Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

MESSIAH

The word “Messiah” is an adjectival form with a passive sense derived from the Hebrew verb meaning “to anoint.” It can be used adjectivally (“the anointed priest”; Lev. 4:3), though its most common form is nominal (Heb. māšîaḥ). In the 30 occurrences of the term in the OT, there is no single occurrence of the form “the Messiah,” with the definite article and no modifier. The biblical forms are “the Lord’s Anointed” (used with the divine name), or “my Anointed,” “his anointed,” and “your anointed” (with pronominal suffixes referring to God). While used occasionally of priests and prophets, the term is used to refer principally to kings whose installation to office included a ritual anointing (cf. 1 Sam. 10:1; 16:13).

The use of “the Messiah” (or “the Christ”) in the NT and subsequent Christian literature (Gk. Messías) and “the [King] Messiah” in later Jewish writings — referring to a single figure who needs no more qualification — presumes a history of interpretation that can be reconstructed, at least in part, from extant postbiblical literature. “The Messiah” is thus a term with roots in the OT but whose meaning arises from postbiblical usage. No simple trajectory through the OT can account for its place in later visions and dreams of the future, nor can what qualifies as “messianic” be measured simply in terms of a historical development within biblical Israel. References to “the Messiah” make little sense, however, without knowledge of the biblical tradition.

In early Christian and rabbinic tradition, “the Messiah [King]” refers to a royal figure who will play a crucial role in the last days. For a variety of reasons, traditions about the king from the Davidic line came to be projected into the future. While the king to come is not identified as “the Messiah” until the NT and rabbinic writings, there are precursors of such usage especially in Ps. Sol. 17 (where the coming ruler is identified as “the Anointed of Israel,” “the prince,” or “the branch of David”).

In references to this coming king, linguistic connections with “anointing” are not always preserved. The use of “the Messiah” presumes some knowledge of the ritual of installation but also reflects the centrality of certain OT passages like Ps. 2, , in which the king is identified as “anointed.” The NT, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Qumran scrolls give evidence that this psalm was central to an expectation of a king to come at the end of days to rule in Israel. This royal figure, identified by the psalmist as “his [the Lord’s] anointed” (Ps. 2:2) and “my king on Zion” (v. 6), whom God addresses as “son” (v. 7) is linked with the “seed” God promises David in 2 Sam. 7:10-14 — a royal figure whose throne God promises to establish for ever and whom God likewise addresses as “son.”

Likewise central in the constellation of biblical “messianic” texts are Gen. 49:10; Num. 24:17; Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:14-17. Each of these passages speaks in a distinctive way about a royal figure. Later interpreters read such passages as oracles, deriving their meaning not from the historical or literary context of the verses but by relocating them in a new interpretive construct. Whatever Jeremiah or Isaiah or the authors of Genesis and Numbers thought, later readers of the Bible heard their words as predictions of “the” coming king — predictions they wove together with a variety of other biblical passages to form distinct visions of what God had in store for them.

Eschatological Variety

It is useful to distinguish between “messianic” and “eschatological.” While “messianic” refers to a promised future, not all envisioned futures are “messianic.” There were Jews whose future hopes were invested in a king from the line of David, “the Lord’s anointed” (Ps. Sol. 17). In their visions, the king would deliver Israel from foreign bondage (Roman) and establish an ideal kingdom in which justice would rule. This “messianic eschatology” is probably the way most students of the Bible have been taught to think of “messiah” and “messianic.”

Readers of the OT developed a wide variety of alternative expectations, however, in which a royal figure was either completely absent or subordinated to another deliverer. The Samaritans, e.g., who considered as “scripture” only the first five books of the Bible, invested no hopes in a king from the line of David. Their future was invested in a Taheb (“restorer”) in the form of a new Moses, whose coming was understood in terms of such passages as Deut. 18:15-20. Others whose view of the future was cast in the form of bizarre visions (apocalyptists) often had little room for a messianic figure. While the author of 4 Ezra expected a “Messiah” from the line of David, the actual function of the royal figure is limited. At the close of the 400-year “messianic” age, the Messiah dies with the rest of the created order, and in the age to come, after the general resurrection, God alone rules and judges. Some groups expected the return of Elijah — and not simply as the precursor of the Messiah. At Qumran two “anointed ones” were expected — one a priest, the other a royal figure, with the priest clearly superior to his lay counterpart. In all these cases, biblical passages were chosen and combined to fashion diverse and distinct pictures of what was to come.

Common Themes

While there is remarkable variety among eschatological visions, and while evidence does not permit regarding “the Messiah” as the most popular deliverer, some generalizations about “the Messiah” are possible.

When the term (or its Greek equivalent) is used in the form with a definite article, whether in early Christian or rabbinic literature, it refers to a royal figure — the king to come. There is ample evidence to indicate that in the 1st century c.e. (and perhaps 1st century b.c.e.) those who heard the expression “the Messiah” would think of a king — with few exceptions, the king from the line of David who would arise at the end of days to save Israel.

While there is no uniformity even among messianic traditions, there is a constellation of biblical passages that appear with sufficient regularity so as to be viewed as constants (including Pss. 2, 89, 132; 2 Sam. 7 par.; Num. 24:17; Gen. 49:10; Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:17-22). The variety within visions of a messianic future is limited by the imagery appropriate to a king.

As a royal figure, “the Messiah” must be distinguished from prophetic and priestly deliverers who appear in eschatological traditions. While some of the traits could be exchanged, there was no general collapsing of one figure into another. Only later could Christian interpreters combine all the traits into one figure, culminating with Calvin’s threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. The employment of messianic passages at Qumran offers a striking example of an eschatological vision in which at least two deliverers are expected, both of whom are “anointed.”

The actual deployment of Scripture in “messianic exegesis” often resulted in the omission of texts others might have regarded as central, while passages never recognized as “messianic” could be “adopted” into interpretive traditions. An example would be the reading of Isa. 52–53 in Christian literature and in the Targum of Isaiah as a reference to the Messiah-King. Such variety makes it impossible to identify precisely a single “messianic tradition” in postbiblical Judaism, though we can note the biblical passages that seem to appear as constants among interpreters.

While there is considerable debate about how central “the Messiah” was to Jewish eschatological tradition, there can be little doubt that the importance and centrality of royal ideology has been exaggerated and the variety within Jewish tradition underestimated.

In the case of messianic tradition, as well as all other traditions, the Scriptures played a central role — but the interpretation of the biblical material was influenced by a variety of factors, including social situation and historical events. “The Messiah” exists only in particular contexts. The precise meaning of the term therefore depends upon those various contexts and can be determined only by attending to such particulars.

Bibliography. J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis, 1992); N. A. Dahl, Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine (Minneapolis, 1991); D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis, 1988); G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981).

Donald Juel

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

MESSIAH

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)