In his book, Jesus, Rabbi and Lord: A Lifetime’s Search for the Meaning of Jesus’ Words, Robert L. Lindsey,[13] of beloved memory, explains how Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 is more than a simple confession that Jesus is the Messiah, and definitely not the first time that Peter or the other disciples realized that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.[14] Lindsey’s discovery demonstrates that by putting the text back into Hebrew and understanding the cultural usage of the language, an element of the story is revealed that has been overlooked by some scholars.
Contrary to the view of many scholars that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah and that his disciples only added this notion at a later time, Lindsey’s discoveries demonstrate that subtle Hebraic elements in the text reveal that Jesus did in fact claim to be the long-awaited Messiah. However, these elements also imply that Jesus was to be much more than the expected Messiah. Traditional Jewish views of the Messiah did not promote the view that the Messiah would in some sense be divine or God incarnate. As Lindsey points out, in this gospel passage the revelation is not of messiahship but divine messiahship.
Premium Members and Friends of JP must be signed in to view this content.
If you are not a Premium Member or Friend, please consider registering. Prices start at $5/month if paid annually, with other options for monthly and quarterly and more: Sign Up For Premium
- [1] Isa. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6; 44:6; Ezek. 34; Dan. 7:13-14; Ps. 89:26-37. ↩
- [2] Chana Safrai, “The Kingdom of Heaven and the Study of Torah,” in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (ed. R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), 182. ↩
- [3] Deut. Rabbah 7:6 (Soncino, p. 137). ↩
- [4] R. Menahem was a fifth generation Amora from Israel citing R. Bebai who was a third generation Amora in Israel. ↩
- [5] A Babylonian Amora of the third century. ↩
- [6] Talmud Babli: Hebrew/English Edition (Soncino, 1994). ↩
- [7] A Tanna of the second century and disciple of Ishmael. He engaged in the study of ma’aseh merkavah (Jewish mysticism) (b. Hag. 13a). ↩
- [8] The Zohar: An English Translation 1:102b (Soncino, 1984), 329. ↩
- [9] See Shmuel Safrai’s “The Value of Rabbinic Literature as an Historical Source.” ↩
- [10] John 8:58-59. ↩
- [11] John 10:25-33. ↩
- [12] Similarly, Lindsey discovered an incident in the early years of the ministry of Jesus recorded in Luke 5:17-26 and Mark 2:1-12 where Mark writes “scribes” and Luke writes “Pharisees and the teachers of the law,” who thought Jesus had blasphemed by saying to a paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven you.” When he put the text back into Hebrew, Lindsey realized that Jesus was using words that the people understood were only used by God himself, thus speaking as though he were God (Jesus, Rabbi and Lord, 50-52). ↩
- [13] See the chapter, “What Did Peter Say.” ↩
- [14] John 1:19-51. ↩
Comments 5
Clifton Payne made some solid conclusions, based on solid evidence, that certainly includes his conclusion that when Yeshua said that He Himself will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Yeshua was, most likely, hinting that He is ADONAI, which Yeshua was likely hinting to by alluding to a Jewish tradition that, very likely, was already a well-established, well-known traditional Jewish teaching (which was part of the Oral Torah) that already existed at that time. That traditional Jewish teaching that Yeshua was, very likely, hinting at during the Mathew 16:19 event certainly dates earlier to when it was finally recorded (i.e., written about) in b. Sanhedrin, b. Ta’an, Genesis Rabbah, Deuteronomy Rabbah, 2 Baruch, and the Zohar. Just as one cannot date Dr. Martin Luther King’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech to the date of an encyclopedia article in which that speech is quoted, one cannot date a Jewish saying or tradition to when it was finally quoted or written about in a work of Jewish literature (such as a Talmudic book, a book that is part of midrashic literature, a book that is part of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, or the Zohar). Great job, Mr. Clifton Payne! I encourage you to keep up the good work!
Author
Thank you Eric for your kind words and your encouragement.
This is truly a great article!
Many of the sources you quote from such as the Rabbah commentaries are from a much later source, starting from around 600 A,D and just as with the Talmud the comments and discussions were among the sages themselves and not taught to the Am’haretz. You quote Yeshua ” “I and the Father are one,”The word Heis the cardinal number for ONE in Greek (pronounced ACE) is used in the NT over 607 x’s with a multiplicity of meanings depending on the words it is joined to and what the speaker/writer is trying to convey. Without going into a long comparison of texts showing how it was used in all places I’d like to focus on just two, they are JN10:30 & JN17:11,21-23. In JN 10:30 Yeshua says, “I and the Father are one.” Here the meaning is not one and the same, but rather metaphorically, “union” and “concord,”( harmony and agreement) e. g., John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11,21-22;(Vines expository of NT words). Also in Thayers, “to be united most closely (in desire,& spirit”) John 10:30; 17:11,21-23; So Yeshua is saying that he is one with the Father in goal and purpose in bringing about the desires of the Father as in JN 17 he also prays that his disciples will be of the same spirit being ONE with he and the Father in goal and purpose. “Many being gather together into one”, John 11:52;( Friberg Analytical Greek Lexicon). Yeshua goes on to disclaim any divinity for himself with, ” 38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me,( that is doing the works) and I in the Father ( doing what he tells me to do) (Joh 10:38) Another point you touch on is the Phrase, The Son of Man. While this term is mentioned in some Jewish writings it was not meant as a divine status but rather a special Man that would be the the epitome of Man in the image of Elohim. Ezekiel is called “Son of man” did that make him divine? In Ps 8:4 David says, What is mankind?” The singular noun אֱנוֹשׁ (‘enosh, “man”) is used here in a collective sense and refers to the human race. The same goes for the Son of man where Ben Adam it’s used in a collective sense and of course Yeshua was a part of.
Author
In response to maggid’s comments, without writing an entire article, I would refer readers to the many articles in Jerusalem Perspective that give the reasoning for using Rabbinic text to aid New Testament studies. While many text such as Midrash Rabbah were written down centuries later they do contain material that is much older. Paul’s use of Midrash in chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians is a prime example (ie. “the rock that followed them’). In referring to the assertion that “Son of Man” was not used as a divine title I would refer the reader to the numerous articles in Jerusalem Perspective and to Jewish scholars such as Alan Segal (Two Powers in Heaven) and Daniel Boyarin (numerous books and articles). The High Priest Caiaphas clearly understood Jesus use of “Son of Man” as divine when he tears his robes and declares that Jesus has spoken blaspheme. Jewish traditions have been passed orally from before the time of Jesus to our own day. Even some Jewish traditions practiced today have their origin before the time of Jesus. A prime example are wedding traditions among orthodox Jews. Understanding the Jewish environment of Jesus is crucial to correctly understanding his words.