Messianic Judaism

[Valke2]

The Lord said unto my Lord, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet.”

In the original Hebrew text the first word “Lord” in the Hebrew is a correct translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). But the second “Lord” is a mistranslation of the text. The second word “Lord” in the verse is a bad translation of the Hebrew word “ladonee”, which actually means “to my master” or “to my lord.” Adonee **never **refers to God. God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. And that’s saying something, because there are a whole lot of words for God in the bible. But adonee, isn’t one of them.

The word is used, however, to refer to Abraham and Esau in other parts of the Torah. For some reason, the word is translated correctly in those to verses but not in Psalm 110:1

A cynic might say this is because both Genesis 24:54 and Genesis 32:4 are not texts used to prove Jesus from the Jewish scriptures.

Some recent Christian Bibles have corrected this. the RSV and the New English Bible correctly render the Hebrew word ladonee as " to my lord," in Psalm 110:1. In these translations, it is clear that God is not speaking to God.

As a Jew, I would call the whole story of Jesus talking the the Pharsees about Psalm 110 into question. I can’t see how the Pharasees would remain silent in the story. Even without the internet, they would surely know the correct translation of Pslam 110:1

As to what Psalm 110 is referring to, its opening words are “A Song of David.”

So who was King David writing this (and other) song for?

The original purpose for which King David composed the Book of Psalms was for the Levites to sing them in the Temple. Since he couldn’t be the guy to build it. King David composed Psalm 110 for recitation by the Levites in the Temple years after his death.

This explains the opening line. The Levites would read: "The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] “Sit thou at my right hand . . . .”

 

[JohnPaul0]

The Lord said unto my Lord, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet.”

In the original Hebrew text the first word “Lord” in the Hebrew is a correct translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). But the second “Lord” is a mistranslation of the text. The second word “Lord” in the verse is a bad translation of the Hebrew word “ladonee”, which actually means “to my master” or “to my lord.” Adonee **never **refers to God. God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. And that’s saying something, because there are a whole lot of words for God in the bible. But adonee, isn’t one of them.

The word is used, however, to refer to Abraham and Esau in other parts of the Torah. For some reason, the word is translated correctly in those to verses but not in Psalm 110:1

A cynic might say this is because both Genesis 24:54 and Genesis 32:4 are not texts used to prove Jesus from the Jewish scriptures.

Some recent Christian Bibles have corrected this. the RSV and the New English Bible correctly render the Hebrew word ladonee as " to my lord," in Psalm 110:1. In these translations, it is clear that God is not speaking to God.

As a Jew, I would call the whole story of Jesus talking the the Pharsees about Psalm 110 into question. I can’t see how the Pharasees would remain silent in the story. Even without the internet, they would surely know the correct translation of Pslam 110:1

As to what Psalm 110 is referring to, its opening words are “A Song of David.”

So who was King David writing this (and other) song for?

The original purpose for which King David composed the Book of Psalms was for the Levites to sing them in the Temple. Since he couldn’t be the guy to build it. King David composed Psalm 110 for recitation by the Levites in the Temple years after his death.

This explains the opening line. The Levites would read: "The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] “Sit thou at my right hand . . . .”

Valke,

A very interesting interpretation. My response is that your interpretation depends either that the whole event never happened or else all the Jewish ears would easily recognize that the second “lord” in Psalm 110:1 could not refer to God and so it could not refer to the God-Man. Maybe in this case Jesus was stressing his human characteristic as Messiah, not the Divine.

In that case, David could indeed refer to him as “my lord” or “my master” because the Messiah --even a human Messiah–would be superior to David, yes?

I think that my point is strengthened by the fact that the whole context of the discussion of Matt 22:41-46 is: who is the Messiah? Quite possibly the pharisees were silent because they never considered Jesus’ point about how David could call his son “master.” From a Christian standpoint, Jesus brought them face-to-face with the Virgin Birth, only hinting at his Divinity, so they didn’t quite know what to think.

Your friend,
JohnPaul

 

[havemercy]

I had an online encounter with a rabid anti-Catholic Messianic Jew, who claimed to be one of the 144,000, and a direct descendant of the tribe of Judah.

I got cramps arguing with the guy. I eventually just ended our debate. They pull the old “anti-semitism” card on us whenever we quote the ECF’s, namely, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Iraneus. Whenever I quoted them in order to back up my claims historically, I got responses that resembled this (3:25-3:45), or I was basically schooled on how those fellows were the wolves Saint Paul warned about in his letters to the various Churches, and that therefore, they should have no place in the discussion.

Bah humbug.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Jews do not believe that God has or ever will appear as a man. That God has no corporeal body, no physical being. So a messiah who is God would be outside of the theology. If you look at Jewish history regarding false messiahs, you see that those who followed them never viewed them as God, but as military/political leaders.

That’s not always true. In fact, there were a group of very strictly, ascetic Jews prior to the emmergence of Christianity which did in fact believe that the Messiah would be the Son of God-- the Essenes.

Starting at John the Baptist, we read the following…

First, the Bible tells us that John the Baptist was an ascetic. He dressed simply and ate locusts and wild honey. From our literary sources like Josephus and Philo we know that the Essenes were also ascetics.

We also know, from literary testimony, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the archaeological remains of Qumran, that the Essenes practiced many water baptisms for ritual purification. Water baptism is believed to have originated in Diaspora Judaism, that is, among Jewish communities outside of Israel. It was used in the initiation of Gentile proselytes.

At Qumran, however, all members of the community were baptized with water for ritual purification. The baptism with water, however, was only an outer, ritual cleansing; an inner, spiritual baptism was believed to take place at Qumran.

Consider the inner and outer baptisms of the following passage from the Rule of the Community:

For it is through the spirit of true counsel concerning the ways of man that all his sins shall be expiated that he may contemplate the light of life. He shall be cleansed from all his sins by the spirit of holiness uniting him to His truth, and his iniquity shall be expiated by the spirit of uprightness and humility. And when his flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God

.(Rule of the Community [1QS] III)​

In addition to this inner and outer cleansing, the Qumran Essenes also expected a future outpouring of the spirit of truth in which water baptism and spirit baptism would not represent two types of cleansing, but in which a single spiritual baptism would abolish sin entirely.

This special baptism is described in the same scroll in relation to a certain man who “shall be plunged into the spirit of purification that he may instruct the upright in the knowledge of the Most High and teach the wisdom of the sons of heaven to the perfect of way. For God has chosen them for an everlasting Covenant and all the glory of Adam shall be theirs” (Ibid.).

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued

The article continues…

There is one other point I would like to make about the Qumran community before we turn our attention once more to John the Baptist.

Again in the same Dead Sea Scroll there is a citation of Isaiah 40:3, which says “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (NRSV).

The verse is interpreted as describing the Qumran way of life; they are to separate themselves from the outside world, retreating into the desert and preparing the way of the LORD by their study of the Law.

In all four Gospels Isaiah 40:3 is cited with reference to the ministry of John the Baptist, but with a different interpretation.

In John’s Gospel the citation of Isaiah 40:3 is attributed directly to the Baptist.

Whether John was a member of the Qumran community or heavily influenced by them, when the word of the Lord came to him in the Judean wilderness he realized that Isaiah’s prophecy did not describe studying the Law in isolation but proclaiming the arrival of God’s chosen Messiah.

At that point he began to proclaim the message of the Messiah’s coming and of imminent judgment. He administered a water baptism of ritual purification and preached repentance. He anticipated that his baptizing ministry would reveal the identity of the Messiah. In John 1:31 the Baptist says, “I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel” (NRSV).

This anticipation accords very well with the passage from the Rule of the Community we cited earlier about the man who would be plunged into the spirit and would instruct the upright, seal the covenant, and restore the glory of Adam.

Indeed when John baptized Jesus the Spirit descended on Jesus and he was proclaimed the Son of God. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we are told that the Spirit descended like a dove on him after he came up out of the water.

Scholars have suggested that this may be an allusion to the creation account in Genesis 1:2 which states that the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters. The point that Matthew, Mark, and Luke would then be making is that with the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry a new age began.

**Up until recently, there has been no concrete support for this interpretation of Jesus’ baptism; no evidence, that is, that anybody would allude to Genesis 1:2 in describing the future age. **

A recently released Qumran Scroll from Cave 4 called “the Messianic Apocalypse,” however, has filled this gap. In a verbal allusion to Genesis 1:2, this scroll states that “Over the Meek will His Spirit hover.”

The author of this Scroll described the future redemption of God’s people in terms of the original creation account. The Spirit would hover over the Meek in the new creation just as it had hovered over the waters in the original creation.

The writers of the first three Gospels alluded to Genesis 1:2 in exactly the same way. Just as the Spirit was involved in the Genesis creation, so it was involved in the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry which was the beginning of a new era, a new age.

The Messiah had finally arrived.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The article continues…

We know from the preaching of John the Baptist that he expected the Messiah to baptize with Holy Spirit and with fire, ushering in the long-awaited judgment day.

But Christ did not immediately send the baptism of the Holy Spirit and he certainly did not immediately bring the fire of judgment. This ran contrary to John’s theology; John began to doubt whether Jesus really was the Messiah after all.

Matthew writes: “When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me’” (Matt. 11:2-6, NRSV).

Luke records this incident also. Jesus’ answer harks back to three passages from the book of the prophet Isaiah: 29:18 and 19; 35:5,6, and 61:1. These Old Testament verses describe the deaf hearing, the blind seeing, the lame walking, and the poor receiving good news.

However, none of these three passages mentions the raising of the dead. In fact the doctrine of resurrection is barely mentioned at all in the Old Testament. It is most clearly described in Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19, but the Old Testament nowhere states that the Messiah would be the one to raise the dead.

Nevertheless Jesus portrayed this as one sign of his Messiahship; upon hearing that Jesus was healing people and raising the dead, John would understand that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, fulfilling his expected role.

But where, outside of the New Testament, can we find any evidence that people expected the Messiah to raise the dead?

In the very same Dead Sea Scroll from Qumran cave 4 which we quoted just a moment ago. That scroll states that when the Messiah comes then “he will heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and to the poor announce glad tidings.”

Let’s consider the significance of all this.

Both Jesus and John shared the expectation that the works of the Messiah would include healing the sick, raising the dead, and proclaiming the gospel to the poor. That is why Jesus could cite his works as proof that he was indeed the Messiah.

That expectation was shared not only by John and Jesus but by at least some members of the Qumran community. Of course the early Church shared this belief, as Matthew and Luke independently testify by recording this saying.

There is obviously some connection here.

Even if John the Baptist was never an Essene and even if there was no direct influence from the expectation of the Scrolls to the belief of the early Christians, at the very least this demonstrates that belief in a Messiah who raises the dead formed part of the religious landscape of first-century Palestinian Judaism.

The early Church did not just make this up.

We might note also that the Messianic Apocalypse says: “The heavens and the earth will obey His Messiah, the sea and all that is in them.”

Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 28:18, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (NRSV).

Remember also what Jesus’ disciples said after Jesus had calmed the storm on the Lake of Galilee: “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him” (Mark 4:41, NRSV)?

The shared Messianic beliefs of the Qumran Essenes, the disciples of Jesus, and the authors of the Gospels cannot escape our notice.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued

The parallels between Gospels and the Qumran Scrolls on this point, however, are not yet exhausted.

The text of Isaiah 61:1 also crops up in Luke chapter 4, where Jesus stands in the synagogue, reads the passage, and proclaims that he fulfills the prophecy.

Again, Jesus was not the only person who interpreted Isaiah 61:1 messianically. A Qumran Scroll from Cave 11 applies the passage to the heavenly figure of Melchizedek who is hailed as Messiah and in some sense God.

Melchizedek is not said to be Yahoweh, of course, but El and Elohim, a lesser term for God which can be applied to angels and kings as well as the one Lord of Israel. Melchizedek is said to sit in judgment and to forgive sins.

Of course in the New Testament all of these things are said to apply not to Melchizedek but to Jesus.** But the messianic expectations of the Qumran community and the messianic beliefs of the early Church were obviously very close; they used the same language and even the same Scriptures.**

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…and finally…

Before we move on and consider in more detail the ministry of Jesus, I would like to make one more observation about the similarities of Qumran’s messianic expectations and the beliefs of the early Church.

I’m thinking about the birth of Jesus, the Son of God. In the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel announces to Mary the upcoming conception of Jesus in fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7.

He says “And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:31-33, NRSV).

Now if we consider the entire passage in 2 Samuel 7, we will see that the immediate and obvious fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy to David was the birth and rule of David’s son Solomon. And the most natural meaning of verses 16 and 17 is that David’s descendants would always rule in Israel.

But there is another meaning of this passage, according to Luke and Gabriel. After all, David’s line did cease to rule in Israel in 586 B.C. We are told in the New Testament that this is a prophecy of the Messiah which was fulfilled in Jesus, son of David and Son of God.

This messianic interpretation of 2 Samuel 7, not surprisingly, pre-dates the Gospel of Luke. This passage is interpreted messianically in the Qumran Scrolls also.

In a commentary on the Last Days, one Qumran Scroll from Cave 4 has this to say. The passage I’m about to read begins with four citations from 2 Samuel 7:11-14 and is followed by an interpretation and a citation of Amos 9:11 which, of course, is also found in the New Testament.

The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father and he shall be my son. He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law to rule in Zion at the end of time. As it is written, I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen. That is to say, the fallen tent of David is he who shall arise to save Israel.

One eminent commentator, Raymond Brown, has this to say about the Scroll just quoted and Luke chapter 1:

We note that the Qumran interpretation takes out select lines from II Sam 7, just as Luke apparently did. It has shifted the focus of Nathan’s promise from a continual line of kings to a single Davidic king, the messianic ‘shoot’ who will arise in the last days, even as Luke has applied the Samuel passage to Jesus. The ‘forever’ of both Qumran and Luke is, then, not an endless series of reigns by different kings, but an eschatological redemption. And so there is nothing distinctively Christian in Gabriel’s words in vss. 32-33 of Luke, except that the expected Davidic Messiah has been identified with Jesus.

What this commentator is saying, in other words, is that the Christian identification of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah promised in 2 Samuel 7 is in full accord with Jewish messianic expectation.

And that, of course, is just the type of thing the New Testament tells us about the Old Testament prophecies which point to Jesus.

This is doubly important, in 2 Samuel 7:14 God promised to be a father to this Davidic descendent, and this descendent would be a son to Him. This means, in other words, that the Messiah would be regarded as the Son of God.

Some scholars used to think that prior to Christianity, no one would have thought of the Hebrew Messiah as the Son of God. They regarded that designation as a Christian invention. But this opinion, which has been revised in the last few years, is negated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Another recently-published fragment from Qumran Cave 4 clearly calls the Messiah Son of God and Son of the Most High who will judge the earth in righteousness.

**Again, the early Christian interpretation of Old Testament prophecy was not unique and it was not just made up. It legitimately grew out of the Jewish soil of first-century Palestine. **

The more we look at these Dead Sea Scrolls, the more we can appreciate the message of the New Testament.

Sorry for the multiple posts. But I needed to point out that it was wrong to claim that Jews do not believe that God has or ever will appear as a man. Some Jews did indeed believe this to be true.

Likewise, I needed to point out that it was wrong to claim that Jews believe that God has no corporeal body, no physical being. Some Jews believed this to be true as well.

Indeed, a messiah who is God was indeed inside some Jewish theology before Chistianity emerged onto the scene. It was in the case of the Essenes anyway-- and Christianity did not invent this either.

 

[Valke2]

Sorry for the multiple posts. But I needed to point out that it was wrong to claim that Jews do not believe that God has or ever will appear as a man. Some Jews did indeed believe this to be true.

Likewise, I needed to point out that it was wrong to claim that Jews believe that God has no corporeal body, no physical being. Some Jews believed this to be true as well.

Indeed, a messiah who is God was indeed inside some Jewish theology before Chistianity emerged onto the scene. It was in the case of the Essenes anyway-- and Christianity did not invent this either.

I hope you feel better. And yet, it does not change the fact that Judaism does not believe that God has or ever will apear in the flesh.

 

[Valke2]

Valke,

A very interesting interpretation. My response is that your interpretation depends either that the whole event never happened or else all the Jewish ears would easily recognize that the second “lord” in Psalm 110:1 could not refer to God and so it could not refer to the God-Man. Maybe in this case Jesus was stressing his human characteristic as Messiah, not the Divine.

I would agree that it seems very unlikely to me, as a Jew, that the event played out the way Matthew says it did.

In that case, David could indeed refer to him as “my lord” or “my master” because the Messiah --even a human Messiah–would be superior to David, yes?

Yes. But now we are talking about something very different from what Christians traditionally view this verse and it doesn’t explain why the verse is translated as it is in Matthew.

I think that my point is strengthened by the fact that the whole context of the discussion of Matt 22:41-46 is: who is the Messiah? Quite possibly the pharisees were silent because they never considered Jesus’ point about how David could call his son “master.” From a Christian standpoint, Jesus brought them face-to-face with the Virgin Birth, only hinting at his Divinity, so they didn’t quite know what to think.

Is there anything in the NT that suggests that the Pharasees, or other Jews, were ever told about a virgin birth while Jesus lived?

Also, had the translation in Matthew been correct, then it seems the Pharasees would have indeed have asked themselves “How could David cal his son master.” Remember, these people were masters of the scripture. If 110:1 was written the way Matthew states it was written, these questions would have arisen long before the arrival of Jesus.

 

[Valke2]

Regarding the Essenes, little can be verified of them, including whether or not they wrote any of the dead sea scrolls. None of the sources, including Philo and Josephus give inside sources for their beliefs on what the Essenes (a group that lasted less than 2 centuries) believed or practiced.

As for the Dead Sea scrolls, saying they were written by Essenes is problematic and certainly not universally accepted.
For straters, the name Essenes doesn’t appear in any of the scrolls. Even those scholars (the majority) that say they were Essenes, are now believing theywere only a small part of the (already small) sect of Essenes, and it is unclear as to what extent the scrolls reflect standard Essenes practice/beliefs.

To point to the Essenes and try to impy that Jews believed a man god is misleading because a) it is by no means certain they beleived this and b) they were by no means part of traditional judaism as far as we can tell.

. Ex Nihlo relies heavily on NT evidence to support his conclusion that Jews at one time believed the Messiah would be God. But there’s nothing in Judaism to support this.

As for God having a physical body, of course some jews believed this. BUt they were wrong as it was not something that was part of Jewish belief. Just as a catholic who believes that maybe Mary was not a virgin would be stating a belief that is contrary to Catholicism. The fact that some Jews believed God had physical attributes is one of the reasons Rambam wrote “A Guide for the Perplexed.” To address this misconception.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ex Nihlo relies heavily on NT evidence to support his conclusion that Jews at one time believed the Messiah would be God. But there’s nothing in Judaism to support this.

As for God having a physical body, of course some jews believed this. BUt they were wrong as it was not something that was part of Jewish belief. Just as a catholic who believes that maybe Mary was not a virgin would be stating a belief that is contrary to Catholicism. The fact that some Jews believed God had physical attributes is one of the reasons Rambam wrote “A Guide for the Perplexed.” To address this misconception.

Im not sure the extent your Judaism corresponds to those Jews who compiled and used the Septugint but one of its books, Wisdom ch2 says: 12Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. 13He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD. 14To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, 15Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. 16He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."Catholics accept this book as Scripture and one of the most explicit prophecies of Jesus. We also recognize NOBODY ever dreamed God would take on human flesh, nor be crucified, but that is what happened with Jesus and it was a scandal to many.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I hope you feel better.

Actually, my family and I do feel better. The flu is all gone now. Thanks for asking.

Valke2:

And yet, it does not change the fact that Judaism does not believe that God has or ever will apear in the flesh.

Some Jews did.

 

[Valke2]

Im not sure the extent your Judaism corresponds to those Jews who compiled and used the Septugint but one of its books, Wisdom ch2 says: 12Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. 13He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD. 14To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, 15Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. 16He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."Catholics accept this book as Scripture and one of the most explicit prophecies of Jesus. We also recognize NOBODY ever dreamed God would take on human flesh, nor be crucified, but that is what happened with Jesus and it was a scandal to many.

Ok. But you are saying that nobody ever dreamed God would take on Human flesh and Ex Nilo is saying that Some Jews believed this.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Regarding the Essenes, little can be verified of them, including whether or not they wrote any of the dead sea scrolls. None of the sources, including Philo and Josephus give inside sources for their beliefs on what the Essenes (a group that lasted less than 2 centuries) believed or practiced.

It seems highly unlikely that anyone but the Essenes wrote them.

If the Essenes did not write them, who did?

Valke2:

As for the Dead Sea scrolls, saying they were written by Essenes is problematic and certainly not universally accepted.

It’s only problematic to those who are not willing to admit that some Jews prior to the coming of Christ did indeed believe the messiah would be God in the flesh.

There are also many scholarly conspiracy theorists who go to the opposite extreme and insist that the Essenes were the primitive (or proto) version of Christianity.

Valke2:

For straters, the name Essenes doesn’t appear in any of the scrolls. Even those scholars (the majority) that say they were Essenes, are now believing they were only a small part of the (already small) sect of Essenes, and it is unclear as to what extent the scrolls reflect standard Essenes practice/beliefs.

And yet this group existed and dwelled where their contemporaries said they dwelled, and these scrolls were definitely a reflection of Essene thinking. If there is a scholarly opinion to the contrary of this view, it is certainly a minority and not accepted as having much merit.

Valke2:

To point to the Essenes and try to impy that Jews believed a man god…

I didn’t say that all Jews believed in a divine Messiah. Only that some Jews did-- the Essenes are a perfect example of this in the time leading up to and including Jesus’ time. In other words, the claim that Christianity simply invented these ideas entirely independently of Judiasm is false. There were certainly at least some Jews prior to the coming of Christ who believed the messiah would be divine-- approximately one-and-one-half centuries before his coming at that.

Valke2:

Ex Nihlo relies heavily on NT evidence to support his conclusion that Jews at one time believed the Messiah would be God. But there’s nothing in Judaism to support this.

As I already said, I didn’t say that all Jews believed in a divine Messiah. Only that some Jews did-- the Essenes are a perfect example of this in the time leading up to and including Jesus’ time. In other words, the claim that Christianity simply invented these ideas entirely independently of Judiasm is false. There were certainly at least some Jews prior to the coming of Christ who believed the messiah would be divine-- **approximately one-and-one-half centuries before his coming at that. **

Similar thoughts can also be found in the writings carried by the Hellenistic Jews too, indicating that it was not just the Essenes who held this view.

Valke2:

As for God having a physical body, of course some jews believed this. But they were wrong as it was not something that was part of Jewish belief.

You yourself have often admitted that not all things have been revealed yet, often saying that you do not have neough information regarding particular topics to give a firm decision in some matters. You’ve even admitted that God sometimes lies by ommision-- indicating that God might not be revealing all things yet. Even your list of attributes to identify the messiah admit that there are some things which have not been fully revealed as yet.

Is there anything within Judaism which strictly says that God could not have a body prior to Rambam?

Valke2:

Just as a catholic who believes that maybe Mary was not a virgin would be stating a belief that is contrary to Catholicism.

But we Catholics believe that this truth is a revealed truth. Judiasm, on the other hand, does not actually believe that God revealed to them who the messiah will be yet-- and in this regard, there are many things not fully understood yet. Even you admit this.

Valke2:

The fact that some Jews believed God had physical attributes is one of the reasons Rambam wrote “A Guide for the Perplexed.” To address this misconception.

Rambam certainly reduced all ‘bodilly’ references to the divine to being nothing more than visions. And during this time, he was considered nearly heretical even if later Jews did embrace his teachings. Nonetheless, he did indeed change Jewish teachings. Prior to Rambam, Jewish people really had no problem with God having any kind of physical attributes, even if they didn’t accept Jesus as the messiah. Rambam thrust this thought against God having physical attributes further than previous sages did, thereby changing Judaism in the process.

 

[Valke2]

I

Rambam certainly reduced all ‘bodilly’ references to the divine to being nothing more than visions. And during this time, he was considered nearly heretical even if later Jews did embrace his teachings. Nonetheless, he did indeed change Jewish teachings. Prior to Rambam, Jewish people really had no problem with God having any kind of physical attributes, even if they didn’t accept Jesus as the messiah. Rambam thrust this thought against God having physical attributes further than previous sages did, thereby changing Judaism in the process.

It was not for his views regarding opposition to anthmophosizing God that his critics attacked him. His Mishna Torah did not cite references for the sake of brevity and there was an impression (wrongly) that he believed one could cut out the study of Talmud in arriving at a conclusion regarding Halahca (Jewish law). It had nothing to do with his beliefs concerning the Messiah.

 

[JohnPaul0]

I would agree that it seems very unlikely to me, as a Jew, that the event played out the way Matthew says it did. .

The problem with that stance is that you have to deny the written record of the Gospel. I’m not sure if you know that Matthew specifically wrote his Gospel for the sake of Jewish readers, and traditionally, his is considered to be the first one written.

So, he was writing to people who perhaps themselves could have witnessed this dialogue taking place. He certainly wouldn’t have had the chutzpah to invent the episode knowing that his readers would know that it never happened or at least questioning the possibility that it happened.

Yes. But now we are talking about something very different from what Christians traditionally view this verse and it doesn’t explain why the verse is translated as it is in Matthew…

Well, maybe there is some sloppiness in the Christian interpretation of this particular verse, whether it is referring to the humanity or the Divinity of the Messiah. I’m not expert enough to judge.

With that said, I think that my proposal explains why the verse is written as it is in Matthew, unless I’m not getting your point.

Is there anything in the NT that suggests that the Pharasees, or other Jews, were ever told about a virgin birth while Jesus lived? .

Well, it was foretold:

“‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God is with us.’” (Matthew 1:23, quoting Isaiah 7:14, prophesied 600 years BC).

I brought up the Virgin Birth because it is a way for Jesus to be of the house of David without being David’s son. I suggested that Jesus was giving his hearers something to chew on and, introducing the topic, if you will.

Also, had the translation in Matthew been correct, then it seems the Pharasees would have indeed have asked themselves “How could David cal his son master.” Remember, these people were masters of the scripture. If 110:1 was written the way Matthew states it was written, these questions would have arisen long before the arrival of Jesus.

I can’t claim to be in the head of the pharisees. However, reading the passage, it seems like they had had the understanding that the Messiah would be David’s son. Then Jesus comes along and quotes Pslam 110:1 and questions the pharisees how David could call his son “my lord.” It appears to have thrown the pharisees aback. In other words, it appears that this particular question about the Messiah never came up before.

Again I’ll repeat, Matthew wrote this Gospel for Jews. If there were a well-known answer to Jesus’ question, then Matthew himself would have known that and he wouldn’t have written the passage.

 

[Valke2]

The problem with that stance is that you have to deny the written record of the Gospel. I’m not sure if you know that Matthew specifically wrote his Gospel for the sake of Jewish readers, and traditionally, his is considered to be the first one written.

Yes,. I would have to reject the written Gospel. Not a problem for me. Again, I’m just answering the question as to how a Jew would respond to those verses in Matthew.

So, he was writing to people who perhaps themselves could have witnessed this dialogue taking place. He certainly wouldn’t have had the chutzpah to invent the episode knowing that his readers would know that it never happened or at least questioning the possibility that it happened.

.

I don’t see why not. The event he writes about does not seem to have been witnessed by a large crowd. I think this is a weak argument to make.

Well, it was foretold:

“‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God is with us.’” (Matthew 1:23, quoting Isaiah 7:14, prophesied 600 years BC).

But you know that Jews did not interpet that passage to refer to a distant future event. And without announcing it, there was no reason for anyone to believe that Jesus was born from a virgin.

I brought up the Virgin Birth because it is a way for Jesus to be of the house of David without being David’s son. I suggested that Jesus was giving his hearers something to chew on and, introducing the topic, if you will.

Ok. But that only seems to make sense if we can assume that the listeners were aware that he claimed to be the son of a virgin. And there’s nothing in the scripture to suggest that they were.

I can’t claim to be in the head of the pharisees. However, reading the passage, it seems like they had had the understanding that the Messiah would be David’s son.

Agreed.

Then Jesus comes along and quotes Pslam 110:1 and questions the pharisees how David could call his son “my lord.” It appears to have thrown the pharisees aback. In other words, it appears that this particular question about the Messiah never came up before.

It does appear that way. But it seems highly unlikely that it was the case. Why would the Pharasees never have considered that before. One answer would be because Psalm 110:1 does not say what Matthew quotes it as saying. I think here is where faith comes in. As a Jew, I conclude this episode did not happen.

 

[JohnPaul0]

Yes,. I would have to reject the written Gospel. Not a problem for me. Again, I’m just answering the question as to how a Jew would respond to those verses in Matthew.

… The event he writes about does not seem to have been witnessed by a large crowd. I think this is a weak argument to make.
.

Valke,
Let me boil this down with some thoughts.

First off, to clarify, ricmat stated that Matt 22:41-46 gave proof that Jesus was the Son of God. I think that that is not the case, and you gave a good reason why not. Jesus was rather stating that the Messiah could not be David’s son. Pretty much that’s all that Jesus “proved” here. You and I know what else Catholics believe about the Messiah, but let’s not get into that.

Now, you say that you don’t accept that this passage really happened. You are entitled to believe what you want. However, in the best case there should be sound reasons for what we believe, right?

So, if this is Matthew’s fiction, we might ask, why did he word it so? It’s a bit cryptic. As I just admitted above, it really doesn’t prove anything about Jesus himself. If Matthew were to invent it, wouldn’t he have been a little more specific?

In fact, you see the same thing throughout the Gospels. Jesus speaks in parables, and the apostles have to sneak up later and ask him what it was about, and even then the meaning is not so clear. Also, Jesus often berates the apostles for being–ahem–slow learners. If Matthew wanted to create a fiction, he would be expected to show himself and his buddies in a better light and portray Jesus more clearly, too.

So, I think that Jesus was inviting the pharisees to question him about Psalm 110:1 so that they could begin to understand him. They didn’t; apparently because they didn’t want to appear ignorant in front of the witnesses.

With that said, I have to disagree with you that this was a private conversation. If you read chapter 22 beginning with verse 15, the pharisees and sadducees are tag-teaming Jesus. In fact, leading up to our passage, in v 34, it’s clearly stated that the pharisees heard about the exchange with the sadducees. So, we can expect that all heard, or heard about it. In fact, the narrative continues in chapter 23 where Jesus “spoke to the crowds and to his disciples” (v 1) and denounces the pharisees. So, it looks like the entire exchange was very public.

-JohnPaul

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It was not for his views regarding opposition to anthmophosizing God that his critics attacked him. His Mishna Torah did not cite references for the sake of brevity and there was an impression (wrongly) that he believed one could cut out the study of Talmud in arriving at a conclusion regarding Halahca (Jewish law). It had nothing to do with his beliefs concerning the Messiah.

Is there anything within Judaism which strictly says that God could not have a body?