The Messiahs – 4 – Restoring the Biblical Balance

[First posted 2013, reposted during the Christian Lenten season in 2015;  always a timely reminder about  Jewish expectations for the Jewish messiah that signals the ‘end of the age’.

James D. Tabor in his book Restoring Abrahamic Faith clarifies:  

“What we need to recover is some balance:

Image from mymorningmeditations.com

The prime emphasis of the Scriptures is upon the return of YHVH Himself as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the only ultimate Savior, Redeemer, and Judge.  

This is not to be confused with the role of the Messiahs as His chief agents.

The doctrine of the Messiahs has a place within this general scheme of things, but it has been terribly distorted and grossly overemphasized.”

 If you have not read the related articles about the ‘messiah’ according to the Hebrew Scriptures, here are the posts:

• The Messiahs – 1 – The Origin of the Messiah Idea
• The Messiahs – 2 – The Davidic Messiah
• The Messiahs – 3 – The Second Coming of YHVH
• The Messiahs – 5 – A Heavenly Messiah?
• The Messiahs – 6 – Was Jesus the Nazarene the Messiah?

Continuing Chapter 4 of Tabor’s timely wake-up call —– edited, condensed, reformatted. We can’t say it enough, this is a book worth reading many times over, so own one!  The author has a website from which you could order your copies; we got ours on a deal of two for the price of one 3 years ago.  We recommended it for reading to our former fellow-Messianics and their Leaders only to find out it was labeled ‘demonic’ and banned for resource reading.  Why?  Only way to find out is read this and related posts, and read the whole book! —Admin1.]

——————————————–

image from genesis2000.org

A vital aspect of restoring ABRAHAMIC FAITH is to recover a balanced view of eschatology, that is, the Biblical teachings about the “End of the Age.”  The first step is to thoroughly grasp the essential teachings and emphasis of the Hebrew Prophets.

The teaching about the Davidic Messiah is a key aspect of the Biblical revelation.  It is surely one of the fundamentals of the Faith.  However, both Christians and Jews need to return to the core texts of the Hebrew Prophets, allowing these to be the foundation of messianic faith.  Both groups, often in reaction to one another,  have developed speculative lines of thinking which run far afield of what is written in the Prophets.

What we need to recover is some balance.  The prime emphasis of the Scriptures is upon the return of YHVH Himself as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the only ultimate Savior, Redeemer, and Judge.  This is not to be confused with the role of the Messiahs as His chief agents. An essential part of the Faith is the link between our own direct, individual, relationship with YHVH God and a deep longing for His coming Kingdom and Presence.  The doctrine of the Messiahs has a place within this general scheme of things, but it has been terribly distorted and grossly overemphasized.

Since the Hebrew Prophets primarily focus upon the Return of YHVH God Himself, in power and manifest Glory, a better term to focus upon might be the Moshia, or Savior,  rather than the Mashiach or Messiah.  Notice Isaiah 63:8-9 in this regard:  

For He [YHVH] said, Surely they are My people, children that will not lie; so He [YHVH] became for them a Savior (moshiah).  In all their affliction He was afflicted [or He did not afflict], and the Messenger (Mal’ak) of His Face saved) them.

It is clear that YHVH is the Savior here, rather than any human “Messiah” figure—yet YHVH acts through the instrument of His Mal’ak/Messenger.  If we are expecting a repeat of the Exodus type of deliverance, which the Prophets certainly foretell (see Micah 7:15), then we should long for the manifestation of YHVH Himself, along with His anointed ones as agents or messengers.  The texts I have set forth in this study can serve as the basis for the restoration of a Biblical balance regarding eschatology.  If we are going to be firm about staying with the core of messianic teaching, spoken of consistently in all the Prophets, we will resist these later Jewish and Christian speculative traditions.  They inevitably take one in non-Biblical directions and are the source of unnecessary controversies.  If we do not find our doctrines clearly set forth in TORAH and Prophets, then we are on shaky ground indeed.  In formulating our doctrine of the Messiahs we need a concentrated focus on the basic texts surveyed in this chapter, and most of all we need a restored balance and emphasis on the Second Coming of our Only God and Savior—YHVH of Hosts.

Second Temple Jewish Messianism

The earliest “Christians” were just that—Messianists–to the core.  Like those of the Dead Sea community at Qumran, they focused on “preparing the WAY of YHVH in the wilderness” (Isaiah 40:3).  They were an apocalyptic, messianic, movement within Judaism.  However, their great distinctive feature was belief in a suffering  Messiah who had actually died for the sins of the people and would return in glory at a later time in history.  The Dead Sea community revered their Teacher of Righteousness, who had been persecuted and possibly killed by a wicked High Priest in Jerusalem.  There is also a newly released pre-Christian Dead Sea inscription that possibly mentions a slain Messiah, who is raised after three days.

[Footnote: See Israel Knohl, “By Three Days, Live: Messiahs, Resurrection, and Ascent to Heaven in Hason Gabriel,” Journal of Religion (2008) 88:147-158, as well as the discussion and links at jesusdynasty.com/blog.  For another related text see James Tabor, “A Pierced or Piercing Messiah,” Biblical Archeology Review, November/December 1992, pp. 58-59).

In later Jewish tradition one finds the doctrine of two messiahs–one, from the tribe of Joseph (Messiah ben Yosef), who appears first and is slain in the great battle for Jerusalem in the last days, while the other (Messiah ben David), comes subsequently and rules triumphantly over Israel and the nations.

[Footnote: For a collection of texts see Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979), pp. 104-121.  There seems to be little Biblical support for this rabbinic idea of a Messiah from the tribe of Joseph, who is to suffer and die in a battle just before the arrival of the Davidic King.  It was one way the Rabbis dealt with the two aspects of the messianic prophecies, that of his suffering and his triumph, splitting him into two figures.  However, this was not uniformly the case, as the rabbinic discussion in the Talmud demonstrates (b. Sanhedrin 98a).  There the Rabbis maintain that the Davidic Messiah will come either in power “with the clouds of heaven” or in humility, riding upon an ass, depending on the merits of Israel at the time—yet they clearly have a single figure in mind.]

Some scholars maintain that the Nazarenes only developed the idea of the suffering and dying Messiah in reaction to the unexpected death of Jesus, and then subsequently wrote these themes back into the Gospel texts as part of the so-called “Messianic secret.”  Others maintain that Jesus himself anticipated, on the basis of Scriptures such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, his own suffering and death.

[See Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty, chapter 10, as well as the article “Messianic Self-Identity” at jamesdtabor.org.  Hugh Schonfield has made a strong case for the latter position in his controversial book The Passover Plot (1965).  Although his work is popular and speculative it contains some valuable background material and is well worth reading.]

It is possible that the “Seventy Weeks” prophecy of Daniel 9 might also have had some influence on this direction of thinking.  It speaks of a 490 year period toward the end of which an “anointed prince” (maschiach nagid) will be “cut off,” and the city of Jerusalem sometime thereafter destroyed and made desolate.  We know from the Jubilee chronology preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls that this 490 year period could be calculated in such a way as to stretch into the early first century C.E.  Such a direct reference to a messiah being killed, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem, must have deeply impressed those followers of Jesus who lived through the last half of the century.

From the standpoint of the Hebrew bible, however, the main problem with the idea of a suffering or slain Messiah is none of the texts that mention the reign of the Davidic Messiah even hint at any such thing.  There is an apparent reference to one from the “house of David” being “pierced” in Zechariah 12:10-14, but it is unclear as to whether the author has in mind the Branch figure so strongly highlighted by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and earlier in Zechariah. As we have seen, the Hebrew Prophets, without exception, speak of the rule, power, and successful mission of the Davidic “Branch” figure in bringing about the rule of God to this planet.

However, in the latter part of the book of Isaiah (40:53) one does find the idea of the suffering and death of a “righteous Servant” of YHVH.  Indeed, there are at least ten separate contexts in these chapters of Isaiah that mention the “Servant of YHVH.”  The problem is, this “Servant” figure is never specifically identified with the Davidic Messiah, even though, elsewhere, Isaiah says more about the Messiah than any other prophet.  Is there any justification for bringing together these two concepts—that of the Servant and the Messiah?

Image from outreachjudaism.org

Most of these ten references to the Servant in Isaiah clearly refer to the people of Israel, personified as YHVH’s instrument or agent for bringing TORAH to the nations.  Isaiah 41:8-9, the very first text, clearly speaks of the nation of Israel as a whole: 

But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, descendant of Abraham My friend.  You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called from its remotest part, and said to you, “You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you.”
 

Other similar references to the nation of Israel as the Servant are:  42:19; 43:10; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20.  However, at least four of these “Servant” texts seem to refer to a righteous remnant, or even a single extraordinary individual, within the larger nation of Israel (Isaiah 42;1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12).  The idea seems to be that although Israel as a whole is the chosen Servant of YHVH, the nation has become blind and deaf and has not carried out its task and mission to bring light to the Gentiles (42:18-19).  However, there is a righteous remnant, a persecuted minority, a “Servant to the Servant nation,” so to speak, which through its suffering will bring redemption to the Nation, and thus finally to the world.  The task of this Servant is to “bring Jacob back to Him . . . to raise up the Tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel” (Isaiah 49:1-6).  In some texts this righteous, suffering, “Servant” is clearly seen as a group of zadiqim, cast out by the majority, who are bitterly persecuted and even slaughtered (see Isaiah 51:1-8; 65:13-15; 66:5). We find this idea throughout the Psalms and other places in the Prophets.  David writes, “For Your sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep to be slaughtered” (Psalm 44:22).  Jeremiah says of his own suffering, “But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter” (11:19).  In Daniel this group is called the  maskilim, who are “among the people“ but suffer by “sword, flame, and captivity” (Daniel 11:33; cf. 12:3-10).

This is clearly the overall meaning of texts like Isaiah 52:13-53:12, which speak of the horrible suffering of this Servant for the sins of the unfaithful majority (“the many”).  He is slaughtered like an innocent lamb, he is slain “for the sins of my people,” as the text plainly says (Isaiah 53:8).  The sacrificial blood of the righteous is shed because of the sins of a wicked generation.  Through such a death human life and history are redeemed and made worthy of continuation. In that sense, the blood of the righteous is also shed on behalf of the world.  It becomes an “offering for sin.”  We find this idea clearly expressed in Jewish texts that were written during and after the Maccabean period when many righteous martyrs were willing to suffer horribly and die for their TORAH faith.  One of the more striking passages is in 4 Maccabees:  

They [the martyrs] having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation.  And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated (4 Maccabees 17:21-22).

Of course none of these texts speak of the Messiah dying.  However, it is clear that the followers of the historical Jesus clearly saw his death in this light.  They identified him as both the suffering Servant of Isaiah and the Davidic Messiah, and they interpreted his death in the light of these ideas about martyrdom that were developing within Judaism at this time (Mark 10:45; 1 Peter 2:24). Through his blood, which acts as a ransom for sin and atoning sacrifice, those who turn to God in repentance are given forgiveness.

Yet what one might easily miss is that according to the Gospels, Jesus sees himself as well as his followers in this role.  Just as with the Maccabean martyrs, it is a wider concept that applies to all who follow this sacrificial way, and it is not understood to apply exclusively to a single individual.  When Jesus speaks of his own suffering, rejection, and death he issues a call to his disciples to likewise  “take up a cross and follow him” (Mark 8:31-35).  In other words, although he clearly sees himself as fulfilling the role of the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah, he never limits this to himself.  Indeed, the text of Isaiah 53 itself supports such a reading.  There are a number of references in this chapter that are in the plural rather than the singular.  For example in verse 8-9 it should read literally:

 “For he was cut off from the land of the living, for the transgression of my people the stroke was upon them (lamo), for they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his deaths” (Hebrew is plural).  

According to this line of thought, the followers of the Servant become suffering servants, giving up their lives as a ransom “for the many,” thus hastening the redemption.

Jesus’ insight, likely based on these very sections of Isaiah, as well as passages in the Psalms about David’s suffering, was that in order for one to fulfill the exalted role of Davidic Messiah, one must first face the rejection, persecution, and even death, from an apostate majority who have given themselves over to power and corruption.  This was his main and constant emphasis to his disciples—in order to “sit on thrones” in the Kingdom of God, they must learn to be suffering servants in this age of wickedness (see Luke 22:28-30); Mark 9:35-45).  This is clearly the meaning of Isaiah 52:13-14: 

Behold My servant will prosper, he will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted . . . so his appearance was marred more than any man.

The greatly exalted Servant, very much like King David, must first  have walked in the valley of the shadow of death, suffering abuse and rejection.  The logic here is compelling.  

Would YHVH choose to exalt to the highest position of rule and authority one who had never shared in the rejection and suffering of his righteous ones (zadiqim) who have been slaughtered like lambs throughout the ages?

 The Jewish sages support this idea.  The Rabbis say that the Davidic Messiah will be “loaded with good deeds and suffering as a mill is laden” (b. Sanhedrin 93b).  They also quote Isaiah 53:4—“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows:  yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted” and apply it to the Messiah to come (b. Sanhedrin 98b).

[Footnote: See the many related texts cited in Patai, The Messiah Texts, pp. 104-121.  In the Talmud Isaiah 53 is also applied to the sacrificial life and death of Moses (b. Sotah 14a) and to the suffering of the righteous in general (b. Berachot 5a).] 

It is unfortunate that Christian polemics against Jews, in misguided attempts to get them to “accept Jesus as their Savior,” have caused many Jews to shy away from any messianic reading of this prophecy of Isaiah (52:13-53:12).

• The reference here is primarily to an individual, and the Gemara (later Rabbinic tradition) supports such an interpretation.
• The Rabbis also clearly recognize and discuss the contrasting images of a Messiah who comes with the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:14), and one who comes in humility, riding upon an ass (Zechariah 9:9). [Footnote:  b. Sanhedrin 98a-98b]
• They also discuss the possibility that the Davidic Messiah can potentially be one who “comes from the dead,” that is, one who has lived in past generations, died and is raised up to fulfill his messianic role in the last days (b. Sanhedrin 98b).

 [Footnote:In Zohar Shemos 8b, as explained by the ARI (Isaac, Luria, the greatest of the Kabbalists, Sefer Hagilgulim 23), the man designated to be Messiah will lead a normal life in the world, learning and experiencing suffering, he will then have “the soul of the Messiah” bestowed upon him, will realize his role, and then be concealed, ascending to heaven.  Only afterwards will he be revealed openly to the Jewish people and the entire world.]

What is particularly valuable about Jewish messianic tradition is that it remains fluid.  The Rabbis preserve a number of varied and even contradictory opinions about the Messiahs, when they will come, and the precise nature of their roles.  This uncertainty and ambiguity is reflected in the Biblical texts themselves.

In contrast, the Christian views of the Messiah became hardened and inflexible, and subsequently lost much of the richness of the Biblical tradition. The whole subject of the Messiah—or more properly the Messiahs, who they are, when they are to appear, and precisely what they will accomplish—is one about which we should remain open and tolerant.  There are many diverse views and opinions held by devoted students of the Scriptures, and since the Biblical texts are not absolutely clear, one might do well to avoid dogmatism.  No one as all of these matters figured out, and I for one, find myself particularly skeptical of those who claim they do.

The great error of Christianity was to turn the Nazarene into a paganized God-Man, hardly even a human, who uniquely “suffers for the sins of the world.”  Instead of Jesus’ life becoming a call for others to do likewise, millions were told all they needed to do was “believe” that he died for their sins.  In the process, the solidarity of Jesus’ suffering, with all those righteous ones throughout the ages, who have suffered in faithfulness to YHVH, was severed.  That kind of reading of the “Servant” texts of Isaiah is restrictive and ends up undervaluing the blood and suffering of countless individuals who have died for righteousness sake down through the ages.

[Conclusion:  The Messiahs – 5 – A Heavenly Messiah?]