Messiah must be rejected

[Mark]

Messiah would not be accepted when He first appears. It is a strange irony that even Israel’s rejection of Yeshua as Messiah is a validation of His claim. It is promised that He would be despised and rejected (Isaiah 6:9-10, Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 49:4 &7, Isaiah 53:1-3, Zechariah 11:8 & 12-14, Psalm 2:2, Psalm 22:6, Psalm 69:8, Psalm 118:22).

Zecharaiah 11:4-6 foretells that Israel will reject her rightful King and turn in reverence to a foreigner.
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
(John 19:15)

As a result of this rejection, Adonai promised that He would scatter Israel throughout the nations (Zechariah 13:7-8). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD.

[byichud]

Mark, with respect I am not implying that you or anyone else should not believe what they believe, but I think it is incorrect to base it on scriptures that do not say what they say. I hope I am not breaking rules here, and I am not proselytizing or challenging your beliefs.

I will only address the two most obvious scriptures here. Isaiah 41 to 54 are known as the “servant songs”. Throughout these songs it is absolutely clear who the servant is, it is Israel. E.g. 42:19 43:10; 44:1; 49:3. the word “servant” is n the singular in each of these cases and cannot be separated from the servant of Israel throughout this dialog between God and Israel. It is important to know who is talking in this dialog.

Who is His anointed? 45:1.45:16-17. Is Cyrus the messiah? He could be if we take this out of context and hang a single verse or two out there.

Psalm 22 is David speaking. To say that this is something else, and even if quoted by someone else, does not change the context and prove anything beyond it’s original intent. Psalm 118 when read in its’ entirety takes on a whole different meaning. However, it can be made to mean anything, if one wants to, as is the case of Psalm 110; where the original language is changed and the two uses of lord are made to mean the same thing.

Zechariah 11:4-6; Israel was also scattered and ruled by Greece and Rome. This had been God’s decree even before they entered the land, and was their punishment over and over again for their disobedience. This cannot be specifically tied to Caesar, Pilate, or any other one person or nation. The 30 pieces of silver were paid to the false Sheppard and not for him.

Zechariah 11:14 is the opposite of what the messiah is to do. He is to bring Israel back together not break their brotherhood, and the chapter as well as the book, taken as a whole, combined with historical data will not support that claim.

Zechariah 13:5-9 tells a whole different story. The prophet wounded by his friends is a false prophet.

Fitting things into a preconceived idea will always work. I wonder how the Jewish people could be so stupid and unable to understand their own writings, and it was not until they were fit into a revisionist motif that they made sense. Is God such a trickster that He would hide His truth so that no one could understand it until a non Jewish world could explain it? Would He say do this in order to please me and then come along and say haha I was just kidding? You know all that stuff I told you; fugedaboutit, I didn’t mean it. Remember when I told you that repentance was the only element to true forgiveness; joke is on you as you burn in hell because I was kidding. Oh my servant Jacob, Israel, my chosen nation; the joke is on you!

[Mark]

I appreciate your position and concern; yet, I believe that the texts are accurately pointing to the Messiah. Many Jewish theologians have believed this as well. Yet, with Rashi came a dynamic shift in Judaic teaching to disqualify any text as being descriptive of the coming Messiah. It makes sense that the Jewish people would have the greater knowledge of their own texts; yet, this is not true when what may be the obvious answer has been handily refused: since the obvious cannot be so, we must interpret the text differently, and so on. It's similar to the argument that only evolution is a valid understanding of scientific origins since God must be removed from the equation, while there are a whole host of credible and reputable scientists who endorse the doctrines and science of a literal six day creation. (But you'll never hear that in school- likewise, you'll likely never hear the Jewish teachers who endorse the Messianic interpretations of these texts in traditional Jewish yeshivas).


It seems to me that the greater contexts of the passages being written demonstrate a clear Messianic direction of thought (while the immediate context of the individual phrase often possesses a simpler, more time relevant understanding). Ask yourself, why would this text bo so relevant as to be included in the inspired Word of God? The classic example is Isiah 64 which the traditional Jewish interpretation declares some guy is going to have a young mother and a lot of aliases. If not teaching a greater truth, what is the point? The interpretations which refuse the Messianic interpretation tragically dissolves any relevance to the text.

[byichud]

Mark, I understand what you are saying and we will have to respectfully disagree. Rabbinic commentaries, Talmud, have many interpretations of a text. What they do is "what are all the possible interpretations" that this text can take. What is important is the accepted interpretation.

As to Rashi:

Origen, the influential church father, conceded in the year 248 CE -- many centuries before Rashi was born -- that the consensus among the Jews in his time was that Isaiah 53 “bore reference to the whole Jewish people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.”

Thanks

[Mark]

Something I've noticed over the course of my studies, and the many discussions that come across this board, is that you can always find someone (even authoritative) who teaches what you want to believe. Origen also believed that the Messiah (Jesus) was a lesser, created god. I'd say he's fallen out of graces as far as reputability goes. Justin Martyr was also a well respected Christian figure at the onset of the second Century and a blazing anti-semite.

I have to disagree with the confidence you place upon the "accepted interpretations". Accepted by who? Since the Catholics have had the largest presence and authority world over, does that make them right? Judaism, while the fourth largest religious presence, is a tiny representation of biblical interpretation. The accepted interpretation all depends upon the pond in which you swim.

Yet, this is not the pattern that we see given for our example in Scripture. Elijah was a lone maverick who was deemed an enemy to Israel because he was committed to the biblical interpretation of . As I read through the Scriptures over and over, I can't recall a single point in history when the majority of the population, the religious understanding, was committed to following Adonai- rather they continuously seek to justify their own means and support their own position.

We all have the priviledge of accepting the history and perspective that we choose to believe. Most Jewish teachings asert that Christianity is a gentile religion; but for the first 100 years (at least the first 70) it was considered a sect within the larger definition of Judaism. The authors of what we consider the New Testament Scripture were all Jewish who never once remotely suggested their abandonment of Judaism. The record which we call the Acts of the Epistles testifies to the first 7000 believers in Yeshua as Messiah all being Jewish including a number of koheinum (Acts 6:7), then dispersed throughout Asia under oppression from Herod. If you consider it, this is the only plausible explanation for the broad acceptance of Messiah that Paul experienced, finding believers already throughout Asia on his tours. I understand that you consider these writings to likely be fabrications. As you said at the onset, you can believe whatever you want to believe.

From our perspective, many of whom came out of a Christian faith that has demonstrated a long and consistent history of tailoring our understanding of God's Word to meet our own agendas, it is easy to see that this same thing has occured within Judaism- that where history and Scripture has been inconsistent with what we want to believe, we change our view of history as opposed to correcting our interpretation of Scripture.

Consistently, what I have asked when addressed with your concerns, is, why are these texts so important as to be considered inspired Scripture for our edification? Those who dismiss the Messianic perspective have no answer. The text is trivialized by those who would reject their speaking of Messiah; but never given a viable interpretation that points to the singular message of the text- the message which we believe points to the Messiahship of Yeshua.

[byichud]

I agree. I was not trying to imply any authority to Origen or other “church fathers”, the only point I was trying to make is that Israel, as the “servant”, was the accepted understanding well before Rashi and even Christianity.

By accepted interpretation I mean the corpus of Jewish belief. While the history of the prophets does show they continued to stray, they never rejected their accepted beliefs. They “rejected”, and not overtly, (Adonai only) by syncretism with the nations. Even the golden calf was a representation of Hashem. They even continued to bring sacrifices according to law. This is the whole point for the “servant songs” God chastising Israel and then lovingly taking her back. The “servant song” is a microcosm of the prophets.

I believe that the authorship of the NT is not clear. The Gospels, as an example, were not written by those who bear their names, and were written after what would have been their lifetime. There is so much that can be said about inspired and inerrant. Simply one factual error would negate that concept. Acts 7:14 (75 souls) - Deut. 10:22. (70, which includes Joseph and his sons); Jesus in Mark 2:26 (Abiathar ) - 1 Sam 21, (Ahimelech), we must keep to the written text

Apart from the NT the 1st century movement was at best a fledgling group. Historically, Josephus does not even mention them as a sect of Judaism when he lists the sects that existed in the latter half of the first century. “Christianity” did not flourish until much latter. Is it possible that Paul, well before 70AD, when he goes throughout Asia minor that there is already wide acceptance? Is not Paul the one who took the Gospel to the nations, and already finds it everywhere?

if I copy some of Albert Einstein’s formulas and say, I am a Physicist, does not make me one. The only way I can support my claim is to require my writing to be the only facet and measure of truth. I do agree completely with what I think you are saying, and that is, that God does not lie and what we believe must line up with what He has told us previously.

Again, I am not proselytizing because I do not believe that if you reject what I or anyone else says, or do not believe what I or anyone else says that you are destined for hell.

I appreciate your thoughts and discussion.

Baruch Hashem

[Mark]

Hmmm. I would have to disagree that the 400 prophets of Baal employed by queen Jezebel were simply a misguided worshipers of haShem. No, Israel has gone through some periods of overwhelming rejection of Adown Olam. Fortunately for all of us, He has never rejected His people.

If we wish to discredit either Tanakh or New Testament writings by questioning authenticity or apparent contradictions, there is more than enough fodder in any of a number of blazing atheist websites. Yet, as you will probably agree, the arguments against the Tanakh are based on ignorance and unresearched assumptions. I’ve found that attempts to discredit the New Testament are the same. There aren’t many rules for this forum because we want people to have liberty to discuss a range of perspectives; but in order to make progress, we ask that questioning the validity of what is commonly believed as inspired text not be the subject of discussion. There are ample boards available to go through those motions over and over- and I have found to little or no avail.

It’s difficult (if not impossible) to trace the progress of what we believe to be biblically defined as “Christianity” because they didn’t universally stamp themselves with that definition. In fact, Paul never once identified himself as a Christian. On the three occasions he had the opportunity to introduce his belief system, he described himself as a Jew “believing all things written in the Law and in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14). Consistently, throughout the book of Acts, we find believers in Yeshua as Messiah and non-believers, Jews and gentiles, worshipping side by side in the synagogues. In fact, in Acts 15, Peter declares that the gentiles need no extra weights placed upon them to gain access into this Jewish faith because they will have Moses and the Prophets taught to them in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

Paul was not the Christian “Johnny Appleseed” that many would suggest him to be. There was a thriving congregation of believers in Rome before he ever go there (Romans 1:9-13). When he did get to Rome, he met with the leadership of the Jewish community who stated that they were familiar with “this sect” (by implication, a sect or “off-branch” [Greek: heresias] of Judaism) but had never heard of Paul.

Several years ago, I worked as a security guard who sat all night in one of those little huts in the middle of the road leading into a secure facility. I had quite a bit of time on my hands. During that time I read the Bible, reading Old Testament and New Testament, cover to cover completing it, on average, about once per month. It was during this process that I began to understand the New Testament Scriptures as being written from a Jewish (Old Testament) perspective, resting and establishing its credibility solely upon the foundation of and upon the testimonies of the prophets. There is nothing new in the New Testament- it is simply a declaration that Messiah has come, based upon the evidences witnessed by Jewish men who had only the Tanakh and Jewish tradition by which they could reach this conclusion.

There are no wasted words in Scripture. There are no anecdotal stories. These volumes rest together in a composite unity to declare the means by which Adonai has offered His love to the world: through His covenant with this special people, Israel, purchased and ratified in the promised Messiah, whom we stand convinced has come.

[Mark]

It's a little frustrating that modern Jewish scholars dismiss the Messianic prophecies such as in Zechariah when their own ancient writers confirm them.

Talmud - Mas. Sukkah 52a - What is the cause of the mourning [mentioned in the last cited verse]? — R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained, The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination. It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, is this [it may be objected] an occasion for mourning? Is it not rather an occasion for rejoicing? Why then should they weep? — [The explanation is] as R. Judah expounded: In the time to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the Evil Inclination and slay it in the presence of the righteous and the wicked.

[Mark]

Rabbi R. Elyyah de Vidas sights, “The meaning of ‘he was wounded for our transgressions, ... bruised for our iniquities’ is, that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoever will not admit that the Messiah suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for themselves.”

Ninth century poet, Eliazer Hakalir, paraphrases Isaiah 53 in a prayer that comprises a part of some Jewish sects’ traditional liturgical prayers recited on Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement). The prayer begins: “We are shrunk up in our misery even until now! Our Rock hath not come nigh to us; Messiah our righteousness, hath turned from us; we are in terror, and there is none to justify us! Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions He will bear, for He was wounded for our transgressions; He will carry our sins upon His shoulder, that we may find forgiveness for our iniquities; and by his strips we are healed ...” (Baron, Rays of Messiah’s Glory, pp. 225-230)

Midrash Tanhuma and Yalkut, vol. 2, par. 338 on Isaiah 52:13 states that the expressions "exalted, and extolled and be very high" indicates that, “Messiah shall be more exalted than Abraham... more extolled than Moses... and be very high; that is higher than the ministering angels...”

This again demonstrates that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 was viewed by rabbis as a messianic prophecy.

Also: “… the weight of Jewish authority preponderates in favor of the Messianic interpretation of this chapter… that until recent times this prophecy has been almost universally received by Jews as referring to Messiah is evident from Targum Jonathan who introduces Messiah by name in chp. LII.13; from the Talmud (Sanhedrin vol. 98b); and from the Zohar... In fact, until Rabbi Rashi [Rabbi Solomon Izaak (1040-1105)], considered the originator of the modern school of Jewish interpretation], who applied it to the Jewish nation, the Messianic interpretation of this chapter was almost universally adopted by Jews..." (Baron, Rays of Messiahs Glory, pp. 225-229)

text quoted from www.jesusplusnothing.com/messiah/messiah.htm

[David Ben Yosef]

I've heard anti-missionary claims that Origen (an early so-called Church father) also interpreted the suffering servant as Israel in 248 CE. However, I've never found any evidence to substantiate that claim. Considering the source, it wouldn't hold much weight even if this reference could be found.

Mark is correct, in that the general consensus among Talmudic Rabbi's was that the suffering servant was referring to Mashiackh. It's well documented despite efforts to conceal it. Here's a short summary of why the suffering servant in Yeshayahu 53 couldn't possibly be Israel: LINK