Understanding Matthew 15
In Matthew 15 Yeshua never attacks "tradition" in general but only "traditions of men" and then only those that conflict with the written "commandments of Elohim". Of course this is a position any Orthodox Rabbi would agree with. The halachic authority does NOT include the authority to nullify commandments in the written Torah. What Yeshua does do in Matthew 15 is weigh in on what was at the time an on going halachic debate.
Matt. 15:3-9 on vows and corban
3 But he answered them and said, "And why do you transgress the
commandments of Elohim by means of your decrees?
4 It is not written in your Torah from the mouth of Elohim, 'Honor your father and your mother?' (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) And more-over written, 'And he that curses his father and his mother will surely die?' (Ex. 21:17; Lev. 20:9)
5 But you say, "Whoever says to father and mother, It is all an
offering, whatever of mine might profit you,'
6 and he honors not his father and his mother. Thus have you made void the commandments of Elohim on account of your judgments?
7 You hypocrites Yesha'yahu did well indeed to prophesy concerning you, saying,
8 'This people honors me with their mouth and with their lips, but
have removed their heart far from me,
9 And their fear of me is a commandment learned of men. (Is. 29:13)"
Now Yeshua's drash here not only shows he is well aware of the halachic controversy mentioned above, but his answer to the issue is presented in such a way as to show that Yeshua was anything but an ignoramus. This is because Yeshua deals with the issues intelligently and formats his drash in a complex form known as a Yelammedenu Homiletic Midrash.
In a Yelammedenu Homiletic Midrash begins with a question or problem which it answers in its exposition. This involves the use of Hillel's second rule G'ZIRAH SHAVAH "equivalence of expressions" which ties scriptures and expositions together through common catchwords. The format for a Yelammedenu Homiletic Midrash involves four steps: 1) the question or problem; 2) an initial text; 3) the drash/exposition; 4) a final text.
Yeshua's Yelammedenu Homiletic Midrash goes like this:
QUESTION/PROBLEM: (catchwords: JUDGMENT; COMMANDMENT)
1 Then came near to him scribes and P'rushim from Yerushalayim saying,
2 "Why do your talmidim transgress the judgments of the elders?
For they clean not their hands when they eat bread."
3 But he answered them and said, "Why do you transgress the
commandments of Elohim because of your judgments?
INITIAL TEXT (Ex. 20:12; 21:17): (catchword: HONOR)
Is it not written in your Torah from the mouth of Elohim,
"honor your father and your mother."
And more-over written, "And he who curses his father
and his mother will surely die?"
DRASH/EXPOSITION: (catchwords: HONOR; COMMANDMENT; TRADITION)
but you say, "Whoever says to his father and mother,
It is all an offering, whatever of mine might profit you..'
A marginal note to some Greek copies says: The Judaikon [Jewish version]: "corban [an offering] is what you should have obtained from us.] (compare Mark 7:11)
6 and he honors not his father and his mother.' Thus you have
made void the commandments of Elohim on account of your judgments?.
FINAL TEXT (Is. 29:13-14): (catchwords HONOR; COMMANDMENTS)
You hypocrites, Yesha'yahu did well indeed to prophecy concerning you, saying, This people honors me with their mouth, and with their lips, but have removed their heart far from me. And their fear of me is a commandment learned from men.."
The vow Yeshua mentions is as follows:
"It is all KORBAN (an offering), whatever of mine might profit you"
This is the typical wording for such a vow by Phaisaic tradition. For
example the wording in m.Nedarim 8:7 is "KONAM is that which you might have profited by me." And m.Nedarim 1:2 tells us "He who says to his fellow, `KONAM', `KONAH', or `KONAS'; behold, these are euphemisms for KORBAN"
Exactly this sort of vow, made by a son, against his father, was
permitted under Pharisaic Halacha and is discussed in the Mishna:
There was one in Beit Horon whose father was bound by a vow from deriving profit from him. And he was marrying off his son, and he said to his fellow, `The courtyard and the banquet are given over to you as a gift. But they are before you only so that [my] father may come and eat with us at the banquet.' The fellow said, `Now if they are really mine, then behold, they are consecrated to heaven.' He said, `I did not give you what is mine so you could consecrate it to heaven!' He said to him, `You did not give me what is yours except so that you and your father could eat and drink and be friends again, and so the sin [of violating the vow] could rest on my head!' (some mss. have `his head') Now the case came before sages, They ruled, `Any act of giving that is not such that, if one sanctified it to heaven, it is sanctified, is no act of giving."
(m.Nedarim 5:6)
Under Yeshua's halacha, such a vow would be regarded as dishonoring
ones father in the first place, but clearly it was allowed under
Pharisaic halacha.
Now this brings us to the matter of comparing the halachic weight of
keeping a vow to that of honoring ones parents, an issue addressed
directly in the Mishna:
R. Elieazar says: they open a vow for a man by reference to the
honor of his father or mother.
and the sages prohibit.
said R. Tzadok: before they open a vow for him by reference to his father or mother let them open his vow by reference to the
honor of HaMakom. If so there will be no vow.
But the sages concede to R. Elieazar, that in a matter that is between him and his mother or father they loose his vow by
reference to his father or mother."
(m.Nedarim 9:1)
Now the Mishna preserves minority and majority opinions. In this case
Rabbi Elieazer presents the minority opinion:
"They loose a vow for a person by reference to the honor of his father or mother"
But the Mishna goes on to say "and the sages prohibit (or "bind").
The terms "bind" and "loose" are used throughout the Mishna and Talmud to describe the permitting and forbidding of certain acts. This is the power to "bind" and "loose" Yeshua speaks of in Mt. 18:18 and in Mt. 16.
When the Mishna attributes a position to "the sages" this is the Mishna's way of describing the majority consensus of the sages, i.e. the majority position. In other words the majority of Pharisaic sages over ruled Elieazer's position on this issue.
The Mishna goes on to lay out an expaination of the ruling of the
sages on this subject put forward by Rabbi Tzadok:
before they loose a vow for him by reference to his father or mother let them loose his vow by reference to the honor of the omnipresent. If so there will be no vow."
In other words, they are saying that if a man could absolve himself of
his vow because keeping it would dishonor his parents, then he would
also be able to loose his vow by claiming that keeping it would
dishonor Elohim, but this, they argue, would allow anyone to absolve
his vow for any reason that he subjectively decided it would dishonor
Elohim, thus making vows of little value.
The Mishna goes on to tell us that:
The sages concede to R. Elieazar, that in a matter that is between him and his mother or father they loose his vow by reference to his father or mother.
In other words the Halacha presented in the Mishna is that a vow is not
loosed by reason of honoring ones father or mother unless the vow is one that only involved the father and/or mother and no other parties were involved (as is the case in Matthew 15:5).
Now if we look in the Talmud we find that the Gemara to Nedarim 9:1
passage reads:
GEMARA. What is meant by THERE ARE NO VOWS? — Abaye said: If so, Vows
are not properly revoked. Rabba explained: If so no one will seek a Sage's absolution for his vow.
"We learnt: BUT THE SAGES ADMIT TO R. ELIEZER THAT IN A MATTER CONCERNING HIMSELF AND HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, THEIR HONOR IS SUGGESTED
AS AN OPENING.
Now, as for Abaye, who explains [it as meaning], if so, vows are not properly revoked, it is well: here, since he has been [so] impudent, he is impudent.
But on Rabba's explanation. Viz., if so, none will seek a Sage's
Absolution for his vow, why is such an opening suggested to him here?
I will tell you. Since all [other] vows cannot be annulled without a Sage it may be offered as an opening here too."
(b.Nedarim 64a-b)
In other words, a man who is truly concerned with honoring his
parents, would not have made a vow that dishonored them in the first
place.
So while the halacha of m.Nedarim 9:1 would allow a man to absolve
himself of the type of vow mentioned in Matthew 15:5, the Mishna would still allow such a vow to be made and upheld as is the case in Nedarim 5:6. Yeshua's halacha does not allow this sort of vow to be made in the first place, and discourages making any oaths or vows at all in the first place.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 3rxqash0xupnt on -
The parallel passage to Matthew 15 in Mark 7 shows that Yahushua was speaking against many traditions which are the hallmark of Rabbinic type Judaism. He wasn't speaking only about korban. He was indicating their whole approach had become flawed. Remember that he called the Pharisees serpents, offspring of offspring of vipers.
That isn't a cool sounding empty phrase used for dramatic effect in the ears of the hearers. He was saying they were severely mislead. Compare how Yahushua uses 'serpents' in Luke 10:17-19. Notice in Mark 7:4 Yahushua says the Pharisees had "received" and held many traditions. Received from the elders? From whom did the elders receive these traditions? Yahushua calls Pharisees sons of vipers (Matthew 23:33).
Mark 7:4
When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
It would appear that there is an inherent danger in receiving extra biblical practices. Yahushua indeed confirmed that the Pharisees were wrong about the way they walked out their faith.
Messiah in Mark 7:4 (and Matthew 15) was taking issue with all of these practices, not only korban and vows.
-
Permalink Reply by 3rxqash0xupnt on
-
Maybe it is in this context that certain riddles From the book of Radiance/Warning (Zohar) may be appreciated:
Who is a serpent that flies in the air and wanders alone,
while an ant lies peacefully between its teeth?
Beginning in union, it ends in separation.
Who is an eagle that nests in a tree that never was?
Its young who have been plundered,
who are not created creatures
lie somewhere uncreated.
Going up, they come down; coming down, they go up.
Two who are one, and one who is three.
-
Permalink Reply by Chandler Fulton on
-
I would lean to the Karite view of tradition. My understanding of them is that they reject ALL traditions except those taught in the Hebrew Bible--the Leningrad Masoretic Text. If we accept traditions other than those taught in the Tanak and the New Testament, then we open ourselves up to all kinds of man-made traditions that Elohim has not sanctioned.
-
Permalink Reply by James Trimm on
-
So where is the logic in this. The Jewish people pass down through our generations two "traditions" one is written (the Tanak) and the other is oral... why accept that which was passed down in written form must be accepted, while at the same time rejecting that which was passed down orally through the same generations of the same Jewish people? Why do you believe we have been truthful in what we passed down in written form, but have lied about what we have passed down orally? Isn't that a bit arbitrary?
-
Permalink Reply by Chandler Fulton on
-
Hasn't the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the written Tanakh that we possess is accurate? Hasn't the oral traditions that are now in written form been proven to have been corrupted by scribes and Rabbis? Who is to tell us which oral traditions we are to keep and which not to keep? There are literally hundreds of Jewish traditions out there that have been passed down orally that are not found in the Tanakh.
-
-
-
-
Actually there is some variety in the Dead Sea Scrolls... some agree closely with the Masoretic Text, others tend to agree with other textual traditions such as the LXX and in some cases the Scrolls have preserved original Hebrew that had been lost but which appears more original than that in the Masoretic Text.
As for the traditions they can be broken down into two major catagories:
1. Oral Torah from Sinai.
2. Judgements of the Elders (Deut. 17:8-13) which become binding Torah (17:11)
The second group can be broken into two catagories again:
1. Those from before around 30 CE
2. Those from after around 30 CE
Those from after 30 CE would not be binding on us as Nazarenes.
-
Permalink Reply by Chandler Fulton on
-
There is a fallacy in the thinking that just because Moshe spent 40 days and nights on Sinai that he received the Oral Torah on Sinai as well as the written. This is not spoken of in the Tanakh, but is ALSO an oral tradition.
-
-
Hmmm... how many Torahs does Lev. 26:46 say that Moses received on Mt. Sinai? That word Torah in Lev. 26:46 looks plural to me...
-
-
Now we read in the written Torah:
These are the statutes and ordinances and laws, which YHWH made between Him and the children of Yisra’el in mount Sinai, by the hand of Moshe.
(Lev. 26:46 HRV)
So why is the word “laws” here in the plural. We know that YHWH gave many statutes and ordinances in the Torah, but the word “law” in the Hebrew is “Torah” and here it is in the plural. So how many Torahs did Moshe receive of Mt. Sinai? The answer is two, a written Law and an oral companion to the written Law known as the Oral Law. We call this original Oral Law from Sinai, or as it is often called “Halakah le-Moshe mi-Sinai” (m.Pe'ah 2:6; m.Eduy. 8:7; m.Yad. 4:3).
We know that Moshe was on Mount Sinai for forty days receiving the Torah. Certainly that was more time than was required to receive the written Torah. One can listen to an audio recording of the Torah is much, much less that forty days. Moses must have received much more information in those forty days than he wrote down in the Torah.
One good example ot the Oral Torah from Sinai are the instructions for the slaughter of an animal. These are mentioned in the written Torah:
If the place which YHWH your Elohim shall choose to put His Name there, be too far from you, then you shall kill of your herd and of your flock which YHWH has given you, as I have commanded you. And you shall eat within your gates, after all the desire of your soul.
(Deut. 12:21 HRV)
While the written Torah never relates these Elohim given commands., hese commands are however contained in the Oral Law and comprise the first two chapters of tracate Hullin in the Mishna.
The Torah forbids eating meat that is “terefah” generally meaning “torn”:
And you shall be set-apart men unto Me. Therefore, you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field: you shall cast it to the dogs.
(Ex. 22:30 (31) HRV)
The phrase “flesh that is torn of beasts in the field”
The Aramaic Peshitta has:
“And flesh which is torn from a living beast”.
The Peshitta here alludes to the Oral Law concept also found in the Talmud (b.Hullin 102b) which applies the meaning of this text to eating flesh torn from an animal while it is still alive.
R. Johanan said: The verse: Thou salt not eat the life with the flesh,(Deut. 12:23) refers to a limb [severed] from a living creature; and the verse: Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field, that is trefah [torn of beasts],(Ex. 22:30) refers to flesh [severed] from a living creature and also to flesh of a trefah animal.
(b.Hullin 102b)
Another example of the commandments of the Oral Law said to have been given to Moses at Sinai are eight the types of defects which render an animal terefah, as we read in the Talmud:
Ulla said: Eight types of [defects as] trefah were communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai: If [an organ was] pierced, or severed, or gone, or deficient, or torn, or [if the animal was] clawed, or fell [from a height], or if [a limb was] fractured. This clearly excludes disease [of the kidneys] mentioned by Rakish b. Papa.
(b.Hullin 43a)
Another example of Oral Torah from Sinai is the oral companion to the written commandment “Abide you every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” (Ex. 16:29). How does one keep this commandment? What constutes a “place”? If I am in my home can I go to the latrine? If I am in the latrine, may I leave, or must I stay there until the Sabbath is over?
According to the Oral Law, the word “place” here alludes to the "camp" which was defined by the Oral Law as a circle with a radius of 2,000 cubits extending from the center of the Temple (m.Rosh
HaShanna 2:5). Now the Mt. of Olives is just outside of this circle and thus the third altar for sacrifices which were to take place "outside the camp" was located on the Mount of Olives (m.Middoth 1:3). Thus the Oral Law tells us that not traveling out of “place” means not traveling more than 2,000 cubits on the Sabbath. This is whay the Book of Acts tells us that the disciples of Yeshua had traveled “a Sabbath Day’s journey” when they had traveled to the Mount of Olives (and here again the “New Testament” makes use of the Oral Law as valid.)
Also among the commandments of the Oral Law from Sinai are the laws of ten plants, the willow-branch ceremony and the water libation ceremony:
And whence do the Rabbis deduce [the law of the willow] for the Sanctuary? — They had this as an accepted tradition; for R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan, The laws of ten plants, the willow-branch and the water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai.
(b.Sukkah. 34a)
The laws of ten plants are found in the Mihsnah:
[As regards] ten saplings which are spread out within a seah space — they plough the entire seah space for their [the saplings'] sake until the New Year [of the Sabbatical year].
(m.Shebiit 1:6a)
The willow ceremony was a ceremony at the Temple in Jerusalem in which worshipers walked around the altar reciting prayers and piling willow branches were beside the altar.
The water libation ceremony was a ceremony carried out at the Temple at Sukkot and is decribed in the Mishna as follows:
How was the water libation [i.e., the act of pouring out liquid as a sacrifice, done]? A gold flask with a wide belly and a narrow neck, holding three logs [about three gallons] was filled from the pool of Shiloach. [When] they reached the Water Gate, they sounded tekiah, teruah and tekiah. [The priest then] went up the [the altar's] ramp and turned to his left and there were two silver bowls there. Rabbi Yehudah says: They were [made of] of plaster. Rather, their surfaces had become dark because of the wine [contained within them]. And they had each a hole like a narrow snout, one [hole] wide and the other narrow so that would both be emptied at the same time. The one on the west was for water and the one on the east for wine. If one emptied out the flask of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled [his obligation]. Rabbi Yehudah says: with one log he made the libation offering all eight days [of Sukkot and Shemini Atseret]. And to the one who performs the libation they say: Raise your hand! For one time, a certain priest poured out the water over his feet and all the people pelted him with their etrogs.
(m.Sukkot 4:9)
It was clearly during this ceremony of the Oral Law that John 7:37-38 takes place:
And on the great day, which is the last of the feast, Yeshua stood and cried out and said, If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures have said, rivers of water of life will flow from his belly. –
(Jn. 7:37-38 HRV)
Clearly Yeshua not only accepted this Oral Law ceremony, but he proclaimed it to be prophetically symbolic of himself, hardly something Yeshua would have done had he been an oponant of the Oral Law.
Another example of Oral Law from Sinai would be the details of the Passover Sader meal. In Exodud 12 we read simply that the Passover meal is eaten. However the rituals of the ceremonial meal, including the four cups of wine and the afikomen, are from the Oral Law and are found recorded in the Mishna (m.Pesahim 10:1-9).
It was clearly this ceremonial meal that Yeshua was participating in when he raised the cup saying “this is my blood of the covenent” and took the bread saying “this is my body”. This cup was clearly the third cup of the Sader known as “the cup of redemption” and this bread was clearly the afikomen eaten at the end of the Sader. Clearly Yeshua identifies these elements of the Oral Law Sader ceremony as prophetically fulfilled in himself, which he could not have done if he repudiated the Oral Law.
R. Hananel also said in the name of Rab, The underside of the tefillin is a law given to Moses at Sinai. Abaye said, The duct of the tefillin is also a law given to Moses at Sinai.
Abaye also said, The shin of the tefillin is a law given to Moses at Sinai. The division [between the compartments] must reach as far as the stitches. But R. Dimi of Nehardea said, As long as it is noticeable it need not [reach as far as the stitches].
Abaye also said, The parchment [for the Scriptural portions] of the tefillin must be examined against a flaw, since we require the writing to be perfect and it would not be so [if it had a flaw]. But R. Dimi of Nehardea said, This is not necessary, for the pen6 would detect [any flaw].
R. Isaac said, That the straps [of the tefillin] must be black is a law given to Moses at Sinai.
(b.Menachot 35a)
There are many other areas of halacha that are said to be Oral Torah form Sinai. These include: The details of the proper construction and use of Teffilin (b.Menachot 35a; Eravin 97a); The minimum quantities of forbidden foods the consumption of which constitutes an offence, rules for the invalidity of t'villa if something intervenes between the body of the person and the water of the mikvah and rules in connection not carrying burdens on the Sabbath. (b.Eruvin 4a) and the rules that only half the damage is to be paid when damage is caused by pebbles flying from under an animal's feet (Baba Kamma 3b)
-
Permalink Reply by 3rxqash0xupnt on
-
I see some value in study of traditional sources, but also see some gross perversions of the true faith in them (certain parts of the talmud are quite bad). It is true that the concept of Messiah was developed largely in the Oral Traditions, as it is written "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23). That which was spoken, not written, because you cant find a similar verse in all of Tanach. So that in itself tells us that some of the Oral Traditions were valid.
At the same time it must be pointed out, however, that the Jews, having all the tradition that that have, generally do not have knowledge of their Messiah. Instead they have much misinformation mixed in with elements of truth. So there is a huge disconnect.
One author proposes a model to describe tradition whereby there are five elements:
1). aggadah - narrative tradition
2). halakah - legal teachings
3). liturgical tradition
4). merkavah mysticism
5). recieved texts ( Sefer Yetsirah, Bahir, Zohar)
Now in Matthew 15 (and parallel account in Mark 7 we see Yahushua saying that Pharisees had recieved bunk customs regarding handwashing, washing of pots and pans, etc.
He did NOT stamp the Pharisees teachings with his seal of approval. He called them "sons of vipers", something that should not be considered lightly.
Yet in Matthew 2:23 it says "that which was spoken by the prophets", whereas in Matthew 23:33 we see Yahushua calling the Pharisees "sons of vipers", which means that they're teaching was false.
We could say, therefore, that the Halakah portion of Tradition (as handed down by the Pharisees, and they are more or less the only group which has handed down a full halakhic tradition) is clearly tainted. Messiah himself said so. Yet some of the traditional Aggadah's and other teachings could still be useful.
With that said, if you are trying to learn about Nidah (menstrual impurity laws) I think it is probably true the only information direct from that time period if going to be that from the Mishna/Talmud. Yet it is known that the Sadducees had alternate opinion, which, in practice, could have been more correct.
I think careful study of Traditional materials is ok, but must be taken with a grain of salt, which is what Paul meant when he said: examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 1 Thes 5:21
If someone tells me that the Rabbinic Orthodox Halakah is binding on me, I say "You say so". Reading the Gospels clearly indicates that Messiah did not say so, unless you twist Matthew 23:2, making it completely out of tune with the rest of the chapter, which is not how it should be read. Why would Messiah endorse the (spiritual) offspring of vipers? That is the furthest thing from an endorsement.
-
-
look out, you are basically agreeing with me :-)
Yirmeyahu said:I see some value in study of traditional sources, but also see some gross perversions of the true faith in them (certain parts of the talmud are quite bad). It is true that the concept of Messiah was developed largely in the Oral Traditions, as it is written "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23). That which was spoken, not written, because you cant find a similar verse in all of Tanach. So that in itself tells us that some of the Oral Traditions were valid.
At the same time it must be pointed out, however, that the Jews, having all the tradition that that have, generally do not have knowledge of their Messiah. Instead they have much misinformation mixed in with elements of truth. So there is a huge disconnect.
One author proposes a model to describe tradition whereby there are five elements:
1). aggadah - narrative tradition
2). halakah - legal teachings
3). liturgical tradition
4). merkavah mysticism
5). recieved texts ( Sefer Yetsirah, Bahir, Zohar)
Now in Matthew 15 (and parallel account in Mark 7 we see Yahushua saying that Pharisees had recieved bunk customs regarding handwashing, washing of pots and pans, etc.
He did NOT stamp the Pharisees teachings with his seal of approval. He called them "sons of vipers", something that should not be considered lightly.
Yet in Matthew 2:23 it says "that which was spoken by the prophets", whereas in Matthew 23:33 we see Yahushua calling the Pharisees "sons of vipers", which means that they're teaching was false.
We could say, therefore, that the Halakah portion of Tradition (as handed down by the Pharisees, and they are more or less the only group which has handed down a full halakhic tradition) is clearly tainted. Messiah himself said so. Yet some of the traditional Aggadah's and other teachings could still be useful.
With that said, if you are trying to learn about Nidah (menstrual impurity laws) I think it is probably true the only information direct from that time period if going to be that from the Mishna/Talmud. Yet it is known that the Sadducees had alternate opinion, which, in practice, could have been more correct.
I think careful study of Traditional materials is ok, but must be taken with a grain of salt, which is what Paul meant when he said: examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 1 Thes 5:21
If someone tells me that the Rabbinic Orthodox Halakah is binding on me, I say "You say so". Reading the Gospels clearly indicates that Messiah did not say so, unless you twist Matthew 23:2, making it completely out of tune with the rest of the chapter, which is not how it should be read. Why would Messiah endorse the (spiritual) offspring of vipers? That is the furthest thing from an endorsement.
© 2013 Created by James Trimm.
First of all the entire concept of "The Messiah" IS an Oral Law concept. The concept of the Messiah is largely an Oral Law concept! The Messiah is almost never mentioned in the Tanak by that title (The possible exceptions being "YHWH has anointed me" (Is. 61:1); "His anointed" (Ps. 2:2) "an anointed shall be cut off" (Dan. 9:26). Even these passages are unclear in the Tanak alone, as they could simply refer to a "an anointed one" rather than "The Messiah." The only way to demonstrate clearly that any given passage is in fact a reference to Messiah is to rely upon the Oral Law(thru such sources as the Targums, the Talmuds, the Midrashim and the Zohar). For example the word "Messiah" never appears in Isaiah 53, yet we know form the Targum, the Talmud, the Midrash Rabbah and the Zohar that Isaiah 53 speaks of the Messiah. This is why, while some Rabbinic Jews and even Orthodox Rabbis have accepted Yeshua as the Messiah, I know of no case where a Kaarite has come to Messiah. There is virtually no way to make the case to a Kaarite that Yeshua is the Messiah. By contrast I can show any open minded Rabbinic Jew that Yeshua is the Messiah of Judaism, and I have done just that in our new book Mashiach: The Messiah from a True Jewish Perspective.
In fact it is for this very reason that Yeshua's original followers came from the Pharisees and Essenes and few if any from the Sadducees. That is because the Sadducees rejected the Oral Law and thus had no framework for the very concept of the Messiah and they could not accept Yeshua as a Messiah when they did not even accept the concept of Messiah at all.
The Scripture says this about the Oral Law:
2 I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter dark sayings concerning days of old--
3 That which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us--
4 We will not hide from their children: telling to the generation to come, the praises of
YHWH, and His strength, and His wondrous works that He has done.
5 For He established a testimony in Ya’akov, and appointed a Torah in Yisra’el, which
He commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children;
6 That the generation to come might know them, even the children that should be born--
who should arise and tell them to their children,
7 That they might put their confidence in Elohim, and not forget the works of El, but
keep His commandments.
(Psalm 78)