Messiah: The Talmud on Messianic Prophecy (Updated 2025)

Various times over the years I have heard the charge that the New Testament makes improper use of the Hebrew Scriptures. The typical suspicion is that it forces certain passages into service as Messianic prophecies in a way that is at least out-of-context, if not wrong or dishonest. A current example is at Common Denominator, where Ken Schenck mentions, 

[A] key issue for me was the way the New Testament interpreted the Old Testament. It didn’t seem to follow the rules of inductive Bible study. The New Testament didn’t seem to interpret the Old Testament in context. 

His immediate example is Isaiah 7:14 (the maiden shall shall conceive and bear a child, and his name will be called Immanuel). 

Here we will look at some ancient Jewish approaches to faithfully interpreting Scripture, particularly drawing from the Talmud. The sages' methods of interpretation allow for deeper thematic resonance than inductive Bible study, and a firm commitment to the relevance of the Messiah in all prophecy. Because this post is not intended as a full exploration of Mr. Schenck's themes, I'd encourage readers to review Mr. Schenck's post in full. I'll limit myself here to addressing any suspicions that may have been suggested about the New Testament texts. 

The first point that needs addressing, when reading the Talmud, is something we still see today: whenever three theologians gather together, there are often at least four opinions among them. The Talmud does not claim that we must hold a certain view of any particular Scripture; in reading the Talmud there are very few views that are held without any difference of opinion. The purpose of this post is simply to show, with references, that the Messianic interpretations of those who wrote the New Testament were in line with acceptable and traditional thoughts of ancient Judaism.

Multivalent Meanings of Scripture

In our modern thinking, we generally look for "the" meaning of a passage of Scripture. That is, we assume there is one right way to understand a passage, and if we have found "the right meaning" then every other understanding is "the wrong one", with immediate suspicions of dishonesty or unfaithfulness. I am not here talking about agreeing to disagree, but the deeper question of whether only one meaning is intended. The sages of classical Judaism rejected that narrow way of thinking: 

For Scripture says, "God has spoken once, twice have I heard this, that strength belongs unto God" [Ps 62:11 NIV, or Ps 62:12 NJPS]. One Biblical verse may convey several teachings, but a single teaching cannot be deduced from different Scriptural verses. In R. Ishmael's School it was taught: "And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces" (Jeremiah 23:29) i.e., just as the rock is split into many splinters, so also may one Biblical verse convey many teachings. (Sanhedrin 34a)

This understanding was not a quirk of the Talmudic era. In a modern Jewish study Bible, that verse from Psalm 62 is the basis for the study note: 

This parallelism is one of the classic texts expounded in rabbinic culture to mean that God’s word is multivalent and needs to be interpreted in a variety of special ways (see, e.g. b. Sanh. 34a). (The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1999)

The classic understanding of the Hebrew Bible is richer than the restrictions we tend to place on it. They believed that "one right meaning" is too rigid a way to read something that's layered with symbolism, inspired by God, and in conversation with both past and future. 

The Psalm verse "One thing God has spoken, two things I have heard" recalls the various "counting" Proverbs. These are proverbs where the writer's catalog of things to consider is poetically expanded during a verse, such as "Three things are beyond me ... four I cannot fathom. (Proverbs 30:18)".  That poetic structure calls our attention to how in pondering a matter, we add to our wisdom. If we ponder how many things we do not understand, we add to our humility. And while we cannot add to the word of God, we can always add to our understanding. The paradigm where we seek "the one true meaning" of a verse is a broken paradigm. 

The Messianic Scriptures

Another consistent theme in the Talmud is that all prophecy should be interpreted in light of the Messiah. On a multivalent reading of Scripture, there is no conflict between an immediate sense and a Messianic sense. 

The Talmud recorded an ancient Jewish approach on interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures:

“All the prophets prophesied only for the days of the Messiah” – Berachoth 34b

And again

“All the prophets prophesied only in respect of the Messianic era;” – Sanhedrin 99a

That is, any prophecy could rightly be read as Messianic. 

Did everyone hold this view? Not necessarily; there is also an opinion that all prophets prophesied on behalf of those who would marry their daughters to scholars. (When we remember how many scholars were involved in writing the Talmud, it makes more sense.) While the comment about scholars may have been intended as humor, we can see that they did not insist on a unanimous view. Among the sages, very few views are ever held unanimously, and the different rabbinical schools held a usually-friendly openness towards each others' views. 

Interpreting all prophecy in light of the Messiah was an accepted ancient Jewish tradition with many examples of its kind, including a great many passages which did not specifically refer to the Messiah. This was considered not just tolerable but also right. When Ruth (ancestress of King David) has leftover grain, this is seen to prefigure the days of the Messiah (Shabbath 113b). Teachings about meals to eat on the Sabbath are interpreted as having special importance for the Messianic era (Shabbath 118a). Even non-prophetic passages could be interpreted as Messianic prophecy, and it was seen as a legitimate interpretation. 

What does this mean? It means that the New Testament usage of the Hebrew Scriptures was true to the traditional methods and interpretive precepts of ancient Judaism. It is therefore legitimate interpretation to read passages such as “Out of Egypt I shall call my son” as Messianic. Likewise, it is legitimate interpretation according to ancient Hebrew practice to read “The maiden shall conceive and bear a child” as Messianic. It is worth remembering that it was the ancient Hebrews who considered it right to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures in light of the Messiah, even when the immediate meaning was not directly about Messiah. This was no late innovation specific to followers of Jesus. More importantly, it was not seen as a distortion of the texts to interpret them in a Messianic light.

Specific Messianic Prophecies

Aside from the vague prefigurings such as Sabbath meals and Ruth’s leftover grain, I'd like to review some of the specific things that were expected of the Messiah, and passages in the Talmud that are more directly about the Messiah. 

There is an interesting discussion recorded in Sukkah 52a starting with the passage “the land will mourn” (Zechariah 12:12):

“What is the cause of the mourning? — R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained, The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination.”

The question is raised, “It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son.” – Sukkah 52a (Scripture referenced is Zechariah 12:10, part of the same passage originally being discussed)

Those who hold to the view of the slaying of the evil inclination also discuss their view. It is interesting to note that, in their discussion, they never object to the idea of the Messiah being slain.

The discussion continues in the same passage of the Talmud:

“Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance. But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph is slain, he will say to Him, ‘Lord of the Universe, I ask of Thee only the gift of life’.’As to life’, He would answer him, ‘Your father David has already prophesied this concerning you’, as it is said, He asked life of thee, thou gavest it him.” – Sukkah 52a (Scriptures referenced are Psalm 2:7-8, and Psalm 21:4.)

Another discussion focuses on different views of when and how to look for Messiah’s coming:

“R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, whilst [elsewhere] it is written, lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.” – Sanhedrin 98a (Scriptures referenced are Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 9:9.)

Few of the conversations are as tightly-focused as this. When looking at passages that are directly Messianic, it is more plain how they apply to the Messiah. When we look at secondary interpretations, it becomes less plain. Christians in particular will enjoy reading an ancient discussion on calculating when the Messiah will come and how long the earth will endure. One commentator uses the following passage in this discussion of the duration of the world and the coming of the Messiah:

“After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.” – Sanhedrin 97a (Scripture referenced is Hosea 6:2)

The commentator himself, while seeing Messianic implications of this verse, does not interpret this in the same way that a modern Christian would. But based on the Messianic view of Scripture, we can see in this passage how Jesus could say that the prophets foretold he would be raised from the dead on the third day.

Conclusion

According to ancient Jewish principles of interpretation, any passage of Scripture might contain a hidden mention of Messiah, and that knowledge should be sought out. Reading prophecy that way was neither wrong nor dishonest, but accepted as legitimate in the Judaism of that day. In short, the Messianic view of Scripture is valid and directly rooted in accepted practices of ancient Judaism.

Originally blogged on CADRE Comments 04/07/2005, and incorporating various material blogged here since then