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

The Spirit of God: Old Testament references

Today Christians in the Western traditions celebrate Pentecost, when God poured his Spirit on the disciples in Jerusalem, visibly seen as tongues of flame. John the Baptist had prophesied that after him comes someone who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. The earliest Christians were all Jewish by faith, covenant, culture, and family. While this Pentecost started a larger understanding of the Spirit of God, I wanted to see what the earliest Christians would have understood from the Old Testament about the Holy Spirit. 

By far the most common reference I found to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament involves the spirit wisdom. This reaches as far back as providing Joseph wisdom for providing for Egypt through the long famine (Genesis 41:38). The God's spirit of wisdom and understanding -- at times also a spirit of knowledge -- was referenced for workmanship and craftsmanship, leadership, and justice. God's spirit is referenced for might and protection against enemies in battle. It also leads to righteousness, aids in grace, and guides prayer. The Spirit brings peace and restoration, creation and renewal, and especially renewal of heart and the human spirit. The spirit of God is a spirit of blessing. 

The appearance of fire in connection with the spirit at this Pentecost is not entirely new. Some Old Testament passages speak of the Spirit of God in connection with fire. Sometimes the fire is connected with justice or purification, and sometimes with inner light to search the soul (Isaiah 4:4, Proverbs 20:27)

The Spirit of the Lord was said to have spoken through the prophets, and through them brought good news to the poor. This includes the well-known prophecy where the Spirit of the Lord causes one to speak good news to the meek, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom to the captives and release to the prisoners. 

In the prophet Isaiah's description of the Spirit of God, he calls it the spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might, of knowledge and fear of the Lord, and that the one with the spirit of the Lord has joy in the presence of the Lord. 

Jewish context of Jesus' teachings: An allusion with layers of meaning

In the church year, this Sunday's focus is forgiveness: we read about Joseph forgiving his brothers, and we read Jesus' teaching on forgiveness. Peter asked him how many times he must forgive his brother: Should he forgive him seven times? As you may know: 

Jesus said to him, I say to you not seven times: but, seventy sevens. (Matthew 18:22)

There were symbolic numbers in play. I'm not convinced that Peter meant literally 7 when he asked; the number 7 is associated already in classical Jewish culture with completeness, with Sabbath, with forgiveness and rest. So Peter's question may not have been strictly about accounting. I have never heard a preacher suggest that Jesus' answer was about accounting. There is an agreement that it is a symbolic number indicating a bottomless well of forgiveness, as solidly supported by the parable which Jesus tells next. 

Today, I would like to pause and focus on the number itself. "Symbolic" is not the same as "meaningless", and to get the full weight of meaning, it is worthwhile to stop and unpack the symbolism. "Seventy sevens" is not without precedent. We find the number used prominently in another passage: 

Seventy sevens (weeks) are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (Daniel 9:24) 

That prophecy is part of a series of prophecies touching on the restoration of the Temple and the timeline when the Messiah was expected. In those "seventy sevens" we would expect transgressions to end, reconciliation to be accomplished, righteousness to be restored, and the Most Holy to be anointed. The age of God's favor toward humanity is inaugurated. It is a discussion for another day about all the nuances of Daniel's prophecy; it enough for today that Jesus' words likely would have struck his hearers as an echo of Daniel's prophecy of forgiveness, restoration, and the coming of the Holy One. 

So yes, Jesus' "seventy sevens" were symbolic. Forgiveness is placed in a context of holiness, restoration, and the world to come. When we hear the echoes of Daniel's prophecy, we hear the call to forgive until the era of the Messiah, the age "to finish transgression, to make an end to sin, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." 

Blessed are those who mourn

In the Jewish lectionary, many of the beautiful prophecies of Isaiah are read in the weeks of later summer and early autumn. There is some question about how long ago the readings were fixed to their dates and places in the lectionary, and about variations in exactly what was read that long ago. But there is a possibility that Jesus' sermon in the synagogue of Nazareth took place in late summer or early autumn, the week when either the Torah portion Ki Tavo or Nitzavim was read. In current Jewish lectionaries, those weeks both contain readings from Isaiah that are neighboring to what Jesus read in his sermon, either immediately before or close after the passage that he read.

So it's possible that Jesus chose that time to read in the synagogue, when he read these words of Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives, and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Isaiah 61:1-2, see also Luke 4:18-19)

Jesus read that in his sermon at the synagogue in Nazareth. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount seems nearly a continuation of that, on another day in another place. Not only does the Sermon on the Mount continue the theme of proclaiming good news, but its beginning has a reference to the same verse of Isaiah on which he stopped reading in the synagogue:

to comfort all who mourn (Isaiah 61:2)

"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." (Matthew 5:4)

The question of timing intrigues me, since Jesus in the New Testament was a regular at the synagogues, and his life and teachings were in tune with the Jewish festival calendar and the regular cycle of readings. I'll briefly consider what else was the theme of the Jewish lectionary on those two Sabbaths:

• The Ki Tavo Torah portion focuses on the blessings for keeping faith with God, or the curses for failing to keep faith with God. It also discusses whether the people have eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to understand, which are themes that Jesus takes up again in his own teachings.

• The Nitzavim reading from Isaiah is said to be the seventh and final in a series of readings of consolation or comfort, all taken from Isaiah, in the weeks preceding the Feast of Trumpets and then the Day of Atonement. The focus is on God's redemption, and on how God shares in suffering.

Jesus' teachings seem to be woven together with the weekly readings to make his point. And so here I will continue with what Isaiah said about blessing for those who mourn:

... to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion -- to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. ... Instead of their shame, my people will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace, they will rejoice in their inheritance; and so they will inherit a double portion in the land, and everlasting joy will be theirs. ... In my faithfulness I will reward them and make an everlasting covenant with them. Their descendants will be known among the nations and their offspring among the peoples. All who see them will acknowledge that they are a people the Lord has blessed. (Isaiah 61, various)

 

Origins: The "shoulder angel" and the "shoulder devil"?

Have you ever seen the cartoons where someone has an angel on one shoulder, and a devil on the other? Apparently it's not a Hollywood invention. The idea can be traced back at least as far as the Talmud, an ancient Jewish writing.

It was taught, R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Two ministering angels accompany man on the eve of the Sabbath from the synagogue to his home, one good and one an evil. And when he arrives home and finds the lamp burning, the table laid and the couch covered with a spread*, the good angel exclaims, ‘May it be even thus on another Sabbath,’ and the evil angel unwillingly responds ‘amen’. But if not, the evil angel exclaims, ‘May it be even thus on another Sabbath’ and the good angel unwillingly responds, ‘amen’. (Sabbath 119b)

* These are comforts that involve work. If not done before the Sabbath, it's forbidden to attend to them on the Sabbath.

Silent for the sake of the angels

There is a puzzling reference in the Bible when Paul discusses orderly worship, where he instructs that women should be silent during the worship service "for the sake of the angels", and save their questions to ask their husbands at home. While I'm sure nobody wants the worship service disrupted with whispered questions and answers, what do angels have to do with it?

I think I may have found the Jewish context that makes sense of that, the missing piece of the puzzle. It starts with the Jewish understanding of a certain Psalm:

Yet the LORD will command his lovingkindness in the daytime, and in the night his song shall be with me, and my prayer unto the God of my life. (Psalm 42:8)

The Jewish understanding of this verse was that the "night-time" reference was about the song of the angels: "in the night his song shall be with me" was the angelic hymn of praise. And why was the angelic hymn of praise heard specifically during the night? According to the Talmud, it is because during the day, the angels kept silent for the sake of Israel, that God might hear Israel's prayers.

"there are companies of Ministering Angels, who utter divine song by night, and are silent by day for the sake of Israel's glory, for it is said: By day the Lord doth command His lovingkindness, and in the night His song is with me. (Talmud, Mas. Chagigah 12b)

Some helpful footnotes to the Soncino Talmud explain that the angels are silent by day "because Israel utters God's praise by day" and that, "By silencing the angels by day, God shows his lovingkindness to the children of Israel, who are thus permitted to win divine grace by their prayer."

Apparently, when Paul cited that the women should be silent "for the sake of the angels", it may have meant: If even the angels in heaven are silent during human worship that God might attend to it, how much more should the mortals be silent from things that would disrupt it. So if some congregation had an issue with some wives who didn't understand some aspect, they shouldn't be whispering to their husbands during the service for an explanation, but saving their questions for home, and keeping silent "for the sake of the angels" who also kept silent so as not to disrupt the prayer and praise.

The sheep and the goats: Where have we heard that before?

In recent posts I have looked at times when Jesus quoted Old Testament passages about the LORD in reference to himself. Here is another one that deserves consideration: 

As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: ‘I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats.’ (Ezekiel 34:17). 

Compare this to what Jesus taught about the last day, referring to himself here, as at other times, as "the Son of Man": 

When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And all nations shall be gathered before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates his sheep from the goats. (Matthew 25:31-32)

Ezekiel’s prophecy is lengthy; it is well worth reading all of Ezekiel 34 in this context. It ends with “David” (King Messiah) ruling over the people. In Ezekiel’s prophecy, "David" the Messiah may simply be God's right hand: when God says “I do this”, the Messiah is actually the one through whom God works. The distinction is not always clear between God's actions and the Messiah's.

Here again, when Jesus refers back to that prophecy, he places himself as the judge -- and as the only one in all of human history in that position.Plainly enough, Jesus' claim to be the one who, at the end of history, will judge the world is a claim to uniqueness. But it goes beyond mere uniqueness. In the passage Jesus refers to as background -- a passage which would have been known to those who originally heard him -- it is the LORD -- God himself -- who is said to be the judge. Again, to say the least, the distinction is not always clear between God's actions and the Messiah's.

"You are my witnesses": Old Testament allusions, and the trials of life

But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit has come upon you: and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, even to the uttermost part of the earth. (Jesus, Acts 1:8)

Many of the things Jesus said contained allusions to the earlier writings of the Old Testament.

You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom  I have chosen: that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isaiah 43:10)

I have declared, and have saved, and I have shown, when there was no strange god among you: therefore you are my witnesses, says the LORD, that I am God. (Isaiah 43:12)

Do not fear, neither be afraid: Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? There is no other God; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:8)

Are there other references in the Bible to being witnesses? Sure; they generally involve legal matters or transactions. The clearest parallel to what Jesus said are the passages from Isaiah quoted above. Jesus' apostles, all Jewish, were likely to have caught the references. Once again, Jesus is recorded as saying something that parallels what God himself has said, reprising one of God's sayings in a way that makes Jesus' role parallel to God's own role.



One other point bears mentioning: God chose the language of "witnesses" for us. In this world, sometimes God is on trial, either in the court of public opinion or in an individual's mind and life. People want to know whether God is true, whether God is kind, whether God is trustworthy. They want to know whether he cares. When we notice that God is on trial, or God is accused, it is worth remembering that we are his witnesses.

The LORD be with you: Blessing, promise, and the Savior

The LORD be with you.
And also with you. 

These words are familiar to Christians who worship with the ancient liturgical words passed down through the ages and down to us today. But the history behind these words tells us something about God, and how the people thought of God, and how the early Christians saw Jesus.

The Torah tells of God himself traveling with the tribes of Israel as they came out of Egypt, as they went through the wilderness, as they came into the land where once Abraham had lived. The presence of God was part of their idea of blessing, and of revelation, and of who they were as a people. So it is not surprising that we see the presence of God adopted as a greeting:

And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said to the reapers, "The LORD be with you." And they answered him, "The LORD bless you." (Ruth 2:4)

That idea -- the idea of God's being with his people -- was mentioned time and again over the history of ancient Israel. I have selected only a short list of examples, but these should give some idea:

Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin; The LORD is with you, while you are with him; and if you seek him, you will find him. But if you forsake him, he will forsake you. (2 Chronicles 15:2)

Who is there among you of all his people? May his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem ... (Ezra 1:3)

Seek good, and not evil, that you may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as you have spoken. (Amos 5:14)

The Talmud says that this blessing -- the Lord being with his people -- became a standard part of the Jewish liturgy at the Temple in ancient times. That may be how the words passed on into the Christian liturgy.

At the conclusion of the Benedictions said in the Temple ... it was also laid down that greeting should be given in the Name, in the same way as it says, "And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, "The LORD be with you," and they answered him, "The LORD bless you." (Berachoth 54a, older Mishnah portion)

 It was early in the Christian church that this greeting was also adopted by Christians:

The Lord be with you all. (2 Thessalonians 3:16). 

But here, in the letter to the Thessalonians, it seems likely that the "Lord" Paul speaks of is Jesus; he has been referring to Jesus as Lord throughout the letter. This blessing is given in another form fairly often in the New Testament:

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. (Romans 16:20, Romans 16:24, I Corinthians 16:23*, Philippians 4:23, 1 Thessalonians 5:28, 2 Thessalonians 3:18, Revelation 22:21)

There are some variations of the words in other places, but this isn't intended to be a catalog. This is simply to show that, early in the Christian church, the Jewish greeting "The LORD be with you" was adapted to speak of Jesus as Lord. This blessing may have been an early part of Christian worship: in all of the verses but one referenced above, the blessing is directly followed by "Amen." (*I Corinthians 16:23 is the exception, where it is simply "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all" without the "Amen".) The general use of the same blessing followed by "Amen" so often, and from more than one author, suggests that the blessing was in common use.

So far we have looked at "The Lord be with you as a greeting and a blessing." Back in the days of the Israelite prophets, sometimes the prophets also record God speaking of himself in that way, with a promise to be with his people:

Be strong, all you people of the land, says the LORD, and work: for I am with you. (Haggai 2:4)

The Great Commission records Jesus speaking very similar words.

I am with you always, even unto the end of the age. (Matthew 28:20)

That is not a claim someone would make if he thought himself only a prophet, rabbi, or sage. It is not a claim his followers would have attributed to him, if they saw him as only a prophet, rabbi, or sage. He is recorded as speaking of himself in the same way that the LORD did. The statement assumes a certain eternity about Jesus, to make a promise of that nature. It speaks of the early church's confidence in Jesus' resurrection and continued existence, that they should take that promise to heart. And it is yet one more instance when the church showed a very high view of Jesus -- and attributed that view to Jesus' own words.

Romans 10: Jesus and Jehovah

"Jehovah" is a name that we use in English to represent the Divine Name by which God was made known in Israel, the one that the Jews left unspoken. Sometimes we bring the same Hebrew word into English as LORD in all caps to convey the Divine Name. ("Jehovah", it is said, was a mistaken way to bring that word into English -- based on Hebrew that was written so as to remind people not to pronounce the Divine Name. If that really is the case, then "Jehovah" is oddly appropriate in protecting that Name.)

Consider a few things that Paul said in Romans 10, then. He was writing in Greek, so it is not always clear when he meant the Divine Name.

If you confess with your lips, "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

Shortly after, Paul continues:

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile -- the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:12-13)

Just from reading Paul, it's likely that he meant "Jesus" as the "Lord" he was referring to in both the passages quoted above. At the end of the second passage, Paul is quoting the prophet Joel. The writings of Joel are available in Hebrew, so we do know when Joel meant the Divine Name; Paul also would have known this. Based on the Hebrew, many Bibles render that passage of Joel in English like this:

Everyone who calls in the name of the LORD will be saved. (Joel 2:32)

Did Paul mean to parallel that passage from Joel, when he said:

If you confess with your lips, "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

As the saying goes, "Read the whole thing" about what Paul said. In context, there are additional reasons to believe Paul is referring to Jesus in "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Consider Paul's next point:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful on the mountain are the feet of him who brings good news." (Romans 10:14-15)

At the end of that passage, Paul is quoting the prophet Isaiah (52:7). Again, these words are available in the original Hebrew. I would like to point out two things about the passage Paul quotes from Isaiah. First: Paul is quoting a prophecy about announcing the return of the LORD to Jerusalem and how the whole world will see the salvation of God; that is appropriate to Paul's point about sending messengers out into the world so that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. Second: That Isaiah passage is the immediate prelude to the passage of the suffering servant. That, again, is in line with Paul's point.

Paul carries much of his presentation to the Romans with quotes from the Old Testament. In some places, he is providing commentary on those passages for his readers, a Bible study as he goes along. (I could almost see it as Paul's Commentary on Isaiah and Joel in places.) While my thoughts on this are still forming, I will say: it is interesting to see how Paul sees the Scriptures that he grew up with, after learning about Jesus.

Walking after God: Noah and the animals

We've seen before how the ancient Israelites understood their duty to walk after God as a duty to imitate his good acts. They demonstrated a duty to visit the sick from God visiting Abraham after his circumcision; they demonstrated a duty to comfort the mourners from his blessing Isaac at the time of Abraham's death.

From the same line of reasoning, we could deduce an obligation to preserve all species of animals:

As the Almighty preserved every kind of animal on the ark, so do we also preserve every kind of animal.

I'm not here entering into the debate over whether certain animals were entered on modern "endangered" lists because of true preservation needs or merely in order to prevent construction. I'm saying that, regardless of the debate over whether any particular regulation was necessary for any particular species, based on the story of Noah and the ark we can still deduce that it is our duty to work with God to preserve all species.

An ancient teaching about calling down judgment on others

Sarai said to Abram, "The wrong done me is your fault. I myself put my maid in your bosom; now that she sees she is pregnant, I am lowered in her esteem. The LORD decide between you and me." (Genesis 16:5)

So how did that work out for her, calling down God as judge between herself and her husband? In later years:

And Sarah died ... Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her. (Genesis 23:2)

From this the ancient Israelites derived the teaching:

He who calls down divine judgment on his neighbor is himself punished first. (Talmud, Rosh HaShanah 16b)

The same principle is well established in Jesus' teachings: Do not judge lest you be judged; the merciful will be shown mercy; with the measure you use it will be measured back to you. But speaking for myself, I'd never made any connection between Sarah's call for judgment and Sarah dying before Abraham.

Sarah was sure that her anger was righteous anger. Even if she was right about her husband's sin, she had to limit her thoughts to one narrow thing to see his fault but not her own, to get "righteous anger" instead of "shared blame".

We live in an age in which people "throw the first stone" all the time -- standing up as each others' accusers and judges with the same certainty as Sarah. We criticize and call down judgment on others routinely, showing no restraint in harshness or certainty about the other party being totally in the wrong, about being entitled to put ourselves above someone else and call down judgment on them. We might want to think twice about that.

Lost in translation: When one verse can mean two things

Hebrew, in its ancient form, was a language where the vowels were left unwritten. That is to say: the original texts of the Old Testament did not have the vowel marks written in. Later, when the vowels were added, sometimes more than one reading was possible.

Imagine if someone reading English saw a word written as only the consonants "strk". What does that mean: Stark? Strike? Stork? Stroke? The surrounding words can help piece together the likely meaning; still, sometimes we cannot be completely sure about which word was meant.

The ancient Hebrew sages had an interesting approach to this problem. They allowed more than one reading of the letters. By considering more than one word in these places, they could take more than one meaning from the same verse.

Consider this verse from the Psalms which, according to the Talmud, was sometimes read in two different ways:

"Come, behold the works of the Lord, who has made desolations in the earth." (Psalm 46:8)

OR

"Come, behold the works of the Lord, who has made names in the earth." (Psalm 46:8)

Are they really both legitimate?
The comment in the Talmud supporting the alternate reading was:

Read not "shammoth" [desolations] but "shemoth" [names]. Berachoth 7b

If we keep in mind that the vowels were not in the original, we can take the sages' point that either reading is possible.

In reviewing the Biblical commentaries in the Talmud, it is common to see two different wordings allowed for the same verse. Here are only a few of the other instances in the Talmud:

• Read not "sabe'a" [satisfied] but "sheba'" [seven].
  
• Read not "morashah" [inheritance] but "me'orasah" [betrothed].
  
• Read not "goyim" [nations] but "ge'im" [lords].
  
• Read not "adam" [a man] but "edom" [an Edomite].
  
• Read not "be-fares" [when he scatters] but "befaresh" [when one pronounces distinctly]
  
• Read not "be-zalmon" [in Zalmon] but "be-zalmaweth" [in the shadow of death]

There are literally hundreds of uses of this principle in the Talmud; it was a well-accepted and established practice. And, given the lack of vowels in the original, it was appropriate to the original language.

Consider one more possible example of this principle, this time coming from a New Testament reference back to the ancient Hebrew prophets:

He went out and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He shall be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2:23)

There is no Old Testament text that is customarily translated that way, calling the Messiah a Nazarene. But apparently, there is a text that could have been translated to refer to the Messiah as a Nazarene, if another acceptable reading of the same letters had been chosen. The church fathers traced that reference in Matthew back to Isaiah 11:1, but not in the Greek translations that they often used; only in the Hebrew texts. The "branch" from Isaiah 11:1 is "netzer", very much like the town Nazareth and its people the Nazarenes. So the New Testament authors may well have been using the accepted principle of using different readings with the same root letters: read not "branch" but "Nazarene".

Blessing the Wine: An ancient Jewish tradition sheds light on Jesus' last supper

Many Christian churches still follow the ancient practice of blessing the wine for communion. We trace our practice back to what Jesus did when he celebrated his last supper:

And he took the cup, and gave thanks ... (Matthew 26:27)
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them (Mark 14:23)
And he took the cup, and gave thanks ... (Luke 22:17)

The gospels do not go into exact details on what was involved in blessing the wine. We can see that the blessing was a hands-on action that required taking the cup in hand and giving thanks, but we know little more than that directly from the Scriptures.

An ancient Jewish source, the Talmud, goes into details on what went into a Jewish blessing over wine. Some of the instructions seem obscure to us today, for instance: the one who blesses is wrapped, possibly in a robe.* Some of the instructions seem obvious, for instance: the cup is washed / rinsed. And some of the instructions have been passed along to this day:

'It is taken in both hands': R. Hinena b. Papa said: What is the Scriptural warrant for this? -- Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord. [Psalm 134:2] (Berachoth 51a)

'He raises it a handbreadth from the ground': R. Aha b. Hanina said: What Scriptural text have we for this? -- I will lift up the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. [Psalm 116:13] (Berachoth 51b)

Compare those ancient Jewish instructions to some modern Christian instructions on how a priest is to bless the wine:

He returns to the middle of the altar, takes the chalice with both hands, raises it a little, and says quietly: Benedictus es, Domine (Blessed are you, Lord). (from p. 40, item 142)

There are other parts of blessing the wine mentioned in the Talmud as well: the one who blesses fixes his eyes on the cup, and after the wine is blessed, it is passed around to the members of the household. These are also familiar to many Christians from our own worship services.

This practice is not limited to Roman Catholics; steps just like these are followed by a variety of Christian groups around the world. Those words and gestures are following a pattern inherited from Judaism and passed down through the ages. They may well reflect Jesus' own actions that last night. While some parts of the practice may have dropped out -- such as being wrapped in a robe -- those parts that have survived are still clearly recognizable after roughly two thousand years.

As for the history of the liturgy -- the ancient form of worship celebrated in mainstream churches -- most parts of that liturgy have names in Latin, such as the Benedictus and the Nunc Dimittis. Just a few parts of the worship service are known even in Western churches by their Greek names. Greek was used earlier in the church than Latin, so it's likely that the parts that have kept their Greek names are among the most ancient parts: the Kyrie and the Eucharist.

---

* On the robe part, the Talmud mentions a disagreement on whether that was necessary. I also did not see any Scriptural warrant cited for the practice, unlike some of the others.

Jesus in the Wilderness: Why the Tempter Left

These thoughts are in the style of how the ancients pondered over Scripture in the Talmud. After Jesus had been in the wilderness, we read that the tempter left and that the angel of the Lord came.

Why did the tempter leave Jesus?

Because the tempter went in search of someone who would yield to sin, as it is written, "Evil pursues sinners," (that is, not the righteous). Proverbs 13:21.

Because Scripture was in his heart, as it says, "I will keep your words in my heart, that I might not sin against You." (Psalm 119:11)

Because he resisted temptation, as it is written, "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)

And why did the angels come?

It is written, "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him." (Psalm 34:7) And again, "Let the angel of the Lord chase them away" -- that is, those who seek after his soul. (Psalm 35:5)

Jesus in context: "Follow me"

Jesus' sayings may carry more meaning than we recognize. We catch the plain meaning, but miss the references that would have been familiar to the people who first heard him.

Here, for instance, is one of the "touchstone texts" of ancient Judaism:

You shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. (Deuteronomy 13:4)

That same idea of walking after the LORD is quoted time and again in the Old Testament:

... made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD and to keep his commandments (2 Kinds 23:3)

... made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD and to keep his commandments (2 Chronicles 34:31)

... They shall walk after the LORD. (Hoseah 11:10)

There are more instances phrased the other way too, about not walking after other gods, or not walking after our own ways, or not walking after our evil imaginations.

The picture of walking after God was firmly ingrained in the Jewish mind down through the centuries. It continued into the days of the New Testament as the routine way that the people spoke, both among Jesus' disciples and his critics:

And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. (2 John 1:6)

... walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)

... them that walk after the flesh. (2 Peter 2:10)

Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders? (Mark 7:5)

In some translations we see "walk after" or something along those lines; in others we see it translated as "follow": To follow the LORD, and not to follow our flesh, or our imaginations, or other gods. So the idea is well-established: the people talked about true religion or false religion in terms of who or what they followed.

"Follow me." - Jesus

One of the things Jesus says most often is, "Follow me."

On being like God: Hospitality

God does not call us to be isolated followers; he calls us to fellowship. God is love, and he asks his followers to live in love. How can that be done in isolation? The New Testament instructs us to show hospitality to one another. But in many ways we have forgotten this teaching.

Peter, a leader among the apostles, writes:

And above all things, have fervent love among yourselves, for love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. (I Peter 4:8-9)

Peter writes as though the natural expression of love is hospitality. And still we are slow to open our homes to each other.

Peter wrote to all the members of the church: that we should offer hospitality to each other. If hospitality is required of the members, then how much more for the leaders. Paul lists it among the qualifications of a church leader:

An overseer must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach. (1 Timothy 3:2)

For church leaders, hospitality was given priority even over the ability to teach. I don't mean to neglect being blameless and all that; it tops off Paul's list. But the other things that Paul names are things we generally still expect of our church leaders. Why don't we expect leaders who are given to hospitality?

I have sometimes heard church leaders congratulate themselves on how they've finally stood up to their parishioners, who have asked: Shouldn't their parishioners be hospitable to them? Why then do the parishioners have any right to complain that their pastor never visits them or invites them over, if they have never taken the initiative and invited their pastor?

But the church leaders are called to lead -- and to lead by example. The thing about leading by example is that we're always setting an example, just maybe not a good one. If the church leaders do not invite their people and do not visit their people, they are leading all the same: they are showing by example that hospitality is not important here.

God calls us to be his people in the world. We become a people when we know and love each other. So the leader builds that group together by showing hospitality, and fellowship grows where people are welcomed.

God's hospitality

The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. (Matthew 22:2)

God is not what we would expect. Where we expect an Almighty Being to be remote and aloof, instead we see him warm and welcoming -- and specifically, warm and welcoming toward people, real ordinary people.

Jesus claimed that, in looking at him, we have a unique insight to God: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." So what do we see?

Some of the great sages of world religions -- particularly the "Eastern" religions -- have been solitary figures. When a painting or sculpture portrays them and their lives, we typically see them alone. Not so with Jesus. Sure, he had times of solitude and prayer. He observed a lengthy fast after his baptism. But for much of his ministry, we see him in company -- and enjoying the company.

Many of Jesus' conversations, passed down to us, took place when he was a guest at someone's home. There was the time when the woman broke the jar of perfume. And the time that Martha was getting all frustrated with Mary. There was the scandal he caused going to Matthew's home, and his answer about who it is that needs a doctor. There was another round of shock when he went to Zacchaeus' home. And of course there was the Last Supper in the upper room. Though we call that the Last Supper, he did meet them there again a few days later, after he had risen from the dead -- again, at dinner. Of all the times Jesus came to his disciples after the resurrection, I'm combing my memory here -- did all of them involve gathering with them at dinner or a meal? And he asked us to remember him by coming together for bread and wine, in his name.

Sometimes even the miracles took place in someone's home. He healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law after he had already been welcomed into their home.

And while Jesus was often the guest in someone else's home, he never seemed like he wanted to get back home; instead, he seemed to carry that welcome feeling of "home" with him, so that wherever he was, not only did he feel at home, but so did everyone else. Whenever I read the accounts of him in someone else's home, I get the feeling that these were the kinds of days where nobody wanted to leave at the end, where they were wishing it could last. "Home" was wherever Jesus was, and "family" could be anyone. (That's probably the point behind his telling his disciples they would have a hundred homes -- and as many sets of relatives.) Birds have nests and wild beasts have dens, and the Son of Man had no place to lay his head -- but those who traveled with him didn't seem to mind that so much, so long as he was there.

The miracles of feeding the multitudes were also acts of hospitality. And the first miracle -- the very first -- was an act of hospitality in Cana, to bring the wine to a wedding feast. And in the world to come, the gift of following Jesus is fellowship; it is the feast of salvation.

And he said to me: "Write, 'Blessed are they who are called to the wedding feast of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God." (Revelation 19:9).

There are some things about God that we do not consider as often as we should. God is a warm and generous God, a welcoming host.

On the fate of non-Israelites before Christ

One question that Christians debate is what happens to the people who died without knowing Jesus. There were entire nations and continents and eras of human history where nobody had ever heard the name Jesus. If salvation comes through Jesus, then how could they receive God's mercy? But if God is just, how can someone be cut off from the love of God because of where and when they were born?

Without going into all the layers of questions at once, I'd like to look at one closely-related subject: What, if anything, did the authors of the New Testament say about this topic? Did they talk as though they thought the people of other nations and earlier times were condemned?

I'm only aware of a few passages of the New Testament that specifically discuss this type of question about people who lived and died in the years before Christ. The first is Paul's sermon in Athens, addressing idol-worshipers:

From one man, God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. "For in him we live and move and have our being." As some of your own poets have said, "We are his offspring."

Therefore, since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone -- an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. And he has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:26-31, NIV, emphasis added on the parts that apply most directly).

Here Paul is speaking to idol-worshipers and talks about the whole sweep of human history up to his own day. Almost all of the people discussed are in groups that some people would assume are condemned; they lived before Christ's birth in lands that worshiped idols. But not once does Paul sound as if he thought they were automatically condemned. Paul could easily have said -- as some have said -- "God set some people to live in times and places before Christ's birth, because he knew he had not elected them to salvation, and there was no way they would reach out or find him." But Paul said nearly the opposite: that God did it so that people would seek him and perhaps reach out and find him, since he is not far from any of us. Paul might have said -- as some have said -- "They were guilty of idol-worship, a sin worthy of death, a sin against the law that is written on the human heart, so there is no injustice in condemning them even if they had never been given a law." But again, Paul said nothing of the sort; he said in the past God had overlooked such ignorance. We are accustomed to a system of laws where "ignorance is no excuse"; but according to Paul, God has a more merciful standard. Paul seems to assume that God overlooks sins caused by their ignorance.

Paul makes a point to say that God arranged history and nations so that people would seek him -- and Paul leaves open the possibility that they might find him. Paul said that no one was ever all that far from God.

There is one other passage in the New Testament that seems to talk about sin and salvation for people who lived in the times before Jesus' birth. Paul's letter to the Romans contains an extended section on the topic. This is a short excerpt:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. (Romans 5:12-14, though the surrounding material is also worth reviewing for a more in-depth discussion)

In Romans, much of the letter has something to say on the topic; this is just an example. In the earlier chapters Paul shows how thoroughly the whole world was caught up with sin and subject to death. Here we see again a group of people that was ignorant of the law, and ignorant of sin -- and still died. Paul again touches on the subject of ignorance: that sin is not taken into account when there is no law. But that did not stop death.

Paul does not end with talk of sin and death. His real point is about Christ:

Consequently, just as the result of the one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)

Paul spends some time discussing condemnation and salvation, discussing the people who lived before Christ; he never sounds as though he assumes they were lost. And -- strangely to our ears -- he never sounds as though he assumes Christ has nothing to do with them because of where and when they lived.

That leaves a lot of questions unanswered for the moment. Sometimes a question left unanswered may be better than a question answered incorrectly.

I'd be interested in other passages of the Bible that other people think about in connection with this topic.

I do have some more on this topic, but it comes from a completely different angle and will wait for another post.

A familiar verse, a different way to interpret it

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." -- Genesis 1:28

Reading the Talmud and overhearing the ancient sages interpret Scripture is fascinating to me. It is completely common to see a single verse discussed at length from one angle after another. What would happen if we interpreted this familiar Scripture above in that way?

I could picture a conversation on this verse much like the following. I hope I can be forgiven my poor attempts at dialog and imitating the general flavor of the conversations in the Talmud. Here is how I would picture a conversation on this verse, in the general style of the conversations in the Talmud:

First Student: "Did God bless them, or did God command them?"
Older student: "It is a command. He said two things, for it is written, 'God blessed them and said to them, etc".
Other student: "It is a blessing, for it is written, 'God blessed them.'"
First Teacher: "If you say the blessing and the command are two different things, if you say 'Be fruitful' is the command, then what is the blessing?"
Second Teacher: "The ancients have taught that this is a command for us. If you say 'be fruitful' is the blessing, then what is the command?"
First Teacher: "The blessing is fulfilled in living the command."

Third Teacher: "The ancients taught, 'God's Word here is part of the Words of Creation.' As God said 'Let there be light' and 'Let the earth produce life,' so the Holy One also said, 'Be fruitful.'"
Student: "But -- 'be fruitful' -- is it not the first command of the Torah?"
Third Teacher: "The first command of the Torah is part of the Words of Creation."
Second Teacher: "Are all the commands of the Torah part of the Words of Creation?"

First teacher: "He spoke from paradise. What blessing was needed in paradise?"
Third teacher: "The whole world was not paradise, as it says, 'And God planted a garden in the East.' Therefore the Holy One says, 'Fill the earth.'"

And so ends my flawed attempts to give you all an idea of the way a verse might look when it is discussed in the Talmud.

I mostly wanted to give you all an idea how "context" comes up in ways we might not expect. When a blessing and command are mentioned in the same verse, it raises the question whether there is a difference between a blessing and a command. When a saying of God occurs in the context of creation, it may be part of creation. And if the very first command of the Bible could be viewed as a blessing and as part of creation, it raises the same questions of all later commands.