory on a mountain, in conversation with Moses and with Elijah. Then we read:
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”
And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.”
Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:9–13)
The disciples’ question was no doubt prompted by having seen Elijah with Jesus. They are reminded of the teaching of the scribes, that Elijah must come before the end of time and before the Messiah appears. Jesus’ response is interesting: first he agrees that Elijah comes and “will” restore all things, future tense. Then he immediately says that Elijah has already come and suffered (by imprisonment and execution), even as Jesus himself will suffer.
The apparently contradictory ideas of restoring all things and a suffering and dying Messiah are reconciled.
As to the future, it may well be that Elijah will appear before the second coming of Jesus, which will lead to the final restoration of “all things.” But the restoration will soon begin its preliminary stages through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In that sense, the apparently contradictory ideas of (1) restoring all things and (2) a suffering and dying Messiah, are reconciled. The first stage of restoration happens through the death of the Messiah, and John the Baptist is Elijah come back. In the same sense that the Messiah could be thought of as David resuming his rule – a “greater David” – so John the Baptist was a “greater Elijah.”
Mark is similar to Matthew:
They asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” (Mark 9:11–13)
The idea in Mark seems to be: if Elijah is supposed to restore all things, how can Jesus – using his preferred title for himself, “Son of Man” – suffer? Isn’t he supposed to reign triumphantly? Well, Elijah may indeed come in the future, but now John the Baptist has come as the “greater Elijah,” and has suffered just as the Messiah will suffer. The road to restoration is paved with suffering and death, until all things are ultimately and finally restored at Jesus’ second coming.
Finally, we have Luke:
He [John the Baptist] will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” (Luke 1:16–17)
Luke here is explicit that John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah”– he is not a reappearance of the actual, literal prophet. Alluding to Malachi 4:5–6 (Hebrew, 3:23–24), he shows that John began to effect reconciliation (through his baptism of repentance) and in that way prepared the people for the coming of Jesus.
This explains why in John’s gospel, John the Baptist denies being Elijah. The delegation that asked him about his identity was thinking of end-times figures who were expected at the close of history and at the beginning of the messianic kingdom. But John’s work was preliminary to that. He is not the Elijah who appears at the end of history, but the “greater Elijah” who is the Messiah’s forerunner, coming in the spirit and power of that ancient prophet.
A greater David, a greater Elijah – that is who Jesus and John the Baptist are.
End Notes
1. Philip Blackman’s Mishnah edition, vol. 4, Order Nezikin.
2. Ibid., vol. 3, Order Nashim.
The Messiah Would Be a Prophet Like Moses
There was an expectation in Jesus’ time that the “Prophet” with a capital “P” was coming.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Deuteronomy 18:15–19
Fulfillment: Matthew 13:57, Matthew 21:46, Luke 24:19, John 1:21, John 1:25, John 6:14, John 7:40, Acts 3:22, Acts 7:37
This prophecy comes in the context of a warning by Moses against false prophets. In contrast to false prophets, the “prophet like me” will speak what is true. Moreover, according to verse 16, the prophet would speak for God so that the Israelites would not need to hear God’s voice directly, which was a fearsome prospect. In this way, the prophet would be a mediator between God and the people.
Some interpret the prophecy to refer to the entire line of prophets. Others understand Moses to be speaking of a singular prophet. Messianic Jewish professor Michael Rydelnik notes that the phrase “like me,” that is, like Moses, is defined in Numbers 12:6–8 as being someone who speaks to God mouth to mouth (or face to face). This is as opposed to other prophets to whom the Lord speaks “in a vision… in a dream.” He also notes the important verses Deuteronomy 34:10–12. Verse 10 reads, “There has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” These verses, coming at the end of the Torah, clearly refer back to chapter 18 and were apparently written long after Moses’ death, since verse 6 states that “no one knows the place of his burial to this day”– a phrase that only makes sense if written a long time after Moses had died.
In Deuteronomy 18, while Moses may have been intimating about the line of prophets to come, certainly long after his death, no prophet “like Moses” had arisen. Undoubtedly, this helped give rise to the expectation common in Jesus’ time that the “Prophet” with a capital “P” was coming. This is why in John 1:21, people ask John the Baptist, “ ‘Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ And he answered, ‘No.’ ” They affirm this expectation of the coming Prophet in John 1:25.
Later in John 6:14, we read that, “When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!’ ” This makes sense when we consider that Deuteronomy 34:11 explains that no prophet like Moses has arisen, “none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the Lord sent him to do.” Then in John 7:40, we read that, “When they heard these words, some of the people said, ‘This really is the Prophet.’ ”
Jesus considered himself to be a prophet: “They took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.’ ” (Matthew 13:57). So did many of the people: “Although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet” (Matthew 21:46). And so did his followers:
They said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.”
Luke 24:19
Specifically, they considered him to be the prophet like Moses:
Moses said, “The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.”
Acts 3:22
This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.”
Acts 7:37
Jesus spoke words of encouragement for those who followed God.
Like other true prophets, Jesus spoke words of encouragement for those who followed God as well as warnings for those who did not. And like other true prophets, Jesus predicted the future with accuracy:
His death and resurrection: “[Jesus was] saying, ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.’ ”
Luke 9:22
Peter’s denial of knowing Jesus: “Jesus said, ‘I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.’ ”
Luke 22:34
The destruction of the Temple: “While some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, ‘As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.’ ”
Luke 21:5–6
And like Moses, Jesus uniquely spoke with God face to face (see Jesus’ prayer in John 17 – showing an intimacy with God the Father even greater than Moses had). He was indeed the “prophet like Moses” who was to come.
The Messiah would be pierced
Zechariah 12:10 is interpreted by the Talmud and the New Testament in surprisingly similar way.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Zechariah 12:10
Fulfillment: Matthew 24:30, John 19:31–37, Revelation 1:7
In Zechariah 12 we find a prophecy of Judah’s victory over the nations—a victory possible because God has extended his protection to them. At that time also, according to verse 10, a “spirit of grace” will come on the people as they look on (apparently) God himself, “whom they have pierced,” and as they are mourning “as one weeps over a firstborn”:
“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.”
This chapter includes five mentions of “David,” six if we add 13:1. This is significant, since David is mentioned nowhere else in Zechariah. The inhabitants of Jerusalem “shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God” (v. 8), “going before them,” indicative of leadership. The “house of David” will receive grace (v. 10) as they repent and “look on me, on him whom they have pierced.” The “house of David” will mourn (v. 12), while in 13:1 they will be cleansed from sin. Much of this is also said in regard to the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” as well as the “house of Judah.” All this emphasis on David and the house of David suggests messianic overtones; we are reminded of Isaiah 7, when God gave a sign to King Ahaz that is also addressed to the “house of David”—the sign of the virgin birth that finds ultimate fulfillment in the birth of Yeshua.
The unusual prophecy of Zechariah 12:10 is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, in Sukkah 52a, where it is interpreted in two ways: as the destruction of the evil inclination in mankind, and as the death of the Messiah ben Joseph, who in some Jewish traditions comes before the arrival of the final Messiah, the Messiah ben David. While this difference of opinion is not resolved, we read in that talmudic passage that “it is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son…”1
The New Testament interprets the prophecy to be about Jesus. Jesus himself combines this verse with Daniel 7:13, speaking of his own return:
Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man [from Daniel 7:13], and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn [from Zechariah 12:10], and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven [again from Daniel 7:13] with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:30
Revelation 1:7 similarly refers to both verses:
Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
The words for “earth” and “land” are the same in Greek (gēs). In keeping with Zechariah 12:12—“The land shall mourn, each family by itself,” Matthew and Revelation may be referring to the Land of Israel. Or, since both books speak of the extension of God’s salvation to the nations of the world, they are more likely extending the mourning beyond Jerusalem and the house of David to the entire earth: the salvation Jesus brings extends worldwide. This is especially emphasized in Revelation.
Note also that as in Zechariah’s prophecy that the weeping will be “as one weeps over a firstborn,” Jesus is called the firstborn in verses such as Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:6 and elsewhere.
But it is in John’s gospel that we find the most detailed passage in which this prophecy plays a part:
Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.
For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.” (John 19:31–37)
John’s gospel in several places depicts Jesus as the Passover lamb.
It was often the case that Roman soldiers would speed up the death of a crucified victim, which could often be agonizingly slow, by breaking their legs. In the case of Jesus, this was not necessary, since he was evidently already dead. This causes John to say that the Scripture was fulfilled that “not one of his bones will be broken.” This could allude to Psalm 34:20 (Hebrew, v. 21), concerning the righteous person, that God “keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.” Even more, though, it likely alludes to Exodus 12:46, in regard to the Passover lamb, that “you shall not break any of its bones.” John’s gospel in several places depicts Jesus as the Passover lamb, and that is very probably what is happening here.
And then John describes one of the Roman soldiers as piercing Jesus’ side, resulting in “blood and water” coming out. Why the soldier did this is not clear; maybe he just had a vindictive streak; when he saw there was no need to break Jesus legs, he thrust in his spear instead. (The “water” is likely the fluid in the pericardial sac.) John says that this fulfilled the passage in Zechariah 10. This is very interesting, because in Zechariah it is the Jerusalemites and the house of David who do the piercing, while in John it is a Roman soldier. Yet the New Testament shows that the crucifixion was the result of both Jewish and Roman opposition, so the “piercing” can also come from a Roman! Furthermore, as we have seen, Revelation 1:7 extends the mourning to the entire world. Here, could it be that the Roman soldier is representative of the world? For not only did the Jewish people pierce the Lord and mourn for him in Zechariah. It is also the case that it was the sin of all peoples that led to the crucifixion, and it will be those from among all peoples who mourn and find salvation in Jesus. Both sin and salvation are universal!
Endnotes
1. Soncino Talmud translation.
The Messiah would come riding on a donkey
There seem to be two descriptions of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Zechariah 9:9
Fulfillment: Matthew 21:1–7
In the Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 98a, the question is posed that there seem to be two descriptions of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible:
R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written [in Daniel 7:13], And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven whilst [in Zechariah 9:9] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee . . .] lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.
Zechariah 9:9 was therefore understood messianically. According to this Talmudic discussion, if we are worthy, the Messiah will come in the clouds. But if we are unworthy, he will come riding on a donkey. In other rabbinic conversations, some say the Messiah will come when all Israel repents and proves their worthiness; others, when all Israel observes one Sabbath together. Until that happens, we cannot expect the Messiah.
But this misses half the messianic message. There is in fact a scriptural picture that the Messiah will come “with the clouds of heaven,” in a visible and exalted way. But another portrait says that the Messiah will come in order to die as the atonement for our sins—for none of us are worthy. Based on Yeshua’s own words, believers in him understand that his first coming was meant to provide an atoning death, and that he will return another time “in glory.”
In ancient times, dignitaries would ride donkeys in civil processions, and horses in military ones. A king arriving on a donkey would indicate that the person was on a peaceful mission, not one bent on military conquest. Whatever one makes of the rabbinic ideas about the Messiah, Yeshua’s coming on a donkey shows his humility – and maybe, in keeping with the rabbinic understanding, even our own unworthiness! But Yeshua came exactly so that God’s grace could redeem us even in our most unworthy moments.
The Messiah Would be Called Out of Egypt
The Messiah “fulfills” this word from God by reliving the story of Israel in his own life.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Hosea 11:1
Fulfillment: Matthew 2:13–15
As he often does in his first few chapters, Matthew applies Scriptures that speak of an event in the history of Israel to an event in the life of Jesus. (See also commentary on Jeremiah 31:15.) In those cases, Matthew is not presenting the Old Testament passage as a prediction, but as a pattern: what Israel went through, Jesus goes through. But why would Matthew do that? Commentator Craig Keener explains:
Matthew may have borrowed this Israel/Messiah interpretive analogy from Isaiah; Isaiah 42–53 narrows down the mission of Israel as a whole to the one who can ultimately fulfill that mission and suffer on behalf of the whole people—the one whom Christians would later understand to be Jesus.1
Similarly, Grant Osborne says that:
Though not a direct messianic passage, this still constitutes fulfillment because Jesus as Messiah is corporately identified with Israel throughout its history (cf. the king and high priest, corporately identified with the nation at their time of office) and so fulfills its experiences.2
In other words, Jesus is the ultimate Israelite who carries forward the mission of Israel to be a light to the world. Therefore, Matthew presents Jesus’ life as parallel to that of the nation. This is not something new: the Old Testament itself portrayed the final redemption as the ultimate Exodus, or the Messiah as the ultimate King David. The final redemption and the coming of the Messiah, according to the Old Testament, would follow on the same pattern of the first Exodus and of the first King David. Similarly, Matthew wants to show that Jesus is the ultimate Israelite, following the same pattern that the nation as a whole went through.
This is what we see in this passage of Matthew:
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”
And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Matthew 2:13–15
Herod had already plotted to murder all the boys in Bethlehem two years of age and under. (This actually likely amounted to about twenty children; see commentary on Jeremiah 31:15.) Warned by an angel, Joseph, Mary and Jesus flee to Egypt. This was not a random location. Egypt had a sizable and thriving Jewish community – Philo says it was one million strong. It was friendly towards Jews, and the closest Jewish community outside Israel.
And so Joseph and his family leave “by night,” most likely to avoid any detection, and they live there until Herod dies and the threat has passed. They would not have had long to wait, since Herod died in 4 B.C.
And then Matthew says that this fulfills Hosea 11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son,” though Matthew only cites the second half. In the entire verse, though, we see parallels to Jesus:
- Jesus is at this point a child.
- In Matthew 3:17, God had called him “my beloved Son” (also in Matthew 17:5 and seven other times in the New Testament).
- After Herod dies, Joseph takes his family back to Israel, that is, out of Egypt.
“Called” expresses God’s initiative; it was God who orchestrated the Exodus from Egypt, while God’s call on Jesus is often expressed in the New Testament by such phrases as “I came” (for example, Matthew 9:13, “For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners”).
And so as Israel was, so was its greatest exemplar and representative, Jesus.
End Notes
1. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), see under Matthew 2:15.
2. Grant R. Osborne, Matthew: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) Kindle location 2572-2575.
The Messiah would be called God’s Son
In Psalm 1, God calls His anointed “my Son.”
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Psalm 2:1–12
Fulfillment: Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22, Acts 4:25–28, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 5:5
Psalm 2 speaks of the nations of the world plotting against both God himself and his “Anointed.” Originally, this referred to the Davidic king, but the scope of what is described here, as well as later Jewish tradition, understood this to be referring to the Messiah, God’s Ultimate “Anointed.”
In verse 7, God specifically calls the Anointed “my Son” and promises worldwide rule in the face of the laughable opposition of the nations who counsel rebellion against God. Verse 12 is sometimes translated, “Do homage in purity,” or something similar, especially since the word in that verse for “son” is not the Hebrew ben as in verse 7, but the Aramaic bar, which seems out of place. Therefore, some have looked for an alternate translation. However, the switch to bar can be because (1) the psalmist is addressing the nations of the world, for whom Aramaic was the common language; and (2) otherwise, the Hebrew would have an odd-sounding phrase, ben pen (“Son, lest”), here made better by having bar pen.
The New Testament refers in numerous places to the ideas in this psalm:
Jesus as God’s Son:
A voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
Mark 1:11; also Luke 3:22
This he [God] has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”
Acts 13:33
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
Hebrews 1:5
So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him [God] who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”
Hebrews 5:5
The opposition to God and His Messiah:
… who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’ – for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
Acts 4:25–28
In the Hebrew Bible, “son of God” is used about angels (Job 1:6), about the nation of Israel (Exodus 4:22-23), and about Israel’s king (2 Samuel 7:14). In the New Testament, when Jesus is called “Son of God” or “God’s Son,” it implies: (1) he is the Messianic king; (2) he has a personal intimacy with the Father, whom he addressed as Abba; (3) he obeyed the Father, and especially; (4) his sonship is unique, unlike any other. For example, Jesus regularly speaks of “your Father” and “my Father”—but never “our Father” (Matthew 6:9 refers to what the disciples as a group are meant to pray; Jesus does not include himself in that group).
In contrast to what is often thought, it is the title Son of Man which Jesus frequently uses for himself that implies his divinity. That title comes from Daniel 7:13, which speaks of a heavenly figure. The title Son of God rather points to Jesus as the unique Messianic king who enjoys a special intimacy with God the Father, whose life is characterized by obedience to God, and whose career was marked by opposition, exactly like the Son of Psalm 2.
The Messiah Would Be Betrayed for Thirty Pieces of Silver
Thirty pieces of silver was the price of a slave.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Zechariah 11:12–13
Fulfillment: Matthew 26:14–15, Matthew 27:3, Matthew 27:9–10
Zechariah 11 concerns false shepherds (leaders) of Israel. In an acted parable, Zechariah himself becomes the shepherd over the people and eliminates three false shepherds. This passage is part of the entire messianic passage of chapters 9–12. Here, the people reject this true messianic shepherd as well, and he breaks one of his staffs named “Favor” to show that they have broken their covenant with the Lord. At this point, Zechariah resigns from his shepherd position, asking only the price of a slave for his efforts. God instructs him to throw the proceeds to the potter in the Temple. One writer suggests that the idea is that the potter can then fashion an idol out of the silver, cementing the people’s rejection of the Lord. At that point, Zechariah breaks his second staff, called “Union,” to symbolize the rupture within the people themselves. They have broken with God, and with one another.
Matthew does not cite Zechariah as a direct prophecy, but as a pattern fulfilled in the life of Jesus and Judah. Jesus, in the tradition of the prophets of Israel, had rebuked the current leadership of Israel for being false shepherds. Yet the true shepherd, Jesus himself, was rejected by the people and valued as lowly and worthless, just as thirty pieces of silver was the price of a slave. When Judas betrayed Jesus for a price, the false leaders of Israel paid a price representative of a minimum-wage Messiah, so to speak.
But there is also a reference to Jeremiah in Matthew’s quote. This is why his name appears in Matthew 27:9. When Matthew gives quotes that include multiple biblical authors, he gives the names of the major prophet rather than the minor prophet.
The “potter” is found in Jeremiah 18:1–11 in a sermon on God’s sovereignty; a potter’s vessel is in Jeremiah 19:1–13 in a chapter of judgment, which includes a mention of filling the land with “innocent blood”; while Jeremiah buys a “field” in chapter 32.
God oversees all things sovereignly.
The idea in Matthew seems to be that God oversees all things sovereignly, not least in the fulfillment of prophecy; while innocent blood has been shed in the death of Jesus (see Matthew 27:4, where Judas says, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood”). The connection with Jeremiah 32 may well be this: that chapter concerns the blessing on Israel when they will have been restored to fellowship with God. Invoking Jeremiah here may suggest that even in this midst of the betrayal of innocent blood, blessing and restoration will take place through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
This is not a simple, direct fulfillment of prophecy. But not all prophecies work the same way. In this case, Matthew sees prophecies of false shepherds, low valuation of the messianic shepherd, God’s sovereignty and the shedding of innocent blood as all coming together in the betrayal of Jesus. Both Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah 19 in particular are acted parables. They find their fulfillment in dramatic fashion in the events of Matthew 26 and 27.
The Messiah Would Be the Son of Man
Jesus often called himself “the Son of Man.” But what did that mean?
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Daniel 7:13–14
Fulfillment: Matthew 9:6, Matthew 12:8, Matthew 13:41, Matthew 16:13, Matthew 16:27, Mark 8:31, Luke 6:22, Luke 9:22, John 1:51, John 3:13–14, Acts 7:56 and many others
“Son of Man” is the way Jesus referred to himself numerous times in the gospels. Only three times elsewhere in the New Testament do others refer to him that way as well (Acts 7:56; Revelation 1:13; 14:14).
While “Son of Man” may sound like it emphasizes Jesus’ humanity, it is actually one that speaks about his deity and his exalted nature. It derives from Daniel 7:13–14, where Daniel receives a vision at night. On the “clouds of heaven” he sees “one like a son of man,” who appears before God—the “Ancient of Days.” To him God gives an everlasting kingdom in which all the nations of the earth serve him.
Jesus clearly references Daniel 7 when he responds to the high priest: “But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). In verse 65, the high priest responds, “He has uttered blasphemy.” He clearly understood the divine overtones of the title “Son of Man.”
But he uses this title in many other contexts, and it became one of the main ways he referred to himself. Here are some samples::
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins—he then said to the paralytic—Rise, pick up your bed and go home.
Matthew 9:6For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.
Matthew 12:8The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers.
Matthew 13:41Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
Matthew 16:13For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.
Matthew 16:27He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mark 8:31Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!
Luke 6:22The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Luke 9:22He said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
John 1:51No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.
John 3:13–14He said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
Acts 7:56
Why did Jesus call himself the Son of Man rather than just saying he was the exalted, divine Messiah? Throughout his ministry, he was always wary that people would misconstrue the title “Messiah” and his miraculous deeds. For that reason, he often instructed people he healed, for example, not to tell who had healed them. Too many people would have wanted Jesus to present himself as a powerful king who would destroy Israel’s enemy, Rome. But his mission at his first coming was to suffer and die as an atoning sacrifice. To forestall the wrong kind of messianic fervor, he used a less direct title, one which nevertheless indicated that (1) he would indeed receive kingship over the earth some day, and (2) he was more than just another human being, but an exalted, divine figure.
The Messiah would be a willing sacrifice
The story of the Akedah in Genesis 22 has many clues about the future Messiah.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Genesis 22:1–18
Fulfillment: John 3:16, Hebrews 11:17–19
Genesis 22 is one of the strangest stories in Scripture. Most of the chapter is taken up with the Akedah, the story of the Binding of Isaac. This portion is read every year on Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year), and has spawned innumerable sermons, ponderings, head-scratchings, and midrashic lessons.
The Akedah recounts how God called to Abraham and gave him this perplexing command: “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Genesis 22:2). It is especially strange because the Bible forbids human sacrifice. Nevertheless, Abraham takes Isaac, goes up the mountain, binds Isaac on the altar, raises the knife to slay his son, and is only stopped when the angel of the Lord cries out, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” (Genesis 22:12). And as Abraham looks up, he sees a ram in the bushes which becomes the actual sacrifice in place of Isaac.
Tantalizing clues are scattered in this chapter that all may not be as it seems at first. En route, Abraham tells his servants, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you” (Genesis 22:5). Was that a ruse or did Abraham know something? Then, as Isaac wonders why there is no lamb for the burnt offering, his father tells him, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Genesis 22:8). Again: was that a lie, or a genuine hope?
Marc Chagall was one of the pre-eminent Jewish painters of the twentieth century, whose stained-glass windows famously adorn the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. He also painted numerous biblical scenes, one of which is entitled, “The Sacrifice of Isaac.” [we should reproduce the painting here if we can – it appeared in ISSUES] There, we see Abraham with raised knife – Isaac bound to the altar, in yellow – the angel of the Lord stopping Abraham, in blue – and the ram in the bushes, in green. And then at the upper right, we see Jesus carrying the cross, in brown – with red paint falling from there onto Abraham, suggestive of blood.
What could it mean? Chagall was not a believer in Yeshua. Yet he saw a connection between Jesus and the Jewish people, and perhaps between the New and the Old Testaments. For Chagall, Jesus was not the Messiah but a symbol par excellence of Jewish martyrdom. Yet The Sacrifice of Isaac suggests something that perhaps Chagall also reflected on.
God offered His only son.
In the New Testament’s Gospel of John, the famous verse 3:16 reads: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” As Abraham was called to offer his son Isaac, his “only son,” so God offered His only son. As Abraham loved God and so obeyed Him, God loved the world. The sparing of Isaac at the end of the story enabled God’s promises to continue to be fulfilled through Isaac and through Isaac’s son Jacob. For if Isaac had indeed been sacrificed, the promises God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 could never have been fulfilled. In a twist on that, it was because Yeshua actually was sacrificed that those promises are now fulfilled for the entire world. (See comments to Genesis 12:3). The Akedah is a mirror in which we can see Yeshua, and perhaps it is even there in the Bible for just that reason.
In the New Testament book of Hebrews 11:17-19, we read that, “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.”
Could it be that Abraham’s faith in God’s promises was so sure that he believed, hope against hope, that Isaac would survive to see those promises come to fruition? And there lies another connection to Jesus: if Isaac, was figuratively “raised from the dead,” Yeshua literally rose from the dead, ensuring the fulfillment of God’s promises.
The Messiah Would Be the Passover Lamb
How is Jesus like the lambs from the story of Exodus?
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Exodus 12:1–51
Fulfillment: John 1:29, 36; 19:33, 36; 1 Corinthians 5:7–8; 1 Peter 1:19
Passover is the most foundational holiday on the Jewish calendar because it commemorates the freeing of our people from 400 years of slavery to Pharaoh and our beginnings as a nation. So important was the Exodus from Egypt, that it became a theme found throughout the Old and New Testaments.
For example, in Joshua 4:23–24, the parting of the Jordan River is explicitly compared to the parting of the Red Sea: “For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we passed over, so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty, that you may fear the Lord your God forever.” And those verses use the same words: “mighty” and “hand” as found in the stories of the Exodus (such as Exodus 3:19, Deuteronomy 4:34).
Looking to the future, the great prophets of Israel also used the Exodus to speak of a similar deliverance from exile and more. Ezekiel 20:33–34 speaks of God’s future deliverance “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm,” the exact phrase originally used of the Exodus from Egypt.
Jeremiah 16:14–15 even speaks of a time coming when the future deliverance will outshadow the first Exodus:
“Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it shall no longer be said, ‘As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’ but ‘As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.’ For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their fathers.”
Isaiah says much the same thing when he compares the return from exile in Babylon to the first Exodus:
“Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters, who brings forth chariot and horse, army and warrior; they lie down, they cannot rise, they are extinguished, quenched like a wick.”
Isaiah 43:16–17
Here, the “way in the sea” and the destruction of the chariots and horses are clear echoes of the Exodus. Then, expressing a thought similar to Jeremiah, Isaiah adds, “Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing” (Isaiah 43:18–19).
Jewish tradition saw the first Exodus replayed in “a higher key” in the return of the exiles from Babylon and also in the ultimate coming of the Messiah to deliver Israel. A common sentiment has been, “As the first deliverer, so the last deliverer.” In other words, as Moses was, so the Messiah will be. This idea appears numerous times with variations. For example, the midrash Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer says, “Just as the first Deliverer was, so will the last Deliverer be. As Scripture says about the first Deliverer: ‘Moses took his wife and his sons, setting them upon on an ass’ (Exodus 4:20), so also the last Deliverer: ‘Lowly and riding on an ass’ (Zechariah 9:9).”1
The power of God seen in the Exodus is seen also in Jesus’ ministry.
As did Jewish tradition, the New Testament uses the same Exodus imagery to point to its fulfillment in Yeshua the Messiah. The very vocabulary used to talk about Yeshua’s death is drawn right from the Exodus: redemption, deliverance, slavery, freedom, ransom. The power of God seen in the Exodus is seen also in Jesus’ ministry. Luke 11:20 reads, “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” In Exodus 8:19 (v. 15 in the Hebrew), when the Egyptian magicians could not duplicate the plague of gnats, they said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” The same power of God seen in the Exodus was seen in the ministry of Jesus.
One of the most pervasive images in the New Testament is that of Jesus as our Passover lamb. Recall the story from the book of Exodus. A perfect lamb had to be selected, set aside for several days, then killed and its blood put on the doorposts of the Israelites’ homes so that they would be spared the tenth plague: death of the firstborn.
John the Baptist twice referred to Jesus as a “lamb”: “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” (John 1:29) and “He looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God!’” (John 1:36).
Later in John’s gospel we read:
When they [the Roman soldiers] came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.”
John 19:33–36
When Exodus explains the laws of Passover, it includes this stipulation: “You shall not break any of its bones” (Exodus 12:46). This is repeated in Numbers 9:12: “They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break any of its bones; according to all the statute for the Passover they shall keep it.” In a very direct way, John compares Jesus to the lamb of Passover; his body was treated the same way as that of the Passover lamb—although unintentionally on the part of the Roman soldiers! In addition, John may be alluding to Psalm 34:19–20 (vv. 20–21 in the Hebrew): “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all. He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.” Not only is Jesus the lamb of Passover, but he is righteous—and was delivered from his afflictions of death by his resurrection.
Writing to a gentile congregation, Paul underscores this when he says, “Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For [Messiah], our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7–8). The greater Exodus that the Messiah accomplishes benefits not only Israel but the nations of the world as well.
Reflect for a moment on the parallels between the lamb of the book of Exodus and Yeshua.
Yeshua was perfect because he was sinless.
The Passover lamb had to be perfect: “Your lamb shall be without blemish” (Exodus 12:5). Yeshua was perfect because he was sinless: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).
The Israelites were slaves to Pharaoh. Yeshua says we are all slaves to sin: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34).
The tenth plague from which the Passover lamb saved the Israelites was death: “At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock” (Exodus 12:29). Paul writes that our sin leads to death: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in [Messiah Yeshua] our Lord” (Romans 6:23).
The Israelites who applied the blood of the Passover lamb were spared that death: “When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:13). The blood of Yeshua, the greater Passover lamb, spares us from death: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses” (Ephesians 1:7); and “… in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14).
The original Exodus was the template for the greater Exodus that took place when Yeshua the Messiah became our Passover lamb. Whether you are Jewish or not, you can have a Passover in your own life Through Yeshua, God brings us out of oppression, delivers us from slavery to sin, redeems us with his great power and takes us to be his people (see Exodus 6:6–7: the four verbs associated with the Exodus from Egypt that are emphasized during the annual Passover service).
And so we move from slavery to freedom; from darkness to light; from death to life; and from brokenness to wholeness. That’s some Passover!
End Notes
1. Cited in Herbert W. Basser, The Mind Behind the Gospels: A Commentary to Matthew 1–14 (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2009), 50.
The Messiah Would Be the Star Coming out of Jacob
He will defeat all foes of God’s people as the great Star and Scepter.
by Jews for Jesus | January 01 2018
Reference: Numbers 24:17
Fulfillment: Matthew 2:2, Revelation 22:16
In AD 132–135, the famous warrior Bar Kochba led the second rebellion against Rome. His real name was Bar Kozeba, but Rabbi Akiva famously nicknamed him Bar Kochba—“son of the star”—based on Numbers 24:17, and declared him to be the Messiah. Unfortunately, Bar Kochba was killed in the battle against Rome, his Messiahship came to naught, and Israel was exiled from Jerusalem.
Even earlier, in the first rebellion of AD 66–70, this verse was used, undoubtedly because of the part that prophesies victory over Israel’s enemies. Earlier still, the Dead Sea Scrolls gave a messianic interpretation to the verse.
And in fact, Akiva was right to see in this verse a promise of a coming deliverer and redeemer. It was the pagan seer Balaam who offered this prophecy almost in spite of himself, as time after time he blessed Israel, though he had been given instruction to curse Israel. So this prophecy is part of the larger theme of God’s blessing to Israel.
Rabbinic writings also viewed it messianically. Targum Onkelos, one of the renditions of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic, translated “star” as “the king” and “scepter” as “the Messiah.” Maimonides also viewed it messianically (though he divided portions of the verse between King David and the Messiah). While some have seen King David’s military victories as the fulfillment, his victories did not last, and the echo of this prophecy in Amos 9:11 shows that Amos still looked for a future fulfillment even after the time of David.
They are guided by a star.
In the New Testament (Matthew 2), we read of “magi”—likely Babylonian astrologers—who come from the East bearing gifts for the newborn Yeshua. As they make their way, they are guided by a star. Whatever that star was—and speculation runs from a comet, to a supernova, to a special supernatural guiding light—the text appears to be alluding to Numbers 24. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, speaks of the “rise” of a star from Jacob, echoed in the New Testament’s star that “rose” (Matthew 2:2, 9), using the same Greek word. At the other end of the New Testament, in Revelation 22:16, Yeshua calls himself the “bright morning star,” likewise in allusion to the Numbers verse.
Yeshua is the promised deliverer spoken of in Numbers 24. King David had some measure of victory over his enemies, but the hope of the Hebrew Bible is that a greater David would someday arise to fully realize what David himself could not. Moreover, Moab and Edom may well include all kinds of physical and spiritual enemies, whatever threatens God’s people—for the Scripture always links the physical and military with the spiritual condition of Israel. And so while at his first coming Yeshua defeated the enemies of sin and death on the cross, at his second advent he will defeat all foes of God’s people as the great Star and Scepter, both symbols for a ruler in the ancient world. What Bar Kochba failed to accomplish, Yeshua will.
Sharing is caring
Share
+1
Tweet
Share
Share