Argument

Rabbinic Sources Attest a Suffering Messiah Argument

Intro

The most common thing a Christian hears in this conversation is that the suffering Messiah is a Christian invention. Judaism, the argument runs, always expected a conquering king. Christians took a passage about the nation of Israel, made it about one man, and built a religion on a misreading.

That is a historical claim, and it can be checked.

Targum Jonathan, the Aramaic version of the Prophets that was read aloud in ancient synagogues, opens Isaiah 52:13 with the words ha yatzlach avdi meshicha: "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper."

The Babylonian Talmud, discussing what the Messiah's name is, records the opinion that it is "the leper scholar," and derives it from Isaiah 53:4: "surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted" (b. Sanhedrin 98b). A few lines earlier, the same tractate places the Messiah among the poor and the diseased at the gates of Rome, binding and unbinding his wounds one at a time so that he will not be delayed when the moment comes (98a).

Pesikta Rabbati, a midrashic collection, has the Messiah, called Ephraim, accepting suffering for the sake of the generations, and cites Isaiah 53 while doing it.

And Judaism developed a Messiah who dies. Messiah ben Joseph falls in battle before Messiah ben David establishes the kingdom, and b. Sukkah 52a connects the mourning of Zechariah 12:10, "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced," to his death.

None of this is a Christian confession, and this page will say so repeatedly. What it establishes is narrower and still decisive for the conversation: a suffering, afflicted, even dying Messiah is a category Judaism generated from its own Scriptures. The two-stage pattern Christians are accused of inventing was thinkable in Jewish tradition before there was an argument about Jesus.

◎ See this page's graph and discover linked topics →

Cheatsheet

The 30-second reply:

Targum Jonathan, read aloud in ancient synagogues, opens Isaiah 52:13 with "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper." Sanhedrin 98b asks what the Messiah's name is and answers "the leper scholar," from Isaiah 53:4. Sanhedrin 98a has him sitting among the sick at the gates of Rome. Pesikta Rabbati has Messiah Ephraim accepting suffering for the generations. And Sukkah 52a discusses the mourning of Zechariah 12:10 as mourning for Messiah ben Joseph who was slain. I am not claiming any of these says Jesus is the Messiah. What I am claiming is that when you tell me a suffering Messiah is a Christian idea, that is a historical statement, and your own sources contradict it.

The 6 fast facts:

1. Targum Jonathan names the Messiah at 52:13. Not an inference, a rendering.
2. b. Sanhedrin 98b derives a name of the Messiah from Isaiah 53:4.
3. b. Sanhedrin 98a places the Messiah among the afflicted at the gates of Rome.
4. Pesikta Rabbati 36-37 has Messiah Ephraim bearing suffering for the generations, citing Isaiah 53.
5. b. Sukkah 52a ties Zechariah 12:10's pierced one to a slain Messiah ben Joseph.
6. b. Moed Katan 28a states the principle: just as the red heifer atones, so the death of the righteous atones.

The 4 strongest counter-moves:

• "Who does Targum Jonathan say the servant of Isaiah 52:13 is?" Ask. Do not tell.
• "What is the Messiah's name according to Sanhedrin 98b, and where does it come from?" The derivation is the point.
• "What happens to Messiah ben Joseph?" Most interlocutors supply the answer themselves.
• "Is the death of a righteous man ever said to atone in your tradition?" Moed Katan 28a, and 4 Maccabees before it.

Concessions to make freely:

• None of these sources is a Christian confession. Claiming the Talmud teaches that Jesus is the Messiah is false and forfeits the argument.
• Targum Jonathan redistributes the suffering. It names the Messiah at 52:13 and then systematically transfers the humiliation of the chapter onto the nations and Israel. Any citation of it must say so.
• Rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 is diverse. Readings referring the servant to Moses, to Jeremiah, to the righteous generally, and to Israel all exist alongside the messianic ones.
• Dating is disputed throughout. The Targum's traditions, Pesikta Rabbati's redaction, and the origin of Messiah ben Joseph are all debated, with proposals ranging from pre-Christian to well after Bar Kokhba.
• The Zohar is thirteenth-century. Citing it as ancient testimony is a mistake, and it should be presented as evidence that the stream continued rather than that it began early.
• Suffering in these sources is often solidarity, not substitution. Several passages have the Messiah suffering with Israel or for Israel's sins specifically, which is not the same as the universal atonement Christianity claims.
• The Messiah in these sources does not rise. Nothing in the rabbinic material contains a resurrection of the Messiah, and that is the largest gap between the two pictures.

What NOT to defend:

• Do not claim these passages prove Jesus.
• Do not claim Judaism "always" believed in a suffering Messiah. It contained the belief; it did not hold it uniformly.
• Do not quote a rabbinic passage you have not read in context. This subject is heavily polluted by secondhand apologetics literature that misquotes.
• Do not assert an early date for Messiah ben Joseph as though it were settled.
• Do not use the material triumphantly. Presented as "your own books agree with me," it is both false and offensive.

The closing line:

"I am not asking you to read your sources as Christian books. They are not. What I am asking is that we retire one sentence from this conversation, the sentence that says a suffering Messiah is a Christian invention. Your Targum names him. Your Talmud derives his name from Isaiah 53. Your midrash has him bearing the suffering of the generations. Your tradition built a Messiah who dies. Whatever we decide about Jesus, the category was yours first, and it came out of your Scriptures."

In full

Thesis: A suffering, afflicted, and dying Messiah is a category native to Jewish tradition, attested across the Targumic, Talmudic, midrashic, and mystical corpora, and therefore the Christian two-stage messianic reading cannot be dismissed as a foreign imposition on the Hebrew Bible.

The argument's conclusion is deliberately limited. It does not establish that Jesus is the Messiah, that rabbinic Judaism taught vicarious atonement in the Christian sense, or that the messianic readings were the majority Jewish position. It establishes availability: that Jewish readers, working on Jewish Scriptures, in Jewish institutions, produced the very picture Christians are accused of inventing.

The argument matters because of what it does to the shape of the conversation. Counter-missionary teaching leads with the claim that the individual-messianic reading of the suffering texts is a Christian imposition. If that claim is false, the conversation returns from a question about origins to a question about exegesis and history, which is where it belongs.

The case rests on six lines of evidence.

1. The Targumic witness. Targum Jonathan on the Prophets, the standing Aramaic rendering used liturgically in synagogue, opens the fourth servant song: "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper; he shall be exalted and increase, and shall be very strong." The identification is explicit, and it is made in a text read aloud to congregations. The Targum then reassigns the chapter's suffering, applying much of it to the nations and to Israel while keeping the exaltation for the Messiah, which is a theologically motivated redistribution and must be reported as such. Jostein Adna's work on the Targum of Isaiah 53 is the standard treatment of exactly this maneuver, and it is significant in its own right: the Targumist inherited an identification he could not simply drop and had to work around the passage's plain sense.

2. The Talmudic witness.

   • b. Sanhedrin 98b. In a discussion of the Messiah's name, one school answers "the leper scholar," and supports it from Isaiah 53:4: "surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." A name of the Messiah is derived from the fourth servant song, which requires the song to be about the Messiah.
   • b. Sanhedrin 98a. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi asks Elijah where the Messiah is, and is told: at the gates of Rome, among the poor stricken with disease. All the others unbind and rebind their wounds at once; he unbinds and rebinds one at a time, saying that he may be needed at any moment and must not be delayed.
   • b. Berakhot 5a. Isaiah 53:10, "it pleased the LORD to bruise him," is cited in a discussion of chastening sufferings that cleanse.

3. The midrashic witness.

   • Pesikta Rabbati 36 to 37. The Messiah, called Ephraim, is presented as accepting suffering for the sake of the generations, in a passage that draws on Isaiah 53 and speaks of his enduring affliction on their behalf. The same material is preserved in Yalkut Shimoni on Isaiah 60.
   • Ruth Rabbah 5:6, commenting on Ruth 2:14, applies the language of the servant's suffering to the Messiah.
   • Midrash Konen and other later collections continue the theme.

4. The Messiah who dies. The tradition of Mashiach ben Yosef, also called ben Ephraim, has a messianic figure who fights for Israel and falls before Mashiach ben David completes the redemption. b. Sukkah 52a discusses the mourning of Zechariah 12:10, "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him," and reports the opinion that the mourning is for Messiah ben Joseph who was slain. Raphael Patai's The Messiah Texts (Wayne State, 1979) collects the sources; Joseph Klausner's The Messianic Idea in Israel (Macmillan, 1955) gives the critical account. The tradition's date is genuinely disputed and should be presented as such.

5. The principle that righteous death atones. This is the piece most Christians do not know, and it is the one that most changes the conversation.

   • b. Moed Katan 28a asks why the death of Miriam is recorded immediately after the section on the red heifer, and answers that just as the red heifer atones, so the death of the righteous atones. The principle is stated in the tradition's own voice.
   • 4 Maccabees, a Jewish work of roughly the first century, states it in the sharpest possible form. The martyr Eleazar prays that God will "make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs" (6:28-29), and the author writes that the martyrs "became, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation" and that "through the blood of those devout ones and their propitiatory death, divine Providence preserved Israel" (17:21-22). This is Jewish martyr theology, written by a Jew for Jews, and it is vicarious atoning death in explicit terms.
   • The merit of the Akedah, Abraham's binding of Isaac, functions similarly across the rabbinic and liturgical tradition, invoked in the Rosh Hashanah liturgy as a ground of mercy for Isaac's descendants.

6. The stream continues into the mystical tradition. The Zohar (II, 212a) has the Messiah summoning the sufferings of Israel upon himself, and the theme recurs in later kabbalistic and Hasidic literature. The Zohar is a thirteenth-century work and must be cited as such; its value is as evidence of continuity, not of antiquity.

The collection is documented and checkable. S. R. Driver and Adolf Neubauer assembled the Jewish interpretive material on Isaiah 53 in The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters (Oxford, 1876 to 1877), in the original languages with translation. The modern scholarly treatment, with contributions from both Jewish and Christian scholars, is in Janowski and Stuhlmacher, The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (Eerdmans, 2004). Daniel Boyarin's The Jewish Gospels (New Press, 2012) argues from a Jewish direction that the suffering-messiah and divine-Son-of-Man traditions were Jewish before they were Christian, and should be cited as an argued position rather than as consensus.

What the argument does not establish, stated plainly: it does not establish that Jesus is the Messiah, that rabbinic Judaism held a doctrine of universal vicarious atonement, that these were majority readings, or that any of these sources anticipates a resurrection. That last gap is the largest, and it should be named rather than hidden.

Argument structure

Master objections to the whole argument

MO1: "You are collecting scattered homiletic remarks across a thousand years and presenting them as a doctrine. Midrash quotes verses associatively; that is the genre. None of this is a considered rabbinic position."

• Four responses. (a) The genre point is fair for the midrashic material and is conceded. Homiletic association is weaker evidence than systematic commentary. (b) Targum Jonathan is not homily. It is the standing liturgical rendering, and it names the Messiah in the opening line of the unit. (c) b. Sanhedrin 98b is not associative. It derives a name of the Messiah from the passage, which requires the passage to be about him. (d) The objection cannot be applied selectively. Counter-missionary argument relies on Talmudic and midrashic material extensively where it supports the case, and a standard that discounts aggadah must discount it in both directions.

MO2: "Christian censors and copyists tampered with these texts. The versions you are quoting are not reliable."

• Three responses. (a) Censorship of Hebrew books was real and it ran the other way. Christian censors expurgated passages they found offensive, most famously the Jesus passages in Sanhedrin, which is why those survive in manuscripts and early printings rather than in the standard Vilna edition. (b) There is no mechanism and no evidence for the reverse. Nobody has proposed how Christians would have inserted a suffering Messiah into the Targum tradition, Sanhedrin 98a-b, Berakhot 5a, Pesikta Rabbati, and Sukkah 52a simultaneously, and no textual evidence of it exists. (c) Jewish scholarship treats the passages as authentic. They are discussed as genuine by Jewish contributors in the Janowski and Stuhlmacher volume, by Patai, and by Klausner.

MO3: "Messiah ben Joseph is a post-Christian development, probably a response to Bar Kokhba's death or to Christian argument. Using it to show that Judaism 'always' expected a dying Messiah is circular."

• Three responses. (a) The dating is disputed and no early date should be asserted. Proposals range widely and the honest position says so. (b) The argument does not need an early date. The claim is that a dying-then-reigning structure is a category Judaism generated from its own texts, and that holds whenever it was generated. (c) A post-Christian origin would be a substantial concession. If the tradition arose because texts describing a slain messianic figure, above all Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53, required accommodation, then Judaism found those texts pressing enough to build a figure for them rather than simply denying that they describe one.

MO4: "Suffering with Israel is not dying for the sins of the world. Your sources have a Messiah who shares Israel's afflictions, which is a completely different thing from penal substitution."

• Three responses. (a) The distinction is real and it is conceded in this page's concessions. Several passages are about solidarity, and none of them articulates the Christian doctrine. (b) The distinction narrows at premise 5. b. Moed Katan 28a states that the death of the righteous atones, and 4 Maccabees 6:28-29 has a martyr asking God to take his life in exchange for the nation's and his blood as their purification. That is not solidarity language; it is exchange language, and it is Jewish. (c) The argument's conclusion is about the category, not the doctrine. It claims that a suffering and atoning messianic figure is thinkable in Judaism, which is what the objection under answer denies.

MO5: "The greatest weakness in your case is that none of these figures rises from the dead. Your Messiah's whole claim rests on a resurrection your sources know nothing about."

• Three responses. (a) This is the strongest objection on the page and it is correct. The rabbinic material has no resurrected Messiah, and that gap should be named openly rather than buried. (b) The argument is not weakened by it, because it does not claim to close that gap. This page establishes that suffering and death are available categories. The resurrection is argued historically and separately, at Resurrection of Jesus. (c) The gap identifies where the conversation should go next. Once the two-stage pattern is granted as Jewishly available, the remaining question is factual: did this particular man rise? That is a question about evidence, which is a better place for the discussion to be than a question about which tradition owns a category.

MO6: "Even conceding everything, the overwhelming Jewish expectation was a triumphant Davidic king. You have found a minority stream and are presenting it as the tradition."

• Two responses. (a) Granted without reservation. The dominant expectation was a reigning king, and the suffering material is a minority stream. (b) A minority stream is exactly what the argument needs. The claim under attack is that the category is foreign to Judaism. A minority Jewish stream is not a foreign category; it is a Jewish one. And a minority reading that has to be argued against, rather than simply not existing, is evidence that the texts supported it.

Premise 1, the Targumic witness

Affirmative case

1. The rendering is explicit. Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper; he shall be exalted and increase, and shall be very strong."
2. The Targumim carried liturgical authority. They were read aloud alongside the Hebrew in synagogue, which makes this a public and communal identification rather than a scholar's private opinion.
3. The Targum's own difficulty is evidence. Having named the Messiah, it then transfers the chapter's suffering to other subjects, which is the behavior of an interpreter working around an inherited identification rather than freely constructing one.
4. Jostein Adna's study of the Targum of Isaiah 53 documents the redistribution in detail, and it is treated in the Janowski and Stuhlmacher volume.

Anticipated objections

1. "The Targum is anti-Christian precisely in its handling of this chapter. Citing it for a Christian conclusion is perverse."
2. "'Messiah' in Targumic usage can mean an anointed one in a general sense, not the eschatological redeemer."
3. "Targum Jonathan's date is uncertain and its final form may be late."

Rebuttals

1. The Targum's polemical orientation is granted and is the point. A hostile witness conceding the identification is stronger evidence than a friendly one, and the redistribution shows the Targumist was managing a problem rather than inventing a reading.
2. The usage is eschatological in this context. The Targum of Isaiah uses meshicha of the awaited redeemer in a series of passages, and 52:13's application sits within that pattern rather than denoting an ordinary anointed official.
3. The date is disputed and the premise does not require an early one. Whatever its final redaction, Targum Jonathan is a Jewish text preserving a Jewish reading, and it long predates Rashi, which is what the source-history argument needs.

Premise 2, the Talmudic witness

Affirmative case

1. b. Sanhedrin 98b derives a name from Isaiah 53:4. The reasoning requires the verse to describe the Messiah.
2. b. Sanhedrin 98a's image is built from affliction. The Messiah among the diseased poor at the gates of Rome, bandaging one wound at a time.
3. b. Berakhot 5a cites Isaiah 53:10 in the context of chastening sufferings that cleanse.
4. The passages sit in an extended messianic discussion. Sanhedrin 96b to 99a contains the calculations of the end, the two-picture problem of Daniel 7:13 against Zechariah 9:9, and Rav's declaration that all the predestined dates have passed.
5. These are not polemical contexts. The discussions are internal rabbinic exegesis, not responses to Christian claims.

Anticipated objections

1. "The 'leper scholar' is one opinion among several names offered for the Messiah, and the list is a rhetorical set piece where each school names him after its own teacher."
2. "Sanhedrin 98a is a story, not a doctrine."
3. "Berakhot 5a is about ordinary sufferings that atone for the individual who bears them, not about a messianic figure."

Rebuttals

1. The observation about the list is accurate and worth making. Each school proposes a name connected to its own house. What the objection does not remove is the derivation: whatever the motivation for choosing it, the name is drawn from Isaiah 53:4, and that requires the verse to be read of the Messiah.
2. It is a story, and stories encode what a tradition takes to be true about a figure. The image of a Messiah waiting among the diseased is not a neutral choice, and it presupposes a Messiah who suffers.
3. This is fair and the citation should be given its narrower weight. Berakhot 5a establishes the rabbinic principle that suffering can cleanse, using Isaiah 53:10 as its text, which contributes to premise 5 more than to premise 2. It is listed here for the use of the verse, not for a messianic identification.

Premise 4, the Messiah who dies

Affirmative case

1. b. Sukkah 52a discusses Zechariah 12:10's mourning and reports the opinion that it is for Messiah ben Joseph, who was slain.
2. The two-Messiah structure is developed across the later literature, with the warrior son of Joseph falling before the son of David reigns.
3. Patai's The Messiah Texts collects the sources; Klausner's The Messianic Idea in Israel provides the critical analysis.
4. The structure is death followed by reign, which is the shape Christians are accused of inventing.

Anticipated objections

1. "Two figures is not one figure coming twice."
2. "No branch of Judaism requires belief in Messiah ben Joseph. He is folklore, not doctrine."
3. "The tradition may be a rationalization of Bar Kokhba's death."

Rebuttals

1. The difference is real and is stated in the concessions. The claim is not that Judaism anticipated two advents of one person, but that a messianic figure who dies is a Jewish category, which the objection denies.
2. Granted, and no claim about binding status is made. Existence is the datum.
3. Possible, and it would still concede the substantive point. A tradition constructed to account for a messianic death is a tradition acknowledging that the texts describe one.

Premise 5, the death of the righteous atones

Affirmative case

1. b. Moed Katan 28a states the principle. The juxtaposition of Miriam's death with the red heifer is taken to teach that just as the red heifer atones, so the death of the righteous atones.
2. 4 Maccabees 6:28-29 has Eleazar pray: "Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs."
3. 4 Maccabees 17:21-22 describes the martyrs as having become "a ransom for the sin of our nation," and says that "through the blood of those devout ones and their propitiatory death, divine Providence preserved Israel."
4. The work is Jewish, of roughly the first century, written in Greek for a Hellenistic Jewish readership, and it is not a Christian composition.
5. The Akedah functions similarly in the liturgy. The binding of Isaac is invoked in the Rosh Hashanah service as a ground on which mercy is asked for his descendants.
6. The rabbinic literature applies the principle broadly, treating the deaths of the righteous and the sufferings of the pious as having effect beyond the sufferer.

Anticipated objections

1. "4 Maccabees is not canonical in Judaism and had little influence on rabbinic thought. It is a Hellenistic outlier."
2. "Moed Katan 28a is a homiletic juxtaposition of two passages, not a doctrine of substitutionary atonement."
3. "None of this is a person dying for the sins of the whole world. The scope is Israel, and the mechanism is merit, not penal substitution."

Rebuttals

1. Its canonical status is granted and its evidential value does not depend on it. The claim is that the concept of vicarious atoning death existed in Judaism in the Second Temple period, and 4 Maccabees demonstrates that a Jewish author could state it in explicit terms without any sense of departing from his tradition.
2. The homiletic character is granted. What survives is that the tradition was willing to say that a righteous person's death atones, which is the concept the objection says Judaism does not contain.
3. The scope and mechanism differences are real and are conceded. The argument claims that the category of atoning righteous death is Jewish, not that Judaism taught the Christian doctrine. The remaining differences are exactly what the further argument is about.

Live-cite kit

Jewish sources

• Targum Jonathan, Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper."
• b. Sanhedrin 98b, the leper scholar, from Isaiah 53:4.
• b. Sanhedrin 98a, the Messiah at the gates of Rome.
• b. Berakhot 5a, Isaiah 53:10 on cleansing chastisement.
• b. Sukkah 52a, the mourning for Messiah ben Joseph.
• b. Moed Katan 28a, the death of the righteous atones.
• Pesikta Rabbati 36-37 and Yalkut Shimoni on Isaiah 60, Messiah Ephraim.
• Ruth Rabbah 5:6; Zohar II 212a (thirteenth century, cited as such).
• 4 Maccabees 6:28-29 and 17:21-22.
• Moshe Alshech: "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah."

Scripture

• Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12, the passage under discussion.
• Zechariah 12:10, the pierced one and the mourning.
• Isaiah 53:4, 53:10, the verses the rabbinic sources cite.

Scholarly

• Driver and Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters (Oxford, 1876 to 1877).
• Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Wayne State, 1979).
• Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (Macmillan, 1955).
• Janowski and Stuhlmacher, eds., The Suffering Servant (Eerdmans, 2004), including Adna on the Targum.
• Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels (New Press, 2012), as an argued position.
• Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3 (Baker, 2003).

Aphorism

• "The category was yours first."
• "Your Talmud names him out of Isaiah 53. I did not put it there."
• "You built a Messiah who dies. Ask yourself why the texts made that necessary."

Tactical notes

• Deploy this only after the "Christian invention" claim has been made. Used pre-emptively it reads as a rehearsed gotcha. Used at that moment it reframes everything.
• Ask, do not tell. "Who does Targum Jonathan say the servant is?" lands incomparably better than announcing it.
• State the limits before the evidence. "None of this says Jesus. I am making one narrow point." The limitation is what makes the citation credible.
• Volunteer the Targum's redistribution. Saying "and then it moves the suffering onto Israel, which is interesting in itself" before the interlocutor does buys enormous credit.
• Name the resurrection gap yourself. It is the strongest objection and it is better heard from you.
• Handle 4 Maccabees carefully. Introduce it as a Jewish book of the Second Temple period, not as Scripture, and let the quotation do the work.
• Do not gloat. This is the material most likely to be delivered triumphantly, and triumph destroys it.
• What NOT to defend: that the Talmud confesses Jesus; that Judaism always expected a suffering Messiah; an early date for Messiah ben Joseph; the Zohar as ancient testimony.

See also

• Isaiah 53 Is About Israel Objection Defeater, the defeater built from the same source material.
• Jesus Failed the Messianic Job Description Objection Defeater, where the two-picture problem and Sanhedrin 98a are treated.
• Psalm 22 Pierced Mistranslation Objection Defeater, including Zechariah 12:10 and Sukkah 52a.
• Two Powers in Heaven Argument, the parallel argument from internal Jewish sources on the doctrine of God.
• Talmud Attests the Temple Signs Ceased Argument, the parallel argument from the Talmudic historical record.
• Two-Stage Messianic Prophecy and Messianic Prophecy, the hermeneutical frame.
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Atonement, where the doctrinal differences conceded here are treated.
• Resurrection of Jesus, where the gap named in MO5 is argued.
• The Jewish Defense, Judaism, and Counter-Missionary Movement, the cluster hubs.