I would, respectfully, completely disagree with Most’s article. His biggest problem is “illigitimate totality transfer.” In other words, we cannot import our understanding of “messiah” onto Hillel’s (or any debate in the Mishnah/Tosefta/Talmud). Hillel, in these passages, means nothing more than “God’s annointed one,” not some eschatological king that will usher in the eschaton for Israel. This should be clear by the mere fact that Hillel is writing centuries after Hezekiah and, therefore, knows that Hezekiah was not the eschatological mashiach.

When Christianity comes along and starts talking about mashiach in an eschatological sense and start to use Jewish exegesis of Isaiah 7.14, the Jewish community correctly stops speaking of “messiah” in these verses because they are not talking about the eschatological sense and both do not want to be accused of thinking in this sense and do not want to add fuel to the fire known as Christianity.

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to say, like Most does, that centuries after Hezekiah a rabbi like Hillel would come along saying that he is the eschatological mashiach when it is clear, since the eschaton is not present during the time of Hillel, that he was not. Of course, being a Catholic theologian, it would not be the first time Most was wrong.

Very helpful feedback. I greatly appreciate the interaction, so thank you for your comments.

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this article by William G. Most. Most argues that the Jews did see Isaiah 7:14 as messianic, but that they later changed their views in response to Christian claims. At the end of his article, he concludes:

* * *

We saw that the Targum Jonathan clearly makes Isaiah 9:5-6 messianic. Then, by the fact that 7:14 speaks of the same child _ since both texts are part of the Book of Immanuel _ 7:14 must also be messianic. We saw that the Jews once, e.g., Hillel, did consider 7:14 messianic, but gave it up to deter Christians from using 7:14 as messianic. So the fact that the targum does not
mark 7:14 as such is readily explained by the distortion later introduced into the targums by the Jews who wanted to keep Christians from using them _ a fact admitted by several major modern Jewish scholars.

* * *

I agree with you that, if the evidence is not there, we should not try to force it. But at the same time, if it is, I think we should use it.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

- NB

The reason I bring this up is not to start a fight, but to simply point out that the Jewish community has never considered Isaiah 7.14 to be Messianic. They have always considered it a Christian “invention.”

That does not mean that is wasn’t Messianic, as Matthew, an author of inspired Scripture, shows us that it was.

I just think that it is intellectually dishonest to say that “the Jews before the time of Jesus saw key passages like…Isaiah 7:14…as messianic in nature” because there is no Jewish literature that says this. In fact, Jewish literature related to this verse is unequivocal in their understanding that this passage is not Messianic.

Christians should not be ashamed or scared to admit this because we hold the NT to be revelation from God and not Jewish exegesis. Therefore, since Matthew writes that it is Messianic, that should be enough…with or without Jewish agreement.

Does that make sense?

“1 Come, and let us return to the LORD;
      For He has torn, but He will heal us;
      He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
       2 After two days He will revive us;
      On the third day He will raise us up,
      That we may live in His sight.
       3 Let us know,
      Let us pursue the knowledge of the LORD.
      His going forth is established as the morning;
      He will come to us like the rain,
      Like the latter and former rain to the earth.”

I understand where both you and McDowell are going with this, but the point of the translation in the LXX does not prove that the Jewish community saw this passage as Messianic, it only shows that Matthew did not play around with the MT text of Isaiah and, instead, quoted the LXX.

So, I will restate my original question: Where do you find the evidence from Jewish literature that they saw Isaiah 7.14 as Messianic?

Great article. Thanks!

This may be a rabbit trail, but I’ve been asked about it by many members of my church who have been studying Revelation.

You wrote: “Nearly two millennia after Rome destroyed Jerusalem, the Jews again established a nation in the Promised Land in 1948. As Jewish-Christian scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains, “The restoration of the Jewish State is a fulfillment of those prophecies that spoke of a regathering [of the nation] in unbelief in preparation for judgment” (cf. Ezekiel 20:33–38; 22:17–22; 36:22–24; Isaiah 11:11, 12; Zephaniah 2:1, 2).[9]”

Is it your view that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of these prophecies? If so, I have a couple of interpretational questions for you. First, most Jews live outside of Israel. Doesn’t this indicate that the modern state of Israel is not the re-gathering prophesied?

Second, suppose Israel’s enemies should overrun them in the next few years, desytroying the State of Israel. Would this negate the prophescies regarding the ingathering of the Jews cited above?

I’m have a great interest in this because the topic came at the last Expositor’s Institute during one of the dialogues with John MacArthur.

If I’m not mistaken John MacArthur recently (past 18 months or so) made a statement regarding the modern state of Israel to the congregation at Grace Church which was posted on their website. Perhaps you could provide a link to this or tell me where I can find a copy of his statement.

Blessings to you and John
Steve Lamm

Thanks for your comment.

McDowell does site Targum Isaiah in reference to Isaiah 7:14 on page 176 of his New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (Admittedly, this reference does not do much but reiterate the text of the verse, so it is of little value for the point I was trying to make.)

In my opinion, the more impressive Jewish evidence comes from page 170 where McDowell notes, “When the translators of the Septuagint translated Isaiah 7:14 into Greek they used the Greek word parthenos. To them Isaiah 7:14 denoted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.”

The point being that Matthew did not invent a unique interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 in order to support the virgin birth. Rather, the virgin birth was an interpretation that the Jews recognized many years before Jesus was born.

I probably should have clarified that in the article. So thanks for pointing it out.

- NB

However, McDowell does not have a Jewish source for Isaiah 7.14, so your footnote was incorrect in attributing something to your source that was not there.

Where do you find the evidence from Jewish literature that they saw Isaiah 7.14 as Messianic?