Transcript Class powerpoint on the views of Messiah

Class Three
Jewish Views of the Messiah
RECAP
1st Temple
2nd Temple
Maccabean Revolt
Setting the Stage
People assumed, in large part to the rise of Christianity, that
there was ONE concept of a messiah being developed and
considered until the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth.
As William Scott Green points out, “Most scholarship on the
messiah has postulated for both Judaism and its Israelite
precursor(s) a single, uniform religious pattern in which messianic
belief was both decisive and generative… Any notion of a messianic
belief or idea in ancient Judaism necessarily presupposes that
‘messiah’ was a focal and evocative native category for ancient
Jews” William Scott Green, “Introduction: Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the
Question” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, Jacob Neuser,
William S. Green and Ernest Frerichs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987),
2.
Setting the Stage
This turned out to be a false assumption, as
messianism has its own developments.
“One of the most important aspects of Jewish theology was
messianism, that is, various beliefs regarding a coming figure
called the ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One’. Most Jews were
looking for one and in some cases several Messiah(s).
Messianic expectations were anything but uniform, as the NT
and Second Temple literature attest” Andreas J. Köstenberger, L.
Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, The Cross, and The
Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H
Academic, 2009), 94.
Setting the Stage
What changed/developed in scholarship that changed this
view?
Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
The primary reason for a reassessment of Jewish messianism
at this time is the availability of new evidence from the Dead
Sea Scrolls
Messianism owes its own continuing influence throughout
the Second-Temple period in large part to the convergence
between its thematic importance in the Hebrew scriptures
and the pressures of contemporary Jewish life
The Term “Messiah”
The term Messiah comes from the Hebrew word ַ‫ָמ ִׁשיח‬
meaning “the anointed one” Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner,
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M. E. J. Richardson, 2 vols. (Leiden:
Brill, 2001), 645.
It occurs thirty-eight times throughout the Old
Testament, but it is interesting to note that the
technical term does not carry the notions that became
associated with it Ibid., 645.
The Term “Messiah”
Darrell Bock classifies the thirty-eight occurrences:
twice to the patriarchs, six times to the high priest,
once to Cyrus (Isa. 45:1), twenty-nine times to the king
(including Saul, David, and an unnamed Davidic king
in Ps. 2:1-2), and once to an eschatological figure (Dan.
9:25-26)” Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and
Methods (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002), 132.
These occurrences confirm that the term messiah grew
out of the original textual meaning and took on a
theological idea
The Term “Messiah”
In these contexts the term denotes one invested,
usually by God, with power and leadership, but never
an eschatological figure. Ironically, in the apocalyptic
book of Daniel (9:25f), where an eschatological
messiah would be appropriate, the term refers to a
murdered high priest”.
Could this eschatological notion have come from
somewhere else?
The Term “Messiah”
Bock touches on this, writing, “The term is absent
from the Apocrypha, yet so much of the Old
Testament looked forward to the eschatological day of
vindication or to a period of peace through a great,
victorious rule that there always remained the hope for
many that one day God would complete his promise
through such a figure… It is the lack of explicit
reference to this figure and the variety of images
associated with the end-time hope that led to the
competing views in Jewish end-time expectations”
The Term “Messiah”
Looking at the word in isolation with the text, the
word does not carry the eschatological idea. However,
the ideas and notions about messianism in Judaism
developed over time with the help of overarching
messianic ideas found in the Old Testament as well as
the hope of the actual community. Thus, the word
became fused and associated with this idea known
today as Messiah.
Angelic Son of Man Messiah
One view that was circulating during the Second
Temple Period was the notion of an angelic figure that
would come and redeem the Jewish people
Bock description, “Works written at or just after the
time of Jesus also speak of a figure who is an
eschatological judge of humanity, the Son of Man…He
also appears to have messianic qualities but is seen in
more transcendent terms than a mere king. So the Son
of Man represents yet another expression of
eschatological hope”
Angelic Son of Man
Daniel 7 is thought to have been an influential text for
this view
Daniel 7:13-14, “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son
of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient
of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him
was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all
the peoples, nations and men of every language might
serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.”
Angelic Son of Man
What the characteristics of this Son of Man?
He is not just a moral ruler, but one who “will not pass
away”
He has divine qualities
He is sent from God
Angelic Son of Man
It is supposed that Daniel 7 influenced the apocryphal
book 1 Enoch
Enoch (in common with Elijah) occupies this singular
position among the Old Testament men of God that
when removed from the earth he was carried directly to
heaven…Accordingly at a somewhat early period
probably as far back as the second century before
Christ an apocalyptic writing appeared purporting to
have been composed by Enoch which work was
subsequently issued in an enlarged and revised form.
Angelic Son of Man
This Book of Enoch was already known to the author of the
Book of “Jubilees” and of the ‘Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs’ and was afterwards a great favorite in the
Christian Church. As is well known it is quoted in the
Epistle of Jude (14 15) while many of the Fathers use it
without hesitation as the genuine production of Enoch and
as containing authentic divine revelations although it has
never been officially recognized by the Church as
canonical… Emil Shurer
1 Enoch mentions this Son of Man in several places: 1
Enoch 39-71, esp. 46:1-5; 48:2-7; 62:3-14; 63:11; 69:27-70:1;
71:17
Angelic Son of Man
For example, in 1 Enoch 46:2 it says, “And I asked the angel
who went with me and showed me all the hidden things,
concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he
was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days?”
Verse 4 the angel says, “And this Son of Man whom thou
hast seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their
seats, [and the strong from their throne] And shall loosen
the reins of the strong, and break the teeth of the sinners.”
What do you notice about this messiah?
Angelic Son of Man
There is a sense that this Son of Man will be a
redeemer to his people, and hold judgment over those
who have mistreated the righteous
Another good example of the messianic hope found in
1 Enoch comes in 1 Enoch 69:29, “And from
henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible; For that
Son of Man has appeared, and has seated himself on
the throne of his glory, and all evil shall pass away
before his face, and the word of that Son of Man shall
go forth and be strong before the Lord of Spirit”
Angelic Son of Man
It is easy to see in 1 Enoch how a messianic hope would
arise. 1 Enoch is filled with messianic notions and the
coming of the Son of Man. If the dating on 1 Enoch is
accurate in that it was formulated in the Second Temple
Period, then it makes sense as to why the notion of a
transcendent angelic figure was floating around the Jewish
community due to its being held as authoritative.
John H. Collins comments on this and the evidence found
from the Dead Sea Scrolls supporting this claim, saying,
“The Dead Sea Scrolls provide ample evidence that the
canon had not been closed around the turn of the era.
Books such as Enoch and Jubilees are preserved in multiple
copies and were widely authoritative” Scepter and the Star
Prophet (?) Messiah
This differs from the Son of Man view because this
messianic figure was more of a prophetic figure, not
one who had divine qualities and would sit on a throne
of glory, like the one we found in 1 Enoch
This is difficult to discern because there is a mixing of
terminologies that caused scholars to wonder. Bock
comments on this saying, “Associated with the
eschatological time was the expectation of a prophetic
figure. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether this was
another way to refer to the Messiah or whether he was
seen as a distinct figure like Moses or Elijah.”
Prophet (?)
A key text for this view comes from 1 Maccabees 14:41
where it says, “And the Jews and the priests were well
pleased that Simon should be their leader and high-priest
forever, until a faithful prophet should arise.”
Another key text is from Sirach 48:1-11. For example, in
Sirach 48:1, 3-4 it says, “Until there arose a prophet like fire,
whose word was like a burning furnace… By the word of
God he shut up the heavens; Fire also descended thrice.
How terrible was thou, Elijah! And he who is like thee shall
be glorified.”
Notice the reference to Elijah here but as the text continues,
it becomes more blurred as to who/what is being referred
to.
Prophet (?)
Sirach 48:8-11 reads, “Who anointedst kings for
retribution, and a prophet as successor in thy place.
Who art ready for the time, as it is written, to still
wrath before the fierce anger of God, to turn the heart
of the fathers unto the children, and to restore the
tribes of Israel. Blessed is he that seeth thee, and
dieth.”
The language here seems to suggest that someone else
will come and take the place of Elijah
Prophet (?)
Another source on this topic is in the works of Philo
Philo is an important source for scholars today. Philo is
known as one of the most important Jewish authors of
the Second Temple period of Judaism and was a
contemporary of both Jesus and Paul
He is considered only second to Josephus
Prophet (?)
Philo writes in Special Laws 1.11 about Moses telling his
disciples about the future. Philo writes, “He says, that if
they are truly pious they shall not be deprived of a
proper knowledge of the future; (65) but that some
other prophet will appear to them on a sudden,
inspired like himself, who will preach and prophesy
among them, saying nothing of his own”
There was a definite idea floating around that someday
another prophet would come. The only part that
remains blurry is whether he would be like another
Moses/ Elijah or something completely different
King/Military Messiah
This Davidic view is clearly articulated in Psalms of
Solomon 17-18, where the hope is for a wise, powerful
king who will exercise God’s judgment and vindication
This Davidic King was popular amongst the Jewish
people. In some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is
mention of a Davidic Messiah that will come and
vindicate Israel
Obviously the basis of this hope derives from King
David
King/Military Messiah
The Jewish people viewed David as the greatest Israelite
king to have existed and the expectation was the
messianic king would be like another King David,
where he would rid the land of all its enemies, and
reestablish the nation of Israel. This king then
functions to bring order in the ways of war as well as
politics
Bock asserts, “Through him, victory, peace, and
wisdom would come to God’s people as Gentiles were
vanquished.”
King/Military Messiah
Does this idea fit within the Second Temple Period?
YES. Rome occupies Israel, and Gentile influences are everywhere
This was the predominant view in the Jewish community
James D.G. Dunn discusses this Davidic view in that period
saying, “Most important here is the hoped-for Davidic or royal
messiah…We may conclude that these passages must have
nurtured a fairly vigorous and sustained hope of a royal messiah
within several at least subgroups of Israel at the time of Jesus, and
that that hope was probably fairly widespread at a popular level
(such being the symbolic power of kingship in most societies then
and since. Talk of an expected ‘coming of the Messiah’ would have
been meaningful to first-century Jews and represented a major
strand of Jewish eschatological expectations.”
A King AND A Priest
The fourth view of the messiah in the Second Temple
Period comes from the Qumran community
They had a view of two figures coming, one being a
priest, and the other being a king
The findings in the Qumran community have opened
discussion about this topic which completely
revolutionized past scholar’s views on messianism in
the Judaism. This group is profoundly important to the
research and understanding of the Second Temple
Period and the view on the coming Messiah(s)
A King AND A Priest
The Qumran community, which had reacted negatively to
the Hasmonean blending of kingship and priesthood,
apparently anticipated a pair of messianic figures, one
priestly (a Levitical messiah) and the other regal
One of the first scrolls published, the Community Rule or
Manual of Discipline (1QS) contains a famous passage,
which is widely regarded as a summary of messianic
expectations of the Qumran sect: “They shall depart from
none of the counsels of the Law to walk in the stubbornness
of their hearts, but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts
in which the men of the Community were first instructed
until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of
Aaron and Israel” (1QS 9:11).
A King AND A Priest
When looking at the relationship then between the
Priestly messiah and royal messiah, there is a unique
authority set forth. According to the Qumran
community, the royal messiah was to refer to the
priestly one.
A King AND A Priest
Ex. 1QSa shows the division of authority, To the feast,
men of renown, and they shall sit be[fore him, each]
according to his importance. Afterwards, [the messiah]
of Israel [shall enter] and the heads of the [thousands
of Israel] shall sit before him [ea]ch according to his
importance…[no] one [shall extend] his hand to the
first (portion) of the bread and [the wine] before the
priest. Fo[r he shall extend] his hand to the bread first.
Afterwa[rds,] the messiah of Israel [shall exten]d his
hand to the bread. [Afterwards,] all of the congregation
of the community [shall ble]ss, ea[ch according to] his
importance…
What Does This Mean?
What does knowing this do for us today?
Where did these spring up from again?
Do we see traces of this in the NT?