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

I know you by name, said the LORD

When I meet a new person, there is a time before I know their name. Even after the introductions take place, I may still struggle with their name. It doesn't have to be a complicated name or an unfamiliar name, just a person I don't know well yet. Once I know a person better, their name sticks in my mind more easily. Knowing someone's name is generally a sign of a friendlier relationship, something more familiar. Once I have a connection with someone I know their name, and it stays with me. The person means something to me, so I have a name for them. 

"You (Moses) have found grace in my sight, and I know you by name." (Exodus 33:17)

"He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out." (John 10:3)

God does not merely "know our name" for the sake of displaying his omniscience. It is not to brag on the extent of his knowledge or show off his skill. It is to show that we have found favor in his sight, and he will be a leader to us. He "knows our name" in the sense that we mean something to him. 

Long-time married folks' best advice on staying married

It is rare that I take inspiration from the comment section of another conversation. But I think the content here merits it. This post asked the long-married couples for the best advice on staying married. 

The comment thread was lively, so I enlisted a bot to help summarize, which it did based on the most frequently echoed and highly engaged pieces of advice among the responses. 

Top 10 Pieces of Advice from the Comments

1. Put God (or faith) at the center of your marriage. 
   This topped the list and dominated replies, often cited as the unbreakable foundation.
   "A cord of three strands is not easily broken - Ecc.4:12."
   
   
2. Never go to bed angry—resolve conflicts before sleep
   A near-universal tip, emphasizing daily emotional resets to prevent resentment buildup.
   
   
3. Forgive quickly and let go of grudges
   Quick forgiveness was hailed as essential for longevity, avoiding the poison of prolonged hurt.
   
   
4. Prioritize regular date nights and intentional time together
   Couples stressed keeping romance alive through consistent effort, no matter the life stage.
   
   
5. Remove divorce as an option—commit fully from day one
   Blunt and recurring: Treat "divorce" as a forbidden word to weather storms.
   
   
6. Prioritize your spouse above all others (except God)
   Family, kids, or parents come second—your marriage is the core unit.
   Example comment: "Never put any human before your spouse. Not parents, siblings or even children. Only God comes before your spouse."
   
   
7. Choose a partner who makes you laugh
   Humor as a buffer for hardships; select for joy, not just compatibility checklists.
   
   
8. Love sacrificially, like Christ loves the Church
   Selfless, unconditional love—putting your partner's needs first consistently.
   
   
9. Address your own selfishness as the real issue
   Shift focus inward: Marriage problems often stem from personal flaws, not just the other's.
   Example comment: "Treat your own selfishness as the main problem in the marriage," quoting Timothy Keller
   
   
10. Avoid infidelity at all costs (including family temptations)
    Practical warnings against betrayal, often with humor but deadly serious undertones.

Awe, wonder, and reverence: Experiences that cleanse

Some emotions cannot coexist. Awe, wonder, and reverence are bone-deep emotions that cleanse away fear or malice or resentment. As such they cleanse our souls, as we would hope for any near-experience of God. 

It is healing for my soul to make room for awe and wonder. It is refreshing to make room for reverence. And by making room, I mean clearing the obstacles, setting aside the time on my schedule, and seeking those solitudes where I most often meet God and know his presence. 

While I value meditations on the word of God, that is not what I mean here. I mean the more primal, pre-verbal, deep-resonance perception of God. I may seek a sight of the stars that declare the glory of God. I may arrange a moment where I see the light on the water for a moment that restores my soul. These are Sabbath moments. 

In our culture, "irreverent" has become a compliment, particularly for "irreverent humor." I suspect that "irreverent humor" erodes our capacity for reverence, even more than short-form content can erode our  attention spans. I have met devoted Christians who distrust reverence, who assume that reverence is false reverence. But there is a genuine reverence that we know in our quieter moments. Reverence is intensely wholesome, removing bitterness and cynicism at the root. The longer I stay in those moments, the more the peacefulness deepens. 

May I make it part of my practice to seek and pursue those occasions to focus on the glory of God. 

Thanksgiving 2025

This year has been (mostly) a good and productive year. I am grateful for my children, my Bible-study friends, my recovery-group friends, a safe home, health, food, and relative peace. 

Wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving, safe travels, and kind company.  

Spiritual exercise and challenge: no unwholesome talk

"Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear." - Ephesians 4:29

Recently in a Bible study, someone passed along this challenge first heard from a group of Christian friends: starting first thing in the morning, see how far they could get through the day before some unwholesome talk came out of their mouths. (That included drive time and whatever they might say to or about other drivers while driving.) In the original challenge, they were reporting back to their group for accountability, humility, fellowship, and possibly some laughter at their own human frailty. 

That was too good a challenge to ignore, so I have taken up the challenge when I recall it, and wanted to pass it along to those who are striving to be more Christlike. 

A dark view of human nature -- and the road to fellowship

Human nature, without fellowship with God, is ungodly. And human nature, without fellowship with each other, tends to the inhumane. 

Sometimes I hear the objection that the Christian view of humanity is too dark. We dislike the idea that we struggle with our own natures, that there are intrinsic problems with our natures. That raises a lot of questions, not least of which is: what good could it possibly do to focus on that? We'll get there before the end of this post. But let's start here: Is that view unique to Christianity? 

Another world religion

Do other religions see humanity as struggling against evil? Buddhism's quest for enlightenment implies that most of us spend our lives in the dark. The eightfold path includes (among other things) right intention and right action, implying that naturally our actions and intentions are not right. The other points of the eightfold path also show that we struggle to have the right understanding or view, right speech, and so forth for all the facets of ourselves. 

Academics

Outside of religion we find the academic realm colliding with the same reality. History can be a general way to understand the human story, and is full of dark episodes. The same can be said of literature, where many stories show a struggle with either unjust opposition or, more humanly, with our own character flaws. 

Psychology

In psychology there are different ways to understand our human condition. For example, Jungian psychology speaks of our shadow, or dark side. Evolutionary psychology places our behavior firmly within the animal realm, where "morality" may not even be a legitimate rubric to apply to humanity. 

The point

We can look at the problem from any angle we wish; we are still looking at the problem. 

It is tempting to avoid recognizing the dark, unenlightened, or shadowy parts of ourselves. Though the struggle is universal, is it humbling. But those are the two biggest gains from recognizing those parts of ourselves: humility, and universal fellowship. What good could it possibly do to wrestle with the reality of the darkness within us? On the other side of facing that unpleasant truth is a warmer regard for the human condition, a lessening of hostility, a growth of compassion. All the serious methods for understanding ourselves insist on facing the problem: without understanding that about ourselves, we still have that peculiar fatal flaw that hinders humility and fellowship. This kind of enlightenment prevents any pride in its attainment.