Jewish Images of the Messiah Throughout the Ages

By Elliot Klayman | April 24, 2026

Introduction

The Hebrew Bible contains messianic forecasts, which often form the expectation of a coming Messiah who will advance God’s program of redemption and reconciliation. Prophecies contained in the Tanakh support the position that Messiah will be born in Beit-Lechem, from the tribe of Judah,1 from the root of Jesse, and that from King David2 he will succeed to the Messianic throne.3

Other prophecies raising messianic awareness suffer from ambiguity. For example, within the Hebrew Bible the word mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ) is ordinarily translated “Anointed One,” and often references patriarchs, kings, priests, and princes. However, various Bibles translate mashiach as Messiah:

So know and understand: From the issuing of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem until the time Mashiach, the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and 62 weeks. It will be rebuilt, with plaza and moat, but it will be in times of distress. Then after the 62 weeks Mashiach will be cut off and have nothing. (Dan 9:25-26 TLV)4

Although it is biblically clear that an “Anointed One is coming,” and that there is a general time frame as to when, the language is not sufficiently specific to yield objective Jewish consensus.

Additionally, Jewish methodologies for interpretation are numerous,5 leaving a large opening for exegetical variation. Furthermore, Orthodox Jews recognize a two Torah system — Written and Oral — based upon a chain of received tradition from Mount Sinai.6 This sharply distinguishes Jewish modes of interpretation from Christian forms, often resulting in opposing understandings. Within the Christian world there is virtually a homologous belief that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies; and, as attested by witnesses in the New Testament, qualifies as Messiah. In sharp contradistinction, Jewish understanding of the Messiah is far from uniform; and throughout the ages it produced a variety of positions on identification markers of the Messiah, and continues to do so.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is two-fold. First, it displays a variegated picture of the Messiah extrapolated from varying Jewish views throughout the historical periods. It presents widespread diversity of thought and ideas that form differing Jewish messianic portraits, derived from a sampling of Jewish exegetes, rabbis, notable scholars, Jewish communities, and pseudo-messiahs. Simply, this article is a rendering of a multi-dimensional relief reflecting 2500 years of what the Jewish people have stored in their shared memory as they pondered the Messiah, and as their sages and rabbis discussed the concept as recorded within Jewish literature. By searching messianism within the Mishnah, Gemarot, Midrashim, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other rabbinic and literary sources, we can access a diversity of Jewish individual and group concepts of Messiah throughout the ages. Observed through the lens of this kaleidoscope, sharply differing pictures of Messiah emerge.

Second, this article seeks to provide the rationale as to why an individual or community portrays the Messiah in the way it does. What were the underlying influences on the writers and messianic pretenders that moved them to identify Messiah as they did? This article contends that each of the individuals and groups discussed here depicted the Messiah in their own image, based upon their peculiar self-identity formed by their particular ideas, philosophies, and religious perspectives.

In order to achieve these purposes this article (1) examines the characterizations of the messiah within three distinct Jewish traditions: Dead Sea Community (Yachad), Late Antique Rabbis, and Maimonides, each’s depiction of Messiah, and explanation of each’s construction of the Messiah in their own image; and (2) presents how Sabbateans, Rashi, and Chabadniks, cite Isaiah 53 (the suffering servant) in support of their appointed Messiah, each in their own particular self-image.

Dead Sea Sect

On the western shore of the Dead Sea, about 13 miles east of Jerusalem, nine miles south of Jericho, lies Khirbat Qumran, the site of one of the most significant ancient textual findings of the 20th century. Although there remains some controversy surrounding the site and the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in its caves (1947, 1952-56), scholarly consensus supports the position that a religious community lived there from 100 BCE until circa 68 CE
when they were routed by the Roman forces during the Jewish Revolt. These are the
Qumran-Essenes. Near Qumran excavators found within eleven caves a collection of fragments and complete copies of all the books of the Hebrew Bible (except Esther), including non-canonical writings, and other documents and letters from the Second Temple period, which established the doctrine, rules, and practices of the sect.7

From the sectarian writings within the Scrolls it may be derived that the Qumran Community was a separatist group, deeply rooted in priestly holiness. This required an isolated communal existence. They held their goods in common, practiced strict rules of purity, and were dedicated to study, prayer, and rigorous discipline.8 The Community at some time was led by the Teacher of Righteousness who is highlighted in the sectarian manuscripts, without identifying his name.

Aaron, Moses’ brother and High Priest, is prominent in the Sect’s writings, symbolizing the heightened regard for the priesthood cult. The community appears to be a prototype for Israel’s ideal, which emphasizes a most high dwelling place for Aaron. In their meetings, the priests, the elders, and the laity were seated in that order of priority. The community’s focus on the centrality of the priesthood, both in their writings and their praxis, manifests a desire to elevate the priesthood within their community as the quintessential paradigm. They were a covenantal community who owed fidelity to God and to the communal members, living under the authority of the sons of a Zadokite priesthood:

They shall separate from the congregation of the men of injustice and shall unite, with respect to the Law and possessions, under the authority of the sons of Zadok, the Priests who keep the Covenant, and of the multitude of the men of the Community who hold fast to the Covenant.9

It appears that this sectarian structure was a reaction to the Jerusalem Temple priesthood, which they believed was an illegitimate construction. It is presumed that this harkens back to the Hasmonean dynasty when Jonathan was appointed High Priest, and to the contention of the sect’s predecessors that he was not part of the rightful Zadokite priesthood. Hence, it is plausible that the dissenters challenged the legitimacy of the priestly Temple installations, maintaining that the correct household within Aaron’s genealogy had been usurped. Although they did not totally boycott the Temple in Jerusalem, they nonetheless built an alternative proleptic priesthood within their own community that was more to their liking and that was prophetic in its expression, as well as a model for what they saw as the priesthood in olam ha-bah.10 Their sectarian writings, including the Temple Scroll, references the new Temple and the priesthood; there are some noteworthy differences which may further indicate that they were seeking to live in their day as if they were living in the Temple and priesthood times to come. Very instructive

within the Temple Scroll is the order in which the Community seats its “men of renown” with particular emphasis on the interrelationship among Priest, Aaron, Messiah, and their roles:

This is the sitting of the men of renown called to the assembly for the council of the community when God will have begotten the Messiah among them. The Priest shall enter at the head of all the congregation of Israel, then are all the chiefs of the sons of Aaron, the priests, called to the assembly. . . . And they shall sit before him, each according to his rank.

Afterwards, the Messiah of Israel shall enter. The chiefs of the tribes of Israel shall sit before him, each according to his rank, according to their position in the camps and during their marches. . . . And when they gather for the community table, or to drink wine, and arrange the community table and mix the wine to drink, let no man stretch out his hand over the first-fruits of bread and wine before the Priest. . . . And afterwards, the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hands over the bread. And afterwards, all the congregation of the community shall bless, each according to his rank. (1Q28a 2.11-21)

The seating arrangement here is a sign of the prominence of the Priests, and of the sons of Aaron, who are the High Priests. A Priest is the first to bless the bread and the wine; afterwards, the Messiah blesses the bread. Whatever can be made out of this hierarchy, it is clear that the High Priest, and the Messiah are involved together in a liturgical ritual. The Community is acting out the script of how they see the roles of those in the eschaton, and reliving it in pageantry within their Community at the table of purity where they come together for meals, in a liturgical enactment. Another Community Rule clarifies the nexus between the now and the future by prophetic emphasis:

They shall depart from none of the counsels of the Law to walk in all of the stubbornness of their hearts, but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the Men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. (IQS, 7.3)

Here, there is a close association among the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. For the future, the Community embraced dual Messiahs. It is fair to say that their focus was on a Priest-Messiah in connection with a Messiah of Israel.11 This reinforces the thesis that the Dead Sea Sect imagined the Messiah(s) in its own image: The High Priestly Messiah in conjunction with the Israel Messiah, priest and laity, served together in ritual purity for the cleansing of the Community of Israel.

The Dead Sea Sect pageantry portrays the Priests, the Sons of Aaron, the Zadokite Priesthood, Messiah of Aaron, Messiah of Israel, and the Prophet, all intertwined in a ritual drama. They all have their roles in the eschatological Community Banquet; however, the hierarchical focus is heavily on the Priesthood, which even fuses with Messiah in one office, as the “Messiah of Aaron.” Why the obsession with Priesthood?

Apparently, something happened at some time to cause this Qumran group to congeal. It was likely a schism between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest (the Liar), the sons of light and the sons of darkness. There is also the Zadokite Priest, a term widespread within the sectarian writings, which appears to refer to the “lawful priesthood” and also to the Community itself, as the “sons of Zadok.” They were perhaps known in the Community as the legal and righteous line of the Temple Priesthood, which was apparently ignored by the Temple powers. During the Hasmonean period the priesthood was up for bid and it descended to a place where the rightful Sons of Aaron and the family of Zadok were no longer chosen to fulfill the Temple rule and duties. This may have been the point of alienation, and the origin of Qumran Temple resistance, which led to a quiet rebellion, as demonstrated through withdrawal.

The Temple Priesthood, its appointees, and perhaps the Temple itself, became corrupted and triggered the formation of the Community. Herod’s Temple was a modification that may have also been an aggravating source of discontent. In fact, the Temple Scroll markedly differed in its description of the Temple’s construction, and was bursting with prescriptions that were at odds with Temple practices. The Community laid down a general objection by not employing the lunar calendar upon which the Jerusalem calendar was based. By using a modified solar calendar they just may have been issuing a strong statement that their calendar better reflected the times and the seasons, the haggim and the New Moons. The different calendrical calculations made it harder to worship and celebrate together.12

It would also have been difficult to make the 25-mile trek to Jerusalem to participate regularly in the sacrifices and other Temple-related activities. However, the Community and its leaders undoubtedly saw themselves as the true and elect Israel, and exercised the purity as prescribed by God, in recognition that they were all priests. They transferred the priesthood from the Temple to the Community and in their reality, the Qumran Community was the incarnated Priesthood God prescribed and approved.

It was quite natural for them to conceive of Messiah in terms of the Messiah of Aaron. No wonder they incorporated the priestly figures and situated them along with Messiah at their table. These were not the priests whom they had rebelled against, but rather ones they had refashioned in a proper place alongside the two Messiahs — a Holy Priesthood that practiced purity in every facet of their lives. The Community was wrapped up in this messianic priestly identity. The Dead Sea Sect was that corporate Aaronic priesthood, in tandem with two Messiahs, with a view toward the Banquet to come, just as the Priests and Messiahs were pre-shadowed in the Community meetings and banquets. They embraced a priestly Messiah reflected in their pagentry — in their own image.

Rabbinic Writings of Late Antiquity

With the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, Judaism was in crisis. Jerusalem ceased to be the spiritual center of the Jewish people. The Jerusalem Sanhedrin was no more; hence, the legislative and judicial arms were curtailed. Priests were out of a job, and the sacrificial cult was non-operative. In the darkness of the hour there arose one hero who “saved a little” of Judaism through his wisdom, his cunning, and his creative exegesis. Yohanan ben Zakkai, trapped in Jerusalem during the early revolt of 66 CE, gathered two of his disciples who facilitated his escape in a coffin to be taken to the Roman Commander, Vespasian. Yochanan pleaded with him for a relocation in Yavne,13 a town 30 miles northwest of Jerusalem. There he gathered disciples who studied and began the process of formulating a Temple-less Judaism, which included bloodless substitutionary “sacrifices”: prayer, study, and lovingkindness. In the school of Yavneh, which moved to Usha, Beit Shearim, Sepphoris, and ultimately Tiberias, work began and continued on the Mishnah, a compendium of law and stories, derived from schools of Hillel, Shammai, Ishmael, and others. The work was redacted circa 200 CE.14

Rabbis in Babylon and in Israel continued to work on a companion to the Mishnah which developed into the Gemara. Other rabbinic writings arose including Tosefta, Midrashim, Responsa, and Commentaries. The rabbinic writings contained scattered references to the Messiah, which identified his characteristics, and thus a portrait of how rabbis framed the Messiah. They pictured him according to their own ideals and interpretation of law, culture and custom.

The Jewish Messiah who was to come was not uniformly pictured as one specific person with all his identifying markers intact, by the rabbis and sages, but rather was robed in a composite of different names, qualities, and activities. The rabbis were not homologous in their outlook, thinking, and theology, all of which were developing in different times, places, and directions, and thus produced a scattered portrait.

Within their writings over 600 years, rabbis portrayed the Messiah in the image of their concept of the ideal rabbi. Of course no two rabbis were of the same ilk and deviation abounded. Additionally, the rabbis in the West in the land of Israel were different from the Rabbis in the East in Babylon, based upon their experiences, training, and circumstances.15

Generally, the rabbis exalted the Torah, and were scholars and servants modeling the spiritual example of right behavior. They earned respect from their adherents. Their students observed their rabbinic mentors and sought to mirror them.16 They perceived them as religious authorities with the power to release vows; preachers with the charisma to hold a crowd’s attention; rainmakers in the mode of Elijah, Elisha, and the first-century Honi the Circle-drawer.

In the West the rabbis in Israel were under the Patriarchate17 (3rd to 5th centuries), headed by the Nasi, the leading communal office within Israel under Roman Rule.18 The Nasi served as a liaison to the Roman authorities, often taking part in mediating and resolving disputes. They also

perceived themselves as overseers of the Rabbis, whom they enlisted for help with government affairs and tapped their favored rabbis to establish courts, teach and raise funds in the diaspora.19

In the East, in Sassania, Babylon and Iran, from the 3rd to the 10th centuries, the Exilarch was the head of the Jewish community, in the direct line of Davidic lineage.20 That community believed the Messiah would come out of the Exilarchate, although there was contention with the rabbis who believed that they themselves would produce that Anointed One. Messianic expectations and hope were always lurking in the air, triggered by gematria calculations, mysticism, religious speculation, charismatic personalities, and dire circumstances befalling the yishuv. Yet, the rabbis downplayed the Messiah. The fall of Bar Kokhba at Betar, and his failed revolt, had contributed to a more moderate rabbinic focus on Messiah. Instead, daily halakha and mitzvot occupied center stage for the community. Once in a while they would go to the window to see if Messiah was nigh.21

Jewish laity in Babylon and Iran treated their eastern rabbis reverentially, not much differently from the treatment of rabbis afforded in Roman Palestine beginning in the late 2nd to 3rd centuries. Perhaps this was greatly influenced by a type of mimesis — an imitation of the treatment the Iranian priests generated from their constituents. Here, the rabbis were perceived as authoritative, steeped in Torah, versed in theology, learned, and filled with piety, exuding ethical rectitude.22

Rabbis were the priests of the people and in possession of the secrets of the Holy One. Their hallowed spiritual existence knew no limits; some were able to connect to the face of the Shekinah. In his piety, the rabbi was considered in some circles Torah incarnate, a super-mensch. Those who aspired to become ordained rabbis were required to engage in rigorous study in an academy, and be disciples of a master Torah scholar. They sought to model Moses, the lawgiver, in their Torah praxis; his prayers were effective and he was an extraordinary sage-wiseman when it came to overcoming the yetzer harah.23

Rabbis were also formed in the crucible of study, knowledge, humility, and charisma, demonstrated by acts of lovingkindness. Ultimately, the key for attaining the elevated position of rabbi was meeting the needs of the people. This required sacrifice. Aside from the theurgic aspects, counseling, prayers, and enforcement of decrees and Mosaic laws, they also were very much aware and concerned about community needs, and offered empathy and help in their attempts to right wrongs, and reduce the suffering of their communities, including the plight of the poor.24

Rabbis were the spiritual heads of the communities, successors of the prophets of old, holy beings who served the people. In large part that is how the rabbis saw the Messiah as they recorded their perceptions of Messiah within their writings. That is how they perceived themselves.

No two rabbis were totally alike in their thoughts and theology. Didactics and diversity of viewpoints were not only acknowledged but encouraged. Rabbinic thinking and discourse were preserved; even the minority opinions from every “drop” from the sages were sacred and worthy of codification.25 In the rabbinic world, according to Shaye Cohen, sectarianism was diminished in favor of a “grand coalition,” where dissent was tolerated as long as it was not so divisive as to deny majoritarianism. 26 Even the name of the Messiah varies within the schools, where different rabbis assigned names of the Messiah, reflective of their schools and likeness.27 Hence, not only is there a diversity of opinion here, but the name of the Messiah is closely related to the particular school or personage, which reflects the founder:

Rab said: The world was created only on David’s account. Samuel said: On Moses’ account; R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah’s] name? — The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come. The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure for ever: e’er the sun was, his name is Yinnon. The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah. Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem [“the comforter”], that would relieve my soul, is far. The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. (b.Sanhedrin 98b)

Another Talmudic entry comes closer to tying the personage of the Messiah to the particular rabbi who is inscribing it:

R. Nahman said: if he [the Messiah] is of those living [today], it might be one like myself, as it is written, And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governors shall proceed from the midst of them. Rab said: if he is of the living, it would be our holy Master. . . .”28

Rabbis were wed to Torah and the Hebrew Bible, so it is no surprise that they would seek to explain what appeared to be contradictory portraits of the Messiah in biblical writings as they wrestled to reconcile the apparent textual incompatibilities, and applied their form of exegesis:

[I]f they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee. . . .] lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.29

The community extolled and emulated their rabbis. In turn, the rabbis perceived themselves as the people portrayed them. Being a rabbi was a calling; it was not like being a priest which was inherited paternally. Being a rabbi was meritorious. They were authoritative and even more so, in some respects, than God, as clear from the Aknai Oven aggadah, where it was proclaimed that “Torah is not in heaven” and where even God admitted to Elijah that his children (sages/rabbis) had overruled him. Torah was on earth among the rabbis to interpret; they had paved the way for Messiah to be conformed to diverse and often contradictory characteristics and imagery. Even as the rabbis espoused in their writings and interpretations of messianic prophecies and scripture great variations, so too was their image of Messiah; there was much speculation but little agreement. Their own diversity of thought was reflected in their collective imagery of Messiah in all their collective diversity — a Messiah in their diverse likenesses.

The Maimonidean View

Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides, 1138–1204) believed in a Messiah who would fulfill the office in ways aligned with his own interpretation of scripture. His rationalist view was highly influential in his depiction and still impresses people throughout the world today 800 years later. We can piece together a composite of the Maimonidean view of the Messiah through several of his writings, including Mishneh Torah, Epistle to Yemen, and the twelfth article of his Thirteen Articles of Faith. His concept of Messiah was shaped by his rational Aristotelian philosophy,30 Torah, rabbinic writings, Jewish persecutions, and reactions to Islam and Christianity.31

Maimonides perceived, as do most of those learned rabbis and sages who came before him, that, although David died, there would be one successor who would come and sit on his throne — King Messiah. It was clear to Maimonides that Messiah would be Jewish. In refutation that Mohammad, or some other gentile was Messiah, in his Epistle to Yemen,32 among other rebuttals, he cited Deuteronomy 18:15, 18:

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own, like myself [Moses]; him you shall heed. . . . I will raise up a prophet for them from among their own people, like yourself [a Hebrew]: I will put My words in his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him.

What is accentuated here is that the Prophet would be like Moses, raised up from among Moses’ brethren. Thus, he would be a Jew descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and there would be grave consequences for disobeying his word. Hence, Messiah will be greater than all the prophets who came before. His prophecies will come to pass; a prophecy that fails would discredit his messiahship, and impose punishment.

Messiah is superhuman, but not a god, according to Maimonides. He will be ultra-wise in his knowledge of Torah, and he will subdue the rulers of the earth who will greatly fear him. He will not raise the dead or perform miracles, 33 or change the customary order of the world.

When will Messiah come? In the twelfth of his Thirteen Articles of Faith,34 Maimonides said:

I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he should tarry, nevertheless I shall wait for his coming every day.35

Yet, he was insistent that we not search for the time of his coming:

Nor shall the individual set a date for his coming. Nor shall he attempt to derive deductively from Scriptural verses, a set date for his coming. The Sages said, “May the souls expire of those who calculate the date of the coming of Messiah.”36

In Mishneh Torah, in his Book of Kings and Wars, Maimonides institutes a two-tiered approach for Messianic identification:

If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.37

There is a potential Messiah then in every generation, who satisfies the first tier — the first five qualifiers:

  • He traces his lineage to the house of David
  • He reinstates widespread Torah observance
  • He studies Torah
  • He performs good deeds in accord with Written and Oral Law (Torah)
  • He fights battles for the Lord

Maimonides embraced a rationalistic concept of Messiah, with a weighted view on the one redeeming quality in life he sees as the major force and focus for Jews — Torah study.38 Having reached the first tiered plateau, he goes on to second tier qualifications of the Messiah:

If he succeeded in accomplishing these [five actions], and he subdued all the surrounding nations and he built the Temple in its place and collected the dispersed of Israel — then this is the messiah for certain. 39

In summary, the second tier requirements are:

  • He subdues Israel’s enemies
  • He rebuilds the Temple at the ancient site
  • He regathers the dispersed of Israel

On these grounds Maimonides discounted Bar Kochba and Jesus from the notion of being the Messiah.40 According to him, death cannot intervene between the two tiers. He must fulfill all the requirements contained in Tier 1 and 2 before death.41

What will the world look like when Messiah comes, according to Maimonides? This question is key to Maimonides perception of Messiah in his own image. Steeped in Aristotelianism, his first work, as a teenager, was a piece on logic. He embraced a rational, as opposed to a mystical, philosophy. There was not a big difference between the world we live in and the world to come, except olam habah would afford more freedom to study Torah.42 First, there will not be foreign domination and oppression. Second, the condition of the earth will be more favorable for the production of food; hence, people will not need to toil as much as they do in this world, and they will live longer. Consequently, there will be more time to devote to Torah study. Messiah will teach the law out of Jerusalem. Maimonides reckoned the messianic kingdom as a natural fulfillment of the perfect laws of nature:

Knowledge will increase. There will be no war, famine, or discord. The nations will be subdued; simply, it will be a perfect environment for study of Torah.43 . . . “The world will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the ocean bed.” (Isa 11:9)

Maimonides’ concept of the world of Torah expanded for olam habah and his logic-based thinking produced a Messiah in his own rational image who would facilitate the proliferation of Torah study. Of the first five Maimonidean qualifiers, three are directly associated with Torah: he studies Torah, performs the deeds of Torah, and promulgates widespread Torah observance. A fourth qualifier, “fighting battles for the Lord,” may well be a reference to “spiritual battles,” however, given Maimonides’ rationalist approach, in all probability he was positing literal battles, aware of the need to rid Israel of its enemies so that Torah freedom would prevail. Further, the second tier requires that Messiah “subdues Israel’s enemies.” There is a progression from the first tier “fighting battles” to the second tier “subduing enemies.” Hebrew canon supports this concept of a conquering Messiah: “Then the Lord will come forth and make war on those nations [who come against Jerusalem] as He is wont to make war on a day of battle.” (Zech 14:3) This is a sensible understanding of a Messiah whose environment was not very different from the conditions of olam hazeh.

For the Christians against whom Maimonides negatively reacted, Messiah had come. For Maimonides and the Jews, he had yet to come44 Christians were unified as to the identity of the Messiah who came and was to return. Maimonides developed his own outlook of the Messiah based upon his reasoned approach to life, Torah, and a logical-scientific view of the ideal Jewish society. This is the Messiah who Maimonides constructed in his own rational image as sensible to prepare the world for Torah study in the world to come. This is Messiah in Maimonides’ own philosophy, in his own weltanschauung. Maimonides’ rational outlook created a rational Messiah in a rational world to come, where Torah dominated. This was Messiah; this was Maimonides.

Isaiah 53 Application to Messianic Figures

To buttress the argument that sages, scholars, individuals, and communities perceive the Messiah according to their own predilections and in their own image, three groups are selected from medieval to modern, each of which embraces different Messiahs and cites Isaiah 53 as one of their proof texts are examined: Rashi, Sabbateanism, and Lubavitch.

Rashi

Ample evidence exists that interpreters “heard” Isaiah 53 speaking of the Messiah as a person through the Tannaitic, Amoraic, and Medieval eras.45 Rabbi Shlomo ben Isaac (Rashi) (1040–1104), one of the most distinguished Jewish exegetes of all time, produced two major works: Commentary on the Talmud and Commentary on the Bible. Rashi’s commentaries have appeared for the last 900 years in every Jewish Bible commentary and edition of the Talmud. In his Commentary on the Talmud he cites Isaiah 53 as speaking of a personage — a suffering Messiah.

Leading up to the First Crusade in 1096, Rashi led a peaceful existence studying and teaching, having spent some time in Worms and Mainz, north of Troyes, France, Rashi’s home city. Probably during the early pre-Crusade period, he embraced the traditional view that Messiah was a person who would effectuate salvation for Israel. In Sanhedrin 98a, he gently interacts with the Talmudic passage that recognizes a Messianic personage who “was wounded because of our transgressions” (Isa 53:5), and “our diseases he did bear” (v. 4). However, in his Commentary on the Bible, he applies Isaiah 53 not to a personage, as he does in the Talmud, but rather to Israel collectively. Possible reasons why his understanding was different than his Talmudic application include: (1) He wrote the Talmudic portion before the Crusades; (2) He intended to combat Christian polemics that Jesus was the Messiah; (3) He empathized with the sufferings that the Jewish people were experiencing as the Crusaders devastated Jewish communities, senselessly killing them along their way “to liberate the Holy Land” from Islamic domination. Rashi suffered personally as he lost friends to the Crusader incursion. Hence, he vicariously experienced Israel, the people of God, suffering. Before Rashi, there were some who identified the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as Israel suffering for its own sins, and some Jewish circles believed that Israel would be the savior of the world. Rashi actually combined these two understandings and expanded it: Israel was suffering for the sins of the world in order to effectuate universal salvation.46

Rashi saw the Messiah according to his own predilections and outlook; hence, perhaps he perceived Isaiah 53 as applying both to Israel and to a Messianic personage, and that on some plane in his mind both were true. Rashi’s psyche changed when the Crusaders engaged in mass Jewish slaughter, and consequently, his image of Messiah changed. This supports the position that there is subjective diversity within the Jewish community of scholars and exegetes when focusing on scripture as relating to Messiah. This diversity is often dependent upon the viewpoint of the beholders, influenced by outside influences. For example, many early Zionists experienced Israel as the “Messiah,” even if they did not clearly express it. Many had fled from their homelands where persecution and genocide was rampant. They poured into Palestine, and worked the land; as they changed the contours of the land, they, in turn, were changed by their work on the land. It prepared them for the rough future to come with the ungenerous soil, disease, hostile neighbors, and war, strengthening them for the task ahead. Yet, due to their experience, Israel was their savior, their protector. Isaiah 53 may certainly have subjectively confirmed this for them.

Sabbateanism

Sabbateanism arrived on the scene as a proto-messianic movement in 1648 when Shabbetai Zvi declared himself to be the Jewish Messiah. Zvi had evidenced bizarre antics which may have been due to a manic-depressive condition. 47 These included marrying a Torah, pronouncing the ineffable name of God, dressing a fish as a baby, marrying without consummating, eating forbidden foods, changing fast days and feasts, and engaging in other antinomian teachings and behavior. 48 Zvi was supported by a well-respected theologian, prophet, and kabbalist, Nathan of Gaza, who was his “wing man,” a forerunner who rationalized Zvi’s behavior and explained his strangeness in positive messianic terms.49

Ultimately, in 1665–66 Sabbatean Messianism reached a high pitched fervor, with great anticipation that Zvi was to be crowned Messiah by the Sultan of Turkey. Prophecy spread like wildfire that “Shabbetai Zvi is the Messiah,” not just among the mature but also among children in unison singing and shouting the message in the streets. Diaspora Jews sold their belongings and planned on moving to the Holy Land, until it was clear that the Sultan was not going to yield his miter to Zvi, but instead imprisoned him. Later the Sultan demanded that Zvi convert to Islam or be executed. Zvi chose life. He thereby descended into Islam in order to avoid death, and was afforded quasi-liberty to continue a syncretistic religious life until his death, ten years later.

Zvi’s apocalyptic messianic mission was fueled by neo-Lurianic kabbalism, prophecy, and the intensified signs of the times, contributing to belief among Jews and Christians alike that the “footsteps of the Messiah” were nigh. His messianic claims garnered great support among the masses of world Jewry, and Christians as well, throughout the Ottoman Empire and Europe; it is reputed that most of worldwide Jewry embraced Zvi as the Messiah.50 The movement waned after Zvi’s Islamic conversion and then decreased to the Donmeh,51 a small sect which exists in Turkey today, believing that Zvi will return.52

Isaiah 53 was applied to Zvi to buttress his credentials as the Messiah:

[a] man of suffering, familiar with disease. As one who hid his face from us . . . [y]et it was our sickness that he was bearing, Our suffering that he endured . . . Smitten and afflicted by God. (Isa 53:3–4)

According to Nathan’s teaching, within a somewhat distored kabbalistic construction, Zvi had to descend into the depths of the sin of conversion to Islam to release the supernal lights hidden by the kelipot (husks), to effectuate redemption through sin. 53

Mass Jewry was convinced that Zvi was the coming Messiah. It was a fatal attraction that moved the people to accept the claims of a madman. A widespread conflagration progressed, where the embers waxed hot until extinguished when the masses were awakened from their hypnotic trance. The messianic image was shaped by Zvi and Nathan, and their followers accepted Zvi as Messiah even though his actions fell short of the traditional messianic ideal. Additionally, Isaiah 53 was applied in support of his messiahship, in a theological stretch apparently intended to gain a scriptural basis for his claims. Rather than conforming to the image of Isaiah 53, it seems more like the adherents conformed Isaiah 53 to the image of Zvi, and redefined him in the image of Nathan’s theological position.

Lubavitch

The Lubavitch sect of Judaism came out of the Hasidic movement, which originated in the early 18th century. Its founder — the Baal Shem Tov — traveled the Ukrainian countryside teaching through stories and exhibiting a lively Judaism of piety and holiness punctuated by dance, song, and merriment. He drew on a spiritual relationship with God, through intensity of prayer, good deeds, and mysticism. The Baal Shem Tov was a type of messiah for his adherents and manifested a charismatic messianic holiness; he popularized closeness to God among the

masses, through his teachings, esoteric antics, and devakut,54 gathering his devotees through his travels.55

Schneur Zalman of Liady, the third Hasidic Rebbe, was the founder of the Lubavitch movement, also referred to today as Chabad.56 He furthered the movement by seeking to draw people into a personal closeness to God through fervent spiritual activism, which incorporated forms of kabbalism.57 Zalman taught that the tzaddikim who headed the Hasidic communities were local messiahs, ordinary people who were spiritually endowed, adorned with special godly traits. Accordingly, the Messiah is “no more than a successful tzaddik.” 58

In 1951, after the death of his father-in-law, the sixth Rebbe of the Chabad movement, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, succeeded to the headship and began his spiritual work.59 On June 12, 1994, after 43 years of indefatigable work building the community through his genius and creative skills, this seventh dynastic rebbe had a stroke and died. Nonetheless, a large group within the sect believed that he was the promised Messiah.60 Although this group was initially very verbal with an evangelistic thrust about their insistence, the clamor has since calmed, and for many to a silent retreat. Still, however, a sizable number of Chabadniks believe that Menachem Schneerson is “Mashiach Now.”61 David Berger, an orthodox rabbi, is appalled that the Chabad, a hyper-orthodox branch of Judaism, has dared to have adherents who believe this claim. He highlights specifically where Schneerson’s alleged messiahship violates Maimonides’ qualifications for being the Messiah: the Jewish people were not redeemed during Schneerson’s life. Moreover, Berger notes that, according to Maimonides, there cannot be a pause between death of Messiah and redemption; it cannot be held in abeyance as in Christian theology that recognizes two comings with death in between and a second coming that completes the hope of Messianic redemption. Even a Schneerson “second coming” would not cure Maimonides’ messianic deficit.

The Chabad group applied Isaiah 53 to Schneerson,62 undoubtedly including his last illness whereby he had suffered a stroke, reflecting the motif of the suffering servant who atones for the sins of the people (Isaiah 53:5). Those within the movement who still await his resurrection and return cite Isaiah 53, in spite of the truth that Schneerson did not fulfill Maimonides’ criteria, which include the restoration of the Jewish people before his death. Isaiah 53 is cited widely as messianic prophecy by Christians in reference to Jesus. If Schneerson is not disqualified as the Messiah because of a failure to satisfy Maimonidean criteria, then neither is Jesus. The Chabad movement resonates with Schneerson being the Messiah, the seventh Rebbe (and apparently the last) of the Lubavitch movement. He possessed the messianic characteristics they understood as concerning Messiah — a prolific wise teacher, and the epitome of righteousness who sacrificed and suffered for his community. Schneerson’s followers were shaped by his messianic qualities, and saw him worthy to rise from a local messiah to a universal one. He was the embodiment of the community. He and his community were one. He was their mirror image, and thus the community was conditioned to the mold of how his followers recognized the Messiah — in the self-image of the Chabad community Schneerson had projected in his own image.

Summary

This article is not an end in itself, but rather a springboard to more psycho-social studies on messianism and its thinking. Here we have taken a few samples from the universe of Jewish messianism to demonstrate that sundry Jewish groups and individuals have come to different understandings of the identity of the Messiah, thus presenting a diverse composite picture of Messiah. Moreover, their understandings track closely their own concept of Messiah as influenced by their own experiences, and subjective positions, which exhibit Messiah in their own self-images. Hence, the Dead Sea Sect highlights the priestly nature of Messiah because of its hyper-focus on the priesthood in reaction to what they concluded was an impure priesthood operating in Jerusalem. The Late Antique rabbinic groups present a variegated Messianic view, inasmuch as they are living within widely diversifed local community influences. Maimonides advocates for a rational-based Messiah inasmuch as he harbors a rational theo-philosophical view.

Because there is such diversity of Jewish groupings and thinking throughout the ages, there arises a portrait of the Messiah that is not one-dimensional but rather layered on a masechet, a web which is the warp and woof of Jewish messianism (Judges 16:13–14). This presents a fertile field for further examination of a topic ripe for expanded research, discussion, and scholarly pursuit.

Postcript: Messiah in His Own Image

This article has focused on Jewish renderings of the Messiah in the images of personages and communities, all which have thus far proved to be unrealized — pseudo-Messiahs. Nonetheless, it would be lacking if it did not highlight Yeshua, in contrast to other messianic portraits.

When addressing his disciple Philip, Yeshua affirmed:

He who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father?”. . . Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me — or at least believe because of the works themselves. (John 14:9b–11)

Accordingly, Yeshua comes in the image of the Father. His messianic claims are in part rooted in his place of birth, lineage, and Israelite tribe, which accorded with biblical prophecy; and in the quality of his teachings and works as recorded within the New Covenant Besorah (Good News). He impressed the people who witnessed him, and his followers believed that his life was consistent with the image of the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. These characteristics included his birth in Beit-Lechem (Micah 5:1), from the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), and of David’s lineage (Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5-6). None of the promoters of the pseudo-Messiahs discussed above made claims to these biblical fulfillments. The Dead Sea Sect, Maimonides, and for the most part the Rabbis of late antiquity were silent, as regarding these prophecies, in application to their preferred messiah. Instead, they were willing to promote a Messiah in their own image, rather than to adhere more closely to the Biblical image.

Inasmuch as Yeshua’s image was advanced by what he did and taught, consistent with prophecy, he holds a discrete place among the “messiahs” of Israel who came before and after him. Moreover, he meets R. Gamliel’s test of time, which he recommended to the Sanhedrin on the question of what to do with the followers of Yeshua who were stirring up the community. He said “But if it is of God, you will not be able to stop them. You might even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:39)

Rabbi Elliot Klayman is the Interim Editor of Kesher, and also edits The Messianic Outreach. He has published numerous articles in messianic publications. He lives in San Diego, California with his wife of 51 years.

  • 1 Genesis 49:10. All Hebrew Bible references are from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version unless otherwise noted.

  • 2 Isaiah 11:1-10; 2 Sam 7:11-16, 25-29. For a thorough treatment of Messiah from Davidic descent in the Hebrew Bible, see Daniel D. Martin, “The Davidic Messiah in the Old Testament Tracing a Theological Trajectory,” Perichoresis, Vol. 20 (Doctoral Supplement, August 2022), 87–96, 2022https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362827694_The_Davidic_Messiah_in_the_Old_Testament_Tracing_a_Theological_Trajectory. New Testament entries support the proposition that the Jewish people in Israel were expecting Messiah would come from the lineage of David: Matthew 21:9; Mark 12:35; Luke 20:41; John 7:42.

  • 3 2 Sam 7:11b -13: “The Lord declares to you that He, the Lord, will establish a house for you. When your days are done and you lie with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own issue, and I will establish his kingship. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish his royal throne forever.”

  • 4 There are no fewer than ten translations contained within the parallel Bible translations in biblehub.org, which translate the word mashiach within Daniel 9:25 & 26, as Messiah.

  • 5 See, for example, the seven exegetical rules of interpretation of Hillel, the 13 of R. Ishmael and the 32 of Eliezer ben Yosei ha-Galili. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, 2nd Edition, “Hermeneutics,” ed. Adele Berlin (Oxford University Press, 2011), 341-42.

  • 6 Pirkei Avot 1:1-2:8 (Sefaria).

  • 7 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 203-205; “Qumran Community,” 602-603.

  • 8 Martin Goodman, A History of Judaism (Princeton University Press, 2018), 129-133.

  • 9 DSS, IQS, col. 5, lines 1-6.

  • 10 Goodman, 148-157; For Josephus’s treatment of the Essenes and their practices and beliefs see The New Complete Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Kregel, 1999), The Jewish War, 2.8.2-13; Antiquities, 13.5.9 (affirming belief in fate and predestination).

  • 11 This is analogous to the duality of Messiahs found in rabbinic discourse — Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Messiah,” 488-90.

  • 12 Goodman, 150-155.

  • 13 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Yochanan Ben Zakkai,” 798-99; “Yavneh,” 784.

  • 14 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Compare “Yavneh,” 784.

  • 15 Lee I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (JTS, 2011); and Jacob Neusner, There We Sat Down: Talmudic Judaism in the Making (Wipf & Stock, 2005).

  • 16 See Berakhot 62a (1) (Sefaria), where a student followed his Teacher into the bathroom to watch and learn. When challenged, he said, “It is Torah, and I must learn!”

  • 17 For an extensive understanding of the relationship among the sages, the Patriarch and community life see Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 134 -191.

  • 18 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Nasi’,” 527.

  • 19 Levine, 134 -195.

  • 20 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Exilarch,” 259.

  • 21 This is similar to the custom of opening the door once a year on Passover to see if Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah, has arrived. The New Haggadah for the Pesah Seder, eds. Mordecai Kaplan, Eugene Kohn & Ira Eisenstein (Behrman’s Jewish Book House, 1941), 105

  • 22 Neusner, There We Sat Down, 79, 84, 88 – 90, 96 – 97, 118 -119, 129 -140.

  • 23 Neusner, There We Sat Down, 81- 82, 85 – 86, 95.

  • 24 Neusner, There We Sat Down, 87, 93, 106 -108.

  • 25 A dispute arose between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai regarding whose position on halakha is correct: “A heavenly voice spoke: ‘These and those are the words of the living God, and the halakha is according to the House of Hillel.” Eruvin 13b: 10-11.

  • 26 Shaye J.D. Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984): 27-53; see also Daniel Boyarin, “A Tale of Two Synods: Nicaea, Yavneh, and Rabbinic Ecclesiology,” Exemplaria: JTMRS 12:1 (2000): 21-62. See also Aknai’s Oven, Bava Metzia 59a-b.

  • 27 Sanhedrin 98b.

  • 28 Sanhedrin 98a.

  • 29 Sanhedrin 98a 13. As far as the timing of his coming there was great diversity as well:

    When will the Messiah come?’ — ‘Go and ask him . . . ’ was his reply. ‘Where is he sitting?’ — ‘At the entrance.’ And by what sign may I recognise him?’ — ‘He is sitting among the poor lepers: all of them untie [them] all at once, and rebandage them together, whereas, he unties and rebandages each separately, [before treating the next], thinking, should I be wanted, [it being time for my appearance as the Messiah] I must not be delayed [through having to bandage a number of sores].’ So he went to him and greeted him, saying, ‘peace upon thee, Master and Teacher.’ ‘peace upon thee, O son of Levi,’ he replied. ‘When wilt thou come Master?’ asked he, ‘To-day’, [if you hear him] was his answer. Sanhedrin, 98a 16.

  • 30 Back to the Sources, Barry Holtz, ed. (Simon & Schuster, 2006), 273-279.

  • 31 For an extensive article on the persecutions during Maimonides’ time see Daniel Bousek, “Polemics in the Age of Religious Persecutions: Maimonides’ Attitude Towards Islam,” Asian and African Studies (Vol 20:1, 2011), https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/091911113_Bou%C5%A1ek.pdf8/.

  • 32 See Moses Maimonides, Letter to Yemen, Boaz Cohen, trans. (Good Press, 2022), 43 (eBook).

  • 33 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 11:3; Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Avon, 1979), 311.

  • 34 Yigdal is a liturgical poem (piyyut) composed in the medieval period, perhaps by Maimonides. It is read in the daily morning shachrit service, summarizing Maimonides’ thirteen principles formulated by Moses Maimonides in his Sanhedrin 10:1 Mishnah commentary.

  • 35 Patai, The Messiah Texts, 47.

  • 36 Patai, The Messiah Texts, 326; In the Letter to Yemen, even after expressing that we should not seek to prognosticate the date of the arrival of the Messiah, he nonetheless goes on to date the arrival of Messiah to 1210, a tradition in his family, xxxix, 55. Perhaps it was to give them hope and yet put it beyond most of their lifetimes so that they would not be hyper-focused on the coming of the Messiah. For the specific rabbis and sages calculating the date of Messiah, see Patai, 54-64.

  • 37 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 11: 4 (Sefaria); Patai, The Messiah Texts, 324-25.

  • 38 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 12:4.

  • 39 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 11:4

  • 40 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 11:6.

  • 41 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 11:5.

  • 42 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 12:1-2; Patai, The Messiah Texts, 324.

  • 43 See Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 12:5.

  • 44 There was a tradition within his family that Messiah would come in 1210. Patai, The Messiah Texts, xxxix.

  • 45 Moshe Alshekh, a 16th century Rabbi states: “Our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophets are speaking of King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view: for the Messiah is of course David, who, as is well known, was ‘anointed.’ ” The Suffering Servant of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, trans. Samuel R. Driver & Adolph Neubauer (Wipf & Stock, 1999), 258; Samson H. Levey, The Messiah, an Aramaic Interpretation: The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Hebrew Union College, 1974), 63-67; Sanhedrin 98a (Isaiah 53 sufferings of the Messiah, the Leper Scholar, who sits at the gates among the poor and undresses his bandages one at time); Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (Sefaria); Ruth Rabbah 5:6 (Isaiah 53:5) (Sefaria); II Zohar 2: 212a (Isaiah 53:5).

  • 46 David Burger, “Rashi on Isaiah 53: Exegetical Judgment or Response to the Crusade?”, https://repository.yu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/8b686eid-Oct25-4e1a-8cdf-faOea9c787c8/content#:~:text=303,prevail%20for%20the%20entire%20world.

  • 47 Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah (Princeton University Press, 1973), 125-38.

  • 48 A History of the Jewish People, ed. H.H. Ben-Sassoon (Harvard University Press, 1976), 705

  • 49 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Natan of Gaza,” 528

  • 50 Sabbatian Heresy, Writings on Mysticism, Messianism, and the Origins of Jewish Modernity, ed. Pawel Maciejko (Brandeis University Press, 2017), xi, xiii-xiv, xvi-xvii. The anti-Sabbatean Jacob Sasportas reacted saying, “My stomach turned over when I saw that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 was interpreted partially as the Christians understand it.” Jacob Sasportas, Zivat Novei Zvi (The Fading Flower), 98 (cited in Goldish, The Sabbatean Prophets, 137).

  • 51 For a history and description of the Donmeh see Gershom Scholem, “The Crypto Jewish Sect of the Donmeh (Sabbatians) in Turkey” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (Schocken, 1971), 142-166.

  • 52 For a thorough treatment of Sabbatei Zvi and his life and messianic endeavors, see Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah; Matt Goldish, The Sabbatean Prophets (Harvard University Press, 2004); Harris Lenowitz, The Jewish Messiah, 149-170; The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Shabbetai Tsevi,” 149, 668.

  • 53 Scholem, The Messianic Idea In Judaism, 78-141.

  • 54 Devakut is a cleaving to, or communing with, God, a mystical union in kabbalistic understanding. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Devequt,” 211-12.

  • 55 Benzion Dinur, “The Messianic-Prophetic Role of the Baal Shem Tov,” in Essential Papers on Messianic Movements and Personalities in Jewish History, ed. Marc Saperstein (New York University Press, 1992), 377-85.

  • 56 Chabad is an acronym made up of three letters representing Hochma (wisdom), Binah (understanding), and Da’at (knowledge), tied to kabbalistic emanations (sefirot) of God. See Jacob Shochet, Mystical Concepts in Chassidism: An Introduction to Kabbalistic Concepts and Doctrines (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1972), 71-80.

  • 57 Rachel Elior, The Paradoxical Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidis, trans. Jeffrey Green (State University of New York Press, 1993). (A theosophical explanation of the Chabad movement).

  • 58 Harris Lenowitz, The Jewish Messiah: From the Galilee to Crown Heights (Oxford University Press, 1998), 217.

  • 59 For a short discourse on Schneerson’s life and messianic claimants see Lenowitz, 215-23.

  • 60 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, “Schneersohn (Schneerson Family),” 653; “More recently a significant number of Lubavitcher Hasidim have applied the ‘Suffering Servant’ of Isaiah 53 to their spiritual leader, the Rebbe, Menahem Mendel Schneerson.” Jacques B. Doukhan, “The Mysterious Identity of the Suffering Servant,” Shabbat Shalom (2003): 25.

  • 61 See Joseph Newfield, “After the Death of Chabad’s Messiah,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin (Spring/Summer 2021), https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/after-the-death-of-chabads-messiah/ (maintaining that the bulk of the Chabad movement still believe that Schneerson is the Messiah and await his return).

  • 62 “[T]he suffering servant of Isaiah 53 . . . was mobilized by the believers, such as the passage’s complex history was further enriched: it now referred to the suffering of the Jewish people in exile . . . or the crucifixion, or the spiritual agonies of Shabetai Tzevi, after his forced apostasy, or the stroke of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.” David Berger, The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2001), 23.

    Chabadniks, all cite Isaiah 53 suffering messiah portions in their application of their conceptual messiah, yet emerge with different messiahs, with different characteristics in their application.