The usage of למו in Isaiah 53:8. Is it singular or is it plural?

The Issue here is the usage of למו  in Isaiah 53:8 and how to actually translate this word. Is it plural or is it singular in Isaiah 53:8? The singular translation is possible here despite the claims to the contrary with some support in the Tanakh and from the Rishonim to say that למו can be singular under certain circumstances. So let me focus on the claims about this word and make the cast that למו can be singular. I offer some evidence to support the singular reading of למו by pointing first to it usage in Isaiah 44:15. Regardless of the evidence I will then show why Isaiah 53:8 is indeed most probably a plural reference with evidence from the Targum to support such a reading.

Isaiah 44:15(MT)

וְהָיָה לְאָדָם לְבָעֵר, וַיִּקַּח מֵהֶם וַיָּחָם אַף-יַשִּׂיק וְאָפָה לָחֶם אַף-יִפְעַל-אֵל וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ עָשָׂהוּ פֶסֶל וַיִּסְגָּד-לָמוֹ.

Let’s take a moment to examine the phrase in question and see what it actually reads. If I were reading this verse I would translate the phrase in question as “he that fashions a god and worships it, he that makes a graven image and bows down to it.” It is significant that I back this view up because if you ask a CM how they would translate the verse they will take the word לָמו as if it were referring back to both the “god” and the “idol” or to “Idols” and pluralize it while saying “see it is plural after all. Honestly, as a Jew who studies Hebrew Grammar, I don’t feel that that is quite 100% accurate but I do admit it is possible to read it as the CM’s are reading it.

Why I  think לָמו reads as singular in Isaiah 44:15:

The first argument I encountered was that פֶסֶל  should be considered a compound singular meaning that it can be singular but intend a plurality much like the Hebrew word  עַם "people” functions as in Hebrew. The problem with this view is that it the primary usage of the word doesn’t have this compound singular reading. In fact, this word has verifiable usages of the plural to represent the plural in a number of cases such as Deuteronomy 7:5, 25; 2 Chronicles 33:19, 34:7; 2 Kings 17:41 and so on[i].

The idea here is to show that לָמו  is directing the verb וַיִּסְגָּד  “bow down” back to a singular object rather than to a plural object or to more than one. To prove this we must go to the previous clause where we find אֵל וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ  “a god and worships it.” In this case there is no need to use a prepositional phrase to indicate what is being worshipped. This is instead represented by the pronominal suffix for the third person singular so that we know immediately what is being worshipped. It is referring back to the previous object “a god.”

The same is happening in the next phrase withפֶסֶל וַיִּסְגָּד-לָמוֹ  where the preposition לָמו, along with the verb וַיִּסְגָּד  is referring back to the noun פֶסֶל. Furthermore, Radak comments on this verse recognizing the difficulty of seeing למו as referring to a plural subject. His conflict is between grammar and interpretation. Consider his comments on Isaiah 44:15

למו. כמו לו או כמשמעו (להם), ופי' לפסילים אף על פי שלא זכר אלא אחד רבים הם:

למו  Lamo: Like “To him לו” or literally such (some versions read “literally to them”)[ii], The interpretation is “idols פסילים” even though it is only mentioned in the singular, it is plural in reference.

The RaDaK knew exactly what was going on here and to rightly say that in this case Lamo למו  is equivalent to “לו.” His sticking point is the interpretation and the lack of using P’silim פסילים  with a prepositionל  that has a seemingly plural suffixםו  which is why he said what he did at the end of this comment.

You also have to contend with the Targum's view and translation of this verse and how it views the reference as singular as well.

Targum Yonatan to Isaiah 44:15:

וֶהֱוֵי לֶאֱנָשָׁא לְאַדְלָקָא וּנְסֵיב מִנְהוֹן וּשְׁחֵין אַף אֲזָא וְאָפָא לְחֵם אַף עָבְדֵהּ דַחֲלָא וּסְגֵיד אִתְּכֵהּ צַלְמָא וּבְעָא מִנֵהּ 

The last little part in question of 44:15 in the targum translates as "He makes an idol god and worships it, he forms/casts an image and beseeches from it" The preposition מִנֵהּ  has a third person singular suffix ה  attached to the preposition מן  meaning "From Him/It." This tells us the Targumist saw this as a singular reference when he wrote the Targum.

In my opinion, I would translate Isaiah 44:15 as singular. Evidence from Chazal can lead us to either path of reading whether Singular or plural based on the Commentators and the view of the Targum.[iii]

Is לָמו in Isaiah 53:8 plural or singular?:

Isaiah 53:8, IMO, can go either way but, the most probable view is that of a plural reading for לָמו in Isaiah 53:8. Consider the verse and the references contained within the verse to be clues.

Isaiah 53:8 (MT)

מֵעֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח וְאֶת-דּוֹרוֹ מִי יְשׂוֹחֵחַ כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוֹ.

The plural meaning of לָמו in this case when referring back to עַמִּי as the people who had a plague or a strike upon them due to their collective transgression[iv]. This type of view is actually supported by the reading of the Targum Yonatan in which the Targum uses for the words in question:

 חוֹבִין דְחָבוּ עַמִי עַד לְוָתְהוֹן יִמטֵי׃

“The sins for which my people are guilty shall be cast upon them.”

The Targum clearly understand that the reference here is towards “my people” and that the meaning of the word לָמו is clearly plural by using לְוָתְהוֹן in its translation which is the third person plural suffix הון- on the preposition  לות and  literally means “to/unto them.” The commentators on this verse in near unanimity share the view of the targum in one form or another. To actually go over them would be mundane because the claim that is made by those who truly support a singular reference in Isaiah 53:8 are those who say the medieval commentators “changed the meaning” of the Isaiah 53 and its contents to delegitimize a certain figure. So in the interest of purely looking at the verse I did not include them in this article. If you want the Hebrew of the commentaries for this verse, just ask.

Conclusion:

The case above is strong for לָמו to read as a singular reference in at least one place within the Tanakh with some support. However, the focus isn’t that one spot in Isaiah 44:15 but rather, the focus is on whether or not the reference to לָמו in Isaiah 53:8 is singular or plural. The consensus of views from the targum to the commentaries are that this reference is completely plural. The case I made above shows that there is a higher probability of the Isaiah 53:8 reference to be plural despite the implications of Isaiah 44:15. If you happen to disagree with anything I have said please leave me a comment below so that we can discuss.

---

[i] With an exception in Psalm 97:7 in which the singular does take on the sense and meaning of a plural reference. This by far a true minority of usage in the bible for this particular Hebrew word

 

[ii] The addition of להם does change the dynamic of the comment just a bit. It would indicate that Radak saw a major grammatical problem with the function of the word in this verse but, knew off hand that למו is indeed the same as להם just in a poetic form. This view is supported in Sefer Miklol a grammatical work by Radak.

 

[iii] The view that למו can be singular is a very slim minority in the Tanakh. My only purpose is to say that the singular meaning is possible, not that it is correct, even though my personal opinion is that the singular view in Isaiah 44:15 is the grammatically correct one. I cant go against Chazal so I must adjust, religiously, to say it is a compound singular reference.

 

[iv] I don’t care to speculate on what that transgression is but, suffice to say that is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article is to establish the possible readings not a theological Q&A.