Why is it important for Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah if you're not Jewish?

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
7,113
Reaction score
596
Points
108
Location
Scotland
It occurred to me last night - there's a lot of stock in Jesus being the Jewish Messiah - but, why does that matter if his teachings were for the gentiles, not the Jews, and therefore Jewish beliefs are not important? In other words, if Christians are not Jews, why would it matter whether Jesus fulfilled a Jewish prophecy or not? If Jesus had not been seen as a Jewish Messiah, but instead one for a Celtic or Egyptian or Greek or Norse religion, that would also have been acceptable?

Just thought I'd ask. :)
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me your question is entirely premised on Jesus’ teachings actually being directed to non-Jews not to Jews. I obviously don’t have the depth of Christian knowledge of other members here, but I’m not sure you’ll find much support for that supposition.
 
It occurred to me last night - there's a lot of stock in Jesus being the Jewish Messiah - but, why does that matter if his teachings were for the gentiles, not the Jews, and therefore Jewish beliefs are not important? In other words, if Christians are not Jews, why would it matter whether Jesus fulfilled a Jewish prophecy or not? If Jesus had not been seen as a Jewish Messiah, but instead one for a Celtic or Egyptian or Greek or Norse religion, that would also have been acceptable?

Just thought I'd ask. :)
Maybe your question is, why does it or should it matter to non-Jewish Christians to think that he was the Messiah? One reason might be that the gospel stories seem to be saying that he was. Another might be because that’s what the title “Christ” means. If you’re asking, what actual difference does it make to non-Jewish people, I don’t think it does make any actual difference. In my own understanding of the Bible the only reason it ever mattered was for Jews to know that faithfulness to him was faithfulness to God.
 
It occurred to me last night - there's a lot of stock in Jesus being the Jewish Messiah - but, why does that matter if his teachings were for the gentiles, not the Jews, and therefore Jewish beliefs are not important? In other words, if Christians are not Jews, why would it matter whether Jesus fulfilled a Jewish prophecy or not? If Jesus had not been seen as a Jewish Messiah, but instead one for a Celtic or Egyptian or Greek or Norse religion, that would also have been acceptable?

Just thought I'd ask. :)
Jesus teachings were for His people the Jews. He stated He came for them. It wasnt until His resurrection that salvation was open for gentiles. John the Baptist was considered the last of the OT prophets.
 
Jesus preached to the Jews, not to the Gentiles.

I think it was understood in Jewish belief that salvation for all would come through the Jews, that in a sense they are the elder brother of the world, and that the sign of the summation of all things would be the Gentile world turning to the Jews ... I think Paul saw his mission to the Gentiles as essentially a fulfilment of Jewish prophecy.

Certainly for Matthew and Luke, positioning Jesus in the context of a prophetic Davidic heritage was necessary, both evangelists do some fancy footwork to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. In Mark, he just turns up on the Baptist's doorstep, as he does in John.
 
Hi iBrian

iBrian asked: “…there's a lot of stock in Jesus being the Jewish Messiah - but, why does that matter if his teachings were for the gentiles, not the Jews, and therefore Jewish beliefs are not important? “

1) I think It matters because the Judeo-Christian messiah and his teachings and covenants with him are for the world, not merely for a single group of people


THE PROMISE OF THE MESSIAH AND FORGIVENESS OF SIN ARE FOR THE WORLD AND NOT SIMPLY FOR ISRAEL

As the Midrash Sifri (Deut 343) points out, the Lord offered the Torah/Gospel to all nations. He is not merely the Messiah/Savior of the Jews, but rather he is the Savior of the entire world.

Thus the ancient Yahwist texts says, describing the plan of God as carried out through all generations and all peoples: “...and I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts; Noah and the generation of the flood, their deeds and their thoughts;....Abraham and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts......the teachers of the children in Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; the teachers of the children of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts;...all the prophets of Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; all the prophets of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts...And I saw: the Messiah the son of Joseph and his generation, and all that they will do to the gentiles..... 3rd Enoch 45:1-5;

This concept of world-wide salvation and not merely salvation of Israel is sprinkled throughout the Old testament era texts.

For example, Isaiah 42:6 says I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles”. The word “Gentiles” in the masoretic here is “goyim”, (וְאֶצָּרְךָ, וְאֶתֶּנְךָ לִבְרִית עָם--לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם) referring to “non-jews. Similarly the LXX of Isa 42:6 says “και εδωκα σε εις διαθηκην γενους εις φως εθνων (i.e. the “nations”, an idiom for non-israel).

Similarly, Psalms 2:8 uses goyim (i.e. the non-israel nations) as the Lords inheritance.
“Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.”


The same is true of other pre-christian Yahwistic literature. The texts tells us the messiah is a staff “for the righteous ones” and not merely for israel. The texts reads:

“He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him: they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression (together with) all its ways of life and its habits in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life.” 1st Enoch 48:1-7;


Luke 24:47
also uses the Greek form for “the nations” (εθνη) “…and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem…”

The ancient Judeo-Christian prayers reflect this doctrine that the Messiah is not merely the messiah of the Jews, but of non Israel as well. Hellenistic synagogal prayer #5 says of the Messiah: “For by him you brought the gentiles to yourself, for a treasured people, the true Israel, the friend of God, who sees God”. Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #5

The apostolic Father Clement, who was a convert of the apostle Peter and co-worker with Paul also relates this same ancient principle, saying: “But of his Son the Master spoke thus: You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the Gentiles for your inheritance and the ends of the earth for your possession.” 1st Clement 36:4

Thus New Testament Matthew reflects this same principle, saying : “And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”Matthew 12:21

While most texts of Matt 1:21 say he will save his “people”, from their sins, the syrus Curetonianus variant of the New Testament says “for he will save the world (κοσμος) from their sins” (Matt 1:21)



iBrian asked: "…if Christians are not Jews, why would it matter whether Jesus fulfilled a Jewish prophecy or not?“


I am not sure that I understand this question. Are you asking why the Christians care about Jewish prophecy of a Messiah?
IF this is your question, then I think it matters since the promise is that the Messiah would save all nations from sin and not just Israel and thus the promise of a redeemer applies to the Christians (and all others) as well.

Good luck iBrian in forming your own models regarding what these things mean and how to apply them.
 
Abraham's grandson Jacob was renamed Israel (“one who wrestles with God”), and his 12 sons became the tribes of Israel.
From them came the Hebrews, later known as Israelites, and eventually Jews (from “Judah,” one of the tribes). So the “Jewish people” developed over time as a covenant lineage, not a preexisting ethnic group.
In the biblical framework, the Messiah had to:
  • Fulfill God’s promises to Abraham (blessing all nations through his seed),
  • Fulfill the law and prophets given to Israel,
  • Reclaim the Davidic kingship (a descendant of David, of Judah’s tribe),
  • And be recognized as the legitimate fulfillment of centuries of prophecy.
It’s about continuity of revelation — if Jesus appeared disconnected from this line, His claim to fulfill prophecy wouldn’t hold.
The Hebrew Bible itself says God chose them not because they were mighty, but because they were few and He wanted to show His faithfulness (Deut. 7:7–8). The idea is theological: divine power shown through weakness. A minor desert tribe becomes the setting for world redemption — not through empire or military might, but through covenant faith.

Israel sat at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe — a trade and cultural hub. That location made it the perfect stage for spreading ideas quickly once Rome unified the Mediterranean world.
By the time of Jesus, Jewish monotheism, scriptures, and synagogues were already present across the Roman Empire — essentially a spiritual infrastructure for the spread of Christianity.

So, in summary:
  • Abraham was chosen from Mesopotamia → covenant begins.
  • His descendants become Israel → a people defined by covenant, not race.
  • From Judah’s line comes the Messiah → fulfilling prophecy and covenant.
  • God uses a small nation at the world’s crossroads → influence far beyond its size.
So Jesus “coming through the Jews” isn’t about their ethnic origin — it’s about the continuity of covenant history, prophetic legitimacy, and strategic timing in world history.
 
By the first century C.E., the people of Judea were suffocating under Roman occupation, desperate for liberation. What they sought was not a philosopher or a teacher, but a messiah: a strong, commanding figure who could break the chains of foreign rule and restore the sovereignty of Israel. Among the various Jewish sects of the time, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and especially the apocalyptic Essenes, there grew a burning expectation for this redeemer.

But what qualified someone as the Messiah? According to Judaic tradition, the candidate had to be a direct descendant of King David. The mythos of David’s eternal dynasty, first emerging during his reign in the 10th century B.C.E., proclaimed that his lineage would rule “forever, not only over Israel but also over all the nations.” This idea was both political and eschatological: it married bloodline with destiny.

In the vacuum following the death of Herod the Great, a Roman-appointed king despised by many Jews. numerous charismatic figures arose, claiming the messianic mantle. These men were more than rebels; they were symbols of hope for a people whose god seemed to have gone silent.

One of the first to emerge was Simon of Perea, a former slave in Herod’s court. After Herod's death, Simon declared himself king of the Jews and messiah of YHWH. His rebellion was short-lived. Roman forces beheaded him in 4 B.C.E., extinguishing his claim and scattering his followers.

Then came Anthronges, another militant messiah who led a fierce guerrilla campaign against the Romans. Though initially successful, he too fell, crushed by the might of the empire.

And then came Yeshua of Nazareth.

Unlike his predecessors, Yeshua proclaimed himself the Messiah, but offered no political strategy or military resistance. He preached peace, humility, and inner transformation—noble ideals, yet entirely mismatched with the Jewish expectations of the time. If King David had met Yeshua, he likely would have scoffed at the Nazarene’s refusal to take up arms. This was no king. This was no deliverer. He would never lead a campaign or liberate a nation.

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman puts it bluntly:

“To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”

Yet history chose to remember Yeshua, while it forgot the dozen other messiahs who rose and fell after him.

There was Theudas in 58 C.E., who led a group of followers to the Jordan claiming he would part its waters like Moses. He was beheaded.Menachem ben Judah, descendant of Hezekiah, launched a revolt and was slain.Simon ben Kosevah—called Bar Kokhba, was hailed by Rabbi Akiva himself as the true Messiah, only to be killed during the catastrophic Bar Kokhba revolt.Others followed: Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, al-Ra’i (“The Shepherd of the Flock of His People”), Saüra the Syrian... All claimed divine appointment. All died violently. None brought salvation.

So where is the true Jewish messiah?

The answer, historically speaking, is nowhere. Every messianic figure—Jesus included—failed. They were defeated, executed, or erased from memory. The Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christianity, selectively remember one of them not because he fulfilled the messianic prophecies, but because his death was repurposed to fit a new spiritual paradigm. A suffering messiah. A messiah who rules not through conquest, but martyrdom.

But let us ask honestly: Would any Jew of the first century have accepted a crucified man as their king? The very thought would have been offensive.

This long line of failed messiahs reflects more than political miscalculation; it reveals something profound about the human condition. In times of collapse, we reach for saviors. We long for divine kings to descend and restore order. Yet again and again, these messiahs fall. They bleed. They die. And the people are left, once more, to wait.

Perhaps it is time to admit what history has already proven: that no external savior is coming. That no bloodline carries divine authority. That salvation, if it is to be found, must be forged from within.

How many failed messiahs must fall before we understand that the only true redeemer is the self-deified soul?
 
By the first century C.E., the people of Judea were suffocating under Roman occupation, desperate for liberation.
OK, but let's not get carried away. Clearly the Jewish upper classes in Jerusalem and Judea were probably doing quite well, but yes, the Jews as a whole were suffering, but one has to balance the picture. Populations accommodate themselves to occupation. Not every French, Belgian, Dutch or other joined the resistance in WWII.

Both Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose – that was not universal across the empire. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies, and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance – as long as Rome got its cut.

But I take your general point.

But what qualified someone as the Messiah? According to Judaic tradition, the candidate had to be a direct descendant of King David. The mythos of David’s eternal dynasty, first emerging during his reign in the 10th century B.C.E., proclaimed that his lineage would rule “forever, not only over Israel but also over all the nations.” This idea was both political and eschatological: it married bloodline with destiny.
Technically, 'messiah' means 'anointed' – and Kings, High Priests, Prophets were anointed.

I do not doubt a vociferous element of the population wanted a War Leader in the style of David, someone to defeat the Roman Goliath, but that's not necessarily what the messiah is, or how he operates ...

Unlike his predecessors, Yeshua proclaimed himself the Messiah, but offered no political strategy or military resistance. He preached peace, humility, and inner transformation—noble ideals, yet entirely mismatched with the Jewish expectations of the time. If King David had met Yeshua, he likely would have scoffed at the Nazarene’s refusal to take up arms. This was no king. This was no deliverer. He would never lead a campaign or liberate a nation.
Then again, much like Gandhi, his was a different sort of strategy, a different sort of resistance.

And the message clearly struck a chord.

Yet history chose to remember Yeshua, while it forgot the dozen other messiahs who rose and fell after him.
And that should tell you something.

So where is the true Jewish messiah?
Each must answer that themselves.

The answer, historically speaking, is nowhere. Every messianic figure—Jesus included—failed.
Or perhaps not...

They were defeated, executed, or erased from memory.
Clearly Jesus was not erased from memory.

The Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christianity, selectively remember one of them not because he fulfilled the messianic prophecies, but because his death was repurposed to fit a new spiritual paradigm. A suffering messiah. A messiah who rules not through conquest, but martyrdom.
Well that's there in Hebrew Scriptures – The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – from the 8th-6th century BCE.

Christians identify Jesus as the Suffering Servant. Judaism identifies the people of Israel as fulfilling the role.

But let us ask honestly: Would any Jew of the first century have accepted a crucified man as their king? The very thought would have been offensive.
They clearly believed him resurrected ...

How many failed messiahs must fall before we understand that the only true redeemer is the self-deified soul?
And how many who declare themselves as 'self-deified' have made their mark, or even made it stick?

If you think messianism is a failed enterprise, there's no point in promoting another in its place.
 
t’s about continuity of revelation — if Jesus appeared disconnected from this line, His claim to fulfill prophecy wouldn’t hold.
That's why I was asking. If you're not Jewish then surely it wouldn't matter if Jesus fulfilled Jewish beliefs? As, mentioned above, if the messsge of Jesus was ultimately for the Gentiles, then wouldn't that effectively negate the need for any Jewish continuity? That's why I was asking. :)
 
Hi Alif Balaam Yashin

I haven’t had much historical interest in famous Jewish individuals whom some believed were the messiah so your claims are interesting. Can you clarify and expand just a bit.

Alif Balaam Yashin said: "After Herod's death, Simon declared himself king of the Jews and messiah of YHWH.”

Simon seemed to want to be king of Israel (he apparently put a crown on his head).
However, I did not know he declared himself to be the Messiah the Yahwists, the Hebrews, and the later Jews expected.
Can you quote Simons claim where he declared himself to be the Hebrew Messiah?



Similarly, Alif Balaam Yashin said: “…Anthronges, another militant messiah who led a fierce guerrilla campaign against the Romans...” and you mentioned he also was claimed to be the messiah the Yahwists, hebrews and Jews were awaiting.

Can you also offer a quote by Anthronges where he declared himself to be the Messiah expected by the Yahwists, the Hebrews, and the Jews?
Thanks for any actual quotes from these specific individuals where they actually claim to be the expected Messiah.



Hi Thomas;

Thomas said: “Technically, 'messiah' means 'anointed' – and Kings, High Priests, Prophets were anointed.
I do not doubt a vociferous element of the population wanted a War Leader in the style of David, someone to defeat the Roman Goliath, but that's not necessarily what the messiah is, or how he operates ...”


I think Thomas’ point is profoundly important, especially since it separates a simple insurrectionist from a divine Messiah.


While all kings and priests were messiahs in that they were annointed, this is different than the Son of Man, the "Word" who was with God in the beginning and who was annointed by God himself to accomplish an atonement of all mankind as opposed to Kings and Priests who were anointed to worldly or prophetic positions and it is different than insurrectionists who sought political freedom for israel.

Thus, Alif Balaam Yashin is speaking of non-resurrected insurrectionists while Thomas is describing a being with great metaphysical powers that the insurrectionists did not have. Thomas is describing a powerful being who died and was brought back to life while Alif Balaam Yashin is describing insurrectionists who did not bring about the resurrection of mankind. Thomas is describing a being who came to atone for sins and provide forgiveness while Alif Balaam Yashin is describing insurrectionists who sought to bring about political freedom.

It seems like an obvious case of apples and oranges being compared.
 
By the first century C.E., the people of Judea were suffocating under Roman occupation, desperate for liberation. What they sought was not a philosopher or a teacher, but a messiah: a strong, commanding figure who could break the chains of foreign rule and restore the sovereignty of Israel. Among the various Jewish sects of the time, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and especially the apocalyptic Essenes, there grew a burning expectation for this redeemer.

But what qualified someone as the Messiah? According to Judaic tradition, the candidate had to be a direct descendant of King David. The mythos of David’s eternal dynasty, first emerging during his reign in the 10th century B.C.E., proclaimed that his lineage would rule “forever, not only over Israel but also over all the nations.” This idea was both political and eschatological: it married bloodline with destiny.

In the vacuum following the death of Herod the Great, a Roman-appointed king despised by many Jews. numerous charismatic figures arose, claiming the messianic mantle. These men were more than rebels; they were symbols of hope for a people whose god seemed to have gone silent.

One of the first to emerge was Simon of Perea, a former slave in Herod’s court. After Herod's death, Simon declared himself king of the Jews and messiah of YHWH. His rebellion was short-lived. Roman forces beheaded him in 4 B.C.E., extinguishing his claim and scattering his followers.

Then came Anthronges, another militant messiah who led a fierce guerrilla campaign against the Romans. Though initially successful, he too fell, crushed by the might of the empire.

And then came Yeshua of Nazareth.

Unlike his predecessors, Yeshua proclaimed himself the Messiah, but offered no political strategy or military resistance. He preached peace, humility, and inner transformation—noble ideals, yet entirely mismatched with the Jewish expectations of the time. If King David had met Yeshua, he likely would have scoffed at the Nazarene’s refusal to take up arms. This was no king. This was no deliverer. He would never lead a campaign or liberate a nation.

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman puts it bluntly:



Yet history chose to remember Yeshua, while it forgot the dozen other messiahs who rose and fell after him.

There was Theudas in 58 C.E., who led a group of followers to the Jordan claiming he would part its waters like Moses. He was beheaded.Menachem ben Judah, descendant of Hezekiah, launched a revolt and was slain.Simon ben Kosevah—called Bar Kokhba, was hailed by Rabbi Akiva himself as the true Messiah, only to be killed during the catastrophic Bar Kokhba revolt.Others followed: Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, al-Ra’i (“The Shepherd of the Flock of His People”), Saüra the Syrian... All claimed divine appointment. All died violently. None brought salvation.

So where is the true Jewish messiah?

The answer, historically speaking, is nowhere. Every messianic figure—Jesus included—failed. They were defeated, executed, or erased from memory. The Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christianity, selectively remember one of them not because he fulfilled the messianic prophecies, but because his death was repurposed to fit a new spiritual paradigm. A suffering messiah. A messiah who rules not through conquest, but martyrdom.

But let us ask honestly: Would any Jew of the first century have accepted a crucified man as their king? The very thought would have been offensive.

This long line of failed messiahs reflects more than political miscalculation; it reveals something profound about the human condition. In times of collapse, we reach for saviors. We long for divine kings to descend and restore order. Yet again and again, these messiahs fall. They bleed. They die. And the people are left, once more, to wait.

Perhaps it is time to admit what history has already proven: that no external savior is coming. That no bloodline carries divine authority. That salvation, if it is to be found, must be forged from within.

How many failed messiahs must fall before we understand that the only true redeemer is the self-deified soul?

OK, but let's not get carried away. Clearly the Jewish upper classes in Jerusalem and Judea were probably doing quite well, but yes, the Jews as a whole were suffering, but one has to balance the picture. Populations accommodate themselves to occupation. Not every French, Belgian, Dutch or other joined the resistance in WWII.

Both Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose – that was not universal across the empire. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies, and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance – as long as Rome got its cut.

But I take your general point.


Technically, 'messiah' means 'anointed' – and Kings, High Priests, Prophets were anointed.

I do not doubt a vociferous element of the population wanted a War Leader in the style of David, someone to defeat the Roman Goliath, but that's not necessarily what the messiah is, or how he operates ...


Then again, much like Gandhi, his was a different sort of strategy, a different sort of resistance.

And the message clearly struck a chord.


And that should tell you something.


Each must answer that themselves.


Or perhaps not...


Clearly Jesus was not erased from memory.


Well that's there in Hebrew Scriptures – The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – from the 8th-6th century BCE.

Christians identify Jesus as the Suffering Servant. Judaism identifies the people of Israel as fulfilling the role.


They clearly believed him resurrected ...


And how many who declare themselves as 'self-deified' have made their mark, or even made it stick?

If you think messianism is a failed enterprise, there's no point in promoting another in its place.
"And how many who declare themselves as 'self-deified' have made their mark, or even made it stick?"

History remembers those who conquered others. The Roman Empire canonized conquest, baptized it in blood, and called it divine providence. Christianity inherited that same hunger, trading the sword for the cross. What Rome could not subdue by force, the Church conquered by faith. Its legions became apostles, its tyranny sanctified. Thus, even in piety, the will to empire endured, draped now in the vestments of God.
 
History remembers those who conquered others.
Gandhi. There's more than one way to conquer.

The Roman Empire canonized conquest, baptized it in blood, and called it divine providence.
So has just about every empire, before or since, on its own terms. Still happening today.

Christianity inherited that same hunger, trading the sword for the cross. What Rome could not subdue by force, the Church conquered by faith. Its legions became apostles, its tyranny sanctified. Thus, even in piety, the will to empire endured, draped now in the vestments of God.
A rather poetic way of putting it, and if not entirely accurate, not wholly inaccurate either! The reality is more nuanced, as these things always are, but on the whole, while there are moments of lucidity and luminosity, in the majority, the history is hardly to Christendom's credit.

When I spoke of failed enterprises, I was rather alluding to the idea that your own 'self-deification' has not got a lot going for it, whereas the history of Christianity is not all negative.
 
Back
Top