Matthew is not a Judaizing Document

 

Four Primary Reasons why Matthew is not a Judaizing Gospel

1. Hebrew Matthew used by Ebionites and Judaizers had drastic differences from canonical Matthew because they could not reconcile it with Judaizing.

2. Matthew affirms the virgin birth.

3. Matthew includes sacrificial new covenant language.

4. If Matthew were a Judaizing Gospel, the Greek apologists would have denied it a canonical status.

The Torah and the Sermon On the Mount

One of the primary errors of Judaizing is failing to distinguish between the moral law and the ceremonial law. The moral precepts of God are constant, unchanging, and have remained the same across every covenant he has made, but his ceremonial requirements for his people have varied at times. Things such as murder, adultery, and fornication have always been prohibited. (Gen. 4:10-11; 9:6; 39:12) But his laws regarding dress, diet and grooming have changed over time. The prophet Joseph shaved his beard in the style of an Egyptian. (Gen. 41:14) But later in the Mosaic law it was prohibited for men to shave their beards at all or to imitate the culture of the Egyptians. (Lev. 18:3; 19:27; 21:5) What was formerly permitted for Joseph became prohibited under the law covenant. Joseph also wore mixed fabrics. (Gen. 37:3) But under the mosaic law the Jewish people were forbidden from wearing mixed fabrics. (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9-11) Their high priests were exempt from this prohibition because their vestments included mixed fabrics. (Exod. 28:5-30) The point is this, the ceremonial requirements of God have varied depending upon time, place, audience and covenant—but his moral law is unchanging. In such examples we see the distinction between the moral and ceremonial law. In this way we may harmonize the passages which claim the law has been abolished with those which seem to state the opposite.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

Ephesians 2:15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace.

Christ claimed that he did not come to “abolish the law,” but the apostle Paul says “he has abolished the law.” In the latter case, Christ speaks concerning the moral law which was expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures, this he never deviated from at any time. He did not come to free men from the moral obligations set forth in the oracles of God. But he did come to do away with the ceremonial “commandments and ordinances” of the Mosaic law, which is what Paul refers to when he says “he has abolished the law.” In harmony with this, our Lord said, “the law and the prophets were until John.” (Lk. 16:16) The preaching of John the Baptist marked the end of the old covenant which was soon to be replaced by the new covenant. If someone should fail to make a distinction between the moral and ceremonial law then these two passages would stand in contradiction. The general formula that follows in the Sermon on the Mount shows that he is making adjustments and changes to the Torah, “You have heard it said,” is contrasted with “But I say to you,” signifying that Christ is teaching something different or greater than the law which was just mentioned.

	The Law of Moses	The Law of Messiah
	You have heard it said…	But I say to you…
Matt. 5:21	The Mosaic law demanded that murderers were “liable to the Court,” but did not consider insults and animosity severe enough to merit being liable to the Court of judges. (Deut. 5:17; Exod. 21:12, 14, et al)	Christ intensified this command by saying that those who hate and insult their brothers will be guilty before the Court of Heaven and punished in “the fiery hell.” (Matt. 5:21, 22)
Matt. 5:27	The Mosaic law prohibited adultery. (Exod. 20:14)	Christ intensified this command by saying that he who lusts after another man’s wife “has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28)
Matt. 5:31	The Mosaic law permits a certificate of divorce if a wife has not found favor in her husband’s eyes. (Deut. 24:1-4)	Christ intensified this command by saying that wives cannot be divorced except on the grounds of fornication. (Matt. 5:32;. 19:1-10) This is a stricter requirement for divorce, so the apostles complained that it was no longer advisable to marry. (Matt. 19:10)
Matt. 5:33	The Mosaic law commanded vows which invoke the name of God. (Exod. 22:10-11)	Christ abrogates this command and outlaws such vows. (Matt. 5.33-36 compare Jas. 5:12)
Matt. 5:38	The Mosaic law permits acts of revenge, “an eye for an eye.” (Lev. 24.20)	Christ abrogates this command and demands his followers should be merciful over minor offenses. (Matt. 5.38-39)
Matt. 5:43	The Mosaic law commands loving of neighbor, defined as a countryman (Lev. 19:17, 18) and Jewish tradition commanded hating of enemies. (Yoma 23a:4)	Christ instead commands that Christians must love their enemies and brothers. (Matt. 5:44-48) The command differs in that “brothers,” signifies any fellow believer, regardless of whether they are a countryman and because it includes a command to love enemies.

The Miracles of the Messiah

0. Introduction

Some Rabbinic apologists argue the King Messiah will not perform miracles when he arrives. Some members of the Sanhedrin accepted Bar Kochba as the Messiah even though he performed no miracles whatsoever. I shall argue that there are traditions which support the concept that he will be a miracle worker. 

1. Miracle Working

There is some disagreement among the Rabbis even today over whether the Messiah will be a miracle worker when he arrives. But the Rambam teaches that the Messiah must not be a miracle worker when he arrives but a warrior and scholar. 

"One should not presume that the Messianic king must work miracles and wonders, bring about new phenomena in the world, resurrect the dead, or perform other similar deeds. This is definitely not true. Proof can be brought from the fact that Rabbi Akiva, one of the greater Sages of the Mishnah, was one of the supporters of King Bar Kosibah and would describe him as the Messianic king. He and all the Sages of his generation considered him to be the Messianic king until he was killed because of sins. Once he was killed, they realized that he was not the Mashiach. The Sages did not ask him for any signs or wonders." (Mishneh Torah, 11:3, 4) 

The Targums express the concept of a miracle working Messiah.  The Aramaic Targum renders Psalm 18:32 this way, 

אֲרוּם נִסָא וּפוּרְקָנָא דְתַעְבֵּיד לִמְשִׁיחָךְ וּלְשִׁיוּרֵי עַמָךְ דְיִשְׁתָּאֲרוּן יוֹדוּן כָּל עַמְמַיָא אוּמַיָא וְלִשָׁנַיָא וְיֵימְרוּן לֵית אֱלָהָא אֶלָא יְיָ אֲרוּם לֵית בַּר מִנָךְ וְעַמֵךְ יֵימְרוּן לֵית דְתַקִיף אֶלָא אֱלָהָנָא:

"For because of the miracle and deliverance that you will perform for your Messiah, and for the remnants of your people who will remain, all the Gentiles, nations, and tongues will confess and say, ‘There is no God but the Lord, for there is none besides you.’ And your people will say, ‘There is none mighty except our God.’" 

Targum Jonathan of Isaiah 53:8, 

מִיסוּרִין וּמִפּוּרְעֲנוּת יְקָרֵיב גַלְוָתָנָא וּפְרִישָׁן דְיִתְעַבְדָן לָנָא בְּיוֹמוֹהִי מַן יִכּוּל לְאִשְׁתְּעָאָה אֲרֵי יַעְדֵי שׁוּלְטָן עַמְמַיָא מֵאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל חוֹבִין דְחָבוּ עַמִי עַד לְוַתְהוֹן יִמְטוֹ:

"He shall gather our captives from affliction and pain, and who shall be able to narrate the wonderful works which shall be done for us in his days? He shall remove the rule of the nations from the land of Israel, the sins which my people have committed have come upon them."

The "wonderful works" refer not only to healings as in Isa. 35:5, but also to resurrections. This is seen in the Targum Jonathan of Hosea 6:2, "he will quicken us in the days of consolation which are to come, and on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up." The Midrash of Psalm 106:9 states that the resurrection will begin in Palestine during Messianic age and a similar interpretation is given for Psalm 142:5. (Bereshit Rabbah 74, 96)

The Virgin Birth and Messiahship

0. Introduction

The main question to be considered here is whether the virgin birth disqualifies Jesus of Nazareth from being the Messiah. I shall argue that possibly it does not. It is obvious that "young woman" (almah) in Isaiah 7:14 is mistranslated by Matthew 1:23 as "a virgin" (παρθένος). I will not be making excuses for this mistranslation. The question is merely whether the virgin birth, of itself, would totally disqualify Jesus of Nazareth from being a legal heir to David. 

1. The Problem

The Messiah must be a son of Abraham, descended from the tribe of Judah, a Son of David and Solomon. (Gen. 12:1-3; 49:10) Matthew and Luke both teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. How could Jesus be regarded as the Messiah if he were born of a virgin? It could be argued by some that he was a blood descendant of Solomon by virtue of his mother Mary, but it is by patrilineal descent that tribal membership is passed on according to Jewish law. (Num. 1:18) If there were a man who had no human father whatsoever, then it seems strange that he could have any claim upon the throne of David or upon any tribe. God specifically made a covenant with David and Solomon that their sons would sit upon the throne forever. [2Sam. 7:12-16; 1Chron. 17:11; 22:10; 2Chron 7:18; Psa. 89:29-37; Jeremiah 33:17.] How could Jesus of Nazareth be the Messiah if he had no human father? How could he be the Messiah if he did not inherit the covenant from a human father with royal blood? 

2. Possible Counter-examples

In the Old Testament, God does not always transfer Covenant membership or inheritance by strict patrilineal descent but sometimes by adoption or through daughters and husbands. (Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12) Jesus of Nazareth inherited the Davidic Covenant legally by virtue of his adoptive father Joseph and through blood descent from his mother Mary. 

(a) Ishmael, was the literal first-born seed of Abraham, yet he did not inherit the covenant promises. (Gen. 25:12-17) Ishmael had the right to the covenant promised by blood but instead, Isaac inherited the birthright because he proved to be faithful to God. (Gen. 21:12) According to strict patrilineal descent and laws of inheritance, it would be through the line of Ishmael that the Abrahamic Covenant was carried on. Instead, he was passed over for a more faithful man, Isaac. 

(b) Esau was the literal first-born seed of Jacob but he did not inherit either the birthright nor the covenant promises. Jacob inherited the birthright which would otherwise have belonged to Esau. (Gen. 32:26-27:36) God made a solemn covenant with Abraham and his seed, yet the promises did not pass through the male first-borns, but to whomever proved faithful to God and his law. This demonstrates that when God made his covenant with Abraham, the fulfillment was not taken to be strictly literal, but whoever was faithful proved to be the true seed of Abraham and was treated as his first-born. Again, Joseph was not the literal first-born of Jacob but received inheritance. (Compare Gen 48:5-6) As the Chronicler says, 

"Now the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright. Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph), the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel were Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and Carmi." (1Chron. 5:1-3)

The Chronicler directly says that those who would have inherited the birthright by patrilineal descent were passed over for those who were faithful. But there are even more examples to be given. 

(c) At Ezra 2:61 and Neh. 7:63 a certain Jew named Barzillai inherited his name from his father in law, Barzillai the Gileadite. In this instance the family name was transferred by marriage and not by strict patrilineal descent.

3. Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 7:14

The central difficulty of interpreting Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy is that we have no surviving discussions of Jewish interpretation of the text prior to the Christian era but the very fact that this translation exists in the LXX shows that some Jews viewed Isa. 7:14 as a statement about a virgin birth, though there is no indication the LXX translators took this as a Messianic prophecy. Matthew did not invent his mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, he was merely inheriting it. 

The Hebrew עַלְמָה‎ literally means a young girl of marriageable age. The LXX translators interpreted this as a prophecy of virgin birth because young Israelite brides were expected to be virgins as the Torah says. (Deut. 22:13-30) A form of the substantive is used in 1 Chron. 15:20 and the superscriptions of Psalm. 46:1 and 68:25 which likely signifies use of a female choir or singing in a higher pitch to imitate the voice of a young woman. (compare Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Cant. 1:3; 6:8; Prov. 30:19) Therefore the issue is not over whether the term עַלְמָה‎ literally means virgin, because it does not. To say that Isaiah would have used בְּתוּלָה if he meant a virgin is dubious because this term does not necessarily refer to a virgin either.

אֱלִ֕י כִּבְתוּלָ֥ה חֲגֻרַת־שַׂ֖ק עַל־בַּ֥עַל נְעוּרֶֽיהָ׃ 

"Lament—like a maiden girl with sackcloth For the husband of her youth!" (Joel 1:8)

This passage is an instance where בְּתוּלָה refers to a married woman and not to a virgin. And if one wishes to dispute whether or not a virgin is in mind in Joel 1:8 then we may pass over to Isa. 47:1-9 where בְּתוּלָה is applied to Babylon and yet we are told ‘she weeps over her children,’ and so it cannot mean a virgin here either. There is no Hebrew word in the Bible that exclusively means virgin. To be specific on the matter the author would add such explanatory phrases as "who has never known a man," or "who is untouched." (Num. 31:18) 

The tenses in Isaiah 7:14 also do not support a prophetic interpretation, he does not use the future, he does not say, 'there will be a young woman, who will conceive.' Further, the words were originally spoken to Ahaz to reassure him as Israel was threatened by Ephraim and Syria. (Isa. 7:10-11) Rezin in Aram and Pekah in Israel threatened to invade the land of Judah. The prophet Isaiah was sent to deliver the oracles of God to Ahaz to strengthen him. 

"Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!" Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a young woman will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." (Isa. 7:10-14) 

The sense being that before the child grows old the political conflict will be solved, when the child is still eating "curds and honey," the threat of invasion will have passed. (Isa. 7:14-16) The promised child could not be Hezekiah, for he was already thirteen years old when this prophecy was given. Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and Isaiah gave this prophecy in the fourth year of his reign, therefore Hezekiah was thirteen at this time. For this reason Jarchi, Ibn Ezra and Radak all reject the interpretation that Hezekiah is the promised child. The primary issue of Isaiah chapter 7 is the preservation of the Davidic dynasty which was threatened to be destroyed by the threat of foreign invasion. 

In Isaiah 7:21 it is said, "Now on that day a man may keep alive a heifer and a pair of sheep." This man is identified with the King Messiah in Bereshit Rabbah 48. Elsewhere in the prophets, we read of the Messianic Prince offering bulls and sheep in the kingdom in the office of high priest. (Ezek. 45:17, 22; 46:2, 4, 12) 

In his commentary on Isa. 9:5-6, Jarchi acknowledges that the passage refers to Immanuel mentioned in Isa. 8:8. Nor could the child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 be a son of Isaiah because Isa. 8:8 says he will be prince of Judah and no son of Isaiah ever was a prince of Judea. The most implausible suggestion is that the child is some unknown child who lived during the days of Ahaz. Hence, the signs mentioned by Isaiah chapters 7 to 9 are meant to address the imminent danger of the Assyrians being faced by king Ahaz, there is no hint in the text that these words look forward to a future Messianic King, despite later interpretations to this effect. 

The Second Coming and Judaism

0. Introduction

Perhaps the biggest difference between the concept of the Messiah in the New Testament and is the concept of Messiah ben Joseph. The rabbinic view does not see the messiah's mission as coming in two stages, nor is there any concept of a dying and rising Davidic Messiah. The Rambam explains the Rabbinic view in section eleven of his great treatise on Jewish jurisprudence, the Mishneh Torah (11:1-4). There he says that the Davidic Messiah will renew the Solomonic dynasty, rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, regather the Jewish people to Israel, and establish Torah observance ushering in an age of prosperity and universal knowledge of God. There is no notion that the Messiah would first suffer and die, then ascend to heaven until returning a second time to complete his mission. There is a secondary dying Messiah, called Messiah ben Joseph in some Talmudic traditions but he is not a kingly Messiah. 

1. Two Stages

The New Testament presents the Fulfillment of Messianic prophecy to have two stages. The first Advent of the Messiah and his second coming. At his first Advent the Messiah Acts as a teacher and a suffering servant who lays down his life as in atonement for the sins of mankind. At his second coming he will be a judge and a conqueror who will fight the war of Armageddon, begin the resurrection of the dead and establish an age of peace and prosperity upon the earth. (Rev. 16:14-17; 20:1-12, et al.) Which view of Messianic prophecy is correct? Some prophecies portray the Messiah as a humble figure who arrives in modesty (Zech. 9:9) where he is said to be a humble figure who rides on a donkey into Jerusalem. Other prophecies describe a glorious great conquering hero who will descend from heaven to destroy the enemies of God. This is seen prominently in Daniel 2:44 and 7:13-14 where the Messianic Son of Man descends from heaven in glory to crush all governments in opposition to God and establish an eternal kingdom. In the Talmudic book of Sanhedrin this problem is discussed. 

"Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: "There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a Son of Man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion" (Daniel 7:13–14). And it is written: "Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey" (Zechariah 9:9). Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come in humility and riding upon a donkey." (Sanhedrin 98a.)

But these are not presented as conditional prophecies. Nowhere does any prophet say that if the Jews are faithful then the Messiah will return in glory and if they are unfaithful then he will arrive in humility. The vision of four carpenters in Zech. 2:3 [1:20] are interpreted as referring to Messiah ben David, Messiah ben Joseph, Elijah and the Righteous High Priest (Sukkah 52b.) The piercing of the Messiah is described Zech. 12:10 which describes a eulogy given over his death, 

"And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been pierced, and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a first-born son."

The piercing of the Messiah and the subsequent mourning of the house of David are often associated with the war of Gog and Magog. (Zech. 12:11-14) An opinion given in Sukkah 52a is that Zech. 12:10 speaks of the death of Messiah ben Joseph who will prepare the hearts of Israel for the arrival of Messiah ben David. Must these descriptions be applied to two different persons? Isaiah 11:2, 3 speaks of the Davidic Messiah who will rule the earth and is interpreted by Rabbi Alexandri as indicating the king Messiah will also be a suffering figure. 

"Rabbi Alexandri says that the term hariḥo teaches that God burdened the Messiah with mitzvot and afflictions like millstones." (Sanhedrin 93b)

The New Testament authors apply both sets of verses to Jesus of Nazareth. In his first advent Jesus arrives as a suffering savior during his first advent but who will act as a conquering king in his second coming when he will bring universal peace and create an everlasting kingdom upon the earth. In their estimation, the Messiah is said to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, (Zech. 9:9) but he is also said to arrive in great glory and power as a ruling king. (Mic. 4:3; Isa. 53:12) Taken together as applying to a single person, these prophecies describe a lowly first advent and a glorious second coming. The Gospel of John quotes from this Zech. 12:10 and applies it to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. 

"But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, "Not a bone of Him shall be broken." And again another Scripture says, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced." (Joh. 19:34-37) 

Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin and turned over to the Roman authorities to be executed. Although it was a Roman who stabbed him, he was in effect, pierced by Israel for it was the Sanhedrin who deemed him worthy of death and instigated his execution. This mourning by the "house of David" mentioned by Zech. 12:11-14 will be a future event. It is understood by the NT authors to be the mourning which will take place when Jesus returns and his Messiahship is plain to all. (Rev. 1:7) It is evident that Zech. 12:10 does not refer to a figurative piercing of an "evil inclination" (yetzer harah) because in all of its occurrences in the Tanakh דֶּקֶר refers to an actual piercing with a spear. [Num. 25:8; Jdg. 9:54; 1Sam. 31:4; 1Chron. 10:4; Isa. 13:15; Lam. 4:9; Zech. 13:3, 7.] Notably in Num. 25:8 which speaks of Phinehas killing sinners by piercing them with a spear to make atonement for Israel. (Num. 25:13) 

Once we comprehend that the New Testament authors view the mission of the King Messiah in two stages their use of the Hebrew Bible becomes much more intelligible. The New Testament often quotes from the Hebrew Bible and by far the most frequently referenced passage is Daniel 7:13-14 which is alluded to over eighty times. [Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12, 22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 19:28; 25:13, 31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mk. 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 43; 13:26, 34; 14:21, 41, 62; 28:18; Lk. 1:33; 5:24; 6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44, 56, 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69; 24:7; Joh. 1:51; 3:13, 35; 5:22, 27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 10:29; 12:23, 34; 13:3, 31; 17:2, 24; 19:37; Acts 7:55-56; Rom. 15:12; 1 Cor. 15:24, 27; Phil. 2:9; 1 Thess. 4:16-17; Heb. 12:28; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 1:6-7, 13; 2:26, 27; 11:15; 12:5; 14:14; 19:15.] In all four of the canonical Gospels, the favorite self-designation of Jesus of Nazareth is "the Son of Man." The vision of the Son of Man in the seventh chapter of Daniel governs much of the thinking and hopes of the New Testament authors, after being given a vision of great and wondrous beasts which represent nations and kings, Daniel is given a glimpse into the heavenly throne room of God. 

"As I looked on, Thrones were set in place, And the Ancient of Days took His seat. His garment was like white snow, And the hair of His head was like lamb's wool. His throne was tongues of flame; Its wheels were blazing fire. A river of fire streamed forth before Him; Thousands upon thousands served Him; Myriads upon myriads attended Him; The court sat and the books were opened. I looked on. Then, because of the arrogant words that the horn spoke, the beast was killed as I looked on; its body was destroyed and it was consigned to the flames. The dominion of the other beasts was taken away, but an extension of life was given to them for a time and season. As I looked on, in the night vision, one like a Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven. He reached the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him. Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him. All peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, And his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7:9-14) 

The New Testament authors interpret Daniel 7:13, 14 to describe the private entrance of the Messiah into the Heavenly presence of God to receive kingship and authority. The Targumim understand "Son of Man" as a Messianic title in Psa. 80:17 which speaks of the Messianic Son of man at the right hand of God, echoing Psa. 110:1 where the Lord God invites the Messiah to sit at his right hand. [Although many Jewish commentators consider Abraham to be the subject of Psalm 110. The Midrash on Psa. 18:36 understands Psalm 110:1, 2 as referring to the King Messiah with Abraham seated on his left side. Hence, these two interpretations should not be seen in contradiction with one another.] In the Gospel of Luke Jesus describes himself as a King who must depart to a distant land in order to receive kingly power. (Lk. 19:11-27) This is no doubt an allusion to his own ascent into heaven to receive kingly power before his second coming. The "distant land" is heaven itself where the King Messiah must go to present his finished work before God and his heavenly council. Saint Luke describes Jesus ascending into heaven before the eyes of his disciples until he is covered by the clouds. 

"When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11) 

This scene is a fulfillment of the description found in Daniel 7:13, 14 where the Son of Man is said to ascend to God with the clouds of heaven to receive kingly power. He is covered by the clouds of heaven as he goes to the Father to present his finished work and therefore he must return in the same way to establish peace on earth. There is another passage which speaks of the ascent of the Messiah to heaven, 

"You have ascended on high. You have led captive your captives. You have received gifts among men, even among the rebellious against the dwelling of the Lord God." (Psa. 68:19) 

In this text Saint Paul sees the ascent of the Messiah into heaven prophesied. (Eph. 4:7-10) Ibn Ezra says that these words were spoken to David regarding his ascent into high fortresses. But Jarchi says that these words are about Moses ascending into heaven and receiving gifts from angelic beings. The Targumim also apply these words to Moses ascending into the heavens. These words are about a heavenly ascent, for this similar language is used in Psa. 102:19 to describe heaven itself but the Torah does not say that Moses ascended into heaven, it only says that he went up to Mount Sinai and there he heard the voice of God. A literal ascent into the heavens is in mind in Psa. 68:19 which was fulfilled neither with Moses nor with David, and must therefore refer prophetically to another figure. Who else could this be except the Son of Man who ascends into heaven on the clouds? He ascends to the highest heaven where the Lord God abides and if the Messiah ascends to heaven he must also descend to reign upon the earth—and this is the doctrine of the Second Coming. The very same Psalm also indicates that the Torah was delivered with the involvement of angels, "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels, the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place." (Psalm 68:17) Some have made the odd claim that Saint Paul fabricated or had malicious intent in writing that the Torah was delivered by the hands of angels to Moses. (Gal. 3:19) This is quite strange because Josephus (Antiquities 15.5.3) says the same, "we have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our law by angels, or ambassadors." 

Identifying the King Messiah

 0. Introduction

Before presenting a case for Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah, it is first necessary to give some consideration to how the Messiah can be identified at all. The Hebrew Bible does not tell us precisely how to identify the Messiah, and it is only post-exilic literature that we get explicitly Messianic language. The Christian concept of the Messiah differs from the Jewish concept in several respects and yet there are some great areas of agreement. Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ) signifies pouring or anointing and when translated into Greek it is χριστος, meaning "anointed one," which is transliterated "Christ" in English. The term designates one who has been anointed or consecrated by God to a position of authority. In the Tanakh it is mostly used for the kings and priests who judged Israel. (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 8:12; Num. 35:25; 1Sam. 10:1-2) The high priest was anointed with a special oil when he took office, which no one else was allowed to own or to reproduce. (Exod. 30:30-32; Psa. 133:2) 

1. Identifying the Messiah

The priests are often called Messiahs or anointed ones in the book of Leviticus. (4:3, 5, 16; 6:20, 22; 7:35; 8:2, 12, 30; 21:10, 12) It is a kingly title which was applied to Saul, David, Solomon and other princes of Israel and Judah. (2Chron. 6:42; 1Sam. 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 24:6, 10; 2Sam. 1:14, 16; 19:21; 22:51) It is used often in the Psalms of the great King Messiah who will rule forever in Jerusalem. (Psa. 2:2; 18:50; 84:9; 132:10, 17) The anointing oil symbolized the spirit and power of God, therefore it is also a distinguishing title of the holy prophets, 

אַֽל־תִּגְּע֥וּ בִמְשִׁיחָ֑י וְ֝לִנְבִיאַ֗י אַל־תָּרֵֽעוּ 

"Do not touch My anointed ones; do not harm My prophets." (Psa. 105:15) 

The holy tabernacle, the altar, and the sacred utensils were similarly anointed. (Exod. 4:3 Lev. 8:10-12; Num. 7:1, 10, 84) The Spirit of God is sometimes likened to holy anointing oil. (Isa. 61:1-2) Aside from these general uses of the term "messiah" the Tanakh also describes a central Messianic figure, a promised son of David who would be sent by God to bring world peace. (Isa. 11:1-8) The King Messiah is a Son of David who will have an everlasting kingdom and bring the world to a knowledge of the true God. (Isa. 11:9-16) Although Christians and Jews conceive of the Messiah somewhat differently there are considerable areas of overlap. It is recognized by both religions that the Messiah will be a Jew, descended from David and Solomon. That he will be a prophet of God who will judge the nations of the Earth. And that he will set up an everlasting government or kingdom upon the Earth which will turn all mankind toward the worship of the one God. Many Christians also believe that the Messiah will build the third temple when he returns. 

But Jesus of Nazareth has not yet done all of these things, for he has not yet set up a worldwide government, nor has he caused all of mankind to worship the one God, nor has he built the third temple. The Rabbis expect the Messiah to accomplish all of these things during his lifetime and have no concept of a dying and rising Messiah, much less of a Messiah who would ascend to heaven and be absent from the earth for two thousand years. The New Testament sometimes uses Midrash or charismatic interpretation when setting forth Messianic prophecies. For example Psa. 118:22 prophesies, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone," is interpreted by the apostles to be a prophecy of the Messiah and a foreshadowing of his rejection by the children of Abraham and his subsequent exaltation to the right hand of God. [Matt. 21:9, 10; 12:10, 11; Lk. 20:17; Joh. 12:13; Acts 4:11.] But of course, the Psalmist nowhere directly specifies that he is talking about the Messiah or foreshadowing his rejection and subsequent exaltation. However, the apostles understood this to be the symbolic or spiritual meaning of his words. Later, Rashi would also apply Psa. 118:22 to the Messiah and his birthplace in Bethlehem. These are essentially allegorical interpretations which by themselves could never constitute convincing evidence of Christian claims. Other prophecies offered by the NT are admittedly self-fulfilling and also would not constitute convincing evidence. The prime example is Zech. 9:9 which prophesied that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem upon a colt. 

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." (Zech. 9:9) 

Jesus of Nazareth, knowing of this prophecy, told his apostles to acquire a colt for him to ride into Jerusalem as the promised Messiah. (Mk. 11:7-11) Anybody who claimed to be the Messiah and knew of the prophecy could have done the same. It would be unreasonable to expect anyone to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah solely on the basis of such proof texts. A Messiah claimant must fulfill clear and unambiguous prophecies which could not plausibly be fulfilled by coincidence or human design for his claims to be persuasive. When making such a case one cannot ignore the oral tradition of the Jewish people. However, the traditional Rabbinic criteria for the Messiah were not satisfied by Jesus of Nazareth. Historically, ancient Christians have never denied the value of tradition in religious practice, although they have recognized that the Scriptures are the final and absolute authorities on matters of faith and morals which are sufficient for salvation. 

 In modern Orthodox Judaism, there is no notion that the Messiah would first suffer and die, then ascend to heaven until returning a second time to complete his mission. It is thought that when the Messiah arrives, the Kingdom of God and universal peace are soon to follow close behind. The Rambam in his greatest work, the Mishneh Torah (11:1) describes his view of the Messianic era, 

"In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. Then, in his days, the observance of all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars as described by the Torah. Anyone who does not believe in him or does not await his coming, denies not only the statements of the other prophets, but those of the Torah and Moses, our teacher. The Torah testified to his coming, as Deuteronomy 30:3-5 states: God will bring back your captivity and have mercy upon you. He will again gather you from among the nations... Even if your Diaspora is at the ends of the heavens, God will gather you up from there... and bring you to the land.... These explicit words of the Torah include all the statements made by all the prophets. Reference to Mashiach is also made in the portion of Bilaam who prophesies about two anointed kings: the first anointed king, David, who saved Israel from her oppressors; and the final anointed king who will arise from his descendants and save Israel in the end of days."

While the apostles would readily agree that the Messiah would indeed accomplish nearly everything stated here, the monumental difference is that they would insist that the Messiah will not do all of these things immediately but after many years at his second coming. The New Testament presents the Fulfillment of Messianic prophecy to have two stages. The first advent of the Messiah, and his second coming. At his first Advent the Messiah functions as a teacher, healer, and suffering servant who endures trials and finally lays down his life as for the world. (Matt. 20:27, 28) At his second coming he will be a judge and a conqueror who will fight the war of Armageddon, begin the resurrection of the dead and establish an age of peace and prosperity upon the earth. (1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 16:15, 16) Which view of Messianic prophecy is correct? Will the king Messiah’s mission take place in two stages or one? Will he die as a sacrifice for sins? Some prophecies portray the Messiah as a humble figure who arrives in modesty, Zech. 9:9 describes him as a modest figure who rides on a donkey into Jerusalem. Other prophecies describe a glorious great conquering hero who will descend from heaven with glory to judge the entire earth in righteousness (Dan. 2:44; 7:13; Mic. 4:3) bringing universal knowledge of God. (Isa. 2:1-4) Some prophecies describe the Messiah as a man of suffering, "like a leper," who is despised and disregarded. (Isa. 53:3) "The stone which the builders rejected." (Psa. 118:22) The death of the Messiah is described in Zech. 12:10 where it says the Jewish people "will look at the one whom they pierced; and they will mourn for Him, like one mourning for an only son." (Zech. 12:10) But other passages present a very different picture. They describe the Messiah as a conquering king, who will build a glorious temple in Jerusalem and regather Jewish exiles. (Ezekiel chapters 38, 45, and 48) The prophet Micah described his reign as a time when all the earth will be judged righteousness bringing universal knowledge of God. (Mic. 4:3) This is seen prominently in Daniel 2:44 and 7:13-14 where the Messianic Son of Man descends from heaven in glory and crushes all governments in opposition to God and establishes an eternal kingdom. 

"Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: "There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion" [Dan. 7:13-14]. And it is written: "Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey" [Zech. 9:9]. Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come in humility and riding upon a donkey." (Sanhedrin 98a.)

But these are not presented as conditional prophecies. Nowhere does any prophet say that if the Jews are faithful we Messiah will return in glory and if they are unfaithful then he will arrive in humility. He arrived in humility, riding on a donkey in his first Advent and will return in glory at his second coming. In other words, to reconcile the seemingly conflicting depictions of the Messiah, the NT says that he will have two advents. 

The LXX and Messianic Expectations

0. Introduction

In the first century CE Koine Greek was the commonly spoken language both among Jews and among Gentiles. Even in the capital city of Rome the language was not so much Latin as it was Greek. We can tell from fragments of secular writings and from receipts that citizens of the Roman empire would conduct business in Greek moreso than they would in Latin. The goal of the New Testament authors was to reach the widest possible audience and so naturally koine Greek was the ideal choice. For similar reasons, a need arose to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek in the second century BC so that the Scriptures could be read more widely. It was translated in Alexandria by about seventy Rabbis at the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus II and quickly became popular among Jewish converts. 

1. The First Septuagint

But was this original Septuagint a translation of the entire Tanakh? Some say that only the books of Moses were translated but the Epistle of Aristeas, written in the second century BCE, mentions "the books of the law, with some few others" were to be translated. [Ep. Arist. 8.] The translation work was to be carried out by six Rabbis from each tribe of Israel. [Ibid. 11, 12.] Notice that not only the books of the Torah, but "some few others" were also translated. It is possible that "the law" signifies the entire Tanakh and that the "other books" refer to deutrocanonical texts such as Judith or the fourth book of Maccabees, which are found in our earliest complete LXX codices [though it should be noted that our earliest extant complete codices are later Christian copies from the fourth century onward, so this evidence must not be pressed]. It is generally recognized that the author of the Epistle to Aristeas was not a goy, but an Alexandrian Jew. During the second temple period, it was common to refer to the entire Tanakh as "the Torah." It is only in our modern day that Torah has become more strictly applied to the books of Moses rather than the entire Tanakh. 

"R. Joshua b. Levi said: Whence is resurrection derived from the Torah? From the verse, Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they shall ever praise thee. Selah. [Psa. 84:4] Not 'praised thee,' but they shall praise thee is stated: thus resurrection is taught in the Torah." (B. Sanhedrin 91b)

The quotation is from Psalm 84:4 and not from the books of Moses but it is called "the Torah," proving that the Rabbis used the term Torah to refer generally to the Tanakh as a whole. And again a little later on it says, 

"R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: Whence do we learn resurrection from the Torah? — From the verse, Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing. [Isa. 52.8] Not 'sang,' but shall sing is written: thus resurrection is derived from the Torah." (B. Sanhedrin 91b)

To prove that the resurrection is taught in the Torah, Isaiah 52:8 is cited, therefore the Rabbis used the term Torah to refer not only to the books of Moses but also all the writings of the prophets. Hence, the meaning of the Epistle of Aristeas when it says they translated ‘the law and a few other books’ is that the seventy two Rabbis translated the entire law of the Jews, the entire Hebrew Bible and also some extraneous writings. This would explain why our earliest complete codices of the Septuagint contain not only the Tanakh in their list of contents, but also the books of Maccabees and other apocryphal texts. A certain Jew named Aristobulus who lived in the second century BCE during the time when the Septuagint was being translated gives an account of what occurred. Aristobulus claims that the translation of the Septuagint by the seventy Rabbis was instigated by the great orator Demetrius Phalereus who desired to have a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and that the translation took place during the reigns of the Alexandrian kings Ptolemy Lagus and Ptolemy Philadelphus II. [Proepar. Evangel. 13, 12.] Regarding the testimony of Aristobulus, Havernick concluded, 

"Aristobulus could not have said that the translation of the Pentateuch alone required the time he mentions. It follows that a more comprehensive work was meant." [William Lindsay Alexander, A General Historico-Critical Introduction to the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1852), pp. 302.] 

The translation of the Torah into Hebrew by seventy two Rabbis surely would not have taken some forty or so years to complete. Both the number of translators and the time taken to complete the work prove that it was a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible. Dynamic translations were popular in the ancient world. The Gentiles or Goyim of the Roman Empire were often totally ignorant of Hebrew and had no way of reading the Scriptures. [The term Gentile εθνος in the NT writings is essentially a synonym with goyim in most occurrences.] The Septuagint translators took certain liberties to account for this ignorance. They often paraphrase Hebraic idioms, key terms, and phrases to make them intelligible to the average Greek reader. They also had no hesitation in adding explanatory phrases or interpretive translations. Josephus speaks about the creation of the LXX in several places, 

"I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue. Now Eleazar the high priest, one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books." (Antiquities, 12.3.10)

These statements are consistent with the theory that the LXX began with a translation of the books of Moses, then progressed to the rest of the Tanakh and some few other apocryphal books. This would explain the extant codices containing these books and the similarities between their text and style. 

2. Christology and Christianity

Some argue that the high Christological statements in the LXX indicate that our extant text is heavily corrupted by Christian copyists and may not be very Jewish at all. The LXX translators seem to have believed in a pre-existent angelic Messiah who would be revealed before the end of the world. The LXX of Isa. 9:6 omits the epithets "mighty God, everlasting father,"(אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִיעַ֖ד) and instead describes the Messiah as "the angel of great counsel." There is a clear statement of pre-existence in the LXX of Psa. 109:3 [110:3] "I have begotten you from the womb before the morning star." In Greek literature the "morning star" (εωσφόρος) refers specifically to the planet Venus, which is distinctly visible at the close of every day due to its brilliance. [Compare the LXX of Gen. 1:16; Psa. 8:3; 2Kgs. 23:5.] Even before God created the planets, stars, and other celestial bodies the Messiah was begotten. In the Hebrew text of Micah 5:1 [5:2] we read, 

וְאַתָּ֞ה בֵּֽית־לֶ֣חֶם אֶפְרָ֗תָה צָעִיר֙ לִֽהְיוֹת֙ בְּאַלְפֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֔ה מִמְּךָ֙ לִ֣י יֵצֵ֔א לִֽהְי֥וֹת מוֹשֵׁ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּמוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃

"And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, least among the clans of Judah, From you one shall come forth To rule Israel for Me— One whose origin is from old, From ancient times."

The Hebrew text is somewhat vague and may be taken in a genealogical sense signifying the ancient bloodline of the Messiah which can be traced to the house of David. The language may also signify that the Messiah himself has ancient origins and has existed in ancient times. The LXX translators evidently understood the passage in the latter sense by translating the passage, "his goings forth were from the beginning, even from the ages," αι έξοδοι αυτού απ' αρχής εξ ημερών αιώνος. The term έξοδοι is more specific and is often used to designate the travels of kings, princes and armies. (Herod. Hist. 3.14; 7.223; 9.19) The NT uses the same term to signify the travels of Jesus and his apostles. (Lk. 9:31; 2Pet. 1:15) It is also specifically used for the exodus of the Israelites from the land of Egypt and their subsequent wandering. (Heb. 11:22) Targum Jonathan renders Micah 5:2 [5:1] this way,

 וְאַתְּ בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה כִּזְעֵיר הֲוֵיתָא לְאִתְמַנָאָה בְּאַלְפַיָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה מִנָךְ קֳדָמַי יִפּוֹק מְשִׁיחָא לְמֶהֱוֵי עֲבֵיד שׁוּלְטַן עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל דִי שְׁמֵיהּ אָמִיר מִלְקָדְמִין מִיוֹמֵי עָלְמָא:

"As for you, Bethlehem Ephrath, you were too little to be numbered among the tribes of the house of Judah. From you before me the Messiah will go out to be a servant, a servant of rulership over Israel, whose name has been spoken from the beginning, from days of antiquity." 

The concept of the Messiah as a pre-existent Spirit who later becomes incarnate as a man is not a distinctly Christian invention. The sages are reported to have taught that the "four smiths," seen in Zechariah 2:3 are in fact "Messiah ben David, Messiah ben Yosef, Elijah, and the righteous High Priest, who will serve in the Messianic era." (Sukkah 52b:11) For the holy prophet to have had such a vision suggests that these four figures were already in existence. Bereishit Rabbah (viii.) identifies the "Spirit of God," which is mentioned in Gen. 1:2 as the "spirit of King Messiah." In Chagigah 14a it is said that the Messiah has his own throne which stands next to the throne of God and the two commune with one another ‘one for judgment and the other for righteousness.’ The name of the Messiah is said to have existed before the universe, "The name of the Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written about him: "May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun." (Nedarim 39b) The Septuagint translators again seem to have followed this tradition, and rendered Psa. 72:17, 

"Let his name be blessed for ever: his name shall endure forever from before the Sun (προ του ηλίου), and all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed." (LXX)

The same language is echoed in 1 Enoch 48:2-3 "named in the presence of the Lord of spirits." And elsewhere it is said that the Son of Man has "his dwelling-place under the wings of the Lord of the Spirits" where he was kept hidden to be revealed at the appointed time. (1En. 39:6; 62:6-7; 46:1-3) This is not a mere notional or figurative pre-existence, for the Son of Man sits down upon the "throne of glory" which is beside God himself. (1En. 51:3; 45:3; 55:4; 61:8; 69:27) The concept of a heavenly throne for the Messiah was mentioned also by Rabbi Akiva, 

התינח כולהי עד די כרסוון רמיו מאי איכא למימר אחד לו ואחד לדוד דתניא אחד לו ואחד לדוד דברי ר"ע א"ל ר' יוסי עקיבא עד מתי אתה עושה שכינה חול אלא אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה 

The Gemara clarifies: This works out well for almost all the verses, as they describe an action taken by God, but what is there to say concerning the verse: "I beheld till thrones were placed"? The Gemara answers: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David, i.e., the messiah, as it is taught in a baraita: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Akiva! Until when will you desacralize the Divine Presence by equating God with a person? Rather, the correct interpretation is that both thrones are for God, as one throne is for judgment and one throne is for righteousness. [Sanhedrin 38b.] 

The Targum of 1 Chronicles 3:24 states "the sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah and Eliashib and Pelaiah and Akkub and Joḥanan and Delaiah and Anani, he is the King Messiah who in the future will be revealed, seven altogether." Anani lived hundreds of years before this Targum was written and yet the author identifies him with the Messiah. Therefore the belief of the LXX translators in the pre-existence of the Messiah does not suggest Christian forgery because such ideas were already present in Jewish tradition.