The Glory of the Second Temple (Haggai 2:3-9)

 

I have heard Tovia Singer say of this text that we are about to examine that it is the one which caused him great distress and trouble for many years, and rightly so—for it will be shown in a moment how much consternation this prophecy has been to the rabbis, who have been driven to such absurd explanations as one might justly suppose them to have been devised a person with a mental distemper! The words in question were spoken during the rebuilding of the temple upon the Jews’ return from their exile under the governorship of Zerubbabel, who led the initial work of reconstruction and restoration of the Jewish worship and political statehood. At that time, there were many still alive who had witnessed the glory and splendor of Solomon’s temple who grew sorrowful and discouraged upon seeing the reconstruction of the temple. “But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy.” (Ezra 3:12). The grounds of their sadness appears to have been their knowledge that the plan of Cyrus given to them in no way compared with what was done during the days of Solomon (Ezra 6:3). And it is on this occasion that the prophet Haggai speaks to them for the sake of their consolation; his words are these: “Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing? Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work: for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts: According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts.” (Haggai 2:3-9). The chief question which raises itself to any careful interpretation of Scripture is what is proposed in verse 9: in what way was the second temple greater than the first? In what did this superiority of glory most properly consist? By the following arguments and answers to Jewish objections, it will be manifest beyond any shadow of doubt or unbelief that it was the Messiah Himself which was to be the “desire of the nations”, and the glory of the temple that was then being built under Zerubbabel.

[1]. That this text is speaking of the second temple is obvious to any honest reader of holy Scripture. It is expressly denoted by Haggai’s determination for the words of his revelation. It is הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה, “this house” (Hag. 2:3) with which he speaks, and not the imaginary third temple of the Jews (and dispensationalists), as Abarbanel argues. And again, the temple of which he speaks is הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן, “this latter house” (verse 9). We may rightly see Haggai as pointing to the second temple with his very finger, and enumerating the manner in which it was to supersede that of Solomon, and therefore answer the discouragements of the Israelites. And I know of none others but Abarbanel and Tovia Singer which wish to shoehorn their third temple into the prophet’s words, throwing out the authority of their Targums, which all say with us that it is the temple built by Zerubbabel which is intended here.

[2]. The Jews do interpret the “desire of the nations” to be precious gold, silver, and other such valuables brought by the heathen nations to the temple—which items are famously that which the Jews take much delight and complacence in, often at the expense of the poor and needy, as Christ says of the Pharisees in his day, who devoured widows’ houses. That such is the exposition of the Jews is seen from their own doctors and commentators. “And they will understand that My Shechinah rests in this House, and they will bring gifts of silver and gold.” (Rashi); “all who are shaken from their place will come with the desire of all the nations; that is, they will bring in their hands all precious things they find in their lands: vessels of silver and gold, garments, precious stones, and all desirable things useful for service, like vessels and appearance, not in riddles—those found in the House of God and its likenesses.” (David Kimchi);—However, it is obvious that this was not the intention of Haggai in any way, for 1st, the Septuagint does err in putting τὰ ἐκλεκτὰ here for חֶמְדַּת, so that the sense is “the choice things of the nations shall be brought.” The Latin Vulgate is much more accurate; et veniet desideratus cunctis gentibus— “he shall come who is desired of the nations.” חֶמְדָּה, being derived from חָמַד (“to desire, take pleasure in”), is used by the Holy Spirit to denote the desirableness not only of things and objects, but of particular persons. Hence Daniel is called חֲמוּדוֹת, “greatly beloved” (Dan. 9:23, cf. 10:11). And the word is also used for land or materials that were valued and prized by the ancients (Gen. 27:15; Isaiah 2:16; Amos 5:11; Jer. 3:19). It being said in verse 7 that this desire “shall come” (בָאוּ) makes it plain that an individual person is intended. Though the verb here is in the plural, while חֶמְדַּת is in the singular number, this does no harm whatsoever to the exposition provided, for it is a common occurrence in Hebrew grammar for a constructio ad sensum to be used in which the verb agrees with the genitive (in this case הַגּוֹיִם, “nations”) rather than the subject term (“desire”) in its number. “Joab saw that the front [פְּנֵי] of the battle [הַמִּלְחָמָה] was [הָיְתָה] against him before and behind” (2 Sam. 10:9). Here the verb הָיְתָה is obviously predicated of פְּנֵי, although it does not agree in number with it, but rather with הַמִּלְחָמָה, “the battle.” Similarly, in Job 15:20: “and the number [מִסְפַּר] of years [שָׁנִים] is hidden [נִצְפְּנוּ, Niphal - 3rd person plural] to the oppressor” The verb here agrees in its number to שָׁנִים, although מִסְפַּר is the proper grammatical subject, and is in the singular rather than the plural. An even more similar example, wherein the subject matter is the same, is Isaiah 60:5, “The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you.” [חֵיל גֹּויִם יָבֹאוּ לָךְ]. The verb follows the genitive rather than the nominative. Other examples are Hosea 6:5 and 1 Sam. 2:4. It is this thing which takes place in Hag. 2:7, and therefore the Jews do not have a leg to stand on. 2nd, The Lord says in the verse before “Mine are the silver and gold” (Hag. 2:8), so as if to say “Though this house that you now see lacks the ornaments and riches of the first temple built by Solomon, I will adorn this house with a glory far greater than the treasures and wealth of Solomon”, as God also says of the animals and livestock of the earth. “If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” (Psalm 50:12)

[3]. The glory of this second temple cannot consist in merely being a few cubits higher (Bava Batra 3b), or in lasting 10 years longer than the first temple (for the rabbinic chronology based on the Seder Olam teaches that the second temple lasted for 420 years, as we saw earlier). However, its condition in these last 10 years was one of leading to its ultimate destruction, wherein the Jews began their revolt against Rome, and their entire nation began to undergo much suffering and hardship. Therefore, I do not think this is the glory here promised. Nor can it be the length of a few cubits; even Tovia Singer has stated the insanity of such a solution, if that type of sophistry is even deserving of that title!

[4]. Nor can the glory here referred to be that enlarging of the temple and its mound which was done by Herod in the 18th year of his reign (20 BC), which Josephus describes in book 15 of the Antiquities. However many measurements or items of silver and gold may have been in this second temple to a greater degree than the first, does this give it greater glory than the first? I think not even the Jews would venture on such a conclusion. For their own masters say that there were five things missing in the second temple which were present in the first: the Ark of the Covenant, the Urim and Thummim, the divine presence of the Shekhinah, fire from heaven, and the Holy Spirit (Yoma 21b). Furthermore, the reign of Herod did not bring greater glory to the second temple than what it had in the days of Solomon. The high priests were thrust in and out by him, as one may see from the story of Aristobulus III (53-36 BC), Ananelus, or Simon of Boethus. I can hardly see how one may attribute an increase of glory to the temple and its worship during the Herodian period.

[5]. A further description of the manner in which the second temple is greater than first is given towards the end of verse 9: “and in this place will I give peace.” Now, this may be interpreted either as a spiritual peace or a temporal prosperity. There was not much peace at all during the Second Temple period, whether in the revolt of the Maccabeans, the civil wars of the Hasmoneans, or the turbulent reign of Herod. I therefore conclude that it is not a temporal blessing that is being spoken of here, nor can it refer to a third temple due to the reasons already given above. It is therefore a spiritual peace which is being denoted, “For He Himself is our peace, having made both one and having broken down the barrier of the partition of hostility.” (Eph. 2:14) In this manner Christ our Messiah brought true peace to all the nations, being the Prince of Peace Himself. 

[6]. That temporal riches are not being spoken of is further evident from the comparison which is made to Solomon’s temple. For when were the nations so shook so as to bring a multitude of riches to the second temple, which were to exceed that of the first?

[7]. That which is promised directly to Zerubbabel in verses 21-22 is agreed upon by most interpreters to refer to the downfall of the Persian monarchy, as Rashi states along with Ibn Ezra. Therefore, Abarbanel’s pretense is vain, that these latter verses limit the time only to the immediate dates of Zerubbabel. This would furthermore destroy his own exposition, since he wishes to delay it by a few thousand years (as it has been at this day) to when the final temple will come. 

And this entire exposition agrees well with what was spoken by Jeremiah, in his description of the restoration of the Jewish state and worship under Zerubbabel: “Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwellingplaces; and the city shall be builded upon her own heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof. And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry: and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small. Their children also shall be as aforetime, and their congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress them. And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the Lord. And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.” (Jeremiah 30:18-22). Though the Jews naturally would take the ruler and governor mentioned in verse 21, to be Zerubbabel himself, Targum Jonathan refers it to the King Messiah—and also Kimchi, saying “And when it says ‘from him, from his midst’, it is already known that the king Messiah will be from Israel. Rather, it comes to inform us that Israel will no longer have a ruler from the nations, as has been the case until now whenever they were in exile—and even when they were in the Land of Israel, at times they would still pay tribute to the kings of the nations. But he says that this will no longer be, for no foreign ruler shall rule over them, only one who is from them and from their own midst.”

From what has been spoken by both Haggai and Jeremiah, we conclude that the Messiah has already come, and it was while the Second Temple was still standing. And some of the more ancient of the Jews have at least implicitly admitted such a thing in their traditions, as may appear from hence:—

[1]. There is a tradition reported in the Jerusalem Talmud that the Messiah was born on the very day that the temple was destroyed. And the full portion is worth quoting: “Since Rebbi Yudan the son of Rebbi Aivu said, it happened to a Jew who was plowing in the valley of Arbel that his ox was bellowing. An Arab passed by and heard the bellowing of the ox. He said to him: Jew, Jew, unharness your ox, unharness your plow because the Temple was destroyed. The ox bellowed a second time. He said: Jew, Jew, harness your ox, fix your plow because King Messiah has been born. He said to him: What is his name? Menaḥem. He said to him: What is his father’s name? Ḥizqiah. He said to him: Where is he? He said to him: At the king’s palace in Bethlehem in Judea.” (Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 2:4). 

[2]. The Talmud records that “The school of Eliyahu taught: Six thousand years is the duration of the world. Two thousand of the six thousand years are characterized by chaos; two thousand years are characterized by Torah, from the era of the Patriarchs until the end of the mishnaic period; and two thousand years are the period of the coming of the Messiah.” (Sanhedrin 97a), and the first sentence of the next folio (97b) reads וּבַעֲוֹנוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁרַבּוּ יָצְאוּ מֵהֶם מָה שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ; “That is the course that history was to take, but due to our many sins, the Messiah did not come after four thousand years passed, and furthermore, the years that elapsed since then, which were to have been the messianic era, have elapsed.” This is the explanation which the Jews constantly tell us when we ask why their Messiah has been delayed for so many centuries, and at the time of this present writing, more than 2,000 years from their viewpoint.

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12

 

The prophet Isaiah, in speaking of the judgment upon the Gentile nations and the coming redemption for Israel, prophesies of an עֶבֶד, a righteous “servant” sent of God that will bring salvation to Israel, and also gather in the Gentiles thereunto. And the prophet does so in four main places: Isaiah 42:1-7, 49:1-6, 50:4-9, and 52:13-53:12. It is the last of these, chapter 53, which speaks particularly of the satisfaction which the Messiah will make for the sins of the world, and how many will be made righteous by His death; it is a thorough description of the person, character, and work assigned unto Him. And this prophecy is expressly applied by the Scriptures to the person and work of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; as in Matt. 8:17, wherein it is applied to Christ’s miracles; Luke 22:35-38, wherein Christ speaks of the destitute state of the Messiah in his coming and living upon the earth; in Rom. 10:16 (cf. John 12:37), where Isaiah 53:1 is quoted with regard to the unbelief of Israel, and the apostle Peter also directly applies it to the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 2:22-25). 

I know of few texts in the Old Testament which have driven the Jews to such madness and contradictions as this one has. The main question which presents itself unto us here is, who is the עֶבֶד that is being spoken of here? As seen already, the New Testament states that it is none other than our Lord Christ, but the Jews and their defenders wish to twist the true meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy, and apply the sufferings and distresses here spoken of to the nation of Israel. They suppose the one speaking, starting in Isaiah 53:1, to be the kings and rulers of the heathen Gentile nations, in their astonishment at the sufferings and fate of the Jews. 

First, we may concede that there are texts in which Israel is called the servant of the Lord by Isaiah. These are those which R. Tovia Singer brings forward against us: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.” (Isaiah 41:8-9); “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (43:10); “Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen.” (44:1); “Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant.” (44:21); “For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name.” (45:4); “tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob.” (48:20); “And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (49:6). Such is the argument of the Jews. And yet, it is not a good or logical consequence from these places to conclude from hence that the one spoken of in Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel, and that the calamities and sufferings there enumerated are to be attributed unto here first and foremost. This is a twisting and malicious perversion of the Scriptures, as we shall now demonstrate against these impious rabbis. Rather, our text in question must be decided by its immediate context, as well as what is elsewhere said of Israel—which plainly will show that it cannot be the Servant here described by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, those places which the Jews cite expressly limit the interpretation thereof to Israel (42:24-25; 48:20-21; 43:10-11, 14), a thing not found in the 53rd chapter of the prophet.

The servant of the Lord is in Isaiah to be referred unto the Messiah except where it is expressly limited unto Israel itself, and not a few of the Jews themselves confess this. And this may be seen in a few places: (1) Isaiah 42, wherein it reads “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” (verse 1). The rabbis and Targumists confess that this is speaking of the individual person of the Messiah. Though Ibn Ezra does not say it is so, he does admit that it is speaking of an individual, for he applies to Isaiah himself. Targum Jonathan renders this passage: הָא עַבְדִי מְשִׁיחָא אֶקְרְבִינֵהּ בְּחִירִי דְאִתְרְעֵי בֵּיהּ; —“Behold, my servant, the Messiah, whom I bring, my chosen in whom one delights.” This same interpretation of 42:1 is also confessed by Malbim, the Metzuzat David, and R. David Kimchi. Even Abarbanel the polemicist refers it to the Messiah. It appears to be a minority opinion of Rashi that this place is to be referred unto Israel as a collective people. Additionally, it is stated of Israel as the servant, that she is void of all wisdom and true knowledge of God—in verse 19, “Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant?” And the same truth is declared in Deut. 29:4; Isa. 6:9-10; Jer. 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2. How therefore can such a blind and deceived people as Israel be that One who will teach the law to the Gentiles, and draw them to the worship and service of the true God? (2) Ibn Ezra takes Isaiah 43:10 to refer to Isaiah himself as the servant there mentioned. (3) One of the texts which the Jews appeal to in order to support their position is Isaiah 49:3, wherein God calls Israel “my servant.” As a preliminary note, Ibn Ezra takes this text to be speaking of the prophet Isaiah, an individual rather than a nation. Secondly, they usually leave out the remainder of the passage in verses 5-6: “And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” In verse 5, the Servant is distinguished from Jacob, for it is He who gathers the Israelites back in again in their return to the Lord from their backsliding and idolatry, and not the Jewish nation itself. In verse 6, this servant is distinguished even from the righteous remnant of Israel. For how can blind, deaf, and backsliding Israel itself be that Servant here described, who not only gathers in the Jews themselves, but the Gentiles also? 

We come now to the scriptural portion in question, wherein the Lord comforts the Israelites, who did despair of deliverance from their state of captivity and suffering, saying “The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me” (Isaiah 49:14). In 52:1-6, Isaiah prophesies of the coming deliverance of the Israelites from their bondage in Assyria, calling to mind their former state of servitude in Egypt centuries before (verse 4). Hence Israel is called the “captive daughter of Zion” (verse 2), and compared to a woman bound and lying on the floor. Verses 7-8 speak of the coming messenger that will say to Zion “Thy God reigneth!” (verse 7). And it appears from Rom. 10:15 that the prophet here is speaking of the coming preaching of the Gospel, when salvation will be revealed to all the nations; as he states in verse 10, “The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” 

We will see later how many of the Jews admit this text to be speaking of the Messiah, and others do at least confess it to be describing an individual rather than their collective nation. Some of the Talmudists apply Isaiah 53:12 to Moses (Sotah 14a), R. Saadiah ibn Danann refers the text to King Hezekiah (Driver & Neubauer, pg. 202), and in this he is also followed by R. Joseph Passini of Rome. Saadia Gaon took this text as speaking of the prophets of Israel. 

One of the first things said of this Servant is that He is יָרוּם וְנִשָּׂא, “exalted and extolled”, or “high and lifted up” as the ESV translates it; and my chief observation upon this phrase is that it is elsewhere applied to God and His eternal glory and exaltation in heaven. “In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up [רָם וְנִשָּׂא], and his train filled the temple.” (Isaiah 6:1); “Now will I rise, saith the Lord; now will I be exalted [אֵרוֹמָם]; now will I lift up [אֶנָּשֵֽׂא] myself” (33:10); “For thus saith the high and lofty One [רָם וְנִשָּׂא] that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place.” (57:15). That this Servant is God Himself, a divine Person, is clear that only God can be given this type of exaltation described herein, since it is said “The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness [רוּם] of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.” (Isaiah 2:11). And in verses 13-14, this rebuke of sinful pride is directly applied to Lebanon and Bashan. And again in verse 17 of the same chapter, “and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.”

The description given in verses 14-15 are one of the grounds of the Jews claiming Israel to be the Servant denoted herein, for they say that it is the Gentile kings and heathen nations that are speaking in chapter 53. “As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.” (verses 14-15). As a point of prologue, there are a few reasons why Gentiles are not to be considered the speakers of this prophecy. 1st, these Gentiles were utterly ignorant of the state and nature of the coming Messiah, and of the entire redemption of Israel altogether, which cannot be spoken of the ones speaking in chapter 53, who did have some knowledge of this Servant, but in such a way that defied their expectations of temporal redemption and deliverance; 2nd, “for the transgression of my people was he stricken” (53:8) seems most certainly to refer more properly to Israel. I do not see how such a thing could in any respect be spoken by the Gentiles, since the Jews say that it not a singular individual speaking here. If they wish to change the narrator between verse 53:1 and verse 8, they find some firm exegetical ground upon which to build such a contention. 3rd, it is not an uncommon thing in the Old Testament for the national voice and supplications of Israel to be spoken collectively through the mouth of the prophet, as in Jeremiah 14:7-9. 5th, The person speaking says “Who hath believed our שְׁמוּעָה”  —that is, our “report”, “news”, “tidings.” I ask: did the Gentile nations preach to the Jews concerning their deliverance from exile and redemption? Did the Gentile nations preach judgment against Assyria, Edom, and Moab? “Had the kings and nations so preached the misery and happiness ensuing of the people of the Jews, that they are forced to complain of the incredulity of men, that they would not believe them?” (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with Preliminary Exercitations, 1:408)

And also, if the Jews would but harken to the proper signification of this phrase “so shall he sprinkle many nations,” they would see the folly of their argumentation. For נָזָה is used by the sacred writers of the Old Testament to denote the sprinkling of the blood of atonement upon the Jews, priests, and Levites for their sins. “And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it [וְהִזָּה] seven times before the LORD, even before the vail.” (Lev. 4:16-17); “And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it [יַזֶּה] with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward” (Lev. 16:14; cf. verses 18-19); “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” (Ezek. 36:25). In all of these places, there is a clear harkening back to the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood, and the typification of the Messiah’s final and definitive atonement. We may thus apply the rabbis’ own interpretive rule of the Gezeirah Shavah against them, so that the use of נָזָה throughout a comparison of Scripture shows the Suffering Servant to be the antitype of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system. 

The next consideration is that this Servant is called וּזְרֹועַ יְהוָה, “the arm of the Lord” (Isaiah 53:1). The consideration of this title, and the other places in which Isaiah describes it, will make it plain that national Israel cannot be that Servant spoken of in the prophecy before us. And it ought to be obvious to all that this directly correlates to what is said earlier in this same narrative; “The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” (Isaiah 52:10; cf. 51:5-10). This Arm of God cannot be identified with Israel, for it is the Arm itself which brings salvation to Israel. After enumerating Israel’s apostasy and wickedness (Isaiah 59:2-8), the Lord states “And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.” (59:16); And again, “And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.” (Isaiah 63:5). Aside from being explicitly called the Arm of the Lord, that this text in Isaiah 59 is speaking of the same divine Servant is clearly evinced from God’s proclamation that “there was no intercessor” amongst the Israelites, whereas it is only the Servant who does this very thing (53:12). Therefore how can the Servant be Israel, if He intercedes for sinners, and yet no such person was to be found amongst the Jews? It was only the Arm of the Lord that could bring such mediation and deliverance for them and the Gentiles.

Another objection that the Jews have made is that Isaiah 53:8 should be translated “for the transgression of my people were they stricken,” rather than using the singular pronoun “he” — for the Hebrew particle לָמוֹ is what is in question here as to its proper signification, which they say is always to be taken in the plural meaning as a poetical form of לָהֶם. However, what they fail to remember is that לָמוֹ is not infrequently used in substitution for the particle לוֹ, with the insertion of the letter mem (מ), as stated by Wilhelm Gesenius in his Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898), pg. 261, fn. 1 and by Paul Schroder in Die phönizische Sprache (Halle, 1869), pg. 153. It appears that it was R. David Kimchi that originally made this argument concerning לָמוֹ, and at another time denied himself, and admitted that it could be justly taken in a singular sense.  Such examples would be Gen. 9:25-26, “And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant [לָמוֹ]”; “his countenance [פָנֵימוֹ] doth behold the upright.” (Psalm 11:7); “Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto [פֶסֶל וַיִּסְגָּד־לָמֹו]” (Isaiah 44:15) Kimchi also shows two places in which the suffix מוֹ is most appropriately interpreted in the singular. “When he is about to fill his belly, God shall cast the fury of his wrath upon him, and shall rain it upon him [עָלֵימוֹ] while he is eating.” (Job 20:23); and again in 22:2, “Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself [עָלֵימוֹ]?” This is also agreed upon by Levi b. Gershom and Meir Arama. The 11th-century Talmudist Judah ibn Balaam wrote “לָמוֹ for לוֹ, i.e. his suffering was only for the sake of the nation’s sin, and not because he deserved it at all himself; as it is said, although he did no violence, etc.” (as quoted in Samuel R. Driver & Adolf Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters [Oxford, 1877], pgs. 550-552)

This substitutionary suffering cannot be attributed to the collective nation of Israel, whether altogether, or as a righteous remnant; and that for the following considerations, (1) The Servant voluntarily endures these tribulations and sufferings, and bears them with meekness and patience (53:7), as Christ did before the impious Jews, when He ever so tenderly remained quiet and enduring their wicked slanders at the Sanhedrin; yet the nation of Israel was dragged into the Babylonian captivity by force and the righteous indignation of God against them; (2) The Jews’ exile was a punishment for their sins, and they sinned during that time, as was prophesied beforehand (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28), and by Isaiah himself— “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.  For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper. Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace. Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness. We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon day as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.” (Isaiah 59:2-10). The Jews make the suffering of the Servant here mentioned to be that of Israel and the calamities that nation endured at the hands of the Gentiles, and yet that was a punishment of sin, and therefore not to be ascribed unto the Servant here mentioned. “for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.” (Isaiah 50:1). Nor can the rabbis make Israel the righteous servant here described by referring it to the faithful remnant of the Israelites, for they were also implicated in the national sin of Israel (Isaiah 48:1, 8; ch. 58; 63:17); (3) Israel’s own merits were in no way sufficient to atone for their sin and apostasy from God, and breaking of the covenant which the Lord made with their forefathers, and renewed in the reign of David (2 Sam. 7). “But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense. Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.” (Isaiah 43:22-24). Cf. Isaiah 64:6-7, 10-11.

And we now turn to the opinions of the rabbis upon this passage, which have been the occasion of great disagreements between interpreters today. As has already been abundantly cleared, the Jews of today would say that the Servant is speaking of Israel. The only exception I have seen in my study of this is R. Jacob Immanuel Shochet (Mashiach: The Principle of Mashiach and the Messianic Era in Jewish Law and Tradition [New York: S.I.E, 1992], pg. 42). 

It was R. Moshe Alshech (1508–1593) who admitted that “Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view: for the Messiah is of course David, who, as is well known, was ‘anointed’, and there is a verse in which the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, says expressly, ‘My servant David shall be king over them’. The expression my servant, therefore, can be justly referred to David.” (quoted in Driver & Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters, pg. 258). Though it is true that Alshech goes on to twist Isaiah’s prophecy and make it refer to Israel, that is tangential to the point in question here, which is that this rabbinical author nonetheless admits that the earlier and standard interpretation of Isaiah 52:13 and onwards is that it is speaking of the Messiah. Even the polemicist Abarbanel admits this fact; — השאלה הראשונה היא לדעת על מי נאמרה הנבואה הזאת כי הנה חכמי הנוצרים פירשוה על אותו האיש שתלו בירושלם בסוף בית שני שהי' לדעתם בן האלוה ית' שנתגשם בבטן העלמה כמו שמפורסם בדבריהם, ואמנם יונתן בן עוזיאל תרגמה על משיח העתיד לבא וזהו ג"כ דעת חכמים ז"ל בהרבה ממדרשותיהם; “The first question is to ascertain to whom (it) refers; for the learned among the Nazarenes (Christians) expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the second Temple and who, according to them, was the Son of God and took flesh in the virgin’s womb, as is stated in their writings. But Jonathan Ben Uzziel interprets it in the Targum of the future Messiah; and this is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim.” (commentary on Isaiah 52:13)

We begin with the Talmud and Midrash. Therein, at least parts of chapter 53 are assigned to the Messiah and his state in this world, with the Jewish tale that he will sit as a leper in the gates of Rome: “And the Rabbis say: The leper of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is his name, as it is stated: ‘Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted’ (Isaiah 53:4).” (Sanhedrin 98b). Elsewhere the Talmud applies Isaiah 53 more broadly to the sufferings of the righteous in general (Berakhot 5a). 

The Midrash Rabbah appears to have places in which it affirms both opinions on this text. For example, in Bamidbar Rabbah 13:2 we read “That is why the Holy One blessed be He is destined to delight them in the Garden of Eden and burn all the spices before them. “‘I ate my honeycomb with my honey’ (Song of Songs 5:1); because they poured out [he’eru] their souls to death in exile, just as it says: ‘Because he poured out his soul to death’ (Isaiah 53:12), and they engaged in the study of Torah that is sweeter than honey. That is why the Holy One blessed be He is destined to give them wine that has been preserved in its grapes since the six days of Creation, and to bathe them in streams of milk.” Similarly upon Gen. 24:17, “Why the Messiah? Because he was in a wicked generation and he saw his fathers, the kings of the House of David, worshipping idolatry; but he repudiated them and chose the Holy One, blessed be He, and sought mercy for the Jewish people, to fast and to pray for them, as it is stated: But he was wounded because of our sins, etc. and by his bruises we were healed (Isaiah 53:5). Hence he was hidden, so that he will redeem the Jewish people with the ingathering of the exiles and rejoice with them during the resurrection of the dead.”

The same midrash states the following upon Ruth 2:14, “Alternatively, it is referring to the messianic king. ‘Come here’ – draw near to kingship. ‘Eat of the bread’ – this is the bread of kingship. ‘Dip your loaf in the vinegar’ – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: ‘He was pained by our transgressions’ (Isaiah 53:5). ‘She sat beside the reapers’ – his kingship is destined to be temporarily captured from him, as it says: ‘I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for the war and the city will be captured’ (Zech. 14:2). ‘He handed her roasted grain’ – it is destined to return to him, as it is stated: ‘He will smite the land with the rod of his mouth’ (Isaiah 11:4).” And again, “Jeremiah prayed for him to the Holy One, blessed be He, and He gave Him eternal life. Why the Messiah? Because he was in a wicked generation and he saw his fathers, the kings of the House of David, worshipping idolatry; but he repudiated them and chose the Holy One, blessed be He, and sought mercy for the Jewish people, to fast and to pray for them, as it is stated: But he was wounded because of our sins, etc. and by his bruises we were healed (Isaiah 53:5). Hence he was hidden, so that he will redeem the Jewish people with the ingathering of the exiles and rejoice with them during the resurrection of the dead.” (Bereshit Rabbah 8:8)

Another important midrashic text from a later period is the Yalkut Shimoni, ascribed to R. Shimon ha-Darshan, who lived around the 12th or 13th century (Hermann Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, pgs. 351-352). This collection of rabbinic commentary does apply Isaiah 52:13 to the Messiah:

“‘Who art thou, O great Mountain?’ (Zech. 4:7.) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him ‘the great mountain?’ because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, ‘My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly’–he will be higher than Abraham, who says, ‘I raise high my hands unto the Lord’ (Gen. 14:22); lifted up above Moses, to whom it is said, ‘Lift it up into thy bosom’ (Num. 11:12); loftier than the ministering angels of whom it is written, ‘Their wheels were lofty and terrible’ (Ezk. 1:8). And out of whom does he come forth? Out of David. I will tell of the institution (Ps. 2:7). Already are the words told in the institution of the Pentateuch, of the book of the Prophets, and of Hagiographa: in the Pentateuch where are they told? ‘Israel is my firstborn’ (Ex. 4:22); in the Prophets where? ‘Behold my servant will deal prudently,’ and near to it, ‘My servant whom I uphold’ (42:1) in the Hagiographa, where? ‘The Lord said to my lord,’ and ‘The Lord said unto me’ (Ps. 110:1; 2:7). (Yalqut Shim‘oni, 2:571, as quoted in Driver & Neubauer, pgs. 9-10)

 Virtually the same thing here is repeated in Midrash Tanchuma 14:1, which also applies the passage more generally to the sufferings and calamities which befall righteous men: “He did this to demonstrate to Noah that before drinking wine man is as innocent as a sheep: Like a sheep that before her shearers is dumb (Isa. 53:7).”  (Midrash Tanchuma 13:4)

Others amongst the Jewish interpreters applied this place to Moses, such as R. Jacob ibn Habib, in a large passage out of Ein Yaakov, Sotah 1:62;—“Rabbi Shamlai expounded: Why did Moses our teacher desire to enter the Land of Israel? Was it because he needed to eat of its fruit? Or was it because he needed to be satisfied with its goodness? Rather, thus said Moses our teacher: “Many commandments were given to Israel which can only be fulfilled in the Land [of Israel]. I will enter the Land so that they may be fulfilled through me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: “Is it only reward that you seek? I will account it to you as though you had fulfilled them.” As it is said (Isaiah 53:12): ‘Therefore I will divide him a portion among the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.’ “Therefore I will divide him a portion among the many” — this means I will apportion to him full reward. You might say: “[Reward] like the latter ones but not like the former ones”? The verse therefore states: ‘and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty’ — like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were mighty in Torah and commandments. ‘Because he poured out his soul unto death’ — that he gave himself over to death, as it is said (Exodus 32:32): ‘And now, if You will forgive their sin… but if not, blot me out of Your book which You have written.’ ‘And was numbered with the transgressors’ — that he was counted among those who died in the wilderness. ‘Yet he bore the sin of many’ — that he atoned for the sin of the [golden] calf. ‘And made intercession for the transgressors’ — that he sought mercy on behalf of the sinners of Israel, that they might repent. And ‘intercession’ means nothing other than prayer, as it is said (Jer. 7:16): ‘Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up for them cry or prayer, and do not intercede with Me.’”

Though the Ein Yaakov would not agree with the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, it is nonetheless significant that it does confess the prophecy to be properly speaking of an individual prophet, rather than the collective nation of the Jews. 

The writings of the Kabbalists are most difficult to use as a solid witness for the Jewish interpretation of Scripture, them being mostly full of esoteric myths and fables. Concerning Isaiah 53, Zohar II:212a writes “There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.'" In other places, it refers to various parts of Isaiah’s prophecy to Moses himself (III:153a; III:280a; Tekunei Ha-Zohar, 43a; 54b; 112a). A similar inconsistency is found in Targum Jonathan, which interprets 52:13 of the Messiah, but wrests the text to refer to the remnant of Israel when paraphrasing 53:10.