How do Hebrew Scriptures show Jesus as the Messiah?

Reverend Know It All ^ | May 23, 2013 | Fr. Richard Simon

[NYer]

Warning: this is very obscure and somewhat turgid. Only read it if you are Biblically and historically hardcore.

Dear Rev. Know-it-all,

Apollos is said to have “vigorously refuted the Jews in public, establishing from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.” Do you know any resource where the argument that Apollos made can be found?

Thanks,

Judy Eizer

Dear Judy,

First let’s look at the passage you quote from Acts the 18^th Chapter (24-28):

 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

Two things about this passage: First, notice that a Jew is refuting Jews. I have spilled a lot of ink trying to understand what the term Jew meant at the time of Christ. The word Jew is a fairly modern word. The word in the text is “Judaios,” the Greek word for Judean. To avoid, or perhaps to create, confusion I will use this term. I suspect that Judean was an ambiguous term that could mean a person from the province of Judea, a person from the tribe of Judah, and/or a person who was a member of the religious/political faction that backed Judean political and religious autonomy. So that would mean that Apollos, a member of that group was arguing with his fellows, insisting that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.

Second, I think the mention of John the Baptist is completely fascinating (not to be confused with John the Beloved Disciple, the Evangelist who is traditionally credited with the authorship of the fourth Gospel.)  John the Baptist seems to have led a sect of his own, or at least to have been prominent in a faction of the Hebrew community. He had followers in Turkey perhaps twenty years after his death, as is evidenced by the passage above. He still has followers today, the Mandaeans. They are Gnostics, people who believe that one is saved by secret knowledge. There are about 60,000 - 70,000 of them, mostly in the Near East. They believed that John the Baptist whom they call Yahya ibn Zakariyya was the Messiah. Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a false messiah who perverted the teachings entrusted to Him by John the Baptist.  This bring us squarely into the Gospel of John. “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)

It seems that the Gospel of John is unlike the others because he is addressing it to a very specific group of people, Eusebius of Caesarea, around 325 AD, dedicates quite a few lines in explaining the difference between the Gospel of John and the synoptic, or look alike, Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). In his Ecclesiastical History (Book 3, Chapter 24) he makes the point that the Gospel was written to clarify the ministry of Jesus when John the Baptist was alive. Whomever John the Evangelist was writing to, he was clearly making the argument that Jesus, not John was the Messiah. I suspect it was to John the Baptist’s disciples that the Gospel was addressed. 

In answer to your question, perhaps Apollos arguments against the Jews are similar to John the Evangelist’s arguments against the followers of the Baptist. And there is certainly a need for such a refutation if Jesus was in fact the messiah. There were certain things the Messiah was going to do. In the days of the false Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi (around 1650) an excited disciple ran in to his rabbi’s study and said “Rabbi, the Messiah has come!” The rabbi went to the window, threw open the shutters and exclaimed, “Nothing has changed!” the rabbi’s point was this: If the Messiah had come why was nothing different? Point well taken! So then what were the Messianic expectations?

Not many people know that the Talmud, the definitive text of Rabbinic Phariseeism (Judaism), expects two Messiahs, the suffering servant and the conquering son of David. We, Christians just believe that they are the same person. Interestingly, according to the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth is called both Son of David and Son of Joseph. Certain of the Messianic expectations are fulfilled by the Son of Joseph, some by the Son of David.

This Son of Joseph is already expected in the Qumran documents as early as 200 BC. In the Judean Desert texts, He appears as a suffering righteous Joseph, who cries out to God in His death-throes as ‘My father’, citing Psalms 89 and 22, and predicts that He will arise to do justice and righteousness. He will gather the children of Israel around Him, march to Jerusalem, and there, after overcoming the hostile powers, reestablish the Temple-worship and set up His own dominion.

Strangely, the Talmud expects the Messiah to sit at the gates of the city of Rome!

“The Messiah at the Gates of Rome” is a traditional story, found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a. “Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (250 AD) while meditating near the tomb of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, was visited by the Prophet Elijah. "When will the Messiah come?" asked Joshua. "Ask him," replied the Prophet. "The Messiah is at the gates of Rome, sitting among the poor, the sick and wretched. Like them, he changes the bindings of his wounds, but does so one wound at the time, in order to be ready at a moment's notice.

Then Joshua went to Rome and met the Messiah...Joshua then asked “When will you be coming?” and was told “Today!”. Joshua went back to Elijah and was asked what the Messiah said....Joshua then said that the Messiah had not told him the truth, because he had promised to come today but had not. Elijah explained “This is what he said to thee, To-day, if ye will hear his voice”, a reference to Psalms 95:7, making his coming conditional with the condition not fulfilled.” 

It gives two completely unknown Messianic expectations, that the Messiah son of Joseph will sit at the gates of Rome and that His coming will be conditional, only recognized by those who hear His voice. 

Though the Talmud is certainly not considered inspired by Christians it does give a sense of what people were looking for at the time of the Second Temple. It makes the point that the Messiah will take up residence in Rome. Hmmm... The Messiah in Rome.... Ever heard of the Roman Catholic Church? Ever heard of the Vicar of the (Messiah) Christ? If there is any prophetic sense to the expectations of the Hebrew people, then its not simply arbitrary or anti-Christian that the Church, the body of the Messiah, would have its headquarters in Rome. 

Though it is true that Jesus founded the Church in the Holy Land, they seemed to have moved the head offices to Italy pretty fast because that’s where the good restaurants are. (Just kidding) This story also answers the question of “Why has nothing changed?” Everything has changed for those who “hear His voice.” Nothing is changed for those who do not. 

The Talmud also contains a very odd Messianic expectation, that the Son of David would pray to be spared from death. The Talmud (Suk. 52b) speaks of how the Son of Joseph's death frightens the Son of David, so that He urgently prays for his life to be spared. If Jesus was both Son of Joseph and Son of David, then this expectation is fulfilled in the story of Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus both submitted to and prayed to be delivered from death and His prayers were answered we reads in the letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 5:7)” During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the One who could save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverent submission.”

Some people think that the creation of the state of Israel is the beginning of the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. I don’t know the eschatological meaning of the state of Israel, but it most certainly is not the in-gathering of the tribes of Israel. If anything, it is the in-gathering of the tribe of Judah, which is not part of the messianic expectations. We Catholics maintain that Israel, scattered among the nations is gathered into the Church from the nations where they were first scattered. We, the Church are the in-gathering of Israel as well as the gathering of the nations to mount Zion, another of the essential Messianic expectations.

( I know this is obscure, but to be continued anyway.......)

[NYer]

Ping!

[knarf]

later digestion

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

bkmk

[quadrant]

Aren’t we quibbling about the in gathering of the tribes of Israel v the in gathering of the tribe of Judah, as it is all but impossible - or at least very difficult - to separate today’s Jews into tribes? What we do know is that Jews from all corners of the world have relocated to Israel and that to me is a “gathering.”

[onedoug]

I don’t think they do, IMHO.

[Petrosius]

Aren’t we quibbling about the in gathering of the tribes of Israel v the in gathering of the tribe of Judah, as it is all but impossible - or at least very difficult - to separate today’s Jews into tribes?

But Jews do not include all of Israel, only the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin that comprised the southern kingdom of Judah after the breakaway of the ten northern tribes who formed their own kingdom under the name of Israel.

[FourtySeven]

Very interesting. I look forward to the continuation.

[jjotto]

‘Jews’ are actually B’nei Yisrael (Sons of Israel) officially. The term Jew is a kind of nickname, unless it means of the tribe of Judah.

I’m unaware of any reference in the Jewish Bible to the ingathering of Yehudim to the exclusion of other tribes.

[Zionist Conspirator]

It don't.

Chrstians begin with the assumption that J*sus is messiah and then retroject that into the Hebrew Bible. And because this belief is fundamental (even before the authority of the Hebrew Bible) it is irrational and apparently not susceptible to any argument whatsoever. Ask a chrstian to prove or justify their claim and all they do is repeat the dogmas, as if they were self-affirming, self-proving, and self-evidently true.

In fact, some chrstians only accept the Hebrew Bible because they think J*sus "authorizes" it.

[ex-snook]

For those who believe Jesus was the Son of God, no proof is necessary,
For those who won’t, no proof is possible, written or not.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Chrstians begin with the assumption that J*sus is messiah and then retroject that into the Hebrew Bible.”

---

Joseph Ben Uziel, 30 years before the time of Christ, in his paraphrase of Isaiah 9:6:

“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity. Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)

It seems that Jews, at least THESE days, come from the assumption that Jesus is not the Messiah, and therefore they reject the plain teachings of the Holy Scripture. The Apostles did not argue from any assumption, they argued from the scripture.

Act 8:30-35 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? (31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (32) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: (33) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. (34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

I’d rather stick to the scripture, than all the flaky teachings of Judaism that are popular today.

[HarleyD]

Though the Talmud is certainly not considered inspired by Christians it does give a sense of what people were looking for at the time of the Second Temple. It makes the point that the Messiah will take up residence in Rome. Hmmm... The Messiah in Rome.... Ever heard of the Roman Catholic Church?

A bit of a stretch based upon what-the Talmud??? Not much different then getting a theological view from a Chick Track. They to talk about Rome. ;O)

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

What’s up with this article? It purports to be something about showing the Messiah from the scriptures, and yet there isn’t even one sentence in there that discusses any of the ancient prophecies concerning Him.

[onedoug]

...all the flaky teachings of Judaism that are popular today.

Torah, flaky? Not to me.

[jjotto]

When disciples of Jesus put their arguments in writing, Jews were lost to them.

As long as the evangelization was done by charismatic preachers with clever oral arguments, all was well. Put those arguments in writing, able to be studied and compared, and no educated Jew could go along.

Thus the appeal to pagans to keep the budding institution alive.

[Uri’el-2012]

In fact, some chrstians only accept the Hebrew Bible because they think J*sus "authorizes" it.

That is because many "christians" believe in three gods
They believe Yah'shua is a new god.

They also believe that Yah'shua taught a new and different message.

6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders ; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom,

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Torah, flaky? Not to me.”

---

Don’t twist what I say. I didn’t say Torah. I said their teachings, specifically their teachings about the Torah. For example:

From the Zohar, Chapter 6, Portion Noach “If Adam had not sinned, he would not have begotten any offspring.”

35.
Come and behold: if Adam had brought generations with him from the Garden of Eden, they would have lived for generations. And the light of the moon, WHICH REFERS TO THE LIGHT OF MALCHUT, would have never been darkened. And all would have lived forever; and not even the angels above could have stood before them and borne their light, brilliance and wisdom. As it is written: “In the image of Elohim He created him” (Beresheet 1:27). But because he was the cause of the sin, he had to leave the Garden of Eden and bear children outside. So his generations did not last BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FIT.

Rabbi Chizkiyah then asked: How could they have begotten offspring there IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN? Had the Evil Inclination not been drawn down on him and he sinned, he would have dwelled alone in the world and would have not begotten any offspring! The same applies to Yisrael; had they not sinned by the golden calf and drawn upon themselves the Evil Inclination AFTER ACCEPTING THE TORAH, they also would have never borne any offspring, and no new generations would have come into the world. The main point is that the power of mating derives mainly from the Evil Inclination. So without the Evil Inclination there can be no offspring.

He said to him: Had Adam not sinned, he would not have borne offspring from the side of the Evil Inclination, but he would have borne them from the side of the Holy Spirit. But because he produced offspring only from the side of the Evil Inclination, all the offspring of mankind are born from the side of the Evil Inclination. They have no permanent existence therefore, because the Other Side has been mixed with them.

But if Adam had not sinned and had not been driven out of the Garden of Eden, he would have begotten offspring from the side of the Spirit of the holy of holies. And they would have been as the supreme angels, and lived generations upon generations as angels do above. THIS MEANS THAT THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF MATING: ONE IS THE SPIRITUAL MATING OF THE ANGELS; THE SECOND IS THE MATING OF YESOD FOR THE SOULS. THAT NEED FOR THE EVIL INCLINATION RELATES ONLY TO THE MATING OF YESOD AND NOT TO THE SPIRITUAL MATING THAT COMES FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. But because he sinned and begot children outside the Garden of Eden and he did not merit to beget them in the Garden of Eden, therefore they did not survive even only to take root in this world until Noah came and went into the ark. And from the ark all descending generations of mankind emerged and spread to all four corners of the earth.

---

Lots of people assume that Judaism, as a whole, is just about the Old Testament scriptures. The problem is in the other material they use to interpret the Old Testament scriptures, wherein we find blasphemous teachings about the nature of God, letters with magical powers, reincarnation, the divinity of man, and fable upon fable.

I’d rather stick with the plain words of the scripture. Here’s the Gospel summarized:

Isa 53:1-12 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? (2) For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. (3) He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (5) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. (8) He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. (9) And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (12) Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“That is because many “christians” believe in three gods
They believe Yah’shua is a new god.
They also believe that Yah’shua taught a new and different message.

6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders ; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
shalom b’SHEM Yah’shua HaMashiach”

---

His “shem”, the word translated name, refers to his essential character, not just a name in the western sense. He is literally the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, and so forth, and not just a mere name. It describes him perfectly.

On the phrase ‘Everlasting Father’ From Barnes’ commentary:

“The everlasting Father - The Chaldee renders this expression, ‘The man abiding forever.’ The Vulgate, ‘The Father of the future age.’ Lowth, ‘The Father of the everlasting age.’ Literally, it is the Father of eternity. ;by ad. The word rendered “everlasting,”’ad, properly denotes “eternity,” and is used to express “forever;” see Psa_9:6, Psa_9:19; Psa_19:10. It is often used in connection with ôlâm, thus, v’ed ôlâm, “forever and ever;” Psa_10:16; Psa_21:5; Psa_45:7. The Hebrews used the term father in a great variety of senses - as a literal father, a grandfather, an ancestor, a ruler, an instructor. The phrase may either mean the same as the Eternal Father, and the sense will be, that the Messiah will not, as must be the ease with an earthly king, however excellent, leave his people destitute after a short reign, but will rule over them and bless them forever (Hengstenberg); or it may be used in accordance with a custom usual in Hebrew and in Arabic, where he who possesses a thing is called the father of it.”

The phrase, therefore, does not say that the Father is named the Son, despite still being the Father.

[onedoug]

Well met.

I'm not big into mysticism. Though I do appreciate the numerical nature of Biblical Hebrew. But that's another story.

Perhaps religion is what we make of it. I'm Noahchide, or try to be. I've always thought it amusing that a pew mate at a conservative synagogue I attended for awhile commented to the rabbi that, "He's more a Jew than I am." A good feeling I admit. Though the past few years I've become an essentially solitary observer...which can lead to some controversial areas of interpretation. Yet God is always in them....