Yeshayahu's Visions of Mashiach/2
< Yeshayahu's Visions of Mashiach
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Version as of 06:10, 14 December 2020 by Rivka.Kahan (talk | contribs)
Yeshayahu's Visions of Mashiach
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators take three general approaches to the fundamental questions of Yeshayahu 2:1-4 and Yeshayahu 11. Many commentators understand both chapters, as well as the parallel verses in Mikhah 4:1-3, to refer to the Messianic era. The commentators vary as to whether the messianic images of these prophecies should be interpreted literally or figuratively. Commentators offer various interpretations of how these messianic prophecies fit into the context of Yeshayahu's other prophecies.
Other commentators understand both prophecies as describing the reign of Chizkiyahu, because the surrounding prophecies of Sefer Yeshayahu relate to Yeshayahu's own time period. They interpret the messianic images of the prophecies as allegorical descriptions of Chizkiyahu's reign. As they do not understand Yeshayahu 2:1-4 as a reference to the Messianic era, they also do not read Mikhah 4:1-3 as messianic. This approach must explain why Yeshayahu's language is so closely parallel to Mikhah's if the prophets are describing two separate events.
A third approach is found among commentators who interpret Yeshayahu 2:1-4 and Mikhah 4:1-3 as messianic (because of the phrase "אַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים"), but understand Yeshayahu 11 as a prophecy about Chizkiyahu's reign. These commentators read the images of Yeshayahu 11as allegorical descriptions of Chizkiyahu's successful era.
The Prophecies Describe Yemot HaMashiach
This approach interprets both Yeshayahu 2:1-4 and Yeshayahu 11, as well as the parallel verses in Mikhah 4:1-3, as prophecies about the Messianic era.
Sources:Targum Yonatan, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Ramban, Radak, R. Yosef Kara, Abarbanel, Metzudat David, Malbim
Meaning of “אַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים” – This approach understands the phrase "אַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים" as a reference to the time of Mashiach.
Messianic Imagery – The descriptions of world peace (e.g. 2:4) and universal acceptance of Hashem (e.g. 2:2) are understood to refer to the qualities of Yemot HaMashiach.
Literal or Allegorical? This approach subdivides as to whether to understand the prophecies literally or allegorically.
- The images of peace among predatory and non-predatory animals (11:6-8) are meant to be understood literally (Ramban, Radak, Metzudat David, Malbim, Abarbanel). This interpretation reads the verses in the most straightforward way possible1. The literal interpretation of these prophecies represents a vision of the Messianic era that includes far-reaching changes in the functioning of the natural world; peace and harmony will be so profound and universal as to exist not only among human beings, but in nature as well.
- The images of peace among animals are meant to be understood allegorically (Ibn Ezra, Rambam). These commentators interpret the verses as allegorically describing harmony among the powerful and vulnerable of society. The Messianic era will be characterized by the qualities described in Yeshayahu’s prophecies, such as world peace, Jewish monarchy over Eretz Yisrael, and universal acceptance of Hashem’s authority, but not by a change in the functioning of the natural world. This approach is consistent with Rambam's philosophical rationalism, which leads him to seek interpretations that minimize the miraculous and are consistent with human reason.
How Could Such a Supernatural Transformation (11:6-8) Occur? The commentators who interpret the verses literally must explain how such a supernatural transformation can occur. They offer one of two approaches:
- While the verses describe a change in natural law as it functions currently, this simply represents a return to the original state of the world (Ramban, Radak). During the Messianic era, the world will return to the state of perfection that existed at the creation of the world, when animals did not prey on each other.
- The widespread knowledge of Hashem among human beings will be so profound that it will even have a metaphysical impact on animals, who lack reason (Metzudat David, Malbim).
Relevance to Yeshayahu’s Era – Commentators offer a variety of suggestions as to how Yeshayahu's prophecies about Mashiach fit into the context of his prophecies about his own time period:
b) Malbim: The prophecies about Mashiach form part of Yeshayahu’s rebuke of his people. Am Yisrael is choosing to learn from the ways of other nations, but in the end of days all of the nations will seek Hashem. As such, the Jewish people should turn to Hashem immediately. The reason that the prophecies are introduced as relating to Yehuda and Yerushalayim, even though their messianic content relates to the whole world, is that they are intended as rebuke for the Jewish people during Yeshayahu’s time.
c) R. Yosef Kara, Abarbanel: After foretelling destruction and punishment, Yeshayahu includes an element of solace by prophesying that there remains a root underground that will give forth the shoot of Yishai and lead to the coming of Mashiach.
- The juxtaposition of the messianic prophecies with those regarding Chizkiyahu teach that the miracles of Chizkiyahu’s reign are to be perceived in light of the miracles of the future redemption (Radak, Metzudat David). One shouldn’t be surprised by the miracles associated with Chizkiyahu, such as the fall of Sancheriv, because Mashiach (from the family of Chizkiyahu) will perform even greater miracles, such as the ingathering of the exiles.
- Yeshayahu’s rebuke of the Jewish people forms the context for the prophecy about Mashiach:
b) Malbim: The prophecies about Mashiach form part of Yeshayahu’s rebuke of his people. Am Yisrael is choosing to learn from the ways of other nations, but in the end of days all of the nations will seek Hashem. As such, the Jewish people should turn to Hashem immediately. The reason that the prophecies are introduced as relating to Yehuda and Yerushalayim, even though their messianic content relates to the whole world, is that they are intended as rebuke for the Jewish people during Yeshayahu’s time.
c) R. Yosef Kara, Abarbanel: After foretelling destruction and punishment, Yeshayahu includes an element of solace by prophesying that there remains a root underground that will give forth the shoot of Yishai and lead to the coming of Mashiach.
- After prophesying about the kingdom of Yehuda, Yeshayahu addresses the future of the other ten tribes: a) Rashi, Malbim: After mentioning the fall of Sancheriv, Yeshayahu prophesies what will happen to the ten that remain in exile. They will return during Yemot Hamashiach.
Relationship to Mikhah's Prophecy – These commentators also understand Mikhah 4:1-3 as referring to Mashiach (Ibn Ezra, Radak, Abarbanel, Metzudat David, Malbim).
Some commentators address the authorship of the verses. Abarbanel suggests that Yeshayahu was the first to receive this prophecy, as indicated by the phrase "הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָזָ֔ה יְשַֽׁעְיָ֖הוּ בֶּן־אָמ֑וֹץ"; Mikhah, by contrast, doesn’t include such language2. The ideas are the same, and any differences are insignificant or represent Mikhah’s attempt to explain the prophecy that they both received. As to the difference between the prophecies, Abarbanel interprets Mikhah 4:5 to mean that the nations will recall that, in the past, they walked in the ways of their own gods, but no longer do so during the Messianic era.
Rav Yoel Bin-Nun, in his article הבעיות החברתיות בתקופת חזקיהו ודמות המשיח בישעיהו ומיכה3, suggests that the differences between the prophecies may indicate that Mikhah’s vision of the Messianic era differs somewhat from Yeshayahu’s. Perhaps Mikhah’s prophecy suggest that all of the nations will accept Hashem and Judaism in a political sense during the Messianic era, but will continue to follow their own religions on a personal level4.
Some commentators address the authorship of the verses. Abarbanel suggests that Yeshayahu was the first to receive this prophecy, as indicated by the phrase "הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָזָ֔ה יְשַֽׁעְיָ֖הוּ בֶּן־אָמ֑וֹץ"; Mikhah, by contrast, doesn’t include such language2. The ideas are the same, and any differences are insignificant or represent Mikhah’s attempt to explain the prophecy that they both received. As to the difference between the prophecies, Abarbanel interprets Mikhah 4:5 to mean that the nations will recall that, in the past, they walked in the ways of their own gods, but no longer do so during the Messianic era.
Rav Yoel Bin-Nun, in his article הבעיות החברתיות בתקופת חזקיהו ודמות המשיח בישעיהו ומיכה3, suggests that the differences between the prophecies may indicate that Mikhah’s vision of the Messianic era differs somewhat from Yeshayahu’s. Perhaps Mikhah’s prophecy suggest that all of the nations will accept Hashem and Judaism in a political sense during the Messianic era, but will continue to follow their own religions on a personal level4.
The Prophecies Describe Chizkiyahu
This approach understands the prophecies in Yeshayahu 2:1-4 and Yeshayahu 11 as referring to the reign of Chizkiyahu, during Yeshayahu's own time. The messianic imagery is understood allegorically to describe the peace and prosperity during Chizkiyahu's reign. The parallel prophecy in Mikhah 4:1-3 is also interpreted as referring events closer in time to the historical period of the prophet.
Sources:R. Yosef ibn Kaspi
Meaning of "אַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים" – Ibn Kaspi believes that all of the expressions that appear in Yeshayahu 2:1-4 and Yeshayahu 11 can be understood allegorically to refer to Chizkiyahu, including the phrase “אַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים.” In his view, “אַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים” does not have a specifically eschatological connotation. This interpretation of אַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים is borne out by Devarim 31:29, which seems to use this phrase to refer to a time in the future that is not specifically messianic (as explained by R. David Zvi Hoffmann Devarim 31:29). Similarly, "אַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים" in Bemidbar 24:14 is understood by some commentators, including R. Yosef ibn Kaspi Bemidbar 24:14, as simply referring to a time in the future.
Messianic Imagery – Ibn Kaspi interprets the messianic imagery of these prophecies to refer to the time of Chizkiyahu. For example, Yeshayahu 2:4 means that Chizkiyahu’s time would be so peaceful and prosperous that there would be no need to study warfare. Similarly, Yeshayahu 11:2 describes Chizkiyahu’s wisdom and fairness in leadership.
Literal or Allegorical? Ibn Kaspi understands the images of these prophecies allegorically, as reflecting the peace and prosperity of Chizkiyahu’s time period.
Relevance to Yeshayahu’s Era – Ibn Kaspi is motivated by the context in which the prophecies appear. He believes that Yeshayahu’s prophecies in these two chapters, like the surrounding prophecies, concern his own time period.
Relationship to Mikhah – Ibn Kaspi interprets Mikhah 4:1-3 as referring to the building of the Second Beit Hamikdash. In his view, both the prophecies of Yeshayahu and of Mikhah describe events during the proximate historical time period of the prophets.
Ibn Kaspi must account for the similarity in language, which is particularly surprising if the prophets are describing two separate events. He resolves this problem by explaining that experiences of salvation at different points in history share similarities and may be expressed in the same terms5.
For Ibn Kaspi, the difference between the prophecies in Yeshayahu and Mikhah is not problematic, since he understands them to refer to two separate events.
Ibn Kaspi must account for the similarity in language, which is particularly surprising if the prophets are describing two separate events. He resolves this problem by explaining that experiences of salvation at different points in history share similarities and may be expressed in the same terms5.
For Ibn Kaspi, the difference between the prophecies in Yeshayahu and Mikhah is not problematic, since he understands them to refer to two separate events.
Perek 2 Describes Mashiach But Perek 11 May Describe Chizkiyahu
This approach interprets Perek 2 as describing Mashiach because of the explicit reference to "acharit hayamim," but interprets Perek 11 as referring to the reign of Chizkiyahu. Commentators offer explanations of how the messianic imagery of Perek 11 can be understood as describing Chizkiyahu's reign. The verses in Mikhah, which parallel Perek 2, are similarly understood as messianic prophecies.
Meaning of “acharit hayamim” – “Acharit hayamim” refers to Yemot haMashiach. Therefore, these commentators interpret Perek 2 as describing Mashiach, but suggest that Perek 11 may describe Chizkiyahu, since it lacks such a phrase to indicate a transition from prophecies about Yeshayahu’s time period.
Messianic Imagery – The messianic imagery of Perek 2 indeed refers to Mashiach. However, the imagery of Perek 11 is understood allegorically to refer to Chizkiyahu.
Shadal suggests three explanations of how the prophecies of Perek 11 can be understood to refer to the historical time period of Chizkiyahu:
a) prophecies often contain promises that are hyperbolic and poetic
b) perhaps some positive events took place during the time of Chizkiyahu that were not recorded because history often focuses more on the calamitous than on the peaceful aspects of history
c) some of Hashem’s promises of salvation may not have come to pass because, notwithstanding Chizkiyahu’s righteousness, the people were undeserving.
Shadal understands 11:11 as referring to the exile of the 10 tribes to Ashur (subsequently, some were scattered or chose to go to other lands as well).
Shadal further suggests a textual proof that Perek 11 refers to Chizkiyahu rather than Mashiach. Yeshayahu 11:9 foretells peace in all of “har kodshi” (Eretz Yisrael). Since Yemot HaMashiach will be characterized by worldwide peace that is not limited to Eretz Yisrael, Shadal suggests that this verse indicates that the prophecy describes the peaceful reign of Chizkiyahu.
Ibn Ezra notes that some of the descriptions of leadership in Perek 11 may be applied to Chizkiyahu, such as strength (see Divrei HaYamim II 32:5).
Shadal suggests three explanations of how the prophecies of Perek 11 can be understood to refer to the historical time period of Chizkiyahu:
a) prophecies often contain promises that are hyperbolic and poetic
b) perhaps some positive events took place during the time of Chizkiyahu that were not recorded because history often focuses more on the calamitous than on the peaceful aspects of history
c) some of Hashem’s promises of salvation may not have come to pass because, notwithstanding Chizkiyahu’s righteousness, the people were undeserving.
Shadal understands 11:11 as referring to the exile of the 10 tribes to Ashur (subsequently, some were scattered or chose to go to other lands as well).
Shadal further suggests a textual proof that Perek 11 refers to Chizkiyahu rather than Mashiach. Yeshayahu 11:9 foretells peace in all of “har kodshi” (Eretz Yisrael). Since Yemot HaMashiach will be characterized by worldwide peace that is not limited to Eretz Yisrael, Shadal suggests that this verse indicates that the prophecy describes the peaceful reign of Chizkiyahu.
Ibn Ezra notes that some of the descriptions of leadership in Perek 11 may be applied to Chizkiyahu, such as strength (see Divrei HaYamim II 32:5).
Literal or Allegorical? These commentators interpret the images of peace among predatory and non-predatory animals allegorically, as referring to harmony among the powerful and vulnerable of society.
Relevance to Yeshayahu’s Era – Shadal relates the messianic prophecy of Perek 2 to Yeshayahu’s era by reading it as an introduction to Yeshayahu’s rebuke of his people. Since, in the future, all nations will accept Hashem’s kingship, it is appropriate for Am Yisrael to do so immediately. Shadal further notes that the Chumash does not dwell on the Messianic idea, although Moshe sometimes hinted to it and communicated it to those who were close to him. During the time period of Chumash, it was important for the Jewish people to view monotheism as a special gift, rather than to focus on the universal dimensions of Judaism’s religious vision. However, by the time of the Prophets, the needs of the people had changed; the vision of universal acceptance of Hashem during Yemot HaMashiach could motivate Am Yisrael to do Teshuvah.
Shadal interprets Perek 11 as describing Chizkiyahu’s reign, since he does not think that Yeshayahu would begin prophesying about an event in the distant future without any introduction to indicate a transition in the topic of his prophecy.
Shadal interprets Perek 11 as describing Chizkiyahu’s reign, since he does not think that Yeshayahu would begin prophesying about an event in the distant future without any introduction to indicate a transition in the topic of his prophecy.
Relevance of Mikhah’s Prophecy – Shadal raises the possibilities that the prophecy was authored by a previous, anonymous prophet from whom both Mikhah and Yeshayahu borrowed; that it was authored originally by Mikhah; and that it was authored originally by Yeshayahu. He concludes that the language is more similar to Yeshayahu’s language than to Mikhah’s (for example, beginning with an image and then explaining it) and therefore favors the third approach. While these commentators do not address the difference between the two prophecies, the answers offered by Abarbanel and R. Yoel Bin-Nun are as applicable for their approach as for the first.
