Why should the scribes have realized that Jesus is the Messiah?

[Justin_Mary]

I don’t think so. Here, for instance, is Psalm 132 (131), in which the word Mashiach (“anointed,” Messiah) occurs twice, in vv. 10 and 17. The whole psalm clearly refers to a king in the literal sense, who will also be the high priest. The Lord promises to restore Israel as an independent kingdom with its ruling dynasty to be descended from David

Remember in the book of Samuel when the Hebrews asked for a king & God told Samuel to take heart because it’s not you (Samuel) they are rejecting as their King, but God Himself.

God is was & always will be our King.

& God promised a new Israel. A Kingly people & priests from all nations. People were thinking too small, as people think & not as God thinks.

The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

 

[poche]

There is also the test of Gamiliel.

 

[mythbuster1]

Isaiah calls Him, “Emmanuel,” and “Wonderful, Counselor, Eternal Father, Mighty God, Prince of Peace.” Jeremiah calls Him “YHWH, our Righteousness.” Micah says, “His goings forth are from everlasting.” The Psalms say of Him, “Your throne, O God, stands forever. Therefore, God, Your God, has anointed You.”

 

[po18guy]

Methinks you have answered well in your question.

 

[mythbuster1]

I’ll also note that while the Epistle to the Hebrews seems strange to us in how it interprets the Scriptures, it is written in the style of Midrash. Hebrews was quite consistent with how the Jews interpreted the Scriptures.

 

[mythbuster1]

Well, that was the canon of the Essenes, anyway. Jubilees is basically Essene propaganda.

 

[mythbuster1]

It’s even more ironic to hear them admit the cause for the destruction of the Second Temple: hatred without cause. If you read Rabbinic interpretations, you’ll hear things that will make you want to slam your head on a desk in frustration. Case in point, some Rabbis said, “The Messiah came in the days of the Second Temple, but because of Israel’s sins, He has been hidden from Israel,” yet still they do not believe!

 

[Nihilo]

One of the things about John’s Gospel is that it was written later than the synoptics. The differences between John and MML ought to be explained by the later writing date, and in this case as pertains to this thread, John through the Spirit of truth remembered all these times that he remembered Jesus telling people, imploring them, that even if they refused to believe in Him, to at least believe the miracles He wrought.

John 10
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works


John 14
11 Believe you not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

12 Otherwise believe for the very works’ sake.


John 20:27
Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the
 hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.

 

[BartholomewB]

Isaiah calls Him, “Emmanuel,” and “Wonderful, Counselor, Eternal Father, Mighty God, Prince of Peace.” Jeremiah calls Him “YHWH, our Righteousness.” Micah says, “His goings forth are from everlasting.”

Yes, Isaiah uses all those expressions, but not explicitly in connection with the Messiah. The Hebrew word mashiach, meaning “anointed” or Messiah, occurs only once in the whole book, when Isaiah applies the term to Cyrus, who released Israel from the Babylonian captivity (Is 45:1).

In all eighteen prophetical books, from Isaiah all the way through to Malachi, the word mashiach occurs just five times altogether. In Isaiah it describes Cyrus. Jeremiah doesn’t mention the word at all. The other references are Lam 4:20, Dan 9:25 and 26, and Hab 3:13.

 

[BartholomewB]

Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of Man?

“The son of man,” in Aramaic בר אנש, bar enash, can sometimes mean simply “a man”, “somebody,” “a mere mortal”, but in the Gospels often appears as a messianic title, deriving from Dan 7:13:

13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

 

[De_Maria]

Jesus was well aware that he didn’t match the description of the Messiah found in the Scriptures. Please see my post #4 on this thread.

Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of Man?

“The son of man,” in Aramaic בר אנש, bar enash, can sometimes mean simply “a man”, “somebody,” “a mere mortal”, but in the Gospels often appears as a messianic title, deriving from Dan 7:13:

but in the Gospels often appears as a messianic title, deriving from Dan 7:13:

So Jesus described Himself as the Messiah.

I take you back to the verses you provided initially:

Luke 20:41 Then he said to them, “How do they claim that the Messiah is the Son of David? 42 For David himself in the Book of Psalms says:

‘The Lord said to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
43 till I make your enemies your footstool.”’

44 Now if David calls him ‘lord,’ how can he be his son?”

You said:
Jesus was well aware that he didn’t match the description of the Messiah found in the Scriptures

First, this is in Scripture.
Second, He didn’t correct the Scripture.
Third, He corrected the people’s understanding of the Scripture.

In other words, Jesus matched the Scripture.
He didn’t match the people’s understanding of the Scripture.

 

[BartholomewB]

but in the Gospels often appears as a messianic title, deriving from Dan 7:13:

So Jesus described Himself as the Messiah.

“Son of man” is a messianic title in the NT sense of “messianic,” not in the OT sense. Easter changed everything, including the concept of the Messiah as it came to be understood by Christians. Before the Crucifixion, the word still meant only what the OT books said it meant, as exemplified in Psalm 132 (131), which I referred to in an earlier post: the Lord promises to restore Israel as an independent kingdom with its ruling dynasty to be descended from David.

In two passages in the Gospels, Matt 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44, Jesus rejects the idea of a political Messiah, telling his hearers that he will be a more exalted figure: instead of sitting on the throne of David, he will share the throne of God (Psalm 110). But the political Messiah was the one described in the Scriptures.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

but in the Gospels often appears as a messianic title, deriving from Dan 7:13:

So Jesus described Himself as the Messiah.

“Son of man” is a messianic title in the NT sense of “messianic,” not in the OT sense.

I have to disagree with you. Son of man is a messianic title in the OT and NT sense.

Easter changed everything, including the concept of the Messiah as it came to be understood by Christians. Before the Crucifixion, the word still meant only what the OT books said it meant, as exemplified in Psalm 132 (131), which I referred to in an earlier post: the Lord promises to restore Israel as an independent kingdom with its ruling dynasty to be descended from David.

You’re simply making assumptions based on what you were taught, 2000 years removed from the events.

In two passages in the Gospels, Matt 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44, Jesus rejects the idea of a political Messiah, telling his hearers that he will be a more exalted figure: instead of sitting on the throne of David, he will share the throne of God (Psalm 110). But the political Messiah was the one described in the Scriptures.

They are both described in the Scriptures. You are pointing to the exalted, throne of God, Messiah, above.

 

[BartholomewB]

They are both described in the Scriptures.

Yes, the Messiah and the “Son of Man”, in Daniel’s sense, are both described in the Scriptures. But they are distinct from one another. It was Jesus who brought them together, uniting them in himself. In John 17:3 he again refers to himself as Jesus Christ, Jesus the Messiah:

1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. …"

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, the Messiah and the “Son of Man”, in Daniel’s sense, are both described in the Scriptures.

Yes. That was all I was objecting to.

But they are distinct from one another.

I suspect most people interpreted it that way.

It was Jesus who brought them together, uniting them in himself. In John 17:3 he again refers to himself as Jesus Christ, Jesus the Messiah:

1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. …"

Agreed.