We have looked in quite some detail at the roots of the Messianic idea in the Pentateuch and the Psalms, and the prophetic literature for its part has also shown us the main outline of the Messianic hope in the various stages of the history of Israel. Nevertheless, it is important from the Christian point of view to get into focus just what the Jews really thought about the Messiah's character, his birth, and furthermore, the possibility of his dying an atoning death.

Before the Second World War the renowned professor Ethelbert Stauffer of Erlangen University studied the Christology of the New Testament, attempting to elucidate it in the light of Rabbinic Judaism. After the war he published three extensive Jesus-studies, using his "x-ray method", setting a high value on John's gospel in particular as a source of Jesus' testimony to himself -- the Dead Sea Scrolls had, after all, restored it once again to its place of honour. This authority on the Near and Far East was nevertheless capable of saying that, "The Rabbinic tradition is mere polemics", and indeed that is the impression which remains if one's thoughts are filtered through the utterances of the Talmud. However, I believe we have already proved, in the light of the older literature which has not been subjected to the same censorship as the Talmud, that we have received a somewhat more positive impression. The Targum and Midrash in particular present the Messianic office from a wider, more universal point of view. The one-sidedness of the Israeli pioneer professor Josef Klausner was primarily in that, as an inheritor of the German cultural tradition, he saw no need to apply himself in any depth to the study of the Messianic portrait, in Midrash.

The old Jewish literature can be very perplexing as one might read hundreds of pages without finding a single thought touching on the hope of salvation. Fortunately, the potential Messianic interpretations can be found in the Targum from the corresponding Old Testament prophecies, and the Yalqut or 'portfolio' contains discussions of the relevant Talmudic references. Only the Midrash demands marathon reading. It is much easier to pick up the Messianic thread in the labyrinth of tradition when one is aware of these points of departure. Once, after the conquest of Old Jerusalem, I ventured, with two Finnish companions, into a cave which leads from under the floor of 'Solomon's mine' in the direction of the Mount of Olives and Jericho. We took fright, however, right at the beginning and turned back. An Arab guide, native to Jerusalem, told me he had spent almost an hour in that cave some weeks before, maintaining that to avoid getting lost in subsidiary passages it was advisable to trail out a thread onto the floor as one went forward, which would then show the way back. There was once a stone quarry in the great theatre-like vaults at the beginning of the cave, in which stones for the Temple were dressed. Thus "no hammer, chisel or any other tool" could be heard from this quarry. Nowadays the tunnel, into which I took my two friends, is closed by official order. However, it is now time for us to wind back our thread to its start and find out what we have learned.

The main theme running through the oldest strata of the Jewish literature concerns the origin and birth of the Messiah. We do, of course, already know from Micah 5:1 that "the origins" of the ruler who will be born in Bethlehem "are from old, from ancient times", and so it was that in the Middle Ages the interpretation was still given that he "was before the sun, moon and the course of the stars", and that "his contemporaries called him by the name 'El' ", which means 'God'. This also agrees with the name "the LORD Our Righteousness" in Jeremiah, and with Isaiah's various epithets applied to the Messiah. When the Rabbis seek to prove these ideas of theirs they use isolated verses from the Old Testament in support, something which modern theology considers to be by its very nature unscholarly.

We have seen that the "Messiah person" was involved right at the beginning in the creation account. When God said "Let there be light", he created the light of the Messiah. The Zohar tradition uses many words to describe the Messiah as being already in the "garden of Eden", where he drew up a new law "in which there are no 'thou-shalt' or 'thou-shalt-not' commands, zechut ôhovâh. The Messiah is the "seed of the woman", "the seed of Abraham", or just "another seed from another place". He is the "Mimra", through whom the world was created, and he is the "Word", without which "nothing was made". He will be born de-Rûah qudshâh, 'by the Holy Spirit'. The Rabbis speak of the same kind of "mystery of the number three", razei de-Sheloshâh, as do the Christians,even though these thoughts are but the "outer shell of an inner truth" and are like a "postulate" of practical reason. The Messiah is also the "son of the Most High, the son of the Holy one, may his name be blessed". "He was begotten by God." He sits at the right hand of God. He is Israel's "advocate" before God. All prayers should be addressed to God in the name of "Jesus, the Prince of the Presence". All of this dovetails with the message of consolation, for God is not a God of revenge but the God of mercy. Furthermore, we have seen in Rabbinic exegesis a strong Messianic hope, which is related both to the Messiah and to a wide, general eschatological perspective. If we wind the thread back we will see yet more features related to these issues, features which Christian Old Testament exposition has been unable to recognise as contributory factors to the Messianic expectation.

It must be understood that this Messianic hope, which can be found in the Jewish sources approved as normative, has already been through a twofold internal censorship. There remains, nevertheless, adequate material to support the authenticity of the New Testament's own interpretation.

The New Testament speaks of "the mystery of Christ" and of "signs" from which the trustworthiness of Jesus' Messiahship can be deduced. This agrees with the intrinsic nature of the Messianic idea on the one hand and with the Rabbis' way of speaking on the other hand. The historico-critical method is unable to penetrate thinking of this kind, especially if it is not even interested in the Hebrew source texts. We saw at the outset that the basic aim of the topika, in disciplines which we would categorise as idiographic, is to map out the "leading viewpoints" into their respective places and to reveal each issue's topos or 'place' in man's consciousness. This, in practice, is an attempt to understand the way of thought of the period in question. From the point of view of our subject, then, we will try to make clear what grounds the New Testament had for interpreting the Christ in the way that it has done. This always presupposes the choice of an appropriate source material and a wide "topographic" mapping out.

We have already seen some of the "signs" from which the Rabbis drew their conclusions. Isaiah 7:14 in describing the birth of the Messiah says:

"Therefore the LORD himself will give you a SIGN: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanu EL."

"This will be a SIGN to you: You will find a child... "

The main characteristic, found throughout the traditional Jewish exegesis and equally in the New Testament, is the way in which the Bible is handled associatively. The best example of this might be in the Midrash's exposition of psalm 2 which connects the word bar, 'son', with several Messianic prophecies in Isaiah, with the Son of Man in Daniel, and with the Messiah who sits at the right hand of God in psalm 110.

We will look in some depth at the background to the virgin birth of Jesus in the NT volume of our ROOTS book. But we have already, however, seen clearly that the oldest uncensored Jewish source texts speak abundantly of the Messiah's supra-historical characteristics and even make cryptic references to his miraculous birth. The most remarkable of these is to be found in the Zohar tradition, to which a certain scholar of Jewish origin has referred. In Isaiah 9:6 we read: "For to us a child is born" and "of the INCREASE OF HIS GOVERNMENT and peace there will be no end". In copying the Scriptures the Hebrew scribes were unwilling to change any detail, even to correct obvious spelling mistakes, such as we find in the Hebrew of this verse, fearing that later copyists might make their own corrections and that the process could go on ad infinitum. Here, the 'm' in the middle of the word le-Marbe, 'of-the-increase', which was at some stage in the transmission of the text accidentally changed to a "closed" or "final" 'm', has been preserved uncorrected. The Midrash on Ruth, one of the oldest, asking why this 'm' is closed, comes to the conclusion that Hezekiah should have been the Messiah but the matter was "delayed". The Zohar on the other hand decides that the closed 'm' refers to the fact that the Messiah will be born from a "closed womb". Perhaps such things were in Professor David Flusser's mind when, on a visit to Finland in the summer of 1984, he was asked for his views on the New Testament's most difficult questions. Of the resurrection of Jesus he stated categorically:

"It is a historical fact...  I was not there at the tomb myself, of course, but the resurrected Jesus did manifest himself to his disciples. It cannot, it is true, be scientifically verified. It is ultimately a matter of faith"

"Nor does that go against Jewish thinking."

"Historical" criticism is forced to content itself with the witnesses of Matthew and Luke the Physician, which state baldly that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and of a virgin. The language and thought of both gospels is so Hebraic that a bridge to the mythological imagery of the Greeks can only with great difficulty be constructed. And again, the fact that John and Mark do not give a description of Jesus' birth is explained by the fact that both were written, according to the Jerusalem school, later than Matthew and Luke, and both would thus be well acquainted with the careful work of their predecessors. Mark, nevertheless, stresses at the very beginning of his gospel that Jesus is the "Son of God", and John, in the style of Paul, insists on the pre-existence of Christ, that he was "the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15). The fifth chapter of 2nd Corinthians tells us that, "God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ". If we do not accept Christ's supra-historical characteristics even the doctrine of the atonement will lose its foundation.

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth has been opposed by the late John A.T.Robinson, former Bishop of Woolwich, and more recently by the Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins. Regarding these matters, however, historical criticism can claim nothing with any certainty, whereas revelatory-historical study teaches how they can be understood.

The many cryptic names for the Messiah in the Jewish literature make a further contribution to our understanding of his origin and character, even if Mowinckel considers them "enigmatic and half humorous".⁵⁶ It will be of some help to see the majority of these epithets collected together: In Isaiah 9:5 we find a ready-made list, from which we learn that he will be called: "Wonderful Cousellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." The Targum elucidates this verse, saying: "His name has been from ancient times... " and, regarding the 'Everlasting Father' part, that "the Messiah has been for ever".

In various contexts we have set out the following names which are used to describe the Messiah: BEN PâRETS and PORêTS (Gen. 38:29 and Micah 2:13), SHILO (Gen. 49:10), SOREQA or 'noble vine' (Gen. 49:11 and John 15:1), MASHIA .H or 'anointed' (Ps. 2:2 and Daniel 9:26), THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT (Mal. 3:1), THE SECOND MOSES (Deut. 18:18), THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer. 23:6, 33:16), PENUEL and PENIEL (Gen. 32:30), THE PRINCE OF THE PRESENCE and THE ANGEL OF THE PRESENCE (Is. 63:9), METATRON and MIMRA (Zohar), YINNON (Ps. 72:17), MORâH 'the One to be feared' (Ps 76:12), THE FIRST (Is. 41:27), THE CORNERSTONE (Ps. 118:22), THE TOUCHSTONE (Is. 28:16), THE SON OF DAVID (Hosea 3:5), NEHORA or Light (Dan. 2:22), COMFORTER (Lam. 1:16, Is. 52:9),  HADRACH or 'sharp and tender' (Zech. 9:1),  HANINA or Mercy (Jer. 16:13), BAR NAPHLI,  ANANI or BEN ANANIM (Amos 9:11), EPHRAIM or EPHRAIM SON OF JOSEPH and THE MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH (Jer. 31:9). In addition the Rabbinic tradition associates BAR ENASH or 'Son of Man' with the Messiah (Dan. 7:13).⁵⁷

A similar contribution to the message of Messianic hope is made by the Old Testament's eight Hebrew words reminiscent of the 'Branch' idea: TSEMA .H, (Zech. 6:12, Is. 4:2, Jer. 23:6), NETSER, (Is. 11:1), HOTER (Is. 11:1), SHôRESH (Is. 11:10 and 53:2), YINNON (Ps. 72:17) and TSAMERET or RôSH YENIKOTâV (Ezek. 17:4,22). In the NIV these are translated respectively as: 'Branch' (the first two), 'shoot', 'root', 'let it flourish', 'topmost shoot' and 'sprig from its topmost shoot'. The precise meaning of the expression rôsh yenikotâv in Ezekiel's prophecy is 'head of the sucklings', which says that the 'topmost shoot' more or less "sucks" in the tree's liquid. The same root appears in the form YONêK, 'suckling', when Isaiah 53:2 says:

"He grew up before him like a TENDER SHOOT, and like a root out of dry ground."

The historical and spiritual message of the 'branch' concept became more clear to me in Israel in the Winter of 1968 in a situation which had its own humorous side. I had said in the evening to a friend of mine, a Christian Jew, as we stood on the balcony of my house that there was a whiff of snow in the air. "Well," he said, using a Hebrew saying, "you're a prophet if it comes to pass". When I came back home at night from my duties I went again to the balcony, but the Jerusalem night no longer hinted at imminent snow. Nevertheless, at around five o'clock I was awakened by what sounded like a rifle shot, followed by a deep silence -- not even the usual noise of cars, dogs or cats ( one morning we counted 13 cats in the olive tree in our garden!). Half in fun I reached over to see if my wife was still there; yes she was, so the Rapture had not just taken place! Then I remembered what I had said in the evening. Opening the blinds and I beheld with triumph a half-metre thick covering of damp snow on the balcony. My rude awakening had been caused by the tree in the neighbour's garden snapping in two under the weight of the snow.

Some days later an Arab gardener came with his new chainsaw, cut what was left of the tree down to about chest height and then made deep wounds in various parts of the trunk with what looked like a meat-cleaver. We stood and marvelled at this, wondering why it was that back in Finland we could not afford to leave such long stumps. What would we stand to lose? Hardly a month had gone by when my wife called me to the balcony to admire the sight from over the neighbour's wall: the cut and wounded trunk was full of shoots of new hope. From the wounds of the tree there was springing forth new life!

The Messianic hope is bound up with the history of the Jewish people. The tribe of Judah was taken into exile and the family tree of Jesse was cut off from its trunk. From the sole of the foot to the top of the head there was "no soundness -- only wounds and welts and open sores" (Is.1:6). However, a new shoot of hope began to grow out of the despair, and the stump of Jesse hid within itself the promise of life. One day even the "nations will rally to [the root of Jesse]", and the Messiah will be a "banner for the peoples" (Is. 11:10). God will preserve a remnant of Israel, "the meek and the humble, who trust in the name of the LORD" (Zeph. 3:12). In that day the "poorest of the poor will find pasture" and the "afflicted" of the people of the LORD will find refuge in Zion" (Is. 14:30--32). But the Messiah is also a comforter and restorer of the spirit (Lam. 1:16) on the level of the individual.

Using Gematria, the Rabbis saw a certain connection between the words TSEMAH, 'Branch' and MENAHEM, 'Comforter'. TSEMA .H = 90+40+8 = 138 and MENAHEM = 40+50+8+40 = 138. Seen also from this angle the Branch concept still implies a message of hope. On the other hand the word NETSER has additional Messiah epithets associated with it, as for example the Aramaic word NATRONA or NETIRUTA. Both the Hebrew and the Aramaic words are formed from the verb "to watch, guard" -- the name 'Nazareth' originally meant an 'observation point'. The Messiah is thus a Guardian and a Protector. Matthew 2:23 is thus rendered intelligible. We read there that Jesus' parents "went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fullfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene' ". This strange interpretation relates to the mention in Is. 11:1 of the Branch, NETSER, the root of which word, as we saw, yielding two Aramaic Messiah epithets.

We have seen that the birth and character of the Messiah are often described in the Rabbinic literature using supra-historical figures and terminology. The Messiah has been since before the creation and was himself involved in the act of creation. The Rabbis see enigmatic features in his secret names. The Messianic prophecies themselves are, on the whole, however, grounded in history. From the New Testament's point of view it is essential that the Christ be the Son of God. The Rabbinic tradition does not consider it impossible that the Messiah will fulfil this requirement both as regards his miraculous birth and his origins. The doctrine of the atonement likewise is founded upon the statement that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself".
----------
54.    Judges 21:12 and 1 Kings 1:2
55.    See the dictionary Milôn Hadash p1189.
56.    S. Mowinckel, He that Cometh, p293.
57.    See San. 98b.