Post # 429
This post was put up on the comment section on Dr. Brown’s Line of Fire website. I present it here because it demonstrates the benefit of discussing these matters in writing. Incidentally; I am still awaiting Dr. Brown’s response.
December 22nd, 2011 @ 10:31 am
Here is my response to your post # 258
I believe that with this response of yours – a great breakthrough was achieved in our interaction – vindicating the usefulness of such interaction. I will explain this statement as I proceed to respond to your points one by one.
In my previous post (on this topic) I put our disagreements into two categories: Messianic expectations and interpretation of Isaiah 53.
On the issue of Messianic expectation
I demonstrated how you apply a double standard in your interpretation of Messianic prophecy. When it comes to the Jewish expectation of a rebuilt Temple and restored sacrifices you measure them by the number of times these concepts are mentioned in Scripture (according to your count, they are few), You measure them by the fact that in some of these prophecies, no Messianic figure is mentioned, and you measure them by the fact that there seems to be a problem with the timing of some of the prophecies (the context would indicate a fulfillment at a time that does not coincide with the Jewish interpretation).
On the basis of these measuring sticks – you downplay these prophecies and conclude that they could perhaps be fulfilled in a symbolic sense and not necessarily in a literal sense.
I pointed out that had you applied these same “measuring sticks” to the prophecies which are interpreted by Christians as prediction for Messiah’s miracles – then we could even more quickly conclude that the Messiah does not necessarily need to preform miracles in a literal sense.
But you insist that the miracles must be literal. You go on to pass judgment against Maimonides who insists on a literal fulfillment of theTempleprophecies while maintaining that the miracle prophecies need not be understood literally.
But using your own standards of interpretation – Maimonides is right.
How do you explain this? You say – Well Jesus already told us that this is the interpretation!
This then is the breakthrough. We have come to an agreement, it seems, that without FIRST accepting Jesus as an authority – the Jewish Bible does NOT encourage belief in Jesus.
If you need Jesus to tell you that your biblical interpretation is correct – then you should have said so in your book. You open your five volumes setting the standard for this discussion: “What does the Bible say?” But now you are admitting that according to that standard – Jesus is NOT the Messiah. The only way you can come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah – is by first accepting him as the Messiah and then accepting his Biblical interpretations.
It is my position that the moral position for someone who does not believe in Jesus is to examine his claims in light of the Biblical texts. Until his claims are vindicated –– it would be going against God to accept his claims. We must therefore first read the Jewish Bible – without belief in Jesus – and then examine his claims in light of the truth we have learned from God’s word. The fact that you need to quote Jesus to defend your position underscores the fact that your position is not rooted in the words of the Jewish Bible.
You claim that the reason you pointed out the relatively small number of passages predicting the future Temple is because traditional Judaism puts the future Temple on the same plane as world peace as a Messianic requirement. You conclude that Scripture does not bear this out.
I suggest that you turn to page 178 of your volume 3 and you will see that you were not contrasting the hope for the Temple with the hope for peace (which you yourself minimize on page 70 of volume 1) – but you were contrasting the hope for a future Temple with the alleged miracles of the Messiah. This being the case – my citation of the number of passages is completely relevant.
In another paragraph you accuse me of creating a strawman (you generously add – “probably unintentional”) by presenting it as an issue of “either or”. With this accusation you have created a strawman of your own (probably unintentionally). In my opening statements which you yourself copied in the beginning of your own response – I presented the two opposing positions – not as “either or”, but rather with the one requiring miracles as an absolute necessity while relegating the temple to a possibility – as opposed to the other which has the Temple as the absolute requirement and the miracles remain a possibility.
You skip over some of my points because you see no relevance to them. I am sure that the readers of this conversation (including myself) will want to know your response to two of my questions that you seem to deem “irrelevant”.
1) Do you believe that the number of verses supporting a specific doctrinal position is a valid standard by which to judge the Scriptural basis of a given position? And if yes, then why, throughout your five volumes, do you never apply this standard to the arguments of the Church? (i.e the virgin birth etc)
2) How is it that in your interview with Stroebel Zechariah 6 is magnified as “the most overt passage in the Bible where a human being is identified with a Messianic figure” – and on page 172 of volume 3 you downplay this very same prophecy because it appears in only one book of the Bible. Isn’t that being inconsistent in your own line of reasoning?
I countered your argument concerning the timing of the predictions concerning theTemple– by pointing out that the predictions of Messiah’s miracles are also tied in by the prophets to a specific time – which precludes applying these predictions to Jesus.
You respond with the argument that “Messiah” (and I presume you mean “Jesus”) came working these very miracles.
This response is completely circular. You are in effect saying – believe in Jesus because he fulfilled this prophecy – but when I point out that according to a contextual reading of the prophecy he did not fulfill the prophecy – you tell me – but Jesus said he did! – so why should I accept his interpretation?
Your next argument is “that there is nothing in the context of, say, Isaiah 61 that precludes the Messianic interpretation” – I assume that you mean to assert that there is nothing in the context of Isaiah 61 that precludes your application of this passage to Jesus. I may have misunderstood you and if I did please clarify – but if I understood you correctly then your assertion is patently false. Isaiah 61 speaks of a “day of revenge” – which you acknowledge was not yet fulfilled. If a 2000 year interlude in middle of a sentence, without any textual justification, is “sound Biblical interpretation” for you – I guess I will have to be the one to inform you – that others will not be satisfied.
When I present my question about your double standard (asking the question if a given prophecy is symbolic or literal) – you go back to “the Messiah has already come”. Are you saying that it is OK for you to use a double standard because you “know” you are right?
The point I made about symbolic language was that as far as I could see, Scripture never uses a specific type of sheep as a metaphor. I did not say that it is not theoretically possible – my point was that this would be unusual – weakening the symbolic interpretation. You response does not address my point.
In response to my summary which asks a simple question – if we are going to apply a certain standard for the Jewish expectations of the Messiah – that we should do the same for the Christian expectations – you respond with:
“Of course we should, and that’s why we look at David as the proto-type (priestly King) and that’’s why we pay attention to the time line (expected before the destruction of the Second Temple), and that’s why we then allow the Messiah’s first coming to shed light on the meaning of the passages. All very clear, thank God!”
How is this clear? You take a Jewish argument and (mis)apply a certain standard of interpretation. You do this with one Jewish argument – ignoring the sum total of the Jewish arguments. So why are you reluctant to apply this same standard to the Christian arguments? Is it because you have other arguments to support your position? But when I will point to the inherent weaknesses of those arguments – you will run back to this one! What kind of response is that?
In any case – here is the response to the two arguments that you present. – Looking to David as a prototype is the last thing you want to do. It is hard to imagine a character that is more thoroughly antithetical to David than Jesus. David consistently stresses his own utter dependance on God – highlighting his sins – opening his heart to all of mankind expressing his complete humility towards God. How does this compare to a “mystery-man” who claims to be sinless and deserving of worship himself?
In response to your second argument – about the timing (Messiah had to come before the destruction of the Second Temple) – which you refer to Haggai 2, Malachi 3 and Daniel 9. I don’t see how you can apply these prophecies to Jesus. How could a prediction for a glorification of the Temple (predicted by Haggai) be fulfilled by one who claimed to be a replacement of theTemple? How could a prediction of the restoration of the Levitical priesthood (predicted by Malachi) be fulfilled by one who claimed to do away with the Levitical priesthood? And how could a prediction (by Daniel) about an anointed one cut off with the destruction of the city claim to be fulfilled by someone who died more than five weeks of years (in Daniel’s terms) before the destruction of the city?
Interpretation of Isaiah 53
I asked you if 53:9 could apply to Israel– you respond with a question “why in the world am I limiting the discussion to one verse when we have the whole chapter”. The answer to your question is because chapters are made up of verses – one verse at a time. If you refuse to discuss “one verse” – because you claim that the rest of the chapter bears out your position – then we will have a hard time discussing the matter. When I point to any one verse – you will run to the “rest of the chapter” – and when I point out that your arguments in those other verses don’t pan out – you will always be able to say – “ah! but look at the rest of the chapter”.
The fact of the matter is that there is no individual in the history of mankind that is more thoroughly eliminated from being a possible subject of this passage (Isaiah 53) as is Jesus from Nazareth. The entire thrust of the passage is that when the arm of the Lord is revealed upon the servant – the world will be shocked. If there is anyone that this cannot be – it is Jesus. So there is the “rest of the chapter” for you.
Getting back to this one verse – 53:9 – you are saying that it cannot be corporate Israel. So are you saying that the Jews when the Jews were butchered because of the accusations that they murdered Christian children and because they had stolen the world’s wealth through deception – that they were indeed guilty of these charges?
You claim that when I speak of Israel’s guilt compared to the guilt of the nations I have introduced a “new category”. I gave you 9 Scriptural references – and you call this a “new category”!? Let us take the first one on the list – Isaiah 26:2; where Israel is praised as the righteous nation who kept her faithfulness. It is obvious that Israel is singled out from amongst the nations for this praise. They are being praised not for something new that is given to them but for the faithfulness towards God that they maintained throughout the exile. (Contrast this with the exaltation of the Messiah described in chapter 11 which will be for new qualities that will be granted to him at that time – not for qualities that he possessed before then.)
In 49:23 Israel is rewarded for having hoped to God – from the context it is obvious that the nations do not share in this reward. The concept is reiterated again and again throughout the book of Isaiah – all those who worship idols will be shamed when everyone sees that the God who Israel trusted in is the true God. Israe lwill be exalted to the eyes of the nations for maintaining this trust in God throughout the exile – something that no nation will share with them.
When the nations will see the exaltation of God (and Jesus will have no part in this exaltation) they will realize that their worship of Jesus was idolatry. They will realize that Israel’s rejection of Jesus was her greatest virtue. They will realize that all the material blessing that they were blessed with came about because the Jewish people prayed to God for the prosperity of the countries they inhabited – and not because of their own prayers to Jesus.
This brings us to your arguments against my interpretation as to how Israel brought healing to the nations. You quote Jeremiah 51:9 which actually proves my point – the healing of the nation is not some spiritual gift – but material blessing here on earth. History vindicates my interpretation because countries that allowed the Jews to live amongst them – prospered – while those that expelled them – declined. As forBabylon; Jeremiah wasn’t making a joke in 29:7. The Jewish prayers helped the Babylonians until their time came. No one said the healing was permanent.
You argue that my interpretation which has the servant render the many righteous – as a future prophecy, contradicts my interpretation which has the servant’s healing of the nation to be past. I would urge you to pay attention to the words of the prophet. The healing is described as something that happened in the past (nirpah) while the servant rendering the many righteous is presented as a future prediction (yatzdik).
You created a new category when you decided that the servant had to be sinless on the basis of your symbolic interpretation of the requirement that the animal guilt offering be free of physical blemish. I responded that the servant being human and not animal has no such requirement. I presented an example from the guilt offering of the Philistines.
You respond that the requirement for the Philistines would be different than the requirements for Israel. It seems that you forgot another Scriptural passage – Leviticus 22:25 – which explicitly applies the requirements of presenting non-blemished animals for the Gentiles as well as the Israelites. – By the way – do you believe the servant only suffers for Israel– or do you believe he suffers for all of mankind?
You discount my interpretation which has the servant guilty of his own sins – because then the assessment of his enemies would have been accurate – he was suffering for his own sins, while the prophet makes it clear that he was suffering for the sins of others.
You have misunderstood the thrust of Isaiah 53. Those who had denigrated the servant had been looking at the fact that the servant is the only one suffering as an indication that they themselves are more righteous then the servant – or that the servant is more evil than themselves (I see this fulfilled in the consistent Christian assertion that the holocaust “proves” that Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the greatest sin.) When the servant is vindicated – they will see that he had been bearing the burden for everybody – as described in Psalm 88, and that actually the servant had been the one who was fulfilling God’s mission on earth for the benefit of all mankind.
When that great day comes – and everyone sees that God alone is King – then those who trusted in Him will be vindicated to the eyes of all the nations who placed their trust in other entities. Everything will pale into insignificance when the nations realize how the worship that they considered the highest virtue – was actually the greatest abomination before God. All ofIsrael’s sins are between her and God. As for the nations – they will call Israel“the righteous nation” – and they will realize that Israel’s loyalty to God was the most precious thing that God had on this earth (26:2). They will realize that God’s purpose here on earth was accomplished through those loyal to Him – and that those who hoped to God bore the burden for everyone else. I imagine also – that when God’s glory is revealed and the mask of confusion is removed from the face of the nations – then Christians will realize that nations who revere books that slander their theological opponents have something to learn from a nation that reveres a book that highlights their own faults (Zechariah 8:23).
I look forward to your response.
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
Yisroel– Excellent..Not hard to see why you havent got a response. What can he say?
I would like to also point out an additional error by Brown regarding Haggai 2:9. He claims that Jsus was the reason the 2nd temple was more glorified than the 1st. He says because A) the god-man taught there and B) Because the spirit was released there on pentecost.
Both are wrong. There is no record of a shekinah event occuring when the god-man entered the temple, such that it would surpass that of 2 Chron 5 and 7. On the contrary, the god-man had to hide out in the temple and run away like a common criminal.
Brown claims the the Spirit was released in the 2nd temple in Act 2. No where is the temple mentioned in Acts 2 during this release and in fact, Acts 1 says they were gathered in the “Upper Room”. So again, no spiritual glorification in the temple surpassing the 1st temple.
Regarding Is 53, 2+ billion chrisitans and 2+ billion muslims, perhaps over 5 billion in total, more than half the planet is expecting the return of the man from Nazareth. So why would they be shocked if the man from nazareth returned? The Kings (leaders) of the nations already expect Jsus. The other nations of Hindu, Buddist etc beliefs have a least heard of this and they wouldnt be shocked either. There is only ONE nation that actively teaches that Jsus isnt returning. The Jewish nation. So who and what will be more shocked when G-d proves them wrong? The majority of the planet that expects Jsus…thats who.
Yisroel blumenthal When you say “When that great day comes – and everyone sees that God alone is King – then those who trusted in Him will be vindicated to the eyes of all the nations who placed their trust in other entities.” you are right. But then why do you think Messiah will be a king in the lineage of David? Why do you fail to understand Jesus didn’t claim he is the messiah and what Jesus said was that no individual will some as messiah and who or what will come is the kingdom of God. And why Jesus asked the Jews do not believe any individual who claim he is the messiah ?
Daniel, why do you write that Jesus didn’t claim he is the messiah? What do you make of the following verses?
John 4:22-26 (ESV) Jesus is speaking – ” 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”
Ruth…this is a Tanach (what you call “Old Testament” ) discussion. In order for your new testament to have any validity you need to answer according to Hebrew Mishnah Torah authority. Although I’m sure Dr. Brown will fit his usual “square pegs in round holes” with his response, floating new testament scripture in a debate with Jews is like a Muslim telling you that “Islam is correct because the Qu’ran says so..”
Gypsy, my reply was to Daniel for his comment. (I realize that this is not a response to Rbi. Blumenthal’s post.)
And btw, we have a right to consider both the NT and Tanakh authoritative, just as you have a right to consider only the Tanakh authoritative. Both perspectives depend upon an individual’s FAITH. I don’t care to argue whose faith is valid or true and whose isn’t.
(Additionally, my comments have nothing to do with Dr. Brown’s response, nor did I comment in any way at his behest or with his knowledge. My comment was directly only and specifically in response to Daniel’s words.)
You wrote that Christians have a right to consider the Christian scriptures authoritative, just as Orthodox Jews have a right to consider the Jewish scriptures authoritative… because it depends on faith.
I think that it’s different. When Christianity emerged, God had already given a revelation about how He wanted His people to live, to know Him, to be forgiven, and to be sure that they were pleasing Him. This biblical Judaism included the commandment “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.” So clearly if someone claimed to be God, to be the only way for forgiveness, or to be the promised royal descendant of David, they had to test such claims seriously. If such a claim were made falsely, then to accept it would be so deeply against “what is right in His eyes” and His commands and decrees.
So there’s the point. If Christians and Jews are both right that God revealed Himself and the Torah to the Israelites and their Jewish descendants, then no Jew has a right to see the Christian scriptures as authoritative unless they are 100% sure that worshipping Jesus is required and is not idolatrous. Likewise, no Gentile has a right to say that the righteous Jews of our generation are missing the truth, if they can’t show those Jews what exactly they’re failing to obey from the prophetic message.
Faith in God is a journey, but for faith in the claims that a man is God incarnate the Torah allows no for no risk of accepting it if you might be wrong. It also gives no test for such a risky and difficult claim, no indication that it would happen, and no sense that the forgiveness already promised would be dependent on a future and bigger sacrifice. If you have the faith to accept Tanach, then the question of Jesus is not just a matter of ‘faith’. The question arises: How should it be tested? And the response should be: What does Torah indicate about testing this in order to accept it, without previous bias or desire for the results to swing one way?
When a commandment is given, sometimes caution about keeping that commandment does not allow certain subsequent claims to be made, even if in the new perspective, the commandment is not being broken.
There is a commandment not to wear wool and linen mixed together. Once upon a time, a Jewish fabric maker heard a knock on the door of his house. He opened to a stranger. The kindly old farmer began to explain that in the spring just past, a strange lamb was born in his flock. This lamb grew wool that looked and behaved like the wool of any other sheep, but it was not actually, technically wool. Moreover, the farmer said he was a prophet, and said that God had created this sheep in order that its hair could be mixed with linen. It was therefore incumbent on the fabric maker to buy some of the not-wool and make himself a garment from it, or else he would not be following Israel’s God. Quoting from the Torah, the farmer described the reason for which this unusual lamb had been born, according to the will of God for Israel. He went to great lengths to explain why the commandment about mixing these fabrics existed, and from there he explained why his proposal was a deep fulfillment of the message of Torah. He had travelled far and wide to find someone who would make the fabric, but no one had taken the time to listen.
The fabric maker was an honest man who loved God and carefully guarded His commandments, in love and fear towards the One who so lovingly revealed Himself and His covenant to his ancestors. He knew this commandment very well, since it related so closely to his trade. He couldn’t understand the mitzvah but he thanked God every morning for the chance to show obedience even in the mundane task of his work, creating something that represented obedience.
But he also took seriously the command about listening to prophets, so he was unsure about what to do. If this farmer were right, then the commandment was not being broken. Sensing his uncertainty, the farmer proceeded to perform a number of impressive miracles. This caught the fabric maker’s attention, and he invited the stranger to stay at his home for the night.
He found it hard to settle that night. God never mentioned something that by all accounts would seem like wool, but wasn’t. Since God gave this law, how would the Torah teach people to test an exception to the the assumed definition? Would miracles be an appropriate test?
Shortly before falling asleep, the fabric maker imagined himself sitting down to mix the fibres from the sheep together with linen. He could never do it with 100% assurance that he wasn’t breaking the law in the Torah. So he humbly said to his Creator that he wouldn’t. He could see no reason to believe that by failing to accept this man’s ideas about his sheep, he would be separating himself from the way that God had already given in Torah. So despite his heart and mind being open to surprising kinds of truth, he had to make a decision, and with humble confidence he made the only one he could follow through with to the end.
To be fair, this is a totally different scenario from the claim of Christianity, and it proves little. But this is the attitude that Torah observant Jews have towards the completeness of the law God already gave them for making the big decisions of life. The farmer asked, “What would it take for you to believe this? Don’t you hear or obey the heart of God?” But the fabric maker still sent him away.
*”make himself a mixed garment from it”
Though it was not my intention to discuss this issue (only to respond to Daniel’s statement that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah) — you have drawn me into it anyway, Annelise…however, it’s really late in my part of the world, so I’ll do my best to read all of your words and respond tomorrow or soon after…. 🙂
It’s very hard for these conversations to stay on track 🙂 But this is an important issue… I really believe that the faith one would need to believe in Jesus is, according to Torah, different from the faith one holds to believe in and walk with Hashem. It needs to be tested, and it would need to be secondary to accepting Israel’s experience with our Creator and the importance of Torah to begin with.
Have a lovely night xo
Annelise, I haven’t forgotten that I still owe you a reply. Without going into too much detail, there’s a lot going on right now, but I will be getting back to you, most likely by Saturday. I don’t want to rush through my reply. I’m sure you understand 🙂 TTFN 🙂
Hi Ruth, that’s fine 🙂
DPK- No one knows what Jesus said, or even if there was a “Jesus”, except what is presented in the NT and by non-canonical books written by believers. That Jesus often doesn’t say who or what he is or is supposed to be. He doesn’t say what you think he says about himself, either. Opinions are not based just on what one writes (or else Jesus is no one since he wrote nothing) or upon what one says (because some in the NT spoke negatively about Jesus), especially if what one is supposed to have said was written by some who held a clear and strong bias. Some people quote certain verses saying (or showing) that Jesus was “God”. Others, who strongly believe Jesus, believe Jesus said or proved by other verses that he was not God. You quote verses that side with your theory and others quote more verses to support their hypotheses that he “said he was a messiah”. Besides, are you saying that there was, is, or will be NO messiah, just because you say that Jesus said “do not believe any individual who claims to be messiah”? Is it alright then to consider some one is a messiah by their deeds or words, as long as that person does not explicitly say in clear, unambiguous words, “I am a messiah”? BTW, by what or whose authority, do you claim to be a “spokesman” for “the Jew”?
There are some samples of eslf-analisys. Matthew 19:16-19,he asks what we are asking of the writeres;why do you call himholy; only G-d above is holy…
So we have insight to JC, but most of it, like Matthew, conrtadicts the Church fthers and Paul.
What is your take on Matthew 19:28 when he is talking to his closet followers?
What is your take on Matthew 19:28 when he is talking to his closest followers? (Lol, I don’t think his disciples were “closet” followers, though they & Peter did “deny” him).
My favorite verses from that chapter are;
16] And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
(naaria, by the same token, what is your take on Jesus saying only G-d can be called “good”.)
 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
The ones you shared with me are , for me, a philosophical follow up;
 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Buddah said this centuries before, as has the writter of Eclisiastis. Universal truths which are universally ignored/
Thank you Maaria for the opportunity to share this. Now, here, we have presented a good example of how we can and should help our fellow humans.
Naaria ,Meaning of the word “Messiah” is “an anointed one” for a special purpose. It does not mean ” “Redeemer” or Savior. When the Jews started to give the wrong meaning “Savior ” for the word messiah they started to wrongly interpret Bible prophecies in such a way to make the Jews believe God will send them a messiah in the lineage of King David. Basis of this belief is a promise God gave to King David. The promise God gave to David is a conditional one – see 1.Kings.2:3 and 8:25. But the Jews took it wrongly as an unconditional promise and it wrongly influenced their later writings and it lead to the wrong interpretation of Bible prophecies. They began to see promise of a Messiah in so many passages in the Bible as shown by Rabbi Blumenthal. This wrong interpretation of Bible passages lead some of the Jews to believe that Jesus is the promised messiah- not only redeemer of Israel but the whole world. Ironically it is highly astonishing that no Jew dared to question their belief that a son of David would be their messiah but Jesus questioned their tradition. See. Mathew 22:41-45. Not only that Jesus told the Jews not to believe any individual who may come claiming he is the messiah. History of Jews prove that Jesus was right that whenever some one came claiming he is the messiah Jews flocked around him and later it was proved that they were not real messiahs. Jesus told the Jews no individual will come as their messiah who or what will come is the kingdom of God . According to prophet Daniel that kingdom is given not to any king messiah but to the chosen people of God.That is why Jesus said to the Jews ” “Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom”. When you give the meaning ” redeemer” for the word messiah you will think an individual will be the messiah that is what happened to Jews. But when you realize meaning of the “messiah” is ” an anointed one for a special purpose” you can see that the chosen people of God – Israel – is the anointed one. Every Jew is an anointed one of Yahweh their God. That is why Yahweh says to Israel ” Exod.19:6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ “.Isa.61: 6 you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God.”. Not an individual the whole nation is anointed for what ? They are anointed to be ” the light ” to the gentiles. Hear Yahweh says to Israel ” “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”. “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.” (Isa.49:3,6) Jesus also said the the same thing to the Jews ” “You are the light of the world.”
Pingback: Dr. Brown’s Response to comment # 429 | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources