QUESTION: Doesn't Isaiah 53 really refer to Israel?

RESPONSE: "And his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death...." (Is. 53:9).

When did Israel die? Surely it is not a Jewish belief that Israel will die, is it? That this does not apply to Israel is clear when you read all of Isaiah:

"How the faithful city has become a whore! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her--but now murderers! (Is. 1:21)

"For the vineyard of the L-rd of Hosts is the House of Israel, and the people of Judah are his pleasant planting; he expected justice, but saw bloodshed; rightousness, but heard a cry!" (Is. 5:7)

"Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave all your wealth...." (Is. 10:1-3)

"The way of peace you do not know, and there is no justice in their paths. Their roads they have made crooked; no one who walks in them knows peace. Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us; we wait for light, and lo! there is darkness; and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. We grope like the blind along a wall, groping like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among the vigorous as though we were dead." (Is. 59:8-10)

Thus, to Isaiah, Israel does not qualify as one who has "done no injustice and spoken no falsehood" (verse 9).

"Yet it was OUR sickness that HE was bearing, OUR suffering that HE endured'.

Who is the prophet speaking of here? Who is the OUR and the HE? Aren't there two different entities here?

"WE accounted HIM plagued, Smitten and afflicted by G-d. But HE was wounded because of OUR sins, Crushed because of OUR iniquities. HE bore the chastisement that made US whole, And by HIS bruises WE were healed."

Two entities.

"WE all went astray like sheep, each going his own way; and the L-rd visited upon HIM the guilt of all of US".

No innocence here. Whose guilt is it that is "visited" upon "HIM"?

Is. 53:11 is also the only place in scripture where the phrase, "My righteous servant" is used. Others are called, "My servant", but not "My righteous servant". A righteous servant must be holy. Who is this righteous servant?....

QUESTION: But, isn't the messiah supposed to reign as a king? Where in Judaism do you find the idea of a messiah who suffers and dies?

RESPONSE: In some Jewish thinking, just as Moses was unable to enter the promised land, so the messiah would be unable to complete his work and finish building the messianic kingdom. Therafter he would be succeeded by a second messiah, messiah ben David, who would finish the work. (This first messiah would then be named, messiah ben Joseph). Christianity resolves this dilemma by having the same first messiah simply return again, i.e., coming twice. The first time he arrives as a sufferer. Examine the following:

The Patriarchs of the world (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) will in the future arise in the month of Nisan (the month of Passover) and will say to him: 'Ephraim, our true Messiah! Though we are your fathers, you are greater than we, for you have suffered on account of the sins of our children, and cruel chastisements have come on you ... and you sat in darkness and your eyes saw no light, and your skin stuck to your bones, and your body dried up like wood, and your eyes became weary from fasting, and your strength was like a potsherd. And all of this was because of the sins of our children....Pesikta Rabbati

"And the land shall mourn" (Zech. 12:12). What is the reason for this? R. Dosa and the rabbis disagree about it. R. Dosa says, "(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be killed", and the rabbis say, "(They will mourn) over the Evil Inclination [i.e. man's desire to sin] which will be killed (in the day of Messiah)...." Sukkah 52a

(When He created King Messiah) the Holy One...began to tell him the nature of his task, and He said to him, "Those who are with you in your generation, their sins are going to force you into a yoke of iron, and they will tear at you like a calf whose sight is grown weak, and they will choke your spirit with the yoke, and on account of their sins your tongue will stick to the roof of your mouth. Will you agree to this?"

...he said to Him, "King of the World! I accept it with joy in my joy and happiness of heart, in order that not even a single one of those who will live in my day should die; and not only that those who live in my day should be saved, but also all the dead who have ever died from Adam until now. And not just them, but also the stillborn should live in those days; and not only the stillborn, but even everyone to whom You thought to give life, but whom You did not create. This is what I desire, this is what I agree to!" Pesikta Rabbati

Elijah of blessed memory caresses his (messiah's) head, holds it on his lap, and says to him, "Accept all these sufferings and the verdict of the Holy One who causes you to suffer for the sins of Israel." And so it was written, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities" (Is. 53:5). Bet HaMidrash (Mid. Konen)

So it can be seen that this isn't merely a Christian interpretation, or something that was sought for and found later, in order to justify the crucifixion, but rather, that it was (and has been) a part and parcel of Jewish tradition about the Messiah all along.

Unfortunately, very seldom is there anyone who will approach this chapter of Isaiah with an open mind. Far too often, the approach taken is to assume, first off, that it will NOT refer to Yeshua; anything, or anyone else, will be acceptable. A better approach would be to stand back, take an objective look, abandon all previous opinions and bias, and consider it as though it were fresh. Then make up your mind.

QUESTION: But Isaiah 53 is only one of four "servant" songs in Isaiah. Are you trying to say that Yeshua is portrayed in ALL of them? How about Isaiah 42:1-4?

RESPONSE: "This is My servant, whom I uphold, My chosen one, in whom I delight. I have put My spirit upon him. He shall teach the true way to the nations (gentiles). He shall not cry out or shout aloud, Or make his voice heard in the streets. He shall not break even a bruised reed, Or snuff out even a dim wick. He shall bring forth the true way. He shall not grow dim or be bruised Until he has established the true way on earth; And the coastlands shall await his teaching (Isaiah 42:1-4)."

Sounds like Yeshua to me. Who has had G-d's spirit put upon him? Who has taught the true way to the nations (Gentiles)? (It certainly wasn't King Hezekiah!) He was not a rowdy politician or fanatic - he did not cry aloud nor make his voice heard in the streets, but was meek and mild, and gentle to those whose lives, or righteousness, had grown dim. And the coastlands (or the isles) - which generally means the Gentile nations - have awaited and accepted his teaching, to lead them into the true way (and out of paganism).

QUESTION: So what about Isaiah 49:1-6? You mean to say that this doesn't refer to Israel? It even says, "My servant, Israel"!

RESPONSE: First, yes, the word "servant" IS often applied to Israel. (It occurs often enough that I don't have to mention all the examples.) It is also applied to various individuals, for instance, Moses (Num. 12:7), Joshua (Judges 2:8), David (Ps. 89:21), Eliakim (Isaiah 22:20), and so on. Even Nebuchadnezzer gets this title (Jer. 25:9 and 27:6). So, would it not be logical to assume that the messiah, too, when he comes, would also be referred to as a "servant" in this way? And perhaps he is, in Zech. 3:8, "For behold, I will bring forth My servant the Shoot".

Now, in chapter 49, the messiah is depicted as called from his mother's womb (verse 1). He is even named by G-d before he was born. This fits Yeshua, whom Miryam was told to call "Yeshua", because "he will save" his people, even before he was born.

Then, in verse 2, he is shown hidden, concealed with G-d, like a sword kept in a sheath, or an arrow in a quiver, until it is time for him to appear.

It is verse 3 that might at first appear troublesome. "...You are My servant, Israel..." However, the name Israel is also the name of a person, the one who wrestled with G-d and prevailed; and the name here could, in a collective sense, be seen to refer to BOTH the nation, and to that nation's ultimate representative or champion (i.e., the appearance of the redeemer). For example, in a hypothetical case, G-d might choose to address Churchill in WWII by saying, "You are My servant, England", referring to both Churchill, specifically, and the English people as a whole. Will not in the same way the Messiah represent the whole of Israel? And is not, in fact, the Messiah the culmination of the purpose for the choosing of Israel as a nation in the first place? So it would be right to address him by that name.

In addition, the entire life of Yeshua is a parallel to the life of the nation of Israel. Like them, he is called out of Egypt. Like Moses, who is told, "the men that sought thy life are dead" (Exodus 4:19), Yeshua's family is told they can return home because "those who were trying to take the child's life are dead" (Matt. 2:20). Likewise, Joseph was rejected by his own brothers, and delivered over to the Gentiles. There he is given the title, Zaphenah-Paneah, "savior of the world" (Gen. 41:45). At the end of the story he is reunited with his family, and he tells them not to fear him, "I am your brother" (Gen. 45: 4). (The very story of Yeshua, in a nutshell.)

Yeshua was most likely born during Sukkot. This was the festival of great joy, the season of rejoicing - because it commemorated the time when G-d, Himself, was personally present with the people in the wilderness. Yeshua was slain at Pesach, on the very day, and died at the exact same moment when the lamb of Pesach was being offered in the Temple. And so on, and so on. Thus, his life mirrored Israel's, and Israel's mirrored his. And all this is just as it should be, for the life of the messiah. As R. Shlomo Atruc (14th cent.) put it: "When he (Isaiah) speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included with it; and when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people are included with him." (Note that he says this...even though he himself did not accept Yeshua, and thought that Isaiah 53 referred primarily to the nation of Israel.)

In verse 4, the messiah complains that his labors have been in vain and have brought forth little fruit. Yet G-d comforts him - he who was formed to "bring Jacob back to Him, and that Israel be gathered unto Him". (It would be hard to see the nation of Israel as the one doing the restoring in this verse.) In verse 6, G-d promises him his reward: "It is too small a thing that you should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel; I will also give you for a light to the Gentiles, that My salvation may be known to the ends of the earth". (Again, it is hard to see the nation of Israel "restoring" the nation of Israel.)

"I will give you for a covenant of the people...." (verse 8) - again, possibly the messiah who will initiate the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33. And finally, to extend a bit, in verses 15 and 16, you have the wonderful notation that, even though a mother may forget her own children, G-d will not forget Israel; for he has "graven you upon the palms of My hands...."

QUESTION: What about Isaiah 50:4-9?

RESPONSE: Here the messiah receives his commission from G-d (verse 4), and he does not turn back from his task, even though it involves suffering (verse 5). In verse 6 he is humiliated ("I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting" - and this corresponds to Matt. 26:67, Mark 14:65, and Mark 15:19,20 in the NT, where Yeshua is mocked in the same way. Yeshua himself refers to this in Luke 18:31,32). Yet he knows that G-d will justify him in the end.

QUESTION: So how about the last song? Remember that Isaiah 52:13 on,and Isaiah 53, really form one cohesive whole (the chapter divisions were added in the Middle Ages). Is Yeshua here, in all of this, too?

RESPONSE: "Behold, My servant shall prosper, He shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high" (verse 13). Sounds like Yeshua: "Exalted to the right hand of the Father", Peter said of him (Acts 2:33). "G-d exalted him to His own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel" (Acts 5:31). "Who...made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant...therefore G-d exalted him to the highest place...." (Phillipians 2:9).

In verse 14, again the humiliation of the Messiah is depicted. Yet he shall still (verse 15) "sprinkle" many nations (Gentiles? heathen?) as, perhaps, after a sacrifice. (Note that the word for "sprinkle" here is used 24 times in the Tenach. In the King James Version, it is always translated as "sprinkle", or similarly. In the modern Jewish Publication Society version, it is translated 23 times as "sprinkle" or similarly. Here, however, is it translated differently, as "startle". There does not seem to be sufficient reason for this. Two of the earliest Greek translations, by Aquila and Theodotion, use the technical word for "sprinkling to clean" here. Similarly, a host of Jewish commentators through the centuries have also denoted "sprinkle" or similar. (See Driver and Neubauer, pp. xxxvii-xxxviii, and notes J through 8, for an extensive comment.)

"Kings shall shut their mouths because of him; For that which (they) had not been told about shall they perceive." Again, if this refers to the Gentile nations, it can mean that they shall have the truths about G-d told to them (as would fulfill Jeremiah 16:19,20).

Finally, we come to the fifty-third chapter, which, as noted, is really a continuation of the last part of the fifty-second. In verse 2, we have perhaps again a reference to the "shoot from the stock of Jesse. . .the twig from out of his roots" spoken of in Isaiah 11:1 (a passage generally admitted to be messianic, as it is the place where the prophet speaks of the lion laying down with the lamb); and possibly also to the passage in Zechariah 3:8. In verse 3 we see that the Messiah is rejected and despised: "he was despised and rejected of men": and "a man of suffering, and familiar with sickness; and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not". Certainly Yeshua was despised and rejected in his own time; and by his own people. (In the Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the impression is even stronger, saying, "we despised him and we did not esteem him". See Geever and Heinle, "Messianic Prophecies From a Dead Sea Scroll".)

Verse 4:"Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted".

Verse 5: "But he was wounded because of our transgressions". The Great Isaiah Scroll here has, "And he was pierced because of our transgressions."

Verse 7: Here the Messiah accepts the role G-d has given him; there is no protest in his mouth. Yeshua went to the crucifixion. Though no man was more innocent, he did not protest his innocence on the way to death. He did not plead for help from the crowd which only a week before had welcomed him into Jerusalem and wanted to proclaim him king. He did not cry out for pity. He remained silent before them all. His only concern was for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, which he expressed to some women who were weeping for him along the way.

In verse 8: "For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of My people to whom the stroke was due." Who exactly was cut off? If this refers to Israel being cut off from the land of Israel, then who is the "My people" to whom the stroke was due? If this refers to Israel being sent into exile because of Israel's sins, then Israel's sufferings cannot be said to be innocent, and thereby suffering for OUR transgressions (whoever the OUR is - presumably, according to one interpretation, the Gentiles).

"Land of the living" is used elsewhere in scripture, for example, by the same prophet in Is. 38:11 to refer to Hezekiah's expectation of dying young; in Jer. 11:19 about a plot to kill Jeremiah; and in Job 28:13, where it is stated that wisdom cannot be found in the land of the living. From these contexts it seems clear that this expression means literally what it says, and does not refer to the land of Israel.

In verse 9 the word for "death" here is no more a plural than is the word "chaim", for "life", a plural. (It is also used for the death of the king of Tyre in Ez. 28:10.) Many Hebrew nouns use a plural in this way to describe a "state of being" (such as "youth", "life", "death", etc.)

In verse 10, why does he suffer? Because it is the L-rd's will to crush him, not because He was unable to save him. And why? In order that he might be a guilt-offering. Note that the Great Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls renders this, "But the L-rd wanted him crushed, and he pierced him (to death)...." The modern Hebrew Massoretic text reads, "Yet it pleased the L-rd to crush him by disease", or "to crush him and make him sick". (The King James translates this as "he hath put him to grief"; and the NIV as "and cause him to suffer".) The Dead Sea Scroll, however, is 1000 years earlier than the Masoretic text, and it is possible that it reflects an earlier (or more accurate) tradition. (See Geever and Heinle, as above). "He shall seed his seed (or more accurately, "a seed")...." This is the same expression, "a seed", used in Psalm 22:30 (31), "A seed shall serve him", also a prophecy about the messiah. (See Driver and Neubauer, pp. lvii-lviii, for an extended discussion.)

In verse 11, the Masoretic text reads, "Of the travail of his soul, he shall see to the full"; or, in the King James Version, "He shall see the travail of his soul, and be satisfied". In the Great Isaiah Scroll, the text has an added word: "From the suffering of his soul he shall see LIGHT and be satisfied". According to the authors of "Messianic Prophecies from a Dead Sea Scroll", the Hebrew reads much more naturally with this added word, as in the Masoretic text there are two back-to-back verbs without it, and this would be unusual in Hebrew usage. Can this be a reference to a resurrection for the sufferer?

In verse 12, the sufferer enjoys his triumph. But it is not a triumph won by force of arms, but rather, it is his reward from G-d. "Therefore I will give him the mighty for a portion, and he shall divide the strong as a spoil, for a reward". As it says in Psalm 2, which may also refer to the Messiah, "Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations (Gentiles?) for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for you possession".

So, it is possible to interpret these passages as being of one whole, and referring to a suffering Messiah. Certainly these were so understood by the early followers of Yeshua. For example, they are explained that way in Acts 8:32-3, and in I Peter 2:22-25, where parts of Isaiah 53 are quoted or paraphrased almost verbatim. In other words, some people of that period (which was before the Temple was destroyed), who were therefore very familiar with the sacrificial system, saw the parallels here with the life (and death) of Yeshua. They did not miss the meaning of the words "sprinkle" and "guilt-offering", and saw the passage in that light.

QUESTION: But you misunderstand. What Isaiah is talking about is how the Gentiles will see the suffering they have caused Israel and repent of it, when they see Israel glorified. This repentance will "cure" them and make them whole again, and right with G-d.

RESPONSE: Well, let us assume, for the moment (for the sake of argument), that this is the case, and these passages do refer to Israel. What then becomes of the justice of G-d? For He would be making the innocent suffer on account of another's sins. And no HUMAN is ever substituted and made to suffer for another's sins. THAT concept is specifically denied by scripture. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father with him, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son with him; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20). And Psalm 49:8 says, "No man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to G-d a ransom for him - for too costly is the redemption of their soul".

Further, Israel cannot be considered sinless and righteous, which is another requirement of the passage. (Isaiah even declares himself to be a man "of unclean lips", who lives among "a people of unclean lips" (Is. 6:5). And what becomes of the (supposed) doctrine that it is Israel's sins which are keeping the Messiah from appearing?

In addition, neither did Israel ever undertake her exiles voluntarily, nor were her sufferings optional. The servant, on the other hand, humbles himself, and opens not his mouth in protest. He is not rebellious (as in Is. 50, verse 5). He does not turn away backward. When Israel suffers, however, she cries for justice, as do her prophets when they suffer: "You understand, Oh L-rd; remember me and care for me. Avenge me on my persecutors....Why is my pain unending? And my wound grievous and incurable?" (Jeremiah 10:15,18). "Oh daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" (Psalm 137:8,9). "Pay them back what they deserve, Oh L-rd, for what their hands have done. Put a veil over their hearts, and may your curse be upon them. Pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the heavens of the L-rd" (Lamentations 3:64-66).

On the other hand, it is promised that "G-d shall redeem my soul from the power of the grave" (Ps. 49:16; verse 15 in Christian Bibles). In the sacrifice of Yeshua, it is G-d Himself intervening to bear the punishment. And He is the only one who can truly be considered innocent.

QUESTION: How can you claim to be a Jew and a Christian at the same time? Isn't this deceitful?

RESPONSE: Both sides would agree that a Jew is a person who follows Torah. To reject Torah is to reject Judaism. The sticking point comes when we consider what it means to follow Torah. To one side, following Torah means living according to the covenant made at Sinai. For these, accepting Yeshua is seen to be a rejection of Torah, for a covenant which does not yet exist. For believers in Yeshua, rejection of Messiah is seen to be the most explicit rejection of Torah possible.

As you have noticed, there is "Jew by descent" and "Jew by practice". So in the first instance there is no problem. The problem occurs with the second, because one groups states that they, and they alone, practice Judaism as G-d intended it to be; and the other group makes the exact same claim. One side says, "Messiah is yet to come"; and the other says "Messiah has come". One side says, "The Covenant at Sinai is the current covenant"; the other side says, "The New Covenant has been made". So the answer to the question of "What is the true Judaism?" hinges on how these questions are answered. Both sides are vocal, stubborn, and completely assured that they are right.

QUESTION: Why should we believe in the Resurrection when even some of those who were present didn't believe in it?

RESPONSE: Why should we believe in the revelation given at Sinai, when even some of those who were present didn't believe in it?

What a poor bit of fable the resurrection story is, if that's all it is. First, none of the PRIME players in the later church are depicted as present to see it happen. Peter, James, John, Mary, et. all, are absent. Wouldn't it have been a better fable on their part to have made themselves a part of it, to have said, "We witnessed his rising?" This would have given them greater status in the church. And then - to whom does Yeshua first appear? To them? To Peter, his supposed "vicar" and possible head of the new believers? No. Not even to James or John, but instead, to Mary of Magdala, a minor character in the cast.

Instead, what you have is a straight, simple narrative, each witness speaking from his own view; they didn't even get together to coordinate their stories.

Neither do you find the sort of invective you would have expected from a fable. There is never a word said against Caiaphas, or Annas, or Pilate - no derogatory adjectives. Again, just straightforward facts. First this happened, and then that.

Again, as Pascal says, human beings are very susceptible to bribery, changes of mind and heart, lying, promises, and fear of torture or death. Only one of the apostles had to deny this story later, and the jig would have been up. Yet none of them did; instead, they died rather than to recant.

QUESTION: How can you say that Isaiah 7:14 mentions a "virgin"? The word used there is "almah"; and everyone knows that this doesn't mean "virgin" in Hebrew. The word for "virgin" is betulah.

RESPONSE: "Almah", which is sometimes said to mean simply "young woman", is used in several places, including Gen. 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:26, Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8, Prov. 30:19, and so on. In some of these places it would seem most likely that a virgin is implied, if not stated. For example, in Gen. 24:16, Rebekah is called a "betulah", a "virgin". In Gen. 24:43, she is called an "almah". And when the Tenach was translated into Greek (for the Septuagint), the word "parthenos", simple Greek for "virgin", was used in Isaiah 7:14. (And this was done more than a century before the birth of Yeshua.)

However, there are, indeed, SOME occasions when "parthenos' can mean something other than a virgin (though that is not its usual use). On the other hand, there also seem to be some occasions when "betulah" might NOT mean "virgin". For example, in Joel 1:8, it might refer to a married woman. And in the Genesis passage, (Gen. 24:16), it is further qualified by the phrase, "a virgin whom no man had known", or, "a virgin, neither had any man known her", which might seem an unecessary qualification if that were to be considered obvious merely from the use of the word "betulah".

So, part of our problem is that we are living 2000 years, and in some cases, 3400 years or so (as in the case of Genesis), from the time when these writers put these words down on paper; and there is no one living today who can know, with aboslute certaintly, all the possible shades and nuances of meaning that these words had. "Almah", for example, is thought to derive from "alem", "to grow up", "to become marriageable". Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate (directly from the Hebrew), thought that it meant, specifically, "a young virgin". This would suit the Jewish tradition about Rebekah, that she was only a child, perhaps as young as three years old, when she was betrothed to Isaac. Others have suggested that it simply means "an unmarried woman", who, by implication, though, would still be a virgin. (In the related languages, Arabic and Syriac, the related word is never used of married women.)

QUESTION: But what does this matter, anyway? Isaiah was talking to King Ahaz. What good would a child to be born 700 years in the future be to him?

RESPONSE: Certainly there was a crisis in the days of King Ahaz. The people feared that the nation would be destroyed, and that nothing would remain. G-d offers Ahaz the chance to choose a sign, any sign, as a proof to him that this would not occur. Ahaz refuses; but G-d offers him (and the believing remnant of Israel) a sign anyway. It is capable of a double meaning--both as to the current situation, and as a hint of things to come.

Thus, a child will be born. Before the child is very old, old enough to distinguish between good and evil, the enemy nations they so feared will have been overthrown. That is, within a period of about three years, the country will be delivered from its enemies. (This period would also match the length of Yeshua's ministry.)

However, the people may also be pointed to another, second child. Isaiah's contemporary, Micah, was declaring about this time, that "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for Me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, even from the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2). The prophet goes on to say, "Therefore Israel will be abandoned, until the time comes when she who is in labor gives birth...." (verse 3). Now, this too is capable of a double meaning. It can be a reference to the notion that exiled Israel will be reborn in a day, as is stated in Isaiah 66:7. But it can also, in addition, refer back to the statement just made, that is, meaning until the specific child of verse 2 is born. So, in other words, the people are promised a child - both in Micah, and in Isaiah, as a sign of G-d's promise that the nation will endure.

Isaiah and Micah further intersect when Isaiah, in chapter 9, goes on to announce, "For unto us a is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his kingdom there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne...from that time on and forever." This child coincides with the one from Bethlehem, "whose origins are from of old, even from the days of eternity".

Thus, the people are to be reassured: the nation will survive. A child will be born to prove this; and, by way of double assurance, G-d promises yet another child, far in the future, who will sit on David's throne and of whose kingdom there will be no end. From this the people are to take heart and hope.

QUESTION: But isn't that a mistranslation of Isaiah 9?

RESPONSE: Usually, the practice in Hebrew is that if there is a list of words, all of the words will be of the same type, unless they are specifically identified otherwise. This is because Hebrew is so economical in its use of words. Thus, if one word in a list is a noun, all of the other words in that same list should also be nouns, unless there is a specific exception. Some of the words in the list of titles for this child ("Wonderful, Counselor", etc.) are undeniably nouns; therefore, the rest of them should be regarded as nouns, as well. Some modern Jewish translations insert verbs between the nouns, thus obtaining something like "Wonderful in counsel is the Mighty G-d, the Everlasting Father" etc., but there is no linguistic reason for this.

Note that the word for 'Wonderful' here is the same as that used in the story of the birth of Samson, where the Angel of the L-rd, asked his name, replies, "it is wonderful", (Judges 13:18) meaning, "full of wonder, ineffable, mysterious, full of awe". Neither this nor any of the other names of the list are likely to have been applied to a human being.

Further, some Jewish thought also derived hints of the Messiah from this passage. For example, 'R. Yose the Galilean said: "The Messiah's name is Peace, because it is said, 'Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace...' (Perek Shalom). And in the Midrash Mishle (from the 9th century, perhaps from Babylonia): "The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Miracle, Counselor, Messiah, El ("G-d"), Hero ("Gibbor"; another possible translation for "Mighty"); and Everlasting Father of Peace".

QUESTION: Look, when the true messiah comes, everyone will know he is the messiah. We won't have to go around wondering about it.

RESPONSE: How? Merely because he says he is the messiah? A lot of people have announced this, and some of them (Bar Kochba, Shabbatai Zvi, etc.) have been believed. No, they will know him if he fulfills the prophecies about him in the Scriptures. That's why the prophecies are there, to serve as his ID card. For example, he must be of the House of David, etc. Don't take any false messiahs.

So when he begins his mission and calls all of the Jews to him, are you just going to wait around until he finishes his mission to be sure of who he is? That is, you're going to wait until Israel is gathered home before you get up and go home? Sounds kinda like circular reasoning....

QUESTION: In any case, there's no proof Yeshua was born at Bethlehem. That's just a preposterous story made up to make him seem to fit the prophecies!

RESPONSE: Of course, we weren't there, so we can't really say of our own knowledge where Yeshua was born. But let's look at it like this: supposing I were the writer of a gospel, and that I felt it was necessary, according to my interpretation of the scriptures, to have my candidate for the messiah be born in Bethlehem. BUT, his parents lived in Galilee. So, in my account, I would have to get them from Galilee to Bethelehem in time for the birth. How should I accomplish this?

Wouldn't it be much easier for me simply to write that his parents had personal business there of some sort, and went there for a time, and that during this time the child was born, and then they returned home again? No one would ever be able to check up on this. WHY would I write that there was an external event, the census, which required them to go to Bethlehem??? EVERYONE ELSE would know whether there had been such a census or not - and if it hadn't happened, it could make me look like a liar straight off. And WORSE, why would I make my account say that this census was for ALL of the Roman world? Then, for SURE, everyone would know about it - and nobody would be convinced of the truth of my story. So, this detail would make it seem less likely that the gospels are inaccurate here; instead, it would seem more likely that they are telling the truth about this, and that there really was such a census, which everyone could remember.

Did they really require everyone to return to a home city for a census in those days? Again, the same arguments as above apply: everyone in those days would have known whether this was true or not. And, we have found a papyrus in Egypt from a different census, for that of 104 C.E., requiring that everyone in Egypt was required to return home for that census. ( See A. Deissmann, 'Light from the Ancient East', 1927, pp. 270-271).

QUESTION: Who is the "Word" of G-d?

RESPONSE: When the Jewish people returned from exile to Babylon, not all of them could speak Hebrew. Little by little more and more of them began to use Aramaic, although Hebrew itself remained the language of a substantial number. To assist those who could not understand the Hebrew, a series of translations and commentaries on the scriptures was made. These were called "targums". At first, it was even forbidden to write down these targums, lest they should come to have equal authority with the scriptures. These translations (and commentaries) would sometimes be read in the synagogues at the conclusion of the reading of the scripture, so that the congregation could fully understand what was being read. (See, for example, Nehemiah 8:8: "And they read in the book, in the Law of G-d, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading".) So, while these translations and notes were in no way to be considered equal to scripture, they do give us hints as to what the interpreters believed then, and how they viewed certain passages.

The two main targums which we have to this day are the Targum of Onkelos on the five books of Moses, and that of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the prophets, although fragments of other targums also remain. In places in these targums the writers, in order to show reverence for G-d, substitute a word or phrase such as "The Holy One", or "The Name", for that word. In places, they also substitute "The Word of G-d", or the "Memra" ('Word') for G-d. For example, in Exodus 19:17, instead of "Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet G-d", one can read in the targum, "...to meet the Word of G-d". According to Alfred Edershem, the use of this word "memra" occurs over 600 times in the targums in relation to G-d. (See, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah", Alfred Edersheim)

Thus we have, in the targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, "And the Word of the L-rd caused to descend upon...Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire...." (Gen.19:24), instead of the usual text, "Then the (Divine Name) rained upon Sodom," etc. In Genesis 1:27 we have, in the same targum, "And the Word of (Divine Name) created man in his likeness...." Genesis 15:6 reads in the targum of Onkelos, "Abraham believed in the Word of (Divine Name), and He counted it to him as righteousness". In Genesis 22:8, Abraham replies to his son (in the Jersualem targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel ) "The Word of the L-rd will provide me a lamb...." The same targum even says, in reference to the Ten Commandments, "And the Word of the L-rd spoke all these glorious words" (Exodus 20:1).

Now we can see with more clarity just what it was that John was referring to when he began his gospel with the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word WAS G-d. Through him were all things made; without him nothing was made...."

QUESTION: Who is the "Spirit" of G-d?

RESPONSE: The "Spirit" of the L-rd is frequently mentioned in the scriptures. For example, in Numbers 11:25, "Then the L-rd came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took of the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied...." The Spirit of G-d is said to be hovering over the waters at the beginning of the creation (Gen. 1:2) . In Numbers 24:2, the Spirit of G-d comes upon Balaam so that he can prophecy. The same thing occurs to Saul, in I Samuel 10:10; and so on. In Isaiah 63:10 there is the statement, "Yet they rebelled against Him and grieved His Holy Spirit". And in the targums, too, there is this same expression, "Holy Spirit". For Gen. 6:3, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever....", the targum of Johnathan ben Uzziel says, "Have I not given my Holy Spirit in them...." For the question, "Who has directed the Spirit of the L-rd....?" (Isaiah 40:13), the same targum has, "Who has directed the Holy Spirit?"

So we see that there is a divine Spirit which may rest upon man, sent from the L-rd, and yet which does not encompass Him in its entirety.

QUESTION: How can you say that you believe in one G-d, when you actually believe in three?

RESPONSE: We believe in the same G-d Who is presented in Torah. Here He is called, variously, "El" and "Elohim". "El" is the singular form for "G-d", and "Elohim" is the plural form. That "elohim" really is a plural form is seen by its use in such passages as Judges 10:13. Joshua 23:16, Exodus 18:11, and even in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods ("elohim") before Me" ( Ex. 20:3). When used in reference to the G-d of Israel, though, "Elohim" is always translated in the singular. Perhaps there is a form of "hint" intended here?

In Genesis, there is the phrase, "Let Us make man in Our image". Some people think that this means G-d is speaking to the angels. But we are not made in the image of angels. And, in Genesis 3:22, after man's disobedience, it says, "Behold, the man is become as one of Us". This is not an expression that G-d would have used if he were speaking merely to an angel, because angels are not equal with G-d, they are less, only created beings. G-d would not speak to an angel as an equal.

In the Shema, it says, "Hear O Israel, (Divine Name) our G-ds (Divine Name) is one" (Deut. 6:4). The word for "one" here is "echad". Echad is used a number of places in the scripture to indicate a "unity", rather than a "singleness". For example, In Genesis 1:5, evening and morning together make up "yom echad", or one day. In Genesis 2:24 a man and wife shall cleave together and be one (echad) flesh. In Numbers 13:23 there is one (echad) cluster of grapes. There is another word in Hebrew for one, "yaheed", which is an indivisible unity, a pure, mathematical "one", or "an only one", but it is not used in the Shema. Likewise the word "rak" might have been used, or the word "bilti". An example of the use of "bilti" is found in Exodus 22:20, "He who sacrifices to any gods save only (bilti) Adonai shall be utterly destroyed."

But these words were not used. They are the ones one would have expected to find had the intention of the writer been to emphasize that there was only one, to the exclusion of all others, of what was being mentioned. Since one of these words, which clearly expresses that meaning, was not used, one is forced to conclude that Moses was not expressing that concept here. (Maimonides, in his second statement of faith, substitutes here the word "yaheed" for "echad", perhaps because he was aware of this very difficulty.)

QUESTION: But there is no place in Judaism where G-d assumes a human form!

RESPONSE: In Isaiah 6 the prophet says "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw my L-rd seated upon a high and lofty throne; and the skirts of His robe filled the Temple". Sure sounds like he saw something that resembled a human form. Seated on a throne? Skirts of His robe?

And at Sinai the people all hear the voice of G-d. This is on the same level as his assuming a human form, in order to be able to better communicate with us. (Some try to say that it is not considered anthropomorphic for HaShem to have spoken with a voice, because a "voice" - that is, sound waves - only emanate from a Being, and are not a real representation of Him. But light (or photons) are also only "emanations", and thus in that case a "sight" of HaShem would not be anthropomorphic, either.) Certainly, G-d CAN assume such a form, if He wishes. Surely no one would want to claim that this would be beyond His power?

QUESTION: Son of G-d doesn't have any special meaning. A lot of people are called sons of G-d in the scripture. We're ALL sons of G-d.

RESPONSE: Yes, but in Psalm 2 there seems to be a mention of a special "son of G-d". Here, the nations of the world plot against G-d and his "anointed" (the word in Hebrew here is "moshiach"). Then the Psalm goes on to show how G-d laughs at the nations which would try and stop His plans. He says, (verse 6) "But I (G-d) have installed My king on Zion, My holy mountain. Let me tell of the decree: the L-rd said to me, 'You are My son, I have fathered you this day. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your domain, your estate, the limits of the earth'."

This sure sounds like it is, at least, messianic. And that there is a particular individual here in mind - "My king", etc. And who is it who will inherit the nations of the earth, and who will rule the limits of the earth? Can this be a suggested hint of something, of a further meaning in the text?

In the Talmud (Suk. 52a), there is the comment, "The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Messiah ben David..."Ask of me anything, and I will give it to you, for it is written, 'The Lord said to me, "You are my son, this day I have begotten you, ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance." And when he will see that Messiah ben Joseph is slain, he will say before him, "Master of the World! I ask nothing of you except life!". G-d will say to him, "Even before you said 'life', your father David prophesied about you, as it is written, 'He asked life of you ,and you gave it to him'." (Ps. 21). (Edersheim suspects that the term "Messiah ben Joseph" was a later emendation, and that the original reads "Messiah ben David".)

Similarly, in Proverbs 30:4: "Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the extremities of the earth? What is His name, or His son's name, if you know it?" Another hint?

QUESTION: Does the name "Yeshua" appear in the Tenakh?

RESPONSE: In Matthew 1:21, Joseph is told to call his wife's, Miryam's, newborn son "Yeshua", because, says the angel, he will save his people from their sins ("Yeshua" means "Salvation"). This is in keeping with the practice in the scriptures of giving names which had specific meanings.

Thus, practically whenever you find the word "salvation" in the Tenakh, it is virtually identical with the name "Yeshua". Psalms 9:14 might therefore just as easily read, "I will rejoice in Thy Yeshua (salvation)". Psalm 91:16 might read, "With long life will I satisfy him, and show him My Yeshua (salvation)".

In Isaiah 62:11, you can read, "Say to the daughter of Zion, behold, your Yeshua comes; behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him".

In Habbakkuk 3:13, there is the statement, "You went forth for the Yesha (a form of Yeshua) of Your people; for Yesha (again a form of Yeshua) your Messiah".

And thus, in Luke 2:29-30, it is only natural that the old tzaddik Shimon should say, with the infant Yeshua in his arms, "Lord, now let your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your Yeshua". As it says in Isaiah 52:10, "The L-rd will lay bare His holy arm in the sight of all the nations (Gentiles), and all the ends of the earth will see the Yeshuat (a form of Yeshua) of our G-d".

QUESTION: Isn't the New Testament anti-Semitic? Doesn't Yeshua condemn the Jews and call them "sons of the devil"?

RESPONSE: ...Rabbi Harvey Falk, in his book "Jesus the Pharisee", makes some interesting points about this, especially in regard to Matthew 23, the "woe to the Pharisees" chapter.

The Pharisees (notes Falk) were divided into two main camps, the Bet Shammai, and Bet Hillel. Beth Shammai opposed accepting converts into Judaism. Rabbi Eliezer (see Sanhedrin 105a) held that no gentile, no matter how righteous, could have a place in the world to come. (See also Shabbat 31a). Aquila, a famous convert to Judaism, was almost rejected because of R. Eliezer's attitude (see Midrash Genesis Rabbah 70:5). Bet Hillel, on the other hand, welcomed converts.

"Woe to you Pharisees (i.e., Bet Shammai). You shut up heaven in men's faces...nor will you let those enter who are trying to do so." This now appears in a different light, when placed into context.

Dosa ben Harkinas, a famous sage of the period, once called his brother a "first-born of Satan" because he sided with Bet Shammai in a decision. (See Yevamot 16a). It was also said (Berakhot 11a and Berakhot 1:4, Yerushalmi) that "he who observes the teachings of Bet Shammai deserves death". When Rabbi Tarfon acted in accord with Bet Shammai in one case, and then escaped being killed by robbers, the Sages told him (Mishnah, Berakhot 10b) that he would have deserved to have been killed. These remarks are not considered to be anti-semitic when placed in their proper context.

Bet Shammai was also implicated in the murder of a Zechariah ben Berechia in the Temple (see Josephus, Wars, 4:335), possibly as instigators of the Zealots, who committed the murder. Thus, the condemnation of these Pharisees (in this case perhaps only from Bet Shammai) for the murder(s) which their fathers did, including the blood of Zechariah ben Berechia, may fit into place.

Bet Shammai is also seen as grouping together to confront Hillel (Betsah 20a) and his followers (Betsah 20b) in the Temple, the way Yeshua was later confronted. Falk notes that there is no record of Bet Hillel acting in this way.

Ergo, the events of Matthew 23 fit right into the Jewish context of the Second Temple period, and have to be wrenched away from it in order to arrive at some sort of anti-Semitic conclusion.

It should also be noted that the Talmud itself complains of hypocrites among the "plague of Pharisees". "What is a plague of a Pharisee? He teaches legal tricks...." (Sotah 22). "A foolish saint, a subtle knave, a woman Pharisee, and the plague of Pharisees bring ruin on the world" (Mishnah Sotah 3,4). "What is the plague of Pharisees? Scholars acting as lawyers who give counsel by which, apparently in strict form of law, the law may be circumvented" (Sotah 19a, Yerushalmi).

QUESTION: What about calling Jews "sons of the devil"?

RESPONSE: When Yeshua calls some of the leaders "sons of the devil" (John 8), it is (a) not a criticism of ALL Jews - in fact, the inference is clear that he is simply calling them "unJewish", the way that we might call someone "unAmerican". To call someone "unJewish", i.e., NOT a son of Abraham, but rather a son of the devil, is NOT a criticism of Jewishness. And (b) neither was it unique: Dosa ben Harkinas referred to his own brother as a "first-born of Satan" because he sided with Bet Shammai in a dispute with Bet Hillel (Yevamot 16a). John the Baptist refers to his opponents as a "brood of vipers" (Matt. 3:7). This may be equivalent in Hebrew to "sons of the Snake" (i.e., the devil); a similar expression, "creatures of the Snake", occurs in the Qumran Thanksgiving Hymns IQH3:17. And in Isaiah 1:4, Israel is called the "seed of evildoers, sons who corrupt". Therefore, such expressions fit neatly into the milieu of the times.