Transforming The Messiahs

van
1
Transforming the Messiahs:
Earthly Monarchs and High
Priests to Celestial Liberators
Cover: Eine Streitfrage aus dem Talmud: Carl Schleicher (1850)
Doug Mason
Doug_mason1940@yahoo.com.au
Issue 1, 2022
2
Spiralling Revolutions
Initially, the Hebrew “Messiah” spoke only of a living, anointed person, such as a current monarch or
high priest, maybe even a prophet.
Changed circumstances, most notably the cessation of the monarchs and more particularly the power
grab by the Hasmoneans and the oppression under Rome, witnessed a hope arising for divine
intervention in their affairs. They envisaged one or more powerful liberators would remove the
oppression and restore the nation to its rightful state. God would be the active driving force during this
period, the Last Days. Included in this eschatological scenario was one or more messiahs, which
represented a distinct revolution from the nature of Messiahs in the biblical period of the Davidic
Dynasty.
Jews arose claiming to be the anticipated Liberator, and the followers of Yeshua of Nazareth in Galilee
held him up as The Liberator, even attaching the title “Christ” to his name, but instead of removing the
power of Rome and liberating God’s people, Yeshua was executed by Rome.
Just as the earlier Judahites had amended their understanding of Messiah when the Davidic Dynasty
ended, in similar fashion the followers of Yeshua changed their meaning of the title. Paul and his
followers employed the Merkebah tradition of transportations to the Throne Room of God, thereby
creating the revolution where Yeshua Christ sat on God’s throne. This was another unprecedented
revolution of Messiahship. The action moved from restitution at a national level to cosmic action
focused on the throne of God.
The Merkebah Messiahship of Yeshua shaped the imagery of their literature, notably at Ephesians and
Hebrews as well as the apocalyptic Book of Revelation. Instead of the Liberator freeing Israel from the
nation’s oppressors, Yeshua provided liberty from the oppressor Sin, and the victory was not a literal
national rescue but it became a spiritual victory over the Evil One.
Exalting Yeshua to the Throne of God and casting him as heaven’s eternal, sinless High Priest provided
the foundation for future Messianic revolutions by followers of Paul which saw Yeshua later designated
as God the Son, and as Christ the Saviour.
3
Transforming the Messiahs:
Earthly Monarchs and High Priests
to Celestial Liberators
BEFORE WE START ............................................................................................................................ 5
SYNOPSIS .............................................................................................................................................. 7
MĀŠIAḤ IS A HEBREW WORD ......................................................................................................... 10
COMMITMENTS MADE TO KING DAVID ..................................................................................... 18
PROPHETS PROMISED EARTH-BASED MESSIAH(S) ................................................................. 19
THE END OF THE MONARCHS ....................................................................................................... 25
SECOND-TEMPLE JUDAISM SHAPED AN ESCHATOLOGICAL MESSIAH ............................. 32
THE SEPTUAGINT’S (LXX) RENDERING OF THE HEBREW MĀŠIAḤ...................................... 49
A SECT’S UNFORESEEN, UNEXPECTED REVOLUTION............................................................ 51
THEY READ YESHUA INTO SCRIPTURES OF THE PAST .......................................................... 61
THE MESSIAH BY PAUL AND HIS FIRST CENTURY CE FOLLOWERS .................................... 69
TRANSPORTED, ENTHRONED, EXALTED CHRIST: DIVINELY ENTHRONED YESHUA .... 73
THE CHRISTOS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS .............................................................................. 82
THE CHRIST OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL ........................................................................................ 88
THE SAMARITAN’S “MESSIAH” (TAHEB) ................................................................................... 90
THE CHRIST OF ACTS ...................................................................................................................... 96
THE CHRIST OF JOHN’S EPISTLES ................................................................................................ 96
HEBREWS’ YESHUA IS HEAVEN’S HIGH PRIEST ...................................................................... 97
THE ΧΡΙΣΤΌΣ (CHRISTOS) OF REVELATION .............................................................................. 98
PAULINE TRINITARIANS’ DIVINE SON OF GOD ........................................................................ 99
CHRISTIANITY’S CELESTIAL SAVIOUR MESSIAH.................................................................. 101
RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 107
DETAILED CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... 125
4
BEFORE WE START
With this Paper, I wanted to present the revolutions that “Messiah” kept experiencing, from the time of
the Monarchy (the biblical “Old Testament”), through biblical Judaism – including the Yeshua-sect –
to the ensuing nascent Christianity.
==================
I am interested in the contextual causes that resulted in their literature. I am looking for the contexts,
trying to form a cohesive picture that makes sense to me of what really took place along Messiah’s
journey.
==================
When I set out to address the subject of Māšiaḥ and χριστός (khristos), I had no idea that I would arrive
at the position I find myself taking. I drew and redrew many pictures over the months that illustrated
my thoughts, and along the way I had to ditch preconceived ideas. This was not an attempt to shore up
previously held positions nor to expose or oppose the positions held by others. My driving imperative
is Intellectual Integrity, regardless of the consequences. The position I arrived at provides me with a
coherent explanation.
==================
It is impossible to know how much has been written about this topic. I could have provided innumerable
citations from a host of sources, but the mass would have been a deterrent. Had I provided too much
detail, the message and intent of this Paper would have been buried under its own weight. Making the
forest thicker only makes the pathway less clear and finally impenetrable. This Paper provides an
outline, using only a small representative sample to guide.
==================
Conduct your own research. Make your own decisions, always prepared to learn, change, grow, and
mature. Researching for this Paper made me change ideas, and I am all the better for it. Reap the rewards
of accepting the growth that challenge brings, as I have.
==================
I cannot emphasise enough that the most significant part of this Paper lies with this list of Resources.
These represent thousands of pages of valuable information. They are the experts. Read the summaries
that I provide for these Resources. In this Paper, I provide only the barest number of citations that are
sufficient to provide a structure and an outline.
I do not cite passages from all of these Resources, nor will I claim that any or all agree with everything
I have concluded. I could have continued to add further passages but there came a point where I had to
call a halt to the process. Go through the Resources I have listed and others that I have not included.
==================
In this Paper I inconsistently employ the name of the 1st century CE Galileean as Yeshua (or Yashua,
maybe Y’shua); occasionally I need to render the name as “Jesus”. Not only is the word “Jesus” a
corruption of the English “Joshua”, but each time its use might automatically cause ingrained
preconceptions to intercede.
==================
A search of the www for “Messiah” almost always references the New Testament’s “Jesus” (Yeshua).
It is as if this is the default position. What is the reason for this knee-jerk reaction? How was that
domination achieved?
LINK TO OTHER PAPERS => PAPERS BY DOUG MASON
5
Before we start
Higher Criticism
In my study and research, I seek to determine the original context and meaning. What did a passage
mean to the initial authors? What message and meaning did the initial authors want their immediate
local community to have? What were the situations at the time – what was taking place, what were the
current political agitations and powers? What were their local idioms, their manner of speaking?
Each group of authors was speaking directly to its own local community. They were not conscious of
people who would be living centuries and millennia later. They were writing to their own generation,
not to our generation nor for our generation. Their literature tells us how they were thinking, their
rationalizations. Their literature provides an intimate insight into the minds of some people who lived
tens of centuries ago. We need to treat them and their writings with dignity and respect, and not squeeze
and distort them to make them say what they were not saying.
Please Note
Previous Papers addressing topics featured in this Paper are available at:
(99+) Discussion: Second-Temple Period Messiahs (updated 2022) - Academia.edu (Messiahs)
(99+) Discussion: Second Temple period Mysticisms and Mysteries - Academia.edu (Mysticisms,
including Merkabah / Merkavah)
6
SYNOPSIS
7
Synopsis
8
Synopsis
9
MĀŠIAḤ IS A HEBREW WORD
“Messiah” appears several times in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
The HB/OT [Hebrew Bible/Old Testament] contains thirty-eight attestations to
“messiah,” five of which are adjectival: “the anointed priest” (Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22); and
“the anointed ruler” (Dan 9:25). The remaining attestations are nominal and generally
refer to the king as “YHWH’s anointed.” … Other forms are: “His anointed one” … “My
anointed one”; … “Your anointed”; … “an anointed one”; … and “the anointed of the God
of Jacob” … In one case, the patriarchs who are called prophets are described as “My
anointed ones” (Ps 105:15 = 1 Chr 16:22). (Leonard-Fleckman,
https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
Mashiaḥ appears just 38 times in the Hebrew Bible
The noun mashiaḥ (“anointed” or “anointed one”) occurs 38 times in the Hebrew Bible,
where it applies twice to the patriarchs, six times to the high priest, once to Cyrus, and
29 times to the Israelite king, primarily Saul and secondarily David or an unnamed
Davidic monarch.
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. (Green (1987), 2)
In all 38 occurrences of “anointed one” in the Hebrew Bible, it is used for
a leader
If one were confine the survey only to the term “anointed one,” the results from the
Hebrew Bible would not be overly impressive. There are some thirty-eight occurrences
of the word, and in all cases it is used for a leader. (VanderKam (1999), 194)
Messiah translates as “anointed”
“Messiah” (māšîaḥ; LXX Χριστός; Lat. “christus”) is the adjectival form of the verb
“to anoint” (māšaḥ) and translates as “anointed” or “anointed one.” (Leonard-
Fleckman, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
The noun ‫[ משוח‬māšiaḥ: anointed] refers to a person
The Noun ‫ … משוח‬occurs in the OT 38 times, always with ref. to a person. … Kings
are “the anointed,” 30 times. The high-priest is 6 times given the title of ‫משוח‬. In two
other passages the fathers are “the anointed.” (Hesse (1974), 501-502)
Māšiaḥ is a Hebrew word that refers to a person who has been anointed
with oil
The Hebrew māšiaḥ, which refers to a person who has been anointed with oil. The
Hebrew term appears moderately often in the Bible in connection with several types of
officials or characters. It is used for the following:
(1) Kings of Israel …
(2) High priests of Israel …
(3) Cyrus of Persia …
(4) A future prince …
(5) The Patriarchs …
In the Bible, both the king and the high priest can be designated the anointed ones of
the Lord, and at times the term is put to a specialized use for a leader of the future.
(VanderKam (1999), 193-194)
10
Māšiaḥ is a Hebrew word
Oil of the anointing

‫[ משחה‬mišḥā anointing (oil)1]
‫שמן המשחה‬: oil of the anointing: Nowhere does the Hebrew term ‫[ משחה‬mišḥā] denote
oil per se; the phrase appears always, in biblical as well as Mishnaic Hebrew, in the
construction ‫ שמן המשחה‬which translates ‘oil of the anointing’ (and all the more so
cannot represent the plural ‘oils’). On the other hand, the root ‫משח‬, meaning ‘to
measure’, is well attested. (Mandel (1993), 71)
‫שמן המשחה‬: Oil of the anointing
Nowhere does the Hebrew term ‫[ משחה‬mišḥā] denote oil per se; the phrase appears
always, in biblical as well as Mishnaic Hebrew, in the construction ‫ שמן המשחה‬which
translates [as] ‘oil of the anointing’ (and all the more so cannot represent the plural
‘oils’). On the other hand, the root ‫משח‬, meaning ‘to measure’, is well attested (Footnote
12: The Aramaic noun ‫ משח‬does indeed mean oil, but this meaning is nowhere attested
in the Hebrew of the Bible or of the Rabbinic literature. (Mandel (1993), 71)
The verb ‫[ משח‬māšaḥ, to anoint] and its occurrence
The verb ‫[ משח‬māšaḥ: to anoint] occurs in the Masoretic text some 69 times. (Hesse
(1974), 497)
At times the anointing is metaphorical, rather than physical pouring of
oil
Sometimes also other persons are denoted as “anointed.” In Isa 61:1 the prophet
declares that the spirit of God is upon him because the Lord has anointed him. In Ps
105:15 (LXX 104:15) and 1 Chr 16:22 the patriarchs are called “anointed ones.” In Isa
45:1 even the Persian king Cyrus is called “anointed of the Lord.”
In these instances the characterization of “anointed” is not based on a real act of
anointment, but instead is applied metaphorically. …
Even when the ritual of anointment was no longer conducted, the use of the expression
“anointed of the Lord” (“messiah”) remained in use. (Leonard-Fleckman,
The Masoretic and Greek Old Testament texts do not use “The Messiah”
[Ha Mashiach] to refer to a specific individual
The term “The Messiah” [ Ha Mashiach] is distinguished from the generic term
“messiah”.
“The Messiah” [ Ha Mashiach] never appears in the Masoretic Text nor in the Greek
copies of the Old Testament.
In order to properly evaluate writings canonized in the New Testament reference must
be made to its predecessors. The “Gospels” must be scrutinized in terms of prior texts
with reference to The Masoretic Text and Greek Old Testament. In several places these
shared religious texts have the term “His anointed [mashiach]”, “Your anointed
[mashiach]” (Habakkuk 3:13) or “anointed [mashiach ]”.
However, these texts do not use the term “The Messiah” [Ha Mashiach], in reference
to a specific individual. (Tamar Yael Bat’Yah, 1)
1
Goodrick (1999), Hebrew #5418, page 5466
11
The canonized Masoretic Text does not speak of The Messiah; however,
a few apocryphal and pseudepigrapha books do contain the term
The canonized Masoretic Text widely used by Ultra Orthodox, Orthodox, Conservative
and Reform Jewish communities does not include other scriptures that speak of The
Messiah.
The Jewish and Christian apocryphal and pseudepigrapha books that include the term
The Messiah include The First (1) Book of Enoch, The Third (3) Book of Enoch,
Second (2) Baruch, The Psalms of Solomon, Odes of Solomon, The Apocalypse of
Zephaniah, The Apocalypse of Elijah, The Vision of Isaiah, The Testament of Adam,
the Apocalypse of Sedrach and Fourth (IV) Ezra(Esdras). Each of the works uses the
term “The Messiah”, referring to a specific individual. (Tamar Yael Bat’Yah, 2)
There is not one single definition of “the Messiah”
The many historical manifestations of messianic figures, and the complicated and long
development in several theological and sociohistorical contexts, suggest something
about the complexity of the messianic phenomenon. There never has and never will be
one distinct definition of “the Messiah.” (Zetterholm (2007), Kindle Locations 140-
142)
Māšiaḥ denoted an anointed, dedicated living king or high priest

What and who “messiah” is
Hebrew: ַ‫— מָ ִׁשיח‬transliteration: mashiah, meshiach, mashiakh or mashiach
Aramaic: ‫— ְמ ִׁשיחָ א‬transliteration: mshikha
Greek: Χριστός —transliteration: Khristós (Christos or Christ); meaning “The
Anointed One” or “The Chosen One”2
‫[ משח‬māšaḥ to anoint3]
‫[ משוח אחד‬māšiaḥ: anointed; eḥād: one4]
‫[ משוח‬māšiaḥ: anointed (one)5]
‫[ משיח יהוה‬māšiaḥ: anointed (one)6; YHWH. Meaning: Yahweh’s anointed one]
Originally in Judaism, a messiah was a living anointed person
In Judaism, a messiah (in Hebrew: Mashiach, ַ‫ )מָ ִׁשיח‬originally meant any person
anointed by a prophet or priest of God, especially a Davidic king. (“Messiah”, New
World Encyclopedia)
An anointing indicated the person was commissioned and empowered
by God to rule his people on God’s behalf
Clearly the overwhelming number of scriptural references to the anointed one do refer
to Israel’s king, whether in the past or in the future, in both the liturgical and historical
lines of tradition. Beginning with 1 Samuel 9:16 - where Saul is anointed as nagid
[leader] rather than as melek [king] – the pattern is laid down that the one who rules in
God’s behalf over his people is chosen, commissioned, and empowered by God for his
role. (Kee (1987), 188)
2 What and who is the MESSIAH? - WebBible Encyclopedia - ChristianAnswers.Net accessed 31 August 2022
3
4
5
6
12
Māšiaḥ, “anointed one” is used in the Hebrew Bible for kings and high
priests
The Hebrew word from which it is derived, māšiaḥ, means “anointed one.” It is used
in the Hebrew Bible both for kings and high priests, who were in fact anointed, and in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, it also is used metaphorically with reference to prophets. It does
not have a future or eschatological connotation in the Hebrew Bible. (Collins (2007),
Kindle Locations 162-163)
All Old Testament use of ‫( משיח‬meshach) must be translated “Anointed
One”, as each occurrence refers to an historical figure of its period
Old Testament passages … use ‫ משיח‬in various forms. In all of them it must be
translated “Anointed One” and not “Messiah” because they all refer to historical figures
in the period of the monarchy of Israel or later and denote God’s anointed agents who
served His people. …
Reference was [being] made to an unnamed descendant of David on his throne and even
to a divine promise to make a horn sprout for David (Ps 132:17), without any indication
that that king was to be a Messiah in the sense of an awaited future anointed agent of
God. (Fitzmyer (2007), 26)
In Old Testament tradition, the messianic terminology involves both the
kingly and the priestly roles
In Psalm 84:9, there is further confirmation of the messianic role of the priest, in that
the entire context of the psalm describes Israel at worship, as shown by the allusions to
“the courts of the Lord” and “the house of God.” The “anointed one” in such a setting
is not the king, but the priest. Thus, in Old Testament tradition, the messianic
terminology involves both the kingly and the priestly roles. (Kee (1987), 189)
Jewish literature applies “Messiah” mostly to kings, the high priest and
prophets
In the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish literature the term “Messiah” (māšîaḥ) is mostly
applied to kings, to the high priest and to prophets, occasionally also to other persons.
(Schröter, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
Jews and earlier Israelites used the Hebrew term Māshîaḥ to indicate a
king or a high priest who was anointed by God
Long before the first century C.E., Jews and earlier Israelites used the Hebrew term
Māshîaḥ denote a person who was anointed by God. He was almost always either a
king or a high priest, although he was on occasion a prophet. (Charlesworth (1987),
228)
The living king was Māšiaḥ
The most common Old Testament reference is to the anointing of a king
Easily the most common reference in the OT is to the anointing of the king. This royal
anointing is part of the more comprehensive act of enthronement. … In the OT,
anointing is the most important or the most distinctive of the individual acts. (Hesse
(1974), 498)
The Hebrew noun Māšhiaḥ denoted a king selected and anointed by God
Almost a millennium before the destruct ion of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the Hebrew noun
Māšhiaḥ denoted a king selected and anointed by God. R. de Vaux correctly pointed
out that “it is certain that all the kings of Judah were anointed, and it is probably true
of all the kings of Israel.” He continues, “The king, a consecrated person, thus shares
in the holiness of God; he is inviolable”. (Charlesworth (1987), 229)
13
In the Psalms, “anointed” mostly refers to the king

Most of the references to the “anointed” in the Psalms concern the king, especially
David and his posterity (Ps. 2:2; 20:6; 45:7; 89:20, 38). (Kee (1987), 188)
“Messiah” is often used as a synonym for king
The “messiah” or “anointed one” is most commonly connected to the ideology of
kingship, and is often used as a synonym for king (melek). This equation of king and
“anointed one” likely derives from the ritual of anointing the king (cf. 1 Sam 16:13);
the language of the “messiah” therefore emphasizes the unique relationship between
YHWH and the king. (Leonard-Fleckman, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
“Messiah” in the Old Testament (TANAKH) usually refers to a present
king
In the Old Testament, ‫[ משיח‬Messiah] usually refers not to a future king, someone whom
one could set one’s hopes and expectations on, but to a present king. (Rose (2001), 280)
The king as ‫[ משיח יהוה‬māšiaḥ YHWH]
Saul is most commonly called ‫[ משיח יהוה‬māšiaḥ YHWH], 1S[amuel]. 12:3, 5; 24:7, 11;
26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2S. 1:14, 16. Apart from this the phrase. is used only of the Davidic
kings of Judah with the important exception of Is. 45:1. David is individually given the
title indirectly in 1S. 16:6 and directly in 2S. 19:22; 23:1. The ref. is to David and his
house in 2S. 22:51 = Ps. 18:50 and Ps. 132:17. Lam. 4:20 seems fairly certainly to be
ref. to Zedekiah, the last Davidic king. …
The title ‫ משיח יהוה‬is used emphatically for the king of Davidic descent when people
and king are in sorry straits. (Hesse (1974), 502, 503)
Every king was a messiah
It is commonly acknowledged in theological scholastic circles that “messiah” simply
means “anointed one” and therefore, there have been more than one messiah (anointed
one(s)) throughout Scriptural history.
Elaborating, one Jewish source says: “Since every king is a messiah [anointed one], by
convention, we refer to this future anointed one as ‘The Messiah’. Referencing Isaiah
11:1-9, Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10 and 33:14-16, Ezekiel 34:11-31 and 37:21-28 and
Hosea 3:4-5, they conclude that one final descendant of David will rule as an anointed
king “during the age of perfection”.
In continuation, they claim that “according to biblical tradition, Elijah the Prophet will
reappear for the coming of “The Messiah”. They cite Malachi 4:5 -6 as the foundation
for that tradition. (Tamar Yael Bat’Yah, 2-3)
Saul and David were “Messiahs of God”, as were other kings of Judah,
and so was Cyrus the Great
Jewish legend knows of several men of great merit who almost became the Messiah, or
who, for all too brief a time, fulfilled the role of the Redeemer. In a sense these
legendary heroes continued the line of those royal figures who in Biblical times were
styled “The Anointed [Mashiah] of God.”
Saul and David were “Messiahs of God” in this older, more realistic sense, as were
other kings of Judah who followed them, and so was Cyrus the Great, who enabled the
Jews to return to Jerusalem from their Babylonian captivity. An interesting variant on
this theme is the legend which calls Esther “Redeemer”—the only woman in Jewish
literature to be given this epithet. (Patai (1979), 72)
Cyrus of Persia was the māšiaḥ of the Lord (Isaiah 45:1)
Second Isaiah … said that Cyrus of Persia, who was neither Davidic nor Jewish, was
the māšiaḥ of the Lord (Isa 45:1). (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 225-226)
14
The Gentile King Cyrus was a Messiah, the saviour-liberator of the

Babylonian captives
One of the first uses of the actual term “Messiah” as the savior-liberator of Israel refers to a
gentile king: Cyrus of Persia. This prophecy—belonging to “Second Isaiah” and thought to
have been included in the Book of Isaiah during the Babylonian exile—portrays Cyrus as a ruler
anointed by God to bring the Jews back to their homeland and facilitate the rebuilding of the
Temple of Jerusalem:
I am the Lord… who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that
I please; he will say of Jerusalem, ‘Let it be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Let its
foundations be laid.’” This is what the Lord says to his anointed [italics added], to
Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of…” (Isa. 44:24–45:1). (“Messiah”, New World
Encyclopedia)
Persian king Cyrus was YHWH’s anointed
According to Isa 45:11, the Persian king Cyrus, worshiper of a foreign god, is also
YHWH’s anointed. He was chosen for the specific task of delivering YHWH’s people.
(Leonard-Fleckman, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
Isaiah gave the title “messiah” only to the Persian King Cyrus
There is only one person who bears the title ‫( משיח‬māšîaḥ) in the writings of this prophet
[Isaiah], and that is the Persian King Cyrus (45:1). … It is sheer eisegesis to introduce
a “messianic” nuance here.
There is no use of that word [māšîaḥ], either as an adjective or a title, in Isaiah 1–39,
or elsewhere in Deutero-lsaiah, which reveals that it is a deliberate omission, when it
could have been employed so easily. (Fitzmyer (2007), 39; and footnote 27))
Māšiaḥ meant the anointed High Priest

“Messiah” is also used in connection with the anointing of priests
Another root of “messiah” as a designation for particular persons is the anointing of
priests. In Exod 28:41; 30:30; 40:13–15 Moses is advised by God to anoint Aaron and
his sons as priests. … The designation “anointed priest” also occurs in several places
in Leviticus. (Leonard-Fleckman, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
Anointing of the High-Priest in the Post-exilic community
The rite of anointing was performed on the high-priest in the post-exilic community in
Judah. … There is no doubt but that the title ‫[ משוח‬māšiaḥ: anointed (one), which was
previously reserved for the Davidic king, is now intentionally adopted. In the kingless
age in which the priestly author lives, the anointed priest plays the part of the king of
Judah. (Hesse (1974), 500, 505)
Some reference is to the anointing of all priests
Some passages … speak of the anointing of all priests. The ref. is to Aaron and his sons
in Ex. 28:41; 30:30; Lv. 7:36, or to the sons of Aaron, Ex. 40:15; Nu. 3:3. (Hesse (1974),
501)
Māšiaḥ in the Hebrew Bible (TANAKH) is never eschatological

During the period of the Davidic monarchy (the pre-exilic period), the people had a living Messiah or
two, in the persons of the monarch and/or of the high priest. They had no need to look forward to any
future Messiah
15
The present-day word “messiah” and “messianic” are not similar to their
meaning in the Old Testament (TANAKH)
It is wrong to assume that the way in which words like “messiah” or “messianic” are
commonly used today, that is, as referring to a future, possibly eschatological, saviour
figure, is similar to the way the word “messiah” had normally been used in the Old
Testament. (Rose (2001), 278
“Messiah” throughout the Old Testament means an empirical figure,
never an eschatological one
The term, “The Lord’s Anointed” (māšiaḥ YHWH) became almost a summary of this
whole theology of kingship. Thus, “messiah” throughout the Old Testament means only
an empirical figure, never an eschatological one; always one reigning in the present,
never one to come in the future. Two passages (Gen. 49:10 and Num. 24:17) which
later at Qumran and in Christian interpretation were taken messianically, were probably
originally related to David and his reign. (Fuller (1965), 24)
All Messianic references in the Old Testament were to the present king
or to a past king
A definitely Messianic or eschatological understanding cannot be presupposed when
the king is called ‫משיח יהוה‬. All the references are to the present king or a past king.
(Hesse (1974), 504)
“Anointed” cannot always be interpreted eschatologically
The noun ‫( משוח‬anointed) and its verbal root ‫( משח‬to anoint) are used approximately
130 times throughout the Hebrew Bible.
As within the Dead Sea Scrolls; however, this term can be applied to a number of
different people or objects and therefore cannot always be interpreted eschatologically.
…
The noun ‫ משוח‬simply means “anointed” and one who is given such a title means they
are an “anointed one.” As said, priests, kings and prophets were the three types of
people who were commonly anointed in the Hebrew Bible. This term does not need to
be applied only to people though, as objects such as weapons (Isa 21:5), cakes (Ex
29:2), altars (Num 7:10) and the tabernacle (Lev 8:11) can also be “anointed.” …
Of the 38 times “messiah” is used as a noun in the Hebrew Bible, twice it is in reference
to the patriarchs, six times to the high priest, once to king Cyrus and twenty-nine times
to Israelite kings, primarily David and Saul. (Beresh (2016), 10, 12, 13)
“None of the Messianic passages in the OT can be exegeted
Messianically”
Franz Hesse’s widely used article asserts that “none of the Messianic passages in the
OT can be exegeted Messianically. Nevertheless, the so-called Messianic
understanding is implied in many of the passages, although this is more evident in texts
in which the term mashiah is not used.”7 Nearly a quarter of his study of the use of
mashiah in the Hebrew Bible deals with passages in which the term does not appear.
If, by Hesse’s own admission, the evidence is minimal and inconclusive, it is difficult
to understand how to know that there “must have been” a messianic movement in
Israelite religion and Judaism, much less that later versions of it were the product of
“hundreds of years of history.” (Green (1987), 6, 8)
7 Hesse (1974), “Chrio,” p. 504
16
In the original context, not one of the thirty-nine occurrences of ‫ משיח‬in

the Hebrew canon refers to an expected figure of the future
A discussion of the Old Testaments contribution to the development of the later
messianic expectations can hardly be focused on the Hebrew word for messiah, ‫משיח‬.
In the original context not one of the thirty-nine occurrences of ‫ משיח‬in the Hebrew
canon refers to an expected figure of the future whose Coming will coincide with the
Inauguration of an era of salvation. (Charlesworth (1992), 39)
Objects could be anointed

Gn. 28:18; 31:13 tell of the anointing of a pillar, ‫ משח‬being used in 31:13. Jacob in
28:18 pours oil on the pillar, so that it is taken out of the profane sphere, consecrated to
God, and made a sanctuary. … Altars are anointed, Ex. 29:36; Lv. 8:11; Nu. 7:1, 10,
84, 88, esp. the altar of burnt offering, Ex. 40:10, and also the tent of meeting, Ex.
30:26, the ark, Ex. 30:26, the “dwelling” and its contents, Ex. 40:9; Lv. 8:10; Nu. 7:1,
the laver and its stand, Ex. 40:11, and all the objects relating to the altar, Ex. 40:10.
(Hesse (1974), 501)
17
COMMITMENTS MADE TO KING DAVID
David’s house and kingdom would be made sure forever before YHWH,
in a father-son relationship
The special status of the king was confirmed in the promise to David in 2 Sam 7. … It
declares the king to be a son of God (7:14a: “1 will be a father to him and he will be a
son to me”) and promises that the kingship will never be taken away from the house of
David (7:16: “your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your
throne shall be established forever”). The main importance of the promise was that it
seemed to guarantee that there would always be a descendant of David on the throne in
Jerusalem. (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 181-186).
The word of the LORD came to Nathan: Go and tell my servant David: … I
will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth.
And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that
they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers
shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges
over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies.
Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house.
When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will
raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body,
and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I
will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits
iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted
by human beings.
But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom
I put away from before you.
Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me;
your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7:4-5, 9-16, NRSV;
bold provided for emphasis)
18
PROPHETS PROMISED EARTH-BASED MESSIAH(S)
Isaiah, Jeremiah looked for an earthly Davidic king

Isaiah and Jeremiah looked for a new Davidic king who would unite
Israel and Judah
The prophet Isaiah, who hoped for a more powerful and righteous ruler than the current
occupant of David’s throne. It refers to the coming of a new Davidic king who will unite Israel
and Judah, conquer the surrounding nations, and enable the return of the Israelites taken into
captivity in the Assyrian Empire:
In that day the Root of Jesse [David’s father] will stand as a banner for the peoples; the
nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. In that day the Lord will
reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from
Assyria… Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, and Judah’s enemies will be cut off;
Ephraim [Israel] will not be jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim. They
will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west; together they will plunder the
people to the east. They will lay hands on Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites will be
subject to them. (Isa. 11:10–14)
The prophet Jeremiah, who lived roughly a century later than Isaiah but still during a time when
Davidic kings occupied the throne, echoed Isaiah’s prediction:
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will raise up to David a righteous
Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his
days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he
will be called: The Lord [is] Our Righteousness.” (Jer. 23:5–6)
Thus, the earliest messianic references, written when Davidic kings still ruled in Judah, look
forward to a wise and righteous king arising from David’s lineage, a militarily powerful leader
who will bring back the citizens of Israel taken captive by Assyria and unite the divided
kingdoms of Israel and Judah in triumph over their regional enemies. (“Messiah”, New World
Encyclopedia)
Isaiah’s worldly Messiah contrasted with the supernatural intervention
envisaged by others, such as Zechariah and Joel
The ideals of the books of Isaiah, emphasizing the Messiah as a Prince of Peace and a deliverer
of Israel from oppression, represented one strain of thought. Apocalyptic promises of
supernatural intervention by prophets such as Zechariah, Joel, and others represented a more
other-worldly trend. (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
There was no messianic movement prior to the Babylonian Exile
A preexilic messianic movement is an untenable hypothesis. (Becker (1980), 35)
The child at Isaiah 7:14 was not necessarily a future king
Isaiah 7:14 (“the young woman is with child and will bear a son”) was a sign of hope
to King Ahaz about the future of the royal line. The child in question often is identified
as Hezekiah (also in rabbinic tradition),” but he is not necessarily a future king. In any
case, he is not a messiah and was not interpreted as one in Jewish tradition. (Collins
(2007), Kindle Locations 188-191)
19
20
Ahaz was given a sign to make him trust God that the Davidic dynasty
would continue
Through Isaiah, God offers Ahaz and the house of David a further sign:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you (plural) a sign. Look! The young
woman is with child and bearing a son. She shall name him Immanuel”
(7:14).
Here the emphasis falls not on the woman (despite the definite article) but on the birth
and naming of a child (“God with us”).” He will grow up, but before he can distinguish
right from wrong, God will see to the desolation of the lands that threaten Ahaz.
Thus the sign is to make Ahaz trust in God. The name given to the child emphasizes
the way God is providing for the continuation of the Davidic dynasty in these trying
circumstances.” …
There is not a hint of a future “Messiah” in this passage, for the child to be born is to
be no more than a successor of King Ahaz.
The greatest objection to the messianic interpretation of this passage is this: “How can
Emmanuel, the Messianic child of the distant and impenetrable future, be a true sign
for the eighth century king, Ahaz?” (Fitzmyer (2007), 36)
8th century BCE passages, such as Isaiah 7, wrote that the Davidic
monarchy would endure
Passages in some of the preexilic prophetic writings refer to the continuous endurance
of this Davidic dynasty. In the eighth century b.c., the prophet Isaiah was sent to King
Ahaz of Judah to reassure him about the continuation of the Davidic monarchy. Three
passages in particular tell about it (7:1-9; 8:23-9:6; 11:1-10). (Fitzmyer (2007), 35)
Isaiah 7 refers to the times when it was written, referring to a son of Ahaz
We have taken no account of the Immanuel oracle in Isa. 7:10-16, for many the very
heart of preexilic messianic expectation. Kittel makes the emotional statement: “The
hour in which Isaiah departed from Ahaz gave to the world the idea of the Messiah.”
This is not true with respect to either the historical oracle of Isaiah or the redactional
additions of the Book of Isaiah.
It is not even certain that the oracle deals with a royal figure; if so, it refers not to a
messiah but to a son of Ahaz. … No other passage illustrates so clearly how far the
traditional picture of messianic expectation can depart from history. (Becker (1980),
46-47)
Isaiah 9:5 relates to the accession of a new Davidic ruler, with an
eschatological implication at verse 6
The point [at Isaiah 9:5] is not so much the birth as the accession of a new ruler of
David’s house. The prophet regards this as adoption by Yahweh.
If v. 5 can still be applied to the accession of a ruler of the Davidic dynasty, a more
strongly eschatological expectation seems to be implied in v. 6. The new son of David
will be a final and perfect ruler. Under his rule, which will be for an indefinite period,
there will be salvation without end. This final Davidic ruler will be Yahweh’s
representative on earth. (Hesse (1974), 506)
Isaiah 9 is a poem written for the enthronement of a current king
The poem in Isa 9 (“for a child has been born for us, a son given to us”) is most probably
a poem for the enthronement of a king, perhaps Hezekiah. The titles given to this
“child” – “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” –
conform to the royal ideology in ascribing divinity, in some sense, to the king. Here
21
Prophets promised earth-based Messiah(s)
again the king in question belongs to the present rather than the future. (Collins (2007),
The birth of a Prince (Isaiah 9) confirmed the promise that God would
restore the land
When the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in 733 b.c. invaded Zebulun and Naphtali
… Isaiah promised that God would restore that land’s former glory (Isa 8:23-9:6[Eng.
9:1-7]). … Their joy is further created by the birth of a king, who is to rule this people
as God’s agent and deliver them from oppression:
For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; upon his shoulder
dominion has settled; one has named him Wonderful Counselor, Warrior
God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the vastness of (his) dominion
and of peace there shall be no end, upon David’s throne and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to sustain it in justice and righteousness from now and for
ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this. (9:5-6[6-7])
The stress in these verses is still on the activity of God, who through the royal figure
that has been born will bring about the kind of human society that the prophet Isaiah
has always been advocating. …
Even though the passage began with a reference to the Northern Kingdom, it ends with
a clear reference to the Davidic dynasty (and with vocabulary echoing the Oracle of
Nathan: throne, kingdom, establish, forever [2 Sam 7:11-14]). It is the birth of a prince
in Jerusalem which has occasioned this promise.
The four titles that are given to the child are to be understood as symbolic throne-names,
rhetorically summing up the names that he will win for himself in the people’s
estimation, when he sits upon the throne. (Fitzmyer (2007), 36-37)
Passages in Isaiah were composed for the enthronement of a Davidic
ruler
We understand Isa. 8:23-9:6 (Eng. 9:1-7) and 11:1-5, the only passages left as preexilic
evidence, as having been composed for the enthronement of a Davidic ruler. They are
products of the legitimating work of a Jerusalem court prophet, who was far from
preaching messianism to an esoteric circle of disciples while ignoring the kings of his
own day.
The enthronement setting is suggested by the reference to presentation of a scepter and
the enthronement names in Isa. 9:5-6 (Eng. vv. 6-7). “The birth of a child” and the “gift
of a son” represent the notion of the king’s being begotten by the deity on the day of
his enthronement. (Becker (1980), 45)
Isaiah 11 is a messianic oracle wishing for a utopian future following the
fall of the Davidic kingship
In Isa 11:1-9 there is a genuine messianic oracle that predicts “a shoot from the stump
of Jesse” who will usher in a wonderful age when the wolf will live with the lamb. …
Many scholars think that the “stump” presupposes the definitive fall of the Davidic
kingship to the Babylonians in 586 BCE and see the “shoot” as a figure wished for in
the utopian future. (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 193-194, 197-198)
Messianic expectation in Jeremiah might not be eschatological
The only secure example of Messianic expectation in Jer. is at 23:5f. Here the prophet
awaits the ideal of a wise and righteous ruler of David’s line with the programmatic
name of “Yahweh our righteousness”. But there is no depiction marking the reign of
this king as a magnificent and even miraculous one of universal dominion. Nor it is
certain whether Messianic expectation in Jer. is eschatological or not. (Hesse (1974),
507)
22
Isaiah, Micah, and other prophets had no messianic expectations

We find no good reason for any concession—possibly unconscious—to the naive
messianic interpretation espoused by tradition. … It is certain that there was no
widespread movement involving messianic expectations. Geographically, the texts
refer only to the Southern Kingdom, and of the prophets only Isaiah and Micah are
involved.
In the historical preaching of Hosea and Amos, there is no trace of any royal expectation
looking to the future. Neither is any to be found in Zephaniah, a prophet in the Southern
Kingdom during the time of Josiah, or in Nahum and Habakkuk.
But the scattered texts—of which only those in Isaiah appear to be preexilic—can be
understood plausibly against the background of sacral kingship or royal ideology and
bear the stamp of the particular circle surrounding the Jerusalem court prophet Isaiah.
A preexilic messianism is almost a contradiction in terms, since the savior king is in
fact present. We consider messianic texts appearing suddenly out of the blue to be
questionable and seek to read them against their own historical background.
We shall find this perspective confirmed in the exilic and postexilic situation. Nowhere
do we find that the immediate historical possibilities are transcended.
There is nothing to prevent claiming that the texts that draw on royal ideology are
messianic in a broader sense. They express the yearning of humanity for an ideal king,
fulfilled in Christ.
But since it is our task to inquire into the historical convictions lying in the foreground,
it remains true that they are not messianic in the usual sense. In addition, they exhibit
features of a kingship that is most closely analogous to our conception of messianism,
which we judge by the criterion of Christ, the sacral king par excellence. No wonder
there seems to be justification for imputing a visionary description of the kingship of
Christ to these passages.
Historical examination must reach a far different conclusion. Sacral kingship was
especially suspect to Yahwism, which had a hard enough time with kingship in general.
While kingship as an institution was ultimately integrated, features of royal ideology
were interpreted away. They survived only in scattered texts, and even there only by
virtue of reinterpretation. From the perspective of New Testament fulfillment, they
represent dead ends in the economy of salvation. (Becker (1980), 38-39)
Ezekiel’s hope lay with the temple and a renewed monarchy

A new sprout will shoot: Isaiah; Ezekiel
The Messianic king’s … glory is set in stark contrast to the contemporary inadequacy
of the house of David in Is[aiah] 11:1. The latter is comparable to a root out of which a
new shoot will come. The same is true of Ez[ekiel] 17:22-24. (Hesse (1974), 507-508)
Ezekiel was more interested in restoration of the temple than restoration
of the Davidic monarchy
A little later, Ezekiel still retains something of the traditional hope of an ideal king of
the Davidic line (Ezek. 34:23f), while in 21:25-27, after referring to the deposition of
the reigning king (Zedekiah?), he speaks of the restoration of the monarchy when “he
comes whose right it is” (v. 27).
Here there is no direct reference to one of the Davidic line. Does this mean that he – if
Jeremiah had not already done so – has begun to detach the Messianic hope from the
Davidic line? This is possible. In any case, it would be true to say that Ezekiel
23
(assuming that chapters 40-48 are genuine) is much more interested in the restoration
of the temple than of the monarchy.
The overall impression is that if Ezekiel did retain the traditional Davidic hope, he was
growing cool towards it.
Thus he paved the way for the emergence of a different form of the Messianic hope,
that of a priest rather than a king. (Fuller (1965), 26)
Ezekiel’s expectation was not eschatological
Ezekiel’s expectation is definitely not eschatological. A second David equal to the first
will soon become ruler and he will be the first in a succession of similar kings, Ez.
34:23 f.; 37:22 ff. Perhaps Ez. had first expected a restoration of Jehoiachin (21:32) but
was disappointed in this hope. (Hesse (1974), 507)
Ezekiel spoke of Messiah in terms of the Davidic line being restored
The prophet Ezekiel, originally a citizen of Judah but writing from exile in Babylon after the
dissolution of the Davidic monarchy, was the first to speak of the Messiah in terms of the
restoration of the Davidic line:
I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between
one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David,
and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will
be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord
have spoken. (Ezek. 34:22–24). (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
Genesis 49 and Numbers 24 were “predictions” written long after the
fulfilments
Genesis 49:8-12 and Num. 24:15-24 are fictive predictions (vaticinia ex eventu8) of a
later writer, the Yahwist, who has the Davidic empire before his eyes. (Becker (1980),
37)
At Genesis 49:10, Jacob emphasised the ascendancy of the tribe of
Judah
The ancient poem of Genesis 49 depicts the dying patriarch Jacob blessing his sons,
and in v. 10 he says about Judah among other things,
“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the mace from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him, and his is the obedience of peoples”.
The blessing is meant to emphasize the ascendancy of the tribe of Judah among the
twelve tribes. … Jacob’s blessing thus enhances Judah’s dominion and undoubtedly
hints at the supremacy that that tribe will assume in the time of David, whose dynasty
would rule for centuries in Jerusalem and who would receive the homage and tribute of
surrounding peoples before it meets its demise in Zedekiah in the early sixth century.
(Fitzmyer (2007), 29, 30)
8 vaticinium ex eventu: The term applied to a passage in the prophets or the gospels which has the form of a prediction but is
in fact written in the knowledge of the event having occurred (e.g. probably Luke 21:20). (Oxford Reference, Vaticinium
ex eventu - Oxford Reference accessed 4 October 2022)
24
THE END OF THE MONARCHS
Removal of the monarchy called for reinterpretation of their hopes
The end of the Davidic dynasty dramatically impacted their expectations. For a while, they hoped for a
revived and renewed monarchic dynasty, a “branch” rather than the main trunk, but this hope was
supplanted by the political power of the Temple class.
The failure of the commitment made to King David was at the root of
messianic speculation
The special status of the king was confirmed in the promise to David in 2 Sam 7. … It
declares the king to be a son of God (7:14a) and promises that the kingship will never
be taken away from the house of David (7:16). …
[The promise] seemed to guarantee that there would always be a descendant of David
on the throne in Jerusalem. After the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586
BCE, however, this was no longer the case. The cognitive dissonance caused by the
discrepancy between the divine promise and the present reality is the root of messianic
expectation. (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 181-183, 186-188)
The collapse of the kingship meant there was no anointed one among
God’s people
There is no evidence in the hellenistic period that priests were anointed, and we are
justified in concluding that this custom had ceased long before the first century C.E. …
This insight is of great paradigmatic significance and is often lost in discussions of the
meaning of “the Messiah” in the first century. It must be emphasized that the cessation
of the ceremonial act of anointing of the priest, or high priest, and the collapse of the
kingship meant that there was no anointed one among God’s people. (Charlesworth
(1987), 229)
The destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE and the end of the Davidic
kingdom called for a reinterpretation of the prophetic tradition
In ancient Israel, the concept of the Messiah, “the anointed one,” was connected to King
David in particular. … King David became the primary role model to which messianic
expectations were connected, and the throne of David was thought to last forever.
It is likely that the trauma caused by the fall of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE, and the
subsequent deportation of the population, gave rise to messianic expectations during
the postexilic exilic period.
The fact that Jerusalem was destroyed and that there was no Israelite king on the throne
called for a hermeneutical reinterpretation of the whole idea of a Davidic kingdom.
The first stage in this process was the hope for a reestablishment of the Davidic throne,
a development clearly detectable in parts of the prophetic tradition. (Zetterholm (2007).
When there was no longer a king, māšiaḥ referred to one who would
restore the kingship
In the Second Temple period when there was no longer a king on the throne, the term
as applied to a king came to refer to the one who would restore the kingship and usher
in the eschatological age. … The default reference of the term is to the legitimate,
Davidic king of Israel at the end of days. (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 163-167)
25
The end of the monarchs
A range of messianic hopes emerged during the post-exilic period

There never was a uniform messianic expectation
Messianic expectations were never uniform across the different sects of Judaism up to
and including the time of Qumran. (Beresh (2016), 11)
It is not possible to construct a history of the Messianic movement(s) in
Israel and post-exilic Judaism
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct a history of the Messianic movement
in Israel and post-exilic Judaism from these scanty passages, many of which cannot be
dated with any certainty. There undoubtedly must have been such a movement. … But
many questions remain. … To these question no assured answers can as yet be given.
(Hesse (1974), 509)
Messianic expectations were not uniform and it is not clear how active or
important it was
Jewish messianic expectation was never uniform. The hope for the restoration of
Davidic kingship was standard, but it is impossible to say how active or important it
was at any given time. … Expectations for an eschatological priest or prophet appear
occasionally but were never as central as the hope for a “King Messiah.” (Collins
(2007), Kindle Locations 372-373, 375-376)
A range of messianic hopes emerged during the exilic period
The exile marks the emergence of varying streams of Messianic hope: in addition to the
traditional Davidic hope, which for the time being seems to be falling into disfavour,
there is emerging the priestly hope (Ezek. 40-48) and an eschatological hope detached
from any specifically Messianic connections (Dt.-Isaiah). (Fuller (1965), 26)
A flurry of messianic expectations followed the return of Babylonian
exiles
When Jews were allowed to return from Babylon and rebuild the temple, there seems
to have been a brief flurry of messianic expectation associated with the figure of
Zerubbabel (Hag 1-2; Zech 1-6). (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 219-220)
When Messiah is used in an eschatological setting, it is used with
considerable variety
The eschatological use of Messiah still involves considerable variety. The anointed one
may be a king or a priest, or even a supernatural figure as in the Similitudes of Enoch.
(Collins (1987), 97)
The texts attest to a variety of messianic figures
The term [“Messiah”] is sometimes restricted to the specifically Davidic Messiah. This
restriction, however, risks losing sight of the variety of messianic figures attested in the
texts. (Collins (1987), 97)
From the postexilic period to the Second Revolt under Bar Kochba,
Judaism had a range of concepts and titles for depicting God’s agent
There was a range of diverse conceptions and titles in Judaism from the postexilic
period to the Second Revolt under Bar Kochba for depicting the agent of God who
would bring to fruition the hopes of the Covenant people for the achievement of the
divine purpose in their behalf or through them.
The variations in the conception of that agent, or those agents, stand in dynamic,
functional relationship with the community’s understanding of itself as the Covenant
people. (Kee (1987), 187-188)
26
Jewish sects held varying views over an imminent Day of the Lord
In the first century BCE, the Qumran sect reacted against the corruption of both priestly and
political authorities, foreseeing the imminent coming of the Day of the Lord in which both an
Aaronic and a Davidic Messiah should arise to lead the “children of light” in battle against the
gentiles and other “children of darkness.”
Some among the emerging sect of the Pharisees, meanwhile, hoped in the Messiah as a
deliverer along the lines of the Book of Isaiah. Others expected cataclysmic events such as
described in the Book of Daniel, I Enoch, and other apocalyptic literature.
The Zealots, meanwhile, thought of the Messiah in more strictly military/political terms,
believing that whatever God’s role in his coming might be, it was incumbent on human beings
to resist evil rulers, with violence if necessary. (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
Palestinian Jews held different and often conflicting ideas on the
Messiah
First-century Palestinian Jews held many different, often mutually exclusive, ideas and
beliefs regarding the Messiah. There was no developed and set messianology ready to
be used in christological didache and kerygma. (Charlesworth (1987), 248)
There was no coherent messianology in Early Judaism
We must not treat the extant early Jewish texts as if they are, using Neusner’s words,
“testimonies to a single system and structure, that is, to Judaism”. … We must resist
the old methodological approach that assumed a coherent messianology in Early
Judaism. (Charlesworth (1987), 227)
There had been no obvious Messianic expectation during the Persian
and early Hellenist period
We have no clear picture of the extent of messianic expectation in the Persian or early
Hellenistic period. … It would seem then that messianic interpretation was largely
dormant from the early Hellenistic period to the time of the Maccabean revolt. (Collins
(2007), Kindle Location 227-228, 243)
Many Biblical books do not include a Messiah and faith in a coming
Messiah was not held by all Jews
The idea of the Messiah does not exist in many of the Biblical books, and faith in the coming of
a Messiah was neither uniform nor universal. (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
The apocalypses of the Maccabean era have little interest in the
restoration of the Davidic line
It is generally agreed that the apocalypses of the Maccabean era have little interest in
the restoration of the Davidic line. For many centuries Jews and Christians alike
identified the “one like a Son of Man” in Daniel 7 as the Messiah but that interpretation
is only rarely defended today.
The problem with the messianic interpretation is that Daniel never refers explicitly to a
Davidic Messiah or indicates any interest in the restoration of the dynasty. (Collins
(1987), 99)
While Ben Sira praised David, it did not speak of the restoration of his
line
The wisdom book of Ben Sira reveals the views of a pious scribe in Jerusalem at the
beginning of the second century B.C.E. … Ben Sira had little interest in eschatology of
any sort. … We find no reference to a Messiah. Ben Sira praises David at some length
(47:1-11) but does not use the occasion to speak of the restoration of his line. … For
Sirach himself the glory of David belongs to the past. … Most scholars agree that Sirach
has no interest in a Davidic Messiah. (Collins (1987), 98)
27
Their literature shows that “messiah” was not a focus for ancient Jews
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. But a review
of Israelite and early Judaic literature, the textual record produced and initially
preserved by Jews, makes such a conclusion dubious at best. (Green (1987), 2)
There is no evidence in the second century BCE of an eschatological
messiah or equivalent
We have no instance of māšîaḥ or its equivalents in an eschatological context that can
be dated with certainty to the second century B.C.E., although the Qumran usage may
well have originated in that century. (Collins (1987), 98)
Deutero-Isaiah
In Deutero-Isaiah, hope of the restoration of an ideal king had completely
disappeared; instead, māšiaḥ was used of the Persian king Cyrus
In Deutero-Isaiah (ca. 540) there is a vivid prophecy of the return as an eschatological
event. But the hope of the restoration of an ideal king – whether Davidic, or unspecified
as in Ezek. 21:27 – has completely disappeared. Instead, the term māšiaḥ is used of
Cyrus II of Persia (Isa. 45:1) as the agent appointed by Yahweh to facilitate the return.
(Fuller (1965), 26)
Persian king Cyrus was given the title ‫[ משיח יהוה‬māšiaḥ YHWH]
The use of the title ‫[ משיח יהוה‬māšiaḥ YHWH] for the Persian king Cyrus in Is. 45:1
shows that the title could be employed independently of the rite of anointing. Here a
prophet of Israel strangely describes as ‫משיח יהוה‬, an alien ruler who is of another
religion and does not believe in Yahweh. (Hesse (1974), 504)
Second Isaiah and later prophets often contain no reference to a
Messianic figure
The eschatological passages of the later prophets (Trito-Isaiah, Malachi, Zechariah 9-
14) often contain no reference to the Messianic figure, thus continuing a tradition begun
by the second Isaiah. One of the few specifically Messianic passages from this period
is Zech. 9 :9f., where the term “king” (melekh) is used. There is nothing about his
Davidic descent. (Fuller (1965), 27)
With the fall of the monarchy, the promises made to David were
transferred to the nation as a whole
The Davidic promise was idealized and transferred to the nation as a whole. The notion
of Israel as Yahweh’s son may have helped the transfer of the royal predicate “son of
God” (See Isa. 9:5 [Eng. v. 6]; Ps. 2:7; 110:3). … The collective transfer of the idea of
the king appears in specific books and literary contexts, specifically the Book of Isaiah,
the Book of Micah, Zechariah 9-14, and the royal psalms. … The most generally
recognized example is Isa. 55:3-5. Yahweh makes an everlasting covenant with Israel.
When he calls this covenant “my steadfast, sure love for David,” he is not using a simile
(“as I made a covenant with David”) but rather transferring the Davidic covenant to the
nation. David was formerly a witness (of Yahweh’s power) to the peoples; now Israel
takes over this role. Israel calls nations it does not know, and nations that did not know
Israel run to it. Israel also appears as a witness in Isa. 43:19 and 44:8. Other passages
voicing Israel’s dominion over the nations include Isa. 45:14; 49:7, 22-23; 60:14.
(Becker (1980), 68-69)
28
Isaiah song of songs

The Servant Songs of Isaiah do not contain the word “messiah”
Many interpreters give a “messianic” interpretation to the Servant Songs of Isaiah,
especially to the Fourth Servant Song (Isa 52:13–53:12). That mode of interpretation,
however, is tendentious and problematic, because, to begin with, ‫[ משיח‬māšîaḥ] is not
found in any of the Servant Songs; nor is the verb ‫ משח‬used in any of them. (Fitzmyer
(2007), 39–40)
Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song does not envisage a royal figure, a scion of
David, or being associated with any political role
The important teaching in the Fourth Servant Song is that God provides the very sin-
offering by which Israel can be healed, cleansed, and forgiven.
As the Fourth Song stands in its present Deutero-Isaian context, there is no room for an
expected Messiah as the ruler of the age of salvation. In fact, the passage does not
envisage the Servant even as a royal figure, or as a scion of David, or associate with
him any political role. (Fitzmyer (2007), 42)
Isaiah’s Servant Songs are in the context of the abandonment of the
monarchy and transfer to the people under Yahweh’s kingship
Isaiah 55:3-5 must be seen in the total context of Isaiah 40-55. The passage is only the
tip of the iceberg. In Isaiah 40-55, the kingship of Yahweh occupies an outstanding
place; in good theocratic fashion, earthly power is accorded the Persian Cyrus.
The purely ideal transfer of kingship of the people combined with the abandonment of
realistic hopes of renewal of the monarchy should therefore come as no surprise. Above
all, the servant songs belong in this category. They are to be viewed as belonging to the
continuum of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55) and should be interpreted collectively.
(Becker (1980), 69)
At least one passage in the Biblical text identifies the Suffering Servant
with national Israel
The Messiah becomes heir to the Suffering Servant of God, who figures prominently
in the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah, and who suffers undeservedly for the sins of others.
While some scholars maintain that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah, at least one
passage in the Biblical text itself identifies the Suffering Servant with Israel (see Isa.
49:3). There can be little doubt that psychologically the Suffering Messiah is but a
projection and personification of Suffering Israel. (Patai (1979), 161-162)
Trito-Isaiah
The Messiah of Isaiah chapters 56-66 would bring Edenic benefits to all
mankind
The prophecies in Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66) were written by the first and second generation of
settlers who returned from their exile in Babylon to once again rebuild a Jewish society in
Jerusalem and Judah (520–480 BCE). They envision a ruler of divine might and wisdom who
would not only make Israel/Judah into a powerful regional empire, but even a world power:
Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. Lift up
your eyes and look about you: All assemble and come to you; your sons come from
afar, and your daughters are carried on the arm. Then you will look and be radiant,
your heart will throb and swell with joy; the wealth on the seas will be brought to
you, to you the riches of the nations will come. (Isa. 60:3–5).
29
The reign of the Messiah would not only bring peace and prosperity to the Jews, but tremendous
benefits to mankind, even restoring the original Edenic nature in which humans live for centuries
and animals are no longer predatory.
“Never again will there be… an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who
does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth…
The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but
dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy
mountain,” says the Lord. (Isa. 65:20–25). (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
Zechariah
Post-exilic prophets named Zerubbabel as the messiah
The post-exilic prophets Haggai and Zechariah name a specific messianic candidate. They
indicate that Jerusalem’s governor, Zerubbabel, a grandson of King Jehoiachin who returned to
Jerusalem under Cyrus’ sponsorship, may in fact be the Davidic “branch”:
“I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,” declares the Lord, “and I will
make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you.” (Hag. 2:23) … “What are you, O
mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground. Then he will bring
out the capstone to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’” (Zech. 4:7) (“Messiah”, New
World Encyclopedia)
Initially, the Messianic hope was revived when the Davidic descendant
Zerubbabel was restored to power in Jerusalem, but only for a short time
For a brief period after the return, the traditional Davidic Messianic hope was revived
when Zerubbabel, a descendant of the Davidic dynasty, was restored to power in
Jerusalem. The relevant passages are: Hag. 2:23; Zech. 3:8- 10; 4:7; 6:9-14. In this case
it is not a merely future Messianic hope: the Davidic ideal is itself being realized in an
actual historical figure. …
After this, the Davidic Messianic hope, even in its more generalized form of the
expectation of an ideal king, continued for long only as an occasional flicker. (Fuller
(1965), 26-27)
It is widely agreed that the reference in Zechariah to two olive trees is a
prediction of the two messiahs
Zechariah 4:14, with its enigmatic reference to the two olive trees, is widely - and in
my judgment correctly - regarded as a prediction of the two messiahs, kingly and
priestly, who are to appear in Israel on the day of eschatological fulfillment.
Zechariah 6:9-15 confirms this interpretation, with its representation of the chief
accomplishment of the eschatological king as the rebuilding of the temple and the
restoration of its cultus. (Kee (1987), 188-189)
The prophet Zechariah expected Zerubbabel would be crowned
From Jer 23:5 (and 23:15) one recognizes the “scion” (literally, “branch”) as the future
David, to whom the title “my servant” is again given, as in Ezek 34:23. For the prophet
Zechariah, however, that future David is now present in an heir of the Davidic throne,
Zerubbabel, who according to Zech 6:11b is to be crowned. (Fitzmyer (2007), 51)
Messianic expectations in the immediate post-exilic period saw
Zerubbabel as the promised end-time Messianic king
In the immediate post-exilic period when the returned exiles were beginning to settle
again in Jerusalem and Judah, the Messianic hope was undoubtedly strong and began
to put forth new shoots. …
In Hag. 2:20-23 the prophet addresses the governor Zerubbabel, grandson of
Jehoiachin, king of Judah, and hence a descendant of David. Following ancient tradition
30
and prophesying disasters like the earlier prophets, Haggai proclaims that Yahweh will
shake heawn and earth, will divest alien peoples of their power, and will look on the
ruler that remains, namely, Zerubbabel, as a signet ring. … The Messianic age of
salvation will dawn, and Zerubbabel will be the Messiah of Yahweh, who stands in a
uniquely close relation to his God. …
In Zech. we find the notion of two anointed ones alive and at work. The olive-trees
which the prophet sees in a night-vision (4:1-6, 10-14) represent the “sons of oil,”
Zerubbabel and Joshua. … Zerubbabel is again designated the Messianic king of the
end-time which is now dawning. He is called a “branch” in 6:12, cf. Jer. 23:5f. During
[Zerubbabel’s] reign everything will bud again. In particular the temple of Yahweh will
be finished. (Hesse (1974), 507-508)
The donkey at Zechariah 9, a throwback to the period of the Judges,
symbolized humility rather than the animal used in warfare, the horse
Zechariah 9:9 tells Jerusalem, “Lo your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious
is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” The donkey was
the preferred means of transport of tribal leaders in the period of the Judges. The
reference here is a throwback to that time and implies the rejection of the horse, the
favored animal in warfare. (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 214-217)
31
SECOND-TEMPLE JUDAISM
SHAPED AN ESCHATOLOGICAL MESSIAH
A Messiah developed during the Second Temple period
The concept of Messiah developed considerably during the Second
Temple period
In the period between the writing of the last of the prophetic books and the first century BCE,
the concept of the Messiah developed considerably. (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
The image of the Messiah was in the forefront of rabbinical and popular
thought from the second century BCE on
The names by which the Messiah is called are revealing. In the First Book of Enoch he
is called, first of all, “Head of Days,” an epithet alluding to his preexistence, or to the
emergence of his name before God prior to the creation of the world. In the same source
he is also called “Son of Man,” an old Biblical appellation heavy with theosophical
symbolism. Ever since Ezekiel, “Son of Man” has been a designation signifying special
nearness to God of the person so called. Some of the Messiah’s names contain historical
allusions (e.g. David), others are symbolic (“Shoot,” Menahem [i.e. “Comforter”],
Light, Peace). …
This multiplicity of names indicates one thing very clearly: The image of the Messiah
was very much in the forefront of rabbinical—and undoubtedly also of popular—
thought from the second century BCE on. (Patai (1979), 65)
There is no evidence for true messianism until the second century BCE
What must be objected to is the almost universal equation of restorative monarchism
with messianism. There is no evidence for true messianism until the second century
B.C. What we are dealing with in the interim is the restoration of preexilic institutions.
… It is on the threshold of the New Testament that we first encounter a real messianism.
It is not the seamless continuation of restorative monarchism of the exile and early
postexilic period; it is a new outgrowth of anti-Hasmonean, anti-Roman, and anti-
Herodian tendencies. (Becker (1980), 50, 87)
Jewish circles developed a superior, reigning “Messiah” who would cure
the political and spiritual turmoil of Israel
The portrait of a set apart, unique, superior and reigning “Messiah” referring to an
individual person and/or being, was developed firstly within Jewish circles. The
anticipated figure was awaited to come and cure the political and spiritual turmoil of
Israel.
The texts upon which many Jewish religious communities have built a concept of an
anticipated Messiah has come from the “13 Principles of Faith”, Mishneh, Torah, the
Talmud and writings in the Prophets (Nevi’im). (Tamar Yael Bat’Yah, 1)
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs has two eschatological figures
In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs … we read about the coming of two
eschatological figures, who seem to be the priestly Messiah and the princely Messiah.
(Charlesworth (1987), 231)
32
Second-Temple Judaism shaped an eschatological Messiah
33
Messianic eschatological features

developed during the Second Temple
Second Temple messianic figures were intertwined with eschatology
[Second Temple] beliefs about messianic figures were intertwined with eschatology,
that is, beliefs pertaining to the end of the world. A messiah is therefore an individual
who will appear at a decisive moment in the history of the world, a moment after which
the continuation of the world and humanity is going to be fundamentally altered in some
way. Second, a messiah holds a position of leadership on earth. (Neujahr,
With the later prophets, eschatological features helped shape a
Messianic end-time
The Messianic reign … will combine power, dignity and greatness. The power of
Yahweh will be manifested in it, Ez. 17:24. Its greatness will extend to the ends of the
earth, Mi. 5:3. In some tension with this is the statement in Zech. 9:9 f. that the Messiah
is poor and has to be helped to his position. He is characterised by humility. In
everything he depends on Yahweh. A typical feature is his love of peace. … In
particular, Moab will acknowledge the Messiah, Is. 16:5. Apocalyptic features now
help to fashion the idea of the Messianic end-time. When the Messiah begins his reign,
the whole world achieves the state that God originally planned for it. (Hesse (1974),
508)
First appearing in 150 BCE, the concept of Messiah became a standard
feature of Jewish Messianic eschatology
[Messiah] first appears as preexistent in the apocryphal First Book of Enoch, which was
originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic about 150 BCE From that period on, the
concept of the Messiah who was created in the six days of Creation, or even prior to
them, or who was born at variously stated subsequent dates and was then hidden to
await his time, became a standard feature of Jewish Messianic eschatology. (Patai
(1979), 64)
Messianic expectations were transformed during the time of the
Hasmoneans
[The Hasmonean] situation led to a revitalization of messianic expectations but also
caused the messianic idea to develop along new lines, … The notion of God’s Messiah
simultaneously was affected by eschatological and apocalyptic trends within Second
Temple Judaism.
The original idea of a Davidic kingdom was transformed into something very different
– the expectation of a superhuman, angelic savior connected to ideas of the dawn of a
new age and the establishment of the eschatological kingdom of God. (Zetterholm.
(2007), Kindle Locations 106-109).
The Davidic Messianic hope was not rekindled at the time of the
Maccabean revolt
It is perhaps not surprising that the specifically Davidic form of the Messianic hope was
not rekindled at the time of the Maccabean revolt (168-165). After all, the Maccabees
were not of the Davidic line. (Fuller (1965), 28)
Without foundation, translators of the Greek Septuagint (LXX)
introduced messianic references
The Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, of which the Pentateuch was
translated by the mid-third century BCE. … The LXX Pentateuch provides little
evidence of messianic expectation. …
34
The situation is different in the Prophets and Psalms, which were translated later
(second or first century BCE). Passages such as Isa 11 were translated faithfully, but
there also were some cases where the translators introduced messianic references
without foundation in the Hebrew text. (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 233-235.
Underlining added))
When it proclaimed the Messianic hope, the Greek translation LXX
definitely deviated from the original Hebrew
In definite deviations from the [Hebrew] Original, the LXX proclaim the Messianic
hope in Hell[enistic] Judaism. (van der Woude (1974), 510)
Messianic calculators found biblical bases to show that Messiah would
come within a few decades, or even a few years
It was inevitable that the long wait for the Messiah should engender impatience, and
that this impatience, in turn, should lead to attempts at calculating the precise time of
his coming. All these calculations were, of course, predicated on the assumption that
the date of the coming of the Messiah had long been predetermined by God, and that
while He did not divulge the date to His people, He allowed His prophets to perceive
veiled hints at it in their visions.
Thus the Messianic calculators managed to find Biblical bases for their arithmetic,
and—a psychologically most significant fact—in most places and ages they figured that
the Messiah would come within a few decades, or even a few years. (Patai (1979), 105)
The idea of a pre-existing Son of Man originated in late Judaism
The notion of a preexisting heavenly Son of man in late Judaism is of the greatest
importance for New Testament Christology because it involves a transcendental
messianism that comes close to satisfying Christian requirements. …
In the Old Testament such ideas, to the extent that they were present at all, have been
suppressed. … The “son of man” introduced by name in Dan. 7:13-14 is nothing more
than a symbol for the nation of the saints of the Most High and further evidence of the
tendency toward collectivization. (Becker (1980), 91)
There was no messianic saviour prior to the 2nd century BCE
Essential to messianism is the figure of a savior, more specifically a royal figure of
Davidic lineage. Until the second century b.c. one searches in vain for such a figure. …
In “late Judaism” (second and first centuries b.c.) there exists a genuine messianic
expectation. (Becker (1980), 79, 83)
Real Messianism arose only at the time of the Hasmoneans, Romans,
and Herodians, but it was not a restoration of the monarchy
It is on the threshold of the New Testament that we first encounter a real messianism.
It is not the seamless continuation of the restorative monarchism of the exilic and early
postexilic period; it is a new outgrowth of anti-Hasmonean, anti-Roman, and anti-
Herodian tendencies. The messiah is aroused by God; although he will be a descendant
of David, he has no fixed genealogy. This is not the same thing as royalist fidelity to
the royal family in restorative monarchism. (Becker (1980), 87)
The messiah remained in a strictly earthly context and was not a
superhuman figure dwelling in eternity
The messianism of “late Judaism,” however, must not be judged by the measure of New
Testament fulfillment. It therefore does not correspond to the expectations with which
we approach the sources. The messiah remains in a strictly earthly context and is not
conceived of as a superhuman figure dwelling in eternity. A possible exception in this
respect is the expectation of the Son of man and the messianic texts influenced by this
expectation. (Becker (1980), 87)
35
Belief in a future divinely marked ruler developed over time

From the normally mundane biblical employment of the term, the belief that there
would be a divinely marked ruler in the future developed over time. (VanderKam
(1999), 194)
The Pseudepigrapha
Pseudepigrapha usually bear the names of Old Testament heroes
The books designated Pseudepigrapha were written by Jews and Jewish Christians and
were usually redacted by later Christians. They were composed, for the most part,
during the period 200 B.C. to A.D. 200. This is the period that separates the Old
Testament, beginning with the First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians in A.D. 50.
These Pseudepigrapha usually bear the names of Old Testament heroes and carry such
titles as the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Elijah, the Testament of Job,
the Psalms of Solomon, and the Abode of the Rechabites.
These and other similar writings were part of the large group of documents from which
first the Old Testament, and then the New Testament, were eventually collected and
canonized. However, they made their way neither into the Hebrew Old Testament nor
into the larger collection of the Greek Old Testament, called the Septuagint.
(Charlesworth (1978))
Psalms of Solomon, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, 1 Enoch, and 3 Enoch date from
the first century BC
In the Pseudepigrapha—notably in the Psalms of Solomon, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, 1 Enoch,
and 3 Enoch—we have a precious record of Jewish speculations regarding the Messiah
from approximately the first century B.C. through the third century A.D. It is difficult
and perhaps unwise to try to synthesize the various ideas described above; even though
all the passages look to the future for the coming of the Messiah, and the Messiah is
perceived as one who will accomplish freedom and peace for Israel by conquering her
enemies. (Charlesworth (1978))
Pseudepigrapha include the claim that God is about to inaugurate the
fulness of times
One of the major thoughts contained in [Pseudepigrapha] is the claim that God is about
to bring an end to all normal history and all normal time, bring in the promised day,
and inaugurate the fulness of times. (Charlesworth (1978))
Second-temple Judaism was a richly varied phenomenon
Intertestamental Judaism was not isolated from the Greek and Roman world but deeply
influenced by it. We can no longer talk about an orthodox center to Judaism, but rather
we must confess that Judaism during the intertestamental period was a richly varied
phenomenon. …
Judaism did not flow unilaterally and without development from the first century to
B.C. to the third century A.D (Charlesworth (1978))
The Pseudepigrapha contain important ideas, concepts, expressions,
and dreams of Hellenistic Judaism
The Pseudepigrapha are a major source for understanding the intertestamental period.
These writings can no longer be discarded as documents from a fringe group of
heterodox Jews; they must be recognized as containing many important ideas, concepts,
expressions, and dreams that were permeating the fabric of Hellenistic Judaism.
36
Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha

The 17th Psalm of Solomon
Only five documents in the Pseudepigrapha contain Jewish comments about “the
Messiah,” “the Anointed One,” or “the Christ.” Certainly one of the best known and
important passages is in the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon, which was written around
the middle of the first century B.C.
In verses 21–33, we find a description of the Messiah who will be a descendant of David
and who will purge Jerusalem of her enemies not by means of a sword or through
military conquest but “with the word of his mouth.” (Charlesworth (1978))
Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18 yearned for Rome’s defeat at the hands of
Messiah
Psalms of Solomon … was composed in the first century BCE … The document is
written against the horrifying actions of the Romans, especially their occupation of
Palestine in 63 (cf. 17:6-14), and it celebrates the just death of Pompey in Egypt (cf.
2:31). The author and his group yearn for the defeat of the Romans at the hands of the
long-awaited Messiah. This hope is concentrated in Psalms [of Solomon] 17 and 18.
(Charlesworth (1987), 234-235)
The functions of “the Messiah” in Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18 are
clarified by active verbs, such as: destroy; purge, smash, and shatter
The messianic figure depicted in this psalm is clearly “the Messiah”; and his functions
are clarified by the active verbs: “to destroy the unrighteous rulers”, “to purge
Jerusalem from gentiles”, “to drive out the sinners”, “to smash the arrogance of
sinners”, “to shatter all their substance”, “to destroy the unlawful nation”, to “condemn
sinners”, to “gather a holy people”, and to “judge the tribes”. Nowhere else in early
Jewish literature are the functions of the Messiah so well delineated. The Messiah,
however, is totally subservient to God. (Charlesworth (1987), 236)
The “Son of David” first appeared in the Psalms of Solomon
The Psalms of Solomon is a collection of eighteen psalms written in approximately 60 BC,
around the time the Romans invaded Israel. … Within these psalms, the Messiah is referred to
as the Son of David for the first time in recorded history. (What are the Psalms of
Solomon? (compellingtruth.org) accessed 10 September 2022)
Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18 presented messianic ideas that are quite
at home with the earliest literature of the Jesus movement
Among the Second Temple texts … the Psalms of Solomon hold pride of place for their
unambiguous messianic ideas present in a pre-Christian text. In particular, Pss. Sol. 17
and 18 present a picture of the messiah that is quite at home with much of the earliest
literature of the Jesus movement. … The clarity with which the Pss. Sol. 17 attests
elements of a royal messianic expectation is unparalleled, at least outside Qumran.
(Neujahr, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
Psalms of Solomon always uses christos along with additions
Ps. Sol. uses χριστός (christos) four times, but never without addition. In the title of Ps.
18 we have tou χριστόῦ kuρiou. … This anointed of the Lord acts on the commission
and in the power of God. … c. 17 makes it clear that he is a king of David’s house.
(Jong (1974), 513)
The authors who first included Messiahs were hostile to the reigning
powers, rather than to non-Jewish rule over them
The lack of messianic expectation in the Second Temple and the fact that the most
ancient apocalypses do not envisage a Messiah may in part be related to Jewish attitudes
toward non-Jewish rule over them. The Jewish nation had centuries of experience with
37
such a governmental arrangement, and there is evidence that Gentile rule was at times
viewed neutrally or even somewhat positively, as long as the regime permitted exercise
of Judaism. The first authors to include Messiahs in the scenarios for the future were
hostile to the reigning power. (VanderKam (1999), 226)
The Psalms of Solomon, which hoped for a Messiah from the line of
David, was responding to the rule by the Hasmoneans and Romans
The set of poems that were transmitted under the name of Solomon was written in the
latter part of the first century BCE. Psalms 17 and 18, the last two in the collection,
express a vivid, detailed hope for a Messiah from the line of David. …
In this context of all that had gone wrong during the periods of rule by the Hasmoneans
and Romans, the author enunciates his yearning for a new Anointed One from David’s
line. (17 :21-44). (VanderKam (1999), 219-220)
2 Baruch
Important and rich concepts of the Messiah are found in 2 Baruch. This apocalypse was
written sometime during the second half of the first century A.D., and contains three
sections that are essential for our understanding of the Jewish conception of the
Messiah.
The first section is in chapters 29 and 30. In 29:3, we find the following prophecy: “And
it shall come to pass when all is accomplished that was to come to pass in those parts,
that the Messiah shall then begin to be revealed.” …
The second section of 2 Baruch that concerns itself with the idea of the Messiah is
found in chapters 39 and 40. In these chapters we confront a description of the capture
of their last leader, his conviction by the Messiah then protects “the rest of My people
which shall be found in the place which I have chosen. …
The third section that concerns the Messiah is found in chapters 72 through 74, the
longest and most developed of the messianic passages in 2 Baruch. As in the second
section, the Messiah takes an active part. In chapter 72, it is said that the Messiah shall
summon all the nations; he shall spare those who have not oppressed or known Israel,
but he shall slay those who have ruled over her. The Messiah’s kingdom seems to be
eternal. …
It is important to observe that … God, the Messiah, or some other messianic figure does
not slay the gentiles (or nations) because they are not Jews, but only those who have
“ruled over” Israel. (Charlesworth (1978))
The Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra)
The Apocalypse of Ezra, or better 4 Ezra, [is] a Jewish apocalypse that is
contemporaneous with 2 Baruch. …
Found only here in the Pseudepigrapha is the idea that the Messiah shall come and die.
The passage is rightly conceived as being Jewish because there is no efficacious nature
to the death of the Messiah and after his death things shall return back again to the
primeval silence. …
We are told that the Messiah will come at “the end of days”; that he will be a descendant
of David; and that on the one hand he will judge, denounce, reprove, and destroy the
ungodly, and on the other he will deliver “the remnant of my people” and “make them
joyful until the end comes.” …
The third messianic section of 4 Ezra, 13:3–14:9, does not employ the word Messiah
or its cognates, but the identification is unmistakable and the title “my Son” employed
throughout this section (13:32, 37, 52; 14:9) was already identified as “the Messiah” in
the first section of 4 Ezra. (Charlesworth (1978))
38
1 Enoch
The fourth document in the Pseudepigrapha that contains Jewish reference to “the
Messiah,” “the Anointed One,” or “the Christ” is found in 1 Enoch, one of the most
important of all the Jewish apocalypses.
In the second of five sections in this book, the so-called Similitudes of Enoch (13–
47), we find numerous and significant references to messianic figures sometimes
called “the Son of Man,” at other times “the Righteous One,” and in other places “the
Elect One.” In this section … there are two passages that contain the term masih
which can be translated “the Messiah,” “the Anointed One,” or “the Christ.” …
In 1 Enoch, in contrast to 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, “the Messiah” is portrayed as the
terrestrial and human messianic king who shall perfectly embody as the dreams
attributed to the kings of Israel’s past. (Charlesworth (1978))
3 Enoch
The fifth and final document in the Pseudepigrapha that contains the proper concept of
the Messiah is a late composition entitled 3 Enoch. (Charlesworth (1978))
Messiah in Christian Pseudepigrapha

Four documents in the Pseudepigrapha that are Christian compositions contain the
term the Messiah, or its cognates. (Charlesworth (1978))
These four Christian compositions—the Odes of Solomon, the Apocalypse of
Zephaniah, the Apocalypse of Elijah, and the Apocalypse of Sedrach—are the only
Christian work among the Pseudepigrapha that imply the term the Messiah or its
cognates. (Charlesworth (1978))
Odes of Solomon
[The Odes of Solomon] is a collection of hymns. The author probably lived near the
end of the first century A.D. and apparently was influenced both by the ideas, symbols,
and terminology found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and by the symbolism and concepts that
eventually were incorporated into and made part of what we now call the Gospel
According to John. Messiah is found in the Odes in seven passages. (Charlesworth
(1978))
The Apocalypse of Zephaniah
Both the Apocalypse of Zephaniah and the Apocalypse of Elijah contain passages in
which the “Anointed One” is mentioned. These apocalypses are Christian but extremely
difficult to date. In the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the most significant passage runs
from 10:24 through 12:32. At the end of time, the Messiah will perform two interrelated
functions: “On that day will the Anointed have compassion on His Own . . . and send
his angels from the Heaven. . . .” (11:4–6.) [61] Following the actions of 64,000 angels
and especially of Gabriel and Uriel, there is a general description of the last day.
The Apocalypse of Elijah
The term the Messiah, or the Anointed One, is found in the Apocalypse of Elijah in two
sections. The first contains two passages that are similar to verses quoted above from
the Odes of Solomon. … The second section in which the Anointed One is found in
the Apocalypse of Elijah concludes the apocalypse itself and seems to be under the
influence of the Revelation to John (the Apocalypse). (Charlesworth (1978))
Apocalypse of Sedrach
The term Christ appears in the Apocalypse of Sedrach, a Christian composition
extremely difficult to date, in the prologue and in chapter 12. In this chapter, Christ asks
39
Sedrach why he is crying. Sedrach answers that he wishes to know how long must one
repent who has lived eighty, ninety, or a hundred years in sin. Christ, who is also called
“Lord” in this chapter, is apparently now called God. (Charlesworth (1978))
Sparse mention of “messiah”

in Second-Temple literature and the Mishnah
Most Pseudepigrapha do not contain these technical terms
We have seen that the technical terms, the Messiah, the Anointed One, and the Christ,
appear in the Pseudepigrapha both in Jewish and in Christian sections. We have seen
that some of these ideas are well developed and important. We need now to be cautious
and recognize that most of the Pseudepigrapha do not contain these technical terms.
List of Pseudepigrapha that do not contain “The Messiah”
The term the Messiah, along with its cognates, does not appear in the following
pseudepigrapha: Ahiqar, the Letter of Aristeas, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 2 Enoch,
the Testament of Job, the Treatise of Shem, the Lives of the Prophets, the Apocalypse
of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Moses, the Hellenistic Synagogal Hymns, the History
of Joseph, the Five Apocryphal Syriac Psalms, the Prayer of Manasseh, the Prayer of
Joseph, Joseph and Asenath, the Prayer of Jacob, Pseudo-Phocylides, Pseudo-Philo, the
Apocalypse of Adam, the Apocalypse of Ezekiel, Eldad and Modad, the Questions of
Ezra, the Apocalypse of Ezra, and the Testament of Solomon.
… Pseudepigrapha like Jubilees, the Testament of Moses, the Testaments of the XII
Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Oracles contain important messianic passages, but the term
the Messiah or its derivatives are not employed. …
Numerous Pseudepigrapha that do not contain a messianic section and at least five of
these are surprisingly silent, containing passages in which one would expect to find a
mention of the Messiah. (Charlesworth (1978))
Three documents roughly contemporaneous with the earthly life of
Jesus of Nazareth contain no messianic speculation
Rather striking is the absence of messianic speculation in three documents roughly
contemporaneous with the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth. It is surprising that there is
no messianism in the Apocalypse of Moses, although there is a minor Christian
interpolation in 42:2–5 of the Vita Adae et Evae.
It is also impressive that there are no references to the Messiah in the Lives of the
Prophets, except in the prefaces added in manuscript D. (Charlesworth (1978))
Messianic speculation is absent in the lengthy rewriting of biblical
history called Pseudo-Philo
Most significant is the absence of messianic speculation in the lengthy rewriting of
biblical history called Pseudo-Philo and extant primarily under the title, Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum. In the recent and erudite two-volume work on Pseudo-Philo,
C. Perrot stated that “the role of a future Messiah in the relationship with the
eschatological events is here ignored. The messianic age is entirely passed over in
silence.” (Charlesworth (1978))
Messianic data are complex and are frequently ambiguous
Psalms of Solomon, we observed that the functions of the Messiah were subordinated
to God, who is then proclaimed the Lord of the Messiah. Many passages in the
Pseudepigrapha attribute the actions not to an intermediary or a messenger from God
but to God himself. Other passages seem to reject the messianic idea which is linked
40
with David in favor of a redeemer or eschatological figure who will be like Moses. The
data is complex and frequently ambiguous.
Many Jews during the time of Jesus looked to the future, sometimes conceived as very
imminent, and for the advent of a redeemer, sometimes conceived as the Messiah; other
Jews looked to the future for God’s final salvific act. Still other Jews, such as the
Sadducees, perhaps, did not relegate all their hopes and dreams to a future day.
The term “messiah” barely appears in Second Temple literature
The term “messiah” has scant and inconsistent use in early Jewish texts. Most of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha, and the entire Apocrypha, contain no
reference to “the messiah. (Green (1987), 2)
A messiah is neither essential to the apocalyptic genre nor a prominent feature of
ancient apocalyptic writings. (Green (1987), 2)
The Maccabean documents, which disdain the revival of the Davidic dynasty, ignore
the term [messiah]. There is no messiah in Jubilees, nor in Enoch 1-36 and 91-104, nor
in the Assumption of Moses, nor in 2 Enoch, nor in the Sibylline Oracles, though, as
Morton Smith observes, “all of these contain prophetic passages in which some messiah
might reasonably have been expected to make an appearance.” The messiah is absent
from Josephus’ description of Judaism in both Antiquities and Against Apion, and also
from the writings of Philo. (Green (1987), 2-3)
The term [messiah] appears only twice in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71),
where it denotes not a king but a transcendent, heavenly figure. In any case, its use in
Enoch is dwarfed by other titles, such as “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man.”
The half-dozen references in the first century text 4 Ezra offer conflicting pictures of
the messiah. In 7:28ff. the messiah dies an unredeeming death before the eschaton, but
later chapters portray him as announcing and executing the final judgment.
In 2 Baruch, which contains five references, the term applies primarily to a warrior, the
slayer of Israel’s enemies. In the Mishnah’s legal contexts, messiah refers to an
anointed priest, and the messiah as redeemer is negligible. (Green (1987), 3)
The vast majority of Second Temple Jewish texts have no reference to a messianic
leader of the end-time. … Messianic thinking was not a dominant approach among
Jewish writers whose works have survived from that period. (VanderKam (1999), 224)
No Jewish text written before the second century BCE mentions a messianic leader.
Some of the later works in the Hebrew Bible offer suggestive words and images that
point in this direction (e.g., Isa. 9:1-6; Hag. 2:20-23), and others were later interpreted
as referring to a Messiah (e.g., the suffering servant in Deutero-Isaiah, the one like a
son of man in Daniel 7), but no pre-200 work describes a person who could be called a
Messiah in the eschatological sense of the term.
Texts failing to mention a Messiah in eschatological contexts continued to be composed
throughout the period covered by the preceding survey.
Non-messianic portraits of the end-times were a frequent phenomenon in early Judaism.
(VanderKam (1999), 223)
None of the earliest Jewish apocalypses (the Astronomical Book, the Book of the
Watchers, the Apocalypse of Weeks, parts of Jubilees, Daniel 7-12) contains references
to messianic leaders. The earliest one to make such an allusion – the Animal
Apocalypse – dates from the late 160s BCE.
After that time a number of apocalypses include messianic teachings (the Similitudes
of Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Abraham), but others do not (the
41
Apocalypse of Zephaniah, 2 Enoch, the Testament of Abraham, and 3 Baruch).

(VanderKam (1999), 223)
The second century BCE literature provides little evidence of hope for
restoration of the Davidic line
There is relatively little textual evidence from [the second century B.C.E.] for the hope
that the Davidic line would be restored. Instead, we find a range of figures who are
viewed as agents of salvation by different groups. (Collins (1987), 98)
Many Second Temple period writings do not mention a Davidic hope
The Jewish Encyclopedia points out that “Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, II Maccabees,
and the Wisdom of Solomon contain no mention of the Davidic hope.” (“Messiah”, New World
Encyclopedia)
Only a small minority of the Second Temple texts unambiguously speak
of messianic figures, often without using the term Messiah
While most scholars accept that the expectation of a messiah was a typical feature of
Judaism as it emerged in the last several centuries prior to the destruction of the Second
Temple in 70 CE, our evidence for messianic expectation is complicated.
Problematizing the reconstruction of messianic ideologies is the uneven nature of our
evidence. Only a small minority of the Second Temple texts unambiguously speak of
messianic figures; those that do often do not use the term “messiah.” (Neujahr,
There are no clear references to “the Messiah” in the Pseudepigrapha
From the Pseudepigrapha we learn that only a very few documents contain a clear
reference to “the Messiah.” And these passages are either frustratingly ambiguous or
contradictory. (Charlesworth (1987), 248)
“The Messiah” and its translations do not appear in the Apocrypha,
Philo, or Josephus. The Mishnah avoided “the Messiah-myth”
[To the] question, “Is it not true that almost all (first-century Palestinian) Jews expected
in the near future a Messiah?” the answer is clearly “no”. The term “the Messiah”, along
with its cognates and translations, does not appear in the Apocrypha, Philo, and
Josephus (except for allusions), and the framers of the Mishnah avoided “the Messiah-
myth”. (Charlesworth (1987), 250)
The only appearance of the Messiah in the Mishnah is suspected of
being a later addition
From the period prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. we do not have a single
saying about the Messiah on the part of Tannaitic scholars. The Mishnah incidentally
mentions the name of the Messiah only once. … But this passage is suspected of being
a later addition to the Mishnah.
So far there has been no convincing explanation of the absence of any reference to the
Messiah in the earliest Tannaitic writings. The paucity of Rabbinic source material for
the period can hardly be the reason. Nor is the polemic against primitive Christianity
an adequate solution. (van der Woude (1974), 522)
A messianic tendency arose in rabbinic Judaism only after the
destruction of Jerusalem
Only after the destruction of Jerusalem did messianic tendencies make themselves felt
in rabbinic Judaism, which was shaped by Pharisaism. Messianism, however, never
played a dominant role. (Becker (1980), 89)
42
4 Ezra and 2 Baruch provide Jewish messianic expectation shortly after

the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
Two apocalypses composed shortly after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70
CE, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, likewise provide evidence for Jewish messianic expectation
in the period. In the visions of 2 Baruch, we find a messiah who appears after a period
of tribulation (29:3; 70:7–9); he defeats and kills the enemies of God’s people (39:7–
40:3) and judges all the nations (72:2). Similarly, 4 Ezra explicitly envisions a
preexistent messiah , descended from David, sent to earth during the eschatological
period, who will judge and destroy the wicked while delivering the remnant of God’s
people (4 Ezra 12:31–34; 13:25–26). Uniquely, 4 Ezra 7:26–29 envisions an idyllic
reign by the messiah after which the messiah dies prior to the culmination of the
eschaton. (Neujahr, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
1 Enoch 37-71
The early apocalypses – such as 1 Enoch and Daniel – make no clear
reference to the messsiah
More remarkable able is the lack of clear references to the messiah in the early
apocalypses of Enoch and Daniel in the early second century BCE. The “one like a son
of man” in Dan 7 receives a kingdom on behalf of the people, but he is most plausibly
understood as an angelic figure rather than as a Davidic messiah. (Collins (2007),
In 1 Enoch 37-71 the Messiah has no function
There is no function attributed to the Messiah and we learn virtually nothing about him;
the brief verse seems to imply that the kings of the earth and the mighty landowners
(verse 8) will “burn before the face of the holy ones and sink before their sight” because
they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and His Messiah. (Charlesworth (1987), 237)
In 1 Enoch 37-71, it is not possible to distinguish between the title
Messiah and the other messianic figures – united in the one person
The discussion of the Messiah in 1 Enoch 37-71 is incomplete until some attention is
given to the relationship of this title to the other messianic figures in this book, namely
“the Righteous One”, “the Elect One”, “the Chosen One”, and “the (or that) Son of
Man.” Any attempt to distinguish between these figures fails. …
These different titles or terms in 1 Enoch 37-71 are united not only in setting and
functions but in one and the same person. … These different names are essentially
distinguishable attributes of one eschatological figure. (Charlesworth (1987), 238)
The author of the Parables of Enoch and some early Christians conflated
originally separate figures with the Messiah
We can only say that [the Parables of Enoch, 37-71] originated among Jews whose
experience, worldview, and eschatology were compatible with that sector of early
Christianity that identified the one like a son of man with the risen and exalted Christ
and that awaited his imminent coming as judge. (Footnote: Like the author of this
document, some early Christians conflated the originally separate figures of the
Servant, the one like a son of man, and the Messiah. See Nickelsburg, “Son of Man”,
138-49.) Nickelsburg (2005), Kindle Locations 4277-4280; 6776-6777)
The Book of Enoch contains numerous terms for messianic figures,
including “the Son of Man” and notably a transliteration of Māshîaḥ
This Book of Enoch contains numerous terms for messianic figures, namely “the Son
of Man”, “the Righteous One”, “the Elect One”, and notably a transliteration of
43
Māshîaḥ, which can be translated “the Messiah”, “the Anointed One”, or “the Christ”.
(Charlesworth (1987), 237)
The equivalence of Messiah and Son of Man in 1 Enoch is significant in
determining the meaning of the Messiah in first-century Judaism
In [1 Enoch] 48:10, the Son of Man and the Chosen One seem equated with the
Messiah, and that association will prove to be significant in our present search for the
meaning of the Messiah in first-century Judaism. Both the Son of Man and the Messiah
are shown in the same setting, and are moving in identical ways in the drama. They
both are similarly related to the Lord of the Spirits: Both serve before him. The drama
in chapter 48 would be needlessly twisted if one were to posit a distinction between the
Son of Man and the Messiah. (Charlesworth (1987), 239)
The Similitudes of Enoch (ch. 31–71 of the Ethiopic 1 Enoch) repeatedly
speaks of the “Son of Man,” later used as a messianic title of Jesus
The Similitudes of Enoch (ch. 31–71 of the Ethiopic 1 Enoch) repeatedly speaks of the
“Son of Man,” a term appropriated from Daniel 7 (where it denotes an angelic figure)
and which is quite famously used as a messianic title by Jesus and his followers. Who
exactly this figure is cannot be definitively determined: 1 En. 71:14 seems to identify
the Son of Man with Enoch himself, while 70:1 seems to distinguish them as separate
entities. This Son of Man is characterized by righteousness. (Neujahr,
The highest portrait of a Messiah appears in The Similitudes of Enoch, 2
Baruch and 4 Ezra
The Similitudes of Enoch presents the most exalted portrait of a Messiah; other
apocalypses such as 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra also view him as a highly impressive
individual but not one of the same heavenly status as the Messiah of the Similitudes.
It is difficult to define the status of the Messiahs in the Qumran texts, but they appear
to be human leaders; the same is true for the great and righteous descendant of David
in the Psalms of Solomon. (VanderKam (1999), 226)
The transcendent “Messiah” of the Similitudes of Enoch does not
represent the restoration of the Davidic line
The primary interest of the Enoch tradition for the subject of messianism lies in the
development of the transcendent Messiah of the Similitudes. Although this figure is
called “Messiah,” he does not represent the restoration of the Davidic line, and only
part of his profile has Davidic associations. (Collins (1987), 101)
Daniel provided an eschatological figure, the “Anointed One”,

the supernatural “Son of Man”
The Book of Daniel envisaged a supernatural Son of Man
The Book of Daniel, with its vision of a supernatural “son of man”—though not included among
the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible and considered by most scholars to have been written
considerably later—became an important influence on second and first century BCE Jews:
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming
with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his
presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations
and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Dan.
7:13–14). (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
44
“Anointed One” in Daniel could be the only attestation in the Hebrew

Bible/Old Testament of an eschatological messiah
The notion of the messiah in the book of Daniel is distinct. The apocalyptic visions in
this book date to the late Hellenistic period (2nd cent. BCE), when there was no king
of Judah. The “anointed ruler” and “anointed one” in Dan 9:25–26 could therefore refer
to the archangel Michael, to the high priest, or to Zerubbabel, the descendant of David.
Some would argue that the “anointed one” in Daniel is the first and only attestation of
an eschatological messiah in the HB/OT [Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament]. (Leonard-
Fleckman, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
The apocalypse at Daniel 9 refers to two mašiaḥ figures
Only very occasionally does the term mašiaḥ figure in the apocalyptic literature. In Dan
9:25f. two figures are mentioned, each called an “anointed one”. Most commentators
agree that this refers not to future-eschatological, but to past-historical figures. The first
is either Zerubbabel or Joshua the high priest and the second [figure is] the Onias of 2
Mac. 4:7f., 23-38. (Fuller (1965), 28)
The “one like a Son of Man” in Daniel is the forerunner of the Son of Man
figure in the Similitudes of Enoch, who is also called “Messiah”
The heavenly “one like a Son of Man” in Daniel is the forerunner of the Son of Man
figure in the Similitudes of Enoch, who is also called “Messiah,” but is not given a
messianic title in Daniel. The only “anointed” ones to whom Daniel refers are the
“anointed prince” at the time of the restoration (probably the High Priest Joshua) and
the anointed one who is cut off after sixty two weeks (the murdered High Priest Onias
III). (Collins (1987), 100)
Dead Sea Communities expected multiple messiahs

The Qumran communities had a variety of views on messianism, not
necessarily any that could be easily converted into Christology
The Qumran Scrolls do not present a unified view regarding messianism. In some
periods in their history the belief in the coming of the Messiah was probably not a major
doctrine for them. It also seems certain that no clear development of doctrine is
discernible.
We must not suggest that the Essenes had developed a messianology that could be
easily converted into christology. We simply do not know which of the earlier traditions
were most dear to the Essenes living at Qumran in the first century C.E. … It is
impossible to move easily from a Qumran messianology to an early Christian
christology. (Charlesworth (1987), 233, 234)
The first century CE Qumran Essenes do not clearly show what they
were thinking about the Messiah
[We have] no clear insight into what the Qumran Essenes were thinking about the
Messiah in the first century C.E. … Probably most of them yearned for the coming of
one or two messiahs. The latter group has left us no clue by which to recognize the
Messiah or Messiahs; we are given no blueprint or script for him or them. There is no
content for messianism left by the Essenes.
Significantly, the War Scroll, which probably dates from the Roman period, is
singularly silent on the role of the Messiah in the great eschatological war.
(Charlesworth (1987), 247-248)
45
At Qumran, the king, eschatological high priest and prophet, and the OT
prophets were described as Anointed
In the later Jewish period, not only the eschatological king is described as anointed but
also at Qumran the eschatological high-priest and prophet (11 Q Melchizedek 18, cf.
Sir. 48:8) and the OT prophets too. (van der Voude (1974), 510)
Qumran’s Damascus Document and the Community Rule both clearly
envision a dual messianism
The texts from Qumran famously include a number of previously unknown, sectarian
documents heavily freighted with eschatological expectation, including reference to
various messianic figures. Most famously, both the Damascus Document and the
Community Rule clearly envision a dual messianism, expecting a (Davidic) messiah to
rule the nation, as well as an anointed eschatological high priest. … This eschatological
diarchy is a distinctive feature of Qumran messianic expectation. (Neujahr,
In Qumran messianism, a priestly Messiah will accompany and dominate
the kingly Messiah
What is novel and important in Qumran messianism is not the denial of a kingly
Messiah, but the addition of a priestly Messiah who shall not only accompany the
messianic king but also dominate him. … [This] it placards the lack of clarity in the
concept of the Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Charlesworth (1987), 230, 231)
At one stage, the Qumran community expected three eschatological
figures
The Qumran community (at least in one stage in its evolution) expected the appearance
of three eschatological figures: a prophet, the Messiah of Aaron, and the Messiah of
Israel. (Charlesworth (1987), 231)
Functions of Qumran’s messiah included prosecution of the
eschatological war against the forces of evil
Among the functions of Qumran’s messiah was the prosecution of the eschatological
war against the forces of evil. In the War Scroll, this figure is identified as the Prince
of the Congregation, a title which there is good reason to believe refers to the Davidic
messiah. (Neujahr, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
In Qumran, the anointed priest had precedence over the Davidic prince
There seems to be scholarly agreement that the messianic expectation of the Qumran
documents is homogeneous and characterized by the dyarchy of Zadokite priest and
Davidic prince. It came as a shock to traditional messianology to discover that the
priestly anointed has precedence. Elsewhere, too, the Essenes attach greater importance
to the legitimacy of the Zadokite priests. (Becker (1980), 88)
The expectation of dual messiahs is central in the pseudepigraphic
literature of Judaism and at Qumran
It is precisely this phenomenon of dual messianic expectation that is central in the
pseudepigraphic literature of Judaism and at Qumran. In the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs for example, it is Levi and the high priestly role that have priority in the
eschatological scheme. (Kee (1987), 189)
Qumran texts expected both a priestly and a Davidic/secular Messiah
A series of passages documents the fact that in the Qumran texts both a priestly and a
Davidic/secular Messiah were expected to come. Each of the two Messiahs is
designated by three different titles. The Davidic/secular Messiah is also called Branch
of David and Prince of the Congregation. Besides Messiah, the priestly leader is named
Interpreter of the Law and (High) Priest. …
46
The Scrolls speak of a Messiah from Israel and a Messiah from Aaron, that is, of a
Davidic and a priestly Messiah. …
A text dating from ca. 100 B.C.E. (1 QS) contains a reference to a priestly and to a
secular Messiah. In the text, the appearance of the prophet and Messiahs serves to mark
the end of an era: the members of the community are to follow the original directives
of the group until they arrive. That is, their advent ushers in the end of this evil age.
(VanderKam (1999), 214, 215)
Qumran expected at least two messiahs, one a monarch, the other a
priest
The Qumran scrolls report at least two messiahs, one Davidic and one priestly, who are
not necessarily eschatological figures. The scrolls also apply the term [messiah] to the
prophets. (Green (1987), 3)
Some authors of Dead Sea Scrolls expected a messianic High Priest
descended from Aaron
Not all messiahs are royal messiahs; some authors of Dead Sea Scrolls documents
clearly expected a messianic figure descended from Aaron to serve as the eschatological
High Priest. (Neujahr, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
One early 1st century CE group portrayed the Elect One with terms,
functions and attributes that another group attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth
Before C.E. 70, two groups in Early Judaism held messianic beliefs in which the
Messiah was identified with the Servant and one like a Son of Man.
One group portrayed the Elect One with terms, functions, and attributes derived from
the traditions associated with the Isaianic Suffering Servant, the Davidic Messiah, and
the Danielic Son of Man figure; [while] the other group depicted Jesus of Nazareth in
the same manner. (Charlesworth (1987), 241)
The New Testament and some Dead Sea Scrolls were written about the
same time
The New Testament provides a convenient parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls because
both were written in a relatively close time period by Jewish authors. (Beresh (2016),
10)
Fragmentary references to messiah(s) in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha, and all of the
Apocrypha, contained not one reference to the Messiah
No one seemed to perceive, and thence understand, that most of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Pseudepigrapha, and all of the Apocrypha, contained not one reference to “the
Messiah”. The view was obscured because numerous nouns were interpreted to denote
messianic figures. At least to a certain extent this work, conducted by Christians, was
informed by the presuppositions of christology and the assumption that developed
messianology flowed smoothly into nascent christology. (Charlesworth (1987), 227-
228)
However, the word “messiah” was not a feature of Qumran’s documents
We now have well over 170 documents that probably were created, written, or redacted
at Qumran. Most of them do not contain the noun “Messiah.” Often this Omission is
startling, if the Qumran Community was a messianic group.
In addition to the Psalter’s 150 Psalms of David, other Davidic psalms were found, and
some of these were intentionally written as Davidic Pseudepigrapha. Not one of them
is messianic.
47
None of the Pesharim contains messianic exegesis. The Isaiah Pesher 1 (4Q161) makes
only a frustratingly brief reference to the Branch of David which shall arise at the end
of days. The Temple Scroll, which may have been brought to Qumran from elsewhere
and edited in a final form in the scriptorium, does not contain one reference to the
“Messiah.” The fact seems Strange in a document that is characterized by a tendency
to subordinate the king to the priest.
Since a reference to the “Messiah” is found in the psalmbook attributed to Solomon,
why is there no mention of “Messiah” in the Qumran Psalter, namely the Hodayoth or
Hymns Scroll?’’
Statistically we must admit that messianology was not a major concern of this
Community, at least not in its early history. (Roberts (1992), 25)
The title “the Messiah” appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in some Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, but not abundantly
The terminus technicus MShYH – “the Messiah”, “the Anointed One”, or “anointed
one” – is found in early Jewish literature only in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha. But even in these two collections it is not abundant. …
In many of the Pseudepigrapha, namely Jubilees, the Testament of Moses, Pseudo-
Philo, and the Life of Adam and Eve, the term “the Messiah” is surprisingly and
conspicuously absent. (Charlesworth (1987), 250)
Written in the first half of the 1st century BCE, the Dead Sea Scrolls
show ample but fragmentary messianic expectations
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written mainly in the first half of the first century
BCE, provide ample though fragmentary evidence of a revival of messianic expectation
under the Hasmoneans. (Collins (2007), Kindle Locations 243-244)
“The Messiah” does not appear in some major Dead Sea scrolls
Some of the major [Dead Sea] scrolls, namely the Hodayoth and the Temple Scroll, do
not contain the technical term “the Messiah”. (Charlesworth (1987), 233)
48
THE SEPTUAGINT’S (LXX)
RENDERING OF THE HEBREW MĀŠIAḤ
The Septuagint translates all 39 appearances of messiah as Khristós
Each of the 39 times that the word ַ‫— מָ ִׁשיח‬transliteration: mashiah, meshiach, mashiakh or mashiach
appears in the TANAKH, the Greek Septuagint renders it as Χριστός —transliteration: Khristós
In all the 39 instances of its occurring in the Old Testament, “messiah” is translated by
the Septuagint as Khristós or Christos.
The word literally means anointed. Thus priests (Exodus 28:41; 40:15; Numbers 3:3),
prophets (1 Kings 19:16), and kings (1 Samuel 9:16; 16:3; 2 Samuel 12:7) were
anointed with oil, and so consecrated to their respective offices. …
The Greek form “Messias” is only twice used in the New Testament, in John 1:41 and
4:25 (Revised King James Version: “Messiah”), and in the Old Testament the word
Messiah, as the rendering of the Hebrew, occurs only twice (Dan 9:25-26; Revised King
James Version, “the anointed one”).9
Leviticus 4:3, 5, 16
1 Samuel 2:10, 25; 12:3, 5; 16:6; 24:6 (twice), 10; 26:9, 11, 16; 26:23
2 Samuel 1:14, 16, 21; 19:21; 22:51; 23:1
1 Chronicles 16:22
2 Chronicles 6:42
Psalm 2:2; 18:50; 20:6; 28:8; 84:9; 89:38, 51; 105:15; 132:10, 17
Isaiah 45:1
Lamentations 4:20
Daniel 9:25, 26
Habbakuk 3:13
Only the Septuagint and the New Testament relate christos to a person
X Christos] js never related to persons outside the LXX (Greek Septuagint),
the NT (New Testament), and dependent writings. (Grundmann (1974), 495)
The Greek translations of Daniel 9:26 have chrisma for the Hebrew
māšiaḥ
The well-known Da[niel] 9:26 has Xi [chrisma] for ‫[ משוח‬māšiaḥ: anointed
(one)10] in both LXX and Theodotion. (van der Woude (1974), 510)
Chrio and “The Christ” in Second Temple literature

Chrio and related words in the LXX
χρίω11 (chiro) is mostly in the LXX a transl. of ‫[ משח‬māšaḥ], 61 times in all. … χριστiς
(Christis) always corresponds to Hbr. ‫[ משחה‬mišḥā anointing (oil)] … Χριστός
(Christos) is not very securely attested in the LXX. (van der Woude (1974), 510)
9 What and who is the MESSIAH? - WebBible Encyclopedia - ChristianAnswers.Net accessed 31 August 2022
10
11
xríō – to anoint by rubbing or pouring olive oil on someone (https://biblehub.com/greek/5548.htm )
49
The Septuagint’s (LXX) rendering of the Hebrew māšiaḥ
Chrio means rubbing or anointing oneself

X [chrio] means … “to rub the body or parts of it,” “to stroke it,” … “to rub or
stroke one self.” When used with oils or fats it means “to smear,” “to anoint,” “to anoint
oneself.” … X Christos], X   means “spreadable,”
“smeared on,” “anointed”. As a noun:   “ointment”. (Grundmann (1974),
494, 495)
“The Christ” is very insecurely attested in the pre-Christian era and
appears in Jewish apocalypses only after Christ’s time
The OT-Jewish χριστός (christos) kuρiou (lord) or αυτού (af̱toú: his) occurs in the NT
only in the Lucan writings. We often find the absolute o χριστός, which is very
insecurely attested in the pre-Christian era and which occurs in older Jewish apocalypse
only after Christ’s own time. (Grundmann (1974), 527)
Sirach uses chrio for the current high-priest, king, or prophet
In Gk. Sirach, χρίω (chiro) is used for the institution to office of the high-priest, the
king, and once a prophet. … In Sir., the use of χρίω and χριστός (Christos) does not
relate directly to future expectation or expectation of a Messiah. (Jong (1974), 511)
50
Revolutionary understanding of “messiah”
A SECT’S UNFORESEEN, UNEXPECTED REVOLUTION

They had encountered the preacher from Galilee who had promised rescue from their overlords,
Jerusalem’s religious hierarchy. His messages had deeply affected them and they could not believe or
accept that Rome had intervened and executed him for treason, with the claim that Yeshua had wished
to become their king.
Some were so absolutely convinced by this man’s message and miracles that they sought answers from
beliefs they inherited. With their conclusion regarding Yeshua firmly in place, they created a new belief
system that would be built on their heritage but was very different to it. They took building blocks,
reshaped and repurposed them, and in the process they created a new building.
Scriptures that had no messianic intent had that meaning impressed upon them; instead of Merkabah
mysticism referring to a short visit to heaven’s throne room, now they employed it to provide Yeshua
with a journey to heaven, where he would remain, exalted and enthroned; instead of “Messiah” referring
to each living king or living high priest, it took on meanings that had never been anticipated; instead of
the rescue being national, rescuing the people from oppressive sources, the scope exploded, making it
both universal and cosmic, enveloping all of humanity in every age and in all cosmic realms.
The relationship between the beliefs of this new sect and its heritage was thus complex: on the one hand
the sect(s) of Yeshua-followers wished to link with their heritage yet at the same time they sought to
introduce original beliefs. Some scholars term this an evolution; others see it as a break. Perhaps it is
both. Whatever the case, the outcome was dramatically revolutionary.
Innovative, creative convictions
Early Christianity reinterpreted the established Judaism of the Greco-
Roman period
In early Christianity, the reinterpretation of the established religious tradition (i.e.,
ancient Judaism of the Greco-Roman period) included a significant and apparently novel
reinterpretation of the limits of the practice of exclusivist monotheistic devotion. …
Initially, Christians concentrated on Old Testament passages, evidenced by the often
remarkable cases of Old Testament texts that originally referred to Yahweh being
applied to Christ. A prime example is the appropriation of Isa. 45:23 in Phil. 2:9-11.
The reflective process continued in the subsequent centuries of Christianity and, of
course, received further impulses from such sources as Greek philosophy, leading to the
classic formulations of Christian faith associated with Nicaea and Chalcedon and the
developed doctrine of the Trinity. (Hurtado (1998), 127)
The Christian faith introduced innovative religious convictions
The resurrection of Jesus marked his installation in a dignity and office not previously
held. … It would be naive to think that Christian faith was produced simply by motifs
of the Jewish (and/or pagan) tradition. …
We are not dealing with the simple borrowing of items but rather with basic conceptual
categories of the ancient Jewish tradition put to the service of new religious experiences
and somewhat innovative religious convictions. (Hurtado (1998), 94, 95)
The first messianic interpretation came from earliest Christianity,
referring to Messiah ben Joseph in Judaism
Hengel says, “A ‘messianic’ interpretation of Zechariah 12:10 first appears again in
earliest Christianity and then with the Messiah ben Joseph in Judaism” (p. 89). If
Hengel had left out the adverb “again” his statement would be correct. (Fitzmyer
(2007), page 52, footnote 73)
51
52
Christian convictions were innovative, unprecedented modifications or

mutations in Jewish traditions
The basic early Christian conviction [was] that the crucified Jesus had been exalted to a
position of heavenly glory. This basic conviction preceded and underlay all the titles
given to Jesus in the early churches, all the christological emphases reflected in the
various books of the New Testament, and all the doctrines such as the preexistence of
Christ or his eschatological return (Parousia). … We are dealing with a modification or
mutation in the Jewish tradition. (Hurtado (1998), 93, 94)
Earliest Christian devotion constituted a significant mutation or innovation in Jewish
monotheistic tradition. … At an early stage it exhibited a sudden and significant
difference in character from Jewish devotion. (Hurtado (1998), 99)
The religious practice of early Christianity that more clearly and significantly indicates
an innovation—a mutation. … This mutation in Jewish tradition may be seen as an
unprecedented reshaping of monotheistic piety to include a second object of devotion
alongside God, a figure seen in the position of God’s chief agent, happening among a
group that continued to consider itself firmly committed to “one God.” …
We are dealing with a redefinition of Jewish monotheistic devotion by a group that has
to be seen as a movement within Jewish tradition of the early first century C.E. we have
a significantly new but essentially internal development within the Jewish monotheistic
tradition, a mutation within that species of religious devotion. (Hurtado (1998), 99, 100)
Baptism “into the name” of Jesus is another example of the Jewish-Christian
modification of Jewish monotheism. (Hurtado (1998), 108)
[At 1 Cor. 11:23-26] again we have indication of the reshaping of monotheistic devotion
involved in early Christianity and another example of a devotional innovation for which
we do not have a parallel in Jewish groups of the time. (Hurtado (1998), 111)
The early Christians had an altered standpoint from which to reinterpret many elements
of their Jewish tradition. (Hurtado (1998), 115)
Israel’s Messianic expectation did not shape Jesus’ Messianic
consciousness
Jesus’ Messianic consciousness is not shaped in content merely by the Messianic
expectation of Israel, A very different understanding of His eschatological mission is
developed and accepted, and He believes that this comes from God’s own thinking.
(Grundmann (1974), 530)
Jesus did not correspond to the hoped-for Messiah of Israel
[Jesus’] disciples and the people who heard him linked Messianic expectation with His
person. His work and its influence on wide sectors of the people strengthened His
disciples and adherents in their Messianic hope concerning Him. This brought Him
close to the political Zealot Messianic claimants. He was accused of being such a
claimant before Pilate, and he was executed on this ground. Jesus Himself did not
correspond to the hoped for Messiah of Israel. (Grundmann (1974), 538)
It is not clear why the term “Messiah” was used for Jesus
Against the background of the term “Messiah” in Jewish writings it is not entirely clear
why it was used for Jesus at all. It could have originated in the context of his crucifixion
as “King of Israel” as the inscription on the cross and also Mark 15:32 indicate. The
political overtone of the designation is supported by the episode of Jesus’ entry in
Jerusalem. It may also have occurred already during Jesus’ earthly activity as a reaction
to his self-understanding as God’s earthly representative. (Schröter,
53
The new understanding of the Messiah is his power over evil

Decisive for the new understanding of the Messiah is the confession that the Messiah
has become the Lord over the power of evil in sin and death. (Grundmann (1974), 539)
Jesus fulfilled the role of the Davidic messiah in a very unexpected way
As 1 Cor 15:5b shows, [“Messiah”] was used very early in a Christian confession
related to Jesus’ death. The early Christian tradition about Jesus as “Son of David” in
Rom 1:3 as well as in the birth stories in Matthew and Luke … may be understood as a
reflection on the application of the designation “Christ” to Jesus: If he was “the Christ”
he must be descended from the seed of David, even if he fulfills the role of the Davidic
messiah only in a very unexpected way. (Schröter, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
As the Son of David, Jesus did not exert kingly rule but forgiveness and
mercy
The Son of David would seem to have a self-evident meaning; that is, the royal heir of
Israel’s first true king, who will preside over the affairs of the people of God. This does
not apply in Mark, however. Jesus’ violation of the sabbath law, or more precisely, his
defense of his disciples for such an infraction of the commandment, is justified by
appeal to the precedent of David (2:23-27). When one of his potential beneficiaries,
Bartimaeus the blind beggar, beseeches Jesus to heal his eyes, the appeal is to the mercy
of the Son of David, not to his power as monarch. (Kee (1987), 202-203)
The application of Messiah (Christ) to Jesus experienced significant
changes
The meaning of the designation “Messiah” or “Christ” changed significantly with its
application to Jesus. “Christ” is not the anointed king, priest, or prophet anymore, but
Jesus, the Son of God, who was empowered by God’s Spirit, acted with God’s authority
on earth as “Son of Man,” was crucified, resurrected, and exalted to heaven and will
return at the last judgement. (Schröter, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
Likely, Jesus’ disciples thought of him as a political liberator; they were
shocked at his death
Although the Gospels reflect a later theology in which Jesus’ rejection and death on the cross
are predestined by God, it is likely that during Jesus’ life, his disciples thought of his mission in
terms similar to the Jewish messianic concept of a political deliver and teacher of righteousness.
Luke’s gospel shows that after Jesus’ crucifixion, the disciples were shocked and disillusioned,
having no inkling that Jesus’ death was part of his plan, and deeply saddened that he turned out
not to be the promised liberator:
He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still,
their faces downcast… “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet,
powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers
handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that
he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.” (Luke 24:13–21). (“Messiah”, New
World Encyclopedia)
Connecting messiahship with resurrection gave new meaning to OT
anointing
The connecting of Messiahship to the resurrection and exaltation gives new expression
to what is conferred by anointing in the OT. (Grundmann (1974), 539)
In Jesus, the whole concept of the Messiah was recast
The historical uniqueness of Jesus which recasts the whole concept of the Messiah helps
to explain why the characteristics not only of the Messianic King but also of the
Messianic High-priest and the Prophet like unto Moses were all transferred to Him.
(Grundmann (1974), 539-540)
54
The early followers of Yeshua redefined the role of the Messiah

To identity Jesus of Nazareth with the Messiah, the early Jesus movement had to
redefine the role and function of the Messiah. (Zetterholm (2007), Kindle Locations
112-113)
Yeshua’s followers gave new meanings to biblical texts to transform
Israel’s Messiah into the risen Saviour
Through an advanced application of Jewish hermeneutics, the Jesus movement was
able to bring new meanings to the biblical texts, and the Davidic Messiah of Israel was
transformed into the risen Savior, the Lord of heaven and earth. (Zetterholm (2007),
Their Messiah was determined by their response to Jesus
In the New Testament men are first confronted by the history of Jesus of Nazareth – by
what he said and did – and they respond to it in terms of a Christology, a confession of
faith. Through what he does they come to see who he is. (Fuller (1965), 15)
The New Testament refashioned the whole concept of Messiah
The NT witnesses bring Messianic expectation with them from their history and origins.
In them the complex of Messianic ideas is given a real content which is provided by
the story of Jesus and which refashions the whole concept of the Messiah. (Grundmann
(1974), 527)
First Christians in many respects shared the symbolic world of Second
Temple Judaism
It is quite apparent that the thinking of the first Christians was guided by a symbolic
world that was comprised of different conceptions of heavenly figures, thrones, and
enthronements. The analysis has shown that first Christians in many respects shared the
symbolic world of Second Temple Judaism. These elements formed the material that
was used when Jesus’ resurrection was interpreted and described in christological
statements. (Eskola (2001), 322)
Early Christology depended on the symbolic world of Second Temple
Judaism, not on typology
The interpretation of the nature of early Christology is not dependent on earlier types,
but on the symbolic world of Second Temple Judaism.
First Christians the use same symbols as their predecessors, such as the kingly figure
and the throne. There are even heavenly servants and a transcendent temple liturgy. All
of these symbols have been exploited when Jesus’ new status in heaven is being
described.
When explaining different details of early Christology we do not need to bring the types
of Jewish theology into the Christology itself. (Eskola (2001), 334)
Early Christology depended on Second Temple symbolism and the
elements of Jewish mysticism, rather than typological predecessors
The emergence of early Christology was dependent on the symbolic world of Second
Temple Judaism on the one hand, and on the unique belief in an exaltation in the
resurrection on the other hand.
Early Christology was not dependent on heavenly agents or figures that would serve as
typological predecessors for the risen Christ. Quite the contrary, the elements of Jewish
mysticism were exploited when a new theme, the heavenly enthronement of the
resurrected Davidide, was introduced. (Eskola (2001), 335)
55
Early Christian narratives transformed and surpassed Second Temple

theology
Early Christian enthronement narratives surpass the ascent structure presented in
Jewish writings. New Testament cultic interpretation transforms the Melchizedek-
theology of Second Temple writers. (Eskola (2001), 337)
The idea of a transcendent throne is the first apparent element common
both to Jewish writings and the New Testament
Approximately at the time of the New Testament there were several Jewish writings
where the eschatological enthronement of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and other
noticeable patriarchs was anticipated. …
In these writings we have a common scene for an eschatological enthronement. …
According to this discourse everything important takes place in the heavenly palace
where God’s throne is located. Descriptions relying on an ascent structure sometimes
lead to an act of enthronement even in Jewish writings. Therefore, the idea of a
transcendent throne is the first apparent element common both to Jewish writings and
the New Testament. (Eskola (2001), 322)
Matthew and Luke legitimated Jesus by giving him an Israelite pedigree
and rendering his death intelligible by making it predetermined
The “promise-fulfillment” motif, along with the genealogies devised by Matthew and
Luke, embed Jesus in the Hebrew scriptures and forge an indelible continuity between
him (and thus the early Christians) and Israel. The strategy solved the crisis of
classification in three ways. First, it legitimated Jesus by giving him an Israelite
pedigree. Second, it rendered his death intelligible by making it predetermined. Third,
it made early Christian community plausible by providing an instant and urgently
needed tradition. (Green (1987), 5)
Casting Jesus as a fulfillment was a strategic device devised by later
writers, particularly Matthew
The “promise-fulfillment” motif, which casts Jesus as a foreseen figure, is perhaps the
major achievement of New Testament apologetics. Apparently a later development of
early Christian writing, the motif is a major focus of neither Paul’s letters, nor the Q
source, nor the Gospel of Mark.
It is richly articulated and elaborated in the Gospel of Matthew, particularly in
Matthew’s distinctive use of fulfillment formulas (“All this happened in order to fulfill
what the Lord declared through the prophet”) to make various prophetic statements into
predictions of Jesus’ birth and career. That nearly half of those statements are not
predictions, but the prophets’ comments about Israel’s past or their own present,
suggests that the fulfillment formulas and their attached verses are strategic devices,
the results of post facto choice, rather than remnants of an exegetical heritage. (Green
(1987), 4-5)
The claim that Jesus’ crucifixion was an integral part of his messianic
role was without precedent or analogy in Second Temple messianism
John Collins posits that early christological claims “departed decisively from the Jewish
paradigms in many respects,” likewise citing as one important such departure, the
“notion that the messiah should suffer and die.”12 … Certainly, it appears that the claim
that Jesus’ crucifixion was an integral (even divinely ordained) part of his messianic
role was without precedent or analogy in the other known versions of Second Temple
messianism, and so, was a genuinely innovative notion that also entailed novel readings
of biblical texts (for example, Psalms 16; 22; 69; 116). (Hurtado (2016), 112)
12
Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 208
56
The title Christos became more central to Christian proclamation as it

progressively departed from the Jewish understanding of Messiah
1. The earliest recoverable strata of the Christian proclamation of the gospel
are aware of the claim that Jesus was (is, or will be) the Messiah of Israel;
this claim is not the primary focus of their message.
2. The earliest Palestinian Jewish preaching of the gospel probably
emphasized the messianic idea, but there is no adequate evidence to support
this probability.
3. The further one gets away in time from the earliest preaching, whether
Palestinian or Hellenistic, the more the issue of Jesus as Messiah gains in
prominence.
4. This development takes roughly two forms:
a. a movement away from traditional Jewish understandings of the
Messiah and his role, evidenced in the Gospels of Mark and John,
and
b. a movement toward some aspects of the traditional Christian
understandings, with an emphasis on the continuity of promise or
prophecy and fulfillment, evidenced in the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke.
5. These trends are not to be explained simply as diverging views of gentile as
opposed to Jewish Christians, for the Gospels of Mark and Luke represent
mainly gentile concerns while those of Matthew and John arise out of
originally Jewish Christian churches.
We begin with the Gospels of Mark and John. Not only do these Gospels illustrate the
movement away from traditional Jewish messianic expectations, but also they are both
to some extent critical of the adequacy of the designation Messiah as an understanding
of Jesus while unable to reject it because it is an established part of the Christian
tradition by the time any Gospel is written. If yet another thesis could be put forward,
it would sound like this:
6. The Gospels of Mark and John, and to a certain degree those of Matthew
and Luke, illustrate the fact that to the extent that the title Christos became
progressively more central to early Christian proclamation, to that same
extent it departed further from the Jewish understanding of the Messiah.
(Macrae (1987), 174)
The strategy of giving Jesus the name of christos situated the messiah’s
origin in the past, making Scriptures an exercise in deciphering
By naming Jesus christos and depicting him as foretold and expected — “not something
brand-new, but something newly restored and fulfilled” — early Christian writers gave
the figure of the messiah a diachronic dimension. They situated the messiah’s origin
not in the present but in Israelite antiquity and thus established the Hebrew scriptures
as a sequence of auguries. Reading scripture became, and to a large extent has remained,
an exercise in deciphering and tracing a linear progression of portents. (Green (1987),
5)
Despite few overt messianic passages in the Hebrew scriptures, the New
Testament makes much of the messianic prophetic theme
It is important to note that there are very few overt messianic passages in the Hebrew
scriptures. It is fascinating; however, how much the prophetic theme of the messiah is
used in the New Testament. (Beresh (2016), 16)
57
The history of Jesus gave new precision to the meaning of the Messiah
Jesus is the Messiah as the Son of God, and as such He is the Son of Man. New precision
is thus given to the meaning of the Messiah by the history of Jesus. (Grundmann (1974),
528-529)
The history of Jesus formed a new Messianic teaching
At all events, the tradition shows that the history of Jesus gives rise to a new form of
Messianic teaching. (Grundmann (1974), 530)
The history of Jesus caused the Messianic title to be re-interpreted
The Messianic secret does not imply that Jesus’ work was inadequate to support the
application of the Messianic title to Him. It implies that the title as then understood was
inadequate to express His authoritative work. It has thus to be related to the history of
Jesus and re-interpreted accordingly. (Grundmann (1974), 538)
Their history of Jesus produced the Messianic understanding
The Evangelist [John] stresses the fact that the Messiah can be known only when He
reveals Himself. This is why Jesus replies: … Ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι (I am [He], the
[One] speaking to you) [John] 4:26. This is unique in John.
We see here once again that the question of the Messiah is put to Jesus and that it is His
history that gives the Messianic understanding the new form which is traced back to
Him. (Grundmann (1974), 568)
The Gospel authors related their confession of his Messiahship to their
history of him
The Gospels accept the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. They thus relate the confession
of His Messiahship to His history. (Grundmann (1974), 538)
The synoptic Gospels have only a small share of the total use of χριστός
(christos) in its various forms
In various forms χριστός (christos) occurs 529 times altogether in the NT, 379 of these
being in Paul alone, 22 [times] in 1 Peter, 37 in Luke’s writings (Lk. 12 [times] and Ac.
25), 19 in the Johannine material, the others distributed among the rest of the books.
It is striking how small a share of the total use is to be found in the Synpt. Gospels, 7
instances in Mk., 12 in Lk. and 17 in Mt., cf. 19 in Jn. (Grundmann (1974), 528)
While Daniel 9 had a temporal ruler in mind, some 200 years later, belief
in the Messiah had developed
A prophecy of Daniel, written about 164 BCE, is the earliest source speaking of the
death of a Mashiah (“Anointed”) sixty-two (prophetic) weeks after his coming and after
the return and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:24–26).
While it appears that Daniel had a temporal ruler in mind, whom he calls Mashiah
Nagid (“Anointed Prince”), some two centuries later, the author of 4 Ezra unmistakably
refers to the Messiah, belief in whom had developed in the meantime, when he puts
words in the mouth of God to the effect that after four hundred years (counted from
when?), My son the Messiah shall die. (Patai (1979), 229)
The Gospels were composed after Paul’s death in 64 CE
We assume that Mark is our earliest gospel, and that it was written between 65 and 70,
later rather than earlier in that five-year period, but certainly not later than 70. Matthew
and Luke were written after 70, and probably not later than 100, Luke (together with
Acts) almost certainly towards the end of the first century. Matthew and Luke are
essentially expansions of Mark, and both use a common non-Marcan
Tradition. …
58
We assume that the fourth gospel was written not by John the son of Zebedee but by an
unknown Hellenistic Christian of the second generation, perhaps in Ephesus. Its date is
highly uncertain, but we would place it towards the end of the first century. …
The use of LXX in OT quotations affords a highly important clue for the identification
of the Jewish Hellenistic stratum of the gospels. (Fuller (1965), 17, 19)
It is not plain that Jesus called Himself the Messiah
One may see from the Gospels that Messianic expectation was attached to Jesus and
yet is neither plain nor indisputable that Jesus called Himself the Messiah. (Grundmann
(1974), 527)
It is impossible that Jesus’ earliest followers recognized him as the
Messiah
The conclusion that Jesus’ earliest followers recognized and categorized him as the
Messiah is impossible. The gospels are unanimous in recording that the disciples were
confused men. (Charlesworth (1987), 251)
Jesus responded to Peter with “Get behind me, Satan”
Apparently, Peter told Jesus, “You are the Christ” (su ex ho christos; Mark 8:29). But
this brief verse is the famous exception to the rule; and we have no clues as to what
Peter may have meant by this word, which is certainly a title. Most Christians assume
Jesus accepted Peter’s confession. In the Marcan narrative, our earliest source, the next
word Jesus says to Peter is, “Get behind me Satan”. …
Many scholars have concluded, perhaps reluctantly, that Jesus did not accept Peter’s
confession, and that Matthew totally rewrites the entire tradition of this pericope. …
R. H. Fuller is thereby persuaded to conclude that “Jesus rejects Messiahship as a
merely human and even diabolical temptation”.
If this tradition can finally be traced back to Jesus himself, as many scholars, myself
included, are persuaded, then Jesus rejects the title “the Messiah”. Why would he do
this? There are numerous answers. Since there were many definitions of the title, even
contradictory ones (as we have seen), then chaos could have resulted by accepting an
ill-defined title, especially one that would have aroused strong emotions. (Charlesworth
(1987), 252)
We should not focus on the title “Christ” and become blind to the many
other titles attributed to Jesus
The earliest followers used the term “the Messiah” or “the Christ” to articulate the
particular significance of Jesus. The early pre-Pauline confession in Romans 1:3-4,
probably the earliest confession we possess, is highly significant in our examination of
this claim. According to it, Jesus is hailed as “Christ”. The good news Paul received is,
concerning his (God’s) son
who came
from the seed of David
according to the flesh,
who was designated Son of God
in power
according to the spirit of holiness
by the resurrection from the dead,
Jesus Christ (Christou) our Lord.
The confession, however, is really about the celebration of the identity of “God’s Son”.
That is the central title in this confession. Its presence here should warn us not to focus
on the title “Christ” and so become blind to the many other titles attributed to Jesus. …
59
There was no set creed, no normative confession, no pontificated title that was binding.
Many early Christians may well have denied that Jesus had been the Messiah; some
may have expected him to return as the Messiah (cf. Acts 3:20); others may have
believed that “Lord”, “Servant”, “Prophet”, “Son of Man”, “the Righteous One”, “the
Lamb”, or “Wisdom” were more representative titles. (Charlesworth (1987), 253)
It is debateable whether Jesus (Yeshua) considered himself The Messiah
Scholars today debate whether Jesus actually considered himself to be the Messiah. He did not
use the title as such, but referred to himself as the “son of man,” a title that was also used by
prophets such as Ezekiel, but could also refer to the apocalyptic figure of Daniel, or simply mean
a human being, literally a “son of Adam.”
In the synoptic Gospels his identity as Messiah is kept secret from the public until his triumphal
entry into Jerusalem a few days prior to his death. In that scene, Jesus rides into the city on a
donkey to shouts of “Hosanna! Son of David!” (Matt. 21:1–9) in a purposeful fulfillment of
Zechariah’s messianic prophecy:
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your
king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a
donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zech. 9:9) (“Messiah”, New World
Encyclopedia)
60
THEY READ YESHUA INTO SCRIPTURES OF THE PAST
Non-messianic Scriptures were read as Messianic
The Apostolic writers lived during the period when some were holding fervent expectations of an
imminent eschatological Liberator.
Yeshua’s followers used biblical promises that had had imminent and local meanings at the time, such
as with Isaiah or Micah, and presented them as if they were prophecies, and indeed were referring to
their Yeshua. Some biblical promises had referred to a messiah king, such as David, but most had not.
These Apostolic period authors thus converted parts of historical narratives into messianic prophecies,
changing them from their intended local context to make them appear as if these had been predictions
describing the as-yet future Yeshua messiah.
When the NT writers (mis)used texts such as Micah 5 or Isa 7, 9, or 53 to say these were “prophecies”
concerning Yeshua, I suspect they were saying he was “the Promised One”, and were not making any
associations with Old Testament passages that reference Māšiaḥ. The Scriptures that reference Māšiaḥ
describe their current monarch and are not forward-looking, whereas the NT writers, who were living
during the Second Temple period with its eschatological fervour, was providing them an eschatological
Μεσσίαν.
This observation resolves scholars’ concerns that the New Testament’s supposed fulfilments refer to
Scriptures that are not speaking of Māšiaḥ.
The 3rd century BCE Jewish sects, 1st century CE Yeshua-followers, 21st century Jewish sects, and
21st century Christian sects do not ascribe a common, identical meaning to the word “messiah”. Thus
what the Jews at the time of the Septuagint thought does not demonstrate what Jews would thing
centuries later, when their use of the term was being influenced by contemporary usage.
The Old Testament Māšiaḥ meant a current King, Priest, or Prophet, positions Jesus was never
appointed to. The Second-temple promised Μεσσίαν would liberate the nation from its oppressors. Not
only did this not happen, the oppressors executed Yeshua for insurrection, mocking him as “king of the
Jews”.
The so-called Messianic understanding is only implied, particularly in
texts where māšiaḥ is not used
One might say that none of the Messianic passages in the OT can be exegeted
Messianically. Nevertheless, the so-called Messianic understanding is implied in many
of the passages, although this is more evident in texts in which the term ‫[ משיח‬māšiaḥ]
is not used. (Hesse (1974), 504)
The term māšiaḥ (= Anointed One) is never found in the Old Testament
with its New Testament eschatological sense
The New Testament term χριστός (Christ), as is well known, is derived from the Hebrew
term māšiaḥ = Anointed One, from the Hebrew. verb māšaḥ = to anoint. Surprisingly,
the term is never found in the Old Testament in its specific New Testament sense of the
regent of God’s eschatological kingdom. It is there used primarily of the historical
kings. (Fuller (1965), 23)
Several Biblical Messianic prophecies are Messianic only in the light of
later interpretations, but not at the time of their composition
The main features of the Biblical Messianic idea were subsequently elaborated and
augmented in the Apocrypha, the Talmudic and Midrashic literature, and later Jewish
writings.
It also must be pointed out that several of these Biblical Messianic prophecies are
Messianic only in the light of these later interpretations. At the time of their
composition, these passages may have had other meanings.
61
They read Yeshua into Scriptures of the past
The important prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah about the Suffering Servant, for instance,
are considered by Jewish as well as Christian scholars as referring to the people of Israel
as a whole. In Isaiah 49:3 the Suffering Servant is explicitly identified with Israel.
On this basis, as well as on the basis of certain other features, all the so-called “Servant
Songs” (Isa. 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; and 52:13–53:12) have long been taken to speak
of the sufferings of exiled Israel as personified in “the Servant of the Lord.” Yet these
same passages became in Talmudic times identified with the Messianic theme. (Patai
(1979), 48)
The meaning and intent of Psalm 110 was changed
Christians changed the interpretation of Psalm 110
The original interpretation of Psalm 110 was changed in four ways by the Christian
reading.
Firstly, the earthly, political throne became a heavenly throne.
Secondly, the earthly, political enemies became the enemies of God’s
kingship.
Thirdly, the speaker was no longer the poet of the Psalm, but king David
himself, speaking as a prophet.
And lastly, most importantly, the second κύριος of vs 1 (“my lord”), to whom
the first Lord (God) speaks, was no longer a king of Israel, but Jesus Christ.
Were the first Christians building on an already existing Jewish messianic interpretation
of Psalm 110? The answer is that an interpretation of Psalm 110 connecting it to the
expectation of a Messiah is not found in pre-Christian times. (de Lang (n.d.))
Psalm 110 was employed to strip the political meaning from the title
“Messiah” (“Christ”)
After Jesus’ death, the title Messiah or Christ was stripped of its political meaning: in
the Gospels, Jesus became a suffering Messiah who after his death was exalted by God.
Psalm 110 was a Psalm in which both these aspects – Jesus’ kingship and his exaltation
– were found together. (de Lang (n.d.))
It widely agreed that Psalm 110 affirms the continuity of the Davidic rule
Although the term “anointed” does not appear in Psalm 110, it is widely and rightly
regarded as a Royal Psalm, in which the continuity of the Davidic line, ruling as God’s
viceregents, is affirmed. As such, it is widely quoted or alluded to in the New
Testament. …
But as verse 4 of this psalm tells us, and as Hebrews 8:1 and 10:12 remind us, the role
that is being discharged is not only that of ruler (verse 2, “rule,” “sceptre”) but also that
of “priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek,” the king-priest. (Kee (1987), 188)
All New Testament references to Psalm 110 refer to Jesus’ exaltation
following his resurrection from death
If we look at the passages in the New Testament in which the Psalm [110] is quoted or
alluded to, it becomes clear that all passages one way or the other refer to the exaltation
of Jesus after his death. (de Lang (n.d.))
Ephesians use Psalm 110 to show that Jesus is exalted in heaven and
already he rules from there
In Ephesians, Psalm 110 is used with a similar emphasis on the exaltation. Here, as in 1
Corinthians, the text of vs 1 is used to show that Jesus is exalted in heaven and that he
rules from there. But there is also a difference: in 1 Corinthians the destruction of the
enemies is still something that will happen in the future, whereas in Ephesians
62
everything has already been submitted to Jesus. In Ephesians the emphasis is on Jesus’
present cosmic rule, rather than on the promise that he will rule with God in the near
future, when the Day of Judgment arrives. (de Lang (n.d.))
In Hellenistic Judaism the term χριστός had political connotations
In Mark 12:35-37 there is a direct quotation of Psalm [110]. … Mark uses the term
χριστός (“Christ”, “Messiah” or “anointed one”) relatively rarely. In Hellenistic Judaism
the term χριστός had political connotations: the anointed one was the king who was
expected to re-establish the Davidic line. In vs 35 the term χριστός is used in exactly
this way. Throughout his Gospel, however, Mark explains to his readers that in Jesus’
case the title χριστός does not have this political meaning. (de Lang (n.d.))
The author of Hebrews paraphrased Psalm 110:4 to make it support the
existing image
Once Ps 110:1 was being used frequently to describe Jesus’ exaltation, it was just a short
step to use 110:4 for describing Jesus’ function as intercessor and high priest. …
When quoting Ps 110:4, the author of Hebrews follows the text of the Septuagint, which
has “priest” (ἱερεύς, in Heb 5:6) but he uses “high priest” (ἀρχιερεύς) when he
paraphrases the verse (in Heb 5:10 and 6:20). This proves that the image of the high
priest was not taken from the Psalm, but the other way around: that the existing image
of Christ as a high priest was supported with the aid of the Psalm. (de Lang (n.d.))
A messianic or Christological reading of Ps 110:1 is a later interpretation
of the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Is a rendering with “Lord” as referring to a Messiah consistent with what the original
Hebrew text wants to communicate? … This is most likely not the case. A messianic,
or even Christological, reading of Ps 110:1 is a later interpretation of the Greek
translation of the Hebrew text, but is not part of the original Hebrew composition.
Translations which claim to render the original Hebrew, must then be very careful with
such interventions in the text.
Christological readings, however valid in our own confessional traditions, are not part
of the original Hebrew text and perhaps it is therefore better to keep them out. …
Translators have to be careful not to project their particular confessional views on a text
that was created long before those confessions were born. (de Lang (n.d.))
Micah Chapter 5 was misapplied

Micah wrote in the 8th century BCE
The book’s title (1:1) places Micah in the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,
roughly 735 – 700 B.C. The message in 1:2-9 was given before the destruction of
Samaria in 721. ...
The judgment on Judah depicted in 1:10-16 seems to be linked with Assyrian
campaigns against the Philistines in 720 or 714-711. (Lasor, 271)
The words of Micah in 8th century BCE come via editing during the 6th
century BCE postexilic period
[At] Mic 4:8. although Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah, his words about the future
restoration of the Davidic dynasty come from a postexilic date. (Fitzmyer (2007), 170)
Micah’s provincial location explains his message and its context
Micah’s location influences an understanding of his context and his message. He was
not a Jerusalemite, but a provincial. (Chilton, 230)
63
Moresheth, [Micah’s] hometown, is Moresheth-gath (1:14), a village about twenty-five

miles southwest of Jerusalem in the Judean foothills. Several lines of evidence mark
him as a country man, perhaps a peasant farmer. He attacks the crime and corruption of
Jerusalem and Samaria as one [who was] not really at home in either capital (1:1, 5-9;
3:1-4, 12). (Lasor, 270 – 271)
Micah mainly speaks of the villages and the small towns, while hardly of
Jerusalem or the temple
[In] Micah, hardly a mention of Jerusalem or the temple occurs anywhere. Instead, he
talks of the villages and small towns, the tribal territories and the border cities of the
Philistines to the west. (Boadt, page 334)
Micah was hostile towards Jerusalem
Micah was a provincial leader, evidently hostile to the establishment in Jerusalem. ...
[He] was a provincial champion of oppressed small farmers in Judah, who protested
their treatment by the central government in Jerusalem at a time when Judah was
threatened with invasion from Assyria. (Charlton, 229, 178, 232)
Micah was furious at Jerusalem’s leaders
Few passages from the prophets can match the fiery fury of [Micah’s] denunciations of
Jerusalem’s leaders in chs. 2 and 3.
“Hear this, you rulers of the house of Jacob and chiefs of the house of
Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build Zion with
blood and Jerusalem with wrong!” Mic. 3:9-10 (Lasor, 270)
Therefore on account of YOU men Zion will be plowed up as a mere
field, and Jerusalem herself will become mere heaps of ruins, and the
mountain of the house will be as the high places of a forest. (Micah
3:12)
The book ... [opens] with a striking picture of the majestic coming of God to judge
Samaria. ... However, it is not only Samaria that is targeted; Jerusalem is also under the
threat of judgment. ... Jerusalem will be destroyed and never rebuilt (3:12).
Micah’s harsh words are then softened by the oracles concerning the exaltation of
Jerusalem in the Latter Days (4:1-5) and a promise of gathering together those who
have been scattered from Zion (4:6-7). A new liberator from Bethlehem is promised
(5:2-6; Hebrew, 5:1-5), and Jacob is described as a lion among its enemies. (Charlton,
233)
Jerusalem’s corrupted leadership would be replaced by someone from a
small village
Because the line of David had become corrupted in Jerusalem, it would be replaced by
a new line, issuing from the small village of Bethlehem. (Charlton, pages 232)
Stressing the humble origin of David and of his successor, Micah
prophesied the continuity of the Davidic line, not a king’s birth
Hezekiah’s weakness during the Assyrian blockade of Jerusalem was to be followed by
a new era of power and peace under a true son of David. Bethlehem is mentioned (v. 2)
to stress the humble origin of both David and his future successor, who would be a true
shepherd of the people (v. 4). In its context, the oracle prophesies not the birth of the
coming king, but the continuity of the line of David. (Lasor, 275)
64
With no mention of a “Messiah”, Micah 5:2 says an unnamed ruler from

an old family will come from tiny insignificant town and clan
From the [sixth-century] postexilic period comes a passage in the prophecy of Micah,
who is otherwise an eighth-century figure. At least Mic 4:1-5:14 (Eng. 15) is frequently
so regarded, chiefly because of the reference to exile in “Babylon” in 4:10. The crucial
verse for discussion here, however, is 5:1 (2), which reads:
But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah, too small to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for Me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin
is from of old, from ancient times.
65
… The new “ruler in Israel” will not be born in Jerusalem, but in the tiny insignificant
town and clan of Bethlehem-Ephrathah, which is remembered as that from which David
came. The contrast is between the lowly Bethlehem and the noted Zion.
The “Me” refers to the Lord, who utters these words and who thus ratifies the rule of
the new Davidic heir. His origin is from “ancient times,” because he will be descended
from David, who reigned roughly from 1000 to 962 B.C.
The future ruler [at Micah 5] remains unnamed; he is not called “Messiah” and there is
no indication that the prophet’s words are to be so interpreted. He is merely a Davidic
heir to the throne in some coming period. The hope of a restored Davidic dynasty with
the associated priesthood is not yet the hope of a Messiah. (Fitzmyer (2007), 53)
At Micah 5, the future earthly king, not called messiah, will come out of
an ancient family
Micah 5 :2-4 is a passage whose authenticity is often judged more favourably today
than it used to be, and which, if genuine, is contemporary with the Isaianic prophecies
which we have just examined. Here the affinity of the ideal king with Yahweh is
expressed in terms of ancient origin (v. 2: “whose origin is from of old, from ancient
days”). This means no more than that he will come of the ancient Davidic family.
Once more, as in the case of the historical king, he is promised dominion extending to
the ends of the earth, with peace and security (v. 4), obviously after a successful war of
liberation (v. 3).
But despite the highly coloured charismatic endowments of the ideal king, the Messiah
(who is not yet so called) is still an earthly figure in all of these pre-exilic prophecies.
(Fuller (1965), 25)
Neither Proto-Isaiah or Micah uses the title “Messiah = Anointed One” in
reference to the future liberator
The beginnings of what we call the Messianic hope appear to be found in the pre-exilic
prophets, Proto-Isaiah and Micah (date: from ca. 740). Neither of these prophets, of
course, uses the title Messiah = Anointed One in reference to the future liberator. But
they are beginning to speak of that liberator in terms which suggest that he will be an
ideal king like David. (Fuller (1965), 24)
This involvement of the Scribes and Pharisees in the attempt on Jesus’ life at its start corresponds with
their attempt on his life at its end. In each case, the scribes and pharisees, both despised by the authors
of Matthew, sought to involve the authorities in carrying out the murderous deed.
It is not possible to determine whether these are literary devices, but it would be surprising if they were
not. It is most unlikely that the Wise Men were literal figures or that the writers of Matthew were privy
to any private conversations of the Wise men and the King. History does not support Matthew’s
assertion of an attempted slaughter of children aged up to 3 years.
66
Scholars have identified the artificial structure of Matthew that accords with their liturgical practices.
(Doug)
Passages in Isaiah were reinterpreted to make them reference a

future Māšiaḥ
It seems reasonable to assume that “Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14) refers to an
ideal king of the Davidic line
Isaiah 7:10-16 is of uncertain interpretation. But it seems reasonable to assume with J.
Barr that “Immanuel” (v.14) refers to an ideal king of the Davidic line. This King will
be born in the near future and will reign as the true embodiment of God’s presence with
his people, restoring to them peace and prosperity. (Fuller (1965), 24)
At Isaiah 9, the prophet hopes a new king will restore the territory lost to
the Assyrians and restore peace and prosperity
Isaiah 9:1-7, almost certainly a genuine prophecy of Isaiah, belongs to the year 733,
when Tiglath Pileser III incorporated parts of the northern kingdom into the Assyrian
empire (2 Kings 16:5ff.). The prophet hopes for a new king of the Davidic line (v. 7)
who will recover the lost territory and restore the peace, prosperity, and justice of
David’s reign. As in the Immanuel prophecy, the perfect relation between the king and
Yahweh is stressed (v. 6). (Fuller (1965), 24-25)
At Isaiah 11, the ideal king will be a true scion of David’s line
Isaiah 11:1-9 is less certainly Isaianic. Again, the ideal king is “a shoot from the stump
of Jesse”, a true scion of David’s line. Again, too, the king’s enjoyment of the divine
favour (vv. 2-3a), his victory over Israel’s enemies and the restoration of peace,
prosperity and justice (vv. 3b-5), are stressed. (Fuller (1965), 25)
Isaiah promised the Davidic dynasty it would continue despite Assyria,
and the reign of a future heir would be righteous and faithful
A similar promise about the continuation of the Davidic dynasty is made in Isa 11:1-
10, where a future heir of the throne is described and his reign is said to be accompanied
by righteousness, equity, and fidelity. The promise follows upon 10:33-34, where God
is depicted as a forester who lops off the boughs of trees and cuts down the thickets that
symbolize Assyria, the invader coming from the north.
Verses 1-3a of ch. 11 begin with a conjunction, which connects them to the end of ch.
10. … Verses 3b-9 then give an idyllic description of the reign of this Davidic
descendant, and v. 10 concludes it, “On that day the root of Jesse shall stand …”
Jesse, the Bethlehemite, the father of David (1 Sam 16:11-13), is said here to be the
“stump” and “root” from which the dynastic line of David is derived. … The “spirit of
the Lord:’ which is said to alight upon the “shoot” and the “sprout”, … denotes the
succession of David’s heir to the throne and God’s blessing of him.” The king is thus
67
described as God’s agent in administering justice, as was the child in Isaiah 9. (Fitzmyer
(2007), 38)
New Testament authors applied interpretations to their situation without
taking account of the scripture’s original contexts
The New Testament proceeds by means of an exegetical method common in late
Judaism, which undertakes a concrete application to the present situation without regard
for the original statement and its concomitant historical consciousness. The scriptural
commentaries of the Essenes from Qumran, especially the almost completely preserved
commentary on Habakkuk 1-2 (lQpHab), provide impressive examples of such
interpretation.
The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of the pešer (“interpretation”) of a passage. Even before
the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this mentality was sufficiently familiar from the
Targums and Midrashim.
For the most part, the classical messianic passages of the Old Testament are read at
Qumran and especially in the Targumim in the same way that they are read in the
preaching of Jesus, the early church, and the New Testament.
The distinctively Christian element is not the formal exegetical principle but the
conviction that everything is fulfilled in Christ. It is this sense of fulfillment in the
unique Christ event that gives rise to an application that is far more concrete than in
late Judaism. This sense of fulfillment explains, furthermore, why the New Testament
in many passages speaks unambiguously of visionary prophetic prediction. This
“embarrassment” cannot be explained away. (Becker (1980), 94)
68
THE MESSIAH BY PAUL AND HIS FIRST CENTURY CE
FOLLOWERS
The Pauline letters are the oldest surviving documents of the Christian
movement
The place to begin is the Pauline corpus, for two reasons. By widespread agreement the
Pauline letters commonly accepted as authentic (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) are the oldest surviving documents
of the Christian movement. (MacRae (1987), 169-170)
The creative influence of Paul and his followers
Paul gave a wholly new form to Messianic expectation
Paul, like primitive Christianity in general, tackles the Messianic question as it was
posed by history and in principle and he, too, gives a wholly new form to Messianic
expectation. …
Paul is developing a new concept of the Messiah on the basis of the actual events. Cf.
the OT and Jewish material. (Grundmann (1974), 546; page 548, footnote 353)
Paul worked out Scripture in his own way
Paul adopts the proof from Scripture (κατὰ τὰς γραφάς: according to the Scriptures), 1
Corinthians 15:3-5), works it out in his own way (1 Cor. 5:7; 10:4; Galatians 3:16), and
speaks of the ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ (the day of Christ) (Phil. 1:10; 2:16). (Grundmann
(1974), 546)
For Paul, the designation “Christ” (or “Messiah”) was no longer related
to its meaning in Jewish writings
For Paul, Jesus Christ was sent as God’s son’ … he died for our sins; … and he was
resurrected and exalted to the right hand of God. … The Gospel of Jesus Christ is God’s
power for salvation for everyone who believes (Rom 1:16) because righteousness can
be gained only through faith in Jesus Christ. … The Spirit of Christ who is also the
Spirit of God dwells in the believers as the “first fruit” … or as a “pledge”. …
For Paul, therefore, the designation “Christ” (or “Messiah”) is no longer related to its
meaning in Jewish writings. Instead, its meaning is entirely determined by God’s saving
activity through Jesus as “Christ.” (Schröter, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
For Paul, Gentiles would share in the blessedness of the age to come by
virtue of their obedience to the Davidic king of Israel
Despite scholarly ignorance of the degree and extent of popular messianic expectation,
there certainly did exist linguistic conventions in Hellenistic and Roman period Jewish
literature whereby some writers used biblical messiah language to refer to a
recognizable set of ideas.
Within this set was one idea, suggested by Psalm 18 (= Psalm 17 LXX) and Isaiah 11
and attested by the Roman historians of the First Revolt, of a Jewish king who would
not only reclaim the land of Israel but also rule over the pagan nations.
Paul was one of a number of Jews (some of whom were Christian, others not) for whom
this particular messiah tradition provided an answer to the Gentile question: The
Gentiles are to be neither converted nor destroyed; rather they share in the blessedness
of the age to come by virtue of their obedience to the Davidic king of Israel. This is the
view attested in Paul’s reading of Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:12.
Granted, late antique Christianity became a majority-Gentile movement standing over
against Judaism, but this dynamic was not yet at work in the career of the apostle to the
Gentiles. To paraphrase Schweitzer, Paul himself did not demessianize a hitherto-
69
The messiah by Paul and his first century CE followers
messianic Jesus movement; he simply brought about the state of affairs in which such
a thing could happen. (Novenson (2009), 373)
Jesus’ Messiahship is not an issue in Paul
The Pauline letters are distinctive in the New Testament as a major body of writings in
which the Messiahship of Jesus is simply not an issue. (MacRae (1987), 170)
Paul’s message did not hinge primarily on whether Jesus was the
Messiah
There is no question that Paul is aware of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah.
… He does not discuss the issue in his writings, making no effort to prove or
demonstrate the messianic identity of Jesus. For him the Christian message does not
hinge, at least primarily, on the claim that Jesus was or is the Messiah. … His gospel
hinges on the saving death and resurrection of Christ. (MacRae (1987), 172)
Paul did not limit himself to the traditional, classical Messianic concept
Perhaps Paul could envision Christ as a messianic leader ushering in the final age, but
he does so without reference to the limited concept of Messiah as traditionally known.
… The Son of God is indeed the Messiah, but for Paul the operative categories go
beyond classical messianic ideology. (MacRae (1987), 172, 173)
The messianic functions in Paul are not necessarily in line with Israel’s
hopes
What God has accomplished in Christ for Paul is liberation from the Law – sin, death,
and the powers that dominate human life in the world. This is clearly a messianic
function, but it is not necessarily the linear fulfillment of the hope of Israel. (MacRae
(1987), 173)
Paul’s beliefs about Jesus constitute an especially noteworthy instance
of diversity
Just as there was a textual pluriformity in biblical writings in the Second Temple period
(evident in the biblical manuscripts from Qumran), so there was a pluriformity in
Jewish messianic hopes and figures, and I [Larry Hurtado] contend that Paul’s beliefs
about Jesus constitute an especially noteworthy instance of that diversity. That is, I
propose that Paul’s Christology reflects a particular and distinctive “variant-form” of
the Jewish messianism of his time. …
Paul’s Christology reflects a particular and distinctive “variant-form” of the Jewish
messianism of his time. (Hurtado (2016), 107)
In Paul’s usage, the term χριστός (christos) is applied exclusively and
restrictively to Jesus, not merely as a name
Novenson shows (persuasively to my [Larry Hurtado’s] mind) that in Paul’s usage,
χριστός (Christos) should be seen as an example of a particular onomastic category, the
“honorific.” Novenson defines an honorific as “a word that can function as a stand-in
for a personal name but part of whose function is to retain its supernominal
associations.”13
That is, Novenson contends that Paul reflects Second Temple Jewish usage of χριστός
(and equivalents in other ancient languages) as an appellative for a figure (typically a
human) who will act as God’s agent of eschatological redemption; but in Paul’s usage,
the term is applied exclusively and restrictively to Jesus.
Indeed, in Paul’s usage, the term is tied to Jesus so tightly that it can serve on its own
to designate him (about 150 times in the uncontested letters, for example, 1 Cor. 15:3,
12–28). Paul’s exclusive association of the term with Jesus is what has misled those
13
Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 138.
70
who have characterized χριστός in his usage as (merely) a name. Novenson points to
analogies, such as use of the honorific “Augustus” for Octavian, similarly “Epiphanes”
uniquely designating Antiochus IV, and, among Jewish examples, Judah “Maccabee,”
and Shimon “bar Kochba.” (Hurtado (2016), 108)
Paul’s Christology was a variant-form of the contemporary diverse
Jewish messianism
I [Larry Hurtado] do not present Paul’s Christology as a departure from a monolithic
Jewish messianism, but instead, as a particular variant-form of a diverse and lively
Jewish messianism of his time. (Hurtado (2016), 108)
Jesus’ functions in Paul’s letter are apparently novel in the context of
Second Temple Jewish religion and other known forms of messianism
In Paul’s letters we have a remarkable devotional pattern in which Jesus functions
prominently and uniquely along with God, and that this is apparently novel in the
context of Second Temple Jewish religion and other known forms of Jewish
messianism. (Hurtado (2016), 122)
Paul’s messianic Christology is another distinctive, remarkable, variant-
form of Jewish messianisms in the early first century CE
Neither Qumran nor the Parables explain or account for the distinctive variant-form of
messianism that we see affirmed by Paul. Moreover, there seems to me scant evidence
to posit some direct influence or significant borrowing from any one of these upon any
other. Instead, I suggest that the Melchizedek of Qumran and the Chosen One of the
Parables offer additional and independent illustrations of the variegated nature of
Jewish messianism in the early first century CE, a setting in which Paul’s messianic
Christology comprises another particularly distinctive, and (in my view) even more
remarkable, variant-form. (Hurtado (2016), 122)
Through Paul, the Messiah lost the Hebrew national political and
religious understanding
The understanding of the Messiah loses its national political and religious significance
and the significance of the Messiah in human history is attested and expounded. This
is the distinctive theological achievement of Paul. (Grundmann (1974), 555)
For Paul, if Jesus did not conform to the ordinary concept of the
Messiah, God had accredited Him as the Messiah at Easter
Paul’s usage stands under a basic presupposition. The Easter event has plainly related
Israel’s Messianic expectation to Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth is the promised and expected
Messiah. If he does not conform to the ordinary concept of the Messiah, God Himself
has accredited Him as the Messiah at Easter. A decisive reconstruction of the term is
thus accomplished in combination with the history of Jesus. (Grundmann (1974), 540)
Paul’s usage of “Christ”, “Jesus Christ”, and “Christ Jesus” makes
sense within the conventions of Greek honorifics
Paul’s use of Χριστός actually conforms quite closely to common uses of honorifics in
the ancient world. Thus, for Paul Χριστός is not a proper name but rather an honorific
such as Seleucus the Victor or Judah Maccabee that can be used in combination with
an individual’s proper name or can stand in for a proper name.
In this view, such honorifics are honorable names granted to individuals to signify their
unique identity and significance, often as a result of a military victory, accession to
power, or benefaction.
Paul’s variegated usage of “Christ”, “Jesus Christ”, and “Christ Jesus” makes sense …
within the conventions of Greek honorifics. (Jipp (2015), 4-5)
71
The Title “Christos” became a name

o χριστός (the Christ) was only a title in Judaism but it became Jesus’
name outside Judaism
Intelligible as a title only in the world of Judaism, o χριστός quickly became a name for
Jesus outside Jewish Christian congregations. (Grundmann (1974), 528)
The Messianic title χριστός (christos) changed to become a name;
beyond Judaism it became a nickname, an epithet attached to the name
The Messianic designation χριστός (christos) becomes a name, for χριστός is Jesus. In
the non-Palestinian world, where the word χριστός was not understood, it became a
sobriquet [nickname; epithet] attached to the name of Jesus or doing duty for it. …
Whereas his non-jewish readers would take it as a proper name, Paul himself is fully
acquainted with the title originally meant by the term. (Grundmann (1974), 540)
As Christos became progressively more central to early Christians, it
moved further away from the Jewish understanding of the Messiah
The Gospels of Mark and John, and to a certain degree those of Matthew and Luke,
illustrate the fact that to the extent that the title Christos became progressively more
central to early Christian proclamation, to that same extent it departed further from the
Jewish understanding of the Messiah. (MacRae (1987), 174)
Christos is only used by Paul as a proper name
No New Testament author uses the name Christos more frequently than Paul, who uses
it in many different combinations. … Most of those who have examined the evidence
have concluded that Christos is never or virtually never used by Paul as a title in the
sense of Messiah, but only as a proper name. …
We may conclude that at a very early date in the development of Christian expression,
the titular use of Christos was in some circles supplanted by its use as a proper name.
(MacRae (1987), 171)
Paul avoided the use of kuρioς (Lord) with Χριστός (Christos) without the
name Jesus since that would merely combine two titles
Christ is the key word in Paul’s epistles. It is repeated more than 400 times, while Jesus
occurs only some 200 times.
Even if Christ were only a proper name, as is often maintained, it would be worth while
investigating what aspect of Jesus is denoted … But does not the word Christ, originally
the term for a class, often remind us of its original sense in Paul’s usage? Is not this the
reason why it is combined with certain fixed formulae?
If Χριστός (Christos) were merely a proper name, why does he never say o kuρioς
χριστός (the Lord Christ) instead of o kuρioς Ιησούς (the Lord Jesus)? … Paul avoids
using kuρioς (Lord) and Χριστός (Christos) together without the name Jesus since this
would merely combine two titles. (Grundmann (1974), 540, footnote 317; page 542)
72
TRANSPORTED, ENTHRONED, EXALTED CHRIST:
DIVINELY ENTHRONED YESHUA
In the Heaven of Heavens

The Posthumous Messiah
Following the resurrection of Yeshua, his followers ascribed to him the features of Messiahship that
had been denied to him during his life in Galilee, namely to the positions of anointed King and anointed
High Priest.
The long-held Merkebah tradition saw Yeshua transported into the realm of God’s Throne Room, where
he was enthroned and appointed its ministering High Priest, thereby acquiring both positions of
Messiahship.
A new Messianic understanding is completed in Colossians and in
Ephesians
In Colossians14 and Ephesians15, the new Messianic understanding worked out in
primitive Christianity and by Paul is brought to completion. (Grundmann (1974), 556)
Philippians 2 presents an amazing description of the exalted status of
the risen Christ
Of the many interesting features of [Philippians 2:5-11], the description of the divine
exaltation of Christ in vv. 9-11 is the most relevant for our inquiry. In apparent reference
to Jesus’ resurrection, we are told that God has “highly exalted” him and has bestowed
upon him “the name which is above every name,” with the intention that “every knee”
in all spheres of creation is to bow and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.” … It combines an amazing description of the exalted
status of the risen Christ together with a clear commitment to the uniqueness of God.
(Hurtado (1998), 96)
At Philippians, Christ’s status surpasses any previous references to
God’s chief agents
The status of the risen Christ [at Philippians 2:9-11] is unsurpassed in any of the ancient
Jewish references to God’s chief agents. (Hurtado (1998), 96-97)
Revelation portrays Christ in majestic and awesome images
The visual description of Christ in Rev. 1:12-16 resembles the descriptions of visions
of chief angels and portrays Christ in majestic and awesome images. In Rev. 1:13, he
may be associated or identified with the “one like a son of man” in Dan. 7:13 to whom
is given all authority in the divine plan.
Other features, such as his white hair (1:14; cf. Dan. 7:9) and his mighty voice (1:15;
cf. Ezek. 1:24), however, are allusions to visions of God and connote Jesus’
participation in divine glory. …
The striking assertion that he is “the first and the last” echoes Old Testament passages
that refer to God himself (e.g., Isa. 44:6; 48:12). And the claim to hold “the keys of
Death and Hades” also seems to indicate a direct participation in the power of God.
Then there are the addresses to the churches (2:1-3:22), where Christ himself passes
judgment. (Hurtado (1998), 120)
14 If [Colossians was] not written by Paul himself it must have been written by one of his assistants who after his
imprisonment or death worked in his place in Ephesus and wrote in his name. (Grundmann, 556, footnote 410)
15 Ephesians is in [Grundmann’s] view written by a disciple of Paul. (Grundmann, 556, footnote 410)
73
Transported, enthroned, exalted Christ: divinely enthroned Yeshua
Merkebah (God’s Chariot) and visits to Heaven

I present information on Merkebah (God’s Chariot) and visitations to the Heavenly Throne Room of
God in another Paper16.
In Ephesians, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις [in the heavenly realms] appears in
interesting contexts
In Ephesians, readers of the New Testament encounter one of the most intriguing
phrases throughout the whole of Scripture. The phrase ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις [in the
heavenly realms] appears five times in the letter and is not found in any other place in
all of Scripture. While there is nothing inherently intriguing about the words ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουρανίοις, the expression proves to be of interest because of the various contexts in
which it appears.
In Eph. 1.3 God has blessed believers with every spiritual blessing ‘in the
heavenlies’ in Christ.
In Eph. 1.20 God has raised Christ from the dead and seated Christ at his right
hand in the heavenlies.
In Eph. 2.6 God has also raised believers up with Christ and seated them with
Christ in the heavenlies.
In Eph. 3.10 the manifold wisdom of God is made known through the church
to the rulers and authorities in the heavenlies.
Finally, in Eph 6.12 the church’s struggle is not against flesh and blood, but rather
against the rulers, the authorities, the world forces of darkness, and the spiritual forces
of evil in the heavenlies. (Brannon (2011), 1)
Common themes of Jewish merkabah mysticism and Ephesians 2
We can also identify some common themes from our study of Jewish merkabah
mysticism and Ephesians 2:
1. Heavenly journey: Though there is no heavenly journey for the redeemed in
Ephesians, believers are granted a heavenly status (Eph. 2.6). In Eph. 4.10 Christ
has ascended above all the heavens.
2. Ascent to God’s throne in the highest heaven: In Eph. 2.6 believers have been raised
up with Christ and have been seated with him in the heavenlies. Christ has ascended
above all the heavens (Eph. 4.10) and is seated at the right hand of God in the
heavenlies (Eph. 1.20).
3. Early Jewish mysticism as throne mysticism: Within the Pauline corpus outside
Ephesians, Paul draws upon common themes in merkabah mysticism and writes
that Christ is the image of God (2 Cor. 4.4), that the glory of God is found in the
face of Christ (2 Cor. 4.6), and that Christ is the image of the invisible God. In a
clear allusion to Psalm 110, Paul writes in Eph. 1.20 that the one whom he had
previously described as the image and glory of God is enthroned and seated at the
right hand of God in the heavenlies.
4. Depiction of a heavenly Temple: Though in Ephesians we do not find an exact
parallel to the apocalyptic descriptions of the heavenly Temple, Paul does portray
the church as a holy Temple in the Lord and as the dwelling place of God in the
Spirit (2.19-22). Additionally, the description of believers as συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων
καὶ οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ [fellow-citizens of the saints and of the household of God]
(2.19) has led many commentators to conclude that Eph. 2.19-22 is indeed a
reference to the church as an eschatological heavenly Temple of God.
16
(99+) Discussion: Second Temple period Mysticisms and Mysteries - Academia.edu
74
5. A special relationship between God’s throne of Glory and other heavenly thrones;
the throne as a place of honour that is promised for the righteous: In Eph. 2.6 Paul
can portray believers as enthroned with Christ and as in the heavenlies with Christ
precisely because of the special relationship which believers have with Christ —
that of union with him (Eph. 2.5-6). (Brannon (2011), 157-158)
75
76
Features associated with Merkebah mysticism

What kind of starting point does merkabah mysticism provide for the explanation of
the emergence of Christology?
1. First we should pay attention to the general pattern that is present in all merkabah
passages. Everything important takes place before the heavenly throne. … The fiery
throne of God, accompanied by the cherubim and the angels, is in the centre of
action. This is a scene based on the traditional symbolic universe of Temple
centered Second Temple Judaism.
2. Merkabah mysticism also provides a model for the enthronement itself. … When
first Christians needed to express the manner in which Jesus had been exalted there
was a perfect model available in their Jewish tradition. …
3. According to certain writings, especially those from Qumran, the beings (angels)
that resided in the heavenly Holy of Holies had an exceptionally high status. They
were called sons of God. According to such a tradition the Holy of Holies in heaven
was a restricted area. …
4. Certain heavenly figures even had a soteriological function. In some cases they had
a priestly function providing atonement for the people. …
5. The expectation of an eschatological Davidide appears in merkabah passages. …
At Qumran, in particular, we find an example where the pious awaited an
eschatological enthronement of a Davidic Messiah.
6. These features hardly ever occur together and are associated with only one
heavenly figure. … After the Easter events, the first Christians explained the
meaning of Christ’s resurrection by exploiting the idea of a heavenly enthronement.
(Eskola (2001), 156-157)
Several factors caused Merkebah mysticism to greatly influence early
Christology
Merkabah mysticism is a very potential source of influence for the Christology of the
first Christians. There are several factors that must be taken into account. The symbolic
universe of the traditional mainstream Second Temple Jewish theology has naturally
had great effect on Jewish mysticism, and one may assume that it has also influenced
the formation of early Christology.
Basic Old Testament metaphors, and especially those of God as king and his heavenly
dwelling as a palace with a throne of Glory, have a significant role also in the writings
of apocalyptic Judaism as well. In the world view of the mystics the enthroned God is
always in the centre of eschatological events. (Eskola (2001), 154)
While Jewish merkebah mysticism provides the background to early
Christology, it does not contain its completely new and unique features
Early Christology is rather incomprehensible without the background of Jewish
mysticism. As regards christological narratives and especially the Christian
resurrection discourse, however, merkabah mysticism did not direct Christology.
Merkabah discourse, or rather discourses, of Second Temple Judaism do not yet give
the interpretative point of departure for early Christology. The exploited terminology
is similar, while both parties are dependent on the same symbolic world. Exaltation
discourse in early Christianity, however, is quite unique and contains features that are
completely new in the Jewish tradition of the Second Temple period. (Eskola (2001),
373-374)
77
Christ, seated on God’s Heavenly throne

Cosmic Christ in “Heavenly places” [Heavenlies] in Ephesians
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us
in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 1:3,
NRSV, underlining added)
God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and
seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and
authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not
only in this age but also in the age to come. (Ephesians 1:20, NRSV,
underlining added)
[God] made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved —
and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in
Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:5-6, NRSV, underlining added)
Through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made
known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 3:10,
NRSV, underlining added)
For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the
rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present
darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Ephesians
6:12, NRSV, underlining added)
The enthronement of Christ
The key passage that describes the enthronement and introduces its role is [Ephesians]
1:19b-23:
in accordance with the working of the strength of His might, which He
brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him
at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and
power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but
also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet,
and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the
fullness of Him who fills all in all. (NASB)
Several observations are pertinent to the meaning of this text:
(1) The lordship to which Christ is exalted is seen as completed. All things are declared
to be under his feet (v 22).
(2) The church in view is the cosmic, universal church, seen in its completeness (vv
22f; cf. 3:21; 5:23ff). The focus is on the church as a single and complete body already
united in all respects to its head and filled to fullness by him. (Penner (1983))
Christ’s heavenly enthronement and reign
Eph. 1.20 Paul proclaims that God has raised Christ from the dead and seated Christ at
God’s right hand in the heavenlies.
In order to emphasize the unique rule and authority granted to Christ, Paul draws upon
and alludes to two psalms — Ps. 110 and Ps. 8. Early Christian writers frequently
exploited Ps. 110 to communicate the exalted status and power of Christ. (Brannon
(2011), 117)
God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and
seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and
authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not
only in this age but also in the age to come. And he has put all things under
78
his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his
body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:20-23, NRSV)
Christ’s resurrection proclaims that he lives forever and his exaltation or
enthronement proclaims that he reigns forever
Within Jewish literature and tradition, there was often an expectation of resurrection
but not necessarily enthronement. The idea of resurrection from the dead was therefore
not equated with enthronement or exaltation. In the case of Christ then, his resurrection
from the dead by itself does not prove his Messiahship or his status as the exalted Lord.
Rather, Christ’s resurrection proclaims that he lives forever and his exaltation or
enthronement proclaims that he reigns forever. In this sense, the resurrection and
ascension/exaltation should be understood as two distinct events; however, many New
Testament writers do indeed at times seem to associate closely and even unite these two
events (e.g. Eph. 1.20). (Brannon (2011), 121)
In Paul’s description of Jesus’ exaltation and sovereignty, the things to
be subjected to Jesus encompass all other dimensions of reality
A third noteworthy feature of Paul’s messianic Christology is the cosmic dimension to
Jesus’ exaltation and appointed rule. …
Paul also reflects an early Christian reading of Psalm 8 as prefiguring the Messiah,
citing, particularly, the reference in this psalm to God’s putting “all things” in
subjection to Christ (1 Cor. 15:25–28, citing Ps. 8:6). But in Paul’s description of Jesus’
exaltation and sovereignty, the things to be subjected to Jesus extend beyond the
worldwide to encompass all other dimensions of reality as well. …
The form of messianism reflected in Paul seems more encompassing, more truly
universal on a cosmic scale than, at least, some other expressions of messianic rule,
with all dimensions of reality to be subjected to Jesus. (Hurtado (2016), 113-114)
The exalted Jesus is the rightful co-recipient of devotional practice
In Paul’s letters the exalted Jesus is programmatically treated as the rightful co-recipient
of devotional practice (including corporate worship), along with God.17 (Hurtado
(2016), 118)
By connecting the messianological theme with the ascent structure,
Christology gave totally new meaning to the world of Jewish theology
The exceptional feature of Christology, in comparison to Jewish mysticism, is the
connecting of that messianological pattern or theme with the apocalyptic ascent
structure.
Jesus as a Davidide has been exalted on the throne of Glory in the heavenly Holy of
Holies in his resurrection. For this kind of messianology we have no exact parallel in
Jewish theology.18 …
The conception found in early Christology is unique. It reveals a new discourse where
terms and expressions that have been taken from the symbolic world of Jewish theology
have been given a new meaning. …
17
Collins (Scepter and the Star, 208) posited that “the most significant Christian departure from Jewish notions
of the messiah was the affirmation of the divinity of Christ, comprising claims that eventually went beyond
anything we find in the Jewish texts”. (Hurtado (2016), 118, footnote 41)
18
For instance, Charlesworth has pointed out that the concept of ‘Messiah’ was not simple and self-evident in
the first-century Judaism. Charlesworth, Judaisms, 228ff. (Eskola (2001), 331, footnote 24)
79
The symbolic world is mostly common to both Jewish apocalyptic and early
Christology. This, however, does not mean that the essential meaning of Christology
could be derived completely from that Jewish background. (Eskola (2001), 331, 332)
The Davidic Messiah was no longer an earthly figure but now is
enthroned at the right hand of God, reigning as a heavenly king and Lord
Christological descriptions in early kerygmatic statements, homologies, and hymns are
quite unique. They present Christ as a Davidic Messiah who has been enthroned on the
heavenly throne “at the right hand” of God.
The Davidide is no longer an earthly figure. He is messianic, though, and as a heavenly
king and Lord he reigns on the throne. He is the head of heavenly hosts and he is being
worshiped as the divine Son of God. He is not like an angel, he is like a king. The
descriptions are not angelic or angelomorphic. They are royal and messianic. (Eskola
(2001), 333)
The messianic symbol was given a new meaning in a new discourse
The so-called messianic symbol, the figure of the Davidide, is given new exact meaning
in terms of the new discourse. The symbol as such is familiar to most Jewish thinkers,
but the new interpretation is based on a particular transformation of earlier ideas.
This new description of the exalted Davidide appears frequently in christological
statements. (Eskola (2001), 343)
The christological transformation of traditional messianism is
exceptional
What is exceptional in early Christology, however, with regard to Jewish theology, is
the christological transformation of traditional messianism. The new Davidide will not
reign in David’s city, Jerusalem. The first Christians presented a transcendental
interpretation of the enthronement of the Davidide. His power is heavenly power and
his reign is eternal reign in the kingdom of God. (Eskola (2001), 349)
Belief in Jesus as the divine Son of God resulted from combining the
theme of Messiah’s enthronement and the eschatological resurrection
What, then, could explain the emergence of the belief in Jesus as the divine Son of God
in power? … The developing of such belief did not need any concept of divine
prototype in Jewish theology. The conception of Jesus as a divine Son Of God is
grounded on Christian merkabah speculation working on subtexts such as Psalm 110.
It is simply a result of the original feature of early Christology, namely of the combining
of the theme of Messiah’s enthronement and the eschatological event of the resurrection
of the dead. (Eskola (2001), 366)
The unique status of Christ was new
The confessing of Christ as Lord realizes simultaneously the core of Jewish devotion –
faith in and faithfulness to God as a heavenly King. … From the point of view of
traditional Judaism, it is quite daring.
Such new interpretation did not threaten traditional Jewish concept of God as King,
however. The status of God himself had not changed. What is new is the unique status
of Christ. (Eskola (2001), 370-371)
Believers share in the Heavenlies
Believers already share in heavenly reality
In Eph. 1.3-14, not only do we find an intimate connection between believers’ union
with Christ and sharing in the blessings of the Holy Spirit, but we also find a connection
between believers’ union with Christ, the blessings of the Spirit, and believers sharing
80
in heavenly reality. It is interesting to note here that no other New Testament passage
speaks explicitly of heavenly blessing. (Brannon (2011), 112 – underlining added)
Believers have been raised up and are seated with Christ in the
heavenlies
In Eph. 1.15-23 Paul writes of the death, resurrection, and present reign of Christ over
his enemies and the church. In 2.1-10, through some remarkable statements, Paul
applies these very themes to those who are ‘in Christ’. Indeed, the most astonishing
statement and the one that has been the most troublesome for New Testament scholars
is Paul’s declaration that believers have been raised up and seated with Christ ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουρανίοις [in the heavenlies]. (Brannon (2011), 127 – underlining added)
Believers are seated in the heavenlies with Christ
Eph 2 is critical for a proper understanding of how believers are seated in the heavenlies
with Christ. Since it is obvious that Paul refers to a spiritual death in Eph 2:1-5, as
opposed to the physical death of Christ in Eph 1:20, we should similarly not expect
believers to be raised up and seated in the heavenlies physically but rather spiritually
(i.e. by or through the Holy Spirit).
Such an understanding is consistent with both Paul’s “already, not yet” eschatological
paradigm and Paul’s view on the role of the Holy Spirit in this eschatological tension.
While at present believers have been raised up and seated with Christ in the heavenlies
through the Holy Spirit and as a result of their union with Christ, they still look forward
to the future consummation and completion of these acts in the future. (Brannon (2011),
176)
The enthronement of believers in the heavenly places in Christ
In Ephesians 2, believers become the enthroned ones by being drawn into the exaltation
of Christ. Formerly they were dead in sins … but now God … has quickened them
through Christ, raised them up, and seated them together in the heavenly places in
Christ Jesus (2:4-6).
In Ephesians “the heavenlies” appear to be a sphere of existence in which the exalted
Christ is sovereign Lord, far above all other powers and authorities, and functions as
head of the church (1:20f). Believers enter this realm through union with Christ (2:6).
…
The heavenlies are therefore a sphere of spiritual reality in which believers come to
partake even while they still live on earth. The heavenly life in Christ becomes theirs
through the enthroned Christ already in this age. …
The cosmic church, the body of Christ, is already seated in the heavenly places in Christ
(2:6) and as such enjoys the commensurate benefits. (Penner (1983))
81
THE CHRISTOS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
The Messiah of Mark
Mark: Jesus replied with reserve when Simon Peter called him the
Messiah, responding with teaching about the Son of Man
According to Mk. 8:27-33 and par[allels], … Simon Peter calls Jesus the Messiah. …
Jesus’ attitude to the designation is one of reserve, and He replies with teaching about
the Son of Man who must suffer many things and be rejected. (Grundmann (1974), 529)
Mark applied the designation “Christ” in a more nuanced way, differently
from Paul
The Gospel of Mark uses “Christ” at its beginning in the same way as it appears in
Paul’s letters. … However, in the narrative itself the designation “Christ” is applied to
Jesus in a more nuanced way. (Schröter, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
In Mark, Messiah is not interpreted against the background of the Jewish
texts
In Mark 8:29 Peter’s response to Jesus’ question, “But who do you say that I am?” is
“You are the Messiah.” This confession makes sense only if Peter interprets Jesus’
power over the demons, his healings, his teaching about the kingdom of God, etc. – i.e.,
how Mark has depicted Jesus so far – as indications that Jesus is “the Christ” (ὁ
Χριστός). Within the Markan narrative the designation “Christ” is therefore not
interpreted to begin with against the background of the Jewish texts mentioned above.
(Schröter, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
Mark: Jesus is the exalted Lord, not the Son of David
In a dispute with the Sadducees, the Markan Jesus by quoting Psalm 109:1 LXX
emphasizes that the Christ is not the Son of David, but the exalted Lord (12:35–37).
This episode points to a possible misunderstanding of “Christ” in relation to Jesus. He
will not act as the Davidic messiah as described in Pss. Sol. He will therefore also not
fulfill the expectations of the crowd that welcomed him at his entry into Jerusalem
shouting, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming
kingdom of our father David!” (Mic 11:9–10).
Instead, Jesus as Christ acts in God’s authority on earth, he will suffer, die and rise
again (Mark 8:31; 9,31; 10:33–34), he will be exalted to the right hand of God and
return as judge at the end of time. The latter aspect becomes clear at Jesus’ interrogation
by the high priest. Jesus answers the question of the high priest “Are you the Messiah
(ὁ χριστός), the Son of the Blessed One?” by saying: “I am; and you will see the Son
of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
(14:61).
The designation “Messiah” is interpreted in this dialogue by two other expressions: “Son
of the Most High” (or “Son of God”) refers to Jesus’ exclusive relationship with God;
“Son of Man” alludes to Dan 7:13 and refers to Jesus’ return as judge in final judgement
(cf. also 8:38 and 13:26). (Schröter, https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr)
Jesus’ suffering brought a new concept of Messiahship
In the ministering lordship which includes suffering, … Mark 8:33, there dawns a new
concept of Messiahship. This prevents Jesus from letting Himself be called the Messiah,
since if He were, it could only promote misunderstanding of His mission. (Grundmann
(1974), 538)
82
The Christos of the Synoptic Gospels
The Gospel of Mark does not designate Jesus as Messiah very often
In the oldest of the four Gospels, Mark, Jesus is indeed Messiah, but the designation is
problematic. … The Gospel of Mark uses the name or title Christ in fact quite sparingly
(seven times), and even if one includes the titles Son of David (used in two passages)
and King of Israel (used only in the passion narrative), which are certainly messianic
titles, or such expressions as “the kingdom of our father David” (11:10), the
designations of Jesus as Messiah are not frequent. (MacRae (1987), 173, 174)
Mark reinterpreted the Messiah in terms of the Son of Man
The preference of Mark for the title Son of Man over Messiah – or perhaps we should
say Mark’s reinterpretation of the Messiah in terms of the Son of Man – is at the heart
of Mark’s Gospel. (MacRae (1987), 175)
At most places where christos appears in Mark, there is a misconception
of Jesus’ role in the purpose of God
Of the seven places where christos appears in [the Gospel of] Mark, all but two are
uttered by those who do not understand what Jesus’ mission is, or who are hostile
toward it. The first exception is in the title of the Gospel, Mark 1:1, the second is in
Jesus’ promise of a reward for those who give aid to his emissaries; that is, to “those
who bear the name of Christ” (9:41).
Elsewhere, whether it is the declaration of Peter (8:29), the question of the scribes about
the relationship of Messiah to David (12:35), the false messianic claimants in the
eschaton (13:21), the question of the High Priest (14:61), or the mockers of Jesus on
the cross (15:32), the use of the term betrays a misconception of Jesus’ role in the
purpose of God. (Kee (1987), 200)
Peter’s confession is a redaction by Mark, rather than coming from
Christ
The confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi, “You are the Christ” ([Mark] 8:29), is
followed by the injunction of Jesus to keep this issue secret. … However one
understands this motif in detail, it belongs to the level of Markan redaction rather than
to that of the historical Jesus. (MacRae (1987), 176)
Jesus condemned Peter for declaring Jesus was the Messiah
To refer to Peter’s statement as a “confession” is almost a contradiction in terms, since
it is clear from what he reportedly says immediately following his announcement that
Jesus is the Messiah that he does not understand who Jesus is, or what God is doing
through him, or who God’s people are, or what their destiny is. (Kee (1987), 206)
Mark was determined not to emphasize continuity with Judaism’s
messianic expectations
Only in terms of the suffering, dying, rising Son of Man do Christians confess Jesus as
the Messiah. Since this corrective is for Mark a summary of the heart of the Christian
gospel, it is clear that Jesus is the Messiah only on Christian terms. Mark’s purpose is
not to emphasize the continuity with the messianic expectations of Judaism. (MacRae
(1987), 176)
83
The Messiah of Matthew

Matthew presented a new Messianic understanding
For Matthew, the work of Jesus comes under the rubric of the new Messianic
understanding. (Grundmann (1974), 538)
Matthew’s and Luke’s understanding of Messiah and Son of David was
not confined to Jewish precedents
Both Matthew and Luke have no hesitation about using the designation Messiah and
related terms such as Son of David. They have no quarrel with these Jewish categories,
even though their understanding of them is not confined to Jewish precedents. (MacRae
(1987), 179)
Matthew reconstructed the concept of the Messiah in terms of Jesus’
history
Under the influence of the concept of the Messianic prophet, Matthew’s reconstruction
of the concept of the Messiah in terms of the history of Jesus is brought to completion.
(Grundmann (1974), 532)
Matthew adopted and expanded the Χριστός passages in the earlier
Gospel of Mark
The Evangelist Matthew adopts the χριστός (christos) passages of Mk. (Mt. 16:16:
22:42: 24:23f; 26:23) and augments them by further development. Thus, in [Matthew]
16:20 the disciples are expressly forbidden to tell anyone ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός (that
he is the Christ). M[atthew] maintains, then, something that is left open in M[ar]k.,
namely, that Jesus accepted the confession of Peter and that He is the Messiah.
In the warning against false teachers (24:5) [Matthew] expands the statement of those
who come in the name of Jesus from Ἐγώ εἰμι (I am) to Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Χριστός. In so doing
He establishes self-revelation by the title and assimilates it to Mt. 24:23 par. Mk. 13:21.
Similarly, the confession before the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26:64) is adopted by the scoffers
(26:68) with the use of Χριστέ, which is not found in Mk. (Grundmann (1974), 531)
Matthew: Jesus was the “Son of David”
[Matthew] emphasizes that [Jesus] was sent by God to his people as Son of David
([Matthew] 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30). For Matthew the activity of Jesus as “Christ”
is therefore closely related to the fulfillment of the Scriptures. (Schröter,
For Matthew, the title Son of Man was not a messianic title
Though [Matthew and Luke] continue to use the title Son of Man, they see no special
christological significance in it as, in different ways, did Mark and John. Indeed, for
Matthew the expression sometimes seems to be little more than a substitute for “I” in
the sayings of Jesus. It is not itself a special messianic title. (MacRae (1987), 179)
Matthew modified the traditional Jewish messianic expectations
The intention of Matthew to situate the gospel in the line of Jewish messianic
expectation is unmistakable; the point is to see how he modifies the traditional
expectations. … [Matthew] interprets the role of the Messiah without reference to the
liberation of the Jewish people from foreign domination but only with reference to
spiritual qualities. (MacRae (1987), 179, 180)
Jeremiah said the ideal king would be a descendant of David, but not
through Jehoiachin
A century later, Jeremiah was still looking for the coming of an ideal king, the righteous
Branch whom Yahweh will raise up “for David” (Jer. 23:5f.). His reign again will be
84
characterized by justice and peace, and there is a hint of charismatic endowment in the
prediction that he will “deal wisely”.
Difficult to reconcile with this obviously traditional picture is Jer. 22:30, where it is
stated roundly of Coniah (=Jehoiachin), the next-to-last Davidic king, that
none of his offspring
shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David,
and ruling again in Judah. …
The prophet is saying that the future ideal king, though descended from David, will not
be descended from him through the line of Jehoiachin, but via another line. (Fuller
(1965), 25)
Jeremiah condemned Jehoiachin Matthew included Jehoiachin in

and his successor Jesus’ ancestry
Is this man Coniah a despised broken pot, An account of the genealogy of Jesus the
a vessel no one wants? Messiah, the son of David, the son of
Why are he and his offspring hurled out Abraham. …
and cast away in a land that they do not know? … and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his
O land, land, land, brothers, at the time of the deportation to
hear the word of the LORD! Babylon.
Thus says the LORD: And after the deportation to Babylon:
Record this man as childless, Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and
a man who shall not succeed in his days; Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel …
for none of his offspring shall succeed (Matthew 1:11-12, NRSV)
in sitting on the throne of David,
and ruling again in Judah.
(Jeremiah 22:24-30, NRSV)
The resolution is that Jesus was never a king (a “Messiah” in Old Testament terminology); he never
sat on the throne of David; and he lived and ministered in Galilee, not in Judah.
But he was an offspring of the man deemed to be childless.
The Messiah of Luke

Luke differed from Matthew’s handling of the Messiah in a usage that is
peculiar in the New Testament to Luke
Luke, who differs plainly from Mt. in his treatment of the question of the Messiah, takes
over three Christ passages from Mk. (9:20; 20:41; 22:67), two with the abs[olute] ὁ
Χριστός (the Christ) ([Luke] 20:41; 22:67), the other in the phrase Τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ (the Christ of God) (9:20). This usage, which follows that of the OT, is peculiar
to Lk in the NT. (Grundmann (1974), 532)
Luke’s usage of Messiah corresponded more closely to Jewish usage
than do any other New Testament instances
What is most distinctive of Lukan usage is that he combines the title [messiah] with a
genitive of God in several instances: the “Lord’s Messiah” in Luke 2:26 and Acts 4:26
and the “Messiah of God” in Luke 9:20 and 23:35. This corresponds much more closely
to Jewish usage than any other New Testament instances of the titular Christos.
(MacRae (1987), 181)
Luke’s narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection reveals his
reconstruction of the concept of the Messiah in terms of Jesus
Luke’s picture of the Messiah is decisively shaped by the crucifixion and the
resurrection of Jesus. The reconstruction of the concept of the Messiah in terms of the
history of Jesus may again be descried [ascertained; detected, observed]. (Grundmann
(1974), 532)
85
Luke used Christos as a title and as a name

Luke uses Christos as a title a dozen times each in the Gospel and in Acts, and
frequently also as a name of Jesus in Acts. (MacRae (1987), 181)
Luke indicates that the disciples hoped for a political redeemer
In the Book of Acts, Luke indicates that the disciples continued to hope that the risen Jesus
would perform the role Israel’s political redeemer rather than primarily a spiritual savior:
“So when they met together, they asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to
restore the kingdom to Israel?’” (Acts 1:6). (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
Luke’s identification of Son of God with Messiah makes it difficult to
identify when Jesus became Messiah
That Luke wishes to portray Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews or of Israel is beyond
question. The problem is to determine when in Luke’s thinking Jesus assumes this role.
Because Luke, like the other evangelists, identifies the Messiah with the Son of God,
the problem is only compounded. Does Jesus become Messiah at his birth or conception
(as implied in Luke 1:32; 2:11, 26), or at his baptism (Luke 3:22, especially if the
correct text reads “today I have begotten you,” Ps. 2:7), or at his resurrection (Acts
13:33ff.), or at his ascension/exaltation (Acts 2:36), or – finally – at his second coming
(Acts 3:20)? Some of these options can be explained, but in any case, Luke does not
seem confident about the issue. (MacRae (1987), 181-182)
Luke reinterpreted the Messiah with its emphasis on Jesus’ suffering
The most distinctive element of the Lukan reinterpretation of the Messiah is the
emphasis on his suffering as a necessity imposed by the divine ordering of salvation
history. (MacRae (1987), 183)
86
87
THE CHRIST OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
In John’s Gospel, the confession of Jesus’ Messianic identity was made
on their terms
The messianic identity of Jesus is not primarily an issue within the Johannine
community itself, … but an issue between the Johannine Christians and their fellow
Jews. … The [Fourth] Gospel reflects a profound controversy with the synagogue in
the recent past of the community. The clue is often seen in John 9:22. …
The Gospel very explicitly reflects the debate with the synagogue in three further
passages about how Jesus can qualify as Messiah: 7:25-44; 10:24-25; 12:34-3. …
There is no question about the general thrust of his argument: Jesus is indeed rightly
confessed as the Messiah by the Christians, but principally on their own terms.
(MacRae (1987), 177)
The Fourth Gospel reinterpreted the understanding of Messiah
The Johannine church wants to insist that Jesus qualifies as Messiah without fulfilling
the requirements. The concept has become a radically transcendent one. …
In the Fourth Gospel, not only is the understanding of Messiah reinterpreted
polemically over against the Jews, but it also reflects inner-Christian debates. The
evangelist also wants to establish an acceptance of faith in Jesus as Messiah on the basis
of his revealing word and not his miraculous activity. (MacRae (1987), 178)
The Messiah of the Fourth Gospel is almost unique
The Johannine Messiah shares relatively little with the Jewish and even other Christian
concepts of Messiah in that the eschatological dimension of the messianic role is
diminished, if not eliminated. (MacRae (1987), 178)
John’s reinterpretation of the Messiah is shown by his connecting
“Messiah” with “Son” and with the “I am” sayings
In the connecting of the Messiah with the Son and in the “I am” sayings, his relation to
the Jewish and Christian tradition and his reinterpretation may be clearly seen.
(Grundmann (1974), 566)
The Gospel presents several debates, including with those who
considered the Baptist to be the Messiah
The use of χριστός as a title or predicate of the Revealer makes it apparent that the
Evangelist is engaged in various debates. … One debate is with followers of the Baptist
who see in John the Baptist the Messiah. … The debate with followers of John the
Baptist controls the depiction of John in 1:6-8, 15, 19-37; 3:22-36; 5:31-36; 10:40-42.
(Grundmann (1974), 566, including Footnote 471)
For John, the Messiah is the Son of God, the King of Israel, Son of Man,
and recipient of the Spirit of God
For John, the Messiah is the one who was promised by Moses and the prophets and
whom the disciples found in Jesus. Nathanael Himself characterises this Messiah in the
words: “Master, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel”, 1:49.
Jesus Himself catches up this statement in His saying about the Son of Man in 1:51.
The combining of Messiah and Son of Man continues and develops a similar
combination pioneered in the Apocalypse of Enoch.
The Messiah is thus the kingly Messiah. He is the Son of God and Son of Man. He is
the Messiah because He receives the Spirit of God, 1:33. …
88
The Christ of the Fourth Gospel
It belongs to [Jesus’] Messiahship that He is God’s Son (1:49; 11:27; 20:31). … The
precedence of divine sonship over Messiahship makes it clear that Jesus is the Messiah
because He is God’s Son. (Grundmann (1974), 567, including footnote 474; page 569)
For John, Jesus was the concealed, hidden Messiah
John brings Jesus into the discussion of His Messiahship which is going on among the
Jews. Reflected here are the debates between Jews and Christians at the time when the
Gospel was written [at the conclusion of the first century].
The Jews object to His birth at Nazareth and they champion the view that the origin of
the Messiah will be a secret, 7:26f., cf. 1:46; 6:41f. …
In answer to the claim that the Messiah is concealed before His manifestation19, Jesus
appeals to His sending by the Father, whom the Jews do not know, 7:28f. He is in fact
the hidden Messiah (cf. 2:24). (Grundmann (1974), 568)
Confession of Jesus gives a new shape to the concept of Messiahship
When some confess Him as the Messiah, the Jews object on scriptural grounds to the
fact that He comes from Galilee μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ Χριστὸς ἔρχεται (not indeed
out of Galilee the Christ comes). … Their dogmatic conviction is a hindrance to their
recognition of Jesus. But this is a further indication that confession of Jesus gives a
basically new shape to the concept of Messiahship. (Grundmann (1974), 568)
John laid out his meaning of Messiah
The fact that Jesus does not openly tell the Jews that He is the Messiah and that this
causes constant debate about His Messiahship leads to the urgent demand: Ἕως πότε
τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν αἴρεις; εἰ σὺ εἰ ὁ Χριστός, εἰπὲ ἡμῖν παρρησίᾳ (Until when the soul of
us hold You in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly) [John] 10:24. In the reply,
it is plain how the Evangelist forms and understands confession of the Messiahship of
Jesus. …
Being the Messiah means that Jesus leads His own, who receive life by listening to His
Word in faith and who are united to Him as His community. His Messiahship is set
forth under the metaphor of the Shepherd whose power is superior to the destructive
force of death and of the ruler of this world. … This Messiahship is linked with His
death and His exaltation and He expresses it in the “I am” sayings. (Grundmann (1974),
569)
19 The doctrine of the hiddenness of the Messiah or Son of Man is apocryphal in origin, as may be seen from 4 Esr. 13:52.
Gnosticism adopted and developed it in relation of the Gnostic Redeemer. (Grundmann (1974), 568, footnote 479)
89
THE SAMARITAN’S “MESSIAH” (TAHEB)
Samaria was located to the south of Galilee, where Yeshua lived and preached, and to the north of
Judea.
By the time Yeshua was preaching, the Samarians had accepted the writings attributed to Moses,
although their version did not contain precisely the same words.
The Samarians had no Davidic heritage; they did not accept the Jews’ Davidic dynasty; nor did they
accept the Jews’ Davidic messianism. The Samarians looked forward to a coming prophet who was
fashioned after Moses, not David. The coming of the Samarians’ prophet, named Taheb, was to have
very different outcomes than the impact of the Jews’ coming messianic age.
============
While Yeshua was travelling through Samaria, he encountered a Samarian woman at a well. In the story
provided by the Fourth Gospel, the woman discusses the Samarian’s expectations, and Yeshua told her
that he is indeed the prophet that Moses had expected.
At the time of Yeshua, Samaritans held a messianic expectation
That there was messianic expectation among the Samaritans at the time of Jesus is
confirmed by Josephus, who records that during the tenure of Pilate (26-36 C.E.) a
Samaritan messianic movement at Mt. Gerizim was suppressed by the Romans
(Josephus, Antiquities,18.85-87).
The Samaritan’s messiah was founded on Moses
The waiting of the Samaritans being founded on Deuteronomy 18:18, the Messiah is in
their view a Moses who returns.20
20 The Samaritan View of the Messiah (biblehub.com) accessed 6 September 2022
90
The Samaritan’s “Messiah” (Taheb)
91
The Samaritan messianic expectation, derived from Deut. 18:15-22, was

for a prophet like Moses
Practically the whole content of Samaritan Messianic prophecy appears to be derived
from Deut. xviii. 15-22, in which the Messiah is a prophet like unto Moses, raised up
from among the people, and one of their own brethren. (Jacob ben Aaron (1906), Kindle
Locations 412-413).
The Samaritan equivalent is the Taheb, the Restorer
The Samaritan prophet may be called a Messiah, because he announced the restoration
of the cult in the Samarian temple, which was on Mount Gerizim. But he was not a
Messiah in its original sense, because that is a Jewish concept. The Samaritan
equivalent is the Taheb, the Restorer-prophet “like Moses“ announced in Deuteronomy
18.15-18.21
For the Samaritans, Moses is the Taheb (“Restorer”), the expected
messiah-like eschatological figure who will bring about a golden age
The Samaritans looked upon Moses as the most perfect of men, without any blemish at
all, whether physical or moral, a priest among angels, one for whose sake the very world
had been created. Far from being the amanuensis22 that he seems to be in the rabbinic
tradition, Moses is termed by the Samaritans the light of knowledge and understanding,
whose ascent to Mount Sinai is said to have taken him to the very heart of heaven (see
MacDonald 1960, 153-54).
In addition to the laws intended for ordinary mankind, he received esoteric knowledge
to be transmitted solely to men of deep spiritual insight. It is Moses who, on G-d’s
behalf or acting as spokesman for G-d, pronounced the creative words “Let there be
light.” He, unlike all other creatures, is said to have been in existence prior to the initial
creation process; and, indeed, like the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel, he was created in
order to function as G-d’s creative agent. He is the great intercessor, and only through
him can prayer be accepted.
Moreover, for the Samaritans, Moses is the Taheb (“Restorer”), the expected messiah-
like eschatological figure who will bring about a golden age and will pray for the guilty
and save them.
The Samaritans alone give prominence to the title “man of G-d” for Moses; and, indeed,
their depiction of Moses is highly reminiscent of the New Testament’s description of
Jesus as the first begotten being, whose preexistent bodiless state subsequently takes on
matter. Moses is a second G-d, G-d’s vice-regent upon earth (Memar Marqah23 1.2),
whose very name includes the title “Elokim” (G-d) (Memar Marqah 5.4), so that he
who believes in him believes in his L-rd (Memar Marqah 4.7). …
This exaltation of Moses (as MacDonald 1960, 149-62), has remarked, is a unique
Samaritan doctrine, without parallel in Jewish, Christian, or Moslem belief. (Feldman
(1998), 397, footnote 47)
The Samaritan woman relied on the Torah (Moses) to define her
Messiah-like figure
The official Samaritan religion, at least as far as we know from much later sources, did
not include any prophetic writings, which means the Samaritan woman would have
only Torah to rely upon in her definition of a Messiah-like figure.
21
The Samaritan Prophet - Livius accessed 18 September 2022
22 Amanuensis: a literary or artistic assistant, in particular one who takes dictation or copies manuscripts
23 The Memar Marqah, or The teaching of Marqah, is a Samarian homiletic tractate. It was written in Samarian Aramaic by
the Samaritan scholar, philosopher and poet, Marqah in the 4th century AD. (Wikipedia, Marqua, Marqah - Wikipedia
accessed 18 September 2022)
92
The woman said, ‘I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he
comes, he will explain/teach everything to us.’
We read in Deuteronomy 18:18-19, that is perfectly consistent with what the woman
said:
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will
put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I
myself will call him to account. (Lizorkin-Eyzenberg (2019), 54, Kindle
Edition)
Christ and the Woman of Samaria 1681

Pierre Mignard
The Samaritans’ expectations of the coming Messiah were different to
the Jews’ expectations
Did the Samaritans believe in a coming Messiah? Yes, but with different expectations
than the Jews. The Samaritans only accepted the Torah—the five books of Moses—as
scripture, and thus rejected the Jewish Writings and Prophets, which contain many of
the messianic prophecies used by Christians.
For the Samaritans, the expected one was called the Taheb (“he who comes” or “he
who restores”), and their messianic expectation was based largely on the prophecy of
Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 of a coming “prophet like Moses.”24
The Samaritan Taheb (“Messiah”) would be the second coming of
Moses, not the second coming of David
There are two definitions of messiah; one from the gospels and another from the
Samaritans. The gospels expound the Judean, or southern tradition, that the messiah
would be the second coming of David (Ezekiel 37) while the Samaritan, or northern
tradition, held that the messiah or taheb, would be the second coming of Moses.25
24 Samaritans and Signs: John 4:27-54 (patheos.com) accessed 6 September 2022

25 Jesus, the Samaritan Messiah (Taheb) | Arabian Prophets accessed 17 September 2022
93
The throne of David plays no part in the Samaritans’ hope

The Samaritan hope is not colored by any of the Jewish memories of the throne of
David. (Jacob ben Aaron (1906), Kindle Location 324)
The Samaritan woman knew that the Taheb was coming, without any
thought of King David, Messiah (Hebrew), or Christ (Greek)
The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called
Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” (John 4:25,
NRSV)
This can only mean the Taheb, since the Samaritans did not believe in a “Messiah” as
such. Remember that their Bible was limited to the five books of Moses and did not
include the prophetic books and psalms from which the idea of the Messiah arose. The
basic idea of the Messiah was that he would be a second King David, and the titles
Messiah and Christ both refer to the anointing that was part of a Hebrew king’s
coronation ceremony.
The Samaritans, who (according to their own history) separated from the Jews in the
days of the judges, before David or any of the other kings, had never been David’s
people and were not anticipating the coming of a second David.26
The promise of the Second Kingdom in the Samaritan Torah is not found
in the Torah of the Jews
The reference concerning the establishment of the Second Kingdom, affirming the
appearance of “THBH” or a Prophet at the end of time of whose appearance we have a
promise, is found in Ex. xx, in the last verses, which are not found in the Torah of the
Jews. It reads,
‘‘They said well, Let their consciences uphold my fear, and the keeping of
my commandments, all the time: so that it may be done well unto them and
their children. I shall set up for them a prophet from among their brethren,
like unto thee, and I shall put my words into his mouth and he shall speak to
them all that I command him. And it shall be that the man who harkens not to
the words which he speaks, I shall make him thereto responsible.”
These words concern the prophet in whose coming we believe. (Jacob ben Aaron (1906)
Kindle Locations 154-161).
Samaritans of Yeshua’s time expected a great Teacher-prophet, not the
Jewish-Israelite King and Priest
Though a later Samaritan text speaks of a Messiah-like figure (Taheb, Marqah Memar27
4:7, 12), the Samaritans of Jesus’ time only expected a great teacher-prophet. The
“Messiah” as King and Priest was a Jewish Israelite, and not a Samaritan Israelite
concept, as far as we know. For that reason, the reply of the Samaritan woman shows
this was not an imaginary or symbolic conversation (“he will explain everything to us”).
(Lizorkin-Eyzenberg (2019), 54, Kindle Edition)
The Samaritan Messianic hope was of victory, with a tranquil religious
rule
the Samaritans do not look for any vicarious sacrifice on the part of their Messiah. His
career, when he comes, would appear to be one of victory and tranquil rule, primarily
26 Fourth Gospel First: Jesus and the Samaritan woman (Notes on John 4:1-26) accessed 17 September 2022
27
The Memar Marqah, or The teaching of Marqah, is a Samarian homiletic tractate. It was written in Samarian Aramaic
by the Samaritan scholar, philosopher and poet, Marqah in the 4th century AD. (Wikipedia, Marqua, Marqah - Wikipedia
accessed 18 September 2022)
94
religious, but with some political significance. (Jacob ben Aaron (1906). Kindle
Locations 409-411)
Samaritans looked for a coming Prophet, and the Samaritan woman
called Yeshua a “Prophet”
The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. (John 4:19, NRSV)
This is a much stronger statement coming from a Samaritan than from a Jew, as the
Samaritans acknowledged only one prophet, Moses -- with a second one (or perhaps a
return of the first) to come in the future. This was the Taheb, the prophet like unto
Moses, whose coming is prophesied in Deuteronomy 18, and belief in whom was a
pillar of the Samaritan religion.28
Yeshua’s first claim to be the Promised Prophet was thus made in an
isolated place away from Galilee, to a person holding different concepts
Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.” (John 4:26,
NRSV)
This is this Gospel’s first record of Jesus’ making a direct claim to be the Messiah, and
it is interesting that this momentous declaration was made in an isolated place, with no
witnesses, to a Samaritan who may have had a very different understanding of what
“Messiah” meant. In context, Jesus is not here claiming to be the Messiah of the Psalms
and prophetic writings but rather the prophet like unto Moses.
He would later repeat this claim publicly, in the Jerusalem Temple:
Your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed
Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. (John 5:45-46, NRSV).
Quite conceivably, the woman actually said “Taheb” and this was
amended by the author or by a later editor
The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called
Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” (John 4:25,
NRSV)
The Samaritans anticipated the coming of the Taheb, the prophet like unto Moses. The
Jews did, too, and they also anticipated the coming of two other figures: Elijah and the
Messiah. So while we today might naturally describe the Taheb as “the Samaritan
Messiah,” it seems unlikely that a first-century Samaritan would have drawn that
equivalence.
Another possibility is that the woman actually said “Taheb,” and that this was amended
by the author or by a later editor on the grounds that it would be easier for most readers
to understand.29
To Yeshua’s disciples also he was the expected prophet announced by
Moses
In Deut 18[:15-22], the Hebrews were told that God would raise up a prophet for them
like Moses. … In Acts 3:22, Peter quoted Moses saying,
“The LORD your God will raise up for you from your people a prophet like
me. You must listen to whatever he tells you.”
To Peter and the rest of Jesus’s disciples, Jesus was the expected prophet announced by
Moses. (Beresh (2016), 14, 15)
95
THE CHRIST OF ACTS
Luke wrote that Paul presented a new Messianic doctrine
When Paul visits Thessalonica we are told that for three sabbaths he reasoned with the
synagogue congregation
ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν (from the Scriptures, writings/literature), διελέξατο καὶ
παρατιθέμενος ὅτι τὸν Χριστὸν ἔδει παθεῖν, καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ ὅτι
Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὃν ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν. (he [Paul]
reasoned and setting forth that the Christ it behooved to have suffered, and
to have risen out of [the] dead, and that this is the Christ, the Jesus, whom
I preached to you.) (Acts) 17:2f.
This statement shows that Paul presented a new Messianic doctrine in the synagogue
and that he supported it from Scripture. (Grundmann (1974), 536; bold added)
Luke never tires of showing that the reality of Jesus produced a new
understanding of the Messiah
Acts preserves an essential methodological element in Paul’s missionary witness which
makes it clear, as Luke never tires of showing, that the reality of Jesus has produced a
new understanding of what the Messiah is. (Grundmann (1974), 536)
The citizens of Jerusalem were not forced to believe that Jesus had
been, or was, the Messiah or the Christ
Note the numerous titles employed by Luke (according to Acts):
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers,
glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence
of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and
Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the
Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. (Acts 3:13-15; Revised
Standard Version; italics [are by Charlesworth])
According to this kerygma the citizens of Jerusalem are not forced to believe that Jesus
had been, or is, the Messiah or the Christ. (Charlesworth (1987), 253)
THE CHRIST OF JOHN’S EPISTLES

The divine sonship takes precedence, which is a new Messiah
In the Johannine Epistles, too, the divine sonship of Jesus takes precedence of His
Messiahship. … Jesus is the Christ because He is the Son of God. This means that in
the Epistles, too, a new exposition of the Messiah may be discerned. (Grundmann
(1974), 570)
The Messianic work of Christ – who must be God – is God’s work
Because Christ redeems man from subjection to sin, evil, the power of the devil and the
world, and unites him with God, He Himself must be God, 1 Jn. 1:7f.; 2:1; 3:8; 4:9;
5:18-20. His Messianic work is God’s own work and not that of a man. (Grundmann
(1974), 570)
The bitter fight is against those who deny the Messiahship of Jesus in
terms of deity
This helps us to understand the bitter fight against false teachers who deny the
Messiahship of Jesus understood in terms of deity. 1 Jn. speaks of those who say ὅτι
Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός (that Jesus not is the christ), 1 Jn. 2:22. (Grundmann
(1974), 570)
96
The Christ of Acts, John’s epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation)
Chrisma, the anointing oil of the Spirit, strongly determines the

understanding of the Messiah
A notable feature in the ecclesiastical situation in which the Johannine Epistles were
written is that the author does not refer the community to an authoritative teaching
office but reminds it of its reception of the χρῖσμα (anointing oil) which is itself the
teacher and which makes the community independent of a teaching office: τὸ αὐτοῦ
χρῖσμα (chrisma) διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων (the same anointing teaches you
concerning all things), [1 John] 2:27
This shows how strongly in John the understanding of the Messiah is determined by
the anointing of the Spirit and how the relation between the Son and sons, which is
based on reception of the Spirit, finds an echo in the connection between the anointed
One and the anointed. (Grundmann (1974), 572)
HEBREWS’ YESHUA IS HEAVEN’S HIGH PRIEST

Unique creativity of the Book of Hebrews
Writing to people who were fully aware of the temple’s ceremonies, probably even participants, the
writer of Hebrews said a new and better way had taken place. Rather than referencing the eschatological
Promised One, as had other authors, the writer of Hebrews referred to a Māšiaḥ of the Hebrew
Scriptures, namely the High Priest.
According to the writers of Hebrews, the high priest Māšiaḥ of the Hebrew Scriptures had been made
redundant by a greater High Priest in a temple in heaven, a temple not built by human hands. Creative
imaginings of the highest order.
Whereas other writers claimed that passages in their Scriptures were prophecies, and that these passages
were referring to their Yeshua (Jesus), the writer of Hebrews made no such claims. The writer operated
in a different sphere, replacing the Old Testament’s earthly Māšiaḥ High Priests with a better, eternal,
heavenly High Priest.
Jesus Christ, the permanent heavenly high priest, has complete access
to the presence of God
To emphasize Christ’s unique position, the author of Hebrews contrasts the old and
new covenants and, more specifically, the earthly, temporal high priests, and Jesus, the
permanent, heavenly High Priest. … Earthly priests offer gifts according to the Law
and serve merely a copy and shadow of the heavenly things (8.4-5). …
The significance of Christ’s heavenly priesthood lies in the fact that Jesus possesses
complete access to the presence of God. An earthly priesthood which provided only
limited and imperfect access to God no longer exists as a result of Christ’s superior
heavenly priesthood which provides complete access to the presence of God in the true
tabernacle. … Jesus’s location at the right hand of God (8.1) also makes clear that Jesus
is a minister of heavenly things in the true sanctuary. (Brannon (2011), 91-92)
Yeshua made much superior to angels
Instead of earthly prophets, God spoke through his son, who sits at
God’s right hand, having been made superior to the angels
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in
these last days he has spoken to us by a Son. …When he had made purification for sins,
[Yeshua] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much
superior to angels. (Hebrews 1:1-4, NRSV)
97
The Christ of Acts, John’s epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation)
In the utterly new arrangement, Christ is represented as newly slain yet

living, his blood forever flowing
Throughout the book of Hebrews, a comparison is made between the new covenant and
the old covenant. In every way, the new covenant in Christ is far superior to the old
covenant. Because the new way is better, we should respond to it in a certain way.
Notice what the author of Hebrews wrote:
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the
blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through
the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of
God, let us…” (Hebrews 10:19-22). (A New and Living Way - Plain Bible
Teaching accessed 21 September 2022. Emphases are in the original)
Verse 20. By a new and living way — It is a new way; no human being had ever before
entered into the heaven of heavens; Jesus in human nature was the first, and thus he has
opened the way to heaven to mankind, his own resurrection and ascension to glory
being the proof and pledge of ours.
The way is called ὁδον προσφατον και ζωσαν, new or fresh, and living. This is evidently
an allusion to the blood of the victim newly shed, uncoagulated, and consequently
proper to be used for sprinkling. The blood of the Jewish victims was fit for sacrificial
purposes only so long as it was warm and fluid, and might be considered as yet
possessing its vitality; but when it grew cold, it coagulated, lost its vitality, and was no
longer proper to be used sacrificially. Christ is here, in the allusion, represented as
newly slain, and yet living; the blood ever considered as flowing and giving life to the
world.
The way by the old covenant neither gave life, nor removed the liability to death. The
way to peace and reconciliation, under the old covenant, was through the dead bodies
of the animals slain; but Christ is living, and ever liveth, to make intercession for us;
therefore he is a new and living way. (Clarke’s Commentary. Hebrews 10:20 - Verse-
by-Verse Bible Commentary - StudyLight.org accessed 21 September 2022)
THE ΧΡΙΣΤΌΣ (CHRISTOS) OF REVELATION

Revelation resolutely clings to the term Christ as Ruler
Revelation in its use of the term Christ resolutely clings to the fact that Christ is Ruler.
He is the Lord who protects and cares for His community and He is the Lord who
governs every dominion on earth, 1:5; 19:16. … It is a priestly dominion which is now
concealed and will be manifested only in the millennium. This will be followed by the
coming aeon when God is all in all and His own lordship is displayed, 21:1-7, 22 f.;
22:1-5. (Grundmann (1974), 573)
98
PAULINE TRINITARIANS’ DIVINE SON OF GOD
No Christian creed confesses that Jesus is the long-expected Messiah
None of the [Christian] creeds, especially those recited in unison Sunday morning,
contains the confession that Jesus is the long-expected Messiah. (Charlesworth (1987),
225)
The 4th century CE Pauline Trinitarians made “the Son of God” into
“God, the Son”
In the beginning of the 2nd century CE, the Messiah began to develop in
a non-Jewish ideological context
In the beginning of the second century [CE], the non-Jewish Jewish part of the Jesus
movement began to define itself in opposition to Judaism. Christianity, as a non- and
even anti-Jewish Jewish religion, emerged, and for the first time, the concept of the
Messiah began to develop in a non-Jewish ideological context. …
Partly disconnected from its Jewish roots, the idea of the Messiah was interpreted by
means of Greek philosophy. … Furthermore, the political development in the Roman
Empire led the church to start asking new questions regarding the Messiah. (Zetterholm
(2007), Kindle Location 116-121)
In the 4th century CE, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the anointed Son of
God, became God himself
During the fourth century, Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the anointed one,
became God himself. The Messiah of Israel found a completely new and unexpected
setting-as the Messiah of the church and of the Roman Empire. (Zetterholm (2007),
99
Pauline Trinitarians’ Divine Son of God
100
CHRISTIANITY’S CELESTIAL SAVIOUR MESSIAH
Since none of the Christian Creeds contains the term “Messiah”, so when did the association of Jesus
with Messiah emerge, and why?
Since Jesus is not named as Messiah in the Christian Creeds, this raises the question of who, when, and
why was the concept of Māšiaḥ attached to Yeshua? Presumably it related to the concept of “anointing”,
but that of itself does not explain the contexts of the later adoption.
And when did Māšiaḥ gain the present-day meaning of “saviour”? It most certainly never had that
meaning in the biblical literature.
Judaism has always maintained redemption takes place publicly;
Christianity conceives redemption in the spiritual and unseen realm
Any discussion of the problems relating to Messianism is a delicate matter, for it is here
that the essential conflict between Judaism and Christianity has developed and
continues to exist. …
A totally different concept of redemption determines the attitude to Messianism in
Judaism and in Christianity; what appears to the one as a proud indication of its
understanding and a positive achievement of its message is most unequivocally belittled
and disputed by the other. Judaism, in all of its forms and manifestations, has always
maintained a concept of redemption as an event which takes place publicly, on the stage
of history and within the community. It is an occurrence which takes place in the visible
world and which cannot be conceived apart from such a visible appearance.
In contrast, Christianity conceives of redemption as an event in the spiritual and unseen
realm, an event which is reflected in the soul, in the private world of each individual,
and which effects an inner transformation which need not correspond to anything
outside. (Scholem (1971), 1)
Difficulty moving from first-century belief in Messiah to a Christian
confession
How difficult it is to move from a first-century Jewish belief in the Messiah to a
Christian confession in Jesus’ messiahship. (Charlesworth (1987), 225)
Christianity developed the Messiah from a king uniting Israel and Judah
to a cosmic Prince of Peace
The concept of the Messiah developed from the idea of a righteous Davidic king who would
unite Israel and Judah and conquer their enemies, to a cosmic Prince of Peace who would restore
the world into a virtual Garden of Eden. (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
Christianity developed the Messiah away from a worldly political to a
spiritual Saviour, namely Jesus
Christians came to see the scriptures as referring to a spiritual savior, rather than a
worldly political savior, specifically identifying Jesus as that Messiah. (“Messiah”, New
World Encyclopedia)
Christianity exalted Messiah to the divine realm
Christians exalted their Messiah to the status of a divinity, while Jews considered such ideas
blasphemous, rejecting messianic apocalypticism to affirm that the Messiah, though an agent of
God, was in essence no different from other humans. (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
Today, any saviour or liberator is a Messiah
In English today, the word Messiah can denote any person who is regarded as a savior
or liberator. (“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
101
Christianity’s celestial Saviour Messiah
102
The concept of Messiah developed and changed

The concept of the Messiah developed gradually from early Jewish prophetic times
through their exile in Babylon, taking more definite form in the post-exilic period. By
the first century BCE, Jews interpreted their scriptures to refer specifically to someone
appointed by God to deliver them from oppression under the Romans. (“Messiah”, New
World Encyclopedia)
The flow from messianology to christology required a paradigm shift
There was a paradigm shift and a flow from messianology to christology
With these insights we come close to peering into the historical period when there was
a paradigm shift and a flow from messianology to christology. For at least 40 years,
from 30 to 70, the Palestinian Jewish Movement was a group within Early Judaism; it
is often misleading to use terms such as “Jewish” versus “Christian” during this early
phase of Christian Origins. (Charlesworth (1987), 241)
Jewish messianology does not flow into Christian christology
Jewish messianology does not flow majestically into Christian christology. From the
thirties of the first century until today those who have followed Jesus have found the
essence of the faith not centralized in one title or even a series of titles. (Charlesworth
(1987), 255)
Christianity interpreted Hebrew Scriptures differently from their original
intent
In developing these doctrines, Christians came to interpret several passages of the Old
Testament very differently from Jews. For example:
• The Servant Songs of Isaiah were interpreted not as descriptions of Israel’s
suffering and redemption, but as predictions of the suffering of Jesus as the
Messiah.
• Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of the child Immanuel as a specific sign to
King Ahaz in the eighth century BCE (Isa. 7) was interpreted to refer to
Jesus’ Virgin Birth and Incarnation.
• The “son of man” passages in the Book of Daniel were interpreted as
referring to Jesus’ Second Coming on the clouds of heaven.
• Similarly, the expectation that the Messiah, as the Prince of Peace, would re-
establish David’s Kingdom on earth was postponed to the Second Coming.
(“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia)
Modern exegesis
Critical exegesis views texts within their historical contexts and not as
visionary previews of Christ
We can ask whether there was a messianic expectation in the period of the monarchy.
Passages deserving serious consideration include Isa. 7:10-16 (and 8:8); 8:23-9:6 (Eng.
9:1-7); 11:1-5; Mic. 5:1-5 (Eng. VV. 2-6); Psalms 2, 45, 72, 110. Other royal psalms
(Psalms 18, 20, 21, 101, 144) are usually not considered messianic; Psalms 89 and 132
might be considered messianic at most in the indirect sense of the Nathan prophecy,
whose themes they incorporate. Hosea 3:5 and Amos 9:11 derive from exilic or
postexilic redaction.
Modern critical exegesis understands these texts totally within their own historical
context and therefore does not impute to them, as it were, a visionary preview of Christ.
(Becker (1980), 37)
103
Today, “messianism” embraces far more than was originally intended

In modern discussions, “messianism” or “the messianic idea” has become “a rubber-
band concept” that is made to embrace far more than “Messiah” was ever meant to
denote when it first emerged and gradually developed in Palestinian Judaism in pre-
Christian times. (Fitzmyer (2007), 6)
Modern Christians impose meanings on Old Testament passages that
only developed following the emergence of Christianity
Christian writers, who may begin with the correct understanding of Jesus of Nazareth
as the Messiah but, in using hindsight, impose, perhaps subconsciously, on various
passages of their Old Testament a meaning that has developed only with the emergence
of Christianity and its way of reading the Hebrew Scriptures. (Fitzmyer (2007), 6)
The traditional naïve apologetic proof of prophecy must give way to
facts
The apologetic proof from prophecy cannot be cited in the naive way it traditionally
has been. We must accept facts and refuse to embark on any dubious attempts to rescue
the situation. (Becker (1980), 94-95)
Modern eschatological use of “messiah” does not correspond with its
use in the ancient texts
The modern scholarly usage of “Messiah,” however, does not simply correspond to the
usage of the ancient texts, since it is restricted to anointed figures who have
eschatological significance. (Collins (1987), 97)
Failed modern attempts to read a messianic prophecy into the Genesis
49:10
In time, this problematic verse was to be given a messianic interpretation in the Jewish
tradition. In the preexilic period, however, it was not a “messianic prophecy”, and it
does not even hint at such a notion, despite modern anachronistic attempts to read such
an idea into the text. (Fitzmyer (2007), 30)
Academic study of “the messiah” derives from the early Christian word-
choice, not from any ancient Jewish preoccupation
The primacy of “the messiah” as a subject of academic study derives not from ancient
Jewish preoccupation, but from early Christian word-choice, theology, and apologetics.
Early Christians, and particularly the earliest Christian writers, had to establish a
discourse that made Jesus’ career reasonable, his unexpected death believable, and their
audacious commitment and new collective life plausible: The New Testament’s
gingerly application of multiple titles to Jesus suggests a crisis of classification, the
dilemma of a signified without a signifier. The New Testament records various
solutions to this problem. (Green (1987), 4)
Later Jewish tradition and Church Fathers read Numbers 24:15-19 as
messianic
Num 24:17, which is a verse in the fourth oracle of Balaam, son of Beor (24:15-19),
who was summoned by Balak, king of Moab, to curse the oncoming Israelites and give
advantage to the Moabites: Balaam utters instead a blessing on Israel. …
The seer says, “I see him, though not now; I behold him, though not close at hand: a
star shall stride forth from Jacob, and a scepter” shall arise from Israel; it shall smite
the brows of Moab and the skulls of all the sons of Sheth. …
The Aramean seer’s vision refers to a coming victory of Israel over Moab (and Edom).
… There is neither mention nor hint of a Messiah in this text, even though it came to
be so read in the later Jewish tradition and in patristic literature among Christians.
(Fitzmyer (2007), 30, 31)
104
Old Testament texts are at times considered “messianic prophecies”

even though the word “messiah” does not appear
A number of texts which have been included at times by various writers among
“messianic prophecies” of the Old Testament. Among such texts in the Pentateuch,
where no occurrence of ‫[ משיח‬meshach] is ever found, one cites at times the following:
Gen 9:25-27: Noah’s curse of Canaan and his blessing of Shem and Japheth,
which implies the subjugation of Canaan to Israel, and nothing more
Gen 12:3 …
Exod 12:42 …
Deut 18:15-18 …
What one reads in the foregoing Old Testament texts are diverse forms of the promise
that God has made to bless Israel and of ways in which Israel is called to be mindful of
His continuous providence for it. It is an unwarranted stretch of interpretation to regard
such promises as early instances of “messianic prophecies” or expressions of a
“messianic hope.” (Fitzmyer (2007), 31-32)
Christianity’s misuse of Genesis 3:15
Passages such as Genesis 3:15 that are used for images of a messianic
expectation are scarcely mentioned in the New Testament
Some passages (such as Gen. 3:15) play a role in the ecclesiastical and apologetic image
of the messianic expectation although – perhaps by chance – they are scarcely
mentioned in the New Testament. (Becker (1980), 11)
At Genesis 3:15, the ongoing struggle is between the collective offspring
of serpent and the collective offspring of Woman
In (Genesis 3) vv. 14-15, the Lord God … levels a curse against the serpent that seduced
Eve. Among other things, He says to the serpent:
Because you have done this, more cursed are you than all cattle and all wild
animals; on your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of
your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
offspring and hers; it shall trample your head, and you shall snap at its heel.
The “it” is expressed in Hebrew by the masculine pronoun [he] ‫( הוא‬hû), which refers
to the masculine collective noun ‫זרע‬, (zera’, “seed [semen], offspring”). The pronoun
should not be rendered “he”, because that immediately specifies an individual male,
whereas the Hebrew speaks of a collectivity, “your seed, your offspring”.
In cursing the serpent,30 God speaks clearly of the struggle that will ensue between
human beings, born of the woman, and the slithering, often poisonous, member of the
animal world, whenever they meet. (Fitzmyer (2007), 27)
The “head” and the “heel” are merely the two anatomical parts of a
human being and a serpent involved in an encounter
Although the curse [at Genesis 3:15] is formulated for the future, it contains no hint of
a coming human victory.’ Not even the contrast of “head” and “heel” necessarily
connotes victory, because they are merely the two anatomical parts of a human being
and a serpent that would be involved in such an encounter. (Fitzmyer (2007), 28)
30
The curse is similar to the prohibition of Lev 11:41, “Every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth
is an abomination and shall not be eaten.” (Fitzmyer (2007), 27, Footnote 4)
105
There is no mention of messiah or a hidden reference to a coming

Messiah at Genesis 3:15
[Genesis 3:15] does not mention ‫[ משח‬māšaḥ to anoint], or even have a hidden reference
to a coming Messiah, despite the later interpretations often given to it in both the Jewish
and Christian tradition. (Fitzmyer (2007), 28)
106
RESOURCES
Baeck, Leo. Judaism and Christianity: A modern theologian’s discussion of basic issues between the
two religions (1958). The Jewish Publication Society of America. PDF
Beale, G. K. (1994). The RIGHT Doctrine from the WRONG Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old
Testament in the New. Baker Academic. If Paul and other New Testament authors were
publishing today, would scholars accept their exegetical methods? This collection of essays
presents various perspectives concerning the hermeneutical issue of whether Jesus and the
apostles quoted Old Testament texts with respect for their broader Old Testament context.
Each of the contributors debates the interpretive understandings by which Old Testament
texts are quoted and applied in the New Testament.
Were New Testament teachers and authors simply children of rabbinic midrashic scholarship?
Did they revere the original context of passages they quoted or fill them with different
meaning? What presuppositions about the Old Testament guided their approaches?
As the contributors to this volume wrestle with Old Testament quotation in the New
Testament, they offer views from across the theological spectrum to help biblical studies
students work through the issues.
Contributors include: David L. Baker G. K. Beale C. H. Dodd Francis Foulkes R. T. France

Scott J. Hafemann Morna D. Hooker G. P. Hugenberger Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Barnabas
Lindars Richard N. Longenecker I. Howard Marshall S. V. McCasland Richard T. Mead
Roger Nicole Philip Barton Payne Vern Sheridan Poythress David Seccombe Klyne
Snodgrass Albert C. Sundberg Jr.
Beale, G. K.; Carson, D.A. (2007) Commentary on the Jew Testament Use of the Old Testament,
Kindle edition. Baker Academic; Apollos. Readers of the New Testament often encounter
quotes or allusions to Old Testament stories and prophecies that are unfamiliar or obscure. In
order to fully understand the teachings of Jesus and his followers, it is important to
understand the large body of Scripture that preceded and informed their thinking. Leading
evangelical scholars G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson have brought together a distinguished
team to provide readers with a comprehensive commentary on Old Testament quotations,
allusions, and echoes that appear from Matthew through Revelation. College and seminary
students, pastors, scholars, and interested lay readers will want to add this unique commentary
to their reference libraries.
Contributors
Craig L. Blomberg (Denver Seminary) on Matthew
Rikk E. Watts (Regent College) on Mark
David W. Pao (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) and Eckhard J. Schnabel (Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School) on Luke
Andreas J. Köstenberger (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) on John
I. Howard Marshall (University of Aberdeen) on Acts
Mark A. Seifrid (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) on Romans
Roy E. Ciampa (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) and Brian S. Rosner (Moore
Theological College) on 1 Corinthians
Peter Balla (Károli Gáspár Reformed University, Budapest) on 2 Corinthians
Moisés Silva (author of Philippians in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament) on Galatians and Philippians
Frank S. Thielman (Beeson Divinity School) on Ephesians
G. K. Beale (Wheaton College Graduate School) on Colossians
Jeffrey A. D. Weima (Calvin Theological Seminary) on 1 and 2 Thessalonians
Philip H. Towner (United Bible Societies) on 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus
George H. Guthrie (Union University) on Hebrews
107
Resources
D. A. Carson (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) on the General Epistles

G. K. Beale (Wheaton College Graduate School) and Sean M. McDonough (Gordon-
Conwell Theological Seminary) on Revelation.
Becker, Joachim (1980). Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament. Fortress Press. The purpose of
this little book is both historical and apologetical. Starting from the statement that ‘the New
Testament, the tradition of the Church and traditional apologetics all assume that in the Old
Testament the Messiah is awaited and his coming is proclaimed in advance’ and that ‘above
all, this is an inalienable component of the faith proclaimed by the Church ‘, the author is
aware that ‘it does not pay off for apologetics to offend historical thought, and that ‘the
messianic prophecies cannot be considered visionary predictions of a New Testament
fulfilment’. But being a faithful son of the Roman Church, he cannot admit that this
eliminates the traditional picture of messianic expectation. He therefore is eager to ‘find an
explanation that does justice to both the historical approach and the witness of the New
Testament’. He solves this difficult problem by considering that ‘messianic expectation is a
matter not of isolated prophetic message but of the history of Israel’ and that ‘the Old
Testament itself and even the history that lies behind it possess a unique messianic
luminosity’. This certainly is clever apologetics.
The methods used are unobjectionable: they are those of sound biblical criticism. The volume
offers an up-to-date summary of the present state of research on much-discussed issues.
Messianic expectation in the Old Testament is often associated with the idea of Davidic
monarchy. Now, the author makes it quite clear that an antimonarchic conviction probably
existed in ancient Israel, rooted in the social structure of semi-nomad tribes. Even Nathan’s
prophecy, certainly a historical event, has been represented by the Deuteronomist in such a
way as to ascribe to the Davidic monarchy a special status, which it did not enjoy in the eyes
of contemporaries. Nor does the monarchy belong to the nucleus of the Yahwist kerygma.
There never existed an explicit expectation of a saviour in the premonarchic period. An
important chapter deals with messianism during the monarchy, in close relation with the idea
of sacred kingship. The author displays very cautious and soundly critical views. A pre-exilic
messianism, so he says, is almost a contradiction in terms, since the saviour king is in fact
present.
Using historical-critical methods, Joachim Becker reconstructs, in chronological order, the

ideas and institutions related to the messianic expectations of ancient Israel.
While the first and last chapters of this succinct inquiry touch on the understanding of the
messiah in the New Testament, the substance of the work deals with the mainstreams of
thought up to the threshold of the New Testament.
Among topics that come under Becker’s careful scrutiny are the antimonarchical tendency in
Israel, kingship (including the possibility of sacral kingship), theocracy, and the transference
of the royal idea to the people as a whole. Throughout, Becker’s historical reconstruction is
based upon sound literary judgment as the early prophetic words are distinguished from the
redactional layers.
Highly regarded as a well-organized, concise, and balanced summary of the present status of
scholarship on the issues, this first English translation of a distinguished German work will be
of special interest to biblical scholars, Old Testament specialists, students, and professors.
Contents
1. The Perspective of the New Testament and the Church
2. Antimonarchic Movements in Israel
3. The Davidic Monopoly
4. Nathan’s Prophecy
108
Resources
5. The Yahwist
6. Sacral Kingship and Messianism during the Monarchy
7. Restorative Monarchism and Theocracy after the Monarchy
8. The Restorative Monarchism of the Deuteronomistic History
9. Restorative Monarchism in the Prophetic Books
10. Zerubbabel
11. The Theocratic Theory of the Nation
12. The Messianological Vacuum
13. “Late Judaism”
14. The Threshold of the New Testament
15. Once More the Perspective of the New Testament.
Beresh, Nathan (2016). Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls: What Were the Messianic Expectations
of the Qumran Community? (99+) Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls | Nathan Beresh -
Academia.edu accessed 8 September 2022
Boadt, Lawrence (1984). Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. The Missionary Society of St.
Paul the Apostle in the State of New York, Paulist Press
Boccaccini, Gabriele; Segovia, Carlos A. (2016). Paul the Jew Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of
Second Temple Judaism. Fortress Press. The decades-long effort to understand the apostle
Paul within his Jewish context is now firmly established in scholarship on early Judaism, as
well as on Paul. The latest fruit of sustained analysis appears in the essays gathered here, from
leading international scholars who take account of the latest investigations into the scope and
variety present in Second Temple Judaism. Contributors address broad historical and
theological questions—Paul’s thought and practice in relationship with early Jewish
apocalypticism, messianism, attitudes toward life under the Roman Empire, appeal to
Scripture, the Law, inclusion of Gentiles, the nature of salvation, and the rise of Gentile-
Christian supersessionism—as well as questions about interpretation itself, including the
extent and direction of a “paradigm shift” in Pauline studies and the evaluation of the Pauline
legacy. Paul the Jew goes as far as any effort has gone to restore the apostle to his own
historical, cultural, and theological context, and with persuasive results.
Boccaccini, Gabriele; Reynolds, Benjamin, editors (2018). Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology
as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs. Brill. The Abstract is at
Reynolds (2018)
Bock, Darrell L. (2002). Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. Baker
Academic. Interest in the historical Jesus continues to occupy much of today’s discussion of
the Bible. The vexing question is how the Jesus presented in the Gospels relates to the Jesus
that actually walked this earth.
Studying the Historical Jesus is an introductory guide to how one might go about answering
that question by doing historical inquiry into the material found in the Gospels. Darrell Bock
introduces the sources of our knowledge about Jesus, both biblical and extra-biblical. He then
surveys the history and culture of the world of Jesus. The final chapters introduce some of the
methods used to study the Gospels, including historical, redaction, and narrative criticisms.
Bock, a well-respected author, provides an informed evangelical alternative to radical

projects like the Jesus Seminar. His audience, however, is not limited only to evangelicals.
This book, written for college and seminary courses, offers an informed scholarly approach
that takes the Gospels seriously as a source of historical information.
Bowker, J. W. (1971) “Merkabah” Visions and The Visions of Paul in Journal of Semitic Studies,
Volume 16, Issue 2, pages 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/XVI.2.157 accessed 7
October 2022
109
Resources
Brannon, Jeff (2011). The Heavenlies in Ephesians: A Lexical, Exegetical, and Conceptual Analysis.
Bloomsbury. In Ephesians, readers of the New Testament encounter one of the most
intriguing phrases throughout the whole of Scripture. The expression “in the heavenlies”
appears five times in the letter and is not found in any other place in the New Testament.
While there is nothing inherently intriguing about the words έυ τοις έπουραυίοις, the phrase
proves to be of interest to Biblical scholars because of the various contexts in which it is
utilized. The two appearances which have caused the most consternation among New
Testament scholars are the session of earthly believers έυ τοις έπουραυίοις in 2:6 and the
presence of the spiritual forces of evil evn έυ τοις έπουραυίοις in 6:12.
The seeming implausibility of these two statements has led commentators to interpret this
peculiar expression in a variety of ways. The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to perform a
lexical, exegetical, and conceptual analysis of the expression έυ τοις έπουραυίοις in
Ephesians.
Other areas of contribution include studies of a heavenly status for the redeemed on earth, evil
powers in heaven, the cosmology of Ephesians, and the role of “the heavenlies” within the
thought of Ephesians.
Brettler, Marc Zvi (2010). The Hebrew Bible and the Early History of Israel in “The Cambridge
Guide to Jewish History, Religion and Culture”, pages 6-33. Cambridge University Press.
(42) The Hebrew Bible and the Early History of Israel | Marc Brettler - Academia.edu
accessed 10 May 2022
Bromiley, Geoffrey, translator; Friedrich, Gerhard, Kittel, Gerhard editors; (1974). Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 9. Eerdmans. For the Summary, see Kittel (1974)
Carson, D.A.; Beale, G. K. (2007) Commentary on the Jew Testament Use of the Old Testament,
Kindle edition. Baker Academic. Apollos. For the synopsis, see Beale (2007).
Charlesworth, James H. (1978). Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon in
“Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels”, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT:
Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1978), 99–137.
Charlesworth, J.H. (1987). From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology: Some Caveats and
Perspectives in Neusner (1987), pages 225-264
Charlesworth, James H. (1992). THE MESSIAH: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity
Chilton, Bruce and others (1997). The Cambridge Companion to The Bible (Second Edition).
Cambridge University Press
Collins, John J. (1979). Apocalypse: Morphology of a Genre. SEMEIA 14: An experimental journal for biblical
criticism. The essays in this volume represent the first stage of the work of the Apocalypse Group of
the SBL Genres Project. They attempt to provide a comprehensive survey of all the texts which might
be or have been classified as apocalypses and can be dated with any plausibility in the period 250 BCE-
250 CE, with the purpose of establishing how far they can purposefully be regarded as members of one
genre. We do not attempt to provide a full analysis of these texts, still less an interpretation. The
question of function, which is obviously essential to interpretation, is not taken up here, but will be
pursued at a later stage of the Project. These essays do, however, claim to provide the basis for further
analysis and interpretation by defining the extent of the genre determining its constitutive elements and
showing the different types that must be distinguished within the genre.
Each essay is divided into a synopsis, which provides a compact overview of the material, and a survey
which shows the data on which the synopsis is based and can be checked by those who wish to pursue
the details on a particular work. An index to the surveys and bibliographies of the texts discussed can
be found at the end of the volume.
Collins, John (1999): The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: Volume I: The Origins of Apocalypticism
in Judaism and Christianity. Continuum. Hailed as the best scholarship in its field, this survey
110
Resources
traces apocalypticism’s role in Western history from its origins to the close of the third
millennium.
Collins, John J. (2007). Pre-Christian Jewish Messianism: An Overview, in Zetterholm (2007). For a
summary see under Zetterholm (2007)
Collins, John J. (2010). The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Davies, W. D. (1980). Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology.
(Fourth Editions). Fortress Press
De Conick, April. Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and
Thomas and other Ancient Christian Literature (2001). Sheffield Academic Press. PDF
De Jonge, Marinus. The Use of the Word “Anointed” in the Time of Jesus
de Lang, Marijke (n.d.) The use of Psalm 110 in the New Testament, United Bible (99+) The use of
Psalm 110 in the New Testament | Marijke H de Lang - Academia.edu accessed 28
September 2022. (NOTE: The cited passages include de Lang’s minor editing of the article
initially appearing in: “Melita Theologica”, volume 59 Issue 2, 2008, pages 43-50. (“Melita
Theologica” is a peer-reviewed journal of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Malta.)
OAR@UM: MT - Volume 59, Issue 2 - 2008 and also at Psalm 110 in the New Testament
(um.edu.mt) accessed 28 September 2022. In this paper I should like to concentrate on the
use of Psalm 110 (LXX 109) in the New Testament. This Psalm is used rather frequently. It is
either cited verbatim or alluded to, but all together we have thirty passages in which the text is
quoted one way or another. The verses which are used mostly are vs 1 and vs 4. According to
Nestle-Aland’s edition the words in Romans 2:5 are a reference to the fifth verse of Psalm
110, but this is uncertain. I will not go into all the passages in which the Psalm is quoted, but
will concentrate on 1 Corinthians, Romans, Mark and Hebrews. I will only briefly mention
some of the other passages.
Although the idea of Jesus’ exaltation in the New Testament is often backed up with Psalm
110, the belief in Jesus’ exaltation is older than the Christian use of the Psalm. The exaltation
of Jesus was believed as soon as he had died, as an unavoidable corollary of his violent death
as a righteous one. Martyrs were all supposed to have been taken up by God into heaven.
Subsequently, the exaltation of Jesus was found in the Psalm and read into it, rather than that
the Psalm elicited the belief in Jesus’ resurrection.
Donahue, John (1986). Recent Studies on the Origin of “Son of Man” in the Gospels in The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 3 (July 1986), pages 484-498.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43717238 accessed 20 May 2022
Elgvin, Torleif (2013). Violence, apologetics, and resistance: Hasmonaean ideology and yaḥad texts
in dialogue. (11) “Violence, Apologetics, and Resistance: Hasmonaean Ideology and Yahad
Texts in Dialogue.” In The War Scroll, Violence, War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Related Literature , 319–340. | Torleif Elgvin - Academia.edu accessed 30 April 2022. An
earlier and shorter version of this paper was included in my article “Hasmonean State
Ideology, Wars, and Expansionism,” Encountering Violence in the Bible (ed. M. Zehnder, H.
Hagelia; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 52–67.
Editor, Connectus. 2 Corinthians 2:14 Devotional. https://connectusfund.org/2-corinthians-2-14-
devotional (December 25, 2019) accessed 23 February 2021
Eskola, Timo (2001). Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian
Exaltation Discourse. Fontes Press. Did Jewish throne mysticism, the so-called ‘merkabah
mysticism’, influence the emergence and formation of the earliest exaltation Christology? The
author presents resurrection Christology as a part of Jewish Christian merkabah tradition.
Christ’s exaltation was described as a heavenly journey that culminated in his enthronement
on the divine throne of glory. Christian writers did exploit the symbolic world, the images and
metaphors of Second Temple Judaism. The exaltation discourse that they present, however, is
111
Resources
completely new. A simple typological explanation is unable to explain the nature of early
Christology. Christ was not depicted as a heavenly angelic figure or an exalted patriarch. He
was described as the enthroned Son of God whose reign is eternal.
By exploiting linguistic and literary methods, Eskola reconstructs the narrative structure of
christological statements. Several different narratives were discerned, each one of which
expresses one form of a so-called Christian merkabah tradition. In the New Testament,
Christ’s resurrection has been interpreted in terms of exaltation discourse, cultic discourse,
and judicial discourse.
Each one of these produced a different narrative about the exalted Christ. Further, the new
approach sheds light for instance on the idea of the so-called adoptionist Christology. There
was no concept of adoption in early Jewish Christian exaltation Christology. Exalted Christ
on the throne of Glory was not considered merely as a pious Jew making a heavenly journey,
but as the divine Savior of the world. The intertextual transformation of Jewish concepts
underlined the Lordship of Christ as a heavenly king. The confessing of Christ as Lord
realized simultaneously the core of traditional Jewish devotion - faith in and faithfulness to
God as a heavenly King.
Evans, Craig; Porter, Stanley. (2000) Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of
Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Intervarsity Press
Evans, Craig; Flint, Peter (1997). Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eerdmans.
The New Testament is of prime importance for understanding early Jewish and Christian
messianism and eschatology. Yet often the New Testament presumes a background and
context of belief without fully articulating it. Early Jewish and Christian messianism and
eschatology, after all, did not emerge in a vacuum; they developed out of early Jewish hopes
that had their roots in the Old Testament. A knowledge of early Jewish literature, and
especially of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, is essential for understanding the shape of
these ideas at the turn of the era. In this book, the inaugural volume in the Studies in the Dead
Sea Scrolls and Related Literature series, Craig Evans and Peter Flint have assembled eight
essays from outstanding scholars who address this issue from a variety of angles. After an
introduction by the editors, successive essays deal with the Old Testament foundations of
messianism; the figure of Daniel at Qumran; the Teacher of Righteousness; the expectation of
the end in the Scrolls; and Jesus, Paul, and John seen in light of Qumran.
Evans, Craig; Mishkin, David, eds. (2019) A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith.
Hendrickson. This handbook serves as an introduction to the Jewish roots of the Christian
Faith. It includes Old Testament background, Second Temple Judaism, the life of Jesus, the
New Testament, the early Jewish followers of Jesus, the historical interaction between
Judaism and Christianity, and the contemporary period.
It is no longer a novelty to say that Jesus was a Jew. In fact, the term Jewish roots has become
something of a buzzword in books, articles, and especially on the internet. But what does the
Jewishness of Jesus actually mean, and why is it important?
This collection of articles aims to address those questions and serve as a comprehensive yet
concise primer on the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of
the Christian Faith consists of thirteen chapters, most of which are divided into four or five
articles. It is in the handbook format, meaning that each article is brief but informative. The
thirteen chapters are grouped into four major sections: (1) The Soil, (2) The Roots, (3) The
Trunk, and (4) The Branches.
Feldman, Louis (1998). Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. California University Press. Josephus
(A.D. 37-?100), a pro-Roman Jew closely associated with the emperor Titus, is the earliest
systematic commentator on the Bible, as well as one of the foremost historians of the
beginning of the Christian era. Politically, Josephus was pro-Roman, and although he had no
112
Resources
sympathy for extreme Jewish nationalism, he was a zealous defender of Jewish religion and
culture. Louis H. Feldman examines the principles that guided Josephus in his understanding
of the Bible, investigating his creative contribution in the rewriting of biblical accounts. This
comprehensive study evaluates Josephus as a historian and demonstrates the originality and
consistency of his work as an author.
The first part of Feldman’s work attempts to understand Josephus’s purposes and techniques
in retelling the Bible. The second part reviews Josephus’s treatment of twelve key biblical
figures. In addition to its reevaluation of an important early historian, this unique
compendium provides a mine of information on the reassessment of the most important
biblical figures.
Ferguson, John, An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Mysticism and the Mystery-religions. Thames and Hudson,
1976
Fitzmyer, Joseph (2007). The One Who is to Come. William Eerdmans. “Messiah” is one of the most
contested terms in Christian reflection, with many people reading the concept back into early
Old Testament texts. In The One Who Is to Come Joseph Fitzmyer contradicts that
misreading, carefully tracing the emergence of messianism in Judaism to a much later date --
the second century B.C.
The One Who Is to Come begins with a linguistic discussion of the term “messiah,” then
demonstrates the gradual emergence of the idea of a future, dynasty-continuing David, before
finally examining the “anointed one” language in the latest biblical text, Daniel 9. It also
examines the use of the term in the Septuagint and extrabiblical Jewish writings, as well as
the New Testament, Targums, and the Mishnah.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin (2006). Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1. In: Journal for the Study
of the Historical Jesus, 1 January 2006. Vol. 4, Issue 2, pages 155-175, Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476869006064873 Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1 in:
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Volume 4 Issue 2 (2006) (brill.com) accessed 5
May 2022. Recent study of the priesthood in Second Temple life and thought invites a
reconsideration of Jesus’ self-understanding. The appeal to Psalm 110 and Daniel 7.13
indicates that Jesus thought that, although not of priestly lineage, nevertheless he would
ultimately be the nation’s king and priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Mark 1–6 contains a programmatic statement of Jesus’ claim to a high priestly identity as the
‘holy one of God’ (1.24), with a high priestly contagious holiness (1.40-45; 5.25-34; 5.35-43),
freedom to forgive sins (2.1-12) and the embodiment of divine presence in a Galilean
cornfield (2.23-28). As true high priest he makes divine presence ‘draw near’ to God’s people
(1.15), where before they had to ‘draw near’ to the Jerusalem temple.
The hypothesis that Jesus thought he was Israel’s long-awaited eschatological high priest
resolves otherwise intractable problems in historical Jesus scholarship. This is Part 1 of a two-
part essay.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin (2007). Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 2. In: Journal for the Study
of the Historical Jesus, 1 January 2007. Vol. 5, Issue 1, pages 57-79, Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476869006074936 Jesus as The High Priestly Messiah: Part 2 in:
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Volume 5 Issue 1 (2007) (brill.com) accessed 5
May 2022. For the Abstract, see immediately above.
Flint, Peter; Evans, Craig (1997). Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eerdmans.
Fortna, Robert; Thatcher, Tom, editors. Jesus in Johannine Tradition
Fredriksen, Paula (2000). From Jesus to Christ: the origins of the New Testament images of Jesus
113
Resources
Friedrich, Gerhard, Kittel, Gerhard editors; Bromiley, Geoffrey, translator (1974). Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 9. Eerdmans. For the Summary, see Kittel (1974)
Fuller, Reginald (1965). The Foundations of New Testament Christology. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
The doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ must always stand central to the Christian faith. “It
was because he was who he was that Jesus Christ did what he did”, says Professor Reginald
Fuller in the opening sentences of this massive, learned and important survey of the place of
Christ in Christian experience, confession and belief. As Professor Fuller sees it “the
Church’s Christology was a response to its total encounter with Jesus, not only in his earthly
history but also in the Church’s continuing life”.
This book is a comprehensive and thorough survey of the present Christological position
taking into account the insights of international scholarship. The focus of the book is
Professor Fuller’s establishment of a continuity between the historical Jesus and the message
and witness of the post-resurrection Church. This he believes has been obscured in recent
New Testament scholarship. But at the same time he applies the vigorous “traditio-historical”
criticism which yields many positive results as seen in this book of first-class scholarship.
Gardner, Percy Professor. The Religious Experience of Saint Paul (1913). Williams and Norgate
Godfrey, Neil (nd). The Myth of a General Messianic Expectation in Jesus’ Time – Vridar accessed
20 April 2022
Goodrick, Edward; Kohlenberger III, John (1999). The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance.
Zondervan
Gowan, Donald E. (2000). Eschatology in the Old Testament: Second Edition. T & T Clark. PDF
Green, William Scott (1987). Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question in Neusner (1987), pages
1-13
Green, William Scott; and Silverstein. The Doctrine of the Messiah in “The Blackwell Companion to
Judaism”
Gromacki, Gary (2013) Doctrines of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls
Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania.
Doctrines_of_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_The_Do.pdf accessed 1 May 2022
Grundmann, Walter, in Kittel (1974): Chrio: General usage (Kittel, pages 493-496); The Christ-
Statements of the New Testament (527-580)
Halperin, David (1988). The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision. J. C.
B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tübingen. PDF. Overall attempt to connect the Hekhalot texts and the
interpretation history of Ezekiel with social questions, etc. Sometimes controversial important
work.
Hengel, Martin (1981). The Cross of the Son of God. Containing: The Son of God; Crucifixion; The
Atonement. SCM Press. This volume conveniently collects together three related short studies
by Professor Hengel, The Son of God: the origin of Christology; Crucifixion; and The
Atonement. Together they form an important introduction to the crucial period of Christian
belief between the crucifixion of Jesus and the writings of Paul.
SON OF GOD (The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion”): It
might well be claimed that there was more development in christology during the period from
the crucifixion of Jesus to the writing of St Paul’s letter to the Philippians than in the
following seven centuries of the development of patristic dogma. This survey traces what
happened, in connection with the title ‘Son of God’. With his encyclopaedic knowledge of the
period, Professor Hengel examines the concept of Son of God in the milieu of the-New
Testament, in Judaism and the Hellenistic world and their antecedents and then shows how it
began to be used in earliest Christianity, in so doing shedding a new light on many classic
114
Resources
problems of New Testament interpretation.
CRUCIFIXION: This learned study may claim to be the most comprehensive and detailed
survey ever to have been published of the evidence of the use of crucifixion in the Graeco-
Roman world and the way in which it was regarded by the people of the time. Beginning from
the use of crucifixion as a form of execution practised among barbarian peoples, Dr Hengel
shows how it was employed in the Roman empire, in the Greek-speaking world and among
the Jews. He also investigates how far ‘crucifixion’ was a term used metaphorically or in
philosophical discussion. His conclusions bring out more starkly than ever the scandal
presented by the Christian message of the crucified Son of God and show that Jesus was seen
to have died, not just a cruel death, but one of the worst forms of death devised by man for
man.
THE ATONEMENT: In recent years it has been increasingly suggested in some quarters that
the doctrine of the atoning death of Christ did not come into being in the earliest stages of
Christianity; the first interpretation of Jesus is said to have been the image of him as the
eschatological prophet, or the innocent man suffering wrongly. Against such views which
might seem to devalue the doctrine of the atonement, Professor Hengel argues forcefully and
with great scholarship that the doctrine of the atonement can be traced back to the earliest
church, indeed to the sayings of Jesus himself. The second part of the book is devoted to this
quest, moving back from the letters of Paul, through the pre-Pauline tradition, to Jesus. It is
fascinating in itself. However, what gives the book even greater appeal is its first part, in
which Professor Hengel examines a wider area of classical antiquity. Would it have made
sense to Greeks and Romans of the first-century to say that Jesus had died for them? Were
there points of contact in their traditions? Surveying Greek and Latin literature, Professor
Hengel shows just how widespread a theme ‘dying for’ actually was, from Homer, through
the Greek tragedians and orators, to Plutarch, Livy and Caesar. Once again, he sheds new
light on areas which might be thought to have been long since worked to death.
Henze (2017), Matthias. Mind the Gap: How the Jewish Writings between the Old and New
Testament Help Us Understand Jesus
Henze, Matthias (2014) “Then the Messiah will begin to be revealed”: Resurrection and the
Apocalyptic Drama in 1 Corinthians 15 and Second Baruch 29-30, 49-51 in “Anthropologie
und Ethik im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen
Internationales Symposium in Verbindung mit dem Projekt Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi
Testamenti (CJHNT) 17.–20. Mai 2012, Heidelberg”, edited by Matthias Konradt and Esther
Schläpfer. WUNT 322. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Hesse, Franz, in Kittel (1974). ‫[ משח‬māšaḥ: to anoint] and ‫[ משוח‬māšiaḥ: anointed (one)] in the Old
Testament, (Kittel (1974), page 496-509)
Himmelfarb, Martha (1993). Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Oxford
University Press. PDF. This is a study of the ancient Jewish and Christian apocalypses
involving ascent into heaven, which have received little scholarly attention in comparison to
apocalypses concerned primarily with the end of the world. Recent developments like the
publication of the Aramaic Enoch fragments from Qumran and interest in questions of genre
in the study of the apocalypses make this a particularly appropriate time to undertake this
study. Martha Himmelfarb places the apocalypses in relation to both their biblical antecedents
and their context in the Greco-Roman world.
Her analysis emphasizes the emergence of the understanding of heaven as temple in the Book
of the Watchers, the earliest of these apocalypses, and the way in which this understanding
affects the depiction of the culmination of ascent, the hero’s achievement of a place among
the angels, in the ascent apocalypses generally. It also considers the place of secrets of nature
and primeval history in these works. Finally, it offers an interpretation of the pseudepigraphy
of the apocalypses and their function.
115
Resources
Hinnels, John. R. Zoroastrian Saviour Imagery and Its Influence on the New Testament
Horsley, R. A. (1984). Popular Messianic Movements around the Time of Jesus in The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, 46(3), 471–495. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43716732 accessed17 May
2022
Hurtado, Larry (1998). One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish
Monotheism. Second Edition, T & T Clark. Larry Hurtado’s One God, One Lord has been
described as ‘one of the most important and provocative Christologies of all time’ (Alan F.
Segal). The book has taken its place among works on Jesus as one consistently cited,
consistently read, and consistently examined in scholarly discourse.
Hurtado examines the early cultic devotion to Jesus through a range of Jewish sources.
Hurtado outlines an early ‘high’ Christological theology, showing how the Christ of faith
emerges from monotheistic Judaism. The book has already found a home on the shelves of
many in its two previous editions. In this new Cornerstones edition Hurtado provides a
substantial epilogue of some twenty-thousand words, which brings this ground-breaking work
to the fore once more, in a format accessible to scholars and students alike.
Hurtado, Larry (2016). Paul’s Messianic Christology, in Boccaccini (2016), pages 107-132
Hutson, Thomas E. (2015). The Effect of the Maccabean War on First Century Jewish Views of The
Messiah. (Thesis). (11) THE EFFECT OF THE MACCABEAN WAR ON FIRST
CENTURY JEWISH VIEWS OF THE MESSIAH-Research Paper NT | Thomas E Hutson -
Academia.edu accessed 30 April 2022
Jacob, ben Aaron, High Priest of the Samaritans (1906). The Messianic Hope of the Samaritans.
Reprinted from the Open Court. https://archive.org/details/messianichopeofs00jaco accessed
17 September 2022
Jastrow, Marcus (1903). A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
Midrashic Literature. Luzac & Co., London; G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. Dictionary of
the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature by Marcus
Jastrow (tyndalearchive.com) accessed 10 May 2022
Jenkins, Philip. Crucible of Faith: The Ancient Revolution that made our Modern Religious World
Jipp, Joshua (2015). Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Fortress Press. Until recently, many
scholars have read Paul’s use of the word Christos as more of a proper name (“Jesus Christ”)
than a title, Jesus the Messiah. One result, Joshua W. Jipp argues, is that important aspects of
Paul’s thinking about Jesus’ messiahship have gone unrecognized. Jipp argues that kingship
discourse is an important source for Paul’s Christological language: Paul uses royal language
to present Christ as the good king.
Jipp surveys Greco-Roman and Jewish depictions of the ideal king and argues for the
influence of these traditions on several aspects of Paul’s thought: king and law (Galatians 5-6;
Romans 13-15; 1 Corinthians 9); hymning to the king (Colossians 1:15-20); the just and
faithful king; the royal roots of Paul’s language of participation “in Christ”; and the enthroned
king (Romans 1:3-4; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28).
Jipp finds that Paul’s use of royal tropes is indeed significant. Christos is a royal honorific
within Paul’s letters, and Paul is another witness to ancient discussions of monarchy and ideal
kingship. In the process, Jipp offers new and noteworthy solutions to outstanding questions
concerning Christ and the law, the pistis Christou debate, and Paul’s participatory language.
Jones, Lindsay. Gale Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 9 (Mary – Ndembu Religion)
Jong, Marinus de, in Kittel (1974). Messianic ideas in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Kittel (1974),
pages 511-517); Messianic ideas in Philo and Josephus (520-521)
116
Resources
Kanagaraj, Jeyaseelan Joseph (1995). ‘Mysticism’ in the Gospel of John. An Inquiry into its
Background (thesis) http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1032/1/1032.pdf?EThOS%20(BL) accessed 14
February 2021
Kanagaraj, Jeyaseelan Joseph (1996). Jesus the King, merkabah mysticism and the Gospel of John.
Tyndale Bulletin 47.2 (Nov. 1996) 349-366.
https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/Library/TynBull_1996_47_2_07_Kanagaraj_JesusKi
ng.pdf accessed 14 February 2021; also at https://www.galaxie.com/article/tynbul47-2-07
accessed 14 February 2021
Kaplan, Aryeh (1976, 1985). The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries. Jews for
Judaism. National Conference of Synagogue Youth
Kee, Howard Clark (1987). Christology in Mark’s Gospel in Neusner (1987), pages 187-208
Kirby, Peter. Early Jewish Writings: An Introduction to Early Judaism
Kittel, Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, editors; Bromiley, Geoffrey, translator (1974). Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 9. Eerdmans. The Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament has secured for itself a solid and lasting place in biblical scholarship
throughout the world. It has done this because it is a monumental reference work not only for
theologians and students, but also for preachers and pastors. Today it stands almost above
comparison with any other multiple-volume theological dictionary, being considered by a
host of biblical scholars to be the best New Testament dictionary ever compiled.
The purpose of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is to mediate between
ordinary lexicography and the specific task of exposition, more particularly at the theological
level. It therefore treats those New Testament words, including the more important
prepositions and numbers, that are theologically significant. These words are dealt with in the
order of the Greek alphabet.
The usual procedure in the Dictionary is to present the word in its secular Greek background;
to assess its role in the Old Testament, both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint texts; next to
discover its use in such sources as Philo, Josephus, the pseudepigraphal and rabbinical
literature; then to see its varied uses in the New Testament, sometimes classified according to
synoptic, Johannine, Petrine, and Pauline usage. Where pertinent, a subsection on the
Apostolic Fathers is included.
Kooten, George H. Van (2003). Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School. Mohr Siebeck.
Reflections on God, Christ and cosmos in the writings of Paul and the Pauline School show
that these authors were familiar with important notions from Graeco-Roman cosmology and
theology.
George van Kooten comes to the conclusion that they might even have adopted a way of
thinking in which Judaism and Graeco-Roman cosmology were forged into a new synthesis,
and Christ was viewed as a cosmic god.
In this development, Paul and the authors of the Pauline School took up various positions
which were all represented in contemporary discussions about God and cosmos in the
philosophical schools. Against this background this study also sheds new light on the specific
relationship between Colossians and Ephesians.
Kraynak, Robert (1992). The Idea of The Messiah in the Theology of Thomas Hobbes in Jewish
Political Studies Review 4:2 (Fall 1992), 115-137. the-idea-of-the-messiah.pdf (jcpa.org)
accessed 27 September 2022. Hobbes elaborates a conception of the Messiah in his political
treatises that is unusual because it seems to combine Jewish and Christian elements. He
asserts that Jesus is the Messiah in the sense of being the earthly king of the Jews as well as
the Son of God and king of heaven. To clarify Hobbes’s position and to highlight its
117
Resources
strangeness, it is compared with the views of Moses Maimonides and Blaise Pascal. Hobbes
emerges from this comparison as a spokesman for a kind of “Jewish Christianity,” whose
purpose is not to return to the early Jewish sects that embraced Jesus as a new Moses but to
humanize the Messiah and to redefine Christianity for a new age of secular happiness. Hobbes
thereby inaugurates a new kind of biblical criticism which the Deists of the enlightenment era
developed and which continues today.
Lasor, William Sandford and others (1996). Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and
Background of the Old Testament, Second edition. Eerdmans
Leonard-Fleckman, Mahri. Messiah: I. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Encyclopedia of the Bible and
its Reception, Vol. 18
Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Eliyahu (2019). The Jewish Gospel of John: Discovering Jesus, King of All
Israel (Jewish Studies for Christians Book 3). Jewish Studies for Christians. Kindle Edition.
Longenecker, Richard N. (1999) Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Second Edition.
Eerdmans. Kindle. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi texts, and new
Targums has left biblical scholars increasingly interested in the relationship between the New
Testament and first-century Judaism. This critically acclaimed study by Richard Longenecker
sheds fresh light on this relationship by exploring the methods the earliest Christians used
to interpret the Old Testament. By comparing the first Christian writings with Jewish
documents from the same period, Longenecker helps to discern some of the key differences
between Christianity and Judaism. This second edition of Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic
Period brings Longenecker’s valued work up to date with current research in this important
field of study.
Lust, J. Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays
Macdonald, J. (1960). The Samaritan Doctrine of Moses in Scottish Journal of Theology, Volume 13,
Issue 2, June 1960, pages 149-162. doi:10.1017/S0036930600052510. Published online by
Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
MacRae, George. S.J (1987). Messiah and Gospel in Neusner (1987), pages 169-185
Mandel, Paul (1993). On the Duplicate Copy of the “Copper Scroll (3Q15)” in Revue de Qumran,
Vol. 16. No 1 (61), September 1993, pages 69-76. Peeters Publishers.
https://www.jwstor.org/24609083 accessed 10 May 2022
Martin, R. A. (1965). The Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3:15 in “Journal of Biblical
Literature”, Volume 84, No. 4, 425–427. https://doi.org/10.2307/3264870 accessed 4 October
2022
McWhirter, Jocelyn (2018). Messianic Exegesis in the Fourth Gospel in Reynolds (2018), pages
124-148. For a Summary, see Reynolds (2018)
“Messiah”, New World Encyclopedia (18 Sep 2018), accessed 9 Sep 2022.
<https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Messiah&oldid=1014592>
Moffitt, David Cheyne (2010). A New and Living Way: Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Thesis: Duke University Dissertation Template accessed 21
September 2022. The New Testament book known as the epistle to the Hebrews contains little
obvious reference to Jesus’ resurrection. Modern interpreters generally account for this
relative silence by noting that the author’s soteriological and christological concerns have led
him to emphasize Jesus’ death and exaltation while ignoring, spiritualizing, or even denying
his resurrection. In particular, the writer’s metaphorical appeal to the Yom Kippur sacrifice,
with its dual emphasis on the slaughter of the victim and the presentation of the victim’s
blood by the high priest, allows him to explain the salvific significance of Jesus’ death and
exaltation. The crucifixion can be likened to the slaughter of the victim, while Jesus’
exaltation in heaven can be likened to the high priest entering the holy of holies. In this way
the cross can be understood as an atoning sacrifice. Such a model leaves little room for
118
Resources
positive or distinct reflection on the soteriological or christological significance of the

resurrection.
This study argues that the soteriology and high-priestly Christology the author develops
depend upon Jesus’ bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven. The work begins with a
survey of positions on Jesus’ resurrection in Hebrews. I then present a case for the presence
and role of Jesus’ bodily resurrection in the text. First, I demonstrate that the writer’s
argument in Heb 1-2 for the elevation of Jesus above the angelic spirits assumes that Jesus
has his humanity--his blood and flesh--with him in heaven. Second, I show that in Heb 5-7
the writer identifies Jesus’ resurrection to an indestructible life as the point when Jesus
became a high priest. Third, I explain how this thesis makes coherent the author’s consistent
claims in Heb 8-10 that Jesus presented his offering to God in heaven. I conclude that Jesus’
crucifixion is neither the place nor the moment of atonement for the author of Hebrews.
Rather, in keeping with the equation in the Levitical sacrificial system of the presentation of
blood to God with the presentation of life, Jesus obtained atonement where and when the
writer says--when he presented himself in his ever-living, resurrected humanity before God in
heaven. Jesus’ bodily resurrection is, therefore, the hinge around which the high-priestly
Christology and soteriology of Hebrews turns.
Morgan, Michael; Weitzman, Steven (2015). Rethinking the Messianic Idea in Judaism. Indiana
University Press. Kindle Edition. Over the centuries, the messianic tradition has provided the
language through which modern Jewish philosophers, socialists, and Zionists envisioned a
utopian future. Michael L. Morgan, Steven Weitzman, and an international group of leading
scholars ask new questions and provide new ways of thinking about this enduring Jewish
idea.
Using the writings of Gershom Scholem, which ranged over the history of messianic belief
and its conflicted role in the Jewish imagination, these essays put aside the boundaries that
divide history from philosophy and religion to offer new perspectives on the role and
relevance of messianism today.
Mowinckel, Sigmund (1954). He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later
Judaism. Abingdon Press. Before we can understand the message of Jesus, we must have
some knowledge of the messianic concepts of his time. He That Cometh by Sigmund
Mowinckel offers the most comprehensive study available of messianic thought in the Bible.
He That Cometh first explores the antecedents of the term “Messiah” in the Old Testament,
focusing on the idea of a coming future king in early Jewish eschatology. It then examines the
messianic concept as used in later Judaism and in the early church. The book concludes with
an impressive discussion of the phrase “Son of Man”, the term Jesus himself used to interpret
his own messianic mission.
Mowinckel’s exhaustive documentation and his comprehensive analyses of both scriptural

sources and modern scholarship have earned for this volume a high standing among studies of
Jewish and Christian thought.
Neujahr, Matthew. Messiah: III. Judaism: (A) Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism. Encyclopedia
of the Bible and its Reception, Vol. 18
Neusner, Jacob; Green, William Scott; Frerichs, Ernest S. (1987). Judaisms and Their Messiahs at
the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge University Press
Nickelsburg, George (2005). Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and
Literary Introduction 2nd Edition. Fortress Press. Kindle Edition. George W. E Nickelsburg
introduces the reader to the broad range of Jewish literature that is not part of either the Bible
or the standard rabbinic works. This includes especially the Apocrypha (such as 1
119
Resources
Maccabees), the Pseudepigrapha (such as 1 Enoch), the Dead Sea Scrolls, the works of
Josephus, and the works of Philo.
Novenson, Matthew (2009). The Jewish Messiahs, the Pauline Christ, and the Gentile Question, in
Journal of Biblical Literature 128, No. 2, pages 357-373. The Jewish Messiahs, the Pauline
Christ, and the Gentile Question on JSTOR accessed 9 October 2022
Novenson, Matthew (2012). Christ Among the MESSIAHS: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah
Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford University Press. This book undertakes to resolve an
anomaly in two intersecting fields of research. Recent scholarship on early Judaism, finding
only a few diverse references to messiahs in ancient texts, has concluded that the word
“messiah” did not mean anything determinate in antiquity. Meanwhile, interpreters of the
apostle Paul, faced with his several hundred uses of the same word, have concluded that in
Paul it does not carry its conventional sense. The present study argues that early Jewish
messiah language was flexible enough to allow Paul’s idiosyncratic usage, and that any text
that uses such language must be taken as evidence for its range of meaning. The discussion of
Pauline christology has tended to use the “Christ” question as a cipher for more urgent
interpretive disputes, while the discussion of early Jewish messianism has been hampered by
an idealist account of religious language. On a social-linguistic model, however, a number of
problems begin to find resolution. “Christ” in Paul functions neither as a name nor as a title
but rather as an honorific. Paul’s several well known set phrases (e.g., “in Christ”) do not
resolve the question how he means “Christ,” but in a number of passages, Paul clarifies his
meaning in the same manner that other contemporary messiah texts do, by citing or alluding
to particular scriptural source texts. Christ language in Paul turns out to be not a foil for early
Jewish messianism, but an example of it.
Recent scholarship on ancient Judaism, finding only scattered references to messiahs in

Hellenistic- and Roman-period texts, has generally concluded that the word ‘‘messiah’’ did
not mean anything determinate in antiquity. Meanwhile, interpreters of Paul, faced with his
several hundred uses of the Greek word for ‘‘messiah, ‘‘ have concluded that christos in Paul
does not bear its conventional sense. Against this curious consensus, Matthew V. Novenson
argues in Christ among the Messiahs that all contemporary uses of such language, Paul’s
included, must be taken as evidence for its range of meaning. In other words, early Jewish
messiah language is the kind of thing of which Paul’s Christ language is an example.
Novenson, Matthew V. (2017). The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and
Its Users. Oxford University Press. Messianism is one of the great themes in intellectual
history. But because it has done so much important ideological work for the people who have
written about it, the historical roots of the discourse have been obscured from view.
What did it mean to talk about messiahs in the ancient world, before the idea of messianism
became a philosophical juggernaut, dictating the terms for all subsequent discussion of the
topic? In this book, Matthew V. Novenson offers a revisionist account of messianism in
antiquity.
He shows that, for the ancient Jews and Christians who used the term, a messiah was not an
article of faith but a manner of speaking. It was a scriptural figure of speech, one among
numerous others, useful for thinking about kinds of political order: present or future, real or
ideal, monarchic or theocratic, dynastic or charismatic, and other variations besides.
The early Christians famously seized upon the title messiah (in Greek, Christ) for their
founding hero and molded the sense of the term in certain ways; but, Novenson shows, this is
just what all ancient messiah texts do, each in its own way.
If we hope to understand the ancient texts about messiahs (from Deutero-Isaiah to the
Parables of Enoch, from the Qumran Community Rule to the Gospel of John, from the
120
Resources
Pseudo-Clementines to Sefer Zerubbabel), we must learn to think not in terms of a world-

historical idea but of a language game, of so many creative reuses of an archaic Israelite
idiom.
In The Grammar of Messianism, Novenson demonstrates the possibility and the benefit of
thinking of messianism in this way.
Orlov, Andrei A. (2007). From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism: Studies in the Slavonic
Pseudepigrapha. Brill. Orlov's essays on the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha represent one of the
most complete investigations of the various materials in the Slavonic pseudepigraphal
materials. His bibliography of the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha and related literature offers
students the most up-to-date and most complete authority on these texts. In his essays, Orlov
examines the interpretations of various biblical traditions (Enoch, Adam, Moses, Noah,
Jacob) in the Slavonic pseudepigraphal material.
Orr, James (General Editor) (1915). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume III,
Heresy-Naarah. article “Messiah”, pages 2039 – 2044. The Howard-Severance Company.
The International standard Bible encyclopedia : Orr, James, 1844-1913, ed : Free Download,
Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive accessed 10 October 2022
Patai, Raphael (1979). The Messiah Texts: Jewish Legends of Three Thousand Years. Wayne State
University Press. Kindle Edition. Following a detailed introduction to the world of messianic
ideology and its significance in Jewish history, The Messiah Texts traces the progress of the
messianic legend from its biblical beginnings to contemporary expressions.
Renowned scholar Raphael Patai has skilfully selected passages from a voluminous literature
spanning three millennia. Using his own translations from Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Latin,
and other original texts, Patai excerpts delightful folk tales, apocalyptic fantasies, and
parables of prophetic power. All are central to the understanding of a magnificent heritage.
Patai also investigates the false messiahs who have appeared throughout Jewish history, the
modern Messiah-influenced movements such as reform Judaism and Zionism, and the
numerous reasons put forth by the various branches of Judaism as to why the Messiah has not
yet appeared.
Penner, Erwin (1983). The Enthronement of Christ in Ephesians in Direction journal, July 1983,
Volume 12 No. 3, pages 12-19 Direction: The Enthronement of Christ in Ephesians
(directionjournal.org) accessed 24 September 2022. One of the most neglected themes in the
theology of the church is the enthronement of Christ at the Father’s right hand. A study of this
theme in Ephesians leads to the conclusion that the enthronement of Christ is the central and
determining christological theme in Ephesians. The enthronement theme is a unifying thread
running throughout the book and a theme that will help to build and challenge the church.
Porter, Stanley (2007). The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Eerdmans. When the ancients
talked about “messiah”, what did they picture? Did that term refer to a stately figure who
would rule, to a militant who would rescue, or to a variety of roles held by many? While
Christians have traditionally equated the word “messiah” with Jesus, the discussion is far
more complex. This volume contributes significantly to that discussion.
Ten expert scholars here address questions surrounding the concept of “messiah” and clarify
what it means to call Jesus “messiah.” The book comprises two main parts, first treating those
writers who preceded or surrounded the New Testament (two essays on the Old Testament
and two on extrabiblical literature) and then discussing the writers of the New Testament.
Concluding the volume is a critical response by Craig Evans to both sections.
Radke, Josh (2018). The Development of the ‘Son of Man’ in the Intertestamental Period. Paper for
‘OT-III’ Course, Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary. (99+) The Development of the
121
Resources
‘Son of Man’ in the Intertestamental Period | Josh Radke - Academia.edu accessed 20 May
2022
Reed, Annette Yoshiko (2015). Messianism between Judaism and Christianity, in Morgan (2015)
pages 23-49. (Chapter is also at Reed, Annette (2018). Jewish-Christianity and the History of
Judaism. Mohr Siebeck, pages 217-253). “Jewish-Christianity” is a contested category in
current research. But for precisely this reason, it may offer a powerful lens through which to
rethink the history of Jewish/Christian relations.
Traditionally, Jewish-Christianity has been studied as part of the origins and early diversity of
Christianity. Collecting revised versions of previously published articles together with new
materials, Annette Yoshiko Reed reconsiders Jewish-Christianity in the context of Late
Antiquity and in conversation with Jewish studies. She brings further attention to
understudied texts and traditions from Late Antiquity that do not fit neatly into present day
notions of Christianity as distinct from Judaism. In the process, she uses these materials to
probe the power and limits of our modern assumptions about religion and identity.
Reid, Daniel G. (editor). The IVP Dictionary of the NT: A One-Volume Compendium of
Contemporary Biblical Scholarship
Reynolds, Benjamin; Boccaccini, Gabriele, editors (2018). Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology
as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs. Brill. The essays in Reading
the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine
Messiahs seek to interpret John’s Jesus as part of Second Temple Jewish messianic
expectations. The Fourth Gospel is rarely considered part of the world of early Judaism.
While many have noted John’s Jewishness, most have not understood John’s Messiah as a
Jewish messiah. The Johannine Jesus, who descends from heaven, is declared the Word made
flesh, and claims oneness with the Father, is no less Jewish than other messiahs depicted in
early Judaism. John’s Jesus is at home on the spectrum of early Judaism’s royal, prophetic,
and divine messiahs. …
The Fourth Gospel has more often than not been considered antagonistic to Judaism than as a
Jewish text. When some Jewishness has been granted, scholars often see the evangelist as
reshaping or redefining Jewish ideas.
In these essays, the contributors attempt to portray Johannine Christology as part of Jewish
messianic expectations within early Judaism. The contributors discuss John’s Messiah in
relation to royal, prophetic, and divine messiah expectations of Second Temple Judaism. The
essays in this volume have been categorized under the headings of “John’s Jesus as a Jewish
Messiah: Paths Taken and Not Taken”; “John’s Word and Jewish Messianic Interpretation”;
“John’s Royal Messiah”; “John’s Prophetic Messiah”; and “John’s Messiah and Divinity”,
along with an epilogue.
Roberts, J.J.M. (1992). The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations, in
Charlesworth (1992)
Robinson, George (2008). Essential Judaism: A Guide to Beliefs, Customs and Rituals (Reissued
2008). Atria Books
Rose, Wolter (2001). Messianic Expectations in the Old Testament, in die Skriflig 35(2) 2001: 275-
288 (99+) Messianic Expectations in the Old Testament | Wolter Rose - Academia.edu
accessed 19 September 2022
Rose, Wolter (2003). Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period, in Rainer Albertz and
Bob Becking, (eds.): Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the
Persian Era (Studies in Theology and Religion 5), Assen 2003, pp.168–185. (99+) Messianic
122
Resources
Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period | Wolter Rose - Academia.edu accessed 19

September 2022
Rowland, Christopher (1982). The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early
Christianity. SPCK. The Open Heaven offers a comprehensive discussion of Jewish
apocalyptic literature and themes in the Second Temple period and in early Christianity. In it
there is a sustained challenge to the widespread view that apocalypticism is a form of
eschatology, and, it has been widely recognised as a significant contribution to the discussion
of apocalypticism in religion since it was first published twenty years ago.
By concentrating on the revelatory character of apocalyptic texts rather than on their diverse
contents, the author suggests that it is this aspect of the literature which best enables us to
understand their distinctive religion.
The book offers a sustained argument for the view that apocalyptic literature is primarily
about the disclosure of heavenly wisdom which offers recipients an understanding of life in
the present. He also suggests that there may be some evidence to support the view that
apocalypses include reports of visionary experience. The approach to apocalypticism in early
Christianity stresses the importance of the visionary element as a decisive element in the
history of Christian origins.
Sanders, E. P.: St Paul the Apostle: Christology. Encyclopedia Britannica
Scholem, Gerschom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1946) Schocken Books. PDF
Scholem, Gershom (1971). The Messianic Idea in Judaism and other Ideas on Jewish Spirituality.
Schocken Books. Gershom Scholem was the master builder of historical studies of the
Kabbalah. When he began to work on this neglected field, the few who studied these texts
were either amateurs who were looking for occult wisdom, or old-style Kabbalists who were
seeking guidance on their spiritual journeys. His work broke with the outlook of the scholars
of the previous century in Judaica—die Wissenschaft des Judentums, the Science of
Judaism—whose orientation he rejected, calling their “disregard for the most vital aspects of
the Jewish people as a collective entity: a form of “censorship of the Jewish past.” The major
founders of modern Jewish historical studies in the nineteenth century, Leopold Zunz and
Abraham Geiger, had ignored the Kabbalah; it did not fit into their account of the Jewish
religion as rational and worthy of respect by “enlightened” minds. The only exception was the
historian Heinrich Graetz. He had paid substantial attention to its texts and to their most
explosive exponent, the false Messiah Sabbatai Zevi, but Graetz had depicted the Kabbalah
and all that flowed from it as an unworthy revolt from the underground of Jewish life against
its reasonable, law-abiding, and learned mainstream. Scholem conducted a continuing
polemic with Zunz, Geiger, and Graetz by bringing into view a Jewish past more varied, more
vital, and more interesting than any idealized portrait could reveal.
Schröter, Jens. Messiah: II. New Testament. Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, Vol. 18
(Mass-Midnight). Walter de Gruyter GmbH (2020) https://doi.org/10.1515/ebr.messiah
Scott, James M. (1996) The Triumph of God in 2 Cor 2.14: Additional Evidence of Merkabah
Mysticism in Paul. New Testament Studies, volume 42(2), pages 260-281
Scott, James (1997). Throne-Chariot Mysticism in Qumran and in Paul, in Evans (1997), pages 101 –
119. The Paper builds on a thesis originally suggested in the above-mentioned article The
Triumph of God in 2 Cor 2.14: Additional Evidence of Merkabah Mysticism in Paul, in New
Testament Studies 42 (1996), 260-81 https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500020737
Scott, James (1998). 2 Corinthians. Baker Books. Kindle
Segal, Alan F. (1990) PAUL THE CONVERT: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee.
Yale University Press
123
Resources
Segovia, Carlos A.; Boccaccini, Gabriele (2016). Paul the Jew Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of
Second Temple Judaism. Fortress Press. For the Summary, see Boccaccini (2016)
Sigal, Gerald (2007). Isaiah 53: Jesus is not the Servant. Kindle
Smith, Morton. (1959). What Is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures? in Journal of Biblical
Literature, 78(1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/3264402;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3264402 accessed 17 May 2022
Snell, Antony, S.S.M. (1959). New and Living Way: An Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The Faith Press.
Tabor, James (n.d.). One, Two, or Three Messiahs: Dynastic and Priestly Pedigrees from the
Maccabees to Masada. (99+) One, Two, or Three Messiahs: Dynastic and Priestly Pedigrees
from the Maccabees to Masada | James D . Tabor - Academia.edu accessed 19 September
2022. Also at Microsoft Word - MessiahsDavisPaper.doc (jamestabor.com) accessed 19
September 2022.
Tabor, James (2006). The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the
Birth of Christianity. Simon and Schuster
Tamar Yael Bat’Yah (2009). Problematic Passages in the “Gospels”: In defense of Yahushua the
Netzari as “The Messiah”. (99+) Problematic Passages in “The Gospels”| Tamar Yael
BatYah - Academia.edu accessed 27 September 2022
VanderKam, James (1999). Messianism and Apocalypticism , Chapter 6 in Collins (1999)
Van der Woude, A.S., in Kittel (1974): Messianic Ideas in Later Judaism (Kittel, pages 509-510);
Messianic Ideas in Qumran (517-520); Messianic Ideas in Rabbinic Writings (521-527).
Varner, Professor Dr William, (n.d.). The Messianic Theology of the Old and New Testaments. (99+)
MESSIANIC THEOLOGY OF THE OT and NT | William Varner - Academia.edu accessed
8 September 2022
Waddell, James. The Messiah in the Parables of Enoch and the Letters of Paul: A Comparative
Analysis PDF
Wagner, Corey (2013). The Conflation of Priest and King in Messianic Expectations and Concepts of
the Late Second Temple Period and the Role of Jesus of Nazareth in Nascent Christian
Messianic expectations. (Thesis). Rothberg International School at the Hebrew University
Campus. (41) Conflation of King and Priest in Messianic Expectations and Concepts of the
late Second Temple period and the Messianic Role of Jesus of Nazareth: The Hebrew Bible,
Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament | Corey J Wagner - Academia.edu accessed 5 May
2022.
Wassén, Celia; Hägerland, Tobias. Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet (2021). Bloomsbury T&T Clark
KINDLE
Weitzman, Steven; Morgan, Michael (2015). Rethinking the Messianic Idea in Judaism. Indiana
University Press. Kindle Edition. See under Morgan (2015) for the Summary.
Wikipedia. Messiah ben Joseph. Messiah ben Joseph - Wikipedia accessed 3 August 2022
Zetterholm, Magnus (2007). The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity. Fortress Press. Kindle
Edition. “The Messiah” neatly surveys currents of messianic thought in the formative
centuries of Judaism and Christianity, providing precision in thinking about “messianic”
images and tradition. Leading scholars offer succinct and illuminating essays on the traditions
that decisively shaped Jewish and Christian belief in a messiah. This book includes two maps,
a timeline of persons, events, and literature, and a glossary of terms.
124
PAPERS BY DOUG MASON
A Spirit World. (99+) A Spirit World | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
If we relied on the canonical Hebrew Bible alone, without subsequent writing and
commentary, our religious heritage would be Devil-free. By the time of 1 Enoch, however,
we have entered a different religious universe in which very potent evil forces exist and form
part of a rival kingdom set against that of God. (Jenkins, Philip. Crucible of Faith: The
Ancient Revolution that made our Modern Religious World, page 62).
An emperor intervenes: Constantine reshapes Catholic Christianity and its Scriptures. (2006,
Constantine’s Bible). (99+) AN EMPEROR INTERVENES: CONSTANTINE RESHAPES
CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY AND ITS SCRIPTURES | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
In the middle of the bloodiest, most destructive persecution Roman officials had ever inflicted
on the Christian Church, the new young emperor Constantine, son of Constantius, decided to
appeal to the Christian God for supernatural protection in his civil war against Maxentius.
That audacious decision must rank as one of the most ironic, consequence-laden events in
western history.
Biblical Listings a library of sacred literature. (99+) Biblical Listings A LIBRARY OF SACRED
LITERATURE | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
A Bible is a library of books. Each Christian community makes its selection on which books
it includes and which it will exclude. These selection processes covered centuries, and longer
as each Church created its Bible. This situation remains, with the Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syrian, Protestants and others producing its own Bible. The situation
was fluid at the time when the New Testament writers plied their craft. Literature was
available to them that in later centuries would no longer be included in some Bibles. But the
New Testament writers did not know this would happen, and they alluded to literature that
many today do not accept as Scripture. This Paper tabulates lists of books proposed during the
selection process. This Paper also tabulates the books alluded to by New Testament authors
that were later not included in most Bibles.
Changes in Millennial Dawn and Studies in the Scriptures. (99+) Changes in Millennial Dawn and
Studies in the Scriptures | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
None of Russell’s predictions came to pass, so words in his books were altered and they
continued to sell them. Today, Witnesses are told that 1914 was a year “marked” by Russell,
but they are not told that Russell expected an outbreak of enduring PEACE with 1914, under
the auspices of fleshly Jews. The following pages demonstrate key alterations that the
Watchtower Society made at the time to Charles Taze Russell’s books “Millennial Dawn”
[MD], subsequently renamed “Studies in the Scriptures” [SS]. The original title reflected
Russell’s teaching that the Millennium had already dawned.
Conception of the Great Religions. (99+) Conception of the Great Religions | Doug Mason -
Academia.edu
Brilliant minds of creative geniuses have influenced more people than any other for millennia.
Billions have had their lives influenced by them. But we do not know their names. Great
innovators who set in motion movements that sweep history, directly influencing great and
small, powerful and the needy. Magnificent cathedrals, breathtaking places of worship, stand
testimony to the ongoing power of those who conceived ideas that capture the hopes and
aspirations, that inspire great art, music, and literature. Could these conceivers have ever
imagined their legacy, their ongoing impact upon people of all ages and races? Historians
recognise them, although no one knows their names. Historians only know that they lived in
the third century BCE. Some call them the first true Jews. Their ideas became fundamental to
the ideas that underscore Judaism, Christianity and Islam, at least. It was they who set in
motion the ideas, who absorbed ideas, who moulded ideas – ideas that capture and captivate.
Whether it be the idea of the imminent Divine Intervention; a promised last-days Messiah; an
evil empire with an evil Leader; a single supreme deity; resurrection; and more – all come
from that group of anonymous conceivers 2200 years ago.
125
Papers by Doug Mason
CONSTANTINE’SַBIBLEַCHAPTERַ1:ַWHATַAַ“CANON” OF SCRIPTURE IS-AND IS

NOT. (99+) CONSTANTINE’S BIBLE CHAPTER 1: WHAT A “CANON” OF
SCRIPTURE IS-AND IS NOT | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Scholars of comparative religions often use the term canon to refer to any traditional
assemblage of sacred texts. One sees references, for example, to the “Vedic Canon,” the
“Taoist Canon,” the “Canon of the Five Confucian Classics”, and so on. But as we shall see,
the term canon is properly restricted to a much more specific phenomenon that is not the same
as the gradual accumulation, over time, of a set of sacred scriptures. However popular and
widespread, using the terms canon and scripture as if they were roughly synonymous involves
a comprehensive misunderstanding. When comparative religions scholars use the term canon
to refer to any collection of scriptures, the result is widespread confusion.
CritiqueַofַtheַWatchtower’sַ“The Bible – God’sַWordַorַMan’s?” on Daniel 9. (99+) Critique
of the Watchtower’s “The Bible – God’s Word or Man’s?” on Daniel 9 | Doug Mason -
Academia.edu
Through the 14 chapters of its book “The Bible - God’s Word or Man’s?”, the WTS
endeavours to provide evidences that the Bible is “the Word of God”.
The book says that one evidence of the Bible’s divine source is given through the precise
fulfilment of prophecy.
For its example of fulfilled prophecy, the WTS refers to Daniel 9, saying that it predicted the
exact year when Jesus would be anointed. Is its claim justified?
Daniel 4 and 1914 CE? (99+) Daniel 4 and 1914 CE? | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
The authority and claims that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [WTS] makes for itself
relies on the significance it gives to the year 1914 CE. This is the year of Christ’s Parousia
when he took up his position in the kingdom set up by Jehovah God. To arrive at 1914 CE,
along with its significance, the WTS begins with a dream. Is the WTS’s interpretation of that
dream solid? Are its arguments along the way to 1914 CE grounded in verifiable facts? Are
its explanations reasonable?
Dead. Resurrected. Saved in the Second Temple period. (99+) Dead. Resurrected. Saved in the
Second Temple period | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Death is the inevitable outcome of being alive. Death does not discriminate, coming to
Pharaoh, Imam, Pope, Rabbi, and Commoner alike. Western religions in their various forms
offer messages that find their genesis in the period of Judaism’s Second temple, when Persia’s
Zoroastrianism, Hellenist philosophies, the Mystery religions and Judaisms interacted and
intermingled, influencing one another and their successors. How did each of those dynamic
groups face Death and its consequences? What promises did they give? What warnings did
they make? Reading their thoughts provides insights into their times and their cultures. At the
same time, these insights provide lessons that help each person as they face the inevitable and
be better able to respond to modern religion’s attempts.
DidַIsrael’sַRulerַComeַFromַBethlehem? (99+) Did Israel's ruler come from Bethlehem? | Doug
Mason - Academia.edu
The July 2012 issue of Awake! states that the narratives of Jesus’ birth show that the Bible is
“A Book of Accurate Prophecy.” The aim of this Study is to find out what the birth narratives
do reveal about the nature of the Bible. What does investigation of the writings of Micah,
Matthew, and Luke reveal about the way that the Bible should be read and applied? Does this
investigation open the door to a better comprehension of the nature of Scripture?
126
DOUG’sַCPAPַTRIAL:ַDISCUSSION,ַDATA,ַandַDIARY. (99+) DOUG’s CPAP TRIAL:

DISCUSSION, DATA, and DIARY | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
This is my account of my first encounter into the world of CPAP, apnoeas and so forth. I am
documenting my four-week APAP/CPAP trial, which has been an interesting, enlightening,
challenging, and at times frustrating start to a journey. I have been introduced to an industry
that operates at every level, from medical to consumerism. I provide graphical representations
of data and a diary of my experiences and observations. I am in no way suggesting I have any
degree of expertise in the subject. This is all new, a big learning leap that millions have
traversed. I am simply hoping that my account might provide a model for recording.
European Christologies and Salvations. (99+) European Christologies and Salvations | Doug Mason
- Academia.edu
Christian Christologies and Soteriologies experience constant change.
Evolution Creation Creationism. (99+) Evolution Creation Creationism | Doug Mason -
Academia.edu Summary of key features of evolution, biblical creation, and Christian
Creationism (illustrated).
Evolutionary scientists quoted by the watchtower society in The Origin of Life: Five Questions
Worth Asking. (99+) EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS QUOTED BY THE
WATCHTOWER SOCIETY in The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking | Doug
In 2010, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society published a 32-page brochure, “The Origin
of Life”, with the intention of supporting its view that life was created by a divine source, as
declared in the Hebrew Scriptures. The purpose of this Critique is to examine the manner in
which the brochure employs information from scientists to support the Watchtower’s
position. Their brochure does not claim that any of the cited scientists supports its stance on
Creation and indeed makes it very clear that the scientists are evolutionists. When the
brochure provides information from a scientist, it appeals to the reader’s subjective opinion,
asking whether it is possible that unaided Nature could have resulted in the outcomes
witnessed by scientists. This is the brochure’s strategy and agenda. Truth would thus be
determined through subjective opinion. However, this very same information is used by
scientists in their support for evolution.
God-Breathed Scriptures. (99+) God-breathed Scriptures | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
For those interested in Christianity and its relationship to the Bible, few subjects are more
significant than the claim that it is “God-breathed”, or as many translate the Greek word:
“inspired of God”.
Halpern, Emergence of Israel in Canaan. (99+) Halpern, Emergence of Israel in Canaan | Doug
Halpern, Emergence of Israel in Canaan. (99+) Halpern, Emergence of Israel in Canaan | Doug
“The Emergence of Israel in Canaan” by Baruch Halpern is divided into four parts. Part I
deals with the textual sources which can be utilized for a discussion of Israel’s emergence,
namely: the Book of Judges, the Patriarchal Narratives, and the Early Poetry of Israel. Part II
discusses the three main models for the Israelite phenomenon—conquest, settlement and
peasants’ revolt. Part III works towards an examination of the components of pre-monarchic
Israel and how Israel grew from a peoplehood to a centralized government that included a
monarchy. Part IV discusses how pre-monarchic Israel was organized and whether there was
any central authority during that period.
Installation of Yahweh alone. (99+) Installation of Yahweh alone | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Yahweh’s journey from local warrior god assigned to weather and storms to his installation as
the universal deity -- and the people who put him there.
127
Is Awake! accurateַaboutַJesus’ַanointing? (99+) Is Awake accurate about Messiah's anointing? |

Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Awake! for July 2012 claims that the “70 weeks” prophecy at Daniel 9 predicted the year
when Jesus was baptised and anointed by God.
Israel’sַWorld. (99+) Israel’s World | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
What was the world like for the first settlers of Canaan’s Hill country and as they emerged to
form a kingdom? This Study considers their external and internal experiences up to the time
they were ruled by Kings Saul and David.
Jehovah’sַWitnessesַandַtheirַteachingַonַBloodַTransfusionַbyַMaxַHatton. (99+) Jehovah’s
Witnesses and their teaching on Blood Transfusion, by Max Hatton | Doug Mason -
Academia.edu
This Paper is an appeal to Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept what the Bible teaches on blood and
its use.
Johannine soteriology and christology 1. (99+) JOHANNINE SOTERIOLOGY AND
CHRISTOLOGY 1 | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Understanding some of the history of the Fourth Gospel assists understanding. While the
Fourth Gospel must be read and treated as a completed document, understanding something
of the history of its development assists the reader in understanding its meaning. The
Johannine community started out as a group of Jews. J. L. Martyn detects in 1:35-51 that the
Johannine community began among Jews who came to Jesus and with relatively little
difficulty found him to be the Messiah they expected. I [Raymond Brown] think he is
perfectly right. Significant polemical situation within the synagogue and with the Johannine
community one may begin, in agreement with Louis Martyn and others, with a recognition
that a polemical situation within the synagogue and later between the Johannine community
and the synagogue is almost certainly a significant, if not the central, milieu of the Johannine
material, particularly the Fourth Gospel. (Community of the Beloved Disciple, page 71.)
Matthew’sַmessagesַthroughַJesus’ַinauguralַtests. (99+) MATTHEW’S MESSAGES
THROUGH JESUS’ INAUGURAL TESTS | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Writing in 68 CE, 85 CE, and 90 CE respectively, the Authors of the Gospels according to
Saints Mark, Matthew, and Luke say that immediately following his baptism and acceptance
by Heaven, Jesus experienced a period of testing. Matthew is the earliest account that presents
details of the tests and their outcomes. This Study examines the cultural and lexical contexts
of that account to identify the messages that were intended by the Authors and understood by
their immediate community. To achieve this objective, this Study first presents the situations
that the authors of Matthew encountered.
People who were important to Charles Taze Russell. (99+) People who were important to Charles
Taze Russell | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Documents from the time of people who influenced Charles Taze Russell, the second
President of the Watch Tower Society.
Pictures from Lipsius de Cruce Liber Primus. (99+) Pictures from Lipsius de Cruce Liber Primus |
In Appendices of translations of the Greek Scriptures (“New Testament”) the WTS provides a
picture of a man attached to a single pole. This, they explain is the manner of Christ’s
execution. This picture, they explain, comes from the book De Cruce Liber Primus: “This is
the manner in which Jesus was impaled” (Kingdom Interliner, page 1155).
This is not impalement, in which the instrument of death is forced up through the victim’s
body.
Most important is the fact that the WTS totally misrepresents what Justus Lipsius wrote. He
actually provided a number of illustrations, showing several such methods of execution.
Lipsius concluded his research by saying that the conventional cross, in which a crosspiece is
attached to a pole, was the implement used in Christ’s death.
It does not matter if Lipsius was right or wrong. What matters is that the WTS deliberately
128
misreported Lipsius and that it hides factual evidence from its followers. If it does this with an
non-essential matter, how does it behave with critically important matters?
Questionַbreath’sַsources. (99+) QUESTION BREATH’S SOURCES | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Breath by James Nestor has opened my eyes. Its influence will remain with me and continue to
grow. I am genuinely pleased it was recommended to me as it has opened my life to an
important area of living. The evidence is absolutely clear on the need to breathe with the mouth
firmly closed. It is my wish that Mr Nestor considers consolidating his nose-breathing message
by revisiting his sources, eliminating those which diminish his credibility.
RESCUED FROM THE DEPTHS OF DESPAIR: CHAPTERS 8 AND 9 OF THE BOOK OF
DANIEL IN CONTEXT. https://www.academia.edu/s/c9c52703f5?source=link
The Book of Daniel was a product of the latter Second temple period, and it refers to their
experiences with the Maccabean Revolt and the subsequent emergence of the Hasmoneans.
This means that all meanings, such as the “message to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”, the
“2300 evenings and mornings”, and so forth, need to be understood only within that context.
The message to “restore and rebuild” was given by Judas Maccabaeus. Time periods were
intended literally, including the 1150 days as are described in the Book of Maccabees. The
objective of the 70 ‘sevens’ was to give the people and the city a time to rectify their evil
ways.
Revolutions in Judaeo-Christian beliefs about Salvation: Jesus-followers: From a
Fundamentalist Nazarene to Visionaries of the Diaspora. (34) Discussion: Revolutions in
Judaeo-Christian beliefs about Salvation Jesus-followers: From a Fundamentalist Nazarine to
Visionaries of the Diaspora - Academia.edu
Satan. Lucifer. Devil. Assumptions and Presumptions. (99+) Satan. Lucifer. Devil. Assumptions
and Presumptions | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
This Paper, presenting Leaders of the Evil Spirit World, steps across 2500 years of history,
providing stepping stones that touch key features of thinking along the journey.
Science, or Superstitious Mythology. (99+) Science, or Superstitious Mythology | Doug Mason -
Academia.edu
People ignore the warnings provided by Earth’s previous mass extinctions of life, hence they
deny the present Holocene extinction phase, saying that “God will not allow his Earth to be
destroyed”. The outcome is that Man is speeding the extinction process as it raids Earth’s
finite resources and the relentless search for growth. ====== False assumptions emanating
from Evolution and Creation include: • Life was inevitable • Changes were improvements •
Homo Sapiens is the purpose and objective of the process. Hence there was an intended
design (with Creationists and their fellow travellers ignoring the issue of Theodicy).
Second Temple period Literature UPDATED. (99+) Second Temple period Literature UPDATED |
An outline of Second Temple literature from the early post-exilic period through to the
literature produced in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple. This
is an expanded and restructured presentation.
Second Temple period Mysticisms and Mysteries. (99+) Second Temple period Mysticisms and
Mysteries | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Completely revised Study on the Mysticisms and Mysteries during the Second-Temple period
and their ongoing impact. The information is structured thematically: 1. Celestial Ascents 2.
Mysticisms 3. The Mysteries 4. Descent from Heaven Plus two Appendices.
Second-Temple Period Messiahs (updated 2022). (99+) Second-Temple Period Messiahs (updated
2022) | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Considers the range of concepts concerning Messianic expectations during the Second-
Temple Period.
129
Second-Temple Period Resources. (99+) Second-Temple Period Resources | Doug Mason -

Academia.edu
These pages list resources I accessed or have identified as relevant during my research of the
Second Temple Period (2TP). There is a wealth of further relevant information, but I hope
this listing provides some help.
Shadduck Seven thunders of Millenial Dawn 1928. (99+) Shadduck Seven thunders of Millenial
Dawn 1928 | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
A paper written in 1928 refuting the Watch Tower Society’s Russell and Rutherford. Written
by B. H. Shadduck.
Soteriology of the Pre-Exilic Period: Forming the Foundations. (99+) Soteriology of the Pre-
Exilic Period: Forming the Foundations | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Considers the concepts of “salvation” during the Israelite pre-Exilic period.
Termination of a pregnancy: ethics and facts. (99+) TERMINATION OF A PREGNANCY:
ETHICS AND FACTS | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is deeply traumatic. Its impact lasts a lifetime,
affecting her husband, her other children, her parents, her in-laws, the wider family circle and
her associates. This decision must never be taken lightly, frivolously. A termination must be
conducted only after comprehensive medical and psychological assessments.
The “Faithful and Discreet Slave” and its “Governing Body” Doug Mason. (99+) The “Faithful
and Discreet Slave” and its “Governing Body” Doug Mason | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
The Governing Body (GB) of Jehovah’s Witnesses derives its authority through its claim that
it was appointed in 1919 by Jehovah God and Jesus to be the sole voice on Earth of God’s
heavenly government. JW’s thus heed the GB because of that claim. This Paper critiques the
bases of the GB’s claims and structures.
The amazing transformation of David. (99+) THE AMAZING TRANSFORMATION OF DAVID |
So much has been written about David, King of Judah and Israel, but there was one question I
needed to have answered: How could such a murderous, loathsome, hated, adulterous, tyrant
represent the Messianic ruler of God’s eternal Kingdom? David had been a powerful warlord
leading a Habiru-like gang of bandits who lived outside the law as extortionists, wife-stealers,
and more. I was personally very distressed as I uncovered David as he murdered, stole wives,
fathered many children with many wives and concubines. This was not the image I had of him
before I conducted my research. How was it possible that this person, who fought against the
King of Israel, even taking that king’s wife as his own, how could he be the same David who
is revered and became so intimately associated with the promised Messiah? How could this
transformation have taken place? What took place that enabled this most amazing
transformation? This Study is not an inquiry into David. This is about the people who
achieved David’s transformation. I wanted to know if it were possible to trace the processes
that brought about this most amazing transformation, this stunning change of image. At the
start we have a murdering tyrant and at the finish we have the messianic king. What made this
possible?
The Death, Grave and Funeral of Charles Taze Russell. (99+) The Death, Grave and Funeral of
Charles Taze Russell | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
Historical pictures, articles and correspondence related to the death of Charles Taze Russell.
From an anonymous source.
The Internment of Aliens, F Lafitte (1940). (99+) The Internment of Aliens, F Lafitte (1940) | Doug
Mr. Lafitte describes the treatment of German and Austrian refugees in Britain from the
outbreak of war down to August, 1940, and particularly when the Government adopted a
policy of wholesale internment in May. He analyses the reasons for the official attitude to
“enemy aliens”, and suggests a better attitude which would be at once less wasteful for our
130
war effort, more reasonable and more humane. As a history, this book tells a lamentable story
of muddle and stupidity. As a critique it attempts to show that the “refugee problem” now
facing us in war-time is really a British problem, a problem of justice and personal freedom in
which the reputation of Britain is involved. (Front cover – 1940)
TheַMeaningַofַtheַwordַ‘blood’ַinַScripture,ַRev.ַA.ַM.ַStibbs. (99+) The Meaning of Blood |
The Messiah is coming soon. (99+) THE MESSIAH IS COMING SOON | Doug Mason -
Academia.edu
The objective of this Paper is to examine each key element of the Coming of Messiah and
trace its origin and journey. When every element is seen to be sound, this could validate a
belief in a Coming. It is not the purpose of this Paper to identify, formulate or describe any
sequence of Last-day events. It does not propose, suggest, recommend, or critique any of the
wide range of proposed models. The wide and diverse range of models bears witness to the
fact that none is literally mapped out in any Scripture. By considering the sources and the
journeys of each key element – such as: Messiah, Temple, and Resurrection, this Paper
considers their origins and the influences on them. For many fundamentalist Christians and
Muslims, belief in the imminent Coming of the Messiah impacts their daily lives and their
interpretation of the world. Each believes their actions and their influences determine how
soon Messiah’s cataclysmic cosmic earth-shattering Coming is able to be manifest to the
world. The influences of these commitments spread into the political arenas of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. The religious views of the Coming of Messiah underscore conflicts
throughout history, resulting in human impacts ranging from individual suicide attacks to
multi-national wars. A soon-coming Messiah is not an academic, intellectual exercise. It has
real-life consequences.
the_neo-Babylonian_chronology. (99+) the_neo-Babylonian_chronology | Doug Mason and John
Mieras - Academia.edu
“The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking” FAILS TO DELIVER. (99+) “The Origin of
Life: Five Questions Worth Asking” FAILS TO DELIVER | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
In 2010, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society released the brochures, “The Origin of Life:
Five Questions Worth Asking” and “Was Life Created?” While the focus of this Critique is
dominantly on the former brochure, at times reference is made to the latter. The science is
complex and well beyond most to comprehend. This Critique, “The Origin of Life: Five
Questions Worth Asking” FAILS TO DELIVER, does not venture deeply into the
technicalities of the science-it examines how the brochure handles and presents information.
Does the brochure do this fairly and openly? Are its conclusions valid? Does the brochure
provide the information in the manner that enables its readers to make a genuinely informed
decision? This Critique considers information that the brochure did not present but should
have.
“The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking”: USING SCIENTISTS (Revision 2). (99+)
“The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking”: USING SCIENTISTS (Revision2 | Doug
In 2010, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society published a 32-page brochure, “The Origin
of Life”, with the intention of supporting its view that life was created by a divine source, as
declared in the Hebrew Scriptures. The purpose of this Critique is to examine the manner in
which the brochure employs information from scientists to support the Watchtower’s
position. Their brochure does not claim that any of the cited scientists supports its stance on
Creation and indeed makes it very clear that the scientists are evolutionists. When the
brochure provides information from a scientist, it appeals to the reader’s subjective opinion,
asking whether it is possible that unaided Nature could have resulted in the outcomes
witnessed by scientists. This is the brochure’s strategy and agenda. Truth would thus be
determined through subjective opinion. However, this very same information is used by
scientists in their support for evolution.
131
The Originators of Judaism. Christianity, and Islam. (99+) The Originators of Judaism.
Christianity, and Islam | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
People living in the latter part of the post-biblical Second Temple period introduced and
nurtured novel beliefs that became fundamental to rabbinic Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
This Paper introduces key people who were responsible, who lived and fought for their
beliefs.
The vision at Daniel chapter 8 sets up the message at Daniel chapter 9. (9) THE VISION AT
DANIEL CHAPTER 8 SETS UP THE MESSAGE AT DANIEL CHAPTER 9 | Doug Mason
- Academia.edu
Daniel Chapter 8 provides the setup for the message of Chapter 9. Although these passages
are set in the 6th century BCE physical desecration of the Jerusalem temple by the
Babylonians, they related to the 2nd century spiritual desecration of the Temple by Antiochus
Epiphanes. The authors wrote historical stories solely for the purpose of influencing their own
times. Their histories provided lessons for their communities that were intended solely for the
purpose of directly and immediately affecting them.
The Watch Tower Society Reveals Itself. (99+) The Watch Tower Society Reveals Itself | Doug
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society [WTS] is about 135 years old. From the time of its
creation, the organization has produced books, magazines and tracts, and later it ventured into
audio and visual media. The organization thus provides a vast array of detailed
documentation. This Study uses some of the written material to help provide an insight into
the organization. The current leadership endeavours to link itself to its origins while at the
same time distancing itself, using euphemisms such as “increased light”. Previous statements
shine a light on the present. Whether the current leadership uses a new name for an old
teaching or whether it openly contradicts a previous belief, it all helps to reveal the thinking
of the current leadership.
TheַWatchtowerַSociety’sַLoyaltyַTestַoverַBlood:ַAַGuideַtoַUnderstandingַandַHandling.
(99+) The Watchtower Society's Loyalty Test over Blood | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
The reasons JWs refuse some blood products and some medical procedures involving blood.
TheַWatchtower’sַHandling of Blood. (99+) The Watchtower's Handling of Blood | Doug Mason -
Academia.edu
In 1977, the Watchtower Society produced a definitive booklet “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
Question of Blood”. It covered religious, moral and medical issues. These three documents
relate to that WTS booklet. I wrote this Paper in the 1980s. It addresses each point raised in
the Society’s booklet.
In April 1989, I received a personal letter from an impeccable source, who wrote:
“While the booklet on Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood was written primarily
by Gene Smalley, I know that Dr. [Lowell] Dixon reviewed it with him and made
suggestions.”
Transforming the Messiahs: Earthly Monarchs and High Priests to Celestial Liberators. (99+)
Transforming the Messiahs: Earthly Monarchs and High Priests to Celestial Liberators | Doug
Initially, the Hebrew “Messiah” spoke only of a living, anointed person, such as a current
monarch or high priest, maybe even a prophet. Changed circumstances, most notably the
cessation of the monarchs and more particularly the power grab by the Hasmoneans and the
oppression under Rome, witnessed a hope arising for divine intervention in their affairs. They
envisaged one or more powerful liberators would remove the oppression and restore the
nation to its rightful state. God would be the active driving force during this period, the Last
Days. Included in this eschatological scenario was one or more messiahs, which represented a
distinct revolution from the nature of Messiahs in the biblical period of the Davidic Dynasty.
Jews arose claiming to be the anticipated Liberator, and the followers of Yeshua of Nazareth
in Galilee held him up as The Liberator, even attaching the title “Christ” to his name, but
132
instead of removing the power of Rome and liberating God’s people, Yeshua was executed by
Rome. Just as the earlier Judahites had amended their understanding of Messiah when the
Davidic Dynasty ended, in similar fashion the followers of Yeshua changed their meaning of
the title. Paul and his followers employed the Merkebah tradition of transportations to the
Throne Room of God, thereby creating the revolution where Yeshua Christ sat on God’s
throne. This was another unprecedented revolution of Messiahship. The action moved from
restitution at a national level to cosmic action focused on the throne of God. The Merkebah
Messiahship of Yeshua shaped the imagery of their literature, notably at Ephesians and
Hebrews as well as the apocalyptic Book of Revelation. Instead of the Liberator freeing Israel
from the nation’s oppressors, Yeshua provided liberty from the oppressor Sin, and the victory
was not a literal national rescue but it became a spiritual victory over the Evil One. Exalting
Yeshua to the Throne of God and casting him as heaven’s eternal, sinless High Priest
provided the foundation for future Messianic revolutions by followers of Paul which saw
Yeshua later designated as God the Son, and as Christ the Saviour.
Translating with prejudice. (99+) Translating with Prejudice | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
The New Testament of the NWT is noted for its use of the word “Jehovah” within its text. But
the NWT is not consistent. It omits “Jehovah” from some verses in its NT where the OT
being quoted does use the Tetragram (YHWH). And some of its “J” sources use YHWH at
some interesting places.
What each did with the David they inherited: The Sanitizing of David. (99+) What each did with
the David they inherited: The Sanitizing of Davi | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
The Bible depicts King David as a deeply flawed, unsavory character, the perpetrator of evil
acts including: murder, insurrection, adultery, banditry, and extortion. The sanitizing of
David’s character during the following centuries and millennia created an image that idolizes
him as the paragon of virtue, closely associated with the promised Messiah. This Study
identifies the Davidic sanitizing process.
WhyַdoesַtheַWatchtowerַacceptַChristendom’sַScriptures? (99+) WHY DOES THE
WATCHTOWER SOCIETY ACCEPT CHRISTENDOM'S SCRIPTURES | Doug Mason -
Academia.edu
The Watchtower Society (WTS) says that Christianity quickly plunged into apostasy as soon
as the first Apostles died. According to the WTS, this apostasy is highlighted by the 4th
century adoption of The Trinity. However, at the same time the WTS accepts the Scriptures
that were adopted by that same 4th century body of men. Why is the WTS so inconsistent?
Witnessing The Name. (99+) Witnessing The Name | Doug Mason - Academia.edu
I wrote this during the latter 1970s and early 1980s, when personal computers were little more
than glorified typewriters.
My intention was to consider the use of the name “Jehovah” in the Watchtower Society’s
translation of the Greek Scriptures (“New Testament”).
133
DETAILED CONTENTS
BEFORE WE START ............................................................................................................................ 5

Higher Criticism .................................................................................................................................. 6
Please Note .......................................................................................................................................... 6
SYNOPSIS .............................................................................................................................................. 7
MĀŠIAḤ IS A HEBREW WORD ......................................................................................................... 10
“Messiah” appears several times in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament ......................................... 10
Mashiaḥ appears just 38 times in the Hebrew Bible ..................................................................... 10
In all 38 occurrences of “anointed one” in the Hebrew Bible, it is used for a leader .................... 10
Messiah translates as “anointed” ................................................................................................... 10
The noun ‫[ משוח‬māšiaḥ: anointed] refers to a person .................................................................... 10
Māšiaḥ is a Hebrew word that refers to a person who has been anointed with oil ........................ 10
Oil of the anointing ........................................................................................................................ 11
‫שמן המשחה‬: Oil of the anointing ..................................................................................................... 11
The verb ‫[ משח‬māšaḥ, to anoint] and its occurrence ...................................................................... 11
At times the anointing is metaphorical, rather than physical pouring of oil .................................. 11
The Masoretic and Greek Old Testament texts do not use “The Messiah” [Ha Mashiach] to refer to
a specific individual ....................................................................................................................... 11
The canonized Masoretic Text does not speak of The Messiah; however, a few apocryphal and
pseudepigrapha books do contain the term .................................................................................... 12
There is not one single definition of “the Messiah” ...................................................................... 12
Māšiaḥ denoted an anointed, dedicated living king or high priest .................................................... 12
What and who “messiah” is ........................................................................................................... 12
Originally in Judaism, a messiah was a living anointed person .................................................... 12
An anointing indicated the person was commissioned and empowered by God to rule his people on
God’s behalf .................................................................................................................................. 12
Māšiaḥ, “anointed one” is used in the Hebrew Bible for kings and high priests........................... 13
All Old Testament use of ‫( משיח‬meshach) must be translated “Anointed One”, as each occurrence
refers to an historical figure of its period ....................................................................................... 13
In Old Testament tradition, the messianic terminology involves both the kingly and the priestly
roles ............................................................................................................................................... 13
Jewish literature applies “Messiah” mostly to kings, the high priest and prophets ....................... 13
Jews and earlier Israelites used the Hebrew term Māshîaḥ to indicate a king or a high priest who
was anointed by God ..................................................................................................................... 13
The living king was Māšiaḥ .............................................................................................................. 13
The most common Old Testament reference is to the anointing of a king .................................... 13
The Hebrew noun Māšhiaḥ denoted a king selected and anointed by God ................................... 13
In the Psalms, “anointed” mostly refers to the king ...................................................................... 14
“Messiah” is often used as a synonym for king ............................................................................. 14
134
Detailed Contents
“Messiah” in the Old Testament (TANAKH) usually refers to a present king ............................. 14
The king as ‫[ משיח יהוה‬māšiaḥ YHWH] .......................................................................................... 14
Every king was a messiah .............................................................................................................. 14
Saul and David were “Messiahs of God”, as were other kings of Judah, and so was Cyrus the Great
....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Cyrus of Persia was the māšiaḥ of the Lord (Isaiah 45:1) ............................................................. 14
The Gentile King Cyrus was a Messiah, the saviour-liberator of the Babylonian captives .......... 15
Persian king Cyrus was YHWH’s anointed................................................................................... 15
Isaiah gave the title “messiah” only to the Persian King Cyrus .................................................... 15
Māšiaḥ meant the anointed High Priest ............................................................................................. 15
“Messiah” is also used in connection with the anointing of priests ............................................... 15
Anointing of the High-Priest in the Post-exilic community .......................................................... 15
Some reference is to the anointing of all priests ............................................................................ 15
Māšiaḥ in the Hebrew Bible (TANAKH) is never eschatological .................................................... 15
The present-day word “messiah” and “messianic” are not similar to their meaning in the Old
Testament (TANAKH) .................................................................................................................. 16
“Messiah” throughout the Old Testament means an empirical figure, never an eschatological one
....................................................................................................................................................... 16
All Messianic references in the Old Testament were to the present king or to a past king ........... 16
“Anointed” cannot always be interpreted eschatologically ........................................................... 16
“None of the Messianic passages in the OT can be exegeted Messianically” ............................... 16
In the original context, not one of the thirty-nine occurrences of ‫ משיח‬in the Hebrew canon refers
to an expected figure of the future ................................................................................................. 17
Objects could be anointed ................................................................................................................. 17
COMMITMENTS MADE TO KING DAVID ..................................................................................... 18
David’s house and kingdom would be made sure forever before YHWH, in a father-son relationship
....................................................................................................................................................... 18
PROPHETS PROMISED EARTH-BASED MESSIAH(S) ................................................................. 19
Isaiah, Jeremiah looked for an earthly Davidic king ......................................................................... 19
Isaiah and Jeremiah looked for a new Davidic king who would unite Israel and Judah ............... 19
Isaiah’s worldly Messiah contrasted with the supernatural intervention envisaged by others, such
as Zechariah and Joel ..................................................................................................................... 19
There was no messianic movement prior to the Babylonian Exile ................................................ 19
The child at Isaiah 7:14 was not necessarily a future king ............................................................ 19
Ahaz was given a sign to make him trust God that the Davidic dynasty would continue ............. 21
8th century BCE passages, such as Isaiah 7, wrote that the Davidic monarchy would endure ..... 21
Isaiah 7 refers to the times when it was written, referring to a son of Ahaz .................................. 21
Isaiah 9:5 relates to the accession of a new Davidic ruler, with an eschatological implication at
verse 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Isaiah 9 is a poem written for the enthronement of a current king ................................................ 21
The birth of a Prince (Isaiah 9) confirmed the promise that God would restore the land.............. 22
135
Detailed Contents
Passages in Isaiah were composed for the enthronement of a Davidic ruler ................................. 22
Isaiah 11 is a messianic oracle wishing for a utopian future following the fall of the Davidic
kingship ......................................................................................................................................... 22
Messianic expectation in Jeremiah might not be eschatological ................................................... 22
Isaiah, Micah, and other prophets had no messianic expectations ................................................ 23
Ezekiel’s hope lay with the temple and a renewed monarchy........................................................... 23
A new sprout will shoot: Isaiah; Ezekiel ....................................................................................... 23
Ezekiel was more interested in restoration of the temple than restoration of the Davidic monarchy
....................................................................................................................................................... 23
Ezekiel’s expectation was not eschatological ................................................................................ 24
Ezekiel spoke of Messiah in terms of the Davidic line being restored .......................................... 24
Genesis 49 and Numbers 24 were “predictions” written long after the fulfilments ...................... 24
At Genesis 49:10, Jacob emphasised the ascendancy of the tribe of Judah................................... 24
THE END OF THE MONARCHS ....................................................................................................... 25
Removal of the monarchy called for reinterpretation of their hopes ................................................. 25
The failure of the commitment made to King David was at the root of messianic speculation .... 25
The collapse of the kingship meant there was no anointed one among God’s people .................. 25
The destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE and the end of the Davidic kingdom called for a
reinterpretation of the prophetic tradition ...................................................................................... 25
When there was no longer a king, māšiaḥ referred to one who would restore the kingship ......... 25
A range of messianic hopes emerged during the post-exilic period .................................................. 26
There never was a uniform messianic expectation ........................................................................ 26
It is not possible to construct a history of the Messianic movement(s) in Israel and post-exilic
Judaism .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Messianic expectations were not uniform and it is not clear how active or important it was ....... 26
A range of messianic hopes emerged during the exilic period ...................................................... 26
A flurry of messianic expectations followed the return of Babylonian exiles ............................... 26
When Messiah is used in an eschatological setting, it is used with considerable variety .............. 26
The texts attest to a variety of messianic figures ........................................................................... 26
From the postexilic period to the Second Revolt under Bar Kochba, Judaism had a range of
concepts and titles for depicting God’s agent ................................................................................ 26
Jewish sects held varying views over an imminent Day of the Lord............................................. 27
Palestinian Jews held different and often conflicting ideas on the Messiah .................................. 27
There was no coherent messianology in Early Judaism ................................................................ 27
There had been no obvious Messianic expectation during the Persian and early Hellenist period 27
Many Biblical books do not include a Messiah and faith in a coming Messiah was not held by all
Jews ............................................................................................................................................... 27
The apocalypses of the Maccabean era have little interest in the restoration of the Davidic line . 27
While Ben Sira praised David, it did not speak of the restoration of his line ................................ 27
Their literature shows that “messiah” was not a focus for ancient Jews ....................................... 28
There is no evidence in the second century BCE of an eschatological messiah or equivalent ...... 28
136
Detailed Contents
Deutero-Isaiah ................................................................................................................................... 28
In Deutero-Isaiah, hope of the restoration of an ideal king had completely disappeared; instead,
māšiaḥ was used of the Persian king Cyrus ................................................................................... 28
Persian king Cyrus was given the title ‫[ משיח יהוה‬māšiaḥ YHWH] ............................................... 28
Second Isaiah and later prophets often contain no reference to a Messianic figure ...................... 28
With the fall of the monarchy, the promises made to David were transferred to the nation as a whole
....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Isaiah song of songs .......................................................................................................................... 29
The Servant Songs of Isaiah do not contain the word “messiah” .................................................. 29
Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song does not envisage a royal figure, a scion of David, or being associated
with any political role .................................................................................................................... 29
Isaiah’s Servant Songs are in the context of the abandonment of the monarchy and transfer to the
people under Yahweh’s kingship................................................................................................... 29
At least one passage in the Biblical text identifies the Suffering Servant with national Israel...... 29
Trito-Isaiah ........................................................................................................................................ 29
The Messiah of Isaiah chapters 56-66 would bring Edenic benefits to all mankind ..................... 29
Zechariah ........................................................................................................................................... 30
Post-exilic prophets named Zerubbabel as the messiah................................................................. 30
Initially, the Messianic hope was revived when the Davidic descendant Zerubbabel was restored to
power in Jerusalem, but only for a short time................................................................................ 30
It is widely agreed that the reference in Zechariah to two olive trees is a prediction of the two
messiahs ......................................................................................................................................... 30
The prophet Zechariah expected Zerubbabel would be crowned .................................................. 30
Messianic expectations in the immediate post-exilic period saw Zerubbabel as the promised end-
time Messianic king ....................................................................................................................... 30
The donkey at Zechariah 9, a throwback to the period of the Judges, symbolized humility rather
than the animal used in warfare, the horse..................................................................................... 31
SECOND-TEMPLE JUDAISM SHAPED AN ESCHATOLOGICAL MESSIAH ............................. 32
A Messiah developed during the Second Temple period .................................................................. 32
The concept of Messiah developed considerably during the Second Temple period .................... 32
The image of the Messiah was in the forefront of rabbinical and popular thought from the second
century BCE on ............................................................................................................................. 32
There is no evidence for true messianism until the second century BCE ...................................... 32
Jewish circles developed a superior, reigning “Messiah” who would cure the political and spiritual
turmoil of Israel ............................................................................................................................. 32
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs has two eschatological figures..................................... 32
Messianic eschatological features developed during the Second Temple ........................................ 34
Second Temple messianic figures were intertwined with eschatology ......................................... 34
With the later prophets, eschatological features helped shape a Messianic end-time ................... 34
First appearing in 150 BCE, the concept of Messiah became a standard feature of Jewish Messianic
eschatology .................................................................................................................................... 34
Messianic expectations were transformed during the time of the Hasmoneans ............................ 34
137
Detailed Contents
The Davidic Messianic hope was not rekindled at the time of the Maccabean revolt ................... 34
Without foundation, translators of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) introduced messianic references
....................................................................................................................................................... 34
When it proclaimed the Messianic hope, the Greek translation LXX definitely deviated from the
original Hebrew ............................................................................................................................. 35
Messianic calculators found biblical bases to show that Messiah would come within a few decades,
or even a few years ........................................................................................................................ 35
The idea of a pre-existing Son of Man originated in late Judaism ................................................ 35
There was no messianic saviour prior to the 2nd century BCE ..................................................... 35
Real Messianism arose only at the time of the Hasmoneans, Romans, and Herodians, but it was not
a restoration of the monarchy ........................................................................................................ 35
The messiah remained in a strictly earthly context and was not a superhuman figure dwelling in
eternity ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Belief in a future divinely marked ruler developed over time ....................................................... 36
The Pseudepigrapha .......................................................................................................................... 36
Pseudepigrapha usually bear the names of Old Testament heroes ................................................ 36
Psalms of Solomon, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, 1 Enoch, and 3 Enoch date from the first century BC ..... 36
Pseudepigrapha include the claim that God is about to inaugurate the fulness of times ............... 36
Second-temple Judaism was a richly varied phenomenon ............................................................ 36
The Pseudepigrapha contain important ideas, concepts, expressions, and dreams of Hellenistic
Judaism .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha ......................................................................................................... 37
The 17th Psalm of Solomon .......................................................................................................... 37
Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18 yearned for Rome’s defeat at the hands of Messiah ...................... 37
The functions of “the Messiah” in Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18 are clarified by active verbs, such
as: destroy; purge, smash, and shatter............................................................................................ 37
The “Son of David” first appeared in the Psalms of Solomon ....................................................... 37
Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18 presented messianic ideas that are quite at home with the earliest
literature of the Jesus movement ................................................................................................... 37
Psalms of Solomon always uses christos along with additions...................................................... 37
The authors who first included Messiahs were hostile to the reigning powers, rather than to non-
Jewish rule over them .................................................................................................................... 37
The Psalms of Solomon, which hoped for a Messiah from the line of David, was responding to the
rule by the Hasmoneans and Romans ............................................................................................ 38
2 Baruch ......................................................................................................................................... 38
The Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra)................................................................................................... 38
1 Enoch .......................................................................................................................................... 39
3 Enoch .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Messiah in Christian Pseudepigrapha................................................................................................ 39
Odes of Solomon ........................................................................................................................... 39
The Apocalypse of Zephaniah ....................................................................................................... 39
The Apocalypse of Elijah .............................................................................................................. 39
138
Detailed Contents
Apocalypse of Sedrach .................................................................................................................. 39

Sparse mention of “messiah” in Second-Temple literature and the Mishnah ................................... 40
Most Pseudepigrapha do not contain these technical terms........................................................... 40
List of Pseudepigrapha that do not contain “The Messiah” ........................................................... 40
Three documents roughly contemporaneous with the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth contain no
messianic speculation .................................................................................................................... 40
Messianic speculation is absent in the lengthy rewriting of biblical history called Pseudo-Philo 40
Messianic data are complex and are frequently ambiguous .......................................................... 40
The term “messiah” barely appears in Second Temple literature .................................................. 41
The second century BCE literature provides little evidence of hope for restoration of the Davidic
line ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Many Second Temple period writings do not mention a Davidic hope ........................................ 42
Only a small minority of the Second Temple texts unambiguously speak of messianic figures, often
without using the term Messiah ..................................................................................................... 42
There are no clear references to “the Messiah” in the Pseudepigrapha ......................................... 42
“The Messiah” and its translations do not appear in the Apocrypha, Philo, or Josephus. The
Mishnah avoided “the Messiah-myth” .......................................................................................... 42
The only appearance of the Messiah in the Mishnah is suspected of being a later addition ......... 42
A messianic tendency arose in rabbinic Judaism only after the destruction of Jerusalem ............ 42
4 Ezra and 2 Baruch provide Jewish messianic expectation shortly after the destruction of the
temple in Jerusalem ....................................................................................................................... 43
1 Enoch 37-71 ................................................................................................................................... 43
The early apocalypses – such as 1 Enoch and Daniel – make no clear reference to the messsiah 43
In 1 Enoch 37-71 the Messiah has no function .............................................................................. 43
In 1 Enoch 37-71, it is not possible to distinguish between the title Messiah and the other messianic
figures – united in the one person .................................................................................................. 43
The author of the Parables of Enoch and some early Christians conflated originally separate figures
with the Messiah ............................................................................................................................ 43
The Book of Enoch contains numerous terms for messianic figures, including “the Son of Man”
and notably a transliteration of Māshîaḥ........................................................................................ 43
The equivalence of Messiah and Son of Man in 1 Enoch is significant in determining the meaning
of the Messiah in first-century Judaism ......................................................................................... 44
The Similitudes of Enoch (ch. 31–71 of the Ethiopic 1 Enoch) repeatedly speaks of the “Son of
Man,” later used as a messianic title of Jesus ................................................................................ 44
The highest portrait of a Messiah appears in The Similitudes of Enoch, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra ..... 44
The transcendent “Messiah” of the Similitudes of Enoch does not represent the restoration of the
Davidic line.................................................................................................................................... 44
Daniel provided an eschatological figure, the “Anointed One”, the supernatural “Son of Man” ..... 44
The Book of Daniel envisaged a supernatural Son of Man ........................................................... 44
“Anointed One” in Daniel could be the only attestation in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament of an
eschatological messiah................................................................................................................... 45
The apocalypse at Daniel 9 refers to two mašiaḥ figures .............................................................. 45
139
Detailed Contents
The “one like a Son of Man” in Daniel is the forerunner of the Son of Man figure in the Similitudes
of Enoch, who is also called “Messiah”......................................................................................... 45
Dead Sea Communities expected multiple messiahs ........................................................................ 45
The Qumran communities had a variety of views on messianism, not necessarily any that could be
easily converted into Christology .................................................................................................. 45
The first century CE Qumran Essenes do not clearly show what they were thinking about the
Messiah .......................................................................................................................................... 45
At Qumran, the king, eschatological high priest and prophet, and the OT prophets were described
as Anointed .................................................................................................................................... 46
Qumran’s Damascus Document and the Community Rule both clearly envision a dual messianism
....................................................................................................................................................... 46
In Qumran messianism, a priestly Messiah will accompany and dominate the kingly Messiah ... 46
At one stage, the Qumran community expected three eschatological figures ............................... 46
Functions of Qumran’s messiah included prosecution of the eschatological war against the forces
of evil ............................................................................................................................................. 46
In Qumran, the anointed priest had precedence over the Davidic prince ...................................... 46
The expectation of dual messiahs is central in the pseudepigraphic literature of Judaism and at
Qumran .......................................................................................................................................... 46
Qumran texts expected both a priestly and a Davidic/secular Messiah ......................................... 46
Qumran expected at least two messiahs, one a monarch, the other a priest .................................. 47
Some authors of Dead Sea Scrolls expected a messianic High Priest descended from Aaron ...... 47
One early 1st century CE group portrayed the Elect One with terms, functions and attributes that
another group attributed to Jesus of Nazareth ............................................................................... 47
The New Testament and some Dead Sea Scrolls were written about the same time .................... 47
Fragmentary references to messiah(s) in the Dead Sea Scrolls ......................................................... 47
Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha, and all of the Apocrypha, contained not one
reference to the Messiah ................................................................................................................ 47
However, the word “messiah” was not a feature of Qumran’s documents.................................... 47
The title “the Messiah” appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in some Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, but not abundantly .............................................................................................. 48
Written in the first half of the 1st century BCE, the Dead Sea Scrolls show ample but fragmentary
messianic expectations................................................................................................................... 48
“The Messiah” does not appear in some major Dead Sea scrolls .................................................. 48
THE SEPTUAGINT’S (LXX) RENDERING OF THE HEBREW MĀŠIAḤ...................................... 49
The Septuagint translates all 39 appearances of messiah as Khristós ........................................... 49
Only the Septuagint and the New Testament relate christos to a person ....................................... 49
The Greek translations of Daniel 9:26 have chrisma for the Hebrew māšiaḥ ............................... 49
Chrio and “The Christ” in Second Temple literature ........................................................................ 49
Chrio and related words in the LXX.............................................................................................. 49
Chrio means rubbing or anointing oneself ..................................................................................... 50
“The Christ” is very insecurely attested in the pre-Christian era and appears in Jewish apocalypses
only after Christ’s time .................................................................................................................. 50
Sirach uses chrio for the current high-priest, king, or prophet ...................................................... 50
140
Detailed Contents
A SECT’S UNFORESEEN, UNEXPECTED REVOLUTION............................................................ 51

Innovative, creative convictions ........................................................................................................ 51
Early Christianity reinterpreted the established Judaism of the Greco-Roman period .................. 51
The Christian faith introduced innovative religious convictions ................................................... 51
The first messianic interpretation came from earliest Christianity, referring to Messiah ben Joseph
in Judaism ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Christian convictions were innovative, unprecedented modifications or mutations in Jewish
traditions ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Israel’s Messianic expectation did not shape Jesus’ Messianic consciousness ............................. 53
Jesus did not correspond to the hoped-for Messiah of Israel ......................................................... 53
It is not clear why the term “Messiah” was used for Jesus ............................................................ 53
The new understanding of the Messiah is his power over evil ...................................................... 54
Jesus fulfilled the role of the Davidic messiah in a very unexpected way .................................... 54
As the Son of David, Jesus did not exert kingly rule but forgiveness and mercy.......................... 54
The application of Messiah (Christ) to Jesus experienced significant changes ............................. 54
Likely, Jesus’ disciples thought of him as a political liberator; they were shocked at his death ... 54
Connecting messiahship with resurrection gave new meaning to OT anointing ........................... 54
In Jesus, the whole concept of the Messiah was recast ................................................................. 54
The early followers of Yeshua redefined the role of the Messiah ................................................. 55
Yeshua’s followers gave new meanings to biblical texts to transform Israel’s Messiah into the risen
Saviour ........................................................................................................................................... 55
Their Messiah was determined by their response to Jesus ............................................................ 55
The New Testament refashioned the whole concept of Messiah ................................................... 55
First Christians in many respects shared the symbolic world of Second Temple Judaism............ 55
Early Christology depended on the symbolic world of Second Temple Judaism, not on typology
....................................................................................................................................................... 55
Early Christology depended on Second Temple symbolism and the elements of Jewish mysticism,
rather than typological predecessors .............................................................................................. 55
Early Christian narratives transformed and surpassed Second Temple theology .......................... 56
The idea of a transcendent throne is the first apparent element common both to Jewish writings and
the New Testament ........................................................................................................................ 56
Matthew and Luke legitimated Jesus by giving him an Israelite pedigree and rendering his death
intelligible by making it predetermined ......................................................................................... 56
Casting Jesus as a fulfillment was a strategic device devised by later writers, particularly Matthew
....................................................................................................................................................... 56
The claim that Jesus’ crucifixion was an integral part of his messianic role was without precedent
or analogy in Second Temple messianism ..................................................................................... 56
The title Christos became more central to Christian proclamation as it progressively departed from
the Jewish understanding of Messiah ............................................................................................ 57
The strategy of giving Jesus the name of christos situated the messiah’s origin in the past, making
Scriptures an exercise in deciphering ............................................................................................ 57
Despite few overt messianic passages in the Hebrew scriptures, the New Testament makes much
of the messianic prophetic theme .................................................................................................. 57
141
Detailed Contents
The history of Jesus gave new precision to the meaning of the Messiah ...................................... 58
The history of Jesus formed a new Messianic teaching ................................................................. 58
The history of Jesus caused the Messianic title to be re-interpreted.............................................. 58
Their history of Jesus produced the Messianic understanding ...................................................... 58
The Gospel authors related their confession of his Messiahship to their history of him ............... 58
The synoptic Gospels have only a small share of the total use of χριστός (christos) in its various
forms .............................................................................................................................................. 58
While Daniel 9 had a temporal ruler in mind, some 200 years later, belief in the Messiah had
developed ....................................................................................................................................... 58
The Gospels were composed after Paul’s death in 64 CE ............................................................. 58
It is not plain that Jesus called Himself the Messiah ..................................................................... 59
It is impossible that Jesus’ earliest followers recognized him as the Messiah .............................. 59
Jesus responded to Peter with “Get behind me, Satan” ................................................................. 59
We should not focus on the title “Christ” and become blind to the many other titles attributed to
Jesus ............................................................................................................................................... 59
It is debateable whether Jesus (Yeshua) considered himself The Messiah ................................... 60
THEY READ YESHUA INTO SCRIPTURES OF THE PAST .......................................................... 61
Non-messianic Scriptures were read as Messianic ............................................................................ 61
The so-called Messianic understanding is only implied, particularly in texts where māšiaḥ is not
used ................................................................................................................................................ 61
The term māšiaḥ (= Anointed One) is never found in the Old Testament with its New Testament
eschatological sense ....................................................................................................................... 61
Several Biblical Messianic prophecies are Messianic only in the light of later interpretations, but
not at the time of their composition ............................................................................................... 61
The meaning and intent of Psalm 110 was changed.......................................................................... 62
Psalm 110 was employed to strip the political meaning from the title “Messiah” (“Christ”) ....... 62
It widely agreed that Psalm 110 affirms the continuity of the Davidic rule .................................. 62
All New Testament references to Psalm 110 refer to Jesus’ exaltation following his resurrection
from death ...................................................................................................................................... 62
Ephesians use Psalm 110 to show that Jesus is exalted in heaven and already he rules from there
....................................................................................................................................................... 62
In Hellenistic Judaism the term χριστός had political connotations .............................................. 63
The author of Hebrews paraphrased Psalm 110:4 to make it support the existing image ............. 63
A messianic or Christological reading of Ps 110:1 is a later interpretation of the Greek translation
of the Hebrew ................................................................................................................................ 63
Micah Chapter 5 was misapplied ...................................................................................................... 63
Micah wrote in the 8th century BCE .............................................................................................. 63
The words of Micah in 8th century BCE come via editing during the 6th century BCE postexilic
period ............................................................................................................................................. 63
Micah’s provincial location explains his message and its context ................................................ 63
Micah mainly speaks of the villages and the small towns, while hardly of Jerusalem or the temple
....................................................................................................................................................... 64
142
Detailed Contents
Micah was hostile towards Jerusalem............................................................................................ 64

Micah was furious at Jerusalem’s leaders...................................................................................... 64
Jerusalem’s corrupted leadership would be replaced by someone from a small village ............... 64
Stressing the humble origin of David and of his successor, Micah prophesied the continuity of the
Davidic line, not a king’s birth ...................................................................................................... 64
With no mention of a “Messiah”, Micah 5:2 says an unnamed ruler from an old family will come
from tiny insignificant town and clan ............................................................................................ 65
At Micah 5, the future earthly king, not called messiah, will come out of an ancient family ....... 66
Neither Proto-Isaiah or Micah uses the title “Messiah = Anointed One” in reference to the future
liberator.......................................................................................................................................... 66
Passages in Isaiah were reinterpreted to make them reference a future Māšiaḥ ............................... 67
It seems reasonable to assume that “Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14) refers to an ideal king of the Davidic
line ................................................................................................................................................. 67
At Isaiah 9, the prophet hopes a new king will restore the territory lost to the Assyrians and restore
peace and prosperity ...................................................................................................................... 67
At Isaiah 11, the ideal king will be a true scion of David’s line .................................................... 67
Isaiah promised the Davidic dynasty it would continue despite Assyria, and the reign of a future
heir would be righteous and faithful .............................................................................................. 67
New Testament authors applied interpretations to their situation without taking account of the
scripture’s original contexts ........................................................................................................... 68
THE MESSIAH BY PAUL AND HIS FIRST CENTURY CE FOLLOWERS .................................... 69
The Pauline letters are the oldest surviving documents of the Christian movement ..................... 69
The creative influence of Paul and his followers .............................................................................. 69
Paul gave a wholly new form to Messianic expectation ................................................................ 69
Paul worked out Scripture in his own way .................................................................................... 69
For Paul, the designation “Christ” (or “Messiah”) was no longer related to its meaning in Jewish
writings .......................................................................................................................................... 69
For Paul, Gentiles would share in the blessedness of the age to come by virtue of their obedience
to the Davidic king of Israel .......................................................................................................... 69
Jesus’ Messiahship is not an issue in Paul ..................................................................................... 70
Paul’s message did not hinge primarily on whether Jesus was the Messiah ................................. 70
Paul did not limit himself to the traditional, classical Messianic concept ..................................... 70
The messianic functions in Paul are not necessarily in line with Israel’s hopes ........................... 70
Paul’s beliefs about Jesus constitute an especially noteworthy instance of diversity .................... 70
In Paul’s usage, the term χριστός (christos) is applied exclusively and restrictively to Jesus, not
merely as a name ........................................................................................................................... 70
Paul’s Christology was a variant-form of the contemporary diverse Jewish messianism ............. 71
Jesus’ functions in Paul’s letter are apparently novel in the context of Second Temple Jewish
religion and other known forms of messianism ............................................................................. 71
Paul’s messianic Christology is another distinctive, remarkable, variant-form of Jewish
messianisms in the early first century CE ...................................................................................... 71
Through Paul, the Messiah lost the Hebrew national political and religious understanding ......... 71
143
Detailed Contents
For Paul, if Jesus did not conform to the ordinary concept of the Messiah, God had accredited Him
as the Messiah at Easter ................................................................................................................. 71
Paul’s usage of “Christ”, “Jesus Christ”, and “Christ Jesus” makes sense within the conventions of
Greek honorifics ............................................................................................................................ 71
The Title “Christos” became a name ................................................................................................. 72
o χριστός (the Christ) was only a title in Judaism but it became Jesus’ name outside Judaism .... 72
The Messianic title χριστός (christos) changed to become a name; beyond Judaism it became a
nickname, an epithet attached to the name .................................................................................... 72
As Christos became progressively more central to early Christians, it moved further away from the
Jewish understanding of the Messiah ............................................................................................ 72
Christos is only used by Paul as a proper name ............................................................................ 72
Paul avoided the use of kuρioς (Lord) with Χριστός (Christos) without the name Jesus since that
would merely combine two titles ................................................................................................... 72
TRANSPORTED, ENTHRONED, EXALTED CHRIST: DIVINELY ENTHRONED YESHUA .... 73
In the Heaven of Heavens ................................................................................................................. 73
The Posthumous Messiah .............................................................................................................. 73
A new Messianic understanding is completed in Colossians and in Ephesians ............................ 73
Philippians 2 presents an amazing description of the exalted status of the risen Christ ................ 73
At Philippians, Christ’s status surpasses any previous references to God’s chief agents .............. 73
Revelation portrays Christ in majestic and awesome images ........................................................ 73
Merkebah (God’s Chariot) and visits to Heaven ............................................................................... 74
In Ephesians, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις [in the heavenly realms] appears in interesting contexts ......... 74
Common themes of Jewish merkabah mysticism and Ephesians 2 ............................................... 74
Features associated with Merkebah mysticism .............................................................................. 77
Several factors caused Merkebah mysticism to greatly influence early Christology .................... 77
While Jewish merkebah mysticism provides the background to early Christology, it does not
contain its completely new and unique features ............................................................................ 77
Christ, seated on God’s Heavenly throne .......................................................................................... 78
Cosmic Christ in “Heavenly places” [Heavenlies] in Ephesians ................................................... 78
The enthronement of Christ ........................................................................................................... 78
Christ’s heavenly enthronement and reign .................................................................................... 78
Christ’s resurrection proclaims that he lives forever and his exaltation or enthronement proclaims
that he reigns forever ..................................................................................................................... 79
In Paul’s description of Jesus’ exaltation and sovereignty, the things to be subjected to Jesus
encompass all other dimensions of reality ..................................................................................... 79
The exalted Jesus is the rightful co-recipient of devotional practice ............................................. 79
By connecting the messianological theme with the ascent structure, Christology gave totally new
meaning to the world of Jewish theology ...................................................................................... 79
The Davidic Messiah was no longer an earthly figure but now is enthroned at the right hand of
God, reigning as a heavenly king and Lord ................................................................................... 80
The messianic symbol was given a new meaning in a new discourse ........................................... 80
The christological transformation of traditional messianism is exceptional.................................. 80
144
Detailed Contents
Belief in Jesus as the divine Son of God resulted from combining the theme of Messiah’s
enthronement and the eschatological resurrection ......................................................................... 80
The unique status of Christ was new ............................................................................................. 80
Believers share in the Heavenlies ...................................................................................................... 80
Believers already share in heavenly reality ................................................................................... 80
Believers have been raised up and are seated with Christ in the heavenlies ................................. 81
Believers are seated in the heavenlies with Christ ......................................................................... 81
The enthronement of believers in the heavenly places in Christ ................................................... 81
THE CHRISTOS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS .............................................................................. 82
The Messiah of Mark ........................................................................................................................ 82
Mark: Jesus replied with reserve when Simon Peter called him the Messiah, responding with
teaching about the Son of Man ...................................................................................................... 82
Mark applied the designation “Christ” in a more nuanced way, differently from Paul ................. 82
In Mark, Messiah is not interpreted against the background of the Jewish texts .......................... 82
Mark: Jesus is the exalted Lord, not the Son of David .................................................................. 82
Jesus’ suffering brought a new concept of Messiahship ................................................................ 82
The Gospel of Mark does not designate Jesus as Messiah very often ........................................... 83
Mark reinterpreted the Messiah in terms of the Son of Man.......................................................... 83
At most places where christos appears in Mark, there is a misconception of Jesus’ role in the
purpose of God .............................................................................................................................. 83
Peter’s confession is a redaction by Mark, rather than coming from Christ .................................. 83
Jesus condemned Peter for declaring Jesus was the Messiah ........................................................ 83
Mark was determined not to emphasize continuity with Judaism’s messianic expectations ......... 83
The Messiah of Matthew ................................................................................................................... 84
Matthew presented a new Messianic understanding...................................................................... 84
Matthew’s and Luke’s understanding of Messiah and Son of David was not confined to Jewish
precedents ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Matthew reconstructed the concept of the Messiah in terms of Jesus’ history .............................. 84
Matthew adopted and expanded the Χριστός passages in the earlier Gospel of Mark .................. 84
Matthew: Jesus was the “Son of David”........................................................................................ 84
For Matthew, the title Son of Man was not a messianic title ......................................................... 84
Matthew modified the traditional Jewish messianic expectations ................................................. 84
Jeremiah said the ideal king would be a descendant of David, but not through Jehoiachin .......... 84
The Messiah of Luke ......................................................................................................................... 85
Luke differed from Matthew’s handling of the Messiah in a usage that is peculiar in the New
Testament to Luke ......................................................................................................................... 85
Luke’s usage of Messiah corresponded more closely to Jewish usage than do any other New
Testament instances ....................................................................................................................... 85
Luke’s narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection reveals his reconstruction of the concept of
the Messiah in terms of Jesus ........................................................................................................ 85
Luke used Christos as a title and as a name .................................................................................. 86
145
Detailed Contents
Luke indicates that the disciples hoped for a political redeemer ................................................... 86
Luke’s identification of Son of God with Messiah makes it difficult to identify when Jesus became
Messiah .......................................................................................................................................... 86
Luke reinterpreted the Messiah with its emphasis on Jesus’ suffering .......................................... 86
THE CHRIST OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL ........................................................................................ 88
In John’s Gospel, the confession of Jesus’ Messianic identity was made on their terms .............. 88
The Fourth Gospel reinterpreted the understanding of Messiah.................................................... 88
The Messiah of the Fourth Gospel is almost unique ..................................................................... 88
John’s reinterpretation of the Messiah is shown by his connecting “Messiah” with “Son” and with
the “I am” sayings.......................................................................................................................... 88
The Gospel presents several debates, including with those who considered the Baptist to be the
Messiah .......................................................................................................................................... 88
For John, the Messiah is the Son of God, the King of Israel, Son of Man, and recipient of the Spirit
of God ............................................................................................................................................ 88
For John, Jesus was the concealed, hidden Messiah...................................................................... 89
Confession of Jesus gives a new shape to the concept of Messiahship ......................................... 89
John laid out his meaning of Messiah............................................................................................ 89
THE SAMARITAN’S “MESSIAH” (TAHEB) ................................................................................... 90
At the time of Yeshua, Samaritans held a messianic expectation.................................................. 90
The Samaritan’s messiah was founded on Moses ......................................................................... 90
The Samaritan messianic expectation, derived from Deut. 18:15-22, was for a prophet like Moses
....................................................................................................................................................... 92
The Samaritan equivalent is the Taheb, the Restorer .................................................................... 92
For the Samaritans, Moses is the Taheb (“Restorer”), the expected messiah-like eschatological
figure who will bring about a golden age ...................................................................................... 92
The Samaritan woman relied on the Torah (Moses) to define her Messiah-like figure ................ 92
The Samaritans’ expectations of the coming Messiah were different to the Jews’ expectations .. 93
The Samaritan Taheb (“Messiah”) would be the second coming of Moses, not the second coming
of David ......................................................................................................................................... 93
The throne of David plays no part in the Samaritans’ hope .......................................................... 94
The Samaritan woman knew that the Taheb was coming, without any thought of King David,
Messiah (Hebrew), or Christ (Greek) ............................................................................................ 94
The promise of the Second Kingdom in the Samaritan Torah is not found in the Torah of the Jews
....................................................................................................................................................... 94
Samaritans of Yeshua’s time expected a great Teacher-prophet, not the Jewish-Israelite King and
Priest .............................................................................................................................................. 94
The Samaritan Messianic hope was of victory, with a tranquil religious rule ............................... 94
Samaritans looked for a coming Prophet, and the Samaritan woman called Yeshua a “Prophet” 95
Yeshua’s first claim to be the Promised Prophet was thus made in an isolated place away from
Galilee, to a person holding different concepts ............................................................................. 95
Quite conceivably, the woman actually said “Taheb” and this was amended by the author or by a
later editor ...................................................................................................................................... 95
To Yeshua’s disciples also he was the expected prophet announced by Moses ............................ 95
146
Detailed Contents
THE CHRIST OF ACTS ...................................................................................................................... 96

Luke wrote that Paul presented a new Messianic doctrine ............................................................ 96
Luke never tires of showing that the reality of Jesus produced a new understanding of the Messiah
....................................................................................................................................................... 96
The citizens of Jerusalem were not forced to believe that Jesus had been, or was, the Messiah or
the Christ........................................................................................................................................ 96
THE CHRIST OF JOHN’S EPISTLES ................................................................................................ 96
The divine sonship takes precedence, which is a new Messiah ..................................................... 96
The Messianic work of Christ – who must be God – is God’s work ............................................. 96
The bitter fight is against those who deny the Messiahship of Jesus in terms of deity ................. 96
Chrisma, the anointing oil of the Spirit, strongly determines the understanding of the Messiah .. 97
HEBREWS’ YESHUA IS HEAVEN’S HIGH PRIEST ...................................................................... 97
Unique creativity of the Book of Hebrews ........................................................................................ 97
Jesus Christ, the permanent heavenly high priest, has complete access to the presence of God ... 97
Yeshua made much superior to angels .............................................................................................. 97
Instead of earthly prophets, God spoke through his son, who sits at God’s right hand, having been
made superior to the angels ........................................................................................................... 97
In the utterly new arrangement, Christ is represented as newly slain yet living, his blood forever
flowing ........................................................................................................................................... 98
THE ΧΡΙΣΤΌΣ (CHRISTOS) OF REVELATION .............................................................................. 98
Revelation resolutely clings to the term Christ as Ruler................................................................ 98
PAULINE TRINITARIANS’ DIVINE SON OF GOD ........................................................................ 99
No Christian creed confesses that Jesus is the long-expected Messiah ......................................... 99
The 4th century CE Pauline Trinitarians made “the Son of God” into “God, the Son” .................... 99
In the beginning of the 2nd century CE, the Messiah began to develop in a non-Jewish ideological
context ........................................................................................................................................... 99
In the 4th century CE, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the anointed Son of God, became God himself
....................................................................................................................................................... 99
CHRISTIANITY’S CELESTIAL SAVIOUR MESSIAH.................................................................. 101
Judaism has always maintained redemption takes place publicly; Christianity conceives redemption
in the spiritual and unseen realm ................................................................................................. 101
Difficulty moving from first-century belief in Messiah to a Christian confession ...................... 101
Christianity developed the Messiah from a king uniting Israel and Judah to a cosmic Prince of
Peace ............................................................................................................................................ 101
Christianity developed the Messiah away from a worldly political to a spiritual Saviour, namely
Jesus ............................................................................................................................................. 101
Christianity exalted Messiah to the divine realm......................................................................... 101
Today, any saviour or liberator is a Messiah ............................................................................... 101
The concept of Messiah developed and changed......................................................................... 103
The flow from messianology to christology required a paradigm shift ....................................... 103
Jewish messianology does not flow into Christian christology ................................................... 103
Christianity interpreted Hebrew Scriptures differently from their original intent ....................... 103
147
Detailed Contents
Modern exegesis .............................................................................................................................. 103

Critical exegesis views texts within their historical contexts and not as visionary previews of Christ
..................................................................................................................................................... 103
Today, “messianism” embraces far more than was originally intended ...................................... 104
Modern Christians impose meanings on Old Testament passages that only developed following the
emergence of Christianity ............................................................................................................ 104
The traditional naïve apologetic proof of prophecy must give way to facts ................................ 104
Modern eschatological use of “messiah” does not correspond with its use in the ancient texts.. 104
Failed modern attempts to read a messianic prophecy into the Genesis 49:10............................ 104
Academic study of “the messiah” derives from the early Christian word-choice, not from any
ancient Jewish preoccupation ...................................................................................................... 104
Later Jewish tradition and Church Fathers read Numbers 24:15-19 as messianic ...................... 104
Old Testament texts are at times considered “messianic prophecies” even though the word
“messiah” does not appear ........................................................................................................... 105
Christianity’s misuse of Genesis 3:15 ............................................................................................. 105
Passages such as Genesis 3:15 that are used for images of a messianic expectation are scarcely
mentioned in the New Testament ................................................................................................ 105
At Genesis 3:15, the ongoing struggle is between the collective offspring of serpent and the
collective offspring of Woman .................................................................................................... 105
The “head” and the “heel” are merely the two anatomical parts of a human being and a serpent
involved in an encounter .............................................................................................................. 105
There is no mention of messiah or a hidden reference to a coming Messiah at Genesis 3:15..... 106
RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 107
PAPERS BY DOUG MASON ........................................................................................................... 125
DETAILED CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... 134
148

Transforming The Messiahs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Transforming The Messiahs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transforming The Messiahs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

van

Cover: Eine Streitfrage aus dem Talmud: Carl Schleicher (1850)

LINK TO OTHER PAPERS => PAPERS BY DOUG MASON

Oil of the anointing

Māšiaḥ denoted an anointed, dedicated living king or high priest

In the Psalms, “anointed” mostly refers to the king

The Gentile King Cyrus was a Messiah, the saviour-liberator of the

Māšiaḥ meant the anointed High Priest

Māšiaḥ in the Hebrew Bible (TANAKH) is never eschatological

7 Hesse (1974), “Chrio,” p. 504

In the original context, not one of the thirty-nine occurrences of ‫ משיח‬in

Objects could be anointed

Isaiah, Jeremiah looked for an earthly Davidic king

Isaiah, Micah, and other prophets had no messianic expectations

Ezekiel’s hope lay with the temple and a renewed monarchy

A range of messianic hopes emerged during the post-exilic period

Isaiah song of songs

Messianic eschatological features

Belief in a future divinely marked ruler developed over time

Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha

Messiah in Christian Pseudepigrapha

Sparse mention of “messiah”

Apocalypse of Zephaniah, 2 Enoch, the Testament of Abraham, and 3 Baruch).

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch provide Jewish messianic expectation shortly after

Daniel provided an eschatological figure, the “Anointed One”,

“Anointed One” in Daniel could be the only attestation in the Hebrew

Dead Sea Communities expected multiple messiahs

Chrio and “The Christ” in Second Temple literature

Chrio means rubbing or anointing oneself

A SECT’S UNFORESEEN, UNEXPECTED REVOLUTION

Christian convictions were innovative, unprecedented modifications or

The new understanding of the Messiah is his power over evil

The early followers of Yeshua redefined the role of the Messiah

Early Christian narratives transformed and surpassed Second Temple

The title Christos became more central to Christian proclamation as it

Micah Chapter 5 was misapplied

Moresheth, [Micah’s] hometown, is Moresheth-gath (1:14), a village about twenty-five

With no mention of a “Messiah”, Micah 5:2 says an unnamed ruler from

Passages in Isaiah were reinterpreted to make them reference a

The Title “Christos” became a name

In the Heaven of Heavens

Merkebah (God’s Chariot) and visits to Heaven

Features associated with Merkebah mysticism

Christ, seated on God’s Heavenly throne

The Messiah of Matthew

Jeremiah condemned Jehoiachin Matthew included Jehoiachin in

The Messiah of Luke

Luke used Christos as a title and as a name

20 The Samaritan View of the Messiah (biblehub.com) accessed 6 September 2022

The Samaritan messianic expectation, derived from Deut. 18:15-22, was

Christ and the Woman of Samaria 1681

24 Samaritans and Signs: John 4:27-54 (patheos.com) accessed 6 September 2022

The throne of David plays no part in the Samaritans’ hope

THE CHRIST OF JOHN’S EPISTLES

Chrisma, the anointing oil of the Spirit, strongly determines the

HEBREWS’ YESHUA IS HEAVEN’S HIGH PRIEST

In the utterly new arrangement, Christ is represented as newly slain yet

THE ΧΡΙΣΤΌΣ (CHRISTOS) OF REVELATION