Messianic Prophecy

What you'll learn

Explain Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and fairly answer the 'servant equals Israel' interpretation
Show how Daniel 9:24-27 and other texts place the Messiah's coming before the destruction of the Second Temple
Use Psalm 22, Micah 5:2, Genesis 49:10, Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 7:14 accurately, including relevant rabbinic sources and textual questions

Approach: patterns, not proof-text darts

Counter-missionaries rightly criticise Christians who rip verses out of context. The New Testament writers often use the Tanakh in rich ways: some texts are direct predictions (Micah 5:2), others are patterns fulfilled in a greater way (Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15, where Jesus re-lives Israel's story). Learn to say which kind of text you are using. Start with the strongest passages, read them in context, and be honest about the Jewish counter-readings.

What is the difference between a direct prediction and a pattern fulfilled in a greater way? Give an example of each.Show answer

A direct prediction foretells a specific event, such as Micah 5:2 naming Bethlehem as the ruler's birthplace. A pattern is an earlier event that is fulfilled in a greater way, such as Hosea 11:1 ('out of Egypt I called my son'), which Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus re-living Israel's story. Saying which kind of text you are using answers the criticism that Christians rip verses out of context.

direct prediction: Micah 5:2
pattern: Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15
Jesus re-lives Israel's story
say which kind you are using

Isaiah 52:13-53:12: the suffering servant

This passage describes the LORD's servant who is 'despised and rejected of men', 'wounded for our transgressions', who bears 'the sin of many', is 'cut off out of the land of the living', is assigned a grave, and yet will 'see his seed' and 'prolong his days' (53:3, 5, 8-12). It is the clearest Old Testament picture of substitutionary atonement followed by vindication, which Christians read as death and resurrection.

The main Jewish reading today, popularised by Rashi (1040-1105), is that the servant is the nation of Israel, suffering among the nations, with the Gentile kings speaking in 53:1-9 as they realise Israel suffered for them. This is not a modern invention: Origen (third century) records a Jewish debater applying the passage to the people. It also has real textual support, since Isaiah elsewhere calls Israel 'my servant' (41:8; 44:1; 49:3).

Answer fairly. First, earlier and later rabbinic sources also read the passage messianically: the Targum of Isaiah opens 52:13 with 'my servant the Messiah' (though it reapplies the servant's sufferings to Israel and the nations), and the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b) applies 53:4 to the Messiah. Second, within Isaiah the servant is sometimes the sinful nation (42:18-19) but sometimes an individual who restores Israel (49:5-6), so he cannot simply be the nation. Third, Isaiah 53 says the servant is innocent ('he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth', 53:9) and suffers 'for the transgression of my people' (53:8), whereas Isaiah's Israel is 'a sinful nation' (1:4). Michael Brown suggests a fruitful middle: the Messiah is the ideal Israelite who embodies the nation and does what it could not.

Example: Reading Isaiah 53 with a Jewish friend

Rachel: You wanted to read Isaiah 53. My rabbi once said it's about the Jewish people suffering.

You: That's a serious reading. Rashi taught it, and Isaiah does call Israel 'my servant'. Let's read it and see. Who is speaking in verse 4?

Rachel: 'Surely he hath borne our griefs.' The kings, maybe? Or 'we', the people.

You: Either way, look at verse 8: 'for the transgression of my people was he stricken.' If the speaker is Isaiah or God, 'my people' is Israel, so the servant suffers for Israel. Can Israel suffer for Israel?

Rachel: Maybe the righteous few suffer for the rest?

You: That's a thoughtful answer. But verse 9 says he 'had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth', and Isaiah 1:4 calls the nation 'a sinful nation'. The servant seems innocent in a way no nation is.

Rachel: So who do you think it is?

You: I believe it's the Messiah, the one faithful Israelite who bears our sins and, after his death, 'shall see his seed' (53:10). Even the Talmud applies verse 4 to the Messiah (Sanhedrin 98b). I believe that's Yeshua. But I'd love you to read it again on your own and tell me what you see.

Explain the main Jewish reading of Isaiah 53 today and why it deserves a fair hearing.Show answer

The main Jewish reading, popularised by Rashi, is that the servant is the nation of Israel suffering among the nations, with Gentile kings speaking in 53:1-9 as they realise Israel suffered for them. It is not a modern invention, since Origen in the third century records a Jewish debater applying the passage to the people. It also has textual support, because Isaiah elsewhere calls Israel 'my servant' (41:8; 44:1; 49:3).

servant = the nation of Israel
popularised by Rashi
ancient (recorded by Origen)
Isaiah calls Israel 'my servant'

Give reasons from this section why the servant of Isaiah 53 cannot simply be the nation of Israel.Show answer

Some ancient rabbinic sources read the passage messianically: the Targum calls the servant 'my servant the Messiah', and the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b) applies 53:4 to the Messiah. In Isaiah the servant is sometimes the sinful nation but sometimes an individual who restores Israel (49:5-6). And Isaiah 53 presents the servant as innocent and suffering for 'my people', while Isaiah calls Israel 'a sinful nation' (1:4); Michael Brown suggests the Messiah is the ideal Israelite who does what the nation could not.

Targum and Talmud read it messianically
servant is an individual in 49:5-6
servant innocent, Israel sinful
Messiah as ideal Israelite

Daniel 9:24-27 and the Second Temple

Gabriel announces 'seventy weeks' (seventy 'sevens' of years) to finish transgression, 'make reconciliation for iniquity' and 'bring in everlasting righteousness' (9:24). After sixty-nine sevens (seven plus sixty-two), 'shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself', and then 'the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary' (9:26). Whatever exact chronology one adopts (Christians differ on starting points and on the final week), the order is clear: an anointed one is cut off, then Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed. The Second Temple fell in AD 70.

Similar texts say the Lord would come to 'his temple' (Malachi 3:1) and that the glory of 'this latter house' would exceed the former (Haggai 2:9). If the Messiah had to come while the Second Temple stood, the window has closed. Jewish interpreters often apply 'anointed' in 9:26 to someone else, such as the high priest Onias III (a common modern scholarly view) or King Agrippa (Rashi's view), and the rabbinic chronology (Seder Olam) shortens the Persian period. Be ready to discuss these, but keep the main point: Daniel expected decisive atonement and an anointed figure before the Temple's destruction.

What is the main point about order and timing in Daniel 9:24-27, and why does AD 70 matter?Show answer

Daniel 9 promises decisive atonement and says that after sixty-nine 'sevens' an anointed one will be cut off, and then the city and sanctuary will be destroyed. Whatever exact chronology one adopts, the order is clear: the anointed one is cut off before Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed. The Second Temple fell in AD 70, and Malachi 3:1 and Haggai 2:9 also point to the Lord coming to that Temple, so if the Messiah had to come while it stood, the window has closed.

anointed one cut off first
then city and Temple destroyed
Second Temple fell AD 70
Malachi 3:1 and Haggai 2:9

How do Jewish interpreters read 'anointed' in Daniel 9:26, and how should you handle these readings?Show answer

Jewish interpreters often apply it to someone else, such as the high priest Onias III (a common modern scholarly view) or King Agrippa (Rashi's view), and the rabbinic chronology of Seder Olam shortens the Persian period. You should be ready to discuss these fairly. But keep the main point: Daniel expected decisive atonement and an anointed figure before the Temple was destroyed.

Onias III or Agrippa
Seder Olam shortens chronology
discuss fairly
keep the main point

Psalm 22 and Zechariah 12:10

Psalm 22 begins 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?', the cry Jesus quotes on the cross (Mark 15:34), and describes mockery, thirst, the dividing of garments by lot (22:18) and then deliverance and worldwide worship (22:27). Verse 16 ('they pierced my hands and my feet', KJV; 22:17 in Hebrew Bibles) is disputed. The standard Masoretic Hebrew reads 'like a lion my hands and my feet'. The Greek Septuagint, made by Jewish translators before Christ, reads a verb ('they dug'), and a Psalms manuscript from Nahal Hever near the Dead Sea appears to support a verbal reading. Present this honestly; the psalm's pattern of righteous suffering and global vindication stands either way.

Zechariah 12:10 has the LORD say 'they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him'. The shift from 'me' to 'him' is striking. The Talmud (Sukkah 52a) applies this mourning to Messiah son of Joseph, who is slain, which shows that a pierced, mourned messianic figure was not foreign to rabbinic thought.

How should you honestly present the dispute over Psalm 22:16, and why does the psalm still matter either way?Show answer

The standard Masoretic Hebrew reads 'like a lion my hands and my feet', while the pre-Christian Jewish Greek translation (the Septuagint) reads a verb ('they dug'), and a Psalms manuscript from Nahal Hever appears to support a verbal reading. You should present this honestly as a real textual question. Either way, the psalm's pattern stands: Jesus quotes its opening cry, it describes mockery, thirst and divided garments, and it ends with deliverance and worldwide worship.

Masoretic text: 'like a lion'
Septuagint and Dead Sea evidence: a verb
present it honestly
pattern of suffering and vindication stands

What is striking about Zechariah 12:10, and what does the Talmud's reading of it show?Show answer

The LORD says 'they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him', a striking shift from 'me' to 'him'. The Talmud (Sukkah 52a) applies this mourning to Messiah son of Joseph, who is slain. This shows that a pierced, mourned messianic figure was not foreign to rabbinic thought.

shift from 'me' to 'him'
Talmud: Messiah son of Joseph slain
pierced Messiah not foreign to rabbis

Micah 5:2 and Genesis 49:10

Micah 5:2 (5:1 in Hebrew Bibles) says a ruler in Israel will come from Bethlehem, 'whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting'. The Hebrew phrases can mean 'ancient days', so do not overstate them, but they at least point to a ruler with ancient origins, and the Jewish leaders of Matthew 2:5-6 understood Bethlehem as Messiah's birthplace.

Genesis 49:10 says 'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah... until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.' The Targum Onkelos renders Shiloh as the Messiah, and the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b) lists Shiloh as one of the Messiah's names. Christians argue that Judah's rule faded in the first century under Rome, so the Messiah should have come by then. Again, the timing points to the era of Jesus.

What does Micah 5:2 contribute to the case, and why should you be careful not to overstate it?Show answer

Micah 5:2 says a ruler of Israel will come from Bethlehem, and the Jewish leaders in Matthew 2:5-6 understood Bethlehem as the Messiah's birthplace. His goings forth are 'from of old, from everlasting', but the Hebrew can mean 'ancient days'. So you should claim only that it points to a ruler with ancient origins, not overstate it as proof of eternity.

ruler from Bethlehem
Jewish leaders agreed (Matthew 2)
'everlasting' can mean ancient days
do not overstate

How does Genesis 49:10 point to the timing of the Messiah's coming?Show answer

It says the sceptre will not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes, and the gathering of the people will be to him. The Targum Onkelos renders Shiloh as the Messiah and the Talmud lists Shiloh as one of his names. Christians argue that Judah's rule faded in the first century under Rome, so the Messiah should have come by then, the era of Jesus.

sceptre stays until Shiloh
Targum and Talmud: Shiloh = Messiah
Judah's rule faded under Rome
points to Jesus' era

Isaiah 7:14: the virgin and Immanuel

Counter-missionaries often begin with Isaiah 7:14, so be honest. The Hebrew word almah means a young woman of marriageable age; it is not the technical Hebrew word for 'virgin'. In context Isaiah gives the sign during a crisis in King Ahaz's day, and 7:16 ties part of it to that time. Christians differ on whether there was also a near fulfilment in Isaiah's own day.

But there is more to say. The Septuagint, translated by Jews before Christ, rendered almah here with parthenos, the ordinary Greek word for a virgin, and Matthew 1:23 follows it. The sign is addressed to the whole 'house of David' (7:13; the 'you' is plural in Hebrew), not only to Ahaz. And the child's name, Immanuel, 'God with us', is picked up in the chapters that follow: the child born to sit on David's throne is called 'The mighty God' (9:6-7), the same title used of the LORD himself in 10:21. Matthew reads 7:14 within that larger promise. So concede the word study, then show the whole passage.

How should you handle Isaiah 7:14 with a counter-missionary who says almah means 'young woman' and the sign was for Ahaz?Show answer

Concede honestly that almah means a young woman of marriageable age, not the technical word for virgin, and that 7:16 ties part of the sign to Ahaz's day. Then note that the pre-Christian Jewish Septuagint translated it parthenos, a virgin, which Matthew follows; that the sign is addressed to the whole house of David (plural 'you'); and that Immanuel, 'God with us', leads into the Davidic child called 'The mighty God' (9:6-7), a title of the LORD in 10:21. Concede the word study, then show the whole passage.

almah = young woman; concede it
Septuagint used parthenos
sign to the house of David
Immanuel and 'The mighty God' (9:6; 10:21)

Putting it together

No single verse 'proves' Jesus in a way that forces agreement. The case is cumulative: a royal son of David born in Bethlehem, a servant who suffers for sin, is cut off and then exalted, a pierced one mourned by Israel, and all of it timed before the Temple's fall. Only one figure in history fits the whole pattern, and he gathered a worldwide people to the God of Israel, as the servant was to be 'a light to the Gentiles' (Isaiah 49:6).

Put the cumulative case for Jesus as Messiah into a sentence or two you could say to a friend.Show answer

No single verse forces agreement, but the Tanakh describes a royal son of David born in Bethlehem, a servant who suffers for sin, is cut off and then exalted, and a pierced one mourned by Israel, all before the Temple fell. Only one person in history fits that whole pattern, and he has gathered people from every nation to the God of Israel, just as the servant was to be a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6).

case is cumulative
Davidic king, suffering servant, pierced one
timed before the Temple's fall
light to the Gentiles

In their own words

“Isaiah repeatedly calls Israel 'my servant', so in Isaiah 53 the servant is the Jewish people, and the speakers are the astonished Gentile kings.” (Rashi on Isaiah 53; Isaiah 41:8; 44:1; 49:3)

“Psalm 22:17 in Hebrew says 'like a lion' (ka'ari), not 'pierced'; Christians changed the text.” (Masoretic Text, Psalm 22:17 (22:16 in English))

“The 'anointed one' cut off in Daniel 9:26 refers to a figure in the second century BC or the first century, not Jesus, and Christian chronologies are forced.” (Rashi on Daniel 9:26 (King Agrippa); Ibn Ezra on Daniel 9; Seder Olam)

“Isaiah 7:14 speaks of an 'almah', a young woman, and the sign was for King Ahaz in his own day.” (Isaiah 7:14-16 in context)

“If the Messiah had come, the world would be at peace and the exiles gathered; it plainly is not.” (Isaiah 2:4; 11:6-12; Maimonides, Laws of Kings 11-12)

Key texts

Isaiah 52:13-53:12: The suffering, atoning and exalted servant. Read it aloud with a Jewish friend and ask, 'Who is this about?'
Isaiah 49:3-6: The servant is called Israel yet restores Israel and is a light to the nations, showing an individual who embodies the nation.
Daniel 9:24-27: Atonement and an anointed one cut off before the city and sanctuary are destroyed.
Psalm 22: Righteous suffering, garments divided, then worldwide worship. Be honest about the 22:16 textual issue.
Zechariah 12:10: The LORD says 'they shall look upon me whom they have pierced'; rabbinic tradition applied it to a slain Messiah (Sukkah 52a).
Micah 5:2: Bethlehem birthplace of a ruler with ancient origins.
Genesis 49:10: The sceptre and Shiloh; read messianically in Targum Onkelos and the Talmud.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Isaiah 53 is about Israel. The Gentile nations confess that they misjudged the Jewish people. Christians stole the chapter.”Show a response

That reading deserves respect; it is held by Rashi and many since, and Isaiah does call Israel 'my servant'. But consider three things. First, Jewish tradition is not united: the Targum names the servant 'my servant the Messiah' at 52:13, and the Talmud applies 53:4 to the Messiah. Second, in 49:5-6 the servant brings Jacob back to God, so he is distinct from the nation he restores. Third, Isaiah 53 says the servant was innocent, 'neither was any deceit in his mouth', and stricken 'for the transgression of my people', while Isaiah calls Israel a sinful nation (1:4). The best answer is that Messiah is Israel's true representative, the one faithful Israelite who suffers for the sins of the nation and the world.

“Psalm 22 says 'like a lion', not 'pierced'. Your translation is a Christian forgery.”Show a response

It is true that most Hebrew manuscripts read 'ka'ari', 'like a lion'. But this is not a Christian invention: the Septuagint, translated by Jews before Jesus, reads a verb, 'they dug' my hands and feet, and a Psalms manuscript found at Nahal Hever, older than the Masoretic manuscripts, appears to read a verb form too. 'Like a lion my hands and my feet' is also hard to make sense of without supplying a verb. Honest scholars disagree. But the argument does not hang on one word. The psalm's whole pattern, the cry of abandonment, the mocking crowd, the divided garments, and then the nations turning to the LORD, fits Jesus remarkably.

“Daniel 9 is about the Maccabean period, not Jesus. Your chronology is made up.”Show a response

Many critical scholars do date Daniel to that period and apply the anointed one to the high priest Onias III, while Rashi applied it to King Agrippa in the first century. But even on those readings Daniel 9 still describes something larger than any second-century event: an end to sin, reconciliation for iniquity, everlasting righteousness and the anointing of 'the most Holy' (9:24). That did not happen when Onias was murdered around 171 BC. And the order is clear: an anointed one is cut off, then the city and sanctuary are destroyed. That fits the death of Yeshua and the Roman destruction of AD 70. Christians debate the exact arithmetic, but the sequence and the expected atonement point to the first century.

“Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1, 'Out of Egypt I called my son.' Read Hosea: it's about Israel coming out of Egypt, not a prediction about Jesus. Matthew just twisted it.”Show a response

You're right about Hosea's context, and Matthew knew it too. Hosea is looking back at the Exodus, when God called Israel his son (Exodus 4:22). Matthew isn't claiming Hosea made a direct prediction like Micah 5:2. He is showing a pattern: Jesus re-lives Israel's story. Like Israel, he goes down into Egypt and is called out. He passes through the waters at his baptism and then spends forty days tested in the wilderness, answering every temptation from Deuteronomy, where Israel failed in its forty years (Matthew 3-4). The point is that the Messiah is the ideal Israelite, God's true Son, who embodies the nation and succeeds where it stumbled. That kind of reading of history was not foreign to Jewish interpretation. It's less a proof-text and more an invitation: see how Israel's story finds its fullest meaning in him.

“Jesus knew the prophecies. He could easily have arranged to fulfil them, like riding a donkey into Jerusalem to match Zechariah.”Show a response

Some fulfilments could be arranged by a man who knew the Scriptures, and riding a donkey (Zechariah 9:9) is a fair example. But look at what could not be arranged. No one chooses his birthplace in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) or his descent from David. No one stages the timing of his appearance before the Second Temple fell (Daniel 9:26), or arranges to be pierced and mourned, or to be 'cut off out of the land of the living' and then to 'prolong his days' (Isaiah 53:8, 10). Nor could a would-be Messiah guarantee that, after his death, nations across the world would turn to worship the God of Israel, as the servant was to be 'a light to the Gentiles' (Isaiah 49:6). The case is cumulative, and the parts no one could stage are the weightiest.

Written task

Write a 350-400 word explanation of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 for a thoughtful Jewish reader who holds that the servant is Israel. Present the national reading fairly (with its strongest texts), then make the case that the servant is the Messiah, using both the text of Isaiah and at least one Jewish source.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

States the national (Rashi) interpretation accurately and charitably, citing Isaiah 41:8, 44:1 or 49:3
Uses internal evidence from Isaiah (e.g. 49:5-6; 53:8-9; 1:4)
Cites at least one Jewish messianic reading accurately (Targum on 52:13 or Sanhedrin 98b)
Explains substitutionary atonement and vindication in the passage and connects them to Jesus
Maintains a respectful, non-triumphalist tone