- This topic has 263 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Adam…..I believe your post have some possibilities, but the whole issue I have with it is the idea it is not talking about dead bodies, even David was dead at that time, and would have to have a new body in order to regain again over Israel. And all those dead Israelites would need new bodies also in order to stand on their feet again. I see no way those scriptures are not talking about actual resurrected human Israelite bodies. In a future time.
Ezekiel was indeed transported in time to when that will take place, I do agree with that. Just like John was transported in time to the day of the Lord God’s return, not the return of Jesus, but to the end of the millennium reign of the SIXTH KINGDOM of Jesus and the Saint’s, when Almighty God himself comes and Jesus offers up his Kingdom to him, and becomes subject to him.The writer you use has some points, but does not begin to fulfill the actual text wording themselves, to me that is. The text itself depicts actual human bodies, resurrected back to life having all their human parts restored and the Breath of life put back in them by the Spirit of the Living God.
peace and love to you and yours Adam………gene
Hello brother Gene,
Adam…..I believe your post have some possibilities, but the whole issue I have with it is the idea it is not talking about dead bodies, even David was dead at that time, and would have to have a new body in order to regain again over Israel. And all those dead Israelites would need new bodies also in order to stand on their feet again. I see no way those scriptures are not talking about actual resurrected human Israelite bodies. In a future time.
Ezekiel was indeed transported in time to when that will take place, I do agree with that. Just like John was transported in time to the day of the Lord God’s return, not the return of Jesus, but to the end of the millennium reign of the SIXTH KINGDOM of Jesus and the Saint’s, when Almighty God himself comes and Jesus offers up his Kingdom to him, and becomes subject to him.The concept of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible was in the primitive stage and it was fully developed at the time of intertestamental period and in the NT period. This was the reason why there were two opposing groups available among Jewish people at the time of Jesus Pharisees and Sadducees. The appearance of quotations for resurrection in the Hebrew Bible are in Isaiah 26 (not individual) and Daniel 12. Here are the few thoughts on resurrection in the Hebrew Bible;
Resurrection in the Old Testament(Hebrew Bible):
The General Picture
To those accustomed to reading the Old Testament through the lense of the New, it may come as a surprise that much of the Old Testament reads like Homer. In the words of Job himself, “life is but a breath. . . he who goes down to the grave does not return. He will never come to his house again” (Job 7:7-10, NIV). “At least there is hope for a tree: If it is cut down, it will sprout again. . . . so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep” (Job 14:7, 12, NIV). Words like these sound like a one-way street.It is not that the writers of the Old Testament were deeply disturbed about this. Old Testament Israelites were attached to life, they did not invest much energy in dreaming of a life hereafter. As with Job, they were interested in the outcome of God’s judgment in the here and now. They did not believe that human beings have innate immortality. Rather, they believed that life comes from God (Gen 2:7), returns to Him (Eccl 12:7), and the dead lose consciousness and never again have a part in what happens under the sun (Eccl 9:5-6). Sheol or the grave was a place where the whole person goes at death. It is not a place of consciousness or purpose.
So for most of the Old Testament the idea of resurrection was, at best, dormant. The two or three relatively clear texts (Dan 12:2-3; Isa 26:19; Job 19:25-27) are accompanied by numerous hints that would eventually blossom into the full-blown confidence in the resurrection expressed by most of First Century Judaism. What is the evidence for resurrection in the Old Testament and how did people come to believe in it?
Explicit OT Texts
The clearest expression of bodily resurrection in the Old Testament is found in an apocalyptic context in Daniel 12:2-3: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (ESV). The text goes on to
make reference to two resurrections, one “to everlasting life” and the other “to shame and everlasting contempt.” Then in verse 3, referring to the first of the two resurrections, the “wise” shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who bring many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.
This prediction of the resurrection is the last in a long line of promises to the people of God in Daniel, promises of a divine kingdom (Dan 2:35, 44-45), stories of vindication in the face of death (Daniel 3 and 6), the vindication of the son of man (Dan 7:13-14), and a Messiah to come (Dan 9:24-27). So deliverance of bodies from death is connected to the vindication of the whole people of God.It is not immediately clear if the word “many” foresees only a partial resurrection or whether the word is used as an idiom for “all.” But what will prove particularly significant for this paper is the fact that Daniel 12:2-3 alludes to earlier passages in the Old Testament (such as Isa 26:19;37 53:10-12; 65:20-22; and 66:24 ), putting an inner-biblical, bodily resurrection spin on passages that could be read in other ways.
The second clearest expression of bodily resurrection in the Old Testament can be found in Isaiah 26:19. Isaiah 24-27 exhibits a more apocalyptic style than is generally found in the pre-exilic prophets, envisioning the renewal of the whole cosmos. The section is a mixture of doom and lament, on the one hand, and expressions of trust and praise on the other. The hope expressed in 26:19 is anticipated first in Isaiah 25:7-8 (NIV) where the Lord Almighty “will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever.” The context of 26:19 is set in verses 13-15, where the enemies of God’s people are now dead in the complete and endless sense. But in contrast to these (Isa 26:19, NIV), “Your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy.” A resurrection of the body is clearly in view here, but there is no reference to a resurrection of the wicked. Also significant for our purpose is that Isa 26:19 evokes the language of earlier, more ambiguous Old Testament texts like Hosea 6:1-3.47.The third Old Testament text widely considered an explicit description of bodily resurrection is also the most controversial of the three; Job 19:25-27. While there are difficulties in this passage, Brunt believes that the conviction of life after death is clear. Job expresses confidence that God will be his go’el in the last days (19:25). What this means is expressed in verse 26, the challenging Hebrew of which is translated by the ESV: “And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God.” In the context, Job can find no justice and all his friends and family have deserted him. But in verse 25 the mood changes and Job expresses confidence that his go’el will one day vindicate him. Such a vindication requires a judgment and a bodily resurrection, so in spite of translational challenges, it seems likely that bodily resurrection is in view in Job 19, although the word explicit is probably a stretch when applied to this passage.
Harbingers of the Resurrection in the Old Testament
In addition to the more explicit texts on bodily resurrection in the Old Testament, there are a number of texts that offer intriguing hints of what would become the standard understanding within early Judaism and Christianity. The two most intriguing of these are found in Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel 37. I will begin with Ezekiel 37.In Ezekiel 37 God’s ability to restore life is applied to the nation as a whole, in keeping with the community-oriented worldview of the Old Testament. The prophet sees a valley full of dry bones. He prophesies to the bones and they come together, life is breathed into them and they live again (Eze 37:1-10). In verse 11 the vision is interpreted as a metaphor of Israel’s restoration after the Exile. But the repeated use of the word “grave” (rb,q,) in verses 12 and 13 suggests to some that the text goes beyond return from Exile to the resurrection of individuals within the nation who have died. At the least, this text shows that the idea of resurrection was not unfamiliar to Israel, even if it was rarely expressed in explicit terms.
Isaiah 53 is one of several “Servant Songs” in the latter part of Isaiah. It is not always clear whether these songs are a metaphor of the suffering of Israel as a community in the future or a reference to one who suffers in their behalf. As we have seen with Ezekiel 37, the language of death and bodily resurrection can be used as a metaphor for the exile and return of the whole nation. But Isaiah 53:7-12 seems to imply more than that. While there is no explicit mention of resurrection itself, verses 7-9 indicate that the servant dies and is buried and verses 10-12 indicate that he afterward emerges in triumph. So the early Christian application of Isaiah 53 to the death and resurrection of Jesus was exegetically defensible. But more than
this, numerous allusions to Isaiah 53 in Daniel 12:2-3 provide evidence that long before the time of Jesus, some Jews at least saw in Isaiah 53 a forecast of resurrection. In Isaiah 53 belief that Israel’s God will restore the nation after the exile becomes belief that He will restore the nation’s representative after death. So Isaiah 53 seems to provide a transition between national and bodily restoration Hosea, one of the two earliest writing prophets, has a couple of intriguing hints of resurrection. Hosea 13:14 (ESV), speaking of Ephraim (northern Israel) asks, “Shall ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting?” The thrust of the Hebrew is actually a denial that God will raise the northern kingdom of Israel from death, but the LXX and the
New Testament (1 Cor 15:54-55) take the passage in a positive sense. John Day has persuasively demonstrated that Isaiah 26:19, a fairly plain resurrection text, clearly alludes to Hosea 13:14.The second hint is in Hosea 6:1-3. The idea of bringing to life (hy”x’) on the third day is echoed in later passages, such as 1 Corinthians 15:4. It may also have been in the mind of Daniel when he wrote his resurrection passage in Daniel 12. That the bringing to life is preceded by a “striking down” (hk’n’) is resurrection language. While in its original context Hosea 6:1-3 is probably mocking an inadequate prayer based on Canaanite religious expectations, both Hosea 6 and 13 demonstrate that the idea of resurrection was clearly present in Israel as early as the eighth century.
There are other intimations of resurrection in the Old Testament. There are several accounts of bodily resurrection in the stories related to Elijah and Elisha. Perhaps these incidents inspired the language found in Hosea, written to the same area less than a hundred years later. There are also the unusual stories of Enoch and Elijah, who took a different route to immortality than by death. There are frequent expressions of hope that there might be a deliverance from Sheol. And the Torah itself was later understood to offer a number of harbingers of the resurrection. So from our perspective, at least, the Old Testament picture was not as bleak as it may seem at first glance.
The Path to Resurrection
This survey of the Old Testament data raises the historical question of where resurrection came from within Israel. We have seen that explicit references to resurrection are rare and most of the implicit ones can be understood as metaphors of the community’s return from exile and disgrace. When and why did God begin to turn Israel’s eyes from the hope of national resurrection to an individual hope in the resurrection of the body?The consensus among scholars who take a naturalistic, developmental approach to the Old Testament is to see this shift as fairly late. They understand Job 19 to be written not by Moses, but during or after the
Exile. They consider Job, in any case, to be ambiguous at best regarding bodily resurrection. They also date Daniel and the Isaiah Apocalypse (Isaiah 24-27) as second and third century BC insertions into the canon of the Old Testament. So in the critical consensus, belief in bodily resurrection was a late development in Israel, clearly witnessed only centuries after the Exile.Given these critical assumptions, it is often assumed that the belief in bodily resurrection arose among Israelites around or after their exposure to Zoroastrianism in the Persian court. But the popularity of this view has waned considerably among scholars. First of all, as we have seen, the language of resurrection is echoed not only in Ezekiel 37, but all the way back to Hosea, in the eighth century BC. And Ezekiel’s story of the dead rising from their graves cannot be related to Zoroastrianism, since the Persians exposed their dead rather than burying them. And the emerging Israelite belief in resurrection is anything but dualistic, a core characteristic of Zoroastrianism.
More recently it has become fashionable to see the emerging Israelite belief in resurrection as grounded in the dying and rising Baal of Canaanite mythology. While this approach is more plausible in terms of its historical progression, it is also unlikely to be the primary explanation of Israel’s emerging belief in the resurrection. For one thing, there is no reason to believe the Canaanites ever applied the resurrection of their god to themselves. And it is also questionable in light of the larger picture of the Exile. If Israel’s exile was a consequence of its compromise with pagan gods and their nature religions, why would the prophets who promised a return borrow their central imagery from those same religions?
If one accepts the biblical chronology of Daniel and Isaiah at face value, a different trajectory begins to emerge. With Hosea the seeds of resurrection, buried long before in the Pentateuch, begin to emerge as
metaphors of Israel’s rebirth as a people. With the Isaiah Apocalypse (Isaiah 24-27), bodily resurrection, hinted at also in Isaiah 53, takes explicit form. During the Exile itself, Daniel and Ezekiel apply resurrection language not only the return of the nation but also to the return from the grave of at least some of those who have died in the past. In such a trajectory, it is more likely that Zoroaster picked up the idea of resurrection from Daniel than the other way around.If bodily resurrection is a plausible development within the evidence of the Old Testament itself, what were the factors that led to that development? I believe there are several, which I will summarize here.
First, is the belief in creation. If God is the ultimate source of physical life, it is perhaps inevitable that people would come to believe that the same God is powerful enough to both end life and restore it (Deut 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6). He created and thus He can re-create. And indeed, some of the resurrection texts we have explored contain strong echoes of the Genesis creation narratives. In those narratives, Yahweh created the first human from the dust, breathing into Adam His own breath (Gen 2:7). This language is then echoed in relation to death in Genesis 3:19; when God takes His breath away, humanity returns to the dust once more.Furthermore, in Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the garden, we see a first intimation of Israel’s future exile. So the fate of the nation and the body are linked together in the original narrative of creation. A second root of resurrection belief lay in the promises of God’s love (bh;a’) and faithfulness (ds,x,) to Israel. If God’s love and faithfulness are only for this life, they are truly steadfast in only a limited sense. Victory over death provided Israel’s God the ultimate way to demonstrate his faithfulness and love toward His own people. A personal experience with the steadfast love of Israel’s God led to the conviction that His faithfulness would be known, not only in the present, but also beyond the grave. There Israel’s relationship with God would continue.
Resurrection belief within Israel is also rooted in the justice of God combined with His sovereign power. As the almighty Judge, God rewards the faithful and punishes those who rebel against His covenant
commandments. A God of justice would not forever leave Israel to suffer oppression from the pagans. But that kind of justice was less and less seen as Israel’s history went on. It became clear that if there is no
resurrection and no judgment, there is no justice in this world, therefore, a future bodily resurrection is required for justice to occur. It is precisely the resurrection that allows God to fully demonstrate his faithfulness toward His people. God’s justice is seen first in the national resurrection of the people, and ultimately in the bodily resurrection of the individuals that made up that people.The fourth root of resurrection belief lay in Israel’s belief in the wholeness of human beings, the idea that body and soul are a single, indivisible unit. This wholistic perspective is revealed in Genesis 2:7, where the living soul represents the whole being, including the body.
According to Brunt, the Old Testament view of death grows out of this wholistic understanding. If it is the whole person that dies, then any hope for an afterlife must include a restoration of the physical body. The final root of resurrection belief lay, of course, in the promise of national restoration at the other side of the exile. In passages such as Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel 37, as we have seen, the two restorations are so completely mingled that it is hard to tell them apart. As hope for Israel’s national restoration began to fade with the Persian and Greek occupations after the Exile, bodily resurrection became more and more the focus of the
remnant of ancient Israel.Given the theological perspective just outlined, why is the Old Testament so implicit about the resurrection? Brunt argues that the Old Testament writers could not point back to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation of their hope for the future. Their thought world was oriented to the community rather than the individual. So it is to the social unit and its survival that the emphasis of God’s revelation to them is placed. But individual and national restoration are not an either/or in the Old Testament. Many seeds of both the Messiah and the future understanding of resurrection are planted in the Old Testament, to bear fruit once the messianic promises of God were fulfilled.
Hope this will help you.
Adam…..That was good for incite on how the idea of a resurrection from the grave was originally introduced into our scriptures. I also believe in a resurrection of the complete “Soul”, “our flesh body with the Spirit of life in it”, just as it was originally created by God the Father in the first place . And of course the kingdom of Israel could not be restored with David as their King without a resurrection from the dead.
peace and love to you and yours Adam……….gene
Hello brother Gene,
Adam…..That was good for incite on how the idea of a resurrection from the grave was originally introduced into our scriptures. I also believe in a resurrection of the complete “Soul”, “our flesh body with the Spirit of life in it”, just as it was originally created by God the Father in the first place . And of course the kingdom of Israel could not be restored with David as their King without a resurrection from the dead.
Thanks for appreciation on my post on Resurrection. Yes both Jews and Christians agree on bodily resurrection. But the concept of resurrection in the Bible was very vague. In the NT it is full blown. I think the expected resurrection by the Israelite religion is on the last day even it was quoted by the writer of Fourth Gospel (John). John 11:
24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”
I find lot of developments in the Hebrew religion when coming to NT. I am now studying on the Evolution of Satan the Devil which will be my next topic.
Thanks and peace to you…..Adam
Again you have taken your supporting information from another Trinitarian website “Jews for Jesus”. You can check their statement of faith;
Of course I quote things from here and there. That is good. I listen to others and freely quote that which I deem worthy.
Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”Another scripture about Jesus. But if you deny his ancient origins like some here do or if you deny that he is the messiah despite fulfilling this and other scriptures, then he is not the messiah for you.
He is my messiah and millions potentially billions of others. Amen!
Hi Proclaimer,
Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”Another scripture about Jesus. But if you deny his ancient origins like some here do or if you deny that he is the messiah despite fulfilling this and other scriptures, then he is not the messiah for you.
Thanks for your comments on my post. I have already posted on Micah 5:2 in my reply to Mike. Anyhow I quote it here;
What is the Jewish understanding of Micah 5:1 (it’s not 5:2 in JPS) ?
” I listened to a debate between a Rabbi and Christian scholar. The Rabbi quoted the end of the verse (2 in the Christian’s English Translation) pointing out that Christians often quote this verse to say Jesus was the messiah; but, they neglect the end of the verse”
It made me curious about the end of the verse and Hebrew understanding of it.
The internet is full of commentary on this from a Christian or Messianic perspective. Most Jewish commentary on this passage addresses the matter of whether Jesus was from Bethlehem; but, I have found little to nothing that addresses the meaning or understanding of the end of the verse from a Jewish perspective.
First, is Mechon-Mamre a recognized Jewish source and translation?
א וְאַתָּה בֵּית-לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה–מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא, לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם, מִימֵי עוֹלָם.
Micah 5:
1 But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.
Second, what is the Jewish understanding of what this verse says and means?
Answer
The expression in the end of the verse “Yemei olam” is INCORRECTLY translated in most non-Jewish versions as “days of eternity” in order to prove that Micah speaks about the divinity of the Messiah. That’s not the case.
See for example the same use of the expression “Yemei olam” (in Malachi 3:4):
ד וְעָרְבָה, לַיהוָה, מִנְחַת יְהוּדָה, וִירוּשָׁלִָם–כִּימֵי עוֹלָם, וּכְשָׁנִים קַדְמֹנִיֹּת.
Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years.
Of course Jerusalem and Judah have not existed since the “days of eternity”!! Thus the translation must follow the logic.
David Berger in “Jews and Jewish Christianity” (Ktav, 1978) p. 22 says:
The point of the phrase is that this future ruler, who may indeed be the Messiah, will have come forth from Bethlehem because his royal origins are “of old, from days of yore,” i.e., from the old and venerable House of David, and David was born in Bethlehem. In other words, according to the most probable reading of this verse, it not only fails to say that the Messiah is everlasting, it doesn’t even say that he will be born in Bethlehem. The point is that Bethlehem will be his indirect point of origin because it was the birthplace of the father of his dynasty. Jews don’t have to insist on this last point; the Messiah may very well be born in Bethlehem. It’s just that the verse probably doesn’t say this.
For a detailed explanation on the Jewish understanding of this verse, see Uri Yosef’s article on Micah. It certainly will help you.
Who is Uri Yosef? I googled him and came up with genealogical records. He is obviously a scholar. I like the way he analyzes the text and would be interested in reading more of his work. Thank you. –
here is the Pasuk and Rashi Micah 5:11 And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore.
א וְאַתָּה בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי
יְהוּדָה מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם:
And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah: whence David emanated, as it is stated (I Sam. 17:58): “The son of your bondsman, Jesse the Bethlehemite.” And Bethlehem is called Ephrath, as it is said (Gen. 48:7): “On the road to Ephrath, that is Bethlehem.”
you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah: You should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah because of the stigma of Ruth the Moabitess in you.
from you shall emerge for Me: the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118:22): “The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.”
and his origin is from of old: “Before the sun his name is Yinnon” (Ps. 72:17).
Micah 5:3
And [the Messiah] shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the L-rd, in the majesty of the Name of the L-rd, his G-d; and they shall dwell, for then shall he be great to the ends of the earth.
The opposite occurred in Jesus’ lifetime: the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed. More than one million Jews died in the fighting, and the rest were exiled. Furthermore, Jesus was obviously not this conquering Messiah, for instead of defeating his many enemies, he was easily captured and executed.
The last bit reminds me of a fantastic line from The Disputation: “A Messiah who does not make the world better is no Messiah, and a Messiah who says it does not matter that the world is not better is WORSE than NO Messiah!” i.e.: claims for a future “second coming” automatically invalidate the authenticity of the “first coming.”
Isaiah 53: 2,3
A painting that will subjugate and humiliate.
Prophecy foretells that Christ was to appear as an offspring coming out of the earth
parched. Isaiah wrote: “He had neither beauty nor luster to catch our eyes, and his
aspect had nothing to please us. Despised and abandoned by men, man of
pain and accustomed to suffering, similar to the one from which we turn our faces
disdained him, we disregarded him. “This chapter should be studied. He
presents Christ as the Lamb of God. Those who are elated by pride, and whose
souls are full of vanity, should contemplate this picture of their Redeemer
and humble yourself in the dust. The entire chapter must be memorized. His influence
subjugate and humiliate the soul tainted with sin and praised by its own exaltation.
Think about the humiliation of Christ. He took upon himself the fallen and suffering nature of man,
degraded and contaminated by sin. He took our pains, our sorrows and our shame. He
endured all the temptations that harass man. He unites humanity with divinity; a
divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh. He unites himself with the temple. “And the Word
was made flesh, and she dwelt among us, “because in doing so he could be in
relationship with the sinful and sick daughters and sons of Adam (YI 12/20/1900)Proclaimer……Jesus Christ did not preexist, his birth on this earth. He was prophesied to come into his existence before his actual birth, but he didn’t exist , till the prophesy happened, when he came into his “ONLY” existence he ever had.
You tell us Jesus preexisted, but as what, you don’t know, nor does your fellow teachers the Trinitarians know either. You as they take words out of context or even add words trying to force them into the text where they simply don’t fit. Don’t you realize those who don’t believe in the flesh and blood of Jesus are the ANTICHRISTS, according to John? Don’t think because you and they by believing that Jesus “temporarily” was, a flesh being exempts you from not believing in the flesh man Jesus Christ, because it doesn’t. if you don’t believe that Jesus is, even now, a flesh being as he was born, you are an Antichrist, just as they are also.
John was not talking about a “temporary ” flesh Jesus , but a permanent flesh born Jesus. Who is still flesh today. Just as he said he was, after his resurrection and will return a flesh man also.peace and love to you and yours…………gene
JESUS PRE-EXISTED AS THE SON OF GOD THE FATHER!!
Heb 1:1 On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. 2But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son,whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.
And what does the Father say that His SON did during creation:
Heb 1:10
“In the beginning, O Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Most members here on HN are not honestly admitting this message even some of those who admit that the Son pre-existed get their tongue tied over the fact that the Father is identifying the Son as YHVH WHO LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORK of HIS HANDS.
And then there is another member who admits that Hebrews 1 and elsewhere in the NT does identify the Son as YHVH but assumes the whole NT must be lying when it connects Jesus as YHVH as well as His Father.
it’s amazing to watch the struggle as the wrangling continues, each in a unique way. You are trying so hard to what…to embrace a beautiful relationship of perfect unity between the Father and the Son who work together to accomplish the Father’s will.
They are both YHVH as ONE PERFECT UNITY and ONE GREAT AND AWESOME GOD. That great and awesome God is both GOD AND LORD, Father and Son!
Deut 10:17 For He, your God YHWH, [is] God of the gods and Lord of the lords—the great, the mighty, and the fearful God…
1 Cor 8:6 yet to us is one God, the Father, of whom are the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are the all things, and we through Him;
Is Jesus the Messiah? Christian and Jewish Views
“Who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ.” (Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29, Luke 9:20)
“I firmly believe, in complete faith, in the coming of the Messiah, and although he may tarry, I daily wait for his coming.” (Rabbi Maimonides)
According to the Hebrew prophets, the Messiah is a king-like figure from the line of David who would, among other things, rescue Israel from her oppressors, return Jerusalem to the Jewish people, and usher in an age of peace (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11; Jeremiah 23:5-8; 30-31; Hosea 3:5).
There is evidence that Jewish messianic expectation was high at the time of Jesus, associated with hope of liberation from Roman occupation.
Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, the “anointed one” predicted in the Jewish Scriptures. The word “Christ” comes from the Greek for “Messiah,” (it is actually a title, not a surname). Jews, on the other hand, do not believe Jesus is the Messiah and are still awaiting his future arrival.
This article explores the Christian belief as well as arguments provided for and against believing Jesus is the Messiah.
Jesus the Messiah in the New Testament
In the New Testament, affirmations of Jesus as the Messiah are found almost exclusively in the four Gospel narratives and the Acts of the Apostles. The Pauline and other epistles, many of which predate the Gospels, do not attempt to show that Jesus is Messiah, yet they refer to him almost exclusively as “Christ.”In the Gospels, various people identify Jesus as the Messiah, and Jesus himself reinforces this perception:
After meeting Jesus, Andrew runs to tell Peter that he has found the Messiah (Jn 1:41)
In a conversation with Jesus, a Samaritan woman says she knows the Messiah is coming. Jesus replies, “I who speak to you am he.” (Jn 4:25-26)
When Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is, Peter answers, “You are the Christ.” (Mt 16:16; Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20)
During the Triumphal Entry, the crowds shout, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” and the Gospel author explains that this fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. (Mt 21:4-9)
When Jesus stands trial before the Sanhedrin (the Jewish high court), the high priest asks him if he is ” the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” and Jesus replies, “I am.” (Mk 14:61-62)It is interesting to note that although Jesus appears to see himself as the Messiah in the Gospels, he does not go out of his way to identify himself as such, and those who do are commanded not to tell anyone about it (Mt 16:20; Mk 8:30, 9:9; Lk 8:56, 9:21). This is known as the “messianic secret,” and its significance remains somewhat of a mystery to biblical scholars.
In Acts, one of the primary messages of the apostles is that Jesus is the Messiah:
“Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they [the apostles] never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.” (Ac 5:52)
“As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and one three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,’ he said.” (Ac 15:2-3)
Before King Herod Agrippa II, Paul insists, “I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen – that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” (Ac 26:22-23)Reasons For Jesus as Messiah (Christian Perspective)
Following are the main reasons Christian give for believing Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, along with Jewish responses to those arguments.1. Jesus is the Messiah because he was born of a virgin.
Matthew 1:22-23 (NIV):All this [the virgin birth of Jesus] took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet [Isaiah 7:14]: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
Jewish response: “Nowhere does the Bible predict that the Messiah will be born to a virgin. In fact, virgins never give birth anywhere in the Bible. This idea is to be found only in pagan mythology. To the Jewish mind, the very idea that G-d would plant a seed in a woman is unnecessary and unnatural.”618 “The Hebrew term in Isaiah “almah” which means a “young woman” is mistranslated as “virgin.” Honest Christian scholars now acknowledge that this is “a pious fraud” and now (see the new Protestant “Revised Standard Version” of the Bible) translate the word correctly.”2. Jesus is the Messiah because he was born in Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:4-6 (NIV):When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’ [Micah 5:2]”
Jewish response: Jesus was likely born in Nazareth – the Bethlehem story has no historical foundation.3. Jesus is the Messiah because he was from the line of David.
Luke 3:23-38:He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat… the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz… the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Christians believe that the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23-38 fulfills predictions about the Messiah being from the line of David (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24; II Sam. 7:14; I Chr. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6).
Jewish response: A tribal line cannot be passed on through adoption, so Jesus cannot be “son of David” through Joseph. A tribal line also does not pass through the mother, and even if it did, Mary was not descended of David through Solomon.619
4. Jesus is the Messiah because he was a Suffering Servant.
Christians argue that the suffering of Jesus — in which he was disbelieved, rejected, beaten and crucified — fulfills prophecies in Isaiah 52-53 about a Suffering Servant. This belief is indicated in the New Testament (John 12:37-38; Acts 8:30-35).Jewish response: Isaiah 52-53 is referring to the people of Israel, not to the Messiah.
5. Jesus is the Messiah because he is God.
Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate and that this fulfills a messianic prophecy in Isaiah 9:6:For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Jewish response: “Nowhere does our Bible say that the Messiah would be a god or G-d-like. The very idea that G-d would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts our concept of G-d as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation. Jews believe that G-d alone is to be worshiped, not a being who is His creation, be he angel, saint, or even the Messiah himself.”
Reasons Against Jesus as Messiah (Jewish Perspective)
The true Messiah will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 33:18). Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing.
The Messiah will reestablish Jewish religious law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15). Jesus did not do this.
Jesus will do this at his Second Coming.
The Messiah will save Israel. “In the case of Jesus, the very opposite took place. Not long after his death, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Jerusalem was laid to waste, and the Jews went into exile to begin a 1900 year long night of persecution, — largely at the hands of the followers of this self-styled Messiah!”
The Messiah 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). Jesus did not do this.
The Messiah will return all exiles to their homeland (Isaiah 11:11-12). Jesus did not do this.
Christians respond to all of these arguments that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies at his Second Coming.Jews reply that this does not give Jesus any credibility for his “first” coming; the Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance; and the “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure. The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as second coming don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.
In response to the above post by Adam,
1 Peter 2
4Coming to Him (Jesus), a living stone, indeed rejected by men, but chosen and precious in the sight of God, 5you yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6Therefore it is contained in Scripture:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone,
a chosen precious cornerstone;
and the one believing on Him,
shall not be put to shame.”
7Therefore the preciousness is to you believing. But to those disobeying,
“The stone which those building have rejected,
this has become into the head of the corner,”
8and,
“A stone of stumbling
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble at being disobedient to the word, to which also they were appointed.
Hi Adam,
I hope you will repent of your stubborn and rebellious heart and
believe in the Bible.
Because the Bible is the Word of God.God bless,
Danny
In response to the above post by Adam,
1 Peter 2
4Coming to Him (Jesus), a living stone, indeed rejected by men, but chosen and precious in the sight of God, 5you yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6Therefore it is contained in Scripture:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone,
a chosen precious cornerstone;
and the one believing on Him,
shall not be put to shame.”
Hi Sis Kathi, thanks for your response to my post. The scripture 1 Peter quoted was taken from Isaiah 28;
28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Please see the original text in the Hebrew bible, no where it quotes ‘belief in a Messiah’. The Christian writers often change the text of Hebrew Bible to suit their ideas on Jesus.
Again 1 Peter taken a portion of scripture from Isaiah 8;
8:13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
8:15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
The above scripture was about the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts himself not about any Messiah as claimed by this writer.
If we see the original context of this chapter 8, no where it is talking about Messiah.
8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.
8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
This was how the NT writers had taken bits and parts from the Hebrew scriptures to suit their Christological agenda.
Hi Gene,
YOU:
Proclaimer……Jesus Christ did not preexist, his birth on this earth. He was prophesied to come into his existence before his actual birth, but he didn’t exist , till the prophesy happened, when he came into his “ONLY” existence he ever had.
You tell us Jesus preexisted, but as what, you don’t know, nor does your fellow teachers the Trinitarians know either. You as they take words out of context or even add words trying to force them into the text where they simply don’t fit. Don’t you realize those who don’t believe in the flesh and blood of Jesus are the ANTICHRISTS, according to John? Don’t think because you and they by believing that Jesus “temporarily” was, a flesh being exempts you from not believing in the flesh man Jesus Christ, because it doesn’t. if you don’t believe that Jesus is, even now, a flesh being as he was born, you are an Antichrist, just as they are also.
John was not talking about a “temporary ” flesh Jesus , but a permanent flesh born Jesus. Who is still flesh today. Just as he said he was, after his resurrection and will return a flesh man also.Eccl. 8 All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing.
9What is it that hath been?
the same thing that shall be.
What is it that hath been done?
the same that shall be done.
10Nothing under the sun is new,
neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new:
for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.
11There is no remembrance of former things:
nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come,
shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end.
Gene, reading the scripture above, DO YOU STILL REJECT
JESUS’ PRE-EXISTENCE?
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Carmel…….What you wrote has nothing to do with a “PREEXISTING ” Jesus. Forcing text to say what they infect don’t say is a true sign of a “TRINITARIAN”.
All those who separate Jesus from his and our , “ONLY” flesh existence are “ANTICHRIST’S” according to the apostle John, and I agree with him.
Turning the “image” of Jesus into YOUR “GOD”, makes him appear to those who believe in only “one” true God, as a “MAN OF SIN”. 2Ths2. But those who know the truth know there is, “only’” one “true” God, and it is not Jesus. They and Jesus both, know it. Their God and Jesus’ God, are the same God, their heavenly Father, and Jesus’ Father, are the same FATHER.
Carmel…….Jesus himself, by his very own mouth will destroy the “LIE” you and your fellow Trinitarian created about him at his return, just as 2 Thessalonians 2 .
JESUS CANNOT BE THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD IF HE IS JUST ONE MAN BECAUSE ALL MEN BORN ON OUR EARTH ARE UNDER THE CONDEMNATION OF GOD’S LAW because SIN.
Romans 3
….for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
[11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
[12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
[14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
[15] Their feet are swift to shed blood:
[16] Destruction and misery are in their ways:
[17] And the way of peace have they not known:
[18] There is no fear of God before their eyes.
[19] Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.1 Cor 8:6 yet to us is one God, the Father, of whom are the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are the all things, and we through Him;
Stop pretending you believe this LU. Your teaching is clearly contrary to what this is saying.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
