Jews don’t believe in a divine Messiah
Judaism has never had one, official, universally accepted set of beliefs concerning the Messiah, but it is true that traditional Jewish teaching does not speak unequivocally of a divine Messiah. However, Jewish tradition often describes a highly exalted Messiah as well as a preexistent Messiah, so much so that Jewish scholars have sometimes spoken of the “semi-divine” or “quasi-divine” nature of the Messiah according to these traditions. More importantly, the Hebrew Bible itself speaks of the Messiah’s divine nature, and that must be the deciding factor in what we as Jews do and do not believe.
I was once involved in a panel debate featuring three Messianic Jewish leaders and three rabbis. One of the rabbis, who was ultra-Orthodox, stated emphatically that for thirty-five hundred years Judaism has had only one set of beliefs concerning the Messiah. Unfortunately, not only was his chronology wrong (there was no such thing as “Judaism” thirty-five hundred years ago, nor was there even such a thing as a Jew), but his statement concerning the unity of Jewish belief in the Messiah was wrong as well.
A more accurate statement would have been that for more than two thousand years Judaism has had many different beliefs concerning the Messiah. Jewish writings, such as the Psalms of Solomon, the Similitudes of Enoch, Fourth Ezra, and the Sybilline Oracles, written between 200 B.C.E. and 100 C.E., contain different Messianic beliefs than those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, also written during the same approximate period of time. And the early Rabbinic writings, dating from 200 to 600 of this era, contain many beliefs not reflected in any of the writings just mentioned.
John Collins, a widely respected specialist in apocalyptic literature, notes that rather than thinking of first-century C.E. Jewish belief in either an earthly Messiah or a heavenly Messiah, “we should think of a spectrum of messianic expectation, ranging from the earthly messiah of the Psalms of Solomon and several Dead Sea Scrolls, through the transcendent messiah of 4 Ezra to the heavenly figure of the Similitudes of Enoch.”352
“But that’s where you are missing the point,” you say. “Most of those writings do not reflect mainstream Judaism. It is the Talmud alone that is authoritative for Jews, and the Talmud is clear concerning the person and work of the Messiah.”
Not so. First, as I explained previously (see vol. 1, introduction), the beliefs reflected in these varied writings from the second century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. were just as “Jewish” as those reflected later in the Talmud. It is just that Pharisaic Judaism (which developed into Talmudic Judaism) survived the destruction of the Temple and became dominant, leaving the other beliefs as mere historic curiosities.353 Second, and more importantly, the Talmud in no way provides a definitive or categorical description of the Messiah. Just study the famous (and quite lengthy) Messianic discussion in b. Sanhedrin 96b–99a. You will find there a few common beliefs (e.g., the Messiah is referred to as the son of David) in the midst of dozens of other beliefs, traditions, and interpretations intermingled with a great deal of speculation. And much of what is recorded there is mutually contradictory! Add to this the other Messianic passages in the Talmud and Midrash (and there are quite a few of these), and what emerges is a picture that is anything but clear. (For a sampling of these varied texts, see below, 3.23–3.24.)
To illustrate the point, in the tenth century of this era—about four hundred years after the close of the Talmud—the Jewish community in Pumbeditha (in Babylon) asked one of the leading Rabbinic scholars of the day, Rav Hai Gaon, to clarify for them the details of what they should believe about the Messiah. This means that almost one thousand years after the time of Jesus and almost eight hundred years after the writing of the Mishnah these religious Jews were not exactly sure of the details of what they should believe concerning the Messiah.
That’s because their beliefs were based on the Talmud, which does not present systematic discussion and final rulings about most topics it covers, making it necessary for succeeding generations to codify and clarify what the Talmud actually says. In the case of the Messiah, the Talmud is especially vague, since this was more a matter of belief than of legal practice, and the Talmud was more concerned with legal rulings than with sets of beliefs.
Writing a few decades before Hai Gaon, an even more prominent scholar, Rav Saʿadiah Gaon, also addressed the question of the Messiah. He explained that there would actually be two Messiahs, the Messiah son of Joseph (mentioned explicitly in the Talmud in b. Sukkah 52a), who was associated with a time of victory mixed with hardship and calamity, and the Messiah son of David, who would establish God’s kingdom on the earth. However, if the Jewish people would be Godfearing and obedient, it was possible that there would be only one Messiah, the son of David, and no Messiah son of Joseph, meaning less suffering for Israel.354 J. I. Schochet provides a useful summary:
Quite significantly, R. Saadia Gaon (one of the few to elaborate on the role of Mashiach ben Yossef) notes that the sequence is not definite but contingent! Mashiach ben Yossef will not have to appear before Mashiach ben David, nor will the activities attributed to him or his death have to occur. All depends on the spiritual condition of the Jewish people at the time the redemption is to take place.355
More than two hundred years later, Moses Maimonides offered a more definitive description of the characteristics of the Messiah. Writing in his authoritative code of law called the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides made mention only of the Messiah son of David, with no reference at all to a Messiah son of Joseph. And because the Mishneh Torah carries so much weight in traditional Judaism, this description of the Messiah is often viewed as the only Jewish belief on this topic.
But that is hardly the case, for Jewish tradition is filled with rich and varied teachings on the Messiah and Messianic age.356 Simply comparing the Talmudic discussion in Sanhedrin with the teaching of Saʿadiah Gaon and the code of Maimonides—not to mention the many traditions found in the midrashic and mystical literature—indicates that Jewish tradition is anything but narrowly uniform with regard to the Messiah.
For that very reason, it is often misleading to say, “Jews don’t believe in a divine Messiah, or a suffering Messiah, or that the Messiah will come twice.” According to which text? According to which Jewish expression? According to which rabbi or legal authority?
“But didn’t you admit at the outset that no traditional Jewish teaching speaks directly of a divine Messiah? I fail to see the point of your discussion here.”
The point is simply this: Some Jewish teachings describe a highly exalted or preexistent Messiah, while others point to a more earthly, suffering leader. Some teachings speak of the Messiah coming in the clouds of heaven, others speak of him tending to his wounds outside the gates of Rome. Which tradition do we follow? Some Rabbinic teachings refer to one Messiah, others to two Messiahs; still other teachings picture a Messiah who is a warring king, while another set of teachings pictures a Messiah who is primarily a teacher of the law. Again I ask, “Which tradition do we follow?” Jewish Messianic belief is more diverse than you may realize, especially when it comes to the Messiah’s sufferings and the timing or sequence of his mission on earth.357
With regard to the divinity of the Messiah, it is true there is not one traditional Jewish source that speaks of his divine nature, but there are certainly important sources that speak of his supernatural qualities to the point that scholars have described these aspects of the traditional Jewish Messiah as “semi-divine.”358 This is important, since it would have been logical for Jewish tradition to completely downplay the Messiah’s exalted nature in light of New Testament texts that spoke of his divinity (see above, 3.1–3.4).
Could it be, then, that texts from the Tanakh pointing toward the Messiah’s divinity made it impossible for Rabbinic Judaism to reject this completely? And could it be that the protracted longing of our people for a Messiah who would deliver us from our enemies caused us to look for a more and more exalted figure? Such questions are matters reserved for further research and speculation.
What is sure is this: The Hebrew Bible lays the foundation for our belief in a divine Messiah, while a number of Jewish traditions recognize that the Messiah would have certain supernatural qualities. Let’s take a look at some of the key texts, beginning with traditional Jewish literature and ending with the Tanakh. (In light of our lengthy discussions on the divine nature of Jesus the Messiah at the beginning of this volume, our treatment here will be limited.)
Because this traditional literature is so vast—it is rightly called the sea of the Talmud—and because it is possible to find a totally obscure, almost unknown text to support virtually any position, we will focus instead on one widely quoted Rabbinic tradition, namely, the midrash to Isaiah 52:13. The Scripture verse reads, “See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.” This is explained in the midrash as follows:
Who art thou, O great mountain? (Zech. 4:7.) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him “the great mountain?” because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly”—he will be higher than Abraham, who says, “I raise high my hands unto the Lord” (Gen. 14:22); lifted up above Moses, to whom it is said, “Lift it up into thy bosom” (Num. 11:12); loftier than the ministering angels, of whom it is written, “Their wheels were lofty and terrible” (Ez. 1:18). And out of whom does he come forth? Out of David (Yalqut Shimʿoni 2:571).359
Why did the midrash attribute such prominence to the Messiah here, based on Isaiah 52:13? It could be that elsewhere in Isaiah such terms of exaltation (raised, lifted up, highly exalted) were rightly applied only to God. In fact, you could argue that nowhere in the entire Book of Isaiah is anyone—including the Lord himself—described in such exalted terms, and so it was only natural that this would catch the attention of the midrashic preachers and writers.360 What is more interesting than this, however, is the commentary on this midrash by leading traditional scholars. Rabbi Don Yitshaq Abravanel, the illustrious Spanish Bible commentator and philosopher, helps put this in context.361 Noting that the midrash explains Isaiah 52:13 with reference to “the King Messiah,” Abravanel states:
It is extremely difficult to understand how any child of man can be exalted above Moses, of whom the Law bears witness, saying, “No prophet ever arose in Israel like him” (Deut. 34:10); still more so, then, how any one “born of woman” can assume a position higher than the angels, whose substance admits of nothing above it except the substance of the First Cause: from the latter expression, in fact, Christian teachers have attempted to establish their doctrine of the Divinity of the Messiah.362
Now, what is especially noteworthy is that even though Abravanel interpreted Isaiah 52:13–53:12 with reference to the people of Israel, he still felt obligated to explain the midrash to Isaiah 52:13 for two reasons: first, because it carried the strong weight of tradition; and second, “lest otherwise the heretics come and shelter themselves beneath it.”363
But it is not just “the heretics” who have interpreted this midrash with regard to the Messiah’s exalted nature. Some traditional Jewish commentators have not been far behind.364 Just look at what Rabbi Moshe Ibn Crispin (fourteenth century) wrote about the Messiah’s exaltation above the angels:
Exceedingly above the ministering angels, because that same comprehensive intelligence will approach [God] more nearly than theirs. For it is an exceedingly high privilege, that one whose nature is compound and material should attain to a grade of intelligence more nearly Divine than that which belongs to the incorporeal; and so it is said of him that “his strength is greater than that of the ministering angels,” because these have no impediment in the exercise of their intellect, whereas that which is compound is continually impeded in consequence of material element in its nature. Accordingly the grade of his intelligence being such as this, he is said to be “lofty exceedingly,” and his strength to be “greater than the angels.”
… And when this “servant of the Lord” is born, from the day when he comes to years of discretion, he will continue to be marked by the possession of intelligence enabling him to acquire from God what it is impossible for any to acquire until he reaches that height whither none of the sons of men, except him, have ever ascended.365
When you couple descriptions such as these with other traditions that speak of the Messiah’s preexistence (or the preexistence of his name; see b. Pesahim 54a; Nedarim 39b)366 or his coming in the clouds of heaven (b. Sanhedrin 96b–97a), it is easy to see that there are, in fact, Jewish traditions that recognize the exalted, superhuman, and even semi-divine stature of the Messiah. As we also pointed out at the beginning of this answer, there are also important, religious Jewish texts dating to the last centuries B.C.E. and the first centuries C.E. that speak of a heavenly Messiah. However, because they are not part of the main body of Rabbinic literature, most traditional Jews are unaware of their content. John Collins offers this analysis of some of these texts:
In Jewish writings the emphasis on the heavenly character of the savior king appears in texts of the first century CE, especially in the period after the failure of the first revolt against Rome and the destruction of the Temple (4 Ezra, Sib[ylline] Or[acles] 5). We may suspect, then, that it reflects a certain disillusionment with messiahs of human, earthly origin. The disillusionment was not complete, as can be seen from the messianic revolts of the early second century. Also the hope for a heavenly deliverer, under God, is attested in the early apocalyptic literature, notably Daniel 7, and the heavenly messiah of the Similitudes [of Enoch] is likely to be older than 70 CE. What we find in the writings of the first century CE, however, is a tendency to combine traditions about a Davidic messiah with the expectation of a heavenly savior. There was, then, some flexibility in the use of messianic traditions in this period. Daniel’s “one like a son of man” could be understood either as a purely heavenly figure (in the Similitudes) or as a messiah who operates on earth to restore Israel (4 Ezra). Danielic imagery could be applied to the Davidic messiah to give him a more heavenly, transcendent character than is apparent in other sources.367
And this brings us back to several key biblical texts. We saw above (3.3) that the Midrash to Psalm 2:7—in which the Davidic king (i.e., King Messiah, according to Rabbi Yudan) is called God’s son—joined several key Scripture passages together, interpreting them with reference to the Lord’s anointed one. The verses were (1) Exodus 4:22, in which God calls Israel his firstborn son, meaning that just as Israel was God’s son so also the king was God’s son; (2) Isaiah 52:13, “Behold, my servant will act wisely,” and Isaiah 42:1, “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight,”368 equating the king with the servant of the Lord; (3) Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said to my lord, ‘sit at my right hand,’ ” a verse quoted by Jesus himself to demonstrate that as Messiah he was more than just David’s son, since David in this psalm called him “my lord”; and (4) Daniel 7:13, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven,” another verse applied by Jesus to his own Messianic mission.
Putting this Rabbinic compilation of Scripture together, we see that the exalted figure coming in the clouds of heaven is none other than the Davidic king, the Son of God. And this leads us back to Daniel 7:13–14, verses we cited in our earlier discussion (above, 3.3), but verses worth looking at again, especially given the fact that both the Talmud and key medieval commentators refer them to the Messiah.369 Daniel wrote:
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Daniel 7:13–14
Do these verses, as applied to the Messiah, conclusively prove his divinity? This is certainly debatable, but the fact that he comes with the clouds of heaven and receives worldwide obeisance makes it clear that he is not merely a human!370 In fact, there is a fascinating account in the Talmud concerning the interpretation of Daniel 7:9–10, the verses leading up to vv. 13–14, which we just quoted. Looking first at the Scripture verses in question, we read more of Daniel’s visionary account (I have emphasized the phrase that caught the attention of the Talmudic rabbis):
As I looked,
thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
Daniel 7:9–10
According to the Talmud, there was a debate between some of the leading sages concerning the meaning of “thrones” in the plural:
One verse says: His throne was fiery flames and another verse says: Until thrones were placed; and one that was the Ancient of Days did sit [both of these citations come from Dan. 7:9]! There is no contradiction: One [throne] for Him and one for David [meaning the Messiah]. As it has been taught: One [throne] for Him and one for David [meaning the Messiah].
These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yosi the Galilean said to him: Akiva! How long will you treat the divine presence [Hebrew, shekinah] as profane! Rather, one [throne] for justice and one for grace. Did he accept this explanation from him or did he not accept it? Come and hear: One for justice and one for grace; these are the words of R. Akiva (b. Hagigah 14a; note that in the ensuing discussion R. Elazar ben Azariah rejects both interpretations, claiming that one throne is for sitting, the other for a footstool!).
Could it be that Rabbi Akiva’s first interpretation was correct and that there was a throne for the Ancient of Days and a throne for his Messiah? This certainly makes much better sense in context, hinting once again at the more-than-human status of the Messiah. We saw also in our lengthy discussion of the “Son of God” question (above, 3:3) that both Isaiah 9:6[5] and Psalm 45:7[8] clearly point toward the divine nature of the Messiah. In fact, Cambridge scholar William Horbury pointed out that the Septuagint, significant as the oldest written example of Jewish interpretation of Scripture, had an interesting translation of Isaiah 9:6[5].
He noted that the “Hebrew which can be translated ‘wonderful counsellor, mighty god’ (9:5) and presents the royal child as ‘a kind of demi-god’ ([in the words of] G. Buchanan Gray)371 is rendered by ‘angel of great counsel’ (9:6 [Septuagint] megalēs boulēs angelos).”372 So the Septuagint translated one of the names of this Davidic king—which the Targum understood to be the Messiah—as the “angel of great counsel,” while the Hebrew itself actually called him “mighty God,” “a kind of demi-god” according to a scholarly Bible commentator.373 As for Psalm 110:1, where, according to one ancient Jewish interpretation, David calls the Messiah his Lord, readers of the New Testament will recall Yeshua’s words to the religious leadership. He asked them:
“What do you think about the [Messiah]? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ If then David calls him Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
Matthew 22:42–45
So then, the Messiah is David’s son, but the Messiah is also greater than David.374
In light of all this, I submit to you something wonderful and profound: Through the Messiah, God himself has reached out to us, committing himself totally to our redemption and salvation. And as we will see in our next answer, through the Messiah he has fully identified with us in our suffering and pain. As you carefully and prayerfully consider the evidence, you will understand that Yeshua alone fulfills the Messianic expectations of the prophets of Israel and that he alone fulfills the Messianic dream.375 We could hope for no greater Messiah.
Sadly, in our own day thousands of zealous, devoted Jews continue to proclaim that their deceased Grand Rabbi, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Rebbe, is actually King Messiah (see also below, 3.23, and n. 405). But it does not stop there. As Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok observes:
Some followers of the Rebbe have even gone so far as to use incarnational terminology in describing his mission. [The incarnation, as you may recall from our discussion above, 3.2, refers to God taking on human form. Now the Rebbe’s followers are applying incarnational terminology to him.] During his lifetime, the Rebbe was referred to as the “Essence of the Infinite”; today some Lubavicher Hasidim [i.e., some of the Rebbe’s disciples] talk of him as “Master of the Universe.”376
Not surprisingly, such claims have brought sharp rebukes from non-Hasidic (but quite Orthodox) Jews, especially in Israel. In fact, in response to the claims of the Lubavitchers (known as Chabad), followers of Rav Eliezer Schach, an active leader well into his nineties, posted a large billboard in Hebrew reading:
A SHOCKING REVELATION
In the words of Chabad themselves:
The Rebbe Is the Messiah
and Even the Creator of the World Himself
As described by Samuel Heilman, beneath these words “was reproduced the masthead of the Lubavitcher newsletter … and the following paragraph from an article in it, circled and enlarged:
… the Messiah at the time of redemption will be revealed to all people to be made not of flesh and blood, not even flesh and blood like our great teacher Moses, but rather to be the Holy One, blessed be He, himself!
“Juxtaposed to this was another quotation: ‘soon indeed His Holiness, our master, teacher and rabbi, May He Live for Many Good Days, Amen—the King, the Messiah, in all his glory and grandeur will reveal himself.’
“Were the Lubavitchers saying their rabbi was the Messiah, even God Himself? Careful readers would see in the Hebrew letters for ‘indeed’ …—(English: M-M-Š)—the initials of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s name. To opponents like Rabbi Schach even this was appalling. ‘THIS PAINS US VERY MUCH!’ the poster concluded in giant letters. ‘But we cannot close our eyes to the facts.’ ”377
It is ironic, of course, that these Hasidic Jews, who so vehemently reject Yeshua and find the New Testament teaching on the incarnation offensive, can speak of their deceased leader as “Master of the Universe” and point to his alleged divine nature. They implicitly recognize some aspects of the Messiah’s divinity, but they have pinned those aspects on the wrong candidate. Jesus alone fits the bill and fulfills the description. He is our divine Messiah, the ideal righteous King, the one whose death is powerful enough to pay for the sins of the entire world (see above, 3.15).
352 Collins, Scepter and the Star, 189.
353 Thus, scholars today commonly refer to first-century Judaisms in the plural; cf. Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs, Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1987): see also vol. 1, 2.3.
354 To this day there are many religious Jews who hold to this doctrine of the two Messiahs, which is quite understandable in light of the fact that this belief can be traced back to the Talmud; see below, 3.23–3.24.
355 J. Immanuel Schochet, Mashiach: The Principles of Mashiach and the Messianic Era in Jewish Law and Tradition, expanded edition (New York/Toronto: S.I.E., 1992), 98.
356 Interestingly, Harris Lenowitz, Jewish Messiahs, 66, 217, points out that with regard to the rulings of Maimonides regarding the Messiah as found in his Mishneh Torah, his “conclusions have no legal bearing and do not influence messiahs or those who seek them,” adding, “His law’ here is not law. It does not have support from traditional Jewish sources or beliefs, and Maimonides himself does not require adherence to what he freely concedes is merely his opinion.”
357 For Schochet’s attempt to reconcile the various traditions, cf. Lenowitz, Jewish Messiahs, 217.
358 This is actually the term used on the front flap on the Lenowitz volume: “The word ‘messiah’ meaning ‘anointed one,’ comes from the Hebrew Bible where it refers to holy prophets and priests as well as kings. In later Judaism it is associated with a semi-divine figure whose future reign will usher in everlasting justice, security, and peace.” For the more detailed statements of Lenowitz, see ibid., 11: “The biblical accounts of anointment make it clear that messiahs have a peculiar relationship with the divine.… Supernaturalism comes to enrich the portrait of the king-messiah, as the political necessities of the Davidic dynasty demand theological validation.” For his use of the term “quasi-divine” (ibid.), see above, n. 55.
359 As translated in Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:9, their emphasis.
360 God promises to judge every one who is high and lofty (see Isa. 2:12–14), whereas he deserves to be called the high and lofty one (see Isa. 6:1; 57:15; cf. also Isa. 33:10; 5:16).
361 Sometimes spelled Abrabanel, Abarbanel, or Abarvanel. Note that it was the weight of tradition behind this midrash that caused Nachmanides to accept the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. He wrote: “The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase ‘my servant’ the whole of Israel is meant, as in 44:2, 49:3, and often. As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view maintained there” (Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:78).
362 Ibid., 2:154.
363 Ibid., 2:165.
364 I should point out here that I fully recognize the traditional Jewish position on the Messiah’s humanity, articulated clearly by Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel, trans. W. F. Stinespring (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1956), 520, 523: “The Jewish Messiah is truly human in origin, of flesh and blood like all mortals.… Both with respect to holiness, righteousness, truth, and goodness, and with respect to might and authority, the Messiah is the ‘supreme man.’… But with all his superior qualities, the Messiah remains a human being.” Or as stated (perhaps overstated?) by Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 347, “The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah.” It should be kept in mind that followers of Yeshua fully affirm both his humanity and his divinity; see above, 3.1–3.2. For further discussion of traditional Jewish views of the Messiah, in addition to the works cited elsewhere in these notes, cf. Leo Landman, ed., Messianism in the Talmudic Era (New York: Ktav, 1979); Shmuel Boteach, The Wolf Shall Lie with the Lamb (Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1993); Rabbi Yehudah Chayoun, When Moshiach Comes: Halachic and Aggadic Perspectives, trans. Rabbi Yaakov M. Rapoport and Rabbi Moshe Grossman (South-field, Mich.: Targum; Spring Valley, N.Y.: Feldheim, 1994); Jacob Neusner, The Messiah in Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Joseph Sarachek, The Doctrine of the Messiah in Medieval Jewish Literature (New York: Hermon, n.d.); Julius H. Greenstone, The Messiah Idea in Jewish History (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1972); Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken, 1971), 1–77; Moshe Idel, Messianic Mystics (New Haven: Yale, 1998); cf. also James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
365 Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, 2:102–3, their emphasis; additional portions of Ibn Crispin’s commentary, which next describes the Messiah’s sufferings, are excerpted below, 3.23.
366 I am aware, of course, that these Talmudic references are generally explained to mean that the concept of the Messiah was created before the world began, but not the Messiah himself, or that the Messiah’s soul was preexistent, remaining at the throne of God until the time came for his birth. See, e.g., Klausner, Messianic Idea, 520. Note also Pesikta Rabbati 152b, “From the beginning of the creation of the world king Messiah was born, for he entered the mind (of God) before even the world was created.” Cf. also Robert Leo Odom, Israel’s Preexistent Messiah (Washington, D.C.: Israelite Heritage Institute, 1985).
367 Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 189.
368 With reference to these verses, I noted above that neither of them make reference to the term son, yet here the Midrash cites them with reference to God’s “son.” And these texts are among the most famous Messianic prophecies in the entire Bible, frequently cited by Messianic Jews as pointing to Yeshua.
369 See above, 3.3, for references; cf. also immediately below, n. 370.
370 In fact, this figure is so highly exalted that some interpreters have wondered if he is an angel! The most common non-Messianic view of the passage is that the term “Son of Man” refers corporately to Israel (or the righteous within Israel). For refutation of this view, see Archer, “Daniel,” 90–91; see also the detailed discussions in John E. Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1989), 167–72; and John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304–10. Regardless of which interpretation is followed by modern scholars, they recognize that the earliest Jewish interpreters understood it to refer to the Messiah (see Collins, Daniel, 306–7, n. 63 , with reference to Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973], 170–72; and Herman L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch [München: C. H. Beck, 1924], 1:486). See also Chilton, “The Son of Man: Human and Heavenly,” in Judaic Approaches to the Gospels, 75–109. He states concisely that the phrase “like a son of man” in Daniel “is no technical reference or title, but a descriptive designation of an unusual, human angel.”
371 I reproduce here the relevant portion of Horbury’s endnote: “Gray, i–xxvii [referring to his volume in the International Critical Commentary], 173. He rightly stresses that Hebrew el, used here, regularly refers to the almighty God, but the importance in the Old Testament of its use in the sense of a divinity or angel from the divine assembly, probably reflected here, has since been underlined by Qumran writings (see Clines, Dictionary, I, 253–54, s.v. ʿel).” See William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998), 188–89, n. 94.
372 Ibid., 90. See further 112.
373 I speak here of George Buchanan Gray, cited by Horbury. The Jewish publisher Ktav reprinted some of Gray’s books, most notably his famous works on Hebrew poetry and on sacrifices in the Old Testament.
374 For further discussion of Psalm 110, with bibliography, see vol. 3, 4.29.
375 See especially vol. 3, section 4 (“Messianic Prophecy”).
405 Cf. Yeshua’s words to his disciples about suffering: “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!” (Matt. 10:22–25). Note also John 15:18–21: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.”
376 Cohn-Sherbok, The Jewish Messiah, xvi.
377 Heilman, Defenders of the Faith, 303.
Brown, M. L. (2000). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 2: Theological objections (210). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
