Jewish Messiah

[InChrist]

I commonly read Christians posting on here saying something like: 'The Jews expected a warrior messiah who would be a king..' etc. etc. So I ask the Christians now: why do you think the Jews expected and/or expect this? Could you cite any verses in the Tanakh to this effect? If the Jews were near uniformly expecting such a messiah this belief must be backed up with something. What is that something?

I haven’t heard Christians say the Jews expected a warrior, as much as I’ve heard or read the Jews were looking for a Deliverer, which was likely heightened under the oppression of Rome. I have heard Jewish people say that Jesus could not have been the Messiah because He didn’t bring peace.
I think there are many verses in the Tanaka that point to or prophesied some kind of Messiah, Deliverer, or King, such as…


Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.
10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem;
The battle bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak peace to the nations;
His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.’
I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem;
The battle bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak peace to the nations;
His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.’ Zachariah 9:9-10

 

[Brian2]

Christian sources are by definition not Jewish.

Jesus was a Jew and all the NT writers were Jews except for Luke.
But that is just the story that Christians would have us believe.

 

[Brian2]

I commonly read Christians posting on here saying something like: 'The Jews expected a warrior messiah who would be a king..' etc. etc. So I ask the Christians now: why do you think the Jews expected and/or expect this? Could you cite any verses in the Tanakh to this effect? If the Jews were near uniformly expecting such a messiah this belief must be backed up with something. What is that something?

I just believed the Jews were waiting for a political Messiah who would save Israel from the Romans, because that is what my Christian teachers said. Around the time of Jesus there were some who some thought could be the Messiah and they were political, military leaders, rebels against Rome etc.
In this site Mashiach: The Messiah - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ) it seems that the political, military part of Messiah was and is an expectation. I find this quote for example:

What Will the Mashiach Do?​

Before the time of the mashiach, there shall be war and suffering (Ezekiel 38:16)

The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).

 

[Brian2]

No, they really aren't. Christians have a totally different idea of what the messiah will do than Jews.

I think it is more of an expanded idea compared to what the Jewish expectation is.
Christians of course go by what the the Messiah has already done and the OT Messianic scriptures that tell us about those things.

 

[Brian2]

"The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days.

The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept."

Mashiach: The Messiah - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

There is basis in Jewish thought for the suffering servant of Isa 53 being the Messiah and atoning for sin.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think it is more of an expanded idea compared to what the Jewish expectation is.
Christians of course go by what the the Messiah has already done and the OT Messianic scriptures that tell us about those things.

I'm sorry, but Christians have a totally different idea what the messiah is. Christians think the purpose of the messiah was to die for their sins. For Jews, the messiah is the one who will rule during the messianic era.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is basis in Jewish thought for the suffering servant of Isa 53 being the Messiah and atoning for sin.

Isaiah himself identifies the servant as Israel, not the messiah.

Isaiah 41:8 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend

 

[Rival]

I'm sorry, but Christians have a totally different idea what the messiah is. Christians think the purpose of the messiah was to die for their sins. For Jews, the messiah is the one who will rule during the messianic era.

I would largely agree with you, except Luke in his Gospel expunged these references and has a moral exemplar Jesus. Many theologians and scholars have commented on this. Bart Ehrman wrote a blog post about it that I think is worth checking out.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Ok so the reasoning is you say even though Jesus is talking about someone else having a rod of iron he is actually talking about himself as in an "all in all" concept. I could accept that as logical as long as it remains absolute and is not selective. So every single person that is mentioned in the bible was also actually Jesus or that logic falls apart.

I don't think we have a common familiarity with the Christian scripture, and I should have put in more references before.

[1Co 15:28 NIV] 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.​

That is where I am getting "All and in all" from: the goal of the church; and this concept follows from a heavy emphasis upon the Christian interpretation of tikun olam (healing of the world). For this Christian authors refer to Jeremiah 31, Zechariah 14, Isaiah 40 and other prophets. These are about #1 many many more people becoming holy, #2 the law becoming something that is innate rather than learned through long study and #3 the equalization of society such that there are no longer people of high or low degree. You can see these goals reflected, too, in various modern political movements such as the public education movement and the social welfare movements which are inspired right from the bible's scriptures. The ideas from these scriptures set the world on fire in reverse, so they are fascinating and worth perusing briefly like a secret history of the world.

Spoiler: Abstracts from Jeremiah 31, Zechariah 14, Isaiah 40

• [Jer 31:33 NIV] 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
• [Zec 14:20-21 NIV] 20 On that day holy to the Lord will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the LORD's house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD Almighty.
• [Isa 40:3-4 NIV] 3 A voice of one calling: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain.

Where exactly does the idea come from that the rod of iron is the measuring rod and it is a rod of iron meaning its length doesnt change? What is the thought process to arrive at that.

This is what I think a rod of iron is. In Numbers 31:21-22 it states six different metals according to the law commanded to Moses. It is listed as being gold down through to lead, highest to lowest. There are three metals above iron - being the brass, silver, and gold. And there are two metals below the iron being the tin and the lead.

These are the six metals mentioned. Notice the positioning of iron.
Lead - Tin - Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold

In Deteronomy 28:23 it states the heaven above is the brass, while the Earth under it is the iron.
"And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron".

This connection shows the Earth and the heavens were possibly made into six different metals according to the law, just as the earth and the heavens were made in six days.

So a rod of iron would be a rod that is Earthly because iron represents the earth according to the law.


In Revelation it seems to state the man with a rod of iron smashing vessels rather than measuring them.
"And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father".

Like beating with "the rod of correction" mentioned in Proverbs.
"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him". Proverbs
"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die". Proverbs


Hence that is why I think a man with a rod of iron would be someone who has a rod of correction which is Earthly because it is of iron.

Rod of iron = Earthly correction.

And maybe the sword that comes out of his mouth is the correct sword that is spoken of throughout the Bible over 400 times.

The rod of iron is a scepter: a standard unit of measure that changes with the king. Its purpose is not actually to break things, unless it is breaking unfair weights or unfair measuring sticks. It is a weapon against fraud and embezzlement and symbolizes fairness. In modern times we use scientifically defined lengths, but in ancient times people rely upon the king to guard the nation's ultimate measure of length. In England it was the king's foot that defined the length of a standard foot.

"Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead" from Numbers 31:22 probably are listed in order of monetary value, but I don't know if there is significance to the ordering of this list.

"You will break them with a rod of iron. You shall smash them to pieces like pottery." comes from Psalm 2:9 originally, but is about patience when the nations are conspiring against Israel. Verse 8 says "Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession." So this is not about a king breaking things but is about the LORD doing the breaking over decades and centuries of time. In Psalms the nations are also compared to grass that dries up and blows away. They are momentary (although to a human they may appear old). The verse is about tradition and being holy/separate from the nations. The conspiring nations will pass away, eventually. The iron rod here is a scepter.

 

[Brian2]

I'm sorry, but Christians have a totally different idea what the messiah is. Christians think the purpose of the messiah was to die for their sins. For Jews, the messiah is the one who will rule during the messianic era.

Yes for Christians both those things are true and more.
And we see this era since the time of Jesus as the Messianic era and that Jesus rose from the dead and went to heaven and received an everlasting Kingdom to rule as per Daniel 7:13,14
Daniel 7:13 “I saw in the night visions,
and obehold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the cAncient of Days
and was presented before him.
14 pAnd to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all qpeoples, 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.

So the Christian interpretation of Messiah is definitely an expanded compared to the Jewish one.

 

[Brian2]

Isaiah himself identifies the servant as Israel, not the messiah.

Isaiah 41:8 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend

I was speaking of Isa 53 where the servant is not identified even in Isa 52.
Some Rabbis have see the servant of Isa 53 as an atoning Messiah.
The servant in the servant passage is identified in places as Israel but that does not stop Jewish interpretation in places of the servant being Isaiah for instance eg Isa 49.
Personally I see the servant as being Israel but in places as being one person from the Nation of Israel and not the whole Nation.
IOWs Israel does the things mentioned through one person.

 

[Flankerl]

Jesus was a Jew and all the NT writers were Jews except for Luke.
But that is just the story that Christians would have us believe.

And David Koresh was a Christian.

That makes his views common Christian ones.

 

[Shaul]

There is basis in Jewish thought for the suffering servant of Isa 53 being the Messiah and atoning for sin.

Not if you use a capital M "Messiah", no. Allow me to elaborate. There is a decidedly minority Jewish interpretation that the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 52-53 could be a moshiach as the term is used in the scriptures. But the term moshiach as used in the scriptures is fundamentally different than the English word you used "Messiah". This moshiach is not divine. The Jewish minority interpretation of the suffering servant Isaiah 52-53 is that he will be an anointed king such as David or perhaps a resurrected David himself, thus a "moshiach". This interpretation is quite distinct and antithetical to the Christian concept of a "Messiah".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I was speaking of Isa 53 where the servant is not identified even in Isa 52.
Some Rabbis have see the servant of Isa 53 as an atoning Messiah.
The servant in the servant passage is identified in places as Israel but that does not stop Jewish interpretation in places of the servant being Isaiah for instance eg Isa 49.
Personally I see the servant as being Israel but in places as being one person from the Nation of Israel and not the whole Nation.
IOWs Israel does the things mentioned through one person.

Brian, I literally quoted you the verse that identifies the servant as Israel. Sheesh.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

That is where I am getting "All and in all" from:

Sorry I'm not understanding the explanation of how Jesus talking about another man who will rule with the rod of iron got turned into being about Jesus ruling with a rod of iron.


These are the verses of Revelation in question:

26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

28 And I will give him the morning star.

"Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead" from Numbers 31:22 probably are listed in order of monetary value, but I don't know if there is significance to the ordering of this list.

I agree that it is an order of value. The bible says we will be judged according to our ways.


It is the authoritive order (ordinance) of the law commanded to Moses:

"And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses;

Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead".

Numbers 31:21-22


So according to this law could it be perhaps possible to turn lead into gold?

Lead - Tin - Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold

I have heard a philosophers stone can turn lead into gold.

"Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts". Zecharaiah.

Perhaps a philosophers stone is the heart of a philosopher listening to the law.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sorry I'm not understanding the explanation of how Jesus talking about another man who will rule with the rod of iron got turned into being about Jesus ruling with a rod of iron.

I disagreed with you and explained why. You explanation ignored what a scepter was.

You seem to think its a rod for hitting things, because this one verse uses a figure of speech. People who write songs use figures of speech, and that is what Psalms are: songs. Its not a big deal to have a neat pet theory like yours, and it is a neat idea. Its a neat idea, but its incorrect. It doesn't mean you've wasted your time or that you lack wit. It just means that you don't know what scepters are (or didn't) and that you really wish this idea would work. It doesn't work, because a scepter is and always has been understood by all people to be a unit measure for a nation. Hitting things with it never happens except as a metaphor. You don't hit things with it, because it is there to preserve the official measure of something.

The passage containing the term 'Rod' is not a path to arguing for a prophet after Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to say it does. A scepter is for measuring not for hitting, not matter what the song lyrics say. They are talking about fairness and justice, not about prophets succeeding one another. It will never be a convincing argument unless your target is completely ignorant about scepters.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I disagreed with you and explained why. You explanation ignored what a scepter was.

You seem to think its a rod for hitting things, because this one verse uses a figure of speech. People who write songs use figures of speech, and that is what Psalms are: songs. Its not a big deal to have a neat pet theory like yours, and it is a neat idea. Its a neat idea, but its incorrect. It doesn't mean you've wasted your time or that you lack wit. It just means that you don't know what scepters are (or didn't) and that you really wish this idea would work. It doesn't work, because a scepter is and always has been understood by all people to be a unit measure for a nation. Hitting things with it never happens except as a metaphor. You don't hit things with it, because it is there to preserve the official measure of something.

I know what a scepter is. And I know what a figure of speech is. The problem is your explanation does not include a logical process of jumping from iron rod to scepter, and the jumping from smashing to measuring. Your jumping from what is actually said to something it does not say will need clarifying.

טתְּרֹעֵֽם בְּשֵׁ֣בֶט בַּרְזֶ֑ל כִּכְלִ֖י יוֹצֵ֣ר תְּנַפְּצֵֽם:
"You shall break them with an iron rod; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them."

The passage containing the term 'Rod' is not a path to arguing for a prophet after Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to say it does. A scepter is for measuring not for hitting, not matter what the song lyrics say. They are talking about fairness and justice, not about prophets succeeding one another. It will never be a convincing argument unless your target is completely ignorant about scepters.

The passage seems to be clearly talking about two different individuals. Jesus, and someone else (who is not necessarily another prophet).
Because it is basic comprehension to know the difference between saying "he" and "him" and "I".

26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

28 And I will give him the morning star.

So again it is a leap in logic to say that Jesus will rule with an iron rod. It goes from what is said to something which is not said. And you have not been able to clarify why.

 

[Brian2]

Brian, I literally quoted you the verse that identifies the servant as Israel. Sheesh.

As I explained, I have no problem with that and with Israel accomplishing things through one Jew. Also as I explained, many Jews have no problem with saying that the servant is not the whole nation of Israel, and I gave the example of Isa 49 where I have heard Jews say that the servant is Isaiah.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I know what a scepter is. And I know what a figure of speech is. The problem is your explanation does not include a logical process of jumping from iron rod to scepter, and the jumping from smashing to measuring. Your jumping from what is actually said to something it does not say will need clarifying.

טתְּרֹעֵֽם בְּשֵׁ֣בֶט בַּרְזֶ֑ל כִּכְלִ֖י יוֹצֵ֣ר תְּנַפְּצֵֽם:
"You shall break them with an iron rod; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them."

Then I must write at some length sorry.

The context is Psalm 2, a song about kings plural. They rise up against the LORD and his anointed saying "Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles." Shackles? They are the shackles of the one enthroned in heaven, but I don't see any shackles on my arms and legs. What shackles can he be speaking of? It says then the LORD rebukes me in his anger, because I have plotted to remove his shackles. I don't remember hearing such rebuke. Then the LORD says to his anointed that he/she/it will inherit the nations -- all of them. Does it mean the nations of the planet or the tribes of Israel or every country? The song does not clarify that point. We can guess if it is about David that it is the tribes of Israel, or we can guess that it is more far reaching. There are different ways of looking at this song. It is poetic, so meanings point outwards to multiple targets. It is not like prose where the writer attempts to be concise and to limit the meaning to one outcome.

So the shackles are invisible to me. What about the rod? If I am a tribe in Israel then the shackles refer to my subservience to David, and the rod refers to his unit of measure which affects taxes and property.

But let me extend this and consider if the song is talking about more than David's tribes. What if it is about all of the countries in our world and about some future king(s)? Then the rod is the same, and the shackles are the same. The only thing which changes is the scope.

Or should we suppose David travels about smacking people with an iron rod?

I am not jumping to a conclusion. The Psalm is about ruling, and scepters are central to ruling. They are rods.

But in the case of Revelation we extend rulership, because we are aiming for God to be all and in all and for there in the end to be no more king except God. So then the rod comes to mean something new there, because it is about the change to the heart as mentioned in Jeremiah 31 so important to Christian writers.

The passage seems to be clearly talking about two different individuals. Jesus, and someone else (who is not necessarily another prophet).
Because it is basic comprehension to know the difference between saying "he" and "him" and "I".

26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

28 And I will give him the morning star.

So again it is a leap in logic to say that Jesus will rule with an iron rod. It goes from what is said to something which is not said. And you have not been able to clarify why.

Revelation is a Christian writing, and it is about all Christians. The mystery says Paul is Christ in us the hope of glory. If it were a future prophet or king he could not write that. He also would not talk about each of us having crowns of glory. Therefore in Revelation we are still talking about God being all and in all, each person receiving a crown. All of us together are supposed to be the one that is given the morning star, and all of us together make the nations obsolete.

[Col 1:27 NIV] 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.​

[1Th 2:19 NIV] 19 For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you?​

[Jas 1:12 NIV] 12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.​

I don't have a problem with anyone who is not against us. I don't have a problem with your theory. I just don't think it is supported by the scripture. I think it is an idea that probably will work itself out in some other way.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

It is poetic, so meanings point outwards to multiple targets. It is not like prose where the writer attempts to be concise and to limit the meaning to one outcome.

I disagree. The bible is not poetic able to be twisted into whatever you want it to mean. Each word has its own meaning in the one outcome. The positioning.


As an example I could say this verse of apparent nonsense is unable to be twisted into multiple meanings.

Listen. It is clearly saying that the sword is the star.

"The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear". Habbakuk.

Allow me to clarify. Here is why it is so:

This Habbakuk verse is saying the sword is the star even though it spoke without saying it. I can clarify that because it only uses two words from each set of two different three word sets. Only one word from each of the two different sets is missing from the verse.


Because consider these three words as a set:
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Luke.

And these three words as a set:
Therefore set I in the lower places behind the wall, and on the higher places, I even set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows. Nehemiah.


Moon - Star - Sun
Spear - Sword - Bow

So please seriously consider if the sword is as the star. Even though Habakkuk didnt say it. But clearly he did say it, and I show my reasoning. I can also show other reasoning to confirm it.

If you think everyone should be given the star, then all should all be put to the sword. Perhaps the middle position could bring down the high and lift up the low.