A scriptural substantiation from the Tanakh, with answers to rabbinic objections

Introduction

The Tanakh—the Hebrew Bible consisting of Law, Prophets, and Writings—carries from the outset an enduring expectation: that of a coming king, priest, or ruler appointed by God. In Hebrew, “māšîaḥ”; in English, “Messiah,” literally “anointed one.” This messianic expectation is not a late addition but a line introduced from Genesis and continued throughout all parts of the Tanakh. The key question, however, is how the Tanakh characterizes this figure, and what marks must be present to recognize the true Messiah. Only once this profile is fully defined can the historical identification follow.

The origin of the messianic expectation

The expectation of a future Messiah is anchored early. Genesis 49:10 assigns enduring rule explicitly to Judah and connects it to the obedience of the nations. This is not a temporary dynastic phase, but a prophetic assignment that remains until its goal is reached. The Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:12–16 makes this expectation concrete: David is promised a descendant whose kingship will be established forever. The prophetic books build further on this. Isaiah 11:1–10 speaks of a Shoot from Jesse who rules justly and in whom even the nations find rest. Jeremiah 23:5–6 speaks of a righteous Branch of David who will reign as king and bring justice. The expectation in the Tanakh is therefore not about general moral progress or some vague ideal, but about a concrete, Davidic Messiah with lasting rule.

The traditional messianic image and the question of criteria

In Jewish tradition, it is generally assumed that the Messiah will triumph, restore Israel, defeat its enemies, bring peace, and reign as king. In this view, there is no room for rejection, suffering, or death. The question is: does the Tanakh really require this one-dimensional profile, or does it lead us to a more complex picture? If it contains both glory and humiliation, then any expectation that excludes suffering cannot be normative.

Suffering, rejection, and death of the Messiah in the Tanakh

The Tanakh contains passages in which a righteous figure suffers, is rejected, and dies—yet is vindicated by God. Psalm 22:1–19 depicts a suffering righteous one who is mocked (Psalm 22:8–9), pierced (Psalm 22:17), and whose clothing is divided (Psalm 22:19). But the same psalm ends with deliverance and worldwide worship (Psalm 22:23–32). Here, suffering is not opposed to outcome, but precedes a reversal. Daniel 9:26 explicitly states, “an Anointed One shall be cut off” (Daniel 9:26). This is a direct statement that the coming of an anointed figure can coincide with his death. Zechariah 12:10 describes a shocking moment: “they will look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him.” Cleansing follows (Zechariah 13:1) and the striking of the shepherd (Zechariah 13:7). These texts demonstrate that “the Messiah cannot suffer or die” is not a conclusion from the Tanakh, but from a pre-selected framework.

Isaiah 52:13–53:12 as the focal point of the suffering profile

Isaiah 52:13–53:12 describes one Servant who is deeply humiliated and then exalted. The movement is explicitly twofold. First: humiliation and astonishment (Isaiah 52:14). Then: exaltation and lifting up (Isaiah 52:13). Next: implications for the nations (Isaiah 52:15). This forms a coherent prophetic movement in which humiliation and exaltation are purposefully connected. Isaiah 53 then speaks not of general suffering, but of substitutionary suffering: “He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5). “The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). “He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people He was stricken” (Isaiah 53:8). That last point is decisive: the Servant suffers for “my people” (Isaiah 53:8). Wherever the prophet speaks, “my people” is Israel. The suffering figure is thus distinct from Israel and bears something Israel needs. The text also uses sacrificial language: “when His soul makes an offering for guilt” (Isaiah 53:10). The word “guilt offering” (asham) is not a poetic image but a Torah term. The outcome is legal and moral: “by His knowledge My Righteous Servant will justify many” (Isaiah 53:11). This is not: “he inspires many,” but: “he justifies many,” because “He shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11). Thus, a righteous, individual figure is depicted who vicariously bears guilt, granting justification to others.

Rabbinic objection (I): “Isaiah 52:13–53:12 (Isaiah 53) refers to Israel”

This is the most frequently heard counter-reading, and it can only be assessed by letting the text itself speak. Isaiah 52:13–53:12 consistently constructs a contrast between a confessing “we/us” and a distinct “He.” The speakers acknowledge their own guilt and waywardness: “All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way” (Isaiah 53:6). In contrast, there stands a single figure described as “the Righteous One” (Isaiah 53:11), of whom it is said that He “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth” (Isaiah 53:9). That profile does not fit Israel as a collective, which in the Tanakh is addressed as a guilty nation called to repentance. The text further sharpens this distinction by stating that the Servant is stricken “for the transgression of my people” (Isaiah 53:8). In the mouth of the prophet, “my people” refers to Israel, so the Servant is necessarily distinct from the people for whom He suffers. The sacrificial terminology also rules out a collective reading. Isaiah 53:10 refers to the life of the Servant as an asham, a guilt offering, a Torah category in which guilt is borne for the sake of atonement. The Servant thus functions as bearer of guilt, not as one in need of a guilt offering. This is also shown by the goal of His suffering: “by His knowledge My Righteous Servant will justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11). Bearing iniquity with atoning and justifying effect in the Tanakh is always the realm of sacrifice and representation, never the self-concept of Israel as a people. The text itself therefore compels the conclusion that Isaiah 52:13–53:12 speaks of a distinct, individual and righteous figure who suffers vicariously for Israel, not of Israel as a collective.

Rabbinic objection (II): “The Messiah cannot die”

The Tanakh itself refutes this as a universal rule. Daniel 9:26 says the Anointed One “shall be cut off.” Psalm 22 depicts a righteous sufferer who passes through death and is later glorified worldwide. Zechariah 12:10–13:1 links the piercing and mourning to subsequent cleansing. When it is said, “The Messiah cannot die,” tradition is being placed above the text. The Tanakh allows for a messianic profile in which death is not the end, but a stage in God’s plan.

Rabbinic objection (III): “The Messiah cannot have a divine dimension”

This must also be answered from the Tanakh itself. Isaiah 9:5–6 calls the coming Davidic ruler “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father.” Jeremiah 23:5–6 names the Davidic Branch and associates Him with the name: “The LORD our righteousness.” Micah 5:1 speaks of the ruler from Bethlehem, “whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity.” Psalm 110:1 presents a God-appointed ruler who sits at God’s right hand. Daniel 7:13–14 describes one “like a Son of Man” to whom is given everlasting dominion over all nations. The Tanakh thus does not permit a strictly human-only messiah, but contains unmistakable data indicating a uniquely exalted status for the Messiah.

Daniel 9 and the timing of the Messiah

Daniel 9 restricts the messianic appearance to a specific time. The Anointed One appears and is cut off before the destruction of city and sanctuary. Thus, the Tanakh in principle excludes later messianic claims. After 70 CE, the messianic window is closed.

The messianic profile as necessary conclusion from the Tanakh

When the Davidic royal lines (Genesis 49:10; 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Isaiah 11:1–10; Jeremiah 23:5–6) are taken together with the lines of suffering and death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 52:13–53:12; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 12:10–13:1; Zechariah 13:7), a profile emerges that contains two elements. 1. The Messiah is a Davidic ruler, destined for lasting rule. 2. The Messiah is also a righteous one who is rejected, suffers vicariously, dies, and is then exalted by God. This conclusion is not a “new profile” retroactively imposed. It emerges because the Tanakh contains both lines, and because excluding either one is a result of prior assumptions—not the text itself.

The identification question

Up to this point, the Tanakh’s profile of the Messiah has been established. But a profile alone does not provide a name. Therefore, one cannot simply say, “the Tanakh says this,” without also asking the historical question: who is this Messiah in reality?

Jesus of Nazareth as the historical identification

When the Tanakh’s data are used as the standard, one historical figure brings together this entire profile: Jesus of Nazareth. This identification is not introduced in the New Testament as a standalone dogma, but as the logical result of reasoning from the Tanakh. Acts 17:2–3 says Paul “reasoned from the Scriptures” and “proved that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead,” then concluded, “This Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah).” Acts 8:32–35 shows that Jesus was proclaimed from Isaiah 53. The New Testament thus demonstrates how the Tanakh was read by Jews who remained fully within the existing scriptural framework, and how, on that basis, they identified Jesus as Messiah.

The New Testament’s reference to the Tanakh

Because the Tanakh is the starting point, it is relevant to see how the New Testament constantly appeals to the Tanakh, not as decoration, but as demonstration. Matthew 2:5–6 cites Micah 5:1 about Bethlehem as origin. Matthew 8:16–17 cites Isaiah 53:4 about bearing weaknesses. Matthew 12:18–21 cites Isaiah 42:1–4 about the Servant. Matthew 21:4–5 cites Zechariah 9:9 about the coming on a donkey. Matthew 27:46 cites Psalm 22:2 (“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”). John 19:24 cites Psalm 22:19 about dividing garments and casting lots. John 19:36 cites Exodus 12:46 and Psalm 34:21 about unbroken bones. John 19:37 cites Zechariah 12:10 about the piercing. Luke 24:25–27 and Luke 24:44–47 show Jesus Himself demonstrating, from Moses and all the Prophets, from the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, the necessity of suffering and glory. This is not “proof by authority,” but a running claim: the whole fits the messianic requirements set by the Tanakh.

The accusation of “retrofitting to the prophecies”

A common objection is that the story of Jesus was “fitted to the prophecies.” Such a charge can only stand if the relevant events were either consciously staged or could be fabricated without loss of credibility. But the Tanakh details in question occurred under the control of hostile parties and authorities, beyond the influence of Jesus and His followers. Psalm 22:19 refers to dividing garments and casting lots; John 19:24 records this as the act of soldiers. Zechariah 12:10 refers to piercing; John 19:34–37 describes this as a soldier’s action. Exodus 12:46 and Psalm 34:21 speak of not breaking bones; John 19:33–36 records this as happening uniquely to Jesus while others’ bones were broken. Isaiah 53:9 speaks of burial “with a rich man”; Jesus’ burial in the tomb of a rich man runs counter to expectation and could not be arranged by disciples while the body was under Roman control. The New Testament itself candidly shows the disciples had no expectation of a suffering Messiah and did not understand Jesus’ predictions at all. Luke 18:31–34: “they understood none of these things.” Mark 9:31–32: “they were afraid to ask Him.” Luke 24:19–21: their hope was for political deliverance, not for the cross and death. Thus, the idea of a deliberate, constructed “prophecy fulfillment” is historically implausible. The pattern of uncontrollable details from the Tanakh, realized in circumstances outside human manipulation, makes this explanation exegetically and historically weak.

The role of testimony and resurrection

The identification of Jesus as Messiah in the New Testament is supported not only by exegesis, but by testimony: “we are witnesses of these things.” This testimony matches the forensic principle in the Tanakh, where every matter is confirmed by witnesses. The resurrection of Jesus has a unique role: it is God’s answer to the question of Jesus’ identity. The resurrection is presented as God’s own verdict on Jesus’ identity, as proof that His condemnation was unjust and His sacrifice accepted. Without the resurrection, the Messiah would have died under the curse, without divine vindication. Isaiah 53 would be unfinished. The resurrection is therefore not an extra dogma, but the necessary capstone to the profile drawn in the Tanakh. Isaiah 53 uses legal language: the Servant dies, but is then justified. God gives a positive verdict after His death; this is forensic. Psalm 16:10 (“You will not abandon my soul to the grave”), Psalm 22 (the same person suffers and then lives), and Daniel 12 (the idea of resurrection) all make clear that post-mortem vindication is not foreign to the Tanakh. The legal significance of the resurrection is that Jesus’ death was not a natural death, but a legal execution—on religious charges, confirmed by Roman judgment, with the implied claim that He was a deceiver. The Tanakh states: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” If Jesus were not the Messiah, God would have left Him in death. But if God raises Him, He overturns the verdict and confirms the acceptance of the sacrifice.

Other messianic claimants and alternative profiles

The New Testament names and refutes alternative messianic expectations and figures. Jesus is positioned not only positively, but exclusively: not this one, not that one, but Him—because only He fulfills the entire profile drawn by the Tanakh.

Typology as concrete evidence for Jesus as the Messiah

Typology is recognizing recurring patterns, figures, and events in the Tanakh as foreshadowings of a future, greater reality. Unlike direct prophecy, typology is embedded in the structure of Scripture itself: God works through repeated themes and acts of deliverance, which point ahead to the ultimate fulfillment. The relevance for identifying Jesus as the Messiah is that these types in the Tanakh are always only partially, temporarily, or imperfectly fulfilled. The expectation arising from these types calls for a definitive, perfect fulfillment. In Jesus of Nazareth, these lines uniquely converge.

Some central examples make this concrete:

• Adam and the “new Adam”
Adam is, in the Tanakh, the head of humanity, whose disobedience leads to death and curse (Genesis 3). In the New Testament, Jesus is explicitly identified as the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), who through obedience brings justification and life where Adam failed. This is not merely a moral parallel, but a structural replacement and reversal of the Adam typology.

• Moses as mediator and prophet
Moses is the great deliverer, lawgiver, and mediator of the covenant. God promises a future prophet “like Moses” (Deuteronomy 18:15). In the New Testament, Jesus is presented as this greater Moses: He speaks with divine authority (Matthew 5–7), brings a new covenant into effect (Luke 22:20), and mediates between God and humanity in a unique way (Hebrews 3:1–6).

• David as shepherd-king
David is the type of the anointed king, shepherd of Israel, and God’s chosen one. The promise that a Son of David would sit on the throne (2 Samuel 7) remains historically unfulfilled. Jesus is born from the line of David (Matthew 1; Luke 3), is recognized as “Son of David” (Matthew 21:9), and in the New Testament receives a lasting, universal kingship (Revelation 22:16).

• The Passover lamb and the sacrificial system
The unblemished lamb slaughtered at the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 12) and the annual sacrifices in Leviticus are foreshadowings of a perfect, substitutionary sacrifice. John the Baptist calls Jesus “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The death of Jesus takes place at the time of Passover; the New Testament presents Him as the fulfillment of the true Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 9–10).

• The serpent in the wilderness
In Numbers 21, a bronze serpent is lifted up as a means of healing for everyone who believes. Jesus Himself refers to this and applies this type to Himself: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (John 3:14).

• The Exodus as a pattern of deliverance

The deliverance from Egypt is the great redemptive act of the Tanakh, repeatedly commemorated as a foreshadowing of later, greater deliverance. In the New Testament, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are presented as the decisive exodus—the definitive liberation from slavery, sin, and death (Luke 9:31 [“departure,” literally: exodus], Colossians 1:13–14).

These types are not chosen at random, nor are they merely interpreted this way after the fact. They are patterns and promises that recur throughout Scripture and are progressively developed, yet never reach their full fulfillment in Old Testament persons or events. Only in Jesus do these lines converge and reach definitive completion: as the last Adam, the greater Moses, the eternal Son of David, the true Lamb, and the perfect Mediator.

The genealogical requirement: Davidic, legal, and biological

The Tanakh imposes strict genealogical requirements. The Messiah must come from Judah and David. At the same time, a royal curse rests on King Jeconiah’s line (Jeremiah 22:24–30): no biological descendant of this line will prosper on David’s throne. This creates a tension that must be resolved.

The double genealogy: not a problem, but a necessity

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are often seen as contradictory. This verdict does not arise from the text, but from distrust of its claims. Legally: Jesus is son of Joseph and Mary, with Joseph as head of the household. In Jewish law, this determines tribe and inheritance. Joseph’s legal genealogy must therefore be correct. Matthew 1 provides exactly this: Jesus is legally placed in the Davidic royal line and thus has full right to the throne. Biologically: Jesus is not begotten by Joseph but by the Holy Spirit. Mary alone is the human factor. Her Davidic descent is necessary. Luke 3 gives this line, via Nathan, outside the cursed royal line. With only one genealogy, the messianic claim would fail. With two, it is complete.

What is often presented as a contradiction is actually precisely what should be expected, given:

• the virgin birth,
• legal fatherhood,
• biological descent,
• and prophetic exclusion of certain lines.

The hermeneutic core: distrust versus trust

The supposed problems do not arise from the text, but from the evaluator. Those who primarily distrust the text and subject it to modern rationalistic or naturalistic categories will create tension. Those who trust the text and allow it to set its own categories will see coherence. The text does not fail; the framework of evaluation does.

The historical identification: Jesus of Nazareth

When the Tanakh profile is applied in its entirety, only one historical person remains who appears within the set time frame, is Davidic both legally and biologically, is rejected by his people, dies under Gentile authority, fulfills uncontrollable prophetic details, and is only understood in hindsight through Scripture. No other historical figure fulfills this totality. Jesus Himself sharpens this identification when He asks His disciples, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answers, “You are the Christ.” (The title Christ introduces no new or alien concept; it is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah [מָשִׁיחַ] and means exactly the same: “the Anointed One.”) Jesus then explains that this insight does not arise from human reasoning or tradition but from revelation by God Himself. The New Testament recognizes that knowledge of the Tanakh alone does not guarantee acknowledgment of Jesus as Messiah. Scriptural knowledge alone does not automatically produce faith; there may be zeal without understanding, study without recognition. True recognition arises where God Himself opens the eyes and, by His Spirit, convinces one of the fulfillment of Scripture in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, revelation is the necessary and indispensable element alongside exegesis and tradition: it makes the prophetic profile not only visible but also acceptable. May the Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, work in your heart to discover that He truly is the promised Messiah.

Final conclusion

The Tanakh raises the expectation of a coming Anointed One and draws a messianic profile that includes both Davidic kingship and rejection, substitutionary suffering, death, and subsequent exaltation. That profile does not arise from selection after the fact, but because the Tanakh itself contains both lines, and because alternative referents do not fulfill what the text actually says. When this profile is applied historically, identification with Jesus of Nazareth is not an arbitrary option, but the only coherent explanation that seriously takes into account both the data of the Tanakh and the historical facts. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is not merely one possible candidate within some messianic idea, but the Messiah as the Tanakh portrays Him.