“If Jesus is really the Messiah, and if he is so important, why doesn’t the Torah speak of him at all?“

The Torah does not mention the Messiah very often. In fact, the word mashiach is found only four times in the Torah (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15), and in all four cases, it refers to the high priest. This means that what the Torah says about the Messiah is more implicit than it is explicit since it uses foreshadowing to speak about him rather than plain discourse.

The narrative of the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22, also known as the Akedah, prefigures the Messiah, especially in the way it was interpreted by the rabbis. In their view, although Abraham did not actually sacrifice Isaac, God accepted it as if it had actually occurred. There are several parallels between the Akedah and the Messiah:

• As Abraham demonstrated his fidelity to God by his willingness to offer up his son (cf. Gen. 22:12), God shows his steadfast love for his people by giving up his Son (cf. Rom. 8:32).
• Isaac is described as Abraham’s only son (see Gen. 22:2); similarly, the New Testament calls Jesus God’s only son (see John 3:16).
• Isaac’s cooperation anticipates the Messiah’s obedience.
• Abraham knew that he would come back down from Mount Moriah with his son (Gen. 22:5), and the Messiah was raised from the dead.

Commenting on the Akedah, the author of the letter to the Hebrews states, “By faith, Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son . . . Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death” (Heb. 11:17-19). Isaac’s virtual return from death foretells the Messiah’s literal return from death. God provided the ultimate sacrifice, his own Son, to take away the sins of the world (cf. John 1:29).

Another Messianic figure in the Torah is Joseph, who was rejected by his brothers (Gen. 37), was unjustly punished (Gen. 39), and was raised to a high position, which he used to save the world from death (Gen. 41). While he was respected by the Egyptian Gentiles, his brothers did not know him; Joseph made himself known to them only when he met them the second time. Similarly, Yeshua was falsely accused and became the salvation of the world because his brothers rejected him, and it is only at his second coming that he will reveal himself to Israel.

The sacrificial laws in the Torah also point to the sacrifice of Yeshua, the Messiah. Rashi explains that it was necessary for an innocent victim to take the place for the guilty party; yet, God is not interested in the blood of animals (cf. Hos. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:11; Prov. 21:3; Ps. 50:8). After all, if it were a definitive and perpetual law that only the blood of animals could take away sin, there would be absolutely no way for Jews to have their sins atoned after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. It could be argued that instead of regarding sacrifice as the method for atonement, we should study the Law instead; however, it is this same Law containing the theology of atonement which Christianity has adopted. Faith in Jesus is Torah-centric, even more so than the teachings of the rabbis! Whereas the rabbis throw out the sacrificial system entirely, Christians merely maintain that the mode of sacrifice has changed – the Messiah has become our sacrifice instead of animals.

The high priest is another Messianic figure in the Torah. Recall that it is only in reference to the high priest that the mashiach is found in the Torah. His primary role, of course, was to make atonement for Israel. Rabbinic tradition teaches that his death and his garments (see b. Zevahim 68b and b. MoedKatan 28a) have atoning powers. Consider what the letter to the Hebrews says about the priesthood of Jesus:

[B]ecause Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because he always lives to intercede for them . . . Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day . . . He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. (Heb. 7:24-25, 27-28)

The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Heb. 9:13-14)

Remarkable! Only Yeshua fulfills the sacrificial system of the Torah, and he did so just in the nick of time – less than forty years before the destruction of the Temple and the termination of animal sacrifices in Judea!

Let’s look at yet another passage in the Torah. In the book of Numbers, the only way for the people to be saved from the fiery serpents was for them to look at the bronze serpent Moses crafted and mounted on a pole (see Num. 21:4-9). In The Wisdom of Solomon, a work most likely written 120-100 BCE, it is written,

For when the terrible rage of wild animals came upon your people

and they were being destroyed by the bites of writhing serpents,

your wrath did not continue to the end;

they were troubled for a little while as a warning,

and received a symbol of deliverance to remind them of your law’s command.

For the one who turned toward it was saved, not by the thing that was beheld,

but by you, the Savior of all.

And by this also you convinced our enemies

that it is you who deliver from every evil.(16:5-8, NRSV)

Of course, it was not the image of what they beheld that saved them, but God. It is the same with Yeshua, who was raised on the cross. As he himself said, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up [meaning, in crucifixion], that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15).

In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter, the chief of Yeshua’s twelve disciples, describes him as the prophet greater than Moses (see Acts 3:22-23). The words of this prophet are so important that God declares, “If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account” (Deut. 18:19). Yeshua is this prophet, the one who prophesied the destruction of the Temple and prophesied his own death, resurrection, and final return. While Moses promised a prophet like himself, Deuteronomy testifies that there has been no prophet like Moses since his passing. The only one who fits the bill is Yeshua.

Lastly, let us consider Genesis 49:10, Jacob’s benediction of Judah on his death bed, which has been widely considered a Messianic prophecy. It is no secret that the Tanakh teaches that the Messiah will hail from the tribe of Judah. There is a high probability that this prophecy is Messianic since (1) it prophesies that the future kingship would pass through the line of Judah, (2) David, the first king from Judah, was a prototype of the Messiah, and (3) the leader is to subjugate the nations. Of course, the main issue here is not whether this prophecy is Messianic, but whether this prophecy refers to Jesus. According to Dr. Walter Riggans, “Christians can be confident that their reading of [this prophecy] has integrity and perhaps even probability” (Riggans, Yeshua ben David,330). Nothing in Genesis 49:10 rules out Yeshua as being the one who fulfills this prophecy. If the prophecy is Messianic and refers to a ruler who came over 1900 years ago, it must apply to Yeshua, and if the prophecy is not Messianic, then it does not apply to any other potential Messianic figure. The case for Yeshua is quite strong.

In conclusion, there is hardly a place in the Torah which refers to the traditional understanding of the Jewish Messiah while there are many prefigurations of Yeshua, including the sacrifice of Isaac, Joseph, the sacrificial system, the atoning power of the high priest, the prophet greater than Moses, and the mighty ruler coming from Judah. Read the Torah again, asking God, “Uncover my eyes, and I will behold wonders in your Torah” (Ps. 119:18, my translation).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 3-13.

“Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible are we told that we must ‘believe in the Messiah.'”

This objection goes against traditional Judaism; the only reason to come up with it is to counter the statements in the New Testament which indicate that belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. While the Hebrew Bible does not explicitly command belief in the Messiah, neither does it say to listen to the oral tradition. In fact, belief in the Messiah is one of the thirteen principles of the Jewish faith as articulated by Rambam (also see Hilchos Melachim 11:1). Rabbi Shmuley Boteach declares that “the belief in the coming of the Messiah is more central to Judaism than even the observance of the Sabbath or Yom Kippur” (Boteach, The Wolf Shall Lie with the Lamb, 7).

Our people anticipated the arrival of the Messiah for centuries. When Yeshua came and revealed himself to the world, his emissaries spread the good news everywhere, declaring that through Yeshua, it became possible to receive atonement for one’s sins, to be at peace with God, and to rejoice in the reign of the Messiah, who is gathering the nations to himself. Many of our people did not heed this invitation, and so the following words of the prophet Habakkuk were applied to them, “Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you” (Hab. 1:5, quoted in Acts 13:40-41).

One of the principles of Judaism is that it is imperative not only to believe in God but also to believe in his servants. When God sent Moses and Aaron to the Hebrews, the Hebrews were to believe in God and in them (see Exod. 4:1-31). Furthermore, just because Moses died over 3000 years ago, it does not mean that we can stop believing in him. Similarly, although Jesus died nearly 2000 years ago, as a true prophet of God and the long-expected Messiah, we must believe in him.

As a people, we have repeatedly manifested unbelief. Although in the desert our forefathers believed in Moses after they saw the miracles he wrought, many of them sought his death (see Num. 14:10). The psalmist comments, “When the LORD heard [his people’s complaints in the wilderness], he was very angry; his fire broke out against Jacob, and his wrath rose against Israel, for they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance . . . . in spite of his wonders, they did not believe” (Ps. 78:21-22, 32). Similarly, although many saw the miracles Jesus performed and believed in him, a large Jewish crowd demanded Yeshua’s crucifixion (Matt. 27:22). Were they blameless? Surely not! This is not a pleasant topic, I know, but the facts remain incontrovertible.

Are you going to believe in the Messiah? He has given us a way to find reconciliation with him, has offered us new life in the spirit of God, and stands ready to cleanse and transform us day by day. Why act like our rebellious forefathers in the desert? Why not believe in the Messiah today?

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 13-17.

“Isaiah 7:14 does not prophesy a virgin birth! And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, since it dealt with a crisis 700 years before he was born.“

A proper understanding of Isaiah 7:14, which is quoted once in the New Testament, inevitably leads to the conclusion that it is Messianic.

Let’s take a look at the historical background of this verse. Judah was being attacked by a joint force of Israelites and Arameans who wanted to take Jerusalem and replace the king of Judah with the man of their choice. Unfortunately, king Ahaz was a faithless king, preferring to hire mercenaries than to rely on Yahweh. Isaiah told Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Ahaz refused. The Lord then responded, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The ‘almah will be with child [or, is with child] and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isa. 7:13-14).

Who is this child, Immanuel? Some believe this child was to be born to Isaiah, others say that he was to be the son of Ahaz, while still others believe that he was a child destined to be born of a woman at that time in the history of Judah; the exact referent of this prophecy is not clear from the text itself. It is safe to assume, however, that this prophecy refers to a child who is related to the future house of David, especially since the following chapters in the book of Isaiah, most notably chapters 9 and 11, are principle Messianic prophecies.

What was the miraculous sign that was promised? While there are many theories, it is evident that the sign offered by God would have to be extremely significant; it would have to be a powerful miracle only God could perform. The question inevitably arises, “Does the word almah mean virgin?” The answer is, “No, not specifically.” The reason for this is that almah is derived from a Semitic root meaning “to come into puberty.” Just as the word elem means “young man,” almah means “young woman” or “maiden,” and this is exactly how these words are most commonly translated in the Tanakh.

One might object that had Isaiah intended to speak of a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah. The problem with this objection is that there is no single word in Hebrew that unequivocally means “virgin.” Out of the fifty times that the Tanakh contains the word betulah, the New Jewish Publication Society translates it as “maiden” instead of “virgin” thirty-one times. Many passages in the Tanakh indicate that it would be absurd to treat betulah as corresponding precisely with “virgin.” Consider the following passages:

“Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary” (Ezek. 9:6). Here, it is obvious that betulah parallels bahur, i.e. young man. Virginity is not the issue in this passage; instead, it is the comprehensiveness of the command: slay everyone without the mark.

• “Lament – like a maiden girt with sackcloth for the husband of her youth” (Joel 1:8, NJPSV). The maiden (betulah) in this passage is no virgin since she has been made a widow.
• “Go down, sit in the dust, Virgin Daughter of Babylon . . . listen, you wanton creature, lounging in your security and saying to yourself, ‘I am, and there is none besides me. I will never be a widow or suffer the loss of children.’ Both of these will overtake you in a moment” (Isa. 47:1, 8-9, NIV). A virgin becoming a widow – does this really make sense?
• Obviously, betulah does not exclusively mean “virgin,” which means that neither betulah nor almah unequivocally means virgin. Since this is the case, it remains to be explained exactly what this Messianic prophecy means. The obscurity and ambiguity that underlie this prophecy are actually the keys to understanding Matthew’s interpretation of it.

Having considered numerous biblical commentaries written by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, I have drawn the conclusion that it is impossible to determine precisely what the prophecy meant to those who heard it originally, except that it was a promise of a supernatural birth that would be a great sign for the house of David, and that it would simultaneously serve as a reproach to unbelievers.

The birth announcement in Isaiah 7:14 is patterned on other birth announcements in the Hebrew Bible, including the births of Ishmael (see Gen. 16:11) and Samson (see Judg. 13:3, 5, 7). In fact, there is an intriguing text from Ugarit that was written about 500 years before Isaiah that announced the birth of a god to a goddess in the following words: “Behold, the maiden [Ugaritic ġalmatu, the equivalent of Hebrew almah] will bear a son.” These passages all indicate that this prophesied birth was extremely significant for the house of David.

Reading this prophecy, Matthew was aware of the Messianic significance of Isaiah 9 and 11. The birth of Jesus was a miraculous sign because the almah was actually a virgin, yet she gave birth to the Messiah. Matthew also realized that Yeshua was Immanuel because he fulfilled the literal meaning of the name (God is with us). This prophecy was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus for two reasons: (1) the nonspecific nature of the text leaves the door open for interpretation within certain parameters, and (2) this prophecy concerns the royal line of David, which ultimately reaches its apex in the Messiah, whose birth is an event of the utmost importance.

In order to see the logic of reading Isaiah 7:14 as referring to the Messiah (and in particular, to Jesus), one must understand the character of the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah 7-11. These prophecies offer snapshots, so to speak, of different stages in the life of the Messiah. In Isaiah 7, the Messiah’s imminent birth is foretold; in Isaiah 9, the Messiah has been born and has been declared to be a divine king; and in Isaiah 11, the Messiah reigns. These passages are all interconnected and are meant to be read together. Matthew does precisely this, reading all of these passages in their wider context (see Matt. 1:23, 2:23, 4:15-16).

Who is Immanuel? The standard Jewish argument is that the birth of Immanuel had to be contemporaneous with the political situation of Isaiah’s day; however, this view is problematic since it does not consider the fact that the promise was made to the whole house of David rather than to a particular king, and that the prophecy associated with Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa. 8:1-4) became more important in Isaiah’s day than the prophecy of Immanuel. Joseph Blenkinsopp, a Catholic Old Testament scholar, analyzes the prophecies of Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, claiming that the parallelism of the two accounts suggests that they are different dimensions of the same “one sign-act.” Blenkinsopp holds that “within the prophetic world view, Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz represent different aspects of the divine intervention in human affairs at that critical juncture. They are, so to speak, the recto and verso of the same coin” (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, 238-239). While the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz is actually described, the birth of Immanuel is not. Maher-shalal-hash-baz becomes the tangible sign of the promise for Isaiah’s contemporaries whereas Immanuel’s birth is situated at some point in the indefinite future, a prophecy that had yet to be fulfilled.

The Septuagint, i.e. the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was completed over two centuries before Yeshua, renders almah as parthenos, which normally means “virgin.” This fact has been used by missionaries as proof that almah means virgin. This is not entirely accurate however, since the Septuagint describes Dinah as a parthenos even after she was raped (Gen. 34:3); yet, there is something significant in the Septuagint translation of almah into parthenos.

Did Rashi claim that almah in Isaiah 7:14 means virgin? He has been misquoted as such by David Stern in Jewish New Testament Commentary, as revealed by Rabbi Tovia Singer (entry posted June 21, 2011, on Noahide – The Ancient Path). Although Rabbi Singer is correct in pointing out Stern’s error, Stern did not intentionally misquote Rashi; instead, Stern took for granted that Victor Buksbazen was accurately citing Rashi when he said in his commentary The Prophet Isaiah that in Isaiah 7:14, “almah” means “virgin.” Stern, being a scholar who possesses integrity, corrected his later editions of the Jewish New Testament Commentary and issued an apology for not checking the original source (JNTC 1992, 7).

In his closing comments on Isaiah 7:14, Rashi states, “And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl [‘almah’] and incapable of giving birth” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). This text indicates that the birth was to be at the very least unusual, and possibly even miraculous. Rashi does not say that the almah would be a virgin, but he does indicate that she would be a young girl, for whom giving birth would not be considered normal. While it is not certain, there is a possibility that the translators of the Septuagint deliberately intended to convey the sense of a virginal birth in Isaiah 7:14. If a word other than almah had been used in the original Hebrew, one that meant woman or wife rather than young girl, later interpretations of a virginal birth would have been entirely unfounded.

The fullest meaning of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 has only gradually come to light. The Word of God contains within it the possibilities of its later interpretations, and the very fact that particular verses have been interpreted in certain ways reflects something of the nature of those verses. Over the centuries, the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 matured until it was realized that this prophecy is fulfilled in Yeshua, the Messiah, the mighty God, whose conception was virginal. Although it is true that he was never called Immanuel in the New Testament, neither was Solomon ever called Jedidiah in the Tanakh, although it was said that he would be called by this name (2 Sam. 12:24-25). Furthermore, millions of Christians adore Yeshua as Emmanuel, which is evident from a famous Christmas hymn that starts with the words, “O come, O come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel.” In short, the claim that Matthew misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14 is not true; instead, his interpretation, which follows the best interpretive methods of the rabbis, is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 17-32.

Our task is twofold: (1) we will ascertain the most suitable translation and meaning of this verse, and (2) we will determine whether this verse is a Messianic prophecy.

The Septuagint attributes all of the names listed in this verse to the king, whereas the Targum only attributes the last two names to the child. Many rabbis recognize that all of the names refer to the child rather than mostly to God. Even the Talmud and various midrashic writings maintain that the names refer to the child, not God (see Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:20).

Let us take a look at how contemporary Jewish scholars have translated this verse. The JPSV (1917) transliterates the Hebrew words rather than translating them. The Stone translation follows the Targum by only attributing the last couple of names to the child. The NJPSV translates the series of names as a complete sentence: “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler.” This move is extremely difficult to justify. If such a translation is correct, it would imply that centuries of rabbinic scholarship, the Talmud, midrashic tradition, and every previous rendering of this verse for over two millennia were flat out wrong, and that it was only very recently that scholars happened to stumble upon the right meaning. This implication is simply ludicrous for traditional Jews, who believe that the rabbis who lived in times of greater proximity to the events described were more authoritative in their interpretations of the sacred texts. Although the NJPSV’s translation is highly creative, it must be rejected.

Much more probable is the rendering of these names into four double names. Brevard S. Childs of Yale University translates this passage as follows: “For a child has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and the government will be on his shoulders, and his name will be called: ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'” (Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary,78). This rendition follows many of the important rabbinic traditions which maintain that all of the names apply to the child.

We have now arrived at our next task, which is to determine whether this prophecy is Messianic in nature. First, it must be understood that every prophecy concerning a ruler in the line of David is potentially Messianic. Second, it is clear that this prophecy remained unfulfilled up until the time of Yeshua, and certainly has not been fulfilled after Yeshua. The two alternatives are that the prophecy is either false, or it is a Messianic prophecy.

Let’s take a closer look at the prophecy and see how well it might apply to Hezekiah, as some Jewish commentators suggest. The prophecy runs as follows:

For to us a child is born…

And he will be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace

there will be no end.

He will reign on David’s throne

and over his kingdom,

establishing and upholding it

with justice and righteousness

from that time on and forever (Isa. 9:6-7).

According to the Talmud, God had intended for Hezekiah to be the Messiah and for Sennacherib to be Gog and Magog, but Hezekiah was unworthy (b. Sanh. 94a). Although God used Hezekiah in powerful ways, Hezekiah did not fulfill this prophecy since (1) his reign fell short of what was promised in the prophecy, (2) his son, Manasseh, was the most evil king in the history of Judah, and (3) the nation was in exile only four generations after Hezekiah. Remember, Isaiah described this kingdom with the words, “[T]here will be no end.”

Isaac Troki, a medieval refutationist, claims that the words should not be taken at face value. In his view, the words “without end” are “a mere figure of speech” (Troki, HizzukEmunah, 106-107). The problem with his interpretation is that even if the words were a figure of speech, Hezekiah’s kingdom did not last nearly long enough to be described, even metaphorically, as lasting forever.

An unbiased reading of the text suggests that the Messianic prince described in this passage will be a king who surpasses human limitations. There are several biblical passages which indicate that the Messiah will have a divine nature. Zechariah 13:7 calls the Messiah geber amiti (God’s fellow or colleague).

Micah 5:2(1) is another text that indicates that the Messiah has an eternal origin and a divine nature. The crux of the issue is the translation of the Hebrew phrase miqedem mi-yemey’olam, which describes the nature of the Messiah’s origins. Miqedem means “from of old,” but the most intuitive translation of the next two words, mi-yemey’olam, would be “from eternity.” In fact, ‘olam usually means eternal, as in Psalm 90:2, where God is described as being me’olam we’ad ‘olam, i.e. “from eternity to eternity” (cf. NJPSV). It must be admitted, however, that there are cases when ‘olam cannot mean eternal, but rather denotes “for a long time.” How are we to translate this verse then?

Rashi comments on Micah 5:2(1) as follows:

1And you Bethlehem Ephrathah . . . you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah . . . from you shall emerge for Me the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118: 22): “The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.” and his origin is from of old – “Before the sun his name is Yinnon.” (Ps. 72:17)

How interesting! Rashi teaches that this verse points to the eternal origin of the Messiah, and he even quotes the same psalm verse Yeshua applies to himself!

In light of all the above evidence, it is clear that the position that Isaiah 9:6(5) refers to the Messiah’s divinity rests on solid ground.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 32-40.

“If you want to know what Isaiah 53 is talking about, just read Isaiah 52 and 54. The context is the return of the Jewish people from the Babylonian exile, 550 years before Jesus.”

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is perhaps the most important Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. This passage has led more Jews to believe in Jesus than any other text in Scripture. Many anti-missionaries have objected to the interpretation that this passage is referring to the Messiah. In fact, they often claim that the passage refers to the nation of Israel rather than to the Messiah, although this interpretation does not exist in the Talmud, the Targums, or the Midrashim. The first time this interpretation comes onto the scene is in the writings of Rashi in the eleventh century CE (although Origen of Alexandria mentioned some Jewish leaders who took this view). As far as we can tell, there are no writings whatsoever left by any of the rabbis and Jewish sages of the first millennium after the birth of Yeshua which teach that Isaiah 53 should be interpreted as referring to the nation.

Let us focus on answering two clarifying questions: (1) In Isaiah 40-51, does the phrase “the servant of the Lord” always denote the nation of Israel rather than an individual? and (2) Is the context of Isaiah 53 exclusively the return of the Jewish people from Babylon?

The servant of the Lord (‘ebed) is mentioned seventeen times in Isaiah 40-51. The referent in these cases is sometimes the nation (41:8-9; 42:19-25; 43:10; 44:21-23; 45:4; 48:20) and other times an individual (49:3, 5-7; 50:10). There are some verses that are ambiguous (42:1; 44:1-2). The most personal language is found in Isaiah 52:13 and 53:11. All of these texts follow a particular structure: the texts toward the beginning of Isaiah 40 describe the servant as the nation whereas the texts toward the end of these prophecies begin to see the servant as an individual. In other words, the servant as an individual gradually comes into focus until Isaiah 49, when ‘ebed clearly refers to an individual.

Let’s consider one of the prophecies from this sequence: “But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, ‘You are my servant’; I have chosen you and have not rejected you” (Isa. 41:8-9). In this verse, the servant of the Lord is obviously the nation. However, this servant is also described as deaf and blind (Isa. 42:18-20; 43:8). In contrast, God says that his servant will “open eyes that are blind” (Isa. 42:7). Rabbi David Kimchi described the servant in Isaiah 42:1-7 as “King Messiah.” This theme of the servant as referring to the Messiah is continued in Isaiah 49. It is interesting to note that in this prophecy, although the servant is called Israel, he is also sent to redeem Israel. In Isaiah 49:8ff, the servant miraculously leads the people out of captivity like a new Moses, but the deliverance is from spiritual bondage.

We have yet to explain why the servant is called Israel in 49:3 when the text is referring to an individual rather than to the nation. Metsudat David, a prominent medieval Jewish commentator, suggests the solution when he describes a prophet of Israel as follows: “Behold, before Me, you [meaning the prophet] are like the multitude of Israel [hamon yisra’el], and I glory in you as if you were all of them.” Applying this logic to Isaiah 49, the servant takes the place of Israel, stands as Israel’s representative, and as such, is called Israel. The Messiah is the foremost representative of Israel because in the Messiah, God sees the entire nation!

What about the context of the Babylonian exile? The interpretation of ‘ebed as the nation makes sense in the context of the Babylonian exile, but what about when ‘ebed is an individual? While it is true that right before Isaiah 52:13, the setting is the return from the Babylonian exile, the next verse does not necessarily take its bearings from this event. In fact, many traditional Jewish interpreters read Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as a prophecy of the Messiah; it was considered to be a passage detached from that which preceded it. In addition, many commentators interpret this passage as describing the sufferings of Israel throughout history, even up to the Holocaust. To read this passage as exclusively referring to the context of the Babylonian exile has no convincing basis in Jewish tradition from the time of the Talmud to the present.

There is also the issue of the glory that was promised that was to come in the wake of Israel’s return; this predicted exaltation simply did not occur at that stage in history. Isaiah prophesied, “all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God” (Isa. 52:10); The return of 45,000 Jews (see Nehemiah 7) was certainly not a cosmic event that manifested God’s salvation to all the nations. The only way to read this in its fullest sense is by seeing the salvation as something brought about by the Messiah, the new Moses, who leads his people back with outstretched arm. The exile serves as a symbol for this spiritual renewal and transition into the new Messianic age.

How did the prophet envision this event in history? From a distance, he sees God’s deliverance emerging on the horizon for his people. At first, he thinks it is the nation of Israel, glorified in God’s sight, but then he realizes that it is not the nation, but the Messiah, who stands in the place of Israel as its intercessor. From the miserable depths of the exile, there arises a nugget of gold as out of a dark mine; fashioned in the heart of the history of its people, only now does it slowly begin to emerge. In the crucible of suffering, it becomes purified, perfected, and is finally glorified. The Messiah will be the one to free the nation of Israel from their sins and will teach them the path of righteousness.

If this Messianic interpretation is not true, the prophecy is false because the glorious events that were promised simply did not happen when the Jews returned from Babylon. If, on the other hand, the prophecy is Messianic, then it is easy to see how an individual Jew, i.e. Yeshua, is able to fulfill it. Consider the following prophecies that have been (or are being) fulfilled:

• According to Isaiah 42:4, “he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law [Hebrew torah] the islands will put their hope.” This very moment, there are distant islands awaiting the good news of the salvation the God of Israel offers through Yeshua.
• “I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting” (Isa. 50:6). This verse describes what Jesus went through.
• The Lord says of his Messiah in Isaiah 53:12: “Therefore I will give him a portion among the great . . . because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

This last passage leads to Isaiah 54, which announces the salvation of Jerusalem. What is the nature of this salvation? Israel is saved from its sins through the Messiah! The disastrous history Israel experienced after its return from exile precludes a political interpretation of Israel’s salvation – it must be on the spiritual plane. When one reads all of these texts together, it becomes clear that these prophecies refer to Yeshua, the Messiah, the Savior of his people.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 40-49.

“The rabbis only applied Isaiah 52:13-15, not 53:1-12, to the Messiah son of David.”

In a debate I had with Rabbi Tovia Singer in 1991, Singer said that none of the traditional Jewish commentators claimed that the servant in Isaiah 53:1-12 was the Messiah son of David. This position, however, is simply not true. Ramban taught that Isaiah spoke of “the Messiah, the son of David . . . [who] will never be conquered” (Driver and Neubauer ,The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:78). Ibn Krispin and Alshekh also spoke of the servant in Isaiah 53:1-12 as the Messiah. Alshekh made the claim that their rabbis unanimously believed that Isaiah was “speaking of the King Messiah.” (see Driver and Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:259).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 57-58.

“It is not true that the medieval rabbis were the first who applied Isaiah 53 to Israel instead of the Messiah. The Israel interpretation is actually very ancient.”

There are no rabbinic works that apply Isaiah 53 to the nation of Israel. The earliest reference to a national interpretation is found in the writings of thesecond century Christian scholar Origen of Alexandria. Origin writes, “[A]t a disputation held with certain Jews . . . I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponents replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering” (Contra Celsum, Book I, Chapter 55).

Let us survey some of the ancient Rabbinic literature to see what these sources teach. Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as referring to the Messiah, yet the Targum rewrote the passage so as to depict a conquering warrior, a political Messiah, rather than a suffering Messiah. It would have been easier to have simply done away with the Messianic reference altogether.

Several passages in the Talmud also interpret the servant in this passage from Isaiah as the Messiah. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) sees Rabbi Akiva as the servant in 53:12 while the Babylonian Talmud applies 53:4 to the Messiah (Sanhedrin 98b), 53:10 to the righteous in general (Berakhot 5a), and 53:12 to Moses (Sotah 14a). According to the Midrash Rabbah, Isaiah 53:5 concerns the Messiah (Ruth Rabbah2:14a) and Isaiah 53:12 refers to Israel in exile (Numbers Rabbah 13:2). It must be noted here that this is only one verse in the whole prophecy that is attributed to the nation of Israel, and that was at a very specific time in its existence. The first time Isaiah 53 is interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel is in the eleventh century with the commentary of Rashi, who interpreted this passage as the righteous remnant of Jacob.

All of this goes to show that the ancient rabbis (the most authoritative sources in Judaism) almost unanimously interpreted Isaiah 53 as a Messianic prophecy rather than as a prophecy referring to the nation.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 58-62.

“Isaiah 53 contains the words of the repentant kings of the nations rather than the words of the Jewish people.”

Although Isaiah 52:13-53:12 contains the verse, “kings will shut their mouths because of him [i.e., the servant of the Lord] . . . what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand” (Isa. 52:15), repentant kings are not the ones who are speaking in this part of Isaiah 53, but rather the Jewish people.

Recall that according to Jeremiah 30:11, God promised to destroy the nations that subjugated and led Israel captive, while he disciplined his people. Isaiah 53, on the other hand, says that the people will be healed through the sufferings of the servant. How could it be that the Gentile kings, the very ones who led Israel into captivity, are the ones who are blessed? The prophecy must refer to Israel, who for a time is disciplined through exile, but then is healed through the Messiah.

Another problem is based on the context and the grammar of the text. Only God uses the first person singular in the text (52:13; 53:8; 53:11-12). The onlookers, on the other hand, refer to themselves in the first person plural (53:1-6). The use of the first person plural stops after v. 6, which means that after this, it is either God or the prophet who is speaking as the narrator. With this in mind, consider v. 8: “For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished” (NIV). Whether the narrator is God or the prophet, it is obvious that “my people” refers to the people of Israel, not to the Gentile kings! Even if one were to grant that the opening verses of the prophecy are spoken by the astonished kings, the reason why they are astonished is because they are beholding the suffering servant, Yeshua, who has been glorified.

If the suffering servant is in fact Jesus of Nazareth, to which groupdo you think the following prophecy refers?

Surely he took up our infirmities

and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God,

smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed (Isa. 53:4-5).

These are the words of the people of Israel! Yeshua was not a criminal; instead, he is the one who suffered for our transgressions even though our people did not know it. He is the one who brings healing to Israel after everything our nation has been through, because God has finished disciplining his people and has called us back to himself.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 62-66.

For a long time, an argument has existed which claims that there are some words in Isaiah 53 which indicate that there is actually more than one servant. The Hebrew words in question are lamoin v. 8 (in the phrase nega’lamo — “a stroke for them/him”) and bemotayw in v. 9 (lit., “in his deaths”). However, even the NJPSV states the most likely meaning of these words is that the servant receives a stroke for them. In v. 9, “deaths” is in the intensive plural, which means that it refers to a violent death. Compare this with Ezekiel 28:8 where it is prophesied that an individual “will die the deaths of one slain in the depths of the sea.” Over the past several decades, this argument has begun to lose traction. Serious Jewish scholars and translators are forced to admit that there are no grounds for this objection.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 66-67.

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

It is odd that on the one hand, anti-missionaries claim that the authors of the New Testament ornamented their books with references from the Hebrew Scriptures to make Jesus appear as though he were the Messiah, and on the other hand, they claim that the New Testament depiction of Jesus contradicts the Tanakh. For the time being, let us leave this observation aside and focus on the objection at hand.

The relevant verses in Isaiah are as follows:

[H]is appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man

and his form marred beyond human likeness…

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,

and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. (Isa. 52:14, 53:2)

While it is true that large crowds followed Jesus, this does not indicate in the slightest that this prophecy does not refer to him.

Jesus was presumably from a poor background since his foster-father was a carpenter from Nazareth, and he seemed to do hardly anything that was especially noteworthy for the first thirty years of his life. When Nathaniel, one of Yeshua’s followers, first heard that he was from Nazareth, he declared, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:45-46). These facts suggest that Jesus’ origin was unimpressive (cf. Isa. 53:2).

Furthermore, while there are physical descriptions of Saul (1 Sam. 10:23) and David (1 Sam. 16:12b), there is no physical description of Jesus in the Gospels. The passage from Isaiah which states “he had no beauty or majesty to attract us” (53:2b) is therefore applicable to Jesus; at the very least, there is no contradiction here.

Jesus “was despised” (Isa. 53:3). After his inaugural sermon at the synagogue in Capernaum, some people tried to kill him (Luke 4:16-30). He was accused of being possessed by a demon (John 8:48), many turned their backs on Jesus after one of his hard teachings (John 6:66), and his own people called for his death by crucifixion. The beating he received before he was crucified made “his appearance . . . so disfigured beyond that of any man” (Isa. 52:14b). Indeed, Yeshua was crushed for the iniquities of us all; he accepted the mission from his father to offer atonement for the sins of the nation and of the entire world.

In short, the biblical evidence strongly suggests that Isaiah 53 is describing the sufferings of Jesus.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 67-71.

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

This reading of Isaiah 53 simply does not make sense from multiple perspectives. In the last several centuries, Jewish rabbis have often interpreted Isaiah 53 as referring to the sufferings of the people of Israel. They used this passage as a hermeneutical lens through which they interpreted the sufferings of their people, sufferings which were perpetrated by members of the surrounding nations. This interpretation agrees with the Christian reading that Isaiah 53 refers to someone who is actively persecuted, rather than to one who simply suffers and dies from disease.

This raises the question, “Which verse refers to the servant’s sickness?” The New Jewish Publication Society Version renders Isaiah 53:3 as follows: “He was despised, shunned by men, a man of suffering, familiar with disease.” It then translates Isaiah 53:10a as, “But the LORD chose to crush him by disease.” The ambiguity of this verse is evident when one compares this translation with the Orthodox Jewish Stone Edition translation of the same verse: “HASHEM desired to oppress him and He afflicted him.” The Hebrew word that is used here comes from the root hlh, which can be “to be sick” or “to be debilitated.” Other instances of the use of the root hlh include the description of King Ahab (2 Chron. 18:33) and King Josiah’s mortal wounds received from arrows(2 Chron. 35:23). It makes sense to interpret hlh in Isaiah as suffering that has been afflicted. As already noted, this was the way many rabbis interpret Isaiah 53 as applied to the sufferings of the nation; they did not restrict the application of these passages only to those Jews who were sick or ill, but applied them to all those who were exiled, tortured, and put to death.

It is important to note that the Hebrew does not say that the Messiah was sick, but that he was “intimate with sickness/suffering.” Jesus was familiar with this kind of suffering, having experienced anguish himself at the loss of his friend (John 11:32:36). He was also acquainted with this kind of suffering since he spent a lot of time with the outcasts of society, including the blind, the lame, beggars, the sick, epileptics, etc. Jesus received them and healed all of these people (see Matt. 4:24; 8:16-17; 9:35; 12:15; 14:14, 35-36; 15:30-31; 21:14; Mark 6:53-56; Luke 4:40; 6:17-19; 17:12-19). This sheds light on Isa. 53:4, which states that “he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases” (NRSV). Jesus bore the sufferings we deserved on account of our sins. This is what Peter, Yeshua’s chief disciple, meant when he wrote, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 71-74.

Isaiah 53 speaks about the death of the Messiah. As proof, one need only consider that many of the rabbis interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to the death of the Messiah, whether they take the Messiah to be the Messiah ben Joseph or the Messiah ben David. There are also Rabbinic interpretations which interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to the deaths of righteous individuals in the nation of Israel. It is obvious that it is contradictory to simultaneously hold that this passage can refer to the deaths of Jewish people and that this passage does not speak about the death of the Messiah. In addition to describing the sufferings of the servant, the passage teaches that he was led as a sheep to the slaughter (53:7), that he was cut off from the land of the living (53:8) and that he died and was buried (53:9). The following verses explain that his death made atonement (53:10) and that he poured his soul to death (53:12). It is no surprise, therefore, that Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak saw in these verses many references to the servant’s death.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 74-76.

According to David Flusser of Hebrew University,”Isa. LIII could be understood . . . as . . . implicitly . . . [speaking] about his [the Servant’s] resurrection” (1988, 423). It is clear that if the text speaks about the death of the prophet, the subsequent passages which refer to his long life must (v. 10) imply that he will rise from the dead. This prophecy has been fulfilled since Yeshua rose from the dead and now lives at the right hand of the Father.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 76-77.

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

Jesus was not a violent man in any way. While the New Testament authors mention him making a whip, he only used it to drive out animals. Jesus overturned the money tables and ordered the venders, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” (John 2:16). Unfortunately, there are those who have conflated the slightly varying Gospel accounts, some of which mention that Jesus drove out human beings as well as animals, inferring that Jesus used the whip (John 2:15) to drive out people (Matt. 21:12). Inspired by zeal, Jesus was cleaning out his Father’s house, an act that was interpreted as a prophetic action.

It is not insignificant that during Jesus’ trial, no one accused him of doing any kind of violence. Furthermore, none of the Rabbinic literature mentions this incident, although it contains slurs against Yeshua. It should also be remembered that violence (hamas in Hebrew) in the Hebrew Scriptures only refers to violent actions that are illegal, rather than to actions which would be considered violent by today’s standards. This is why Moses’ command that the Levites put their fellow Israelites to death (Exod. 32:27-29) was not understood as an act ofviolence.

Far from being a violent man, Jesus taught his followers not to be violent, rebuking Peter when he struck off the ear of the high priest’s servant by saying, “[A]ll who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matt. 26:52b). In fact, Jesus’ nonviolence inspired Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., the two twentieth-century figures best known for implementing the practice of nonviolent resistance.

Ironically, the rabbis apply Isaiah 53 to the nation, although our nation was most glorious when we used forceful resistance (e.g. the Maccabees). The words in this prophecy cannot rule out Yeshua!

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 77-80.

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

Let us take a look at the relevant passage from Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53:7 states, “[H]e was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” This corresponds with the picture of Jesus’ crucifixion in the Gospels. Consider the following details from the narrative of his suffering and death:

• During his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked Peter for using his sword (Matt. 26:52).
• At his trial, Jesus did not answer any of the charges that his false accusers were bringing against them, even though they carried the sentence of capital punishment. In all of these proceedings, “Jesus remained silent” (Matt. 26:63a). He did not say a word when he was spat upon and repeatedly struck (Matt. 26:67). The trial scene before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, was similar: “Pilate asked him, ‘Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?’ But Jesus made no reply” (Matt. 27:11-14).
• When the soldiers tortured and abused Jesus by flogging him, putting a crown of thorns on his head, mocking him and spitting on him, he offered no resistance (Matt. 27:28-31).
• There are multiple passages in the New Testament which say that Jesus was led away; he was led away to the high priest (Luke 22:54), Pilate (Matt. 27:2, Mark 15:1), and the site of his crucifixion (Matt. 27:31; Luke 23:26).

After Jesus was crucified, he prayed that the Father would forgive his executors (Luke 23:34). When one of the men that was crucified realized that Jesus the Messiah, he asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). He recited Psalm 22:1, the words of the righteous sufferer who would be miraculously delivered from death (Matt. 27:46). Jesus did not open his mouth when he was being tortured, and when he was finally crucified, his words were meek, merciful, non-retaliating, and profound. He is the Lamb of God, who was led to the slaughter (cf. John 1:29, Isa. 53:7).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 80-83.

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

The odd thing about this argument is that the Hebrew expression “see seed” (yireh zera’) only occurs once in the entirety of the Tanakh. It does not make sense to argue that this term always means physical descendants if it only occurs once since there is nothing else to compare it with. Although it may be argued that zera’ always refers to physical offspring and never to metaphorical descendants (which would rule out Jesus as the referent of Isaiah 53), this argument does not hold water for three reasons.

First of all, zera’ has been used metaphorically in Isaiah. We see Isaiah referring to Israel as a “seed of evildoers” and a “seed of an adulterer,” (1:4; 14:20). According to Brown-Driver-Briggs, the standard Hebrew lexicon, in these kinds of contexts, seed of a certain kind means “persons (or community) of such a quality,” which means that “seed of evildoers” would really mean the community of evildoers.

Secondly, zera’ is sometimes used to describe “a future generation.” Psalm 22 declares, “Posterity [zera’] will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord” (22:30 [31]). Transferring this usage to Isaiah 52:10, this passage would mean that the servant would see future generations serving God. This is certainly true since hundreds of thousands of Jews have followed him over the past two millennia.

Third, Sa’adia Gaon saw Isaiah 53 as referring to the prophet Jeremiah, even though God commanded him not to marry or have children (Jer. 16:1). If Isaiah 53:10 can be seen as referring to Jeremiah, even though he was childless, surely it can be applied to Yeshua.

This concludes our discussion of Isaiah 53. I encourage you to read the text for yourself from 52:13 to 53:12, and to find out to whom this passage refers. This powerful text so clearly points to Yeshua as the Messiah that, according to some sources, the annual reading of Isaiah 53 has been discontinued in synagogues for this reason. Whether this is true or not, it is clear that Isaiah 53 has not been read in synagogues for centuries. Why don’t you read it and find out the truth about the servant of the Lord for yourself?

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 83-86.

Traditional Judaism believes at least three different things regarding the arrival of the Messiah (see 3.22-3.23): (1) there are two Messiahs, who will each come once, (2) there is one Messiah, who will either come with the clouds or riding on a donkey, depending on the spiritual state of Israel at the time, and (3) there is potentially one Messiah in every generation, which must be recognized for who he is, and the people must be worthy to receive his revelation. In recent years, a fourth position has been introduced by Chabad: the Messiah (Rabbi Schneerson) will be resurrected and then will return and reign as king.

All of these contrast with the biblical position which has one Messiah coming from the line of David, yet greater than David, a king and yet a priest, first suffering and dying for the sins of Israel and the world, then returning in triumph and judgment. Yeshua is this one and only Messiah, whose coming was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. He came at the appointed time, but due to the unworthiness of that generation, he was rejected, suffered and died. God knew this would happen and foreordained that the Messiah’s death would atone for the sins of the world. He used this great evil and injustice to bring about the greatest good. When the end of the age arrives, when my Jewish people recognize Jesus as the Messiah and call upon him to return, Jesus will come again joyfully, this time on the clouds of heaven as Daniel envisioned, and Jerusalem will be established as the center of his kingdom. This view is much more biblical than the multifarious traditional views.

The account of Yeshua has many remarkable parallels with the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, including the way in which both Joseph and Jesus were rejected by their own people, but respected by foreigners. Both accounts offer a very moving picture of forgiveness of those who had initially rejected them, and both demonstrate God’s ability to use for good what human beings intended for evil. In the words of Joseph: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Gen. 50:20). So it will be with Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah and his brothers, the Jewish people. He will be recognized in the end, but we will be held accountable for rejecting him until his return.

Let me say it again: there is only one Messiah and he has come right on schedule, andwhen the time is right, he will come again. On that day, our people as a nation will recognize Yeshua for who he is and will turn back to God in repentance. Messianic Jews are waiting eagerly for this to happen, and we encourage each and every Jew to make that choice today so that they will be ready to welcome Yeshua when he returns.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2, pp. 232-235.

There are many prominent traditions in Jewish literature that refer to the sufferings of the Messiah. These traditions can be found in the Talmud, in the midrashic writings, and in both medieval and modern commentaries on the Bible. In some of these traditions, two Messiahs are mentioned: the Messiah, son of Joseph, and the Messiah, Son of David. It is the latter who is most widely recognized as the Messiah, and for whose arrival Jews pray daily. According to the Talmud (b. Sukkah 52a), the Messiah, son of Joseph (also called son of Ephraim) would first accomplish many brave acts on behalf of his Jewish people, before dying in the great war that would precede the arrival of the Messiah, son of David. Due to the prayers of the Messiah, son of David, the Messiah, son of Joseph, would be raised from the dead.

There are passages in Jewish literature that describe the suffering endured by both Messiahs, ben Joseph (Ephraim) and ben David, for the sake of the Jewish people. These sufferings are described with reference to Isaiah 53. Because Maimonides did not refer to suffering in his description of the Messiah, son of David, it is often forgotten that there are many texts that do. In the Talmud (b. Sanh. 98a), the Messiah is described as “sitting among the poor who suffer diseases,” suffering and wounded, but ever ready to spring into action when he is called to reveal himself to his people. The Schottenstein Talmud summarizes leading Rabbinic commentaries on Isaiah 53:4 as teaching “that the diseases that the people ought to have suffered because of their sins are borne instead by the Messiah” (Tractate Sanhedrin, Talmud Bavli, 98a5). Raphael Patai explains that “the Messiah becomes heir to the Suffering Servant of God, who figures prominently in the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah [i.e., Isaiah 40-55]” (Patai, The Messiah Texts, 104-5).

When I was working with a group of doctoral students, I read this Talmudic text in reference to Isaiah 53. On one particular occasion, I was struck both by the longing of the Messiah to reveal himself to his people and the frustration of my Jewish people that the Messiah has still not come. I also thought about the suffering Yeshua endured when his own people did not recognize him. Day in and day out, our people pray for the Messiah to come. It is sad that for the most part, our people have not recognized their Messiah’s coming.

The Talmudic rabbis did not reject the Messianic implications of Isaiah 53 even though this passage was so frequently quoted in the New Testament with reference to Yeshua. Apparently the text simply could not be overlooked in relation to the Messiah, as is borne out by certain medieval mystical texts which also reference it. (For an in-depth discussion of Isaiah 53, see vol. 3, 4.5-4.17.)

There are also Jewish commentators on the Bible who read Isaiah 52:13-53:12 with reference to the Messiah (son of David), despite the obvious Christian connections in this passage and a long history of “Christian” anti-Semitism (see vol. 1, 2.4-2.9). Among these commentators is the prominent medieval scholar Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides or the Ramban). In relation to Isaiah’s text, Nachmanides speaks both of a triumphant Messiah who would never be conquered or die at the hands of his enemies, and a suffering Messiah, who was chastised by God and suffered because of our transgressions, was stricken, smitten, oppressed, afflicted, reviled, insulted and reproached. Despite all the suffering the Messiah would have to endure, Nachmanides refuses to acknowledge that the Messiah would die. In his view, he might be willing to die, expected to die, reported to have died, have all kinds of deaths devised for him, but for the Messiah to be delivered into the hands of his enemies was something unthinkable for Ramban. In his opinion, the Messiah should enjoy his victory, gather his family triumphantly around him and be exalted by his people. Ramban twists and turns every way to avoid admitting that it was prophesied that the Messiah would die; it would have been much easier for him to have acknowledged the plain meaning of the text, which clearly speaks of the Messiah’s death.

Another significant commentator who refers in great detail to the suffering of the Messiah (son of David) in relation to this passage from Isaiah is Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin (ibn Krispin), who writes of the servant: “We shall not believe that there could be any man ready to endure such pain and grief as would disfigure his countenance, even for his children, much less for his people: it will seem a certain truth to us that such terrible sufferings must have come upon him as a penalty for his own many shortcomings and errors” (Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:107-8).

In his commentary, Rabbi Mosheh El-Sheikh (or, Alshekh) claims that “our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah,” and he refers to a midrash that explains, “of all the sufferings which entered into the world, one third was for David and the fathers, one for the generation in exile, and one for the King Messiah” (Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:259).

Not so long ago, Isaiah 53 was also applied directly to Menachem Schneerson, who was acknowledged to be the Messiah ben David by his followers. They made connections between the text and the suffering of the Rebbe, after a stroke left him unable to speak and his paralysis did not improve. They believed that the Rebbe’s sickness, followed by his death as a righteous man (see 3.15) made atonement for the people, and they waited expectantly for his resurrection or return. It is incredible that an ultra-Orthodox group would use Isaiah 53 in such a Christian way, interpreting the Rebbe’s sickness as fulfilling this prophecy, and expecting his resurrection. The idea of the suffering of the Messiah must be deeply embedded in the Jewish psyche, especially in light of the heavy emphasis Christians place upon this same text (Isaiah 53)!

The final text I want to bring to your attention offers the fullest and most detailed description of the Messiah’s sufferings found anywhere in the major Rabbinic sources. The text includes chapters 34, 36 and 37 of the important ninth-century midrash known as Pesikta Rabbati. Its descriptions of the Messiah’s sufferings are even stronger than anything found in the New Testament. In this passage, the Messiah is referred to as Ephraim, which leads some to think that this is a reference to Messiah ben Joseph, not to Messiah ben David; however, the Messiah is also called “my righteous Messiah,” which normally is ascribed to Messiah ben David. Regardless of which Messiah this passage speaks of, what is absolutely clear in this highly respected Rabbinic text is that the Messiah endures great suffering on behalf of his people.

It is interesting that one of the passages cited in these sections of the Pesikta regarding the sufferings of the Messiah is Psalm 22, which is also applied to Jesus in the New Testament. Anti-missionaries try to argue that this psalm is not Messianic, and yet here it is used explicitly in relation to the Messiah and his suffering.

One could easily expect some Jewish leaders to try to get rid of all references in traditional literature to a suffering Messiah, since Christians place great emphasis on the necessity portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures for the Messiah to suffer and die. The fact that there are so many texts that speak of these sufferings in the Talmud, the midrashic collections, the mystical literature, and the Bible commentators reminds us that Judaism does indeed believe in a suffering Messiah; it is too scriptural to deny!

Messianic Jews point out the redemptive purpose of these sufferings, which are part of God’s gracious plan of salvation and part of the priestly ministry of the Messiah. The Messiah became one of us, shared in our suffering, and gave his life as an atonement for our sins. As I mention with reference to the Holocaust (see vol. 1, 2.10), Jesus the Messiah is the most famous Jew of all time, yet he was forced to endure all kinds of humiliation and suffering. He is a Messiah with whom we can identify, and who can identify with us, a suffering Messiah who brings life, deliverance, and lasting victory to all who put their trust in him.

In accordance with the Scriptures, Yeshua suffered and died for the sins of Israel and the world, rose victorious and powerful, was exalted above all others, and ascended into heaven where he waits for the time of his return. He did all of that for us. I pray that because of the Messiah’s suffering, you will discover a lasting joy and deep peace in God.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2, pp. 220-231.

Since these verses are the climax of the angelic revelation given to Daniel concerning the Jewish people, they are very significant. The convoluted nature of the prophetic text lends itself to a myriad of interpretations by Christians and Jews alike. Great care should be taken when one sets out to interpret these verses. Let us take a closer look at the history of the interpretation of this text.

Gerald Sigal aggressively attacks the Christian translation of this passage, especially as set forth in the King James Version. In his words, this version “puts a definite article before ‘Messiah the Prince’ (9:25),” whereas, “The original Hebrew text does not read ‘the Messiah the Prince,’ but, having no article, it is to be rendered ‘a mashiach [‘anointed one,’ ‘messiah’]” (“Daniel 9:25 Translation,” Jews for Judaism).

Looking at the broader context of these verses will help us to see what the text really means. Daniel 9 begins by describing Daniel as fasting and praying as a result of reading in the book of the prophet Jeremiah that the exile would last for seventy years (cf. Dan. 9:1-3).In the verses that follow (vv. 4-19), Daniel prays a profound penitential prayer. He acknowledges the sins of his people and asks God to restore his people and his Temple in Jerusalem (9:20).

While he was praying, Gabriel appeared to Daniel. Gabriel’s message was that he was sent to Daniel because he was highly esteemed by God. He revealed to Daniel that God was going to go beyond Daniel’s request to restore the people in Jerusalem; there was going to be a period of seventy sevens of years (490 years) after which final atonement would be made and the Messianic era would be inaugurated (cf. Dan. 9:22b-24).

Rashi comments on this text as follows:

Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed… The number of seven weeks is four hundred and ninety years. The Babylonian exile was seventy [years] and the Second Temple stood four hundred and twenty [years].

It is clear from this passage that it is not only Christians who see Daniel 9 as having a Messianic significance; however, Rashi later comments that “the anointed one” is king Agrippa, “who was ruling at the time of the destruction” of the Temple in 70 CE (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). He goes on to explain that God’s kingdom will come through the Messiah, but does not elaborate any further. Yet Yeshua came during this century; it makes more sense to apply this prophecy to him than to King Agrippa, a relatively obscure vassal king who ruled during the destruction of the Temple. Surely, this event is not the coming of the kingdom.

The Stone translation provides the following summary of Rashi’s views in its note to Daniel 9:26: “I.e., Agrippa . . . at the end of the Second Temple Era. After his death, the prince . . ., Titus, would command the destruction of the Temple, which will not be rebuilt until . . . Messianic times” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). The fulfillment of the prophecy is left in the horizon of the remote future.

In Rashi’s view, the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy is postponed: “the ruling of the abomination will endure until the day that the destruction . . . decreed upon it [will] befall it, in the days of the . . . Messiah” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). Although the events leading to the coming of the Messiah were set in motion during the century Jesus exercised his ministry in Judaea, according to Rashi, the fulfillment of this series of events will not occur until the Messiah arrives, and he was writing one thousand years after these events.

What of the objection raised by Sigal concerning the addition of the definite article to mashiach? While it is correct that the Hebrew simply says mashiach and has no definite article, the implications Sigal draws are incorrect. He overemphasizes the significance of the addition of the definite article for several reasons. First of all, the Septuagint, the oldest Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, translates mashiachas touchristou (“the anointed one”). Furthermore, the Stone edition translates mashiach as “the anointed one” rather than “an anointed one.” The reasoning behind these translations is that the Hebrew language sometimes specifies a particular individual without the use of the definite article; this fact is recognized by numerous Hebrew translators and grammarians.

To translate mashiach as “the Messiah” would be reading too much into the text, even though this interpretation is not wrong. A better rendering would be “an anointed one” (NRSV), “the anointed one” (Stone), or “Messiah” (NKJV) without the definite article. Ultimately, the prophecy speaks of the death of the King Messiah, as stated by Rashi, but we know that the King Messiah is Yeshua.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 86-92.

Since these verses are the climax of the angelic revelation given to Daniel concerning the Jewish people, they are very significant. The convoluted nature of the prophetic text lends itself to a myriad of interpretations by Christians and Jews alike. Great care should be taken when one sets out to interpret these verses. Let us take a closer look at the history of the interpretation of this text.

Gerald Sigal aggressively attacks the Christian translation of this passage, especially as set forth in the King James Version. In his words, this version “puts a definite article before ‘Messiah the Prince’ (9:25),” whereas, “The original Hebrew text does not read ‘the Messiah the Prince,’ but, having no article, it is to be rendered ‘a mashiach [‘anointed one,’ ‘messiah’]” (“Daniel 9:25 Translation,” Jews for Judaism).

Looking at the broader context of these verses will help us to see what the text really means. Daniel 9 begins by describing Daniel as fasting and praying as a result of reading in the book of the prophet Jeremiah that the exile would last for seventy years (cf. Dan. 9:1-3).In the verses that follow (vv. 4-19), Daniel prays a profound penitential prayer. He acknowledges the sins of his people and asks God to restore his people and his Temple in Jerusalem (9:20).

While he was praying, Gabriel appeared to Daniel. Gabriel’s message was that he was sent to Daniel because he was highly esteemed by God. He revealed to Daniel that God was going to go beyond Daniel’s request to restore the people in Jerusalem; there was going to be a period of seventy sevens of years (490 years) after which final atonement would be made and the Messianic era would be inaugurated (cf. Dan. 9:22b-24).

Rashi comments on this text as follows:

Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed… The number of seven weeks is four hundred and ninety years. The Babylonian exile was seventy [years] and the Second Temple stood four hundred and twenty [years].

It is clear from this passage that it is not only Christians who see Daniel 9 as having a Messianic significance; however, Rashi later comments that “the anointed one” is king Agrippa, “who was ruling at the time of the destruction” of the Temple in 70 CE (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). He goes on to explain that God’s kingdom will come through the Messiah, but does not elaborate any further. Yet Yeshua came during this century; it makes more sense to apply this prophecy to him than to King Agrippa, a relatively obscure vassal king who ruled during the destruction of the Temple. Surely, this event is not the coming of the kingdom.

The Stone translation provides the following summary of Rashi’s views in its note to Daniel 9:26: “I.e., Agrippa . . . at the end of the Second Temple Era. After his death, the prince . . ., Titus, would command the destruction of the Temple, which will not be rebuilt until . . . Messianic times” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). The fulfillment of the prophecy is left in the horizon of the remote future.

In Rashi’s view, the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy is postponed: “the ruling of the abomination will endure until the day that the destruction . . . decreed upon it [will] befall it, in the days of the . . . Messiah” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). Although the events leading to the coming of the Messiah were set in motion during the century Jesus exercised his ministry in Judaea, according to Rashi, the fulfillment of this series of events will not occur until the Messiah arrives, and he was writing one thousand years after these events.

What of the objection raised by Sigal concerning the addition of the definite article to mashiach? While it is correct that the Hebrew simply says mashiach and has no definite article, the implications Sigal draws are incorrect. He overemphasizes the significance of the addition of the definite article for several reasons. First of all, the Septuagint, the oldest Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, translates mashiachas touchristou (“the anointed one”). Furthermore, the Stone edition translates mashiach as “the anointed one” rather than “an anointed one.” The reasoning behind these translations is that the Hebrew language sometimes specifies a particular individual without the use of the definite article; this fact is recognized by numerous Hebrew translators and grammarians.

To translate mashiach as “the Messiah” would be reading too much into the text, even though this interpretation is not wrong. A better rendering would be “an anointed one” (NRSV), “the anointed one” (Stone), or “Messiah” (NKJV) without the definite article. Ultimately, the prophecy speaks of the death of the King Messiah, as stated by Rashi, but we know that the King Messiah is Yeshua.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 86-92.

Daniel 9:24 states: “Seventy septets have been decreed upon your people and upon your holy city to terminate transgression, to end sin, to wipe away iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, to confirm the visions and prophets, and to anoint the Holy of Holies” (Stone edition).

Professor Walter Kaiser gives a traditional Christian interpretation when he says that there are six divine actions which are to occur during the 490-year period for the nation of Israel, including the completion of transgressions, the putting an end to sin, the sacrifice for atonement, the bringing about of everlasting righteousness, God hiding the meaning of the prophecies from the Jewish people, and the anointing of the Messiah (Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 202; emphasis his).

The historical critical interpretation, as exemplified by John J. Collins, runs as follows:

Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression . . . to bring sins to completion . . . and to expiate iniquity [“kpr, with God as subject, means to ‘cancel’ or ‘absolve'”], to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal vision [as authentic], and to anoint a most holy place [“The reference is to the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple . . . in 164 BCE (1 Macc. 4:36-39)”] (Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 345).

Which interpretation is correct? Let’s weigh the evidence. The strong points of the conservative Christian view are (1) it realizes that Dan. 9:24-27 predicts monumental spiritual events for the Jewish people and Jerusalem, (2) it takes seriously the concept of “everlasting righteousness,” and (3) it accepts the accuracy of the 490-year timeframe. The weak points of this interpretation are (1) it has difficulty with the meaning of anointing a holy one and (2) it does not seem accurate since there is still sin and unrighteousness in the world.

The historical-critical interpretation’s strong points are (1) it points to concrete events, (2) it follows the critical dating of the book of Daniel, close to the second century BCE, and (3) it has a simple explanation of “to anoint a most holy place.” The flaws of this interpretation, however, are manifold: (1) it must maintain that Daniel is mistaken in his dates, (2) it places Daniel in the second century BCE rather than the sixth century BCE, which implies that the prophecies in the book of Daniel are not prophecies at all, and (3) it does not acknowledge the significance of Dan. 9:24-27 and overlooks the importance of “everlasting righteousness.” If we take seriously the miraculous nature of prophecy, this interpretation cannot be true.

From the Christian perspective, the most logical interpretation of this passage is that Jesus must be the Messiah since these events had to take place before the destruction of the Temple. If we follow this train of thought and see how Jesus fulfills the six parts of the prophecy, it will be easy to answer the objections to the Christian interpretation.

The first action is “to finish transgression,” which most likely means to bring sin to a climax rather than to annihilate it. Consider the words of Yeshua to the Jewish leaders:”Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!” (Matt. 23:32). For this reason, he said, “Upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth. . . . I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:35a, 37). This interpretation sees transgression as reaching its zenith in the time of Jesus.

The second action is “to put an end to sin.” This may refer to an event that is still in the future or to the atoning death of the Messiah, an event that brought about the means of reconciliation between God and humanity.

The third action is “to atone for wickedness,” a statement which encapsulates the Messiah’s mission. The crucifixion of Yeshua is the only event before 70 CE that has this kind of atoning power.

The fourth action is “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” This phrase can point either to an action of the Messiah when he returns, or to Jesus’ crucifixion, which brought about “the gift of righteousness” (Rom. 5:17).

The fifth action is “to seal up vision and prophecy.” This could mean either “to authenticate” or “to hide.” Both are applicable to Jesussince he fulfilled the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, and God hid the truth of the prophecies from those who rejected Jesus.

The sixth action is “to anoint the most holy.” On the surface, it seems difficult to justify applying this phrase to Jesus rather than to the Temple. There is a place in Scripture where qodešqadašîmjust might refer to a person (1 Chron. 23:13). Some interpretations, including the NASB and the Stone edition, translate this verse as referring to Aaron: “Aaron was set apart to sanctify him as most holy” (NASB, my emphasis). If this is an accurate rendition, it would be a precedent for interpreting “the most holy” as referring to an individual. If the anointing of the most holy refers to a temple, it could refer to a spiritual Temple, i.e. the redeemed people who become temples of the Holy Spirit.

There are only two possible interpretative choices that make sense if one takes the prophetic and miraculous nature of the Word of God seriously (which ipso facto excludes a hard line historical-critical interpretation since this method judges prophecies through the hermeneutical lens of empiricism, thus rendering prophecies as historical interpretations of past events, rather than future events supernaturally revealed to prophets): (1) the six divine actions which had to be completed by the time of the destruction of the Temple were all fulfilled by Jesus through his atoning death and glorious resurrection, and (2) the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy will occur when Jesus returns. This second interpretation coincides with Rashi’s view since it points to a future fulfillment, but it is more sophisticated than Rashi’s, because it sees key elements as already having been fulfilled historically by Jesus of Nazareth. This second possibility hinges upon the historical event of Jesus’ redemptive death.

There is one last piece of corroborating evidence from the book of Daniel, i.e. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue comprised of different materials symbolizing different kingdoms which would not last (Dan. 2:44-45).

Commenting on this text, Rashi explains, “And in the days of these kings in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence. the God Of heaven will set up a kingdom The kingdom of the Holy One . . . is the kingdom of the Messiah” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). Daniel explains that “the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth” (Dan. 2:35). What is this rock? It can be nothing other than the kingdom of God established by Jesus the Messiah, a spiritual kingdom that was founded during the time of the Roman era,spreading across the entire world, even while the Roman Empire gradually crumbled and was blown away. He is the stone rejected by the builders which has become the cornerstone (cf. Ps. 118:22, Matt. 21:42, Acts 4:11).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 92-100.

“Psalm 2:12 should not be translated ‘kiss the Son.’ Only the KJV and modern Christian fundamentalist translations still maintain this incorrect rendering.”

Every sound interpretation of scripture depends on a proper understanding of its larger context. Psalm 2 is a coronation psalm, which celebrates the enthronement of a Davidic king. It is obvious that the psalm refers to the king as God’s son (2:7). Ibn Ezra claims that the psalm either refers to David or to the Messiah. There is no reason, however, why Psalm 2 could not refer to both David and to the Messiah.

Because the language of sonship is so prominent in Psalm 2, it would not be out of place if v. 12 stated “kiss the son.” The primary issue is not the translation of nashaq (“to kiss”) since this word can mean “to pay homage”; instead, the main issue is the translation of the word “son.” The Hebrew word for son is ben, but the word that appears here is the Aramaic word for son, bar. The text has often been translated with reference to purity since the Hebrew bor is so similar to bar.

One advantage of the Christian rendition of bar into “son” is that it does away with the contextual problem of the Messiah appearing in the first part of the psalm and receding to the background by the end of the psalm.

It is not just Christians who understand bar to mean son here; Abraham Ibn Ezra believed that bar meant son. A. B. Ehrlich, A. Sh. Hartom, and Samuel Loewenstamm and Joshua Blau also render bar as “son.”

Why would the Aramaic bar appear in this psalm instead of ben? It has been suggested by some scholars that, just as in Jeremiah 10:11, the foreign nations are addressed in Aramaic, the most widely used Semitic language of the day, and are reminded in a language that they can understand that the Davidic king is God’s son.

In short, there are no reasons to reject the translation of bar into “son” in Psalm 2:12.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 111-114.

Let’s take a look at the relevant verses of Psalm 16 as translated by the NJPSV:

So my heart rejoices,

my whole being exults,

and my body rests secure.

For You will not abandon me to Sheol,

or let Your faithful one see the Pit (Ps. 16:9-10).

Rabbi David Kimchi interpreted the words, “my body rests secure” (v. 9) as meaning that “when the Psalmist dies his body will not decompose” (Rozenberg and Zlotowitz, The Book of Psalms, 79). In fact, the question of whether these verses speak about the resurrection and immortality of David has been debated among traditional Jewish scholars, so it is not simply something that Christians are pulling out of a hat. Admittedly, there is no consensus among Jewish scholars on precisely what the text means.

Does the Christian view coincide with the Psalm? Let’s see how Peter interprets it:

David . . . was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. (Acts 2:29-32)

Was David speaking about himself in the text, or is it possible that he was referring to the Messiah? There is a strong indication that David was speaking about his son, the Messiah since there is a biblical notion that one lives on in one’s descendants. This mentality is expressed in Jewish names, e.g. Abraham Ibn Ezra (Abraham son of Ezra). It would not be surprising at all if David was prophetically moved and saw the life of his son, the Messiah, preserved. At the very least, it must be recognized that the Christian interpretation certainly does not contradict the contents of Psalm 16, and that the greatest fulfillment of this psalm would be the resurrection of Yeshua, the Messiah, the son of David, from the dead since God did not “abandon [him] to Sheol, or let [his] faithful one see the Pit” (Ps. 16:10).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 114-117.

“Some of the so-called Messianic prophecies in the Psalms actually speak of the psalmist’s sin and folly. How can you apply this to Jesus?“

Rabbinic interpreters often took biblical verses entirely out of context in order to come up with ingenious solutions to exegetical problems. This was also the case with Talmudic and Midrashic writings. In this light, it should not be so amazing that the New Testament authors occasionally applied a relevant verse to Yeshua without applying everything in the passage to him.

There are certain key hermeneutical principles behind the dynamics of New Testament interpretations; one such interpretive key is that David is the prototype of the Messiah; in other words, “As it was with David . . . so it was with the Messiah.” There are certain events in David’s life which parallel the life of the King Messiah; however, no one expects there to be an exact one-to-one correlation between David and the Messiah. This is why the New Testament is able to cite Psalm 41:9[10] as referring to Jesus: “Even my close friend . . . has lifted up his heel against me,” although several verses later, the psalmist declares, “O LORD, have mercy on me; heal me, for I have sinned against you” (v. 4[5]). The Tanakh simultaneously refers to the past sins of the psalmist and prophesies the future Messiah. In short, the New Testament authors have provided a sober interpretation of the Psalms in the same vein as Rabbinic interpretations over the centuries.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 127-129.

“Psalm 22 is the story of David’s past suffering. There is nothing prophetic about it.”

Tovia Singer claims, “[Psalm 22] is not a prophecy, nor does it speak of any future event” (cf. “A Lutheran Doesn’t Understand Why Rabbi Singer Doesn’t Believe in Jesus: A Closer Look at the ‘Crucifixion Psalm,'” Outreach Judaism). This is really a puzzling contention on the part of Singer since it is refuted by several Jewish interpretations. Rashi, for instance, states, “They [i.e. the people of Israel] are destined to go into exile and David recited this prayer for the future” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh; my emphasis). He goes on to explain that v. 26(27) refers to the “time of our redemption in the days of our Messiah.” While Rashi saw this psalm as prophesying the sufferings of the Jewish people, Pesikta Rabbati, the famous eighth-century midrash, sees the suffering Messiah [called Ephraim] as the son of David and describes his sufferings in light of Psalm 22:

Ephraim is a darling son to Me . . . My heart yearneth for him, in mercy I will have mercy upon him, saith the Lord (Jer. 31:20). Why does the verse speak twice of mercy: In mercy I will have mercy upon him? One mercy refers to the time when he will be shut up in prison, a time when the nations of the world will gnash their teeth at him every day, wink their eyes at one another in derision of him, nod their heads at him in contempt, open wide their lips to guffaw, as is said All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head (Ps. 22:8); My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my throat; and thou layest me in the dust of death (Ps. 22:16). (Pesikta Rabbati 37:1 in Braude, 680-681).

This powerful interpretation applies Psalm 22 to the suffering Messiah. Psalm 22 must be understood as the psalm of a righteous sufferer who is delivered from death; Rashi and Pesikta Rabbati recognized this. Although many righteous persecuted people have recited this psalm, no one has recited it with more meaning than Jesus, who suffered a humiliating and agonizing death. Finally, no one fulfilled the end of this psalm in quite the same way as Jesus did by rising from the dead, thereby giving people from all nations a cause to proclaim the deeds of God in the midst of the assembly to all future generations.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp.117-122.

“Psalm 22 does not speak of death by crucifixion. In fact, the King James translators changed the words of v. 16 (17) to speak of “piercing”the sufferer’s hands and feet whereas the Hebrew text actually says, ‘Like a lion they are at my hands and feet.'”

The New Testament never quotes Psalm 22:16(17). Although the New Testament authors cited this psalm several times, they never focused on this verse, never insisted that it refers to literal piercing. Instead, the New Testament authors read Psalm 22 in its entirety, and testified that it applies to Jesus. Jesus himself cited Psalm 22 when he was on the cross (Matt. 27:46).

So what is the charge? The charge is that the translators of the King James Version deliberately modified the Hebrew text replacing “like a lion” with “pierced.” According to Rabbi Tovia Singer, the latter rendering is a “Christian contrivance” (cf, “A Lutheran Doesn’t Understand Why Rabbi Singer Doesn’t Believe in Jesus: A Closer Look at the ‘Crucifixion Psalm,'” Outreach Judaism). In Singer’s view, it was not the authors of the New Testament who inserted this interpolation into the text, but rather later Christian translators who deliberately translated ka’ari as “pierced.” We’ll take a look at the documentary evidence to see if Singer’s claims are valid.

However, before we do so, it must be understood that all other factors being equal, translators will typically side with translations that resonate with their own beliefs; there is no such thing as an unbiased interpretation. As we shall see, the evidence suggests that in the manuscript traditions, there is not one, but two possible translations since the manuscripts attest to two different words.

The Septuagint, the oldest translation (older than Christianity) of the Hebrew Bible into another language, states, “they pierced my hands and feet.” Where did the Septuagint translators get this idea? The oldest extant copy of the Psalms, which is one of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran (these scrolls date back to the century before Yeshua), have the verb ka’aru, not ka’ari(“like a lion”). This reading is also found in about a dozen Masoretic manuscripts. According to Hebrew scholars, the root meaning of ka’aru is “to dig out,” or “to bore through.” The oldest translation of the Hebrew Bible, numerous Masoretic texts, and the oldest copy of the Psalms all contain ka’aru. The only logical conclusion is that the reading of Psalm 22:16(17) as “they have pierced my hands and feet” is not a fabricated Christian interpolation, but instead is a sincere attempt to interpret the meaning of ancient inspired words which predated Christianity.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 122-127.

We have already seen that the Talmudic rabbis applied a multitude of scripture passages to the Messiah, some of which are quite inapt. In contrast, Psalm 40 has significant Messianic overtones.

The author of the letter to the Hebrews cites Psalm 40:6-8, stating, “[W]hen [Messiah] came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings . . . you were not pleased. Then I said, ‘Here I am – it is written about me in the scroll – I have come to do your will, O God'” (Heb. 10:1).

As with any interpretation of prophecy, it is imperative to understand the background of a particular prophecy before one ascertains whether a particular interpretation is valid. Let’s look at the literal meaning of Psalm 40. The psalmist suddenly realizes that God doesn’t want animal sacrifices, but obedience (vv. 6-7). After this remarkable epiphany, the psalmist acknowledges how far he is from the ideal of giving his life entirely to God, and confesses his many sins (v. 12). The psalmist rightly sees that the sacrifice God wants is the offering of one’s entire life to him. Generation after generation, Israelites repeated the psalmist’s words, recognizing that they fell short of the purity and obedience God demanded. Then came Yeshua, the perfect servant of the Lord, who offered up his entire life to God, being obedient even to the point of suffering death on the cross in order to atone for the sins of the world.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 129-131.

Psalm 45 is a royal psalm which refers to the Davidic king as one who is divine. While this is certainly a stretch, to say the least, it is perfectly legitimate to say that this is a prophecy which refers to Yeshua, the Word made flesh, who is one in being with the Father.

According to Risto Santala, a Finnish Christian scholar of Hebrew and Rabbinic literature, “The most celebrated Jewish exegetes agree that this psalm speaks of the ‘Messiah-King'” (Santala, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 113). Rashi interprets v. 6(7) as “Your throne O judge Your throne O prince and judge shall exist forever and ever as the matter that is stated (Exod. 7:1): ‘I have made you a judge . . . over Pharaoh'” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). This is a rather significant interpretation since Rashi effectively interprets the word ‘elohim as referring to the king rather than to God, just as Moses was an ‘elohim to Pharaoh. The Hebrew original reads, “Your throne, O ‘elohim, is forever and ever.” This suggests that the Christian translation, “Your throne, O divine one,” is not at odds with Rashi’s interpretation, and does more justice to the original Hebrew than the translation of ‘elohim into “judge.” It is far better to accept the theology the Word of God gives us than to impose our own theology on it.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 131-133.

“Psalm 110 does not say that the Messiah is Lord. Also, the psalm is not written by David about the Messiah. Our traditions indicate that it may have been written by Eliezer about his master Abraham, then added to the collection of the Psalms by David many years later, or it was written by David for the Levites to recite about him (or by a court poet about David). This much is sure: It does not teach that the Messiah is God!“

According to Rabbi Singer, Christians tampered with Psalm 110 (cf. “‘The Lord Said to My Lord…’ To Whom Was the Lord Speaking in Psalm 110:1?” Outreach Judaism). Furthermore, he critiques Yeshua’s handling of Psalm 110, claiming that the Pharisees would not have been impressed by what he said. First, we shall analyze Jesus’ response and see whether it was a strong argument; secondly, we shall assess Christian translations of Psalm 110.

According to the Gospel of Matthew,

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.'” If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Matt. 22:41-46)

Some of the earliest Rabbinic commentaries explain Psalm 110 as referring to the Messiah. If David was the one who composed this psalm, then Yeshua raises a good point: If the Messiah is David’s son and not greater than David, how can David call him “my lord”?

The Hebrew la’doni means “to my master” or “to my lord,” and this is precisely how most Christians translate this phrase in the psalm. The opening verse of Psalm 110 states, “‘adonay said to ‘adoni,” i.e. “The LORD said to my lord (or my Lord).” Christian translations of Scripture almost always use LORD instead of YHWH, which means that Christians do not conflate “LORD” and “Lord,” but instead are cognizant of the difference between these two words. Rabbi Singer, however, takes offence that the second “Lord” would be capitalized, claiming that every other use of ‘adoniin Scripture is profane rather than sacred.

There are a number of problems with Singer’s contention. First of all, it simply is not true that every time ‘adoni was used in the Hebrew Bible, it was used in a profane context. Consider, for instance, when the angel of the Lord is called ‘adoni and then commands Joshua to take off his sandals (Josh. 5:14), the same command Moses was given when he experienced the theophany at the burning bush when the angel of the Lord appeared to him (Exod. 3:1-5). Surely, this is not a profane context! Another problem with Singer’s view is that Yeshua’s whole point was that David called the Messiah “my lord,” not that David called him LORD; his point was that the Messiah had to be greater than David, not that the Messiah had to be equivalent to the LORD.

It might be objected that ‘adonay and ‘adoniare Hebrew words and that the New Testament was written in Greek; wouldn’t the fact that the New Testament only uses one word for both terms imply that the person was one and the same? Not necessarily. The New Testament authors simply followed the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which rendered YHWH into kurios, meaning Lord or lord. The Septuagint translates Psalm 110:1 as “The kurios said to my kurios”; Matthew simply followed the Septuagint. Therefore, Rabbi Singer’s accusations are incorrect.

Rabbi Singer really seems to have chosen some small fish to fry when the bigger issue is whether this psalm is Messianic, and if it is, whether Yeshua was correct in referring the psalm to himself.

It is important to note that the superscription of the psalm reads “Of David. A Psalm.” This indicates that the Jews in Yeshua’s day accepted that this psalm was of David, but was it written by David or was it for David? One interpretation is that the psalm was written by a court poet who declared that Yahweh said to his lord (David), “Sit at my right.” The problem with this view, however, is that if it is true that a court poet wrote the psalm for David, and David is the referent, it would mean that God sat David on his right hand side and made him a priest forever! While he was a priestly-king and ruled over his enemies during his lifetime, it does not make sense to interpret this psalm as being fulfilled in the person of David himself. This leaves the Messianic interpretation, which sees this psalm as referring to the Messiah. This interpretation was subscribed to by a number of ancient rabbis, and it was this interpretation that Jesus and his interlocutors presupposed. How can we be so sure of this? If the most common interpretation of the day was that the referent of the psalm was not the Messiah, the Pharisees would have replied to Jesus that this was not the common interpretation among the religious figures, but they remained silent.

Although the New Testament indicates the Messianic character of this psalm, in no way does the historical fact of the prominence of the Messianic interpretation of the time depend on the New Testament itself. For the Jews in the first century, “A psalm of David” would have been taken as meaning a psalm that was written by David. Even if David’s court poet had written the psalm, it could only have been fulfilled by the Messiah, David’s descendant.

Rabbi Sa’adiah Gaon’s interpretation of Daniel 7:13 supports this Messianic interpretation. He explains the Messiah’s presentation to the Ancient of Days (a title referring to the Lord) by quoting Psalm 110: “The utterance of the LORD to my lord, ‘Sit at My right hand.'”

The last point in connection with Psalm 110 is that the Jews in the time of Jesus expected two Messiahs, one priestly (the Messiah of Aaron) and one royal (the Messiah of David), as indicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Tanakh, however, teaches that there will only be one Messiah who will be both priestly and royal. This is clear from Zechariah 3-6, which suggests that the Messianic figure called Branch would be crowned, something indicated by the prophesied coronation of Joshua the High Priest, the symbol of the Branch: “Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch'” (Zech. 6:11-12). Rashi and Ibn Ezra, however, both claim that the Branch is actually Zerubbabel, but they overlooked the priestly role of the Messiah. To cap things off, the shortened name of Joshua (or Yehoshua) is Yeshua, thereby indicating that Jesus is the Messianic Branch who fulfills in his person the priestly and kingly roles of the Messiah, the Son of David.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 133-145.

“Psalm 110 does not say that the Messiah is Lord. Also, the psalm is not written by David about the Messiah. Our traditions indicate that it may have been written by Eliezer about his master Abraham, then added to the collection of the Psalms by David many years later, or it was written by David for the Levites to recite about him (or by a court poet about David). This much is sure: It does not teach that the Messiah is God!“

According to Rabbi Singer, Christians tampered with Psalm 110 (cf. “‘The Lord Said to My Lord…’ To Whom Was the Lord Speaking in Psalm 110:1?” Outreach Judaism). Furthermore, he critiques Yeshua’s handling of Psalm 110, claiming that the Pharisees would not have been impressed by what he said. First, we shall analyze Jesus’ response and see whether it was a strong argument; secondly, we shall assess Christian translations of Psalm 110.

According to the Gospel of Matthew,

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.'” If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Matt. 22:41-46)

Some of the earliest Rabbinic commentaries explain Psalm 110 as referring to the Messiah. If David was the one who composed this psalm, then Yeshua raises a good point: If the Messiah is David’s son and not greater than David, how can David call him “my lord”?

The Hebrew la’doni means “to my master” or “to my lord,” and this is precisely how most Christians translate this phrase in the psalm. The opening verse of Psalm 110 states, “‘adonay said to ‘adoni,” i.e. “The LORD said to my lord (or my Lord).” Christian translations of Scripture almost always use LORD instead of YHWH, which means that Christians do not conflate “LORD” and “Lord,” but instead are cognizant of the difference between these two words. Rabbi Singer, however, takes offence that the second “Lord” would be capitalized, claiming that every other use of ‘adoniin Scripture is profane rather than sacred.

There are a number of problems with Singer’s contention. First of all, it simply is not true that every time ‘adoni was used in the Hebrew Bible, it was used in a profane context. Consider, for instance, when the angel of the Lord is called ‘adoni and then commands Joshua to take off his sandals (Josh. 5:14), the same command Moses was given when he experienced the theophany at the burning bush when the angel of the Lord appeared to him (Exod. 3:1-5). Surely, this is not a profane context! Another problem with Singer’s view is that Yeshua’s whole point was that David called the Messiah “my lord,” not that David called him LORD; his point was that the Messiah had to be greater than David, not that the Messiah had to be equivalent to the LORD.

It might be objected that ‘adonay and ‘adoniare Hebrew words and that the New Testament was written in Greek; wouldn’t the fact that the New Testament only uses one word for both terms imply that the person was one and the same? Not necessarily. The New Testament authors simply followed the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which rendered YHWH into kurios, meaning Lord or lord. The Septuagint translates Psalm 110:1 as “The kurios said to my kurios”; Matthew simply followed the Septuagint. Therefore, Rabbi Singer’s accusations are incorrect.

Rabbi Singer really seems to have chosen some small fish to fry when the bigger issue is whether this psalm is Messianic, and if it is, whether Yeshua was correct in referring the psalm to himself.

It is important to note that the superscription of the psalm reads “Of David. A Psalm.” This indicates that the Jews in Yeshua’s day accepted that this psalm was of David, but was it written by David or was it for David? One interpretation is that the psalm was written by a court poet who declared that Yahweh said to his lord (David), “Sit at my right.” The problem with this view, however, is that if it is true that a court poet wrote the psalm for David, and David is the referent, it would mean that God sat David on his right hand side and made him a priest forever! While he was a priestly-king and ruled over his enemies during his lifetime, it does not make sense to interpret this psalm as being fulfilled in the person of David himself. This leaves the Messianic interpretation, which sees this psalm as referring to the Messiah. This interpretation was subscribed to by a number of ancient rabbis, and it was this interpretation that Jesus and his interlocutors presupposed. How can we be so sure of this? If the most common interpretation of the day was that the referent of the psalm was not the Messiah, the Pharisees would have replied to Jesus that this was not the common interpretation among the religious figures, but they remained silent.

Although the New Testament indicates the Messianic character of this psalm, in no way does the historical fact of the prominence of the Messianic interpretation of the time depend on the New Testament itself. For the Jews in the first century, “A psalm of David” would have been taken as meaning a psalm that was written by David. Even if David’s court poet had written the psalm, it could only have been fulfilled by the Messiah, David’s descendant.

Rabbi Sa’adiah Gaon’s interpretation of Daniel 7:13 supports this Messianic interpretation. He explains the Messiah’s presentation to the Ancient of Days (a title referring to the Lord) by quoting Psalm 110: “The utterance of the LORD to my lord, ‘Sit at My right hand.'”

The last point in connection with Psalm 110 is that the Jews in the time of Jesus expected two Messiahs, one priestly (the Messiah of Aaron) and one royal (the Messiah of David), as indicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Tanakh, however, teaches that there will only be one Messiah who will be both priestly and royal. This is clear from Zechariah 3-6, which suggests that the Messianic figure called Branch would be crowned, something indicated by the prophesied coronation of Joshua the High Priest, the symbol of the Branch: “Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch'” (Zech. 6:11-12). Rashi and Ibn Ezra, however, both claim that the Branch is actually Zerubbabel, but they overlooked the priestly role of the Messiah. To cap things off, the shortened name of Joshua (or Yehoshua) is Yeshua, thereby indicating that Jesus is the Messianic Branch who fulfills in his person the priestly and kingly roles of the Messiah, the Son of David.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 133-145.

In the Talmud (b. Sukkah 55a), Zech. 12:10 is described as referring to the human evil inclination on the one hand, and to the death of the Messiah son of Joseph on the other, who later rose from the dead. Two significant points can be gleaned from this: (1) early interpretations of this verse speak of a singular subject, not plural, and (2) an ancient Jewish tradition interprets this passage as speaking of a Messianic figure who died and rose from the dead.

Oddly enough, both the Stone Edition and the NJPSV translate Zechariah 12:10 with a plural subject: “They shall look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed; they will mourn for him . . .” (Stone); “they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them” (NJPSV). These translations, however, are contradicted by some of the most ancient Jewish sources.

What does the text mean, and does it justify a Messianic interpretation? The mourners turn to God because he is the only one who is referred to in the first person in the chapter starting in v. 2. The “me” who is pierced is none other than the Lord, and since the Messiah is the image of God, if the Messiah is pierced, so will the Lord be pierced.

The Stone translation of v. 10, “They shall look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed,” makes little sense for two reasons: first, the plural translation is highly improbable, and second, the ones who are mourning are the ones who did the piercing; they themselves did the stabbing, not other people! The verse states, “And I will pour out on . . . the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child.”

The Messianic interpretation makes perfect sense. When the Messiah comes again, our people will mourn because they will realize that the one whom they have pierced is Yeshua, the Messiah, our Savior; when he returns, those who accept the Messiah shall be cleansed from their sins (cf. Zech. 13:1). He will return to the Mount of Olives, (cf. Zech. 14:4a), the same place from which he ascended into heaven (cf. Acts 1:1-12). Jesus is the Messiah, the one who was pierced by our people, died, and rose from the dead; he is the one who died to take away our sins!

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 148-152.

“Christian translations of Daniel 9:24-27 divide the seventy ‘weeks’ incorrectly, and the dates have no relation to the times of Jesus.”

As is discussed in the previous objection, Rashi believed that the anointed one in Daniel 9:26 was king Agrippa, thereby unwittingly dating some of the key historical events described in the book of Daniel to the generation after Yeshua. Leaving this point aside, let us look at the dating in this passage of Scripture to see if it is legitimate to interpret it as referring to the time of Jesus.

There are two different translations of Daniel 9:25, exemplified here by the New Revised Standard Version (which reflects the traditional Jewish interpretation), and the King James Version:

• Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. (NRSV)
• Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (KJV)

In the first translation, there are only seven weeks of years (forty-nine years) between the time of the prophecy and the coming of the Messiah, which would place the coming of the Messiah most likely at some point in the fifth century BCE. The second translation, however, would place the coming of the Messiah after sixty-nine (seven plus sixty-two) weeks of years, totaling 483 years after the initial prophecy. If we were to use 457 BCE as the date of the prophecy, as some scholars suggest, this would place us at 27 CE, the same year Jesus began his public ministry!

The problem with the original text is only apparent, which is made clear from two considerations. First of all, if we were to grant that the traditional Jewish division of weeks is accurate, we would also have to accept that the text speaks of two anointed individuals. Secondly, the original Hebrew manuscripts were not written with vowel signs or accents, a fact which significantly weakens any argument that is based on the interpretation of the accents rather than on the consonantal text.

Admittedly, it would be odd to speak of seven weeks of years and sixty-two weeks of years if the sole purpose of the text was to indicate that the Messiah would arrive after sixty-nine weeks of years. The clear Messianic interpretation of this difficulty, however, is that there are two messiahs: one which comes after the seven weeks and the other who arrives after the sixty-two weeks. The first one builds Jerusalem while the second is cut off (Dan. 9:26).

The traditional Jewish division of the sixty-nine weeks into two distinct periods is a more natural rendition than the one found in the KJV. Even if we were to follow the Jewish division, however, we would still find that the prophecy speaks of the death of the second Messiah.

One might object that it is impossible to be sure of anything since there are hundreds of divergent Jewish and Christian interpretations. While it is true that we have barely scratched the surface of things, we can be sure of the more major points while overlooking those that are minor. What are the major points? First, the seventy weeks begin with the rebuilding of Jerusalem and end with the destruction of Jerusalem. Second, there are one or two messiahs in the text, the second of which would be killed (Dan. 9:26). Third, there are six actions which will be fulfilled before the end of the 490-year period.

When did the seventy weeks begin? The most common suggested dates are 605 BCE (when Jeremiah received the word that Jerusalem would be restored after seventy years of exile), 538 BCE (the decree of Cyrus), 521 BCE (the decree of Darius), 457 BCE (the decree of Artaxerxes I), and 446 BCE (the commission of Artaxerxes I). Some of these dates are problematic because they are only related to the rebuilding of the Temple rather than Jerusalem, as the text from Daniel specifies; however, there is simply not enough information in Dan. 9:25 for us to come up with an interpretation everyone can agree on.

We also have to consider the possibility that there are some gaps in the chronology. In fact, it is almost certain that there are gaps since if one were to count 490 years backwards from 70 CE, one would arrive at 421 BCE, which is later than any of the events which scholars propose as the beginning of the 490-year period. If there are no gaps between the 49- and 434-year periods, the only plausible dates would be the last two (i.e. 457 or 446 BCE) since they are the only ones that come even close to 70 CE. This, in conjunction with Daniel 9:26, which states that the anointed one will be killed after the 483-year period, makes 457 BCE a very probable date, with the last seven-year period following a generation later. Perhaps the best interpretation is that the seventy weeks of years started sometime in the 450s BCE, meaning that the gap between the death of the Messiah and the destruction of the Temple would be around thirty to forty years, with the last week occurring from 63 CE to 70 CE.

When all is said and done, we must agree with Walter Kaiser, who concluded, “It is enough to know that there are some 483 years between the time that God began to fulfill this word mentioned to Daniel and the time of the first advent of Messiah, without trying to nail down the precise day and month” (Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament,203).

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 100-109.

The text just might speak of two messiahs, but this poses no obstacles to a Christian interpretation; however, if there are two messiahs, it becomes obvious that only one of them can be the Messiah since the alternative would be preposterous: if both Messiahs were the same, the anointed one would have to live for 483 years!

If there are two anointed ones in this passage from the book of Daniel, the second one is Yeshua, the Messiah, who was cut off and had nothing (Dan. 9:26). Who might the first anointed one be? Some believe he is King Cyrus while others believe he might be Joshua the High Priest or Zerubbabel; there is no way to know for certain who he is. There are chronological inklings, however, which almost certainly rule out certain candidates. If Yeshua is not the second anointed one, who might that be? Some Jewish interpreters believe the second anointed one is Onias III who was killed in 171 BCE while others believe he is King Agrippa I, who died in 44 CE. If we look at the facts objectively, however, the significance of King Agrippa’s death pales in comparison with the lasting importance of the death of Yeshua.

The text either speaks of one or two anointed ones. If there are two anointed ones, the only logical candidate for the second anointed one is Yeshua, whose death brought about the atonement prophesied in Daniel 9:24. If there is only one anointed one, then a fortiori is this anointed one Yeshua.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 109-111.

There are four kinds of prophecies Yeshua has fulfilled, or will fulfill: (1) prophecies that no one other than Yeshua can ever hope to fulfill, (2) prophecies with a worldwide scope, (3) prophecies that are being fulfilled today, and (4) prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled.

(1) The Tanakh indicates that the Messiah would come before the destruction of the Second Temple, and that final atonement had to be made before its destruction; either Yeshua fulfilled these prophecies or no one has. What does the Talmud mean when it states, “all the appointed times have passed and the matter is dependent only on repentance and good deeds” (b. Sanh. 97b) if it does not mean that the time was ripe for the Messiah’s coming?

(2) Genesis 49:10 states that the Messiah will have the obedience of the nations, Isaiah 42:4 indicates that the islands will wait for his teaching, and Isaiah 49:6 shows us that he will be a light to the nations; Jesus has fulfilled all of these prophecies and continues to fulfill them to this day. No one could have guessed, as Yeshua hung on the cross, that he would one day be the most famous Jew ever, that history would be divided into the years before and the years after his birth, and that millions of people would put down their idols and worship the God of Israel through him. All of this, however, took place; it is provable!

According to the Hebrew Bible, there must be one Jew who would be rejected by his people, who would suffer for his people, rise from the dead, and would be revered by the Gentiles; there is no one who has accomplished all this except Jesus. On top of this, he was born in the right place and at the right time; the conclusion is obvious: Jesus is the Messiah!

(3) The prophets also declared that the Messiah would perform miracles such as healing, opening the eyes of the blind, curing cripples, and forgiving sins. All of these deeds have been recorded in the Gospels. Of course, one might object, “How can we be sure these stories are true?” We can be sure that they are true because his followers continued to perform miracles in his name. Peter and John cured a man who was lame from birth in the name of Yeshua (Acts 3:1-10). If Jesus had been an ordinary man, his followers would not have been able to perform miracles in his name, but since he sent the Holy Spirit on his followers, they were empowered to continue his mission. Many Jews who believe in Jesus came to believe in him through their spiritual encounter with the power of God through him, and this is the greatest testimony of all. Such testimony is not to be taken lightly since the Torah emphasizes the necessity of everyone having a personal relationship with God (cf. Deut. 5:1-4).

Have you received a new heart of flesh (cf. Ezek. 3:26-27)? Have your sins been forgiven (cf. Jer. 31:34b)? If you think these promises are meant for the Messianic age, you are right; we are in the Messianic age now! Fifty days after Jesus rose from the dead, the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh, as Joel prophesied (cf. Acts 2:1-21, Joel 2:28-31).

(4) There are still prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled such as Isaiah 2:1-5 and Isaiah 11:1-9, which predict universal peace. Will Jesus fulfill these prophecies too? The answer is clear: The one who has fulfilled all of the other Messianic prophecies will also fulfill these prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled. No one has to remain in ignorance as to the identity of the Messiah when he returns in glory.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 158-164.

“You claim that Haggai 2 points to the fact that the Messiah had to come before the Second Temple was destroyed, since it says in v. 9 that the glory of the Second Temple would be greater than the glory of Solomon’s Temple. Actually, Haggai is speaking only about the physical splendor of the Second Temple, which surpassed Solomon’s Temple in the days of Herod.”

Let’s take a look at Haggai 2:

This is what the LORD Almighty says: “In a little while . . . I will fill this house with glory,” says the LORD Almighty. “The silver is mine and the gold is mine,” declares the LORD Almighty. “The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,” says the LORD Almighty. “And in this place I will grant peace,” declares the LORD Almighty (Hag. 2:6-9).

How do we know that kavod does not refer to riches, but instead refers to the spiritual glory of the Lord? First of all, this passage compares the Second Temple to the first, and we all know that the glory of the First Temple derived from the supernatural presence of God. In addition, many of the elements that made the First Temple glorious, such as the ark of the covenant, the divine fire, the Shekinah, and the Urim and the Thummim, were missing from the Second Temple. Finally, we must consider the fact that concerning the Second Temple, it was prophesied that there would be peace (Hag. 2:9); yet, Ibn Ezra said that this peace was predicated on the obedience of the people, something which the book of Haggai does not state at all. This is illustrative of the types of problems Rabbinic Judaism faces when it confronts such passages in Scripture claiming that the Second Temple will be connected with the glorious coming of the Messiah; they essentially make the promises conditional and postpone the Messiah’s coming to some future point in time.

Only the coming of the Messiah explains how the prophecies of Haggai are not false prophecies. The Second Temple was filled with glory since the coming of the King Messiah, the very shekinah of God, walked in the Temple, physically filling it with the glory of the Lord.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 145-148.

This is really an incredible claim. The rationale behind the argument belies its own conclusion. The argument runs as follows: Jesus fits so many of the Messianic prophecies according to the New Testament that the New Testament authors must have contrived the whole thing, modifying historical facts to suit their own agenda, which means that in reality, Jesus did not fulfill any of the prophecies. If this was the case, however, how could Jesus’ disciples ever have hoped to dupe their contemporaries?

There are actually very many Messianic prophecies in Scripture. In fact, the Talmud states, “None of the prophets prophesied except of the Messiah” (b. Sanh. 99a; cf. Acts 3:24). Maimonides claimed, “This belief in the Messiah is in accordance with the prophecies concerning him, by all the prophets, from our master Moses until Malachi” (Boteach, The Wolf Shall Lie with the Lamb, 3; my emphasis). Naturally, the authors of the New Testament saw many references in the prophets to the life and death of Jesus.

What are the main Messianic prophecies Jesus fulfilled? His birth place (cf. Micah 5:2[1]), his time of arrival (Daniel, Haggai, Malachi), his miracles (Isa. 49:6-7), his rejection (Isa. 52:13-53:12), his suffering before his exaltation (Ps. 22), his death and resurrection (Ps. 16), his role as light to the nations (Isa. 42, 49), and the restoration of Israel (Isa. 49).

There are many more minor prophecies Jesus fulfilled. In fact, Herbert Lockyer enumerates nineteen prophecies that were fulfilled by the death of Jesus, among them that he would be betrayed by a friend, sold for thirty pieces of silver, have his hands and feet pierced, have his garments gambled for, and be buried with the rich (Lockyer, All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible, 146-158). Granted, a traditional Jew would demur at this evidence, claiming that the New Testament authors were cavalier in their interpretations of the Tanakh; however, compared to Rabbinic interpretations of Messianic prophecies, the interpretation of the disciples of Jesus are very methodical, systematic, and sober.

There are several examples of Rabbinic interpretations of certain Scripture passages which are interpreted as Messianic:

• Genesis 1:2, which states, “the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters,” is taken to mean ” the Spirit of the King Messiah” (Genesis Rabbah 2:4).
• According to the Jerusalem Targum, when Eldad and Medad prophesied outside the camp (Num. 11:26), they were prophesying about “the defeat of Gog and Magog by the Messiah.”
• Ruth 2:14a states, “And Boaz said [to Ruth], At mealtime come thou hither, and eat of the bread” (KJV). Midrash Rabbah Ruth interprets this passage as follows: come hither, i.e. draw near to the kingdom, and eat of the bread, i.e. the bread of royalty, and dip thy morsel in vinegar, i.e. sufferings.
• In b. Sanh. 96b-99a, the Talmud suggests that the name of the Messiah might by Chaninah since Jeremiah 16:13 states, “I will show you no favor [Hebrew, chaninah].”

From all of this, it is clear that the interpretations of the New Testament authors are more balanced and reasonable than those of the Rabbinic authors.

Finally, one has only to compare the multitude of prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus with the dearth of prophecies attributable to other false Messiahs in our nation’s history. Bar Kochba, for instance, did not come at the prophesied time, performed no miracles, and did not make peace. Shabbetai Svi, a false Messiah in the seventeenth century, fulfilled none of the Messianic prophecies. Consider also Menachem Mendel Schneerson, whose followers still insist that he was the Messiah, even though he died in 1994; which prophecies has Schneerson fulfilled?

Any objective onlooker would be forced to admit that there exists a double-standard; traditional Jews are able to proclaim one from among them the Messiah without much biblical evidence, whereas they reject the overwhelming evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, rejecting this possibility out of a deep-set bias. Yeshua is the Jew through whom more Gentiles believe in the God of Israel than any other Jew in history.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 152-158.

“Even modern Christian scholars reject the so-called Old Testament proof-texts about Jesus. Just check most modern Christian Bible commentaries and translations.”

This objection does not attack the integrity of Christianity; instead, it rests on the lack of faith of certain Christian scholars. Every Christian who believes in the Word of God as divinely inspired believes that the Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures refer to Jesus, whereas the Christians who deny this are Christian in name only. Typically, the scholars who reject the idea of Jesus as having fulfilled the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures reject prophecy altogether.

The same kind of phenomenon can be found in Judaism. Reform Jews do not accept the Torah as authoritatively binding, reject the Mosaic authorship of the Torah, and reject the idea of a literal Messiah. This only proves that some Jews believe in the Scriptures while others, who claim to be Jews, do not.

There are a large number of Christian scholars – many of whom are experts in the Hebrew Bible and biblical hermeneutics – who believe that Jesus is the Messiah. While this does not prove that Yeshua is the Messiah, it clearly militates against this objection.

It is important to recognize that many of the liberal Christian scholars who reject the inspiration of the Bible recognize that the New Testament uses interpretive methods that are very similar to those used in Rabbinic literature such as the Talmud, Targums, and Midrash; in other words, they realize that the New Testament must be judged in the context of the Jewish background of that time period. This is not surprising since the authors of the New Testament were Jews. Furthermore, recent studies indicate that the hermeneutical methods of the disciples of Yeshua who wrote the New Testament are more biblically consistent and less farfetched than the methods used by the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls and classical Rabbinic literature.

Simply put, this objection evades the primary issue, which is how the Messianic prophecies are fulfilled, not how they are interpreted by certain Christian scholars; these prophecies overwhelmingly indicate that Jesus is the Messiah.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 164-167.

“Jesus cannot be the Messiah because the Messiah was to be a reigning king, whereas Jesus was despised, rejected, and crucified.”

Many Jewish traditions speak of a suffering Messiah, and Scripture itself contains many indications of a suffering Messiah. Consider the following prophecies:

• Isaiah 52:13-15 states that the servant of the Lord would suffer before being exalted.
• Zechariah 12:10 shows that the Messiah will be killed.
• Psalm 118:22 says that the stone (i.e. the Messiah) rejected by the builders will become the cornerstone. In light of this, we must carefully consider Isaiah 28:16: “See, I lay a stone in Zion . . . a . . . cornerstone . . . ; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.”

Would you rather have a Messiah who was incapable of sympathizing with the weak, who never suffered, and who would rule over all without knowing what it is like to be despised, or would you rather have a Messiah who is able to understand all of his people, the least no less than the greatest? According to the letter to the Hebrews, “[Jesus] had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful . . . high priest . . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb. 2:17-18).

Jesus’ suffering – which enables him to sympathize with his people – is not an argument against his Messianic status; instead, it is a confirmation that he is the Messiah since Rabbinic tradition and the Scriptures teach that the Messiah would be rejected before assuming his worldwide reign.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 167-169.

“Jesus cannot be the Messiah because the Messiah had to rebuild the Temple, yet the Temple was standing in Jesus’ day.”

According to Maimonides, if someone “learned in the Torah” rebuilds the Temple, “he is definitely the Messiah” (1987, 232). This opinion, however, is disputed since there is evidence from Rabbinic literature which suggests that the Third Temple “is waiting in the heavens to be revealed” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchos Melachim U’Milchamoteihem, 233). It is, in certain ways, natural for traditional Jews to believe that the Messiah will rebuild the Temple. It was destroyed over nineteen hundred years ago, and it seems as though the only one who could rebuild it is the Messiah.

There are very few Messianic prophecies in the Bible that mention the rebuilding of the Temple, and those that do speak about the process of building the Second Temple in the sixth century BCE. The entire book of Isaiah contains no prophecy about the rebuilding of the Temple; Jeremiah prophesies the restoration of Jerusalem, but does not mention the restoration of the Temple; and none of the prophets speak about the restoration of the Temple in conjunction with the Messiah, except for Zechariah and Ezekiel.

Ezekiel does not state that the Messiah will build the Temple; Ezekiel is merely given a detailed vision of the new Temple and the glory of the Lord taking its abode in this house of worship. This leaves us with one book to consider: Zechariah.

The first part of Zechariah mentions two anointed leaders, Joshua (the High Priest) and Zerubbabel (the governor of Judah). These men were types of “the Branch,” and played key roles in the building of the Second Temple. According to Zechariah 6:9, 11-13, God told Zechariah to make a crown, place it on the head of Joshua, and to tell him that his name was Branch, that he would build the Temple, that he would sit on a throne as priest, and that those far off would help build the Temple.

In this passage, Joshua is the Messianic prototype, and as such, it is said that he would sit on the throne as a royal priest. What is the meaning of the prophecy? There are three possibilities.

(1) Historically, both Joshua and Zerubbabel were involved with the building of the Second Temple. Their actions, therefore, were types of future happenings. According to Rashi, “Some interpret this [i.e. the reference to “the Branch” in 6:12] as referring to the King Messiah but the entire context deals with the [time of the ] Second Temple” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). If Rashi is right, this means that there is not one prophecy in the Tanakh which prophesies that the Messiah would rebuild the Temple; this would completely undermine this objection. The Messianic imagery in this passage, however, is too clear, which means that Zechariah actually prophesied the future building of the Temple by the Messiah. The question remains, What is the nature of this future Temple?

(2) The second possibility is that Zechariah 6 predicts the building of a spiritual Temple comprised of people. This makes a lot of sense when one considers the historical context of the prophecy. Zechariah was encouraging Joshua and Zerubbabel to build the Temple, and it was already in the process of being completed. To prophesy that the Temple would be rebuilt, and to actually mean that the current Temple in the process of being built would be destroyed and then rebuilt at some point in the distant future (this prophecy was delivered over 2500 years ago), would not have made any sense to Zechariah’s contemporaries.

The New Testament does not describe a building, but does describe God’speople as his dwelling place; the people of God become the Temple:

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus the Messiah. (1 Pet. 2:4-5)

This idea of a spiritual Temple is not a New Testament novelty; its roots can be traced to the Tanakh since God promises his people that he will dwell in their midst (cf. Lev. 26:12). Of course, this verse means that God will dwell with his people in the Tabernacle and the Temple, but many Israelites were only able to experience God in the Temple infrequently. With the coming of the Messiah and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, God is able to take his abode within his people who have been cleansed from their impurities by the atoning death of the Messiah. This resonates with Ezekiel’s prophecy: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean . . . I will . . . give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you” (Ezek. 36:25-27). This spiritual Temple is being built every day.

This interpretation also illuminates Zechariah 6:15, which states, “Those who are far away will come and help to build the temple of the LORD.” Who are the ones far away? The Gentiles! Paul makes this clear when he writes that those “who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Messiah” (Eph. 2:12-13; emphasis mine). The text continues, “[Y]ou are . . . built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:19-21). This spiritual Temple was providentially established before the destruction of the Second Temple.

(3) The third possible interpretation is that the Messiah will literally rebuild a physical Temple in Jerusalem when he returns to earth. This is an intriguing interpretation, but it is not a fundamental Christian doctrine. We can be sure that if the Temple is gloriously rebuilt, the identity of the Messiah will not be a secret, and we also know that if it is rebuilt, Jesus will be the one to rebuild it. How can we be sure of this? What about the Messianic criteria given by Maimonides, who essentially holds the same view that if someone builds the Temple, he will definitely be the Messiah?

At first glance, Maimonides seems to disqualify Jesus from being the Messiah who will rebuild the Temple, however, Maimonides’s interpretation of the Messiah is incorrect for several reasons. First of all, Maimonides imagined a Messiah who was a rabbi or sage, thus making him into his own image. He downplayed the scripturally founded miraculous signs associated with the Messianic age because if these signs were important, they would indicate that Jesus is the Messiah. He also taught that anyone who died could not be the Messiah, thus excluding Jesus. As we have seen, however, many ancient Jewish interpretations believe that the Messiah would die and rise from the dead. Jesus not only performed the prophetic signs mentioned in the Tanakh, he also rose from the dead. Unfortunately, traditional Jews are typically more familiar with Maimonides’s view of the Messiah than the scriptural description.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 170-179.

“The only true prophecy about Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures is found in Zechariah 13:1-6—apassage dealing with false prophets. It even makes explicit reference to his crucifixion!“

Some Messianic Jews have claimed that Zechariah 13:1-6 is a Messianic prophecy and that it applies to Jesus; they are in serious error. In fact, it has nothing to do with the Messiah and nothing to do with Jesus. The context of this prophecy is that it speaks of the national cleansing of Israel when false prophets will be exposed. Since this will only occur in the future, it is clear from this fact alone that it cannot apply to Jesus. Furthermore, the wounds that are mentioned in Zechariah 13:6, translated by the King James Version as “wounds in thine hands,” is inaccurate; the real meaning of the Hebrew is “on your back” (literally, “between your shoulders”).

Unfortunately, those who use this verse to insist that it is the only time the Tanakh speaks of Jesus, and that it speaks of him as a false prophet, have missed Messianic passages surrounding Zechariah 13 which clearly point to Jesus, such as 12:10-14, which speaks of the piercing of the Messiah and Israel’s repentance, and the coming of the Messiah on the Mount of Olives in 14:4. It is important to read all of these prophecies in context. I am confident that an unbiased and informed reading of Zechariah 12-14 will lead one to the conclusion that Yeshua is the Messiah.

For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 180-181.