Messiah as eschatological?
Before attempting to identify, describe, and date the factors at play in the development of messianism it is necessary to offer a definition of Messiah. A number of scholars have wanted to restrict this term to an eschatological dimension. [1] It is important to acknowledge that the term Messiah is usually not explicitly attached to figures whom, according to various definitions, we might want to view as ‘messianic’ and this presents obvious difficulties. Vriezen claims that the word Messiah is 'nowhere in the Old Testament used in connection with the figure of the saviour!' and 'the name king is not applied directly to him, either'. [2] While accepting Vriezen’s main point, I think it is overstated. For example, the term Messiah arguably occurs in Daniel 9:24 f. [3] Otto Piper notes that the term messiah refers to a number of figures in the Old Testament other than kings. [4]
The Messiah as an agent of Yahweh
The most surprising use of the term ‘Messiah’ is, I think, in Isaiah 45:1f., where Cyrus is given this title. Motyer suggests that what might seem at first to be a baffling description is, in fact, helpful for our overall understanding. In this passage ‘Cyrus is a man of God’s choice (Is. 41:25), appointed to accomplish a redemptive purpose towards God’s people (Is. 45:11-13), and a judgment on His foes (Is. 47), He is given dominion over the nations (45:1-3); and in all his activities the real agent is Yahweh Himself (Is. 45:1-7).’ [5] Within this framework, we need a definition of ‘messianic’ which offers a reasonable degree of focus while allowing for the range of different uses in scripture as well as the possibility of shift and development over time. Accordingly, we agree with Vriezen that, ‘the best plan seems to be to apply the word messianic to all those prophecies that place a person in the limelight as the figure of salvation’. [6]
The origins of the Davidic dynasty
While I want to maintain a broad definition of ‘messianic’, the term is clearly closely associated with the anointing of Israelite kings and we will now consider the issue of ‘kingship ideology’ in ancient Israel. [7] In particular, the messianic hope clearly developed strongly around the figure of David and his descendants. [8] The foundation of this hope appears to have been Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel 7. [9] Becker asserts that ‘Beyond question, there was a historical Nathan prophecy’ and notes that at least one scholar has located it in 2 Sam 7:11b. [10] As a general approach, it seems reasonable to postulate a core promise which has been expanded and developed over time in accordance with changing circumstances. We might then look for layers from different periods within this text. If a significant layer took place in the time of Solomon, [11] the new kings’ need to bolster up the legitimacy of his succession might have made a contribution. [12] David had not managed to build the temple and this might raise doubts about the associated promises concerning the Davidic dynasty. [13] Nathan’s prophecy transfers the emphasis away from the temple to the Davidic dynasty. [14]
Theocentrism as the source of messianism
As Clements makes clear, Nathan’s prophecy was ‘a basic element of the political theology of the Israelite state’ [15] and I think the terms ‘theology’ and ‘state’ here help us to avoid over-simplification. We are not to imagine that the anointing of David, and the promise of dynasty, were seen in purely political terms in ancient Israel. Vriezen invites us to consider the way in which the radically theocentric vision of the Israelites ‘creates new values’. [16] Spelling out these new values, Vriezen argues that the Israelite theocentricity naturally led to ‘teleology in the conception of history, which in its turn led to eschatology, expressing the belief in the restoration of Israel, the Messianic kingdom ...’ [17] I think that to speak, as Becker does, of the ‘Davidic Monopoly’ [18] is anachronistic because it describes the Davidic dynasty in terms of markets (a very modern concept) and obscures the activity of Yahweh through the anointed king. When ancient Israelites looked hopefully to the Davidic dynasty, they were already looking to Yahweh as the saviour behind the king, working through royal agency and I think Vriezen is right to identify this theocentric conception as the underlying cause of messianism.
Messianism in the royal psalms
Another aspect of ‘kingship ideology’ in ancient Israel which I want to explore is the ‘royal psalms’. How might we date such psalms? To take one example, Heim’s intertextual analysis of psalm 72 firmly links it to King David. [19] Can the royal psalms be considered messianic? O. A. Piper states that, ‘The language of the royal hymns of the OT has often been considered unrealistic and typical of oriental exaggeration’ [20] A number of scholars have suggested that certain elements of the royal psalms can be identified with an ‘enthronement festival’ as practised by other ancient nations. [21] According to this interpretation, ‘it is really Yahweh who is hailed as king and conqueror over the powers of evil’. [22] Here again, Yahweh emerges as the real source of hope expressed through the figure of His anointed. This reading is consistent with the theocentism discussed earlier.
Old Testament prophecy
Turning to Old Testament prophetic books, it is immediately clear that there is a huge amount of material which might be considered more or less directly messianic. [23] Because of the textual complexity of these writings, I will not attempt a general overview (which might be too reductionist) but rather I will look at specific passages in the books of Isaiah, Daniel, Zechariah and Malachi and seek to draw out some more general points from each.
I. Pre-Exilic Origins
The children of Isaiah 6-9
Firstly, can we identify a first person ‘memoir’ in Isaiah 6:1 - 9:6 composed by Isaiah of Jerusalem? [24] Three children are mentioned in this section: Shear-jashub; Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hashbaz and Clements identifies all three as children of the prophet in the original setting rather than royal children. Interpretations of the three sign names are located in 7:7-9; 7:15-17 and 8:4. Hence the prophet’s original message is seen to offer reassurance concerning the threat to Ahaz by the Syro-Ephraimite alliance. We note that the first person changes to third person at 7:3 and so the question of later editing emerges. Clements identifies Insertions in 7:2 and 9b and posits that the editor aimed to demonstrate that Ahaz’s rejection of Isaiah’s message stemmed from lack of faith. In line with this assertion is the elevation of Hezekiah as an exemplary Davidic king. The accession oracle of 9:1-6 is seen to be a later addition referring to Hezekiah’s accession. Clements then postulates a third, late postexilic, reinterpretation of the Immanuel prophecy, seeing in Micah 5:2b an allusion to Isaiah 7:14. This prophecy can therefore be seen to have a pre-exilic kernel of reassurance to Ahaz, followed by editing which reflects Israel’s hopes for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy, and finally, Isaiah 9:1-6 offered the foundation for an eschatological hope. Elements of these chapters therefore cover a period from pre-exilic to post-exilic Israelite history and the message ranges from the specifically political to the eschatological.
II. Prophecy in exile
The Servant of the Lord
While not unanimous, [25] the consensus of scholarly opinion holds that Isaiah 40-66 were not written by Isaiah of Jerusalem but rather were composed in Babylon. [26] Four ‘servant songs’ have been identified in these chapters: 42:1-7; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12 however there is little agreement about the identity of the servant. In particular, it has not been clear whether to understand the servant in an individual or a corporate sense. Let us take the servant songs one-by-one and attempt to ascertain the referent in each.
To take the first servant song, Blenkinsopp asserts that it cannot bear a collective interpretation, [27] and compares the passage with 11:1-9, interprets the servant as a king, and finally identifies him as Cyrus. [28] Given my comments on 45:1 above, this is not a possibility I wish to discount out of hand. Blenkinsopp allows for later interpretations of the servant as Jehoiachin and / or Zerubbabel. Dealing with the second servant song, Blenkinsopp notes verse 3, ‘You are my servant, Israel’ and points out an immediate difficulty in that the servant’s task is ‘to restore the survivors of Israel’ (verse 6). How can both task and agent be Israel? Blenkinsopp argues that this passage must have been expanded and contain with in itself the first stage of interpretation. Clear connections are seen between the second, third, and fourth servants and the language is ‘in several respects ambiguous and patient of more than one interpretation.’ [29]
The approach of Hugenberger seems to me more rewarding. [30] He follows von Rad in concluding that the prominence of the second exodus theme should lead us to identify the servant as a second Moses. Perhaps the strongest argument for this theory is taken from 63:11-19 where the people cry out for a second Moses. Hugenberger presents a list of points in favour of this interpretation and concludes that it makes sense of the ‘otherwise perplexing combination of corporate and individual, as well as prophetic, royal, and priestly traits in the portrait of the servant.’ [31] The relevance of second exodus imagery to Israelites in exile is self-evident: they clearly desired to be liberated from captivity and led to the Promised Land.
III. Postexilic Prophecy
Blenkinsopp has noted a shift in the nature of prophecy after the exile. Increasingly, as written prophetic texts became available, the emphasis was placed more on the reinterpretation of earlier prophecies and less on direct communication from Yahweh. [32] Exegesis was institutionalised and a scribal, theological tradition developed. [33] In prophetic texts from this period, therefore, we see attempts to resolve unanswered questions from earlier periods relating to prophecy.
Zechariah – riding on a donkey
Zechariah 9:9-10 ‘is probably post-exilic and is the work of a prophet speaking eschatologically’. [34] Opinion is divided over whether or not it is an independent unit or an original component of the chapter. [35] The first section of Zechariah 9 fits best with the campaigns of Alexander between the battle of Issus (333) and the conquest of Egypt. [36] Blenkinsopp suggests that we can see here ‘an indication of the initial response of Jewish communities to the Macedonian conqueror: satisfaction at the discomfiting of traditional enemies mixed with apprehension for the fate of Jerusalem.’[37] Verses 9-10 recall Genesis 49:8-12 and thus we have an example of the reinterpretation of earlier promises. Victory over Greece is predicted in verse 13 but this may be a gloss from as late as the conflict with the Seleucid rulers. [38] Verse 10 features a king who, far from defeating Israel’s enemies by political force, puts an end to war. The post-exilic prophets had understood that the Messiah will not employ brute force but that his kingdom would operate in a different dimension. It seems clear that the experience of the exile and the continuing experience of dominant aggressors (such as Alexander) had convinced the returned Jews of the need to place their hope in an eschatological messiah.
Malachi – Yahweh’s messenger
There is a fair amount of consensus that the prophet Malachi was postexilic and lived in Palestine. [39] Furthermore, scholars date Malachi after Haggai and Zechariah because they had exhorted the returned Israelites to rebuild the temple (completed in 515 B.C.). [40] There are, however, differing views on whether Malachi should be dated before, contemporary with, or after Ezra and Nehemiah. [41] While not much data exists regarding Israel’s history in this period, the Persian Empire clearly played a dominant role. [42] In this context, it seems clear that Israel lost its sense of spiritual identity to a large degree. It is therefore not surprising that Malachi 3:2-3 speaks of purification – the people needed to be reminded to remain faithful to Yahweh. The post-exilic time was discouraging for Israel. The returning Israelites had high hopes and rebuilt the temple expectantly but, as Smith observes ‘there was no glory’. [43] Instead Israel faced ‘famine, poverty, oppression, unfaithfulness to marriage vows, and to covenant vows. Moral and spiritual laxity, pride, indifference, permissiveness, and scepticism were rife.’ [44] It is therefore not surprising that Yahweh promised a messenger ‘to prepare the way’ (3:1). Given that the political solution of return from exile had not solved all their problems, the Israelites naturally looked to an eschatological deliverer.
Daniel – The ‘Son of Man’ and the ‘Anointed One’
We will examine two passages in the second half of Daniel: 7:13-14 and 9:24-27. Chapters 7-12 suggests ‘a setting in Jerusalem in the 160s B.C. where power lies in the hands of constitutionally hostile gentile authorities and a compliant Jewish leadership that has cooperated with the subversion and outlawing of traditional Jewish faith.’ [45] Daniel 9:24 contains a reference to an ‘anointed most holy one / place’. It is uncertain whether or not the Temple or a person is referred to. [46] According to Lacocque, ‘we pass from a hope for the Davidic line to a priestly type of eschatology’. [47] Lacocque identifies this messiah with Onias III’. [48] Given the lack of political leadership noted above, it is easy to see why messianic hope might have been transferred to the priestly line. Turning to 7:13-14, it seems to me that the ‘son of man’ deliberately transcends the divine-human binary opposition. I therefore wish to follow Lacocque’s view (over against Mason) [49] that the son of man ‘participates in the divine stature by his enthronement side by side with God and by the exercise of the divine judgement’, [50] noting that we see the same kind of divine-human depiction in the royal enthronement festival. [51]
Conclusion
Christian readers of prophecy in the Hebrew Bible will want to identify Jesus as the pre-eminent 'person in the limelight as the figure of salvation' as well as the fulfilment of many specifics to be found in these writings. In this essay, however, I have endeavoured to allow the prophets to speak with their own unique voice and to avoid imposing an anachronistic perspective onto the writings of ancient Israel. It seems to me that to define Messiah narrowly either as exclusively eschatological (Mowinckel) or as exclusively Davidic (Mason) is to read back into the Old Testament an abstracted scheme rather than allowing the texts to form their own categories. I have argued that the concept of anointing is very flexible. I submit that the messianic hope is the logical consequence of Israel's radical theocentrism (with Vriezen). God used agents of salvation before the time of David and I would include such in the general stream which later took on more of a Davidic flavour. The messianic hope certainly developed strongly around the royal figures of Israel's early monarchism. This hope was located within a theocentric rather than an exclusively eschatological framework. Even before the exile, Israel's hope transcended the monarchy itself. This is shown by the exalted language of the royal psalms and by the depiction of even David's shortcomings in the books of Samuel. However the exile clearly precipitated a deeper shift in the messianic hope. Exilic and post-exilic prophecy exhibits stronger eschatological themes and the growing apocalyptic demonstrates a transcendent tendency. Post-exilic messianic thought is also more prone to attach itself to non-royal figures such as prophets and priests. The lack of royal patronage is certainly a reason for this but, following the catastrophic events of the exile, Israel was now more inclined to look for salvation beyond the political realm.
[1] cf. J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), p.394; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956), p.3
[3] Piper (1986), p.330; Kevin Vanhoozer, (ed.), et al, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), pp. 503-4
[4] Otto A. Piper in Geoffrey W. Bromiley et al (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p.330
[5] J.A.Motyer in J.D.Douglas (ed.) et al, The New Bible Dictionary, (Leicester: IVP, 1978), pp.811-812
[8] R. E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: a fresh approach (London: Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1978), p.146
[10] Joachim Becker, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), p.25
[15] R. E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: from oracle to canon, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), p.57
[19] Heim in Philip E. Satterthwaite (ed.) et al, The Lord's Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 1995), p. 235
[21] George A F Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, second edition, (London: SCM, 1964), p.292
[24] I am indebted to R. E. Clements (1996), pp.66-77 for the reading of the Immanuel prophecy which follows
[26] J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), p.184
[46] Mason in J. Day, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), p.358
Bibliography
A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, (Dallas: Word, 1989)
J. Becker, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980)
J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996)
G. W. Bromiley (ed), et al, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986)
B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993)
R. E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: from oracle to canon, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996)
R. E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: a fresh approach (London: Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1978)
J. Day, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998)
J. D. Douglas et al (ed), New Bible Dictionary, third edition, (Leicester: IVP, 1996)
J. E. Goldingay, Daniel, (Dallas: Word, 1989)
W. C. Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995)
G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, second edition, (London: SCM, 1964)
P. K. McCarter, Anchor Bible, Second Samuel, (New York: Doubleday, 1984)
A. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, (London: SPCK, 1979)
T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976)
J.A.Motyer in J.D.Douglas (ed.) et al, The New Bible Dictionary, (Leicester: IVP, 1978)
J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, (Leicester: IVP, 1993)
S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956)
P. E. Satterthwaite (ed.) et al, The Lord's Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 1995)
R. L. Smith, Micah - Malachi, (Waco: Word, 1984)
K. Vanhoozer, (ed.), et al, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005)
P. A. Verhoef, The books of Haggai and Malachi, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987)
Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology, second edition, (Blackwell: Oxford, 1970)
No comments:
Post a Comment