About Judaism and the Messiah question

[YoursTrue]

Everyone who goes by the Hebrew Tanakh has the same agreement.

1. What we are working towards, waiting for, is something different than the western concept of a messiah. A future Davidic king would be a better definition.
2. Just like Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses), Yehshua bin-Nun (Joshua), Melekh Dawith ben-Yishai (King David), Melekh Shelomo ben-Dawith (King Solomon), etc. didn't have come twice for any aspect of leading Am Yisrael there is no such thing, in the Hebrew Tanakh, of a future Davidic king will need to come twice.

In terms of how things happen according to Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews and our "leaders/Rabbis/Parents/Grandparents/etc.. See the below.

1. Jews living in Israel, as a whole, desire to return to the Torah as it was given at Mount Sinai. (Torah - written and oral)
   • Similar to what the Torah states was happening among Israelis in Egypt before Hashem approached Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses) to return and lead the way.
   • Some sources say that this may happen one of two ways. a) Jews living in Israel choose to return to ancient Jewish/Torah based practice/culture/text or b) Jews living in Israel find themselves with their backs completely against the wall w/o any other alternative and they desire to return to the Torah due to the inability to escape the situation by any other means.
2. A proven (נביא) prophet in the Jewish community receives something from Hashem that a particular Jewish man is the leader that Hashem has chosen. (Hashem will of course only pick someone who is proven to be an actual paternal descendeant of King David through Solomon.)
   • BTW - there are Jews today living in Israel from various communities who have families that reach back to King David through Solomon.)
3. A standing Mosaic Court/Sanhedrin is able to clarify the person is fit to be king as specified above.
   • Somewhere between the prophet and the Mosaic court an anointing with oil can happen. Thus, at this point the person is considered a Davidic King (The anointing with oil has a specific reason behind it, but it is a long explaination.)
4. Said proven halakhically Jewish Davidic descendent, who based on point 2 and 3, will receive prophecy from Hashem of what it is he is to do.
   • Just below the level that Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses) had.
   • Probably on a level above Yehoshua bin-Nun (Joshua).
5. Using Torah based wisdom, prophecy, knowledge of science, economics, etc. said Davidic king will be able to lead the Israeli people and bring things back to they way they were between when Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses)/Yehoshua bin-Nun (Joshua) and Shlomo HaMelekh (Solomon) led.
   • At some point in the above process there is a return of all Jews, outside of the land of Israel, to Israel.
   • This does not proclude that some Jews will refuse to side with the Torah and instead decide to side with the nations they are found in. This what we call in Hebrew a type of (מינות) i.e. a self-imposed decision to distance themselves from Hashem, the Torah, and the people/nation of Israel.
6. While all of the above is happening Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews are allowed to say, "Maybe he is mashiahh." We are not allowed to say he definately is. See important note below.

Important note: Only if the above Davidic king succeeds in restoring the Torah at all levels in the land of Israel (i.e. 100% proof Hebrew Tanakh based proof that the Source of Creation supports him, government structure, social structure, Temple in Jerusalem) and brings about world peace is he actually the (משיח) Mashiahh/Davidic king who leads by Torath Mosheh. If he fails at any of the above or if he dies before completeling the ENTIRE process it is known he was not (משיח) and at most was a descendant of David who made the attempt; nothing more! If that then was the case then Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews move on as before.

You mentioned that the holy scriptures were written by Jews and I agree. I would like to ask you this about the last days of the temple in Jerusalem prior to the desecration by the Romans in the first century. You have heard of Porcius Festus, haven't you, in the recounting of the last days of Israel prior to the onslaught of the Romans there?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You have heard of Porcius Festus, haven't you, in the recounting of the last days of Israel prior to the onslaught of the Romans there?

Is this what you mean?

The exact time of Festus in office is not known. The earliest proposed date for the start of his term is c. C.E. 55–6, while the latest is C.E. 61. These extremes have not gained much support and most scholars opt for a date between 58 and 60. F. F. Bruce says that, "The date of his [Felix's] recall and replacement by Porcius Festus is disputed, but a change in the provincial coinage of Judaea attested for Nero's fifth year points to C.E. 59" Conybeare and Howson lay out an extended argument for the replacement taking place in C.E. 60.​

 

[YoursTrue]

Is this what you mean?

The exact time of Festus in office is not known. The earliest proposed date for the start of his term is c. C.E. 55–6, while the latest is C.E. 61. These extremes have not gained much support and most scholars opt for a date between 58 and 60. F. F. Bruce says that, "The date of his [Felix's] recall and replacement by Porcius Festus is disputed, but a change in the provincial coinage of Judaea attested for Nero's fifth year points to C.E. 59" Conybeare and Howson lay out an extended argument for the replacement taking place in C.E. 60.​

In a way. Not so much the dates, but whether he was an official in Jerusalem in the 1st century. Do you believe he was an official in Jerusalem when Jerusalem was under Roman rulership in the 1st century? Which makes me wonder -- what documents were kept, preserved, written about the situation in Jerusalem giving details that you would refer to now as a record of what happened in those years prior to the destruction in the first century? This is curious.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In a way. Not so much the dates, but whether he was an official in Jerusalem in the 1st century. Do you believe he was an official in Jerusalem when Jerusalem was under Roman rulership in the 1st century?

The history suggests that he was a Roman official in the area.

Bronze prutah minted by Porcius Festus. Obverse: Greek letters NEP WNO C (Nero) in wreath tied at the bottom with an X. Reverse: Greek letters KAICAPOC (Caesar) and date LE (year 5 = 58/59 C.E.), palm branch

 

[YoursTrue]

The history suggests that he was a Roman official in the area.

Bronze prutah minted by Porcius Festus. Obverse: Greek letters NEP WNO C (Nero) in wreath tied at the bottom with an X. Reverse: Greek letters KAICAPOC (Caesar) and date LE (year 5 = 58/59 C.E.), palm branch

OK, glad you answered, I was waiting for it. Thank you. I'll get back to this later hopefully.

 

[YoursTrue]

Everyone who goes by the Hebrew Tanakh has the same agreement.

1. What we are working towards, waiting for, is something different than the western concept of a messiah. A future Davidic king would be a better definition.

Thank you for mentioning that. Upon researching this, it seems it was commonly accepted among the Jewish population that the Messiah would be a king of the line of David. It therefore stands to reason that when the astrologers asked about “the one born king of the Jews,” Herod the Great knew that they were asking about the Mashiach. (Matthew 2:2-4) Jesus questioned the Pharisees as to whose descendant the Mashiach, would be, and although those religious leaders did not believe in Jesus, they knew that the Messiah would be David’s son. -- Matthew 22:41-45. So taking this in the broad scope, it seems that yes, it is a popular idea that the Messiah would be a king descending from David. So now I have a question for you. Jacob foretold that Moshiach would be of the tribe of Judah. Is this now something you believe?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you for mentioning that. Upon researching this, it seems it was commonly accepted among the Jewish population that the Messiah would be a king of the line of David. It therefore stands to reason that when the astrologers asked about “the one born king of the Jews,” Herod the Great knew that they were asking about the Mashiach. (Matthew 2:2-4) Jesus questioned the Pharisees as to whose descendant the Mashiach, would be, and although those religious leaders did not believe in Jesus, they knew that the Messiah would be David’s son. -- Matthew 22:41-45. So taking this in the broad scope, it seems that yes, it is a popular idea that the Messiah would be a king descending from David. So now I have a question for you. Jacob foretold that Moshiach would be of the tribe of Judah. Is this now something you believe?

1. Where in any of the gospels do any of the Pharisees say that the Messiah is not of Davidic lineage?
2. Where did Jacob say anything about the Messiah?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So now I have a question for you. Jacob foretold that Moshiach would be of the tribe of Judah. Is this now something you believe?

Greetings. The Hebrew Tanakh is clear that the future Davidic King will be from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah). It is established that when Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq (Jacob) made the following statement in (בראשית) Beresheeth (Genesis) 49:9-12.

He was stating that the right for kingship would be from the tribe of Yehudah. This of course covered Dawith ben-Yishai (David), Shelomo ben-Dawith (Solomon), and the future king who will be bring about the complete return of Torah to the people of Israel and the land of Israel.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

2. Where did Jacob say anything about the Messiah?

The following should be able to explain. it explains the the intent of Ya'aqov's statement was of the rulership being in Beith Yehudah (House of Yehudah) and the there being students of the Torah from the tribe of Yehudah until there is a mashiahh.

 

[YoursTrue]

Greetings. The Hebrew Tanakh is clear that the future Davidic King will be from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah). It is established that when Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq (Jacob) made the following statement in (בראשית) Beresheeth (Genesis) 49:9-12.

View attachment 57992

He was stating that the right for kingship would be from the tribe of Yehudah. This of course covered Dawith ben-Yishai (David), Shelomo ben-Dawith (Solomon), and the future king who will be bring about the complete return of Torah to the people of Israel and the land of Israel.

I don't hve too much time right now but am reading your answer. Thank you for your response. I hope to look it over in more detail if possible later.
The question does come to mind though -- how would a person know if someone is from that tribe?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The question does come to mind though -- how would a person know if someone is from that tribe?

The same way that David and his son Solomon knew they were from the tribe fo Yehudah. They had family records that traced them back. By like token, how is it that Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews today are essentially the only people in the world who have a very detailed knowledge of Hebrew from ~4,000 years ago. Simple, Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews have been passing that information down in Torath Mosheh communities for the last ~4,000 years.

 

[YoursTrue]

Greetings. The Hebrew Tanakh is clear that the future Davidic King will be from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah). It is established that when Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq (Jacob) made the following statement in (בראשית) Beresheeth (Genesis) 49:9-12.

View attachment 57992

He was stating that the right for kingship would be from the tribe of Yehudah. This of course covered Dawith ben-Yishai (David), Shelomo ben-Dawith (Solomon), and the future king who will be bring about the complete return of Torah to the people of Israel and the land of Israel.

In essence, that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah is what I have come to understand. Genesis 49, as you quoted, does speak about the 'scepter,' or rulership would be given to that one. Of course I have more questions, but we shall leave it there for the moment. (Thank you.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In essence, that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah is what I have come to understand. Genesis 49, as you quoted, does speak about the 'scepter,' or rulership would be given to that one. Of course I have more questions, but we shall leave it there for the moment. (Thank you.)

It speaks of the kingship remaining with the tribe of Judah. It says nothing of the messiah. However, since the definition of the messiah is the king that will rule israel during the messianic era, it would mean that the messiah has to be of Judah.

 

[YoursTrue]

It speaks of the kingship remaining with the tribe of Judah. It says nothing of the messiah. However, since the definition of the messiah is the king that will rule israel during the messianic era, it would mean that the messiah has to be of Judah.

I've heard some interesting comments about this. Now I do wonder -- although I knew about Rabbi Schneerson and many were seeming to look forward to him being the messiah (and resurrected from the grave), I wonder if he claimed to be of the tribe of Judah.

 

[YoursTrue]

The same way that David and his son Solomon knew they were from the tribe fo Yehudah. They had family records that traced them back. By like token, how is it that Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews today are essentially the only people in the world who have a very detailed knowledge of Hebrew from ~4,000 years ago. Simple, Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews have been passing that information down in Torath Mosheh communities for the last ~4,000 years.

While you have a good and distinct handle on some things, I'm sure you would agree there is always something to learn. Of course that includes me. In reference to your point above, if I understand this correctly, records of lineage were kept at the temple in Jerusalem, weren't they?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've heard some interesting comments about this. Now I do wonder -- although I knew about Rabbi Schneerson and many were seeming to look forward to him being the messiah (and resurrected from the grave), I wonder if he claimed to be of the tribe of Judah.

Although I've been involved with Chabad in the past, I never really got into it that deep. Since Shneerson was already dead, it was pretty clear that he wasn't the messiah, and so it really wasn't talked about to be honest. I know that some few Chabadniks expect him to rise from the grave, but I am not among them. To me, Shneerson had his chance, but died without having fulfilled the prophecies. Thus, he, too, is eliminated from the possibility of being the Messiah.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In reference to your point above, if I understand this correctly, records of lineage were kept at the temple in Jerusalem, weren't they?

Not every liniage was kept in the Temple. Only the ones that had relation to the priesthood, kingship, and those who advised the kings. Records of liniage were also kept by local communities all over Israel. I.e. liniage was very important and kept by many different sources around the country.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

While you have a good and distinct handle on some things, I'm sure you would agree there is always something to learn.

Of course, but as you would agree it always depends on who one is learning from and if they are willing to do the research on their own to determine if what they are learning is correct and backed up by acurate and authentic sources.

 

[John D. Brey]

Just for the record, what the Rambam wrote is a lot longer than what you may have read on the internet under articles of faith. Most of the versions that people know are summaries made by others of what the Rambam wrote in his commentary on the Mishnah - Mesechet Sanhedrin.

The Rambam details what the Tanakh states about the future Davidic king in the Mishnah Torah. See the below "English translation" from the Chabad web-site.

Mishnah Torah - Hilchoth Melachim and Milchamoth chapter 11

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:​

Hashem 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, Hashem 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 mashiahh 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. That passage Numbers 24:17-18 relates:

'I see it, but not now' - This refers to David;
'I perceive it, but not in the near future;" - This refers to the Messianic king;
'A star shall go forth from Jacob' - This refers to David;
'and a staff shall arise in Israel' - This refers to the Messianic king;
'crushing all of Moab's princes' - This refers to David as II Samuel 8:2 relates: 'He smote Moab and measured them with a line;'
'decimating all of Seth's descendants' - This refers to the Messianic king about whom Zechariah 9:10 prophesies: 'He will rule from sea to sea.'
'Edom will be demolished' - This refers to David as II Samuel 8:6 states 'Edom became the servants of David;'
'Seir will be destroyed' - this refers to the Messianic king as Ovadiah 1:21 prophesies: 'Saviors will ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau....'

Similarly, with regard to the cities of refuge, Deuteronomy 19:8-9 states: 'When Hashem will expand your borders... you must add three more cities.' This command was never fulfilled. Surely, Hashem did not give this command in vain. There is no need to cite proofs from the works of the prophets for all their books are filled with mention of this matter.

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 Kozibah 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. The main thrust of the matter is: This Torah, its statutes and its laws, are everlasting. We may not add to them or detract from them.

If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of Hashem, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach. If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Mashiach.

He will then improve the entire world, motivating all the nations to serve Hashem together, as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of Hashem and serve Him with one purpose.'

If he did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah. Rather, he should be considered as all the other proper and complete kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. Hashem caused him to arise only to test the many, as Daniel 11:35 states: 'And some of the wise men will stumble, to try them, to refine, and to clarify until the appointed time, because the set time is in the future.'
Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel's prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: 'The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'

Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a power/god/person other than Hashem.

Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts, our thoughts. Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach's coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve Hashem together as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of Hashem and serve Him with one purpose.'

How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of Mashiach, Torah, and mitzvot. These matters have been spread to the furthermost islands to many stubborn-hearted nations. They discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah, saying: 'These mitzvot were true, but were already negated in the present age and are not applicable for all time.'

Others say: 'Implied in the mitzvot are hidden concepts that can not be understood simply. The Mashiach has already come and revealed those hidden truths.'

When the true Messianic king will arise and prove successful, his position becoming exalted and uplifted, they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage and their prophets and ancestors caused them to err.​

. . . Lots of good stuff. Thank you for posting this.

The one thing that stuck in my craw reading it, was the reference to, Deuteronomy 30:4, where it says if any of those being regathered are found at the outermost parts of the heavens השמים they will be gathered nevertheless? I'm curious what this means since even when the Torah uses expressive phrases like the one in the cross-hairs, it usually (or always) has a literalness to it as well.



John

 

[Ehav4Ever]

. . . Lots of good stuff. Thank you for posting this.

The one thing that stuck in my craw reading it, was the reference to, Deuteronomy 30:4, where it says if any of those being regathered are found at the outermost parts of the heavens השמים they will be gathered nevertheless? I'm curious what this means since even when the Torah uses expressive phrases like the one in the cross-hairs, it usually (or always) has a literalness to it as well.
John

Greetings John,

Three commentators, Rav Saadya Gaon, Malbim, and Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, stated on this that it is as if we Jews would be exiled to (בקצה השמים). Also, that when the exile to Egypt took place Israelis were in one location together (Goshen). Yet, for the exile of the future, the future from Mosheh's (Moses) generation, we Jews would be exiled and seperated physically, and sometimes theologically, far apart from each other and yet Hashem will gather Jews back together into the land of Israel from all all of that.

Also, you have to understand that (שמים) in ancient Hebrew doesn't always mean "heavens" as English translations have it. Many of the descriptions used texts from the last 2,000 years in Hebrew describe it sometimes as meaning something on the level of the concept of Dark Matter. The descriptions of the idea can be very long and often hard to detail outside of Hebrew.