THE MESSIAH IN THE
FIRST CENTURY:
A REVIEW ARTICLE
In October 1987 an international
symposium was held at
Theological
Seminary on the general topic of "Judaism and Christian
Origins"
and with the specific theme of messianism. The papers
arising
from
the conference have now been published under the editorship of
James
H. Charlesworth, who also acted as chairman of the
steering com-
mittee for the
conference.1 The result is a major collection of essays by
a
distinguished group of scholars from several countries. It is therefore
a
significant volume in terms of both its topic and the contributors.
The book can be assessed from two
angles. First, it can be seen as
a
set of scholarly essays offering research on important aspects of the
topic
of messiahship in the first century. Some of the essays
deal with
messianism in the narrower
sense, that is, the use of the term Messiah
and
the associated concept of a royal or priestly Messiah in Judaism and
in
early Christianity. Other essays are concerned with issues that are
messianic
in a broader sense, such as the Son of Man. It is very impor-
tant to see the
narrower concept within the context of the broader one.2
However,
where essays in this book deal with the broader concept in a
way
that is not too closely related to the more specific topic, we shall
pass
over them fairly briefly in this review.
1 The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity: The
First
(Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992).
2 Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, 381.
68
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Second, the book can also be seen as a
plaidoyer
for a particular
view
of Jewish messianism. Charlesworth
sets out the view which it is
the
agenda of the book to attack: "that there was a set concept of the
Messiah,
and that the Jews were looking for the coming of the Messiah
who
would save God's people" (4 ["Jews" should be glossed to refer
to
"all/most
Jews"]). Or again, "there is a deeply seated and widely as-
sumed contention that
the Jews during the time of Jesus were expecting
a
Messiah, and that they had some agreement on the basic functions he
would
perform" (6). It is then possible to see how Jesus fitted into this
pattern,
with many scholars claiming that he accepted the role of mes-
siah but proceeded
to alter the concept in various ways. The counter-
thesis
is that not all Jews were looking for the Messiah and those who
did
were not looking for the same kind of person. It follows that there
was
no one pattern which Jesus could have fitted and that his disciples
could
not have seen him as fulfilling this pattern.
The form and thrust of the book are
very similar to those of another
recent
publication,3 which is likewise concerned to document the variety
in
Jewish thought and contains contributions by some of the same con-
tributors (B. L. Mack, S.
Talmon, and J. H. Charlesworth,
who thinks that
the
book "should help to turn the tide of understanding regarding mes-
sianism"). The two
books need to be read in conjunction with each other
since
both are attempts to defend this consensus.4
Overview
The heart of the book is a set of
twenty-four papers (if we exclude
for
the moment the introduction by Charlesworth himself).
They are
divided
into five groups: (1) Messianic Ideas and the Hebrew Scrip-
tures; (2) Messianology in Early Judaism and Early Rabbinics;
(3) "Mes-
sianism" in Social
Contexts and in Philo; (4) "The Messiah" and Jesus
of
ment. This division
is arbitrary and artificial in places (How do "social
contexts"
and Philo form a coherent group? How do sections 4 and 5
differ
from one another?). Since we are primarily interested in messi-
anism and the
relationship between Judaism and early Christianity, we
shall
follow a different division, first of all separating off those essays
which
are of little relevance to this particular theme.
3 J. Neusner,
W. S. Green, and E. Frerichs, eds., Judaisms and Their
Messiahs at
the Turn of the
Christian Era
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
4 In particular, see Charlesworth's essay, "From Jewish Messianology
to Christian
Christology:
Some Caveats and Perspectives" (225-64) for an important complement to his
presentation
here. The book as a whole discusses the same areas of Judaism (Enoch; 1 and
2
Maccabees; the Maccabeean
period generally;
A.
Related Issues
A. F. Segal offers one of the
lengthiest essays in the book on "Con-
version
and Messianism: Outline for a New Approach"
(296-340). I
regretfully
forbear to comment on this fascinating account which is
especially
significant for the study of Paul, for it is really concerned with
conversion
in Judaism and in early Christianity and is not germane to
the
origins of messianism.
J. G. Heintz
provides "A Thematic and Iconographical Approach"
to
"Royal Traits and Messianic Figures" (52-66) which is of specialized
interest
to OT scholars.
J. Priest provides an extremely useful
summary for those interested
in
the topic in "A Note on the Messianic Banquet" (222-38), gathering
information
and references that are not easily accessible elsewhere.
The article by B. M. Bokser on "Messianism, the
Exodus Pattern,
and
Early Rabbinic Judaism" (239-58) is concerned with the develop-
ment of Jewish thought
in the post-NT period and does not really affect
our
understanding of the earlier period which is more our concern.
Of a rather different character from
the rest of the book is the con-
tribution by R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, "Sacred Violence and the Messiah:
The
Markan Passion Narrative as a Redefinition of Messianology" (461-
93).
This is concerned with a theory about violence based on anthropol-
ogy, and it is involved with
theories propounded by R. Girard and
B.
Mack. Since it falls outside the specific area of Messianism,
I leave it
to
one side, although again it deals with a highly significant topic.5
B. The Son of Man
Two papers are concerned specifically
with the Son of Man and
stand
apart from the discussion of the Anointed One, which is the main
theme
of the book.
The first is by E H. Borsch who offers
“Further Reflections on 'The
Son
of Man': The Origins and Development of the Title” (130-44). He
gives
a good, brief summary of the course of recent study from the
Bultmann-Fuller-Hahn
consensus to the Vermes-Gasey-Lindars type of
view.
One quotation is interesting: "By the two toughest standards of
'authenticity'
with respect to the traditions (dissimilarity and multiple
attestation),
the Son of Man usage has much better than a prima facie
case
for being taken seriously" (136). He then returns to his earlier sug-
gestion of influences
from traditions within "a baptizing sectarianism in
the
Palestine of Jesus' time" and suggests various avenues that deserve
5 Among recent
contributions to this area of discussion, see B. D. Chilton, The
of Jesus: His
Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (
The
70
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
to
be followed up. Sociological investigations are needed as to why there
are
parallels between sayings about the Son of Man and those about
early
Christian wandering disciples. Was the Jesus-movement related to
this
sectarianism? What is the place of 1 Enoch? Is the pattern in Phil
2:6-11
with its Adamic typology related to the humbling and vindica-
tion of the Son of
Man? Why are there parallels between the Synoptic
and
Johannine Sons of Man but framed in quite distinctive
language?
What
is the significance of the persecution-vindication pattern? How do
we
deal with Luke 12:8f.? (Here Borsch comments "I frankly find it
difficult
to hear a speaker referring to himself by different means in the
same
sentence" despite his earlier suggestion of a possible modern
example:
"A man can't work miracles. What do you expect of me?"). All
of
these are suggestions for further work rather than hypothesis--as
well
as reminder that the author's earlier magnum opus on the Son of
Man
should not be forgotten!6
A. Y. Collins considers "The 'Son
of Man' Tradition and the Book of
Revelation"
(536-68) and argues that Revelation bears witness to a very
early
form of the tradition, post-resurrection but earlier than the for-
mation of
"Q." This is an important piece of research, but it is tied in to
a
hypothesis concerning Jesus' own view of the Son of man which
would
find it very difficult to share, namely that Jesus thought of the Son
of
man as a heavenly being, possibly an angel, but with whom he did
not
identify himself.
C.
The Old Testament and Judaism
J. J. M. Roberts discusses "The
Old Testament's Contribution to Mes-
sianic
Expectations" (39-51). This is a helpful review which lists the
material
and discusses it in a fairly standard, critical manner. The con-
clusions reached are:
1.) The term "messiah" nowhere has a technical
sense
as an eschatological title. 2.) The hope of a "new David" is of a
con-
tinuing line rather
than of one final ruler, although some passages were
open
to the latter interpretation. 3.) Mythological language, drawn from
royal
protocol, gave a basis for the later development of more mytholog-
ical conceptions of
the Messiah. 4.) Jeremiah 33 and Zechariah provide
the
basis for the later hope of a priestly Messiah. 5.) Malachi provided
the
catalyst for speculation about the coming of future prophetic figures.
There
are interesting points here that deserve discussion.
P. D. Hanson looks very briefly at
"Messiahs and Messianic Figures
in
Proto-Apocalypticism" (67-75) in an attempt to
illumine their back-
ground
in a situation of strife and tension.
6 Namely, E H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (
1967).
Moving out of the Scriptures into
Judaism, we start with a lengthy
contribution
by S. Talmon on "The Concepts of MASIAH and Messianism
in
Early Judaism" (79-115). Talmon is not easy
going, but he appears to
be
arguing that the messianic idea is to be seen primarily in a historical
setting
in relation to the biblical institution of kingship; it has down-to-
earth
political connotations and should not be over-theologized. He sees
three
stages in the development of the messianic idea: historical realism
in
the monarchical period, conceptualization in the
Period,
and idealization after 70 C.E. The Kingdom is oriented towards
space--the
nation-state of biblical
a
temporal frame of reference and thus moves away towards universal-
ism.
Neither the Pseudepigrapha nor the Samaritan
literature fit into this
framework.
In line with a current trend which he
himself has done much to
foster,
Talmon traces a utopian and a restorative messianism in the
Scriptures
and sees these two trends as significant for the further
development.
He is especially interested in the
collegiate
Messiahs. Here again he finds his twin conceptions. He
reminds
us that in reality few Jewish texts from the turn of the era
mention
the expectation of a Messiah at all. He adopts the disputed
view
that he is a purely human figure. The vision remained realistic,
couched
in terms of a return to the past.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are also
discussed by L. H. Schiffman ("Mes-
sianic Figures and
Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls; 116-29). He finds a
riety of beliefs
expressed, which may point to a historical development
or
to parallel approaches or, as he favors, to a combination of the two.
He
picks up the bifurcation detected by Talmon and also
by G. Scholem
between
the utopian and the restorative approaches. Some
texts
look toward a Davidic Messiah in a restorative fashion. Other
more
utopian or apocalyptic passages tend to look to a priestly leader
accompanied
by a temporal leader.
"The Messianism
of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Con-
tribution to
Christological Origins" is the theme taken by M. Black
(145-68).
He restates his thesis of the apotheosis of the Elect Son of
Man:
"The most significant theological result, however, of the discus-
sion of this
composite Elect Son of Man Messiah in the Parables is the
recognition
of the implications of his elevation to a place next to the
Lord
of spirits, to be seated as eschatological Judge on a judgment
throne.
Such an exaltation amounts, in effect, to apotheosis, similar to
what
I have sought to maintain for 'the one like a son of man' = 'the
saints
of the Most High' in Daniel, except that in Daniel the 'one like
a
son of man' is a symbol only, a cipher for
72
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
transcendental
Messiah, as well as symbol of the new
One
as head of the elect, but also as a cipher for the elect
Finally,
Black discusses the date of the Parables and their possible
influence
on the NT In the light of this he comments: "it is by no means
inconceivable
that the tradition of Enoch as the Son of Man, preserved
in
the Parables, was also known to Jesus of Nazareth, and similarly
interpreted
and applied by him to his own role in his mission as a
prophet
of the coming Kingdom--not in terms of an Enoch redivivus
Son
of Man-Messiah, but as an Enoch--like apocalyptic teacher and
prophet
adopting and adapting the classic Enoch tradition to the Son of
Mans
futurist role as eschatological Judge, but first to his earthly min-
istry as the Servant
of the Lord" (167).
A further discussion of
"Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and
Son
of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71" follows from J. C. Vanderkam
(169-91).
He
gives a careful survey of four phrases used here--Righteous One
(1
Enoch 47:1,4), Anointed One (1 Enoch 48:10; 52:4), Chosen One
(some
16-17 times) and Son of Man (16 times). The Son of Man was
the
object of pre-mundane election, but this does not require that he
was
pre-existent; hence there is no difficulty in the identification of
Enoch
as the Son of Man in 71:14. The four terms used are based on
biblical
motifs (Daniel and 2 Isaiah): "The description of Enoch in
1
Enoch 14 would have suggested a connection with the one like a son
of
man in Daniel 4 and the traits shared by the servant of the Lord and
this
one in human likeness could easily have induced the writer to
combine
them" (191).
D. Mendels
writes on "Pseudo-Philo's Biblical
Antiquities, the
‘Fourth
Philosophy,’ and the Political Messianism of the
First Century
C.E."
(261-75). His main concern is to analyze Pseudo-Philo and show
that
it is directed against the messianism of the Zealots
and Sicarii. Its
author
had messianic hopes but was opposed to a messiah in the present
and
rejected the outlook of the sectarian, guerrilla groups.
Mendels
relates his discussion to some different views of what was
going
on in the first century. On the one hand, M. Hengel
held that there
was
a common front against the Romans and a common messianic
vision
in the first century C.E. On the other hand, other scholars argue
for
the existence of separate groups, few of which, if any, had a messi-
anic ideology. A
special position is occupied by R. A. Horsley who thinks
that
local messianic groups arose around various pretenders (Athron-
ges, Simeon, Menachem).
Mendels notes that Josephus plays down first-
century
messianism. The inspiration for messianism
was largely in
terms
of a Davidic figure, but it was possible to look for a future Davidic
messiah
and reject the "local" messiahs who had no plausible relation
to
the Davidic line.
He is immediately followed by R A.
Horsley (" 'Messianic' Figures
and
Movements in First-Century
critical
of the way in which Christians have used the Zealots or nation-
alists as a violent
foil to the peaceable Jesus. Rather, there are two tra-
ditions of messianic
figures. There were popularly elected or approved
kings
(like Saul) who formed the inspiration for the first-century
"kings"
who led freedom movements against the Romans. There was
also
the Davidic tradition of imperial kingship which could easily be-
come
the means of oppression of the people. Popular messianism
was
opposed
to this monolithic imperialism (as practiced by
Horsley
it is ironic that the Christians cast the imperialist mantle on
Jesus
and eventually legitimated the domination of Christianity as the
imperial
state religion.
Finally, we come to P. Borgen, "'There shall come forth a man':
Reflections
on Messianic Ideas in Philo" (341-61). This essay is con-
cerned to show that
Philo looked forward to the realization of the uni-
versal features of the
kingship which he associated with the role of
Moses;
nevertheless, what this really pointed to was "the eschatologi-
cal
role of the Jewish nation as being the head of all nations."
D.
Christian Beginnings
The remaining essays are devoted to
Christian beginnings. We start
with
a characteristically positive essay by J. D. G. Dunn ("Messianic
Ideas
and their Influence on the Jesus of History," 365-81). He argues
that
Jesus was influenced by current messianic ideas; he had to take
account
of the current view of the royal messiah, but he did not find it
helpful
and "may have attempted to redefine the content of the title in
terms
of the role he saw himself as filling" (376).7 Dunn emphasizes
how
much Jesus himself moulded the messianic concept by
his own
teaching
and activity. He also, incidentally, makes the very important
point
that to concentrate on messianic influences on Jesus is one-sided
and
refers to Jesus' unusual authority and sense of intimate sonship
as
highly
important elements in the roots of his self-understanding.
N. A. Dahl ("Messianic Ideas and
the Crucifixion of Jesus," 382-
403)
reaffirms his earlier thesis that “the crucifixion of Jesus caused a
radical
alteration of the concept 'Messiah.'”8 He asks why the "prophet
from
death
proclaimed by his disciples as the Messiah. He reaffirms that
7 In view of Dunn's
acceptance of this position, it is hard to see why Charlesworth
is
so scathing of it with reference to G. E. Ladd's statement of a very similar
position (7),
8 P. 383. The reference
is to his 1960 article "Der gekreuzigte
Messias," reprinted
in
English in Jesus the Christ
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 27-47.
74
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
“the
resurrection experiences would not have led the disciples to affirm
that
Jesus was the promised Messiah unless he had been crucified as
an
alleged royal Messiah.” The term Messiah/Christ is largely absent
from
the sayings collections, and this confirms that it belongs insepa-
rably to the
crucifixion in early Christian tradition. Dahl raises ques-
tions about the
complicated relationship between the titular and
nominal
uses of Christ. It is unfortunate that his essay is more a series
of
observations than a connected, coherent argument.
D. E. Aune (“Christian
Prophecy and the Messianic Status of Jesus,”
404-22)
wrestles with the interesting problem that in the letters in the
NT
(except 1 John 2:22; 5:1) the messiahship of Jesus is
something that
is
assumed, whereas in the Gospels and Acts it is a matter for discus-
sion. He asks
whether the recognition of Jesus' status was “legitimated
by
prophetic speech or prophetic visions by early Christians during the
period
ca. 30-50 C.E.” (407). He notes that normally a king was marked
by
having been anointed, but that W. C. van Unnik argued
that for
Christians
the mark of messiahship was possession of the Spirit
of God.
Thus
the meaning of the term when applied to Jesus was determined
essentially
by Christian conceptions. He then discusses the use of ora-
cles to legitimate
kings. Various oracular legitimations of Jesus occur
in
the
Gospels, but these are judged to be “literary dramatizations” of the
status
of Jesus rather than historical events. Aune then
explores the
thesis
that behind Mark 14:62 and Acts 7: 55f. (cf. Rev 1:14-16) lies a
vision
by a Christian prophet concerned with the status of Jesus as the
exalted
and enthroned Son of Man. The proposal is speculative, as Aune
admits,
but it is significant that the role of visions in early Christianity
is
taken so seriously.
M. Hengel (“Christological
Titles in Early Christianity,” 425-48)
discusses
a number of christological hymns and argues from them
that
early
Christian christological thinking “was much more
unified in its
basic
structure than New Testament research, in part at least, has main-
tained” (443). He holds
that “Christ” figures as a title—“the Messiah
died
for our sins” in the formula in 1 Cor 15:3-5. “Son of
Man” is re-
garded as a cypher rather than a title; the resurrection appearances
confirmed
the identity of Jesus as the heavenly Son of Man and led to
his
being recognized as the Son of God. The development of a high
christology was completed
within about 15 years.
D. H. Juel
tackles "The Origin of Mark's Christology" (449-60) and
offers
a very traditional interpretation which finds the answer uin
the
history
of Jesus of Nazareth." In an interesting appendix he states that
he
found the conference largely confirmatory of his position, although
he
feels that many of the participants did not draw similar conclusions
to
his own. Rather “christology cannot be explained
solely on the basis
of
the history of ideas. There is no 'trajectory' within postbiblical
Judaism
that can account for the widespread confession of Jesus as the
Christ”
(460). Juel thus places himself firmly beside Dahl.
B. L. Mack in "The Christ and
Jewish Wisdom" (192-221) proposes
a
very different approach in that he argues that Jesus himself was
(merely?)
a teacher in the wisdom tradition.9 The understanding of him
as
prophet and the use of the "Son of man" figure arose in the secondary
stages
of the development of the Q tradition by his followers, and "high
christology" was first
developed by Mark. Meanwhile a "Christ cult"
developed
elsewhere, using a wisdom myth and hence kingly imagery
for
Jesus. Mark then took what he wanted from the Christ cult and
added
it. to the Jesus traditions in order to justify the Jesus movement
to
which he belonged. Thus on this view we are offered an alternative
to
the usual apocalyptic hypothesis of Christian beginnings. It all began
with
"an uncommon sage."
The assessment of this hypothesis need
not be taken up in this
present
context, since it has nothing to do with the nature of Jewish
messianism and its
influence on Christianity; it contends for a different
strand
of influence altogether. It rests on a thoroughly skeptical reading
of
the Gospels so far as their historicity is concerned. Its basis in a mis-
interpretation
of the Q material, analyzing it into successive strata with
different
christologies, is sharply criticized in a monograph
by E. P.
Meadors.10
W D. Davies, co-author of the major
commentary on Matthew in
the
ICC series, discusses "The Jewish Sources of Matthew's Messian-
ism"
(494-511). He sees various elements coming together: the coming
about
of a new creation in Jesus; Davidic kingship ideology; the greater
Moses
who works a new exodus and brings a new law; an Abrahamic
strand.
He thinks that the suffering motif is connected with Moses. He
notes
that Matthew has selected out of the variety of interpretation in
Judaism,
discarding what he did not want--the political territoriality
and
the priestly elements.
And, finally, H. Anderson explores
"The Jewish Antecedents of the
Christology
in Hebrews" (512-35) in an essay that can be profitably
compared
with L. D. Hurst's book, The Epistle to
the Hebrews: Its Back-
ground of
Thought.11
9 Cf. his contribution,
"Wisdom Makes a Difference: Alternatives to 'Messianic'
Configurations,"
in J. Neusner (et al.), Judaisms, 15-48.
10 See E. P. Meadors, Jesus the
Herald of Salvation: A Study of Q and Mark
(
Jesus" Tyn Bul 43:2 (Nov. 1992) 235-57.
11
76
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Assessment
Years ago the distinguished German
Christian, Pastor Martin Nie-
moller, paid a visit
to
he
told us of various episodes in his remarkable life story. At the con-
clusion of the address
another guest, who, if I remember correctly, was
a
prominent figure in the World Council of Churches, gave a vote of
thanks
in which he summed up what the speaker had said in terms of
the
church and ecumenism. Even to my youthful and untutored mind
it
was obvious that he had an axe to grind, and as a result had very con-
siderably shifted the
focus of a sermon which had been concerned with
the
person of Jesus as Savior and Lord.
From the Introduction it becomes plain
that the editor of this vol-
ume too has an axe to grind, and a
key question is whether the rest of
the
contributors belong to the same axe-grinding fraternity. Charles-
worth
seeks to establish the existence of a consensus among the partici-
pants
on a number of key issues and refers to a plenary session at the
conference
which endeavored to formulate some agreed positions. The
general
thrust of this consensus will emerge by quoting some sections
of
the Introduction ("From Messianology to
Christology: Problems and
Prospects,"
3-35). Charlesworth rightly begins with definitions,
and
uses
"messiah" to denote "God's eschatological Anointed One, the Mes-
siah";
"messianic" is used to refer to "images, symbols or concepts
either
explicitly
or implicitly linked to ideas about the Messiah." The helpful
distinction
which others (like F. Neugebauer) have made between mes-
sianology (Jewish ideas
or beliefs about the Messiah) and christology
(reflection
on Jesus as the Christ) is also accepted.12
Charlesworth
then offers a list of conclusions which in his view rep-
resent
a consensus among "leading specialists" both Jewish and Chris-
tian today.13
They are:
1. The term "Messiah" simply
does not appear in the Hebrew
Scriptures.
. . Of course, the title "the Anointed One" denotes in
the
Hebrew Scriptures. . . a prophet, a priest, and especially a
king.
12 Charlesworth
claims (J. Neusner [et al.], Judaisms 225) that he created the
neo-
logism "Messianology." He seems to be unaware of F: Neugebauer, "Die Davidssohn-
frage (Mark xii. 35-7
parr.) und der Menschensohn," NTS 21 (1974-75) 81-90, who also
uses
the term ("Messianologie").
13 It is unfortunate that
the book tends to give the impression that there is some-
thing
wrong with scholars who differ from the editor on these points. I take strong
ex-
ception to the
patronizing comment on an opinion with which the writer disagrees: "The
quotation
is from. . . (he) is a gifted scholar; his research is usually outstanding and
pre-
cise" (19 n.
50). This kind of condescending remark is out of place.
2. The Hebrew Scriptures. . . certainly
do contain some extremely
important passages that were
implicitly messianic, such as
Psalm 2; 2 Samuel 7; Isaiah 7, 9, and
11; Zechariah 9; and Dan
9:26. These passages may be defined as
"messianic" so long as
this adjective is not used to denote
the prediction of an apoca-
lyptic,
eschatological "Messiah."
3. These scriptures were interpreted with
precisely this messianic
connotation by Jews during the two
centuries before the
destruction of
4. The noun, term, or title "the
Messiah" appears rarely in the lit-
erature of
Early Judaism or from roughly 250 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.
But it is also true that in the whole
history of
Rabbinic Judaism "the
Messiah" appears with unusual fre-
quency and
urgency only during this period, especially from the
first century B.C.E. to 135 C.E.
5. Jesus' sayings reveal that his message
was not about the coming
of the Messiah. His preaching focused
on the coming of God's
Kingdom, not the kingdom of the
Messiah.
6. Jesus never proclaimed himself to be
the Messiah. He appar-
ently
rejected Peter's confession that he (Jesus) was the Christ,
as satanic, because he did not wish
for his mission and message
to be judged according to human
concepts of the messiah.
7. The disciples are never portrayed as
asking Jesus for his views
about the Messiah. Before his
crucifixion in 30 C.E. they were
apparently not preoccupied with
speculations about the coming
of the Messiah. It is far from clear
what term they would have
chosen to categorize him.
8. In the early Palestinian Jesus
Movement, according to Acts 3:20,
and in Paul's letters,
"Christ" is a proper name for Jesus of Naza-
reth. In the
Gospels it is a proper name or title (Matt 1:1; Mark
1:1; Luke 2:11; John 1:17).14
This list should be read in
conjunction with what appears to be a
list
of resolutions agreed unanimously by members of the symposium:
[1.] The term and the title
"Messiah" in the Hebrew Bible refers
to a present, political and religious
leader who is appointed by
God. It was applied predominantly to a
king, but also to a
priest, and occasionally to a prophet.
[2.] There was no single, discernible role
description for a "Messiah"
into which a historical figure like
Jesus could be fit (sic). Rather,
each group which entertained a
messianic hope interpreted
14 Charlesworth,
Messiah, 11f.
78
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
"Messiah" in light of its
historical experiences and reinterpreted
Scripture accordingly:
[3.] It is inappropriate to speak of a
single normative stream of
Judaism in the postexilic period or
throughout the period of
the
tions were
entertained by different groups.15
Read carefully, it would seem that
these three statements do not go
as
far as the eight theorems that Charlesworth
enunciates. We should
not
therefore assume that the scholars present would necessarily share
his
position in every detail. For example, the essay by J. D. G. Dunn sum-
marized above appears
to take a somewhat different line.
We may begin with a methodological
point. Charlesworth asserts
that
the only sources we have for the ideas of Jews in
A.D.
70 are their writings, which he then surveys. Contrast this remark-
able
statement by A. F. Segal:
In violation of the usual scholarly
methods, I would like to use Christian
documents to explore larger issues
within the Jewish community. After all,
rabbinic Judaism has left us documents
of uncertain origins in oral tradition
from the third century and later,
while the New Testament, while also hav-
ing oral
roots, was in written form by the beginning of the second century.
The
New Testament is hence much better evidence for the history of Juda-
ism than is rabbinic Judaism for the
origins of Christianity(299, my italics).
Granted
that this statement is about rabbinic Judaism and not about
earlier
Jewish literature, one may still ask why it is assumed by so
many
scholars that the NT is no guide, or a thoroughly unreliable guide,
to
at least some aspects of first-century Judaism. It is interesting that it
takes
a Jewish scholar to say this!
We can now make some comments on this
set of "agreed beliefs."
1. In the first statement the term
"the Messiah" is defined as "God's
eschatological
Anointed One." Now of course the Hebrew term "the
anointed
one" appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. Charlesworth
evi-
dently wants to
distinguish in English between "the Anointed One" and
"the
Messiah" as two different references of the same Hebrew phrase.
It
is generally agreed that the use of the term with an eschatological ref-
erence (i.e. to refer
to a future figure) is not found (cf. 39-41).
But this generally accepted statement
may be in need of some
modification.
In a significant essay, J. L. Mays has argued for a messi-
anic understanding
of certain of the Psalms.16 He achieves this, if I un-
15 Charlesworth,
Messiah, xv.
16 J. L. Mays, "'In
a Vision': The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms," Ex Au-
ditu 7 (1991) 1-8. The whole of this issue
was devoted to papers on "Christology and
derstand him correctly,
by arguing that we are to see the Psalms as part
of
the Scriptures. He recognizes the validity of the form-critical and
cult-functional
research methods in studying the Psalms, but wishes to
go
on to a further stage of investigation. "In their transmission and
shaping
and collection as items in the Book of Psalms, they with all the
other
poetry of the Psalms 'ascended' into another genre. They became
Scripture,
texts whose hermeneutical context is the literary scope of
the
book in which they stand and the other books of
It
is in this identity that they "worked" in relation to Jesus and the
com-
munity
in which the New Testament was written." The significance of
this
statement is that as a canonical collection the Psalms existed by the
time
of Jesus in a form in which they were interpreted messianically,
even
if the original reference had been to the existing ruler of the
people
(or an immediate successor). It is, therefore, legitimate to claim
that
there was a use of the actual phrase "the Anointed One" in the
Scriptures
to refer to the Messiah as a future, eschatological figure. If
we
regard the final editing and collection of the Psalms as part of the
process
of composition of the Scriptures rather than as part of a sub-
sequent
process of interpretation, then Mays' verdict and approach are
fully
justified. On this basis Mays develops the messianic significance
of
Psalms 2, S, 18, 72, 89, 110 and l32.
2. Charlesworth
allows that some passages were “implicitly mes-
sianic,” but says that
they did not predict "an apocalyptic, eschatological
'Messiah.'"
It is not clear what he means by "implicitly" in this context.
He
wants to rule out the idea that an OT writer literally predicted the
Messiah,
and to say that some passages could be read by later post-
biblical
authors as being true of the Messiah (on the grounds that
whatever
was true of an earthly king would a fortiori be true of the
Messiah?)
What, then, does Charlesworth make of the passage
cited
later
by Roberts which "do in fact envision a future ruler not yet on the
scene"?
Even if some of these may envisage a future line of rulers
described
in the magnificent language of royal protocol ("He will
endure
as long as the sun.. . ," Ps 72:5) rather than a single final ruler,
the
hope of a future ruler raised up by God is still present.
3. Charlesworth's
third point may perhaps be linked with what
Mays
was saying. However, there may be a significant difference:
what
Mays was doing was to say that the messianic interpretation was
part of the text--the canonized
meaning, whereas Charlesworth
appears
to be saying that it was a separate tradition of interpretation
to
be traced in post-biblical sources. For Mays the point seems to be
Incarnation;
the theme of the 1991 North Park Symposium on Theological Interpreta-
tion of Scripture.
80
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
that
the messianic interpretation was in fact the meaning of the text
at
the point of collection and canonization of the Psalms.
4. There can of course be no quarrel
with point four. Writing in
1976,
on the basis of the important article by M. de Jonge,
I made the
same
point.17 However, it is important to observe that Charlesworth is
in
danger of confining attention to the actual use of the term, whereas
the
concept may often be present without the use of the term. He dis-
cusses
"only documents that actually contain the noun 'Messiah' or
'Christ'"
(17) in order to avoid confusion. Granted the need to be pre-
cise, it still must
be emphasized that there is here a danger of drawing
conclusions
about the concept purely from the use of the word "Mes-
siah," both in
the OT and in Jewish literature. A passage can be in the
fullest
sense messianic in that it is about "God's eschatological Anointed
One"
even though the actual word is not used.
What is extremely difficult to
establish is just how far "the Jews"
held
messianic expectations or indeed expectations of any kind of inter-
vention by God in their
earthly life. It has to be remembered that the
amount
of literature which has survived is limited and much of it is
linked
to individual groups. We are also dealing with a society in which
oral
teaching and tradition were highly significant, and in the nature of
things
such teaching has not survived in any systematic kind of way. Nor
do
we know much about how the mass of the people thought, just as is
the
case with the mass of ancient peoples. We can-to be sure-choose
to
ignore the occasional hints given by some first-century writers (Luke
2:25,38;
23:51; cf. also D. Mendels, 263).
All this means that generalizations
about "the Jews" are fraught
with
danger. The trouble is that it is much easier to make general state-
ments than to provide
all the hedging qualifications that we should
offer
(evangelists find it easier to say 'The Bible says that. . ." than
"There
are some passages in the Bible which say, more or less,
that.
. .").
Charlesworth's
interpretation of the evidence is open to some
doubt:
The Samaritans did expect a "prophet like Moses," the belief
which
later developed into the coming of the "Taheb;
but the evidence
is
not all as late as is suggested: John 4:25 should be taken seriously.18
It
is well-known that Josephus probably played down first-century
messianism (D. Mendels, 261), although the significance of this is de-
batable (cf. R A.
Horsley's essay which argues that the terms "Messiah"
and
"messianic' are not helpful in the discussion of
17 The Origins of New Testament Christology (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1976) 84.
18 Cf. H. G. M. Williamson
in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels,
J. Green,
S.
McKnight, and
Judaism).
A somewhat more optimistic view of the value of the Tar-
gums
for first-century Jewish belief is held by B. D. Chilton,19 and a
sweeping
rejection of them is hardly justified. The almost complete ab-
sence of messianology from the Mishnah
(but see B. M. Bokser's essay)
is
explicable in a work that is essentially legal in its genre. Charles-
worth's
discussion of the Pseudepigrapha is flawed by his
exclusion of
material
that possibly reflects messianic beliefs but does not use the
actual
word. His discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls rightly recognizes
the
development and diversity present, but again tends to play down
the
significance of their location.
The question is whether these comments
merely affect details in
the
presentation or suggest that the thesis needs serious modification.
My
view is that there is sufficient evidence to show that the concept of
a
Messiah did exist and was more widespread than Charlesworth
allows.
It is not surprising if there was vagueness about his nature and
functions.
What needs explanation is the similarities as well as the
differences
between the various forms of Jewish expectation. More-
over,
there is the question posed by Charlesworth: "If
most Jews were
not
looking for the coming of the 'Messiah,' and if Jesus' life and teach-
ings were not
parallel to those often or sometimes attributed to the
coming
of 'the Messiah' or 'the Christ; then why, how, and when did
Jesus'
earliest followers contend that he was so clearly the promised
Messiah
that the title 'Christ' became his proper name by at least 40
C.E.
or ten years after the crucifixion?" (10). Perhaps this question is in-
deed
the Achilles' heel of the case. Can the rise of Christian messianic
interpretation
of Jesus be adequately explained apart from the exis-
tence of a Jewish
expectation? It may be suggested that the major
weakness
of this book is precisely that it offers no credible solution to
this
problem.20 The contributions by J. D. G. Dunn and D. H. Juel both
tend
to assume the existence of messianic ideas as part of the equation
while
emphasizing rightly that it was the creative effects of the career
and
teaching of Jesus himself, as understood by his followers, which
led
to the prominence of messiahship and the new
understanding of it
that
arose in early Christianity. Perhaps also one should pursue the
hints
offered by N. A Dahl that Jesus and the early Christians went
back
to Scripture itself rather than to current Jewish ideas for their
messianism and christology.
19 Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 800-804.
20 Charlesworth
raises the question more fully in his contribution to J. Neusner
(et
al.)
Judaisms, 251-54; here he is more hospitable to the
existence and influence of "deep
and
variegated beliefs regarding the Messiah n which were "part of the
first-century
Palestine
Jewish Zeitgeistn He goes on, however, to deny that
Jesus or the early Chris-
tians thought of him
as Messiah.
82
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
5. Point five makes a false
distinction between focus on the King-
dom of God and the general content
of the message of Jesus, as if
focusing
on the Kingdom excluded any reference to the coming of the
Messiah.
There is no real doubt that the focus of Jesus' message was
the
ruled
on God's behalf by his Agent, then there would be nothing
surprising
in references to the Messiah alongside references to the
Kingdom.
Where God's Kingdom is associated with the coming of a
Messiah,
there is no need to refer to it as the Kingdom of the Messiah,
although
this expression did come into use in early Christianity. There
is
a danger of establishing false alternatives here.
6. It is true that Jesus did not proclaim himself as the Messiah
(although
we should not overlook John 4:25f.). But this by no means
excludes
the possibility that (if he accepted this role) he could have
indicated
it to his disciples in ways less explicit than proclamation. In
particular,
the view that he rejected Peter's confession as satanic rests
on
an exegesis of the passage in Mark 8 which has not found support
among
recent commentators.21 How Charlesworth
can uphold this dis-
credited
theory as part of a consensus is hard to see.22
7. But why should the disciples have
asked Jesus for his view about
the
Messiah? On the whole, they are not portrayed as asking him about
anything,
except for explanations of what he has just said. The fact that
the
Gospels contain nothing comparable with the "Who is this 'Son of
Man'?"
(John 12:34) in respect of "the Messiah" may indicate that they
did
have some understanding of what the term might connote.
8. It is true that "Christ"
appears as a proper name for Jesus in
much
of the NT. What Charlesworth
does not pursue is the question
(see
point four immediately above) of how and why it came to be used
in
this way. Somewhere the statement is made that "Christ" was not a
confessional
title like "Lord," but this is mistaken (cf. M. Hengel,
444-
46).
The evidence clearly shows that "Jesus is the Christ" and "the
21 See, for example, M.
D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St
Mark (
and
C. Black, 1991) 202f.; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (
Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1979) II. 18, likewise rejects this view of
the passage; he re-
gards the confession
by Peter as post-Easter, but insists that Jesus had a messianic self-
consciousness.
Cf. also R Pesch, Das
Markusevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1977) II.
34f.
The position taken by D. Luhrmann, Das Markusevangelium
(
Mohr,
1987) 144f. is anything but clear, but even so he does not accept the hypothesis
that
originally 8:33 was a response to 8:29 by Jesus.
22 It should, however, be
made clear that elsewhere Charlesworth has committed
himself
quite explicitly to the statements that "some messianic self-understanding
may
well
have been part of (Jesus') self-understanding" and that "he thought
of himself as a
son
and perhaps... as God's son" (Jesus
Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting
Archaelogical Discoveries (London: SPCK, 1989) 155, 152.
Christ
is Jesus" were two forms of statement that arose in the early
church.23
We have evidence for the two statements "the Christ is Jesus"
(Acts
18:5, 28) and "Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 2:36; 17:3; 1 John 2:22;
5:1).
From the former statement we can easily see how "the Christ
(namely)
Jesus" could arise and from the latter "Jesus (who is) the
Christ."
We may have an example of the former phrase in Acts 5:42,
which
the NIV translates "proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the
Christ,"
but REB has "telling the good news of Jesus the Messiah." In
any
case it would seem that the currency of both "Jesus Christ" and
"Christ
Jesus" is best explained in terms of development from the two
confessional
statements.24
Where does all this leave us? It is
right to recognize the variety of
beliefs
about the future and about a messianic type of figure in Juda-
ism.
But this simply does not lead us to the view that there was no sort
of
messianism for Jesus and his followers to react to.
It is inconceiv-
able
that the idea was not alive. Equally it is clear that the teaching
and
career of Jesus gave a fresh shape to messianism.
Charlesworth
is in danger of pushing a reasonable hypothesis too
far
to the point where a recognition of variety, diversity and develop-
ment in a concept
leads to the disintegration of the concept. It would
seem
that not all the other contributors to the book would wish to
accompany
him all the way. The list of three consensus statements
(xv)
quoted above do not go as far as Charlesworth's own
iconoclastic
list.
With some qualifications they are quite acceptable, and they say
nothing
new. It follows that this book is not destined to be earth-
shaking.
Its value rather is as a compendium of scholarly research into
different
aspects of messianism conducted by Jewish and
Christian
scholars
in concert. We can only be grateful for the mass of industrious
scholarship
gathered together so conveniently in this volume.
23 The presentation by W.
Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (London:
SCM, 1966)
is
not satisfying on this issue.
24 There may be some
analogy in Luke's use of the two orders, "Caesar Augustus"
(Luke
2:1) and "Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1), where we have a similar type
of problem
but
with "Caesar" making the reverse transition from a proper name to a
title.
:
The
www.criswell.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium