Jewish vs Christian Messiah

  • Thread starter Thread starter Veritas6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Veritas6

Guest
What can we make of these claims of a Matthew O’Neil that Jesus is not the Messiah? He has an MA in Theology from Saint Michael’s College, but he considers himself an atheist. He devoted “a year and a half” to “intense” studies on the context under which the Scriptures were written.

Below is what I found from a free preview of his book about the “Messianic Problem”, but at face value it seems like a stretch to call this man an expert; spending a year and a half on this “problem” when others with doctorates in theology and experts in early Judaism & Christianity (like Brant Pitre) reach different conclusions? Anyway, this is what he says:
The title of Messiah (mashiah) meaning “anointed one” or “ultimate deliverer” was originally given to kings, not just Jewish ones, like Cyrus the Mede. The title can also be given to high priests, patriarchs, prophets; anyone with a special mission from God.

The Messiah must be:
  • Jewish
  • A member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10, Jeremiah 23:5)
  • Direct male descendent of King David
  • Must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12, Jeremiah 23:8, 30:3, Hosea 3:4-5)
  • Must rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 33:18)
  • Will bring world peace and influence the world to serve the one, true God (Isaiah 2:3, 11:10, Micah 4:2-3, Zechariah 14:9)
  • Be well-versed in Jewish law and observant of the commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5)
  • A powerful judge with righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15)
  • Must establish a government that will be the center of all world governments for both Jews and non-Jews alike (Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:10, 42:1).
The author states that in the “Hebrew Bible”, the expectation was for two Messiahs to appear, both a priestly Messiah alongside a kingly Messiah. The priestly Messiah will come at the end of time “like Moses” – normally identified with Elijah returning from heaven (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18). This is reciprocated in the Gospel of Mark (6:14-16, 8:28, 15:35-36) and John (1:21, 6:14, 7:40). The king is referred to as the “Lord’s anointed one” (1 Samuel 16:6, 24:6, 2 Samuel 1:14, 16, Psalm 2:2). This title was extended for ordination of the Aaronic priesthood: the high priest anointed with oils and labeled Messiah (Exodus 29:1-9, Leviticus 4:3, 5, 16, 6:22, 16:32). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essene Jews also indicate they expect two Messiahs; one from the Aaronic priesthood and one from the Davidic Kingdom (The Davidic Messiah “did nothing” but the priestly Messiah has the real authority).
Click to expand...
(continued, we might agree with most of this…)
 
Last edited:
Daniel mentions the Messiah in 9:24-27 using a re-reading of Jeremiah. He uses a time frame of weeks rather than 70 years mentioned in the book of Jeremiah, interpreted to actually mean 70 weeks of years or 70 x 7. Daniel starts with the Degree of Cyrus, meaning that the time span would be 70 ½, or 493 ½ years. In Hebrew, the words for weeks and seventy have the same consonants, which grounds Daniel’s rereading of Jeremiah. Daniel 9:25 = “Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of the anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks”. There were no kings at the time, so the mention of the Messiah likely referred to a high priest, most likely Onias III (along with Cyrus, David, and Saul; Onias is a specific person to which Messiah or “anointed” was referring to).

The author states that in the New Testament, the concept of the Messiah or messianic figure “clearly changes”. In the letters of St. Paul, Jesus was the Messiah and called the first fruits of the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection of Jesus was the start of the return of God’s kingdom on earth. Hosea 13:14: “I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death” and Isaiah 25:8: “he [God] will swallow up death in victory”. Daniel 12:1-2 is the central crux of St. Paul’s argument.

The author states St. Paul’s letters were written about 20 years after the death of Jesus. St. Paul refers to Jesus as Christ (Greek christos in the Septuagint, Greek translation of mashiah) about 270 times, but the author states St. Paul never argues that Jesus is the Christ that Israel expects. St. Paul uses the title as a “second, personal name”: 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 3, 5:23, 28 = “our Lord Jesus Christ”. 1 Corinthians 15:3 = christos functioned as an alternative name for Jesus, but not as divine deliverer.
Click to expand...
That’s all I could get from a free preview (sorry if it’s not much of an argument), but strictly from an academic POV, would one be qualified to adequately exhaust this “problem” based on a master’s degree – even more so conclude against the majority of theologians? I don’t want to discredit him just because he’s an atheist (because we all are biased), but would such a bias affect his conclusions?

Is anyone familiar with this author’s line of argumentation, do you know any other scholars with similar views, or is anyone able to steelman this person’s argument based on the limited info I got not blocked by a paywall? Thank you all.
 
Last edited:
To Catholicism? I didn’t know there was such a religion at the time. I thought they converted to some form of Christianity and called themselves, for the most part, Jewish Christians.
 
But the most important thing for Jews, which the author omits, is what the Messiah was NOT supposed to be, namely, G-d.
 
Surely it was NOT the exact same Church as it became later. For one thing, the earliest Christians still worshiped in synagogues and they also observed the Jewish holidays. The Church, as did Judaism itself, evolved.
 
Last edited:
The early synagogues were not just “places” to gather. They were living symbols of the Temple both before and after its destruction.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Surely it was NOT the exact same Church as it became later. For one thing, the earliest Christians still worshiped in synagogues and they also observed the Jewish holidays. The Church, as did Judaism itself, evolved.
Click to expand...
It is the same in structure, but forms of worship evolved just as they have continued to since. Eventually, Christians left the synagogues and worshipped exclusively on their own. One could consider this a natural development of Church teaching in the vein of EF vs OF.
 
Not at first; hence the many sects within Christianity, some of which were later deemed heretical. Even today, there is controversy within Christianity with regard to exactly Who Jesus is.
 
True, but at first Judaism and Christianity were not separate; there was no division.
 
There was as much division as there was between Pharisees and Sadducees. Christianity was a subset of Judaism which believed that the messiah had already come. This idea faded as a few key events, namely expulsion from the synagogues and welcoming of gentiles, occurred.
 
Last edited:
This topic of this thread is not whether or not the early Church was Catholic. We Catholics believe the Holy Spirit gave us truth and guided the Church with recognizable authority (starting with St. Peter). I would like us to have a discussion specifically about the argument I found above. We can all agree the first Christians came from Judaism. Lets leave it at that please @(name removed by moderator) @meltzerboy2
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Christianity was a subset of Judaism which believed that the messiah had already come. This idea faded as a few key events, namely expulsion from the synagogues and welcoming of gentiles, occurred.
Click to expand...
 
meltzerboy2 said:
But the most important thing for Jews, which the author omits, is what the Messiah was NOT supposed to be, namely, G-d.
Click to expand...
As a Jewish person, can you talk more about why the Jews thought the Messiah would be only a man? Would it be completely impossible for the Messiah to be divine? Do you have any references or quotes to support this early idea in Judaism? I appreciate it.

If Jesus claimed to be God, then the high priest’s reaction of tearing his garments in Mark 14:60-64 and Matthew 26:61-66 would support this blasphemous idea in Judaism of calling oneself divine.
 
Last edited:
@Veritas6, there is a great deal of truth in the assertion that Jesus was not the kind of Messiah that the Jewish people had been led to expect. You will find a very full Catholic analysis of the question in The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, a book-length document published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 2001, over the signature of the Commission’s president, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

Here is a key excerpt:
  1. The basic theological presupposition is that God’s salvific plan which culminates in Christ (cf. Ep 1:3-14) is a unity, but that it is realised progressively over the course of time. … Christian faith recognises the fulfilment, in Christ, of the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel, but it does not understand this fulfilment as a literal one. Such a conception would be reductionist. In reality, in the mystery of Christ crucified and risen, fulfilment is brought about in a manner unforeseen. It includes transcendence. Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance; he fills them with a new reality; one can even speak in this connection of a “new creation”. It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. All the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers. The messiahship of Jesus has a meaning that is new and original.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance; he fills them with a new reality; one can even speak in this connection of a “new creation”.
Click to expand...
I love this, makes so much sense. Thank you for the link, this document looks great.
 
The author, I think, is Henry Wansbrough, the Benedictine monk who edited both the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) and the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (2019).
 
BartholomewB said:
The author, I think, is Henry Wansbrough, the Benedictine monk who edited both the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) and the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (2019).
Click to expand...
Do you know anything about the above argument that Paul never identified Jesus as the Messiah that Israel expected? Or that the concept of the Messiah changed in the New Testament? I realize Christ doesn’t have to follow the mold but what should have the Jews expected about the Messiah?

Do you know anyone else who elaborates a similar argument against Christianity? I was only able to find a little bit from this person’s argument, but so far it doesn’t seem very strong.

Also, when it comes to this study of early Christianity and ancient Judaism, would you say someone with a Master’s in Theology would have the expertise to confidently conclude an argument like in the OP? Does it take a lot of work to study context of the Bible? It might be a silly question but I’m doubting this man’s expertise with such a controversial argument (not just that he’s an atheist).
 
Last edited:
One of the historical events that is often overlooked is the destruction of Jerusalem and the second Temple in 70 AD, just like Jesus predicted. It is strong evidence that He was indeed the Messiah and was rejected by most Jews, therefore destruction followed.
 
Veritas6 said:
Do you know anyone else who elaborates a similar argument against Christianity?
Click to expand...
I don’t see it, necessarily, as an argument agaist Christianity. That is to say, this O’Neil guy, whose name was unknown to me until this moment, may be citing certain facts for the purpose of arguing against Christianity, but the facts themselves don’t lead to that conclusion.

The question has to do with the meaning(s) attached to the word “Messiah” in the OT. I notice, for example, that on one of the pages in the book that @(name removed by moderator) has been posting on this thread (post #22) the author refers to Isaiah 53. In fact, the word “Messiah” occurs only once in the whole of Isaiah, and there it refers specifically to Cyrus. You may care to take a look at this thread from a year ago, going over much the same ground:
40.png
Why should the scribes have realized that Jesus is the Messiah? Sacred Scripture
I realize that there were prophecies regarding the Messiah but anyone can say he is the Messiah especially if he is well versed in the prophecies. Yes, of course, Jesus performed miracles and that should have been enough, I guess.
Click to expand...
 
I find it rather fascinating how the Catholic Church is a witness to Jesus’ divinity and Messianic nature for She was divinely established. 2000 years of existence with consistent and developed (growing) doctrine that can be traced from current times to Jesus Himself. How in 2000 years, Her teaching has stood the test of time and Her faith has not wavered even though corruptible men have led Her throughout the centuries. She has never taught error (in an ex cathedra sense) and She still stands as the bulwark of faith and truth. When other kingdoms, nations, civilizations have crumbled, She has stood there as a champion and witness of Christ. To me, if this is not a testament to Jesus’divinity, then I do not know what else will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top