The Messiah in The Old and New Testaments

The Messiah in the
Old and New Testaments
Edited by
Stanley E. Porter
WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
G R A N D RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

M C M A S T E R N E W TESTAMENT STUDIES
The McMaster Mew Testament Studies series, edited by Stanley E. Porter, is

designed to address particular themes in the New Testament that are of
concern to Christians today. Written in a sfyie easily accessible to minis
ters, students, and laypeople by contributors who are proven experts in
their fields of study, the volumes in this series reflect the best of current
biblical scholarship while also speaking directly to the pastoral needs of
people in the church today.
© 2007 Wm B. Ecrdmans Publishing Co.
All rights reserved
Wm. B. Ecrdmans Publishing Co.

1140 Oak Indusihal Drive N.E.. Grand Rapids, Michigan ««05 /
P.O. Box 163. Cambridge CBj 9PU U.K.
Printed in the United States of America
121110090807 7 t S4 ] 1 1
library of Congress Catalogicg-in-Pubbcalion Data

The • 1 •. in the Old and New Testaments /
edited by Stanley E. Porter,
p. cm. — (McMaster New Testament studies)
Includes indexes.
ISBN: 978-0-80*8-0766-3 (pblc:alk. paper)
1. Messiah — Biblical teaching — Congresses. 1. Bible —
Criticism, interpretation, etc — Congresses. 3. |esus Christ —
Mciilahship — Congresses. 4- Christianity — Origin — Congresses.
L Porter. Stanley 1956-
BS6&0.M4M4B 1007
a*V.i — dcia
»006034679
v.-wv.'.eerdm3ns.com
Contents
Preface VII
Abbreviations
Contributors Kill
Introduction: The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments

Stanley E. Porter
PART I: OLD TESTAMENT AND RELATED PERSPECTIVE
The Messiah; Explorations in the Law and Writings 13

Tremper Longman III
Figuring the Future: The Prophets and Messiah 35

Mark /. Boda
The Messiah in the Qumran Documents 75

At Wolters
v
CONTENTS
Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature

of Early Judaism
Loren T Stuckenbruck
PART I I : NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE
Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew

I. Howard Marshall
The Messiah in Luke and Acts: Forgiveness for the Captives

Stanley E. Porter
Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology

Tom Thatcher
Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus,

and the Covenant Community in Paul
S. A. Cummins
Messianic Themes of Temple, Enthronement, and Victory

in Hebrews and the General Epistles
Cynthia Long Westfall
The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments: A Response

Craig A. Evans
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Ancient Sources
vi
Preface
This collection of papers brings together the thoughts, responses, and re
vised thoughts of the participants in the 2004 H. H. Bingham Colloquium
in New Testament at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada, '['he Colloquium, the tenth in a continuing series, was entitled
"The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments." This was the most success
ful colloquium to date, in that we had an excellent set of contributors and a
full to overflowing crowd of people who came to hear and interact with the
participants. To encourage such interaction, we continued the procedure
begun the year before in having a planned respondent built into the pro
gram. I believe I speak for both participants and attendees in saying that
the responses (there were two sets of responses during the actual confer
ence) added greatly to the quality of the conference itself.
The Bingham Colloquium at McMaster Divinity College provides an
opportunity for selected scholars to present their perspectives on a con
temporary New Testament theme of relevance to the larger community of
both students and laity alike. The 2004 Colloquium expanded that brief in
that it included four papers that addressed the Old Testament and writings
outside of the New Testament, besides five papers directly on the New Tes
tament itself. In planning the Colloquium, it became obvious that we
could not discuss the Messiah in the New Testament without knowing
something about what was thought about the Messiah in theological writ
ings that preceded the New Testament. The concern of this volume, like
that of its predecessors, is to provide understanding of a topic of relevance
for those interested in interpreting the New Testament in today's context.
VII
PREFACE
It was clear thai before attempting to understand the notion of Messiah in

the New Testament — to say nothing of understanding it as relevant for
today's Christian — we had to set the proper foundation. I believe that the
contributors who have addressed the Old Testament and other writings
have done an excellent job of bringing the major issues to our attention. As
a result, I hope that this volume opens up insights into the notion of Mes
siah that would not otherwise have been possible if the scope of the vol
ume had been more constricted.
The Bingham Colloquium is named after Dr. Herbert Henry
Bingham, who was a noted Baptist leader in Ontario. However, his leader
ship abilities were recognized by Baptists across Canada and around the
world. His qualities included his genuine friendship, dedicated leadership,
unswerving Christian faith, tireless devotion to duly, insightful service as a
preacher and pastor, and visionary direction for congregation and denom
ination alike. These qualities endeared him both to his own church mem
bers and to believers in other denominations. The Colloquium was en
dowed by his daughter as an act of appreciation for her father. It is with
regret, however, that 1 note that Mrs. Kennedy has now passed on to be
with her Lord. I know that she took a great interest in the Bingham Collo-
quia that she had established in honor of her father, and we wish to con
tinue to remember his work through the conducting of future Colloquia.
Future conferences have already been planned and are under way.
1 am also very pleased again to be able to thank William B. Eerdmans
Publishing of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for undertaking the publication of
the McMaster New Testament Studies series, of which this volume is the
ninth to appear. Previous colloquia published in this series include Patterns
of Discipleship in the New Testament (1996), The Road from Damascus: The
Impact of Paul's Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry {1997), Life in
the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament (1998),
The Challenge of Jesus' Parables (2000), Into God's Presence: Prayer in the
New Testament (2001), Reading the Gospels Today (2004)) Contours of Chris-
tology in the New Testament (2005), and Hearing the Old Testament in the
New Testament (2006). I especially wish to thank Bill Eerdmans* Sam Eerd
mans, Michael Thomson, and John Simpson, all of whom have been en
couraging of the work that we are doing.
Lastly, I would like to thank the individual contributors for their ef
forts to deal with their particular area within the larger context of the con
cept of Messiah. What started as oral presentations have now, with the
viii
Preface
comments of our respondent firmly in mind, been transformed into these

written presentations designed to appeal to a wide variety of readers. The
Colloquium, as noted above, was a numerical success certainly, but also, I
believe, a successful venue for discussion of a topic of present and continu
ing importance for scholars, students, and laity alike. The Colloquium
would not have been the success that it was were it not foT the contribution
of the Bingham Trust and the contributors, but also those at McMaster Di
vinity College who helped to coordinate the day, including Patricia Webb
and her conference team, headed by |enn Bowler. We all hope that this vol
ume will serve as a useful guide to this important topic.
STANLEY E. PORTER
McMaster Divinity College
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
IX
Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AG|U Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AKTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament
BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken
Judentums
BECNT Baker Excgctical Commentary on the New Testament
Bib Biblica
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die aUlestamentliche Wissenschaß
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift ßr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBR Currents in Biblical Research
ConBOT Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament
CR;BS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
ExpTtm Expository Times
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology
x
Abbreviations
mit Harvard Tfieologtcal Review

ICC International Critical Commentary
ITC International Theological Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBQ Jewish Biblical Quarterly
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
fNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
jSlSup Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplements
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament — Supplement Series
jsor Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of ihe Old Testament — Supplement Scries
JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigraplu — Supplement Series
LXX Septuagint
NASB New American Standard Bible
NCB New Century Bible
NIBC New International Biblical Commentary
NICNT New International Commentary on die New Testament
Nicor New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NlGTC New International Creek 'testament Commentary
NIV New International Version
NI VAC New International Version Application Commentary
NovTSup Novum Testamenlum — Supplement Scries
NSRV New Revised Standard Version
NT New Testament
NTS New Testament Studies
NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OT Old Testament
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamcntische Studien
RB Revue biblique
RSV Revised Standard Version
RTR Reformed Theological Review
5BLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its Literature
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
xi
ABBREVIATIONS
S)OT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SP Sacra Pagina
SSBJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity
STAR Studies in Theology and Religion
STDf Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
TNfV Today's New International Version
USFISFCJ University of South Florida International Studies in Formative
Christianity and Judaism
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testamen l
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
xn
Contributors
MARK J. BODA, Professor of Old Testament, McMaster Divinity College,

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
S. A. CUMMINS, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Trinity Western

University, Langley, British Columbia, Canada
CRAIG A, EVANS, Payzant Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies, Aca

dia Divinity College, Wolfvillc, Nova Scotia, Canada
TREMPER LONGMAN III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies,

Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California
I. HOWARD MARSHALL, Honorary Research Professor of New Testament,

University of Aberdeen, UK
STANLEY E. PORTER, President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament,

McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
LoittN T. STUCKENBKUCK, B. E Westcott Professor of Biblical Studies, Uni

versity of Durham, UK
TOM THATCHER, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Cincinnati Chris

tian University, Ohio, USA
CYNTHIA LONG WESTFALL, Assistant Professor of New Testament,

McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
xiii
CONTRIBUTORS
AL WOLTGRS, Professor of Religion and Theology/Classical Languages, Re

deemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada
XIV
Introduction:
The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments
Stanley E. Porter
When the ancients heard the word "Messiah," what did they understand by
this term? Christians have traditionally equated the word "Messiah" with
Jesus, but the term has proven to be far more complex than that simple
equation. One of the major ongoing disputes is whether and what kind of
messianic expectation there is in the Old Testament. No doubt there are a
variety of people who are designated or thought of in some way in the Old
Testament as God's anointed, such as Cyrus the Persian in Isa 45:1, various
prophets, and especially King David and others who were to come in his
1
line. However, the persistent question is whether there was the kind of
messianic expectation in the Old Testament as is depicted in the New Tes
tament, that is, the expectation of a single, specific individual designated as
God's unique and only Messiah. Scholarly opinion on this point has varied
considerably. A scholar such as Sigmund Mowinckel went to great lengths
to minimize the sense of messianic expectation to be found in the Old Tes
tament. Instead, he saw the figure of God's anointed as primarily a political
2
figure, that is, the king. By contrast, a scholar such as Helmer Ringgren ar
gued at about the same time that royal psalms and servant passages
3
pointed to a figure beyond the people of Israel. Over the course of time,
and especially in recent years, there has been continuing discussion of
1. A survey of the evidence is found in R. S. Hess, "The Image of the Messiah in the
Old Testament," in linages of Christ: Ancient and Modem (ed. S. fi. Porter, M. A. Hayes, and
D. Tombs; Sheffield; Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 21-33.
a. S. Mowinckel, He Thai Comdh (New York: Abingdon, 1054).
3. H. Ringgren. The Messiah in the Old Testament {$WY iS; London: SCM Press, 1956).
1
STANLEY E. PORTER
these issues. The result has been a healthy recognition of the need not to
4
over-read the Old Testament and related texts, but there is a residual sense
in which a number of passages are indicating something more than simply
fulfillment by a figure of the time, or even the people of Israel. As a result,
there is discussion of such figures as David, Moses, and the suffering ser-
5
vant, among others, as possibly messianic. Thus, the sense of a legitimate
messianic expectation can be found in the documents that preceded and
surrounded the New Testament This would include the Old Testament, as
is shown in a recent collection of essays that investigates the potential mes-
sianic implications of various parts of the Old Testament.* Also to be in-
cluded would be the range of texts that surrounded the New Testament,
such as the Qumran documents and other so-called pseudepigraphal
7
texts.
This variety of understanding extends to the New Testament as well.
Some have been highly skeptical about the origins and identification, and
4. E-g-, K. PomykaU, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and
Significance for Messianism {SBLEJL 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
5. Some recent studies include A. Laato, A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development
of She Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997); W. Horhury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London; SCM
Press, 1998) csp. 5-35,
6. P. E. SaUerthwaiK, R. S. Hess, and G. J. Wenham, eds,. The Lord's Anointed: Inter-
pretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995)-
7. See, e.g., A. Chester, "Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and
Pauline Christology." in Paulus und das antike ludentum (ed. M. Hengel and U. Hcckel;
WUNT 58; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991) 17-78; h H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: De-
velopments in Farliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); J. J. Collins,
The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature
(ABRL; New York: Doubleday, W9S); )• H. Chaileswortu, H. lichtenbeiger, and G. S.
Ocgcma, eds., Qumran-Messtanisnv Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 199S); C. A. Evans, "Qumran's Messiah: How Important Is
He?" in Religion it the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. 1.1. Collins and R. A Kugler; Grand Rapids;
Ecrdmans, 2000) 135-491 Evans, "The Messiah in ihe Dead Sea Scrolls," in Israel's Messiah m
the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2003) 85*102 (cf. Evans, "David in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in The Scrolls and the Scriptures:
Qumran Fifty Years After led. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; Sheffield; Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997] 183-97);ftndG. S. Ocgcma, ike Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations
from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Interesting
documents regarding Jewish messianic expectations after the New Testament are found in
G.W.Buchanan, Jewislt Messianic Movementsfrom AD 70 to AD ¡300: Documents from the Fall
of lerusalem to the End of the Crusades (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1978).
2
Introduction
8
certainly the self-consciousness, of Jesus as Messiah. In the New Testa-
ment itself, we find various cultural expectations regarding the Messiah,
competing definitions of the characteristics of a messianic figure, and dif-
fering dimensions of Jesus' life and ministry interpreted in various ways
as indicating him as Messiah. As a result, the discussion has tended to
concentrate upon Jesus himself, although there is also pertinent discus-
sion of what Paul means when he refers to Jesus Christ, and whether this
is a name or retains a titular sense. Concerning Jesus, there are a variety of
views among New Testament scholars regarding the messianic claims
made by him or about him in the Gospels. Some take what has been
called a centrist position (as opposed to the highly skeptical position,
9
mentioned above), while others have been much more positive about the
8. Several of the better-known scholars in this reg3r<l arc W. Wrcdc, The Messianic Se-
cret (London: James Clarke, 1071 (1901)) (cf. C. Tuckelt, cd„ The Messianic Secret | London;
SPCK, 1983I ); W. Bousscl, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from Ike Begin-
nings of Christianity to Iretiaetis {Nashville: Abingdon, 1970 [1913]) csp. 70-9$; 1- Peine,
Théologie des Neuen Testaments {3rd éd.; Berlin: Evangclischc Vcr lags an stall, 1919} 411-441
R. B ult man n, Tiieology of the New Testament (2 vols.; London: SCM Press, 1052, 1955) i:46*M>
R, H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christoiogy (New York: Scribjier's, 1965) 23-
31,109-11,191-92,130; 11. H. Killer and P. Perkins, Who is This Christ? Gospel Christoiogy and
Contemporary Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983} 41-52; and, more recently, P. M. Casey,
From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God; The Origin! and Devehpme/lt of New Testament Qirts-
tology (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991) 41-44-
9. Sec W. Manson, Jesus me Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in
Christ: With Special Reference to Form-Criticism (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1943) esp.
94-98; L. Ceifaux, Le Christ dans In théologie de saint Paul (Paris: Cerf, 1943)10. Cullmann.
The Christoiogy of the New Testament (London: SCM Press. 1959 l'957l) in-3$i W; Kramer,
Christ, Lord, Son of God (Condon: SCM Press, 1966); W. G. Kûmmel, The Theology of the New
Testament according ¡0 its Major Witnessex fcsus-Paut-John {Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) 66-
7.i;L.Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Fcrdmans. 1981 [1975])
1:168-72! J. IX G- lûnn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Char-
acter of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 41*45; Dunn, fesus iientem-
bereil (Grand Rapids: Eeidmans, 2003) 615-55; N. A. lïahl, fesus the Christ The Historical Or-
igins ofChristobgical Doctrine (ed. D. H. Jucl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) csp. 15-49; M- Dc
Jonge, "The Farliesl Christian Use of Christos: Some Suggestions," NTS ¡2 (1986) 321-43;
R. E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christoiogy (New York: Paulist, 1994) csp. 73-
80; R. Schnackertbt.il]);, fesus in the Gospels: A Hihiical CSiristology (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1995); H. Schwari, Christoiogy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998}; and E. K.
Broadhead, Naming fesus: Titular Christoiogy in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 175; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) »45-54 (<f- Broadhead, Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form
and Function in Mark 14-26 (JSNTSup 97; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 199?|). Cf.
3
STANLEY B. PORTER
10
evidence. Recent discussion of the Messiah has tended more and more
to endorse the finding of the royal or Davidic Messiah as a pervasive im
age, while not neglecting the prophetic, priestly, and servant dimensions
to various degrees. This collection of essays explores these and related
questions regarding the nature and identity of the Messiah in the Old and
New Testaments in order to better understand Jesus as Messiah.
The essays in this volume are essentially divided into two parts."
The first part is concerned with the Old Testament and those writings that
preceded or surrounded the New Testament, and the second part with the
writings of the New Testament. The first grouping includes two essays on
the Old Testament and two on extrabiblical literature.
In the first essay, Tremper Longman III examines the Law and the
Writings in the Old Testament. In keeping with much recent examination
of the Messiah in the Old Testament, Longman finds that the contours of a
specifically messianic expectation arises only in late and especially post-
Old Testament times. The roots of such messianic expectation, however, he
sees as much earlier, and as associated with texts that look forward to a fu
ture anointed king or priest-figure who brings salvation to the people of
C. L. Blombctg, "Messiah in the New Testament," in Hess and Carroll k.. eds,, Israel's Mes
siah, 111-41, here p. 113, where he refers to the notion of a centrist position.
10. See, e.g„ G. Dalman, The Words oflesus Considered in the light of Post-Biblical few-
ish Writings and fJie Aramaic Language (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909) 289-316; A. E. }.
Kawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ (London: Longmans, Green, 1926) esp.
ch. 1; E. Stauffer, Hew Testament Theology (London: SCM Press, 1955) »1**13; O. Bett, What
Do We Know about fesusf (London: SCM Press, 1968) 92-93; R- N. Longenecker, TheChristol-
ogy of Early Jewish Cliristianity (London: SCM Press, 1970) esp. 63-70; G. RLadd, A Theology
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 135-44; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of
Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 31-35 (cf. R. T. France, "Develop
ment in New Testament Christology," in Crisis in Christology: Questions in Search of Resolu
tion [ed. W. R. Fanner; Livonia, MI: Dove, 1995) 63-82); I. H. Marshall, The Origins of New
Testament Christology (Downers Grove, 1L: InterVarsity Press, 1977) 43-62; Marshall, New
Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove, 1L: InterVarsity Press,
2004) passim: D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (London: InterVarsity Press, 1981) 236-52;
G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology (ed. L. D. Hurst; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 306-10;
M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: TfitT Clark, 1995) esp-1-72; N. T. Wright,
Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 486-89; D. Scccombc, The King of
God's Kingdom: A Solution to the Puzzle of letus (Carlisle: Paternoster, 200a) 96-100;
Blomberg, "Messiah in the New Testament"
11.1 wish to thank the individual contributors for providing abstracts of their essays
for the Colloquium, which abstracts 1 drawfreelyupon in this summary.
4
Introduction
God. Early Jewish and New Testament authors were convinced that many
texts had messianic significance, and ihey read a number of passages in the
Law and the Writings in this way. Some of the most important passages in
clude Gen 3:15; 14:17-20; 49:8-12; Num. 24:17-19; Deut 18:18-19; Psalms 2 and
12
n o ; and Dan 9:24-26, where in the last mSSiah is actually used. As a re
sult, modern interpreters such as Longman raise the question whether the
original authors and audiences of these texts actually understood them as
messianic. If they did not, then the question arises of the nature of the New
Testament use of this material.
Focusing on another part of the Old Testament canon, Mark ]. Boda
addresses the issue of the Messiah in the Prophets. He notes that modern
Old Testament scholarship has consistently argued that the verbal root
mdSah and the related nominal form mUSlah are rarely associated with an
expected future leader within the Old Testament itself — with the excep
13
tions often noted in Dan 9:24-26 and Isa 6 i : i . The majority of the pas
sages in the Old Testament describe past or present Hebrew leaders. After
examining the terminological evidence in the Old Testament and review
ing expectations regarding a future leader in the Prophets, Boda attempts
to show that the employment of the terms "Messiah" and "messianic" is an
appropriate way to refer to a variety of future leaders or to functions of a
single leader. This provides the foundation for examining the development
of such expectations within the Prophets. Boda recognizes some tension
within the final sections of the Prophets regarding the character and role
of future leaders. This development becomes especially important as one
sees the prophetic voice making a transition to a stronger cschatological
emphasis.
In his essay on the Messiah in the Qumran documents, Al Woltcrs
treads carefully through the contested claims regarding messianism in the
Qumran scrolls. There are questions regarding whether the Qumran com
munity expected one or two messiahs, whether one can speak of a Messiah
only when the appropriate Hebrew word is used, and whether other fac
tors must be present to justify speaking of a messianic figure. As a useful
guide to his discussion, Wolters analyzes two synthetic treatments of
iz. By comparison, Gen 3:15; .19:8-12; Psalm: 2 and no; and Dan 9:24-26 are treated in
Sattcrthwaite et al.,eds., The Lord's Anointed, in significant detail.
13. Again by comparison, these two passages arc treated in detail in Sattcrthwaite el
al., cds., Tiie lords Anointed.
5
STANLEY E. PORTER
Qumran messianism by leading Qumran scholars. The first is John Collins

in his book The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls
1
and Other Ancient Literature, * who tentatively and carefully offers a
nuanced differentiation of four different messianic paradigms in the
scrolls, relating respectively to king, priest, prophet, and heavenly messiah.
The second is by Michael O. Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Sav
6
ior before Jesus,' who presents a bolder proposal in which a single messi
anic figure, in many ways foreshadowing Jesus Christ, is the interpretive
key to a whole range of Qumran documents. Wolters assesses each treat
ment in turn before offering his own constructive response to each.
Part I on preceding and surrounding texts concludes with the essay by
Loren Stuckenbruck on messianic ideas in the apocalyptic and related liter
ature. His consideration of the notion of the Messiah in the Psalms of Solo
mon, the Similitudes of i Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch reveals the degree to
which messianic speculation varied from author to author, and even within
the individual documents themselves. A number of motifs are shared by
more than one of these writings, such as the Davidic lineage, preexistence,
the effects of messianic disclosure or coming, and other designations that
apply from the narrative contexts. However, it remains striking that, while
such parallels between traditions exist, none of the motifs is found in all the
literature or handled in the same way. These ancient documents, according
to Stuckenbruck, ultimately resist any attempt to synthesize their ideas,
which are so integral to the particular concerns of the authors and their
communities and which depend on the sorts of tradition-historical materi
als available. Stuckenbruck finds it hard to imagine, for example, that Jew
ish readers of Daniel 7, Psalms of Solomon, or any of the other documents
treated in his essay would have understood the text around a basic core tra
dition about God's eschatological Messiah, since such a notion simply did
not exist. What we do have, Stuckenbruck finds, is a series of Jewish docu
ments composed near the turn of the era that were inspired by biblical tra
dition and subsequent patterns and traditions of interpretation, and that
expressed hope in a world in the control of Israel's God.
The essays in Part II deal directly with the various corpora of New
Testament writings. We begin with the Gospels, in particular Mark and
Matthew. Howard Marshall takes a narrative approach to the Gospel of
14. Sec footnote 7 above for the full reference.

15. (San Francisco; HarperCollins, 1999).
6
Introduction
Mark so that the various christological statements and designations can be

appreciated in their several contexts in the teaching, healing, and suffering
mission of Jesus. In a passage that has been widely discussed by scholars,
16
Peter's confession, Jesus is recognized by Peter as the Messiah and ac
knowledged by God as his Son, hut Jesus himself, according to Marshall,
explains his role more in terms of the Son of Man who must suffer before
receiving dominion from God his Father. Marshall finds that, in Mark, the
several christological terms bring their individual, distinctive contribu
tions from their Old Testament roots to an understanding of Jesus, but
that they take on new significance in the light of the way he lived and died.
Thus they to some extent become interchangeable. The Gospel of Matthew
tells much the same story as Mark, according to Marshall, but the Christol-
ogy is enhanced by the addition of fresh material and the Evangelist's way
of telling his story. As a result, such aspects of the role and character of Je
sus as his filial relation to God, his function as a teacher, and his supreme
authority — none of which is absent from Mark — stand out more clearly.
In an essay that treats both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts,
rather than developing a number of different ideas, Porter focuses upon
two key passages that emphasize Jesus as the anointed prophet and sees
how these ideas are developed throughout the two respective works. Luke
4:16-30 is seen as providing a programmatic statement for depicting Jesus
as Messiah in Luke's Gospel. Jesus' citation of Isa 61:1-2 and 58:6, and his
interpretation in terms of proclaiming forgiveness for captives, set the tone
for Jesus' messianic claim as anointed prophet. This theme is also found in
Jesus' birth narrative, John the Baptist's anticipation of Jesus, Peter's accla
mation of Jesus in Luke 9, Jesus' dealing with the authorities throughout
the Gospel, and Jesus' revelation of himself after he is risen. In the Book of
Acts, Peter's speech at Pentecost in Acts 2:14-36 provides a similar pro
grammatic statement regarding Jesus as the Messiah. Other pronounce
ments of Jesus as Messiah are found in Peter's sermon in the temple, Paul's
speech in Thessalonica, and Paul's defense before Agrippa. In the Gospel,
Luke draws upon a number of Old Testament passages, especially Isaiah
but not only prophetic sources narrowly defined, that resonated with cur-
16. Peter's confession is probably the single most widely discussed passage regarding
the claims of leans regarding being the Messiah. Many of the works cited in footnotes fl,
and 10 above devote considerable attention to this passage, especially as found in Mark's
Gospel.
7
STANLEY E. PORTER
rent Jewish thought to depict Jesus as both the messianic prophet, and
hence the eschatological prophet coming in the last times, and the fulfill
ment of Old Testament prophecy concerning the anointed coming one. In
both Luke and Acts, the author continues to develop the idea of Jesus as
anointed prophet, while also depicting other, and potentially complemen
tary, viewpoints, such as Jesus as royal son of David.
In treating John's Gospel, Tom Thatcher argues that the presentation
of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, though notoriously difficult, is character
ized by notable internal tensions and expressed through complex literary
motifs such as irony, ambiguity, and misunderstanding. This is the case be
cause John's Christology is largely negative, denning Jesus by what he is
not in order to refute the claims of two competing groups, "the Jews" and
"the Antichrists." Against the claims of "the Jews," John asserts that Jesus is
the Christ, a divine figure. Against the claims of "the Antichrists," John in
sists that the divine Christ is the historical Jesus. As Christ, Jesus is por
trayed as superior to Jewish messianic expectations and, ultimately, supe
rior to Judaism itself. As Jesus, Christ is portrayed as a historical figure that
came "in water and blood." As such, according to Thatcher, John evidences
both the highest Christology in the New Testament and the greatest inter
est in Jesus as a historical figure.
Moving from the Gospel material to the rest of the New Testament,
we first turn to Paul. Tony Cummins examines the Pauline letters and finds
that, for the apostle Paul, what it means for God to disclose himself in Je
sus Christ is to incorporate the whole of humanity into Messiah Jesus and
thereby into the divine life. The historical and theological dimensions of
such a claim arc delineated in two interrelated aspects of Paul's Christol
ogy. The first is that Jesus' messianic identity encompasses an Israel-
specific life and death transposed into a creation-wide glorification. The
second is that this pattern and path are replicated in the lives of the messi
anic and Spirit-empowered eschatological people of God. Cummins fo
cuses this analysis on several representative passages that are central to
Paul's major letters — Romans 5 - 8 , 2 Corinthians 3-5, and Galatians 1-2.
He shows that Paul's understanding of Jesus as Messiah lies at the heart of
lus theology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. The Messiah and his faithful
followers are agents of a divine life that embraces redemption, reconcilia
tion, and re-creation.
The final essay picks up a number of the works that are often over
looked in discussion of the notion of Messiah in the New Testament, since
8
Introduction
they are neither records of Jesus and response to him, such as the Gospels,
nor writings of Jesus' first major interpreter, Paul. Cynthia Wostfall's study
of the Messiah in Hebrews and the General Epistles focuses on the early
Christian fusing, refraining, and development of the Jewish representa
tions of the Messiah. In Hebrews and the General Epistles, the term
"Christ" consistently occurs with words and phrases that can roughly be
categorized according to the three royal symbols of enthronement, temple,
and victory. The references to believers either sharing in Jesus' messianic
position or function or responding to Jesus as king, priest, or victor reflect
how the ancient king was bound together with his people and functioned
as their representative. Although Hebrews and the General Epistles con
nect the title of Christ with Jewish messianic associations of enthrone
ment, temple, and victory, the representation of Jesus as Messiah is signifi
cantly different from Jewish expectations. Each symbol is reinterpreted.
The essential representation of the Christ as the Son of God pervades these
epistles, but the extensive development of Jesus' high priesthood and his
sanctuary, covenant, and sacrifice in Hebrews is the most significant con
tribution of this corpus to the early church's representation of the Messiah.
At the Colloquium itself, Craig Evans gave two separate oral re
sponses, one after the first five papers and the other after the next four. Here
in the printed volume, he combines these two responses into a single writ
ten response. Evans provides useful inroads into the various essays by ex
amining a variety of features. In response to some of the essays, he calls into
question some of the assumptions or analyses offered by the papers. In re
action to others, he proposes additional ideas and enhances the presenta
tion. In interpretation of a final group, he calls into question some conclu
sions and proposes his own analyses and answers to crucial questions
regarding depiction of the Messiah. In every case, the response provides an
opportunity to see some of the engagement that occurred at the time the
papers were originally presented and offers an initial avenue for further ex
ploration. What becomes clear in this discussion is that there is a wealth of
material to be discussed from both the Old and New Testaments. Scholarly
discussion continues to debate the messianic implications of various books
and even individual passages, liven those who clearly endorse Jesus as Mes
siah find different emphases and themes within the books of the New Testa
ment. These varying pictures provide both a challenge for further under
standing of Jesus as the Christ and a complex and multifeceted portrait of
the one called by Christians God's anointed one, the Messiah.
9
PART I
OLD TESTAMENT
AND RELATED PERSPECTIVE
The Messiah:
Explorations in the Law and Writings
Tremper Longman Hi
To .study the idea of the Messiah in iheTorah and the Writings is a daunt
ing task indeed. While most Christians today wonder why anyone could
miss seeing how Jesus so precisely fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, schol
ars are apt to wonder how the Mew Testament authors could presume to
use these texts in application to him.
As we will illustrate below in connection with certain selected texts,
it is impossible to establish that any passage in iis original literary and his
torical context must or even should be understood as portending a future
messianic figure. So in one sense this chapter could be very short. On the
other hand, the New Testament as well as intcrtesramental literature is
filled with citations of texts from the Torah and the Writings that are ap
plied with a definite messianic meaning. By what hermencutical strategy
does one get from the Old Testament to these later writings, and should we
1
consider this strategy appropriate?
However, even before getting to those vexed questions we need to de
fine our terms, particularly the term "mcssiah." When wc ask about messi
anic expectation in the Old Testament, what are we asking?
As many other excellent studies have pointed out, we do not get very
1. In this we follow the prescription of P. P. Jeiison. "Models of Prophetic Prediction

and Matthew'* Quotation of Micah 5:2," in Vie Lord's Anointed- Interpretation of Old Testa
ment Prophetic Texts (cd. P. K-SaitertliwaUe, R. I less, and (!. Wenham; Grand Rapid*: lijkcr,
1995) 190, when he ays, "Old Testament *ptt uliil* jllempi to make sense ot (hv phenome
non from hack to front; New Testament Khnlart from front to hack." However, in the final
analysis, one h*» to wonder juu how different thc*e two starting points really arc.
13
TREMPER LONGMAN III
far ¡n our inquiry by pursuing the Hebrew word thai can be translated
1
"messiah," though it provides a helpful starting point (see below). The
Hebrew word is maSiah. With one exception it occurs in reference to con-
temporary human kings, priests, and (on only two occasions — i Kgs 19:16
3
and Ps 105:15) to prophets (the second reference is enigmatic). The single
exception to this is found in Dan 9:25-26, a text that is so difficult that we
cannot even be certain whether the mdiiah in v. 25 is used the same way as
in v. 26!* The verb máiah "to anoint" occurs more often than the noun, but
never in a way that informs our understanding of a future eschatological
figure.
However, the field is well beyond the point of thinking that a concept
is limited to a single word. The idea of a messiah may be associated with
passages that do not use either máilah or a form of the verb rruUah.
Yet a further question that arises due to the fact that we do not limit
our understanding to the exact word concerns how broadly we understand
the concept of messianic expectation, especially as it is applied to Jesus in
the New Testament. Some scholars adopt an extremely broad understand-
ing of messianic expectation so that virtually any anticipation of Jesus in
5
the Old Testament is labeled as relevant to the study. On the other hand, it
seems more elegant to associate as specifically messianic texts those pas-
2.J. Oswalt. "m*h,~ in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Fxegesis jcd. W. A. Van Gemeren, Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan, 1997- ) ; ua \ • 36, provides an
excellent discussion.
i. The issue* revolve around ihe identity of the referent as well as the nature of paral-
lelism. In regard to the referent, we must first of all keep in mind that this part of the psalm
describes the period of the patriarchs. It is true that Abraham is called a prophet in Gen 20:7,
but Psalm 10s does not refer to him alone but to the family of God. Probably the best under-
standing of the term is that the poet is using honorific terms ("anointed ones" and •proph-
ets") from a later lime and applying them (0 the people of God in the patriarchal period.
However, thi* understanding of the verse might still allow for the equation of "anointed"
and "p«ophet" if one insists on an A=B approach to the relationship between thefirstand
second cob. However, following lames Kugel (The Idea of Biblical Parallelism |Ncw Haven:
Yale University Frew. 1979I). it is better lo see an 'A. what's more B* relationship at work
here. That is, the people of Israel are here described metaphorically as Cod's "anointed* and
then as "prophets" in the second colon. We should take note of the parallel between Ps 105:15
and 1 Chron 16:22.
4. And of course there is a debate over whether the reference is authentically future-
oriented or ex evrniu.
5. A particularly dear example of 11 us is found in G. van Groningen, Messianic Reve-
lation in the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990).
The Messiah: explorations in the Law and Writings
sages that anticipate a future leader of God's people who is connected to a

role in which the ritual of "anointing*' is found. We will begin by discover
ing just how broad or narrow the category is in the Old Testament.
1 should also point out that Mark Boda and I have split the study of
the Old Testament between us. So he has the Prophets while I have the To-
rah and Writings. Unfortunately, it turns out that in order to understand
the later recognition of the messianic import of certain passages in the 1 b -
rah and the Writings we have to understand them in the light of the
Prophets. Therefore with apologies to Dr. boda and the promise to keep
such references to a minimum, I find myself forced to at least introduce
some general ideas from the Prophets, in particular 2 Samuel 7.
Yet another issue that complicates the study has to do with varying
ideas about the composition of biblical hooks. 1 would hazard to guess that
few Old Testament scholars would agree in detail about how and when the
books of the Torah and the Writings came into existence. Of course, the
following presentation assumes certain conclusions about these matters,
and only rarely will I have the luxury of time to argue for these views or to
present alternatives.
The Use of the Term M$H

in t h e Torah and the Writings
In the Pentateuch, anointing (and the root tnih) is connected to consecra

tion rituals tor the most part, and, when it comes to people, it is the priests
who arc anointed for special service to God. The root does not occur in
Genesis in connection with people and only once otherwise 111 a ritual in
which Jacob anointed a pillar {Gen 31:13). The book of Exodus describes
anointing oil kept on hand at the tabernacle, presumably for use in conse
cration rituals (Exod 25:6}. While the tabernacle and its furniture are
anointed (Exod 30:26; 40:9,10,11), the only people anointed are the priests
(Exod 28:41; 2 9 7 ; 30:30; 40:15), and this latter usage continues in Leviticus
(4:3. 5» 16; 6:20, 22; 8:12) and Numbers (3:3; 35:25), while there is no use of
the root in the book of Deuteronomy. From the Torah, we come to the
conclusion that one who is anointed is set apart lor special service to God.
Wc also note that it is only the priest who is described as anointed, and this
rather frequently.
As wc turn our attention to the Writings, we find ourselves in a dif-
15
i KI Ml'bK LONGMAN 111
ferent sphere when it comes to the root mih. No longer is "to anoint" ap
plied to priests. We move from the realm of the cult to the realm of the
court.* The virtually exclusive use of words formed from mih has to do
with the king. This is particularly true of the Psalms (2:2; 18:50 [51]; 20:6
[7h 28:8; 4 5 7 [8j; 84:9 [io|; 89:20 [21], 38 [»I* 132:10,17). The root is also
used in Chronicles (1 Chron 16:22'; 2 Chron 6:42) and Lamentations (4:20)
to refer to the king. Daniel 9:25,26 associates the root mih (here maitah )
with another term from the court, ndgid "prince." Of additional interest is
the fact that nearly all of these references to the anointed king highlight the
king's role as protector and vanquisher of Israel's enemies. Even Lam 4:20,
which speaks of the demise of the LORD'S anointed at the hands of the en
emy, may be using this title with irony.
If we restrict our focus to passages in the Torah and the Writings, we
come to the following observations. In the Torah the word is almost exclu
sively used of an anointed priest and in the Writings of an anointed king.
However, in both cases, with the exception of Dan 9:25 and 26 to be dis
cussed below, the word is used to refer to a present, not a future, priest or
king. The terms' occurrences do not in and of themselves justify the expec
tation of an eschatological figure, either priestly or royal, and certainly not
prophetic.
Background to the Psalms* Use of

MSH in the Former Prophets
The Torah uses mdiah for priests, and the Writings uses it for kings. We can
explain the origin of the connection between kings and anointing only by
means of appeal to the Former Prophets, in particular the books of Samuel.
While the Torah anticipated kingship (note especially predictive
texts like Gen 49:8-12 and Num 24:17. to be discussed below), there were of
course no kings during this time period. However, when Saul becomes the
first king, he is known as God's anointed (1 Sam 10:1; 12:3, 5; 15:17; over all
he is called anointed some fifteen times). Of even more significance for
6. Dan 9:24 provides an 1 1 • • 1 1 ••in in thai this verse anticipates the anointing of .1 t
rred place, but even here the next two verses speak of an "anointed prince." thus moving
back into the court.
7. For the use in 2 Chron 16:22. a parallel with Ps 105:15. sec footnote 3.
16
The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings
our topic as we will see, David's anointing is mentioned a number of

times, sixteen in all, and the ritual of his anointing is narrated in 1 Samuel
16. Solomon, Ichu. and a number of other kings are also specifically con
nected with anointing.
Thus, the practice of anointing kings in the historical books provides
a historical background to the anointed king in the Psalms. Even so, these
references in and of themselves still do nol encourage readers to under
stand the anointed king in the Psalms to be anything but references to con
temporary kings rather than a future eschatological ruler. It is, of course,
in the latter sense thai the term is applied to Jesus in the New Testament. In
the next section, wc will choose one of the royal psalms that mention the
anointed king and interpret it within its Old lestament selling.
Psalm 2 as a Coronation Psalm
Psalm 2 draws our attention for three reasons. First, it is a royal psalm that
refers to the king as the 1-onn's anointed (2:2). Second, it is frequently cited
in the New Testament in reference to Christ's identification as the Messiah
(Mk 1:11 [and parallels]; 9:7 [and parallels}; Acts 4:23-31; 13:33; Rom 1:4;
Heb 1:5; 5:5; 2 Pet 1:17; Rev 11:18; 19:19; to name a selection). Third, it ap
pears likely th.it Psalm 2 was intentionally placed al the beginning of the
Psalter to serve as a kind of introduction to the whole book. Thus, as Ger
ald Wilson points out, its presence at this point may serve as a key to the
interpretation of the royal psalms that follow."
Psalm 2 is a significant poem for us to study considering its relation
ship with the Davidic covenant, even alluding to the crucial section where
God describes the father-like relationship he has with the king (Ps 2:7 ech
oes 2 Sam 7:14)-
As we read the psalm in its Old Testament context, we have no reason
to insist that the human composer consciously intended the referent of the
anointed to reach beyond the human ruler. Those many scholars who ar
gue that the psalm is a coronation psalm may well be correct, though it is
ft. G. Wikoi), Pitttms, Volumet (NlVAG Grand Kapi.1v Zondcmn. 2001) 107-«. Wil
son P\U> notes that some early Greek texts of Acts 13:3} refer to Psalm 2 as the "first psalm"
iirid may U K I K I U - ilul in n>mc editions of The psalms it stood .1» the introduction to the
whole book.
17
TREMPER LONGMAN III
certainly not the only possible understanding of the contemporary use of

this text.
The first stanza expresses bewilderment at the attempt of the nations
to throw off the bondage of the LORD and his anointed king. We are some
what at a loss to understand exactly what kind of historical background
generated such a thought. There were few time periods when Israel or Ju-
dah under the Davidides had vassals who would contemplate throwing off
their shackles. Even those times — like that of David himself, when Israel
did exercise sovereignty over nearby states — do not exactly fit the rather
grandiose claims implied by this first stanza. In its ancient setting, how
ever, this may simply be the type of hyperbole generated by the beginning
of a new reign.
Perhaps one of the strongest arguments in favor of a setting of this
psalm at the time of the coronation may be seen in the words God speaks
in stanza two, which underline the futility of the nations: "I have set my
king on Zion, my holy hilT (2:6). However, God does not say this is hap
pening at the time of the recital of the psalm. Indeed, I can think of an al
ternate setting for the psalm, namely at the initiation of holy war. The di
vine words then become a reminder of the divine establishment of the
monarch on the eve of a military engagement. But whether this psalm has
a setting at the coronation or before a holy war makes no difference to the
point relevant to our present study, which is that the contents of the psalm
can be explained in terms of its contemporary setting.
In the third stanza, God turns his attention away from the rebellious
nations and on to the anointed king. It is here that he reminds him of their
spectal relationship as father and son in language reminiscent of 2 Samuel
7. He then offers the king the power necessary to dominate all nations to
the ends of the earth. Finally, in the fourth stanza, God speaks a last time to
the kings of the nations, warning them to avoid destruction at the hands of
his anointed by submitting to his power.
Before contemplating later uses of Psalm 2 , 1 do want to make one
more reflection on its original setting. Psalm 2 has no authorship attribu
tion, though Acts 4:25-26 cites the psalm and attributes it to David,
As I contemplate the history of Israel and then later of Judah, I am
hard pressed to think of a period other than David's that would be better
suited for the composition and first use of this poem. Not that this is cru
cial to the purpose of this paper, but it allows me to be more concrete in
my understanding of how this poem came to be used.
1«
So let's assume lor the sake of argument that Psalm 2 was composed
9
during the reign of David. If it is a coronation poem, or for that matter if
it is a pre—holy war song, it would be available for use in later reigns. What
strikes me as I survey the history of the monarchy from Solomon through
Zedekiah is just how hollow this poem would sound — that is, if it was ac
tually used — during later reigns of the kings of Judah. 1 say this in the
light of the fact that apostasy, synergistic worship, and the like were ram
pant among later Davidic rulers. The Deuteronomic historian, al least,
docs not display later kings as exemplars of Yahwislic faith. It is true that
Kings gives us a picture of the kings in monochrome as its historian-
theologians provide an answer to the question of the exile. If we take
10
Chronicles seriously, perhaps many kings started out like Abijah, pious,
bul ended up apostate. And in any case, even with apostate or syncrctistic
kings, they must have been aware that their kingship was contingent on
their descent from David, whose dynasty was established by the God
Yahweh. Even Manasseh may have had the choir sing Psalm 2 at his inau
guration even as he was shipping idols into the Holy of Holies."
But to the pious, Psalm 2 must have sounded hollow. It may have
been the dissonance between the content and tone of Psalm 2 and the re
ality of [udah's kings and their political subordination to' other great
world powers that set their minds wondering whether Psalm 2 had reper
cussions beyond that which may be read from a minimal reading of the
poem.
This dissonance, of course, would have reached its ultimate crisis
point al the lime Zcdekiah was removed from the throne by Nebuchad
nezzar and a relatively weak Babylonian appointed governor came to man
age Judah in his place.
In the light of these political realities, what should be done with
Psalm 2? The pious would have wrestled with this in the light of the
Davidk covenant, which after all claimed that, though rebellion would be
punished, God would not "take my steadfast love from him as I took it
9. Though of course, if it is David» it could not be a coronation song perse, since it

presupposed the Davidic covenant of a Samuel 7, though one might imagine a celebration of
a confirmation ritual of the dynastic succession Secured in that covenant.
10. For this and other historical issues in this paper, consult I. Provan, V. P. Long, and
T. Longman HI, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 200$).
it. Even today non-religious political leaders in America surround their inaugura
tions will) religious trappings.
TREMPER LONGMAN III
from Saul, whom I put away from before you. Your house and your king
dom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established
1
forever" (2 Sam 7:15-16).
For those who were utterly convinced that God would not lie or de
ceive, they would come to believe that the psalm did more than describe
12
present realities. They would look to the future for a king who would fit
the picture of Psalm 2 . " The fact was, as is often pointed out, that even Da
vid and other faithful kings never really fit the picture of the world-
dominating feared king of Psalm 2. This would allow for the understand
ing that Psalm 2 was not being understood in a completely new way, but
rather that the later audience was now discerning the deeper meaning of
the poem. Later we will contemplate the hermeneutics of such a change in
reading.
Messianism and the Shape of the Psalter
Now again, let me say that I am looking at Psalm 2 as a single example of a

genre of royal psalms that I am suggesting would be understood by some
at least in a different way toward the end of the Old Testament time period.
Gerald Wilson and others want to go even further and suggest that this
later messianic reading of the psalms shaped the very structure and order
of the Psalms. Before continuing, I want to pause to comment on this ap
proach to the book.
In the 1980s Brevard Childs suggested that there might be some ra
1
tionale to the arrangement of the Psalms; * and, in a brilliant analysis, his
student Gerald Wilson carried through the program of his mentor in his
u. This seems 10 be what W. Horbuty, Jewish Metsianism and the Cult of Christ (Lon
don: SCM Press, 199s). is getting at when he says, ""Messianism' owes its own continuing in
due ncr throughout the Second Temple period in large part to the convergence between its
thematic importance in the Hebrew Scriptures and the pressures of contemporary Jewish
life" (5).
13. K. Heim. "The Perfect King of Psalm 71: An 'InicrtcxtuaT Inquiry," in Satter-
thwaite et al., eds., The Lord's Anointed, 124, identifies this as C. Westermann's view o» ex
pressed la The Living Psalms (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1989) 56-57, in R. K. Clements, "The
Messianic Hope in the Old Testament" JSOT43 (19B9) 3-19, and in M.! Selman, "Messianic
Mysteries," in Satterthwaite et al.. eds.. The Lord's Anointed. 281-301.
14. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament at Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1979) Sii-13-
20
The Messiah: Explorations in the law and Writings
published dissertation The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter" and numerous

studies th.it followed.
Elsewhere 1 provide an extensive description and critique of Wilson's
v i e w s , b u t for our purposes I will be relatively brief. Pivotal to his under
standing of the structure and its meaning is his belief that certain key
psalms are placed at what he calls the scams of the Psalter. The seams arc
the opening and closing psalms of the five "Books" of the Psalms, nr at
least selective examples of such. What strikes Wilson is the occurrence of
psalms that seem to have lo do with the Davidic covenant. Psalm 2 is the
first such; while not mentioning David even in the title nor mentioning
the covenant, it is connected to the covenant because of the language we
have already noted that alludes to 2 Samuel 7. Wilson believes that ihis
psalm announces the Davidic covenant. Psalm 4», which closes Book 1, is
taken as a statement of confidence in the Davidic covenant — this in spite
of the fact that the covenant is not mentioned or alluded lo in the body of
the psalm.
While Wilson does not comment on the opening composition of
Book 2 as relevant, he does believe the closing psalm, 7%, is. 'I"his psalm is a
psalm of Solomon according to the title, but he treats it as a psalm of Da
vid and a prayer for Solomon. He believes that this psalm provides for the
passing on of the covenant promises from David to his son.
When we come to the end of Book 3, for the first time the concern
with the Davidic covenant becomes explicit. According to Wilson, Psalm 89.
is about "a covenant remembered but a covenant failed. The Davidic cove
nant introduced in Ps 2 has come to nothing and the combination of three
17
books concludes with the anguished cry of the Davidic descendants."
Here I will introduce my first critical remark about this project. If the
redactors of the Psalter wanted us Lo think this is a cry of Davidic descen
dants at the lime they sensed the failure of the covenant, presumably later
in history, why would they attribute the book to Ethan the Ezrahite who is
mentioned in 1 Kings 4 as a renowned wise man at the time of Solomon,
perhaps implying that he established his fame during David's reign? Also,
it seems tno harsh to say that this psalm is about the failure of the Davidic
15. C H. Wilson. Tne Editngef the Hebrew Flatter (Chun. CA: Scholars Presx n*Ss).
16. In "Narrative Impulses in the Interpretation of the Psalm*. l>rovcrbs. and Song of
Songs; A Reappraisal." the 1001 Brownlec lecture, sponsored by (he Institute for Antiquity
and Christianity, held at Clarcmont Graduate University, April lfl, ?noi.
17. Wilson, Editing of ike Hebrew Psalter, 213.
21
TREMPER LONGMAN III
covenant. The hope implied in the appeal to God makes it clear that the
psalmist docs not think the covenant has failed; God just needs to be
goaded into action by this extreme language. Further, reaching back now
to his comments about Psalms 2 and 41,1 am somewhat troubled that nei
ther of these psalms is explicitly Davidic nor concerned with the covenant.
With these criticisms in mind, let's continue with Wilson's theory. We
pick up the account with Book 4, which is taken by Wilson as the answer to
the dilemma expressed by Psalm 89 at the end of Book 3. It asserts Yahweh as
king and particularly our refuge (a theme picked up and developed by lerome
18
Creach). So it is a call to trust Yahweh now that the monarchy is gone.
As for Book 5, Wilson does not believe that this section could be as
ingeniously edited as the other books since a number of psalms came into
the collection via préexistent groups. In conclusion he states that this fifth
book is an answer to the "plea of the exiles to be gathered from the
9
diaspora.''' The answer is to trust and depend on Yahweh.
Thus, Wilson sees a development within the structure of the Psalter
from a confident assertion of Davidic covenant to its failure and then a re-
assertion of hope in Yahweh's kingship in the absence of the monarchy. In
other words, the shape of the Psalter takes on messianic proportions, since
Wilson also describes a connection with David here.
Following the lead of Psalm 107 it seems that in some sense the firth
book was intended to stand as an answer to the plea of the exiles to be
gathered from the diaspora. The answer given in that deliverance and
life thereafter is dependent on that attitude of dependence and trust on
YHWH alone. David is seen modeling his attitude of reliance and de
pendence in Pss 108—110 and 138—145 and is rewarded with YHWH's pro
tection. Throughout, emphasis falls on YHWH's power and former acts
of mercy as evidence of trustworthiness. This attitude of dependence on
YHWH will issue in obedience to his Law as set forth in Ps 119 which is
20
to serve as man's guide on the way of righteousness and life.
18. ). Creach. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Sheffield; Shef-
6e)d Academic Press, 1996).
19. Wilson, kditing of the Hebrew Psalter. 227.
20. Wilson. Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 227. Indeed. Wilson's concept of the edito
rial shaping of the Psalter has moved toward a more explicit statement of its messianic in
tentions. In one of his most recent articulations of his views, he recognizes a two-stage pro
cess. Accepting the view of <:. Roscl (Die messianiichc Redaction dis Psalters: Studîen zu
22
I have already raised some of the many questions we may have

about this proposed macrostructure to the book of Psalms. For instance,
his interpretation of certain key psalms (41 and 89, for instance) is ques
tionable and raises suspicion of an attempt to make them fit his theory.
Further, to make this scheme work, Wilson must be selective in the
psalms he chooses to include in his analysis. A number of the "scam"
psalms work against his ideas, so he simply ignores them (42 and 73, for
example). In addition, (here are psalms that explicitly speak of the
Davidic covenant that arc ignored in his work. For instance. Psalm 132 is
not discussed, but it is a Davidic psalm that is positive about the relation
ship between the Davidic king and Yahweh in a way that Wilson's theory
would not lead us to suspect.
One final and, in my opinion, devastating difficulty with his ap
proach to Psalter structure is that there is no explicit statement or guidance
of editorial grouping. Wilson makes a lot of use of what he recognizes as
implicit, subtle indicators. He, of course, is aware that there are no explicit
indicators of editorial organization except for Ps 72:10.
My question is: If the arrangement were so important to the mean
ing of the book as a whole, wouldn't it be more likely that explicit indica
tors would be built into the text? Moreover, if his idea of structure were
implicitly understood among the early redactors and the early receptors of
the material so that an explicit comment was not necessary, the case would
be supported if we had some early rabbinic statements that showed aware
ness of this. I am unaware of such comments, though not an expert on this
material, but I would expect that Wilson and other supporters would make
much of such a comment if they were aware of it.
Furthermore* when we take a close look at the one explicit indicator
of editorial arrangement, namely Ps 72:20, if anything it indicates a non
chalant attitude toward organization. This verse announces the conclusion
to the psalms of David, even though there are a number of Davidic psalms
Enaehuitg mui Theohgie iter Sammlnng Psalm 2-89 |Sruttgnrt: l).ilv.*r Vexing, 1999)). he be
lieve that there was a Mage of the Psalter that included Platan l-ip. The presence of Psalm 1
at the head of thi> collection would already haw given it a messianic feel. However, it would
lead to an expectation of the restoration of the human monarchy. But the addition of Books
4 and 5 moves thb expectation toward a divine messianic kingship. See G. Wilson. "Psalms
and Psalter: Paradigm for V I . »1 Theology," in Biblical Theology. Rctroipcit and 1'iospta
|cd. Scott Hafemann; l>owncrs Grove. IL: IntcrVarsity Press, 2002) 100-no. Psalm 132 plays a
more significant role in his most recent analysis than in his original work.
23
TREMPER LONGMAN III
to follow. It is art explicit organizational feature that does not work any
longer, but is nonetheless retained.
31
In a later article Wilson criticizes John H. Walton for letting a hy
pothesis drive his conclusions as he tries to determine his own version of
what the arrangement of psalms signifies. Wilson rightly responds that it is
too easy to make it work. I respectfully suggest, however, that Wilson him
self is guilty of the same charge. Granted, his hypothesis is not as specific as
others. His hypothesis is simply that there is an arrangement. However,
this general hypothesis is actually much easier to make work than the spe
cific ones offered by Walton, Arens, and Goulder. Once that hypothesis is
made there is no question but an answer will be found. The fact that this
arrangement was not noticed before 1985 should make us pause and sug
gest that it was imposed rather than described from what is there.
Back to t h e Pentateuch
To summarize our argument thus far, we have recognized that the concept
of "anointed priest" in the Pentateuch and "anointed king" in the Psalms
always refers to the contemporary human king. This seems to be an accu
rate reading of the intention of the author and its first reception. However,
with the failure of the monarchy and in the light of the promise to David
of an eternal dynasty, the thoughts of some would have turned to the pos
sibility of a future anointed king.
As such thoughts arose in the mind of later readers of the text, this
would color their understanding of other texts concerning kingship, even
in those places where "anointed" is not explicit. In particular, texts in the
Pentateuch that anticipate a future king would be read in a new way. I be
lieve that this explains how later audiences understood texts like Gen 49:10
and Num 24:17:
The scepter shall not depart from Judah,

nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
and the obedience of the peoples is his.
(Gen 49:10)
21. Sec G. Wilson. "Psalms and Psalter." citing J. H. Walton, "Psalms: A Cantata about
use L>avklic Covenant" JETS 34 (1991) 21-jt.
24
From the historical context of Jacob's last will and testament for his sons, it
is hard not to think that this oracle anticipates the rise of the Davidic dy
nasty. It is not anticipating a future eschatological figure beyond David
21
and his dynasty. The same may be said for the Numbers passage;
I see him, but not now;

I behold him, but not near —
a star shall come out of Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;
it shall crush the borderlands of Moab,
and the territory of all the Shethitcs.
(Num 24:17)
Balaam's oracle again anticipates the rise of the monarchy in Israel, but af
ter the failure of the monarchy the idea that it anticipated a greater king
who would derive Irom the Davidic line might have captured the imagina
tion of the people.
Warrior King and Priest?

Rereading Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
Psalm 110 is certainly the most enigmatic song in the collection and, per
haps for the same reason, also the most cited in the New Testament (Matt
22:41-45 fand parallels); 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 1:3; 5:6; 7:17, 21). One of the main
reasons why this psalm is so difficult has to do with the divine declaration
that the king is a "priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek"
(v. 4 ) . With this we have a difficult psalm citing an obscure event from
Genesis 14.
The psalm begins with a divine oracle directed to the king who is the
psalmist's lord to the effect that he will subdue the king's enemies. This or-
11. X D. Alexander. "Messianic Ideology in the Book of Genesis," in Sallerlhwaile et

al.,eds., The Lord's Anointed, suggests that, when understood within the broader nar
rative of Genesis with its emphasis on Ihe preservation of the seed of Judah, Gen 40:«-!?. re
fers beyond David and Solomon ro a messianicfigure.He also believes that the language of
the subjligation of the "peoples" (v. 10b} refers to something beyond David's accomplish
ments. However, I believe lie reads loo much into the text, at leas; as understood within the
coulexl of the original author and audience of Genesis.
25
TREMPER LONGMAN III
acle also reveals that the king is one who has assumed a position of power
and honor at God's right hand.
The proclamation of the king as a priest according to the order of
Mekhizedek comes after the psalmist assures the king of Yahweh's com
mission that he should lead his people in battle. The poem ends with the
assurance that God is with the king and his army with the result that he
will successfully render violent judgment on the nations.
But why is the king associated with priesthood, and why specifically
the priesthood of Mekhizedek? Other texts express concern that kings not
assume priestly prerogatives (1 Sam 13:8-15). However, Melchizedek does
provide a precedent for a priest-king, and one who greets Abraham after
successful hot)' war and receives a portion of the plunder. Melchizedek
provides a pretext for attributing to the king priestly functions without
blurring the distinction between the kingship and Aaronic priesthood.
Understood in this way, Psalm 110, like Psalm 2, may be understood
cither as a coronation psalm or as a pre-holy war song. The title attributes
the psalm to David; and, though the historical narrative never declares that
David was a priest, he sometimes acted like a priest (2 Samuel 6) and his
sons are called priests in an admittedly enigmatic verse (2 Sam 8:18}.
The point is that Psalm 110 is not an obvious exception to the rule es
tablished above or to my understanding of the rereading of the psalms in
the light of the demise of the monarchy. Here, though, we learn that God
promised David not only an eternal dynasty but also a priesthood that will
last forever. Furthermore, this priest-king is a warrior.
T h e Corning Warrior
So far we have looked at texts in the Torah and Writings that are not ex
plicitly eschatological." 1 want to turn our attention now to Daniel, also of
course in the Writings. The second part of the book (chapters 7-12) is os
74
tensibly eschatological, and included in its vision of the future is the in-
aj. I am using the term "esehatologicarin the narrow sense here. Genesis 49:8-12 and
Num 247 axe explicitly eschaiologicsl in the sense that they looked to die future e*tablish-
meni of the Davidic mooarchy.
24. Of course, there are differences even among evangelical scholars on this. Compare
J. Goldingay. Daniel (WBQ Waco: Nelson. 19*9). and T. Longman III, Daniel (N1VAC;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999)-
26
trusión of a warrior king who will liberate his people from bondage to evil
human kingdoms. Most memorable is the description of the one like the
son of man appearing on the clouds of heaven:
I saw one like a human being

coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
To him was given dominion
and glory and kingship,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should servo him.
I lis dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
and his kingship is one
(hat shall never be destroyed.
(Dan 7:13-14)
This fascinating text shares a similar escha to logical hope of future

deliverance with other late biblical prophetic voices (Zcchariah 14; Malachi
4). It is clear that in the future a warring king would appear, commissioned
by Cod (the Ancient of Days) to battle the evil human kingdoms repre
sented by the hybrid beasts in the first part of the vision. What is particu
larly intriguing about the description of this figure is that there are hints
that this king himself is divine. What I am referring to is the description of
the figure riding the cloud. This image has an ancient pedigree, of course,
extending back into ancient Near Eastern mythological lexis lhal describe
the war god, typically a storm god, riding a cloud into battle. One thinks
immediately of the cloud-rider Baal. In a number of poetic and prophetic
texts, Yah well is described as riding the cloud into battle (Pss 18:10-13;
68:33; 104:3; Isa 19:1; Nah 1:3). Thus, the human appearance of the chariot
rider is especially deserving of note.
A Prophetic Messiah?
Though the textual evidence is even subtler than that concerning a messi
anic warrior-king and priest, the New Testament's use of Deuteronomy 18
27
TREMPER LONGMAN III
raises a queslion about whether we should talk about the rise of a messi
anic prophetic figure. The dynamic appears to me to be much the same.
Deuteronomy 18:15-22 announces that God will raise up a prophet
like Moses for the people of Israel. While the expectation is expressed in
terms of a singular prophet, this singular is righdy understood as a collec
tive singular since the people's request for a mediating spokesperson that
leads to this promise is a constant need. In other words, Deuteronomy 18
understood within its ancient context may be perfectly explainable in
terms of the rise of the prophetic movement and prophets like Samuel, Eli
jah, Elisha, Isaiah, and so on.
However, even the post-Mosaic redactor of Deuteronomy 34 states
that "there has never been another prophet like Moses" (Deut 34:10). As we
look at the rest of the Old Testament, in other words, we see that there are
prophets like Moses in the sense of sharing the characteristics of Moses as
35
prophet, but none that are "like Moses" in the sense of his preeminence.
Numbers 0:3-8 also seems to indicate this when it says that, while God
speaks to Moses face to face, he speaks to the prophets by "visions and
dreams."
In any case, Acts 3:17-23 and 7:37 allude to Deuteronomy 18 and cite
Jesus as the (singular) Prophet that that passage anticipated. What seems
to be happening here is an exploitation of the fact that the expectation was
26
expressed by means of a singular, collective though it may b e .
We may grant all this and still question whether it is a specifically
messianic idea. The grounds for believing so are simply based on the occa
sional evidence that prophets, like priests and kings, were anointed for
their task (1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 61:1-2; Ps 105:15).
Expectation at the Close of the O l d Testament Time Period
What then was the expectation of a Messiah at the close of the Old Testa
ment time period? What should it have been?
Intertestamenlat and New Testament literature suggests that expec-
25. Notice ttut the call of l?r 1:4-10 has an echo o f the call o f M o w s in order to make
•hat connection.
16. O f course, Ihc way Gahitians 3 applies the Abrahamic promise o f a seed to Jesus is
analogous.
IS
ration was all over the m a p . " Some Jewish people did not expect a Mes
siah. Others thought that the Messiah would be a priestiy figure, still oth
ers a royal deliverer. Some scholars interpret the evidence to suggest that at
least one group of Jewish thinkers believed there would be two inessiahs,
one priestly and one royal.
From what we know we can be certain that the New Testament did
not create the idea of the Messiah. But we can also be sure that there was
nothing like a commonly agreed delineation of what the Messiah would be
like. The latter point means that modern-day Christians who shake their
heads about why the Jewish people did not universally recognize the Mes
siah, considering all the fulfilled prophecy, really do not understand Old
Testament literature.
Indeed, we can illustrate the lack of clarity of cxpectaliun by appeal
to John the Baptist. What was he expecting?
Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that
does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.... I bap
tize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I
is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize
you with the Holy Spirit and lire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and
he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the gra
nary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. (Matt 3:10-12)
John expects the Messiah to be a warrior in the tradition of Daniel 7, Zech-

ariah 14, and Malachi 4. We can understand his later doubts about Jesus
when he hears that he is healing the sick, exorcising demons, and prcach-
27. At least this seems to be the dominant view of the matter, which as I will argue
makes sense of the reaction of people like )ohn the Baptist and the two disciples on the road
to Emmaus. This viewthat there was no unified messianic expectation at the time of Jesus is
well represented by the work of J. Ncusncr, Messiah in Context: Israel's History and Destiny in
Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) ix-xxiii, i-iti; and J. H. Charlesworlh,
"From Jewish Mcssianology to Christian Chrisiology: Some Caveats and Perspectives," in
ludaisms and Their Messialis at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. J. Neusner et ah; Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1*187} 225-64. Also note the other contributions in
ludaisms and Tfieir Messiahs as well as the book edited by Charlcsworth, The Messiah: Devel
opments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1092). For the view that
there is a basic coherence in the royal aspect of messianic expectation, see W, Hoibury. Jew-
isfi Messianism and the Cutt of Christ (Loudon: SCM Press, 1998).
19
TRBMPBR LONGMAN III
ing the good news. "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for
another?" {Matt 1 1 : 3 } . "
Thus, we must acknowledge that the Old Testament did not provide
the first century CE with a clear blueprint for the Messiah. If even the fore
runner, lesus' own cousin, feels some cognitive dissonance concerning the
relationship between Old Testament expectation and the person and
earthly ministry of Jesus, we can understand why others of that generation
struggled.
The Surprising Fulfillment
Again, while there was no agreed upon specific description of the expected
29
Messiah in the first century C B , there was an expectation and there were
common themes to the expectation. Based on what we have seen in the To-
rah and Writings, those common themes would include kingship, priest
hood, and warfare.
Jesus himself provided the focal point that crystallized messiahship
in the minds of his followers. His fulfillment may have been surprising, but
once they saw him in the light of the resurrection, they knew him. They
may not have anticipated him, hut after the resurrection the Scriptures fell
into place for them. Luke 24 describes two post-resurrection appearances
of Christ that illuminate this point.
In the first, Jesus walks with two of his disciples who are utterly con
30
fused and dismayed at his recent crucifixion. They do not recognize him;
and as they express their consternation, they reveal their previous expecta
tion when they say, "we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel"
(Luke 24:21). Jesus replies: "Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart
is. In his response to my paper delivered at the conference, Craig Evans made the in
sightful suggestion that John's doubts were not triggered by lesus' healings and exorcisms,
but rather by the fact that since, according to Isaiah 6\, the Messiah was going to set the pris
oners free, Jesus may not be the Messiah since lohn is still in prison. Even though this may
be a belter explanation of John's doubts, it slill supports my central idea that John docs not
understand the meaning of his own prophetic word*. In other words there it still a transition
from physical to spiritual warfare.
19. A point made by J. H- Charleswurth. "Preface," in Charlesworth, ed.. The Messiah.
xv.
30. "Their eyes were kept from rccogniiing him'" (Luke 24:16}.
30
to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the
Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" These
words are backed by his appeal to Scripture, when the narrator reports that
"beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the
things about himself in all the scriptures" (24:25-26).
Soon thereafter, he appears to a broader group of disciples, and Luke
reports the event as follows:
Then he said lo them, "These are my words lhat I spoke to you while I
was still with you — that everything written about me in the law of Mo
ses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened
their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, "Thus it is
written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the
third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be pro
claimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are
witnesses of these things. And see, I am sending upon you what my Fa
ther promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with
power from on high." (Luke 24:44-49)
There is much about this passage that we can debate; however, there are
certain things that are clearly delineated here. First, the disciples had an ex
pectation, though it was apparently not clearly formed or accurate. The
imperfection of their expectation is implied by their confusion at the time
of the crucifixion and also about reports of the empty tomb. Second, Jesus
is angry or at least disappointed thai they did not know whal to expect. Af
ter all, he taught them during his earthly ministry. I hope this isn't disre
spectful, but he sounds like a peeved professor who has labored to teach
his students something that they just haven't understood. Third, he gives
them another lesson, a lesson in hcrmeneutics, that we are to assume they
finally understood in the light of the resurrection. From this point on, the
disciples cannot read the Old Testament except in the light of the resur
rected Jesus.
Hermeneutical Implications
On the basis of this text, 1 would like lo take the opportunity to issue a plea
concerning our own Christian reading of the Old Testament. I say this in
3»
•
TRBMPER LONGMAN III
the light of the reticence among Old Testament scholars, even evangelical
Old Testament scholars, to read the Old Testament in the light of the resur
rection. From Walter Kaiser to John Wahon to John Goldingay, but for dif
ferent reasons, we hear that it is wrong to "impose" the New Testament
31
onto the Old Testament. 1 agree that it is necessary for serious study of
the Old Testament to begin with the question, difficult enough in itself:
How did the Old Testament author(s) and first hearers understand the
text? In our study of the concept of the Messiah in the Torah and Writings,
we have done just that, concluding that it is highly unlikely that com
posers) and first audience had an inkling of the messianic significance of
what they were saying."
However, even before the Christ event, due to the unfolding drama
of the history of redemption and the progress of revelation, the reading of
33
this materia] changed. This climaxes in the crucifixion and resurrection
of Christ. Christ himself urges his disciples to understand the Old Testa
34
ment Scriptures in the light of his person and work.
31. W. Kaiser, Toward an Exegetiad Theology (Grand Rapid* Baker. 1998); J. Goldin
gay, Old Testament Theology: Israefs Gospel (Downers Grove: ImerVartity Press, 2003). For
1. Walton, see how he handles (or doesn't) New Testament allusions to Genesis in his Genesis
(NTVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1002).
31.1 am admittedly simplifying the picture here by talking only about the Divine and
human author. Actually, the picture is more complicated since many of the biblical book*
have a history of composition, which means that we should also reflect on the intention of
editors. This w» pointed out to me by C. Evans in his response to the oral presentation of
this paper. However, though not directly addressed in the paper, I would say that later edi
tors would have an increasing sense of the deeper meaning of the text in the light of the un
folding events of redemptive history.
3J. Note |. G. McConville's insightful comment in regard to a developing messianic
understanding of certain Old Testament texts: "The interpretation of the Old Testament is
not a one-way. but a two-wayflow,in which contemporary situations were compared with
the Scripture*, and the Scriptures were then brought to bear, sometimes in (to lis) unex
pected ways, on the situations. The Old Testament, indeed, underwent a good deal of 1 rin
terpretation even as hopes of deliverance were being worked out" See McConville, "Messi
anic Interpretation of the Old Testament in Modern Context." in Satterthwaite et al.. eds„
The Lord's Anointed, :>.
34. The comment* of P lenson ("Models of Prophetic Prediction.' 111) on Matthew's
quotation of Mic y.i are relevant here: The adaptation of the quotation thus display's a cre
ativity and a faithfulness that is impressrve. The verse b not regarded as an apologetic joker
that will merely prove the messiahship of Jesus. Rather, it is aflexibleentity that can be
adapted in order to draw out the significance of Micah's prophecy and link it with other
texts that speuk of the person and work of the promised king."
32
The Messiah; Explorations in the Law and Writings
This perspective, of course, raises the much vexed and recently dis
cussed question of the locus of meaning of a text. It may sound as if 1 am
moving from an authorial-based interpretation to a reader-based ap
proach, but I am not. Rather,! am suggesting that, though the human au
thors "spoke better than they knew" (cf. 1 Pet 1:10-12), there is another Au
thor whose intentions come to perfect fidfillment. If one wants to call this
35
sensus plenior, I have no objection.
But let me conclude by reflecting on the words of John the Baptist,
which 1 commented upon earlier. He spoke of the coming of a violent
Messiah, but what he was thinking as he "authored" these words was
thrown into question when Jesus began his ministry of healing and
preaching the Good News. Rather than slaying sinners and Gentiles, he
was perceived as their "friend" (Matt 11:19).
Does that mean that the words of John were incorrect because they
did not conform to his conscious understanding (intention)? Not at all. In
the first place, Jesus' actions during his earthly ministry can be seen as an
act of violence in the spiritual realm. As Susan Garrett has pointed out, the
36
exorcisms are a form of holy war. Paul understands Jesus' death and res
urrection (Col 2:13-15) and his ascension (Eph 4:7-10, citing; the holy war
psalm, 68) as a military victory. Indeed, it inaugurates a period of spiritual
35. W. Kaiser and J. Sailhamer, both defenders of lodging the meaning of a text in the
conscious intention of the human author, must labor mightily or simply ignore more obvi
ous interpretations as tliey exegele these texts in a way that suggests that the original authors
actually were thinking of a future messianicfigurelike Jesus. For instance. Kaiser does not
even interact with the most obvious possibility that Genesis 49 and Numbers 24 refer to the
future Davidic monarchy coming from the tribe of Judah; rather, he simply presumes that
the Messiah was in mind (Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids;
Zondcrvan, 19951 50-57). Note Kaiser's comment about Old Testament messianic texts that a
"straightforward understanding and application of the text leads onestraight to the Messiah
and to Jesus of Nazareth, who has fulfilled everything these texts said about his first coming"
(232).
J. Sailhamer argues that the narrative of the Pentateuch is set within a poetic frame
work and that the narrative needs to be interpreted through the lens of these intentionally
placed poems. These poems are each marked with the phrase "in the last days," thus giving
the Pentateuch an cschatological significance. He argues this way to posit a connection be
tween Jesus and the Pentateuch's promise of a future king in texts like Genesis 49 and Num
bers 24. See Sailhamer, Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1995).
36. S. R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil- Magic and the Demoniac in Luke's Writings
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989).
33
TREMPER LONGMAN III
hob/ war in which the church participates (Eph 6:10-20). But even more
significantly, Jesus' own words (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), the epistles,
and Revelation indicate that Jesus* earthly ministry was phase one of a
two-phase redemptive work. Indeed, the divine warrior will return and
bring final judgment against God's human and spiritual enemies (Rev
19:11-21 being a particularly salient example).
Conclusion
This paper has examined the theme of the Messiah in the Torah and the
Writings. The study has been necessarily selective, though I think illustra
37
tive. If I had restricted my study to the intention of the human authors or
the reception of its first readers, this would have been a short paper indeed.
However, redemptive events and later fuller revelation reveal a more pro
found intention at work, one recognized by the New Testament authors
and applied to Jesus of Nazareth. Read in the light of that fuller meaning,
this paper is shorter than it could be, choosing just a handful of examples
to illustrate the point. Indeed, in final analysis, I believe that we should un
derstand the entire Old lestament in the light of Jesus Christ.
37. If ihis were .in exhaustive study, we would have included an analysis of recent at
tempts to discern the messianism of Chronicles (c.g., H. G. M. Williamson, The Dynastic
Oracle in the Books of Chronicles," in Isac Leo Secligmann. vol. 3 |ed. A. Rofe and
Y. Zakovitch; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1083I 30S-18) and also explored the potential connection
between wisdom and ninsiah. Though the sage is -ever described as anointed with oil, wis
dom is connected with an endowment of the Holy Spirit and in that sense may be described
as anointed. A recent interesting attempt to see the theme* of wisdom and messiah played
out in Ecclesiasin may be seen in R. Perrin, "Messianism in the Narrative Frame of Ecclesi-
astes?" RB 10S (2001) 37-00.
34
Figuring the Future:
The Prophets and Messiah
Mark /. Boda
Defining Messiah, Defining O u r Study
For an Old Testament scholar to venture into a study of Messiah is a daring

act indeed, especially in light of the following comment by Ron Clements:
"virtually all of the major books on Old Testament theology say very little
at all about such messianic hope and, even when they do, do so in a very
1
guarded and circumscribed way." The reason for its absence in Old Testa
ment theologies is obvious if one accepts the dominant view of the Old
Testament evidence, expressed for example by Roland Murphy long ago:
It is a tact that the term "messiah," as a terminus technicus designating

the ideal king who was to come, does not occur in the Old Testament It
received this connotation only towards the beginning of the Christian
era, whereas in itself it means merely the "anointed," referring to kings
2
and priests.
With such a strong consensus evident within Old Testament scholarship in

the twentieth century, is there any use in proceeding further?
Fart of the challenge that faces us revolves around this issue of "ter-
1. R. E. Clements, "The Messianic Hope in the Old Testament," /S07*43 (19&9) 3-19.
here <i> noting exceptions in Quids and Schmidt.
2, R. E. Murphy, "Notes on Old Testament Messianisra and Apologetics," CBQ 19
(1957) 5-15, here 5. In footnote 3 he adds: "It is not likely that Ps 2,2 and IJn 9,25 are excep
tions to this statement."
35
MARK ). BODA
minus technicus," cited by Murphy. This was highlighted by Magne Sa?bo,

who, when addressing the issue of messianism and eschatology, noted: the
"problem of terminology is, moreover, a problem of the right point of de
parture, for the final result depends very much on where the starting
3
point lies which determines the way ahead." Thus, before we can con
sider the topic of the Messiah in Hebrew prophecy, it is essential that we
carefully define the study and its attendant terms. What then do we mean
by "Messiah"?
On the one hand, JohnJ. Collins defines "Messiah" as "a future figure
who will play an authoritative role in the end time, usually the eschatologi-
cal king," while James II. Charlesworth (on behalf of his colloquium), on
the other, concludes that this term refers "to a present, political and reli
gious leader who is appointed by God, applied predominantly to a king,
but also to a priest and occasionally a prophet "* Slipping somewhere be
tween these two is Walter H. Rose, who defines it as "a future royal figure
sent by God who will bring salvation to God's people and the world and
3
establish a kingdom characterized by features like peace and justice."
3. M. Ssba, "Zum Vethaltnis von 'Messianismus' und 'Escharologie' im Alren Testa

ment: Ein Vcrsuch tcrminologischcr und sachlichcr Klarung," in Der Mcssias (ed.
I. Baldermann, E. Dassmann, O. Fuchs, and B. Hamm; Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie;
Neukirchen-Vluvn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993) 25-55; translated as M. Sa:bo, "On the Rela
tionship between 'Messianism' and 'Eschatology' in the Old Testament: An Attempt at a Ter
minological and Factual Clarification," in On the Way to Canon; Creative Tradition History
in the Old Testament (ed. M. Sxboi [SOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 199S) '97-
231; see similarly John Bright: "A clear definition of terms is always desirable, and that is es
pecially the case here, for the word 'eschatology' as it relates to the Old Testament has been
used in more than one way, and this has not infrequently created confusion in the minds of
students"; J- Bright, Covenant and Promise: Tlie Prophetic Understanding of the Future in Pre-
exilic Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 18.
4. J. I. Collins, The Scepter and the Star The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other
Ancient Literature (AB Reference Library; New York: Doublcday, 1995) 11; J. H. Charlesworth,
ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1987) rv. Charlesworth was citing the endorsement of the members of the colloquium on the
use of the term "Messiah" in the Old Testament; see J. J. M. Roberts, "The Old Testament's
Contribution to Messianic Expectations," in the same volume, 31-51. I am thankful to
Thomas Thompsonfordrawing my attention to this work: T. U Thompson, ""The Messiah
Epithet in the Hebrew Bible," S/OT15 (2001) 57-92, here 57.
5. W. H- Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabeh Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic
Period ((SOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 23; I am indebted to Dan Block
for drawing my attention to the definitions of Collins and Rose: D. I. Block, "My Servant
36
Figuring the Future: The Prophets and Messiah
These three definitions highlight the difficulty of finding a definitive start

ing point for this study. Points of divergence are obvious: Is this a present,
future, or eschatological figure? Is this a royal, priestly, or prophetic figure?
These questions reveal the multidimensional character of any definition of
a figure called "Messiah."
First of all, this figure is defined according to a particular sociological
role. For Collins and Rose this figure is royal, while for J. I. M. Roberts this
figure is predominantly royal but could also be priestly or prophetic Sec
ond, this figure is defined according to a temporal reference. For Roberts
the figure is present, while for Rose and Collins the figure is future. Third,
even the temporal future can be nuanced further: for while both Rose and
Collins speak of a future figure, the latter characterizes this future as quali
tatively "eschatological" and "end time."
The reason for this divide within scholarship is related, at least par
tially, to the historical and literary evidence that is under purview. The fo
cus of Roberts's study was the Hebrew Bible; for Rose it was the late pro
phetic books; while for Collins it was Second Temple Judaism and
Christianity. Nevertheless, it is important that we at least identify what we
mean by our terms even if we are focusing on different textual and tempo
ral evidence. In order to do that, a closer look at both the sociological role
and temporal reference is in order; and there is no better place to start than
with the Hebrew semantic range that gave messianic expectation its termi
nology.
Sociological Role
Semantic Range o / m a s a h
The verbal root m&Sah, the adjectival form maiiah, and the nominal forms
6
mdihdh and miihdh occur tjo times in the Old Testament. Of these words
maihah is the most obscure, occurring only once in Num 18:8 to refer to
"consecrated portion," a gloss also found for miihdh on two occasions
David: Ancient Uriel's Vision of the Messiah,° in Israel's Messiah in the Bibir and the Dead
Sea Strolls (cd K. S Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R,: Grand Kapids: Baker Academic, 2003)
17-56, here 23.
6. mOiah ()7x), m&ilah {(Ax), mashdh (ix). and mishah (24.x); nolicc also the related
term mitnlah in Kzck 18:14 in reference to an angelic being.
37
MARK ). BODA
(both in Lev 7:35). Usually miiiuSh is found in a collocation with iemen

(oil) to signify the "ointment" used to consecrate the priests (e.g., Exod
25:6; Lev 8:2,10,12, 30). The verbal root mdsah is used in a more generic
way to refer to the act of smearing a substance (usually oil) on something
else. Thus, it is used for applying oil to a weapon (Isa 21:5; 2 Sam 1:21) or
cakes (Exod 29:2; Lev 2:5; 7:12; Num 6:15), but also for applying perfumes/
ointments to one's body (Amos 6:6) or paint to a house (Jer 22:14). Never
theless, it is used most commonly in ceremonial rituals connected with
consecrating sacred objects (altar, vessel), buildings (tabernacle, temple),
and especially people to an office or role within Israel. The semantic range
of the adjective mdSlah is nearly restricted to this final gloss: that is, to de
scribe people who are consecrated to an office or role within Israel.
King, Priest, and Prophets
It is interesting that the verbal and adjectival forms are both connected
with three key sociological functionaries within Israel's texts: king, priest,
and prophet.' As noted by Collins, Rose, and Roberts above, the most
common use of these two forms is in reference to the royal stream. The
monarch is anointed as well as called the anointed one.
m&lah: Idg 9:8; 9:15; 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 15:1,17; 16:3,12,13; 2 Sam 2:4, 7;
3:39; 5^3 ( = 1 Chron 11:3); 5:17; 12:7; 2 Sam 19:11; 1 Kgs 1:34. 39. 45;
5:15; 19:15.16; 2 Kgs 9:3» 6 , 1 2 ; 11:12; 23:30; 2 Chron 22:7; 23:11; 29:22;
Ps 89:21 | E n g 2 o | ; 4 5 : 8 [Bog 7 ] (Niphal: 1 Chron 14:8).
mtiSUth: 1 Sam 2:10,35; 12:3,5; 16:6; 2 4 : 7 " . IK 26:9,11,16,23; 2 Sam 1:14,
16; 19:22; 23:1; Pss 2:2; 18:51 ( = 2 Sam 22:51); 20:7; 28:8; 84:10; 89:39,
52; 132:10 ( = 2 Chron 6:42), 17; Isa 45:1; Lam 4 : 2 0 ; Dan 9:25-26.*
However, Roberts was correct to note the priestly connection because ref
erences to priests and anointing are the second most abundant, with spe-
7. Uncertain is rhe evidence of (wo passages: Hab 3:13 and Ps 28:8. In the first 'am
(people) Is paralleled with mHliah, but one cannot assume that these are to he equated, for
the two lines may be referring to two different entities that were saved: (1) the people as a
whole, and (a) an anointed leader. In the second, people and anointed one are in l couplet,
and most likery it refers to the people as a separate entity from the anointed.
a. For this evidence see BOB.
38
rial focus on the high priest as the one anointed and called the anointed
one.
1
maiah: Exod 28:41; 29:7, 29; 30:30; 40:13, 15* ; Lev 7:36; 8:12; 16:32;
Num 3:3; 35:25; 1 Chron 29:22 (Niphal: Lev 6:13)*
mdStah: Lev 4:3, 5 , 1 6 ; 6:15
Finally, although rare, there arc texts that indicate that prophets arc also
anointed and considered anointed ones. In particular, alongside a refer
ence to the anointing of a royal figure (Ichu), 1 Kgs 19:16 refers to Elijah
anointing Elisha "as prophet in your place." Many have suggested that the
figure in Isa 61:1 who is "anointed" is a prophetic figure because of his role
of proclamation. Furthermore, Ps 105:15 (//1 Chron 16:22) parallels the plu
10
ral of maiiah with "my prophets." This evidence then reveals that the ter
minology associated with the Hebrew root mdiah was connected with the
three major socio-religious functionary streams in Israel: king, priest,
11
prophet,
Timing
The evidence on sociological role confirms Roberts's broader definition of

the Messiah in the Old Testament, but it remains to be seen whether his
temporal reference can also be accepted. He, along with many Old Testa
ment scholars, has suggested that a close look at the temporal reference
when this terminology appears in the Old Testament reveals that the vast
majority of the texts are focused on a present figure, with only a couple
looking to a future figure (Isa 45:1; 61:1) and possibly only one looking to a
figure inaugurating an eschatological era (Dan 9:24-26).
However, there arc reasons to question this conclusion. First of all,
9. Or things tiered, tabernacle, vessels: Gen 31:13: Num 7:11 Exod 29:36:30:26; 40:9.10,
11; Lev 8:10,11; Dan 9:14 (Niphal: altar Num 7:10.84, 88).
10.This is, indeed, odd as the psalmist is speaking about the patriarchs, but no matter
how you understand the connection between the patriarchs and prophets, the fact still re
mains that the pulmi<t is linking •ndliah with prophecy.
11. Even though A. Laato recognizes this, he limits '"Messiah"' to the royal stream- See
Laato, A Star Is Ruing The Historical Development of the Obi Testament Royal Ideology and
the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations (USFISFCJ; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997) 3-
39
MARK J. BODA
this approach is based on a historicist stance that views the texts of the Old
Testament merely as annals of the past. That is, it is assumed that when a
text in, for example, the Deuteronomic History employs messianic termi
nology it is merely recording a past event in which a reference was made to
a then present figure (e.g., 2 Sam 22:51). However, although I am confident
that the texts of the Deuteronomic History are rooted in the pre- exilic pe
riod, many of them were brought into their final form in the exilic period
and, as the end of 2 Kings 25 reveals, in a time when there was need for an
enduring hope for the reinstitution of at least royal leadership. Or, further,
when Psalm 2 makes reference to the "messiah" it is often noted that this
psalm finds its Sitz im Ixben in the coronation ceremony of ancient
11
Judahite kings and thus is referring to a contemporary figure. However,
it has long been noted that Psalm 2 joins Psalm 1 as an introduction to the
Psalter as a whole and has been placed in this position at a late date after
3
the monarchy was no longer a political reality.' It appears that the inten
tion of the editors who drew the Psalter together was to signal a future
messianic hope.'* These two examples show us that, although references to
"messianic" figures may have referred to "present" figures in their "origi
nal" historical settings, they have been taken up to encourage future hope
in a later era. Furthermore, when these texts establish the validity of
"anointed" figures in the past and note their enduring quality (especially
references to 'dl&m), they arc establishing something that has serious im
plications for future hope.
Second, if a future orientation can be discerned in references to Mes
siah in the Old Testament, one may legitimately challenge the distinction
that has often been made between simple future and cschatological future.
Such a distinction is based on a certain view of time that may have more to
do with later temporal conceptions than with ancient Hebrew views of "cs-
11 W. II. Brownlee, "Psalms 1-1 as a Coronation Liturgy." Bib si (1971) 31136; S. E.

Gillingham, ""The Messiah in the Psalms: History and the Psalter." in King and Meuiah in Is-
rati and the Ancient Near East (cd. I. Day- JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
109«) 2O0-2J7.
13- E.g.. G II. Wilson, The FJiting of the Hebrew Piaher (Chko, CA: Scholars, 1965!;
G. H. Wilson. The Us* of Royal Psalms at the 'Seams' of the Hebrew Psalter," /SOT35 (19S6)
6S-94; I- C McCann. The Shape and Shaping of the Ptalter ()SOTSup; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993).
14. See also the use of mdliah in Pss 89:39 and 132:10. two passages that appear to be
offering hope of an enduring and future role for a royal figure by leveraging the Davidic
tradition.
40
chatology." This issue has been long debated among Old Testament schol
ars, with lines drawn between those who denied that "cschatology" in the
sense of the final days was a component in anything but the late proto-
apocalyptic texts and others who saw the eschatological as central to
prophecy.
Walther Eichrodt clearly differentiated between the priestly and the
prophetic, between the official and the charismatic." In his view, the
priestly worldvicw was founded securely on "the concept of permanent or
der," while the prophetic represented a "radical critique of the status quo."
Such a critique led Eichrodt to argue for eschatology as part of the pro
phetic worldview from the outset: "they look to the break up of the old
world, to bring about the beginnings of a new development, the nucleus of
16
a new world-order, and to perfect this into a second creation." Thus, for
Eichrodt, there is no use in contrasting the prophetic (or simple future)
and the eschatological (eschatological future): "to try to see in eschatology
an indifferent or inferior appendix to the prophetic system of thought is a
fundamental misunderstanding of prophetism.**"
Although Eichrodt s distinction between the status quo and the es
chatological reflects the general trend within scholarship, this is not true of
his fusion of the prophetic and the eschatological. Whereas Eichrodt sees
the eschatological at the heart of prophetic religion, Sigmund Mowinckel
limits the eschatological to texts that express a clear break between two
eras: the "present state of things and the present world order will suddenly
come to an end and be superseded by another of an essentially different
18
kind." Although Mowinckel would agree that there is a relationship be
tween the eschatological and the prophetic, he sees this relationship
through a traditio-historical lens as he traces the development of prophet
ism from historically oriented prophecy of the pre-exilic period to the fu
turism of Deutero-Isaiah. Although Deutero-lsaiah indicates the way that
l W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster. 1961J
16. Eichrodt. Throiog)>, 1:385.

17. Eichrodt, Theology. 1:3*5. Eichrodt s distinction between the "status quo" and the
'eschatological" reflects the general trend within the scholarly guild. This has been ex
pressed most cogently by O. Ploger and P. D. Hanson, who have argued for distinct sociolog
ical groups on the basis of these two categories: theocratic^ ierocra tic and apocalyptic/es-
chaTologkal; see p. 51 n. 58, below.
18. S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1958) 115-
4"
MARK ). BODA
ultimately leads from "a purely this-worldly futurism" to eschatology, it is

not eschatological because of its national and political character. So also
I. P. M. van der Ploeg calls for a stricter definition of eschatology as "the
knowledge of the end": "a sudden and definitive end of this era of the
world, or even of the world itself, and the ushering in of a new era and a
1
new world." * Although many texts, such as Deutero-Isaiah, speak of a
"happy future, quite different from the present state of affairs," it is not es-
chatology in the strict sense. Only Daniel gives us this sense and represents
10
the end of an evolution that was "eschatology in the making."
This appeal to distinct eras as the key to defining eschatology is,
however, used by many scholars to support Eichrodt's approach. Johannes
Lindblom discerns the eschatological in prophetic material by noting the
implication of two eras in the phrases "the days are coming," "on that day,"
21
and "at the end of days." John Bright argues that it is appropriate to use
the term "eschatology" when speaking of the prophets, for there he finds
"an orientation toward the future, a future hope, that was characteristic
and u n i q u e . . . . [TJhere had already emerged the anticipation of a defini-
tive divine intervention through which God would first bring judgment on
this people and then, in the farther future, would deliver them and restore
22
them, and bring his purpose for them to a triumphant conclusion." Al-
though Sæbø sees a distinction between futurism and eschatology, he finds
2
eschatology in the prophets from Amos and Isaiah onward. * So also Don-
ald E. Gowan finds eschatology in the Hebrew Bible in "those promises
24
that speak of a future with significant discontinuities from the present."
Gerhard von Rad challenges those who do not find eschatology in the
Hebrew Bible because "they say the prophetic predictions do not embrace
25
the idea of an absolute end of time and history." He continues: "To do
this, however, is tantamount to applying a concept of time to the prophets'
19. |. P. M. van der Ploeg, 'Eschatology," in The Witness of Tradition: Papers Head at
the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Woudschoten, 1970 (cd. A. S. van
tier Woude; OTS; !_cidcn: Brill, 1972) 89-99, here 89.
10. Van der Ploeg, "Eschatology,'* 97.
21. J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961) 360-62.
22. Bright, Centrumt and Promise, 19.
23. M. Saebe. "Messianism in Chronicles: Old Testament Background ot the New les-
tament Chrtstology," HUT 2 (1980) 85-109, here 06.
24. D. E. Cowan, Eschatology in the Old TeSMmenf (Philadelphia: Fortress, 19S6) U3.
25. G. von Rad. Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961) 2:99-12?
42
teaching of which they themselves were quite unaware. If, as I have already
suggested, this concept o f time simply did not exist for the prophets, it is
perfecdy possible to say that the event which they foretell is a final one even
if we, with our different presuppositions, would describe it as still 'within
26
history."' Thus von Rad is reticent to create sharp distinctions between
27
"Jahweh's action within history and his action at the end of it."
This debate reveals that once one has observed a future orientation
within at least some of the "messianic" texts of the Old Testament, the
challenge remains as to how one treats this future in the Old Testament
and in particular how one defines "eschatology." Those who define "escha
tology" in ahistorical, cosmic, cataclysmic, final ways restrict eschatology
to late apocalyptic writings in the Hebrew Bible, and even then, as von Rad
has noted, "not with absolute precision." However, those who understand
eschatology as a future hope that envisions the breaking in of a new era
have a greater openness to the presence of this phenomenon in the Old
Testament. This latter approach appears more consistent with the evidence
of Old Testament expectation.
Beyond Terminology, Defining the Study
Investigations of Messiah within the Old Testament have often been lim
ited to those passages in which either masah or maMah appears. Such a lex
ically circumscribed agenda has been provided, for example, in the recent
articles of Thomas Thompson and Richard S. Hess, both of which contrib
8
ute greatly to the study o f the "messianic" within the Old Testament.'
These kinds of studies identify passages that use the language associated
26. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:115.

27. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:115; so also <i. K. (.add, "Eschatology" in The
Internationa! Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979) T.iyo-4y here 132: "The biblical perspective does not allow for the sharp disjunction be
tween 'history' and'beyond history'that is often found in contemporary theology. The cleav
age between history and eschatology in the Old Testament is never radical, for the God who
will reveal Himself by a grandiose theophany in the eschatological consummation has already
manifested Himself and docs not cease manifesting Himself in the course of history."
28. R. 5. Hess, "The Image of the Messiah in the Old Testament," in Images of Christ.
Ancient and Modern (cd. S. E. Porter, M. A. Hayes, and D. Tombs; Roehampton Institute
London Papers; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 22-33; Thompson, "Messiah Epi
thet," 57-82.
43
MARK I. BODA
with the roots identified above and mine these for attributes or functions
attached to these figures either past, present, or future. However, what is
often missed in this lexical approach is that the qualities and functions
may merely be features of the various (and separate) functionaries with
whom they arc associated and as a result may tell us nothing about the
qualities of mOitah.
To explain this, let me use a neutral (but related) example: the "ser
vant of YHWH." It is well known that this "epithet" is used regularly
throughout the Old Testament to denote special status for certain religious
and civil functionaries within Israel. This term is attached to such lumi
naries in Israel's history as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David,
Hezekiah, Eliakim, Zerubbabel, the Suffering figure in Isaiah 40-116, as well
as the key groups of prophets (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:13» 23) and Levitical singers
(e.g., Pss 113:1; 134:1; 135:1)- If we mined these various passages and tried to
construct a composite sketch of the "servant," we would find that this fig
ure is one who combined a vast array of functions and qualities. However,
most of these functions and qualities really have little to do with the role of
"servant"; rather, they have to do with the respective function of these fig
ures as leader, priest, king, or prophet. In the same way, our study above
has demonstrated that the terms maiah and maSiah normally function in
the Old Testament as terms denoting the special character of an individual
as one consecrated by God for a particular function among God's people;
thus, to study the "messiah" or the "messianic" cannot be reduced to an in
vestigation of these lexemes and their attendant texts."
Furthermore, the use of rruUahJtnaiiah for various functionaries sug
gests that such terms provided generic language in Hebrew for different
kinds of special leadership figures. In light of the role of this word in Hebrew,
it is then not surprising that, as Hebrew speakers and writers sought to ex-
29. So similarly: i. D. Hays, "If He Looks like a Prophet and Talks like a Prophet, 1 hen
He Must Be . . . : A Response to Daniel 1. Block," in Hess and Carroll cds., hrarl'i Messiah
in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 57-60: "The image of the messiah and the idea of
messianiim comprise a broad concept that far outreaches the few instances where the term
'anointed' is used. It is the concept that we are seeking to define, not merely one particular
Hebrew word' (60)', and, in a much earlier era, H. H. Rowley. The Suffering Servant and
the Davidk Messiah." in The Sentua of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (ed.
H. H. Rowley: Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965) 63-9.1. here 6\. "While the term Messiah, or
Christ, does not appear to be actually used of the Davidk descendant in the Old Testament,
the concept of the Davidic Messiah is familiar enough.'
44
press future expectations, these terms were employed for describing future
ideal leadership figures. Rather than an abuse of Hebrew language and litera
ture, reference to mdsah/mdsiah within Second Temple Judaism and nascent
30
Christianity was actually a natural outgrowth of the Hebrew tradition.
Thus, studying Messiah in the Old Testament need not be so daring
an act as expressed at the outset of this section, since the term "Messiah"
appears to have been used gencrically for religious functionaries operative
in Hebrew society and tradition, functionaries for whom there was hope
of an enduring role. Adopting such an approach to Messiah in the Old Tes
tament does justice to the use o f this term, not only on the literary level of
the final form of the text, but also within the social context from which
these texts have arisen. It also opens the way for greater dialogue with
scholars studying the phenomena of Messiah and messianic within Second
Temple Judaism and Christianity, as the present volume provides.
Prophets and Messiah
No Old Testament tradition is more closely associated with messianic ex

pectation in popular Jewish and Christian consciousness than the proph
ets. Such a consciousness is the result of a long history of reflection on the
large corpus of prophetic literature. To deal adequately with this literature
would require (and has required!) a monograph of its own, and so this ar
ticle will be more focused. In light of my definition o f "Messiah" above, I
will investigate the broader phenomenon of "messianism," that is, present
31
description and future expectation of socio-religious functionaries, but
will limit this exploration to the final phase of the prophetic corpus, that
is, to Haggai-Malachi.
The reason I have chosen this focus is not only due to the limited
space of this paper, my own expertise, and the appearance of recent sur-
30. Laato, StarftRising, 3-4, although noting that the Hebrew terminology related to
Messiah can he used of king, high priests, and prophets, then explicitly states that the goal of
his monograph is to show how this terminology moved from denoting the king chosen by
YHWH to "terminus technkus. 'Messiah.' for a coming eschatologicalfigure."The broader
view of the figure is already seen in the Old Testament; the key is the move to the future mid
eschatological.
31.1 use this terminology to avoid the problem of denoting prophets as filling an "of
fice''; cf. D. I_ Petersen, The Rotes of Israel's Prophets (ISOTSup; Sheffield: |SOT, 19*1).
45
MARK I. BODA
veys on the Messiah in the Old Testament and the Prophets," but more so
because of the role that the Haggai-Malachi corpus plays within Hebrew
and Christian tradition.
First of all, in historical perspective these books provide records of
those who prophesied after the exile to a Jewish community in the midst of
the reformulation of faith, religion, and society without the advantage of
independent nationhood. These books then offer us a window into the
ways the Jewish community's view of leadership was being shaped after the
exile. Key trajectories are set in this era that would have a great impact on
the faith of Second Temple Judaism, which would in turn provide a con
text for Christianity. It is well known that these books played a major role
in shaping messianic expectation within Second Temple Judaism, nascent
Christianity, and beyond, and so it is appropriate to investigate the per
spective of these books."
Second, in redactional perspective, recent research on the Book of
the Twelve as well as Haggai, Zechanah, and Malachi has advocated that
these three books at one time formed an independent corpus that was in
corporated into the Book of the Twelve in the final stages of its develop
3
ment. * Thus, there is some justification for dealing with this sub-group
within prophetism.
32. See especially |. J. M. Roberts, The Old Testament's Contribution to Messianic

Expectations," in Charlesworth, cd., The Messiah, 31-51; P. E. Sattcrthwaitc. R. S. Hess, and
G. J. Wenhani, eds., The Lord's Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Text
(Tyndalc House Studies; Carlisle. UK: Paternoster/Grand Rapids- Baker, 1995); Day.ed-, King
and Messiah in Israel; and Block, "My Servant David." 17-56.
33. For the impact on Judaism and Christianity see M.). Boda, Haggai-Zechariah Re
search: A Bibliographic Survey (ToolsforBiblical Studies; I«iden: DEO Publishing, 2003);
M. (. Boda, Haggai/Zechariah (NIVAG Grand Rapids: Zondeivan, 2004).
34- Some include Zechariah 9—14 in this Haggai-Malachi corpus (e.g.. A. Schart,
"Putting the Eschatological Visions of Zechariah in Their Place: Malachi us a Hernieueutical
Guide for the Last Section of the Book of the Twelve," in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Bib
lical Allusion and Zechariah 9-14 [cd. M. T. Boda and M. H. Floyd; JSOTSupj Sheffield: Shef
field Academic Press, 2003) 333-43); others do not (e.g., P. L. Rcdditt, "Zechariah 9-14: The
Capstone of the Book of the Twelve," in Boda and Floyd, eds., Bringing out the Treasure, 305-
32;, treating it as the final insertion after the number of books had reached twelve. For a full
review of this stream of research, sec P. L Rcdditt. "Recent Research on the Book of the
Twelve as One Book," CftSS 9 (2001) 47-80; P. L Redditt. "The Work of the Book of the
Twelve Seminar," in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. A. Schart and P. Redditt;
BZAW; Berlin: de Gruytcr. 2003) 1-16; M. I. Boda, "Majoring on the Minors: Recent Research
on Haggai and /cchariah," CBR 2 (2003) 33-68.
46
Third, in tradition perspective, these books portray self-awareness of

their place in the history of prophetism in particular and revelation in gen
35
eral. Haggai draws on earUer traditions and language from the former
and latter prophets as well as the Torah, not only to summon the people to
rebuild the temple, but also to paint a picture of a glorious future." Zecha-
riah sums up this Persian period phase well when he introduces his sum
mary of the message of prophetism by referring to the '"earlier prophets"
(1:4; 7:7} and describes the Torah as the authoritative covenant document
7
(Zech 5:i-4)-' Zechariah 9 - 1 4 is universally recognized as a pastiche of
quotations, allusions, and echoes drawn from the Torah and the Former
and Latter Prophets." Malachi mines earlier Torah and Prophetic tradi
tion to confront dysfunction and announce a new age, concluding with a
39
call to remember the Torah and to expect Elijah.
Finally, while many Christian scholars assume that the Longer pro
phetic books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and especially Isaiah were formative
for New Testament Christology, there is an odd absence of influence
from these books on the key Gospel passion accounts. For instance, one
would expect to see the influence of Isaiah 52-53, one of the key "Suffer
ing Servant" passages (cf. Acts 8:33), but it appears that Luke is the only
Gospel that cites Isaiah 52-53 in connection with the crucifixion (Luke
22:37//1SJ 53:12). Instead, formative for the suffering of the Messiah are
passages from the Psalms (Ps 22//Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 19:24; Ps
41:9//John 13:18; Ps n8//Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10-11) and Zechariah (Zech
ii//Matt 27:10; Zech i2//John 19:37; Zech i3//Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27), a
fact that encourages a closer study of Zechariah within the prophetic
corpus.
Our focus, then, will be on the way in which Haggai, Zechariah, and
35- Sec a similar approach to this issue of messianism in J. II. Sailhamer. "The Mes
siah and the Hebrew Bible,"/ETS 44 (2001) 5-23, who mines the later stages of the formation
of the Hebrew Bible for messianic hope.
36. I. Kesslcr. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy in Early Penian Yehud (VTSup; Leiden:
Brill. 2002).
37.). t.Tollington, Tradinon and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah i~S (JSOTSup;
Sheffield: JSOT. 1993).
3». See Boda and Hoyd, cd*,. Bringing out the Treasure.
39- E. M. Meyers, "Priestly Language in the Book of Malachi," HAR w (1986) 225-37;
R. Ktigler, Prom Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi 10 Testa
ment of Levi (SBLEJU Atlanta: Scholars, 1996) i«-it; J- M. O'Brien. Priest and Levile in
Malachi (SBLDS; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 87-106.
47
MARK J. BODA
Malachi treat socio-religious figures in their own day and then create ex
40
pectation for such figures in the future.
Haggai-Malachi
Recent Research
Alberto Ferreiro's recent publication of the Ancient Christian Commen

tary on the Twelve Prophets reveals the fixation of the early church on the
books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi as a source for their understand
41
ing of fesus Christ. Such an interest in these books within the Christian
community is not surprising, considering the attention afforded these
42
books within the New Testament witness. This in turn is also not excep
tional, for one can discern an equal fascination with the cschatological and
messianic in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi within Second Temple Juda
ism. Such fascination, however, demands careful assessment. What rela
tionship is there between the later Jewish and Christian appropriation of
these books and the original message of the books themselves? In what
way can they be sources for messianic and/or cschatological theology?
Reflection over the past decade on these books has offered a range of
43
viewpoints on this issue. For example, in treating Haggai and Zechariah
1-8, Janet Tollington concluded that these prophets affirmed Zcrubbabel as
the inheritor and representative of the enduring Davidic legacy, even if the
latter prophet equally affirmed a diarchlc rule of sacral and secular leader
44
ship until the reinstitution of independent rule. In contrast, Kenneth
Pomykala denies any Davidic royalist or messianic expectation to Haggai or
Zechariah ( 1 - 8 ) , whether connected to Zerubbabcl or the mysterious
45
semah, even if these prophets provided the foundation for later messianic
40. For a full review of research, sec Boda, Haggai-Zechariah Research; Boda, Haggai/
Zechariah.
41. A. Ferreiro, ed., The Twelve Prophets (Ancient Christian Commentary: Old Testa
ment; Downers Grove, 11.: IntcrVarsity Press, 2003) 219-313.
42. Cf. Boda, Haggai-Zechariah Research, 31-34.124,174-78.241-47; and the introduc
tion to Boda, HaggailZechariah.
43. See fuller review in Boda, Haggai-Zechariah Researdt, 20-31.
44. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation.
45. This term (which is transliterated by some scholars as ZemoJt) will be used
48
46
reflection. Antli Laato intertwines evidence from ancient Near Eastern
temple rebuilding ceremonies with the Davidic royal traditions to show
that Zerubbabel was considered a royal messianic figure in both Haggai and
Zechariah. In the latter, however, there is a closer relationship between
priestly and royal figures, as can be seen in the "Branch" prophecies (Zech 3;
6) and the two olive trees in Zechariah 4, and in its final form there is "a dis
tinction between the ideal figures of the future (the Branch and the Priest)
47
and the figures of the historical present (Zerubbabel and Joshua)." R. A.
Mason, while cautiously affirming evidence of a hope for a Davidic royal re
newal in Haggai, suggests that Zeehariah's original vision of a priestly-Toyal
diarchy was modified to embrace the emerging theocracy under the
48
priests. Rose rejects a royalist/messianic reading of Hag 2:20-23, but does
affirm such for Zechariah 1-8, but only in connection with the "Zemah" fig
49
ure, who is not equated with Zerubbabel. Thomas Pola interprets Zecha
riah 1-6 as a document that highlights how the cult, temple, and priesthood
are given responsibility for preserving the messianic and eschatological
30
hope. Zerubbabel symbolically affirms this by his involvement in the tem
ple building, and Zechariah trumpets it with his declaration that the priest
hood was a sign that a future Messiah would one day emerge (Zech 3:8), a
hope preserved by the memorial crown in the temple (Zech 6:14). John
Kessler restricts his focus to the book of Haggai, but emphasizes that this
book affirms the prophetic stream by highlighting the role and success of
51
the prophetic institution in the early Persian period. In terms of all three
throughout this paper to transliterate the Hebrew term that has traditionally been translated
as "Branch" in Icr 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:9; 6:12. The term denotes vegetation or growth, rather
than the branch of a tree; cf. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel.
46. K. E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and
Significance for Messianism (SBLEIL; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 45-60.
47. Laato, Star Is Rising, 202.
48. R. A. Mason, "The Messiah in the Postexilic Old Testament Literature," in Day,
ed.. King and Messiah in Israel, 338-64.
49. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: W. Rose, "Messianic Expectations," in Yahwism Af
ter the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era (ed. B. Becking and
R. Alberts STAR; Assen; Royal Van Gorcum, 2003) 168-85.
50. T. Pola, Das Priestertum bei Sacharja: Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zurfruhnachexilischenHerrschererwartung (FAT; Tubingen:). C. B. Mohr
(Paul SiebeckJ, 2002); T. Pola, "Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3." in Becking and Albert?,
eds., Yahwism After the Exile, 156-67.
31. Kessler, Book of Haggai.
49
MARK | . BODA
functionary streams, Kessler demonstrates that Haggai affirms the endur

ing validity of all three streams in the Persian period, even if this involved a
"hermeneutic of equivalents" that achieved continuity with pre-exilic pat
terns through "functional equivalents often involving theological compro
mises."" He finds some space between an outright rejection of a royalist
reading of Hag 2:20-23 and the opposite messianic reading of the same pas
sage. Thus the royal stream is affirmed, even if for now this would involve a
provisional partnership with Persian imperialism.
Similar diversity of opinion is evidenced in the study of royal/messianic
tradition in Zechariah 9-14. Some argue for an enduring Davidic royal tradi
3
tion centered on leadership figures;* others see a trend of democratization in
5
which this same tradition is now connected to the entire community; * while
still others see an abandonment of such traditions in favor of hope in a Divine
Warrior enacting salvation alone." In relation to the enduring role of the
prophet in Zechariah 9-14, some scholars have concluded that this corpus
5
hails the end of prophecy. * In response, others have highlighted the fact that
Zechariah 9-14 contains a polemic against false prophecy attached to idola
trous leadership." While there appears to be little explicit focus on the
52. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 27.

53. E.g., S. L. Cook. "The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History of
Zechariah 11:17 +13.7-9," CBQ 55 (1993) 453-66; C. L Meyers and E M. Meyers, "The Future
Fortunes of the House of David: The Evidence of Second Zechariah." in Fortunate the Eyes
That See; Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthda
(ed. A. Beck; Grand Rapids: Berdmans, 1995) 207-22; I. Duguid, "Messianic Themes in Zech
ariah 9-14," in Satterthwaite et a!., eds.. The Lord's Anointed, 265-80; W. H. Schmidt,
"Hoffnung auf einen armen König. Sach 9,9t als Iet2te messianische Weissagung des Alten
Testaments," in Jesus Christus als die Mine der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des
Evangeliums {ed. C Landmesser, IL-|. Eckstein, and H. Lichtenberger; BZNW; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1997) 689-709; Laato, Star Is Rising, 208-18.
54. E.g.. A. Leske, "Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9," CBQ 62 (2000) 663-68; cf.
Mason, "Messiah." 351-57. who retains a role for the Davidides but with far greater commu
nal emphasis.
55. E.g„ Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty, 112-26.
56. E.g., D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deulcro-Prophetic Literature
and in Chronicles (SBLMS; Missoula: Scholars, 1977).
57. E.g., E. M. Meyers, 'The Crisis of the Mid-Fifth Century BCR: Second /echariah
and the'End'of Prophecy," in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and
Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N
Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 713-23: E. M. Meyers,
"Messianism in First and Second Zechariah and the End of Biblical Prophecy," in "Go to the
50
priestly stream in Zechariah 9-14, in an earlier age this was linked to the fact
that this was a polemic against the hierocratic hegemony in Jerusalem by
apocalyptic visionaries." This view has been challenged of late with the sug
55
gestion that Zechariah 9-14 arose from the priestly stream as well.
Malachi has also been a key contributor to the messianic debate over
the past decade, especially in relationship to exegesis on 3:1 and 3:23-24
(Eng. 4:4-5]. The debate has centered on the identity of the messengers and
"lord" in 3:1, and suggestions have ranged from royal to priestly to pro
phetic figures (see further below).
In the context of this extensive debate, we embark on an auspicious
mission: to identify messianic (whether royal, priestly, or prophetic)
themes within Haggai-Malachi. This will involve an evaluation of the
stance of the writers toward these various streams in the present as well as
any expectations for their future.
Haggai
Treatment of the Present
Unquestionably, the focus of the book of Haggai is the construction of the

Second 'lemple. The prophet challenges a lethargic community to begin
restoration anew (1:1-11) and then encourages them at three key junctures:
a t c r a
at the start of the work (1:12-15), f month of preparation (2:1-9), and
finally in two phases on the day of the foundation laying {2:10-19, 20-23).
Although all themes in this book are subservient to the larger concern of
structural renewal, the prophet does affirm sociological rejuvenation in
these prophetic messages. Three key socio-religious functionaries, familiar
to the reader from depictions of prc-cxilic Israel and Judah, are affirmed in
each of the prophetic speeches. The royal stream is represented by
Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel and grandson of the Davidic royal Jehoiachin,
Land I Will Show You": Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young (ed. J. E. Coleson and V. h.
Matthews; Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 117-43.
5S. O. Plöger, Théocratie und Eschatologie (3rd ed.; WMANT; Ncukirchcn-Vluyn:
Ncukirchener Verlag, 1968!; P. IX Hanson, 77ie Dawn of Apocalyptic The Historical and So
ciological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
59. .S. L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The PostexiUc Social Setting (Minneapo
lis: Fortress, 1995).
51
m a r k J. b o d a
the second-to-last king of Judah. The priestly stream is evident in Joshua,

son of Jehozadak and grandson of Seraiah, the last Zadokite priest, who
served in the first temple (2 Kgs 25:18; cf. 1 Chron 5:40 [Eng. 6:14]). The
prophetic message is directed to these two figures in terminology intended
to echo the Davidic first temple building tradition. The responsive "rem
nant" gathers around thesefiguresand embraces this building project. The
prophetic stream is represented by Haggai himself, whose message is
equated with the voice of the Lord, even as the prophet is identified as the
mal'ak YHWH (messenger of the Lord; 1:12-13). Haggai thus legitimates
the three key pre-exilic covenant figures for the present restoration era.
Expectation for the Future
At two points in the book, however, a future orientation takes shape. In

both cases, present faithfulness forms the foundation for future promises.
First, after encouraging the people in the early stages of the rubble clear
ing, the prophet promises a future shaking of the cosmos that will result in
the filling of the temple with material glory from foreign nations (2:6-9).
Although the early church did find in this pericope a reference to a future
messianic figure ("the Desired One"), identified as Jesus, this view has no
60
foundation in the original text. Second, after affirming the people for
their faithfulness in laying the foundation of the temple (2:10-19}, the
prophet promises again a future shaking of the cosmos, but this time the
speech is addressed exclusively to Zerubbabel ("governor of Judah") and
the result is the catastrophic shattering of the political and military hege
mony of foreign nations and the installation of Zerubbabel ("son of
61
Shealtiei") as Davidic vice regent of YHWH on earth (2:20-23). Some in
terpreters have challenged the argument that the words used in this oracle
60. The Vulgate reads: er veniet desideralus cunctis gentibus, echoed in the famous
hymn: "Come thou long-expected lesus, dear desire of every nation." For a proponent of
this view (slightly modified), cf. H. Wolf, "'The Desire of All Nations' in Haggai 2:7: Messi
anic or Not?" JETS 19 ('976) 97-">2.
Some have wrongly seen in this Haggai (and also Zechariah) fomenting rebellion
against Persia in light of present upheavals in Mesopotamia; so L. Waterman, "The Camou
flaged Purge of Three Messianic Conspirators," JNES 13 (1954) 73-78; cf. critique in P. R.
Ackrayd, "Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period," JNES 17
1
(1958) 13-27; I. Kessler, "The Second Year of Darius and the Prophet Haggai. Trait-
euphratene 5 (1992) 63-84; Kesslcr, Book of Haggai, based on chronological data.
52
63
are drawn from vocabulary of Davidic royal appointment because the
6
various lexemes are used in other contexts as well. ' However, the only
context in which all of this vocabulary intersects is that associated with
Davidic appointment; and, furthermore, it is difficult to deny the echo of
Jeremiahs prophetic judgment of Jehoiachin's line in Jeremiah 22.
While Haggai's two descriptions (2:6-9, 20-23) share similar lexical
64
stock in describing cosmic upheaval, they possess slightly different tem
poral markers. Haggai 2:6-9 expects this upheaval "in a little while" (2:6),
while 2:20-23 expects it "on that day" (2:23).** The day that is spoken of
here is the period of activity referred to in vv. 2ib-22, that is, the day of
66
God's overthrowing of the world. The close connection in terms of vo
cabulary between vv. 6-9 and vv. 20-23 suggests that these events are coter
minous. Here, in contrast to the other prophetic literature, "on that day"
appears to refer to "in a little while," a conclusion supported by the naming
of the historically present Zerubbabel in v. 23.*'
62. E.g.. "take" (laqah): l Sam 7:8; 2 Kgs 14:31; 23:30; "my servant": 2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8;
1 Kgs 11:32.34,36; 1 Chron 17:4; 2 Chxon 32:16: Pss 7*70; 89:3:132:10; "chosen" (bahar): 1 Sam
i6*-io; 2 Sam 6:21; P* 7870.
63. See especially Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabeb Rose, "Messianic Expectations," 168-
85; but also Pomykala. Daridic Dynasty. 45-53; contrast Meyers, "Mesiianism." 128.
64. Nogalski') comments that 2:21-22 cannot be connected to 3:6-9 because 2:21-22 en
visions the nations' annihilation in contrast to the nations' contribution to the temple in 2:6-
9 represent a misunderstanding of the imagery;). D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book
of the Twelve (BZAW; Berlin: de Gruyter. 1993) 231. Haggai 2:21-22 is not speaking of the anni
hilation of the nations, but rather of the subjugation of their military power; cf. H. Wolff,
Haggai: A Commentary (Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988) 103:
"What Yahweh is going to annihilate is not the nations themselves but their militant nature."
65. Some scholars treat v. 23 separatelyfromw. 20-22, either on form critical or on
thematic grounds, suggesting that the phrase "on that day" is a "typical redactions! device"
to unite originally disparate orades; Wolff, Haggai, 102; Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 229-31;
S. J. Dc Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-historical and Redaction-critical Study
of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Kerdmans, 1995). Although it
is possible that we have here a redactional seam, I follow Petersen who identifies it a* a tran
sition from general to specific events; I J. 1~ Petersen, Haggai and Zcehariah 1-$: A Commen
tary iOTU London: SCM Press, 1984) 102; d M. L Bod a. 'Haggai: Master Rhetorician," Tyn-
dale Bulletin 51 (2000) 295-304.
66. t!ontri Bauer who sees here the final day of the Feast of Tabernacles; L Bauer,
Zeit dts zweiten Tempels-Zeit der Gerechtigkeit Zur soiio-Okonomitchen Konzeption im
Haggai-Sacltarja-Maleachi-Kbrpus (BEATAJ; Frankfurt: Lang, 1992).
67. So C L Meyers and E. M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah i-S: A New Translation with In
troduction and Commentary (AB: Garden City: Doublcday. 1987) 69: "Haggai's expectations
53
MARK ] . BODA
Summary
Haggai's treatment ofleadership figures is firmly rooted in the historic re

alities of the early Persian period. He affirms the traditional prophetic,
royal, and priestly streams and identifies each of them with figures active
within his community. There is, however, a slight orientation to the future
with the hope of cosmic upheaval that results in material glory for the
temple and material prosperity for the community, but also in a renewal of
national independence and international rule. He centers this hope on the
figure of Zerubbabel, and, although it is possible that this could be refer
ring to Zerubbabel as the founder of a new dynasty, in light of the close as
sociation between 2:6-9 and 2:20-23 it appears that the original expecta
tion was focused on his lifetime.
Zechariah 1-8
Vision-Oracle Complex (Zechariah 1:7-6:15)
68
At the core of Zechariah 1-8 lies the vision-oracle complex in i:7-6:i5.
Most of the pericopes offer promises of renewal for the community as a
whole. In the main, these hopes are placed in the presently unfolding cir
cumstances, verified by the fact that they are the response of God to the
impassioned cry of the Angel of the Lord who voices the pain of the
69
seventy-year wait for divine mercy (i:i2). However, at one point, in one
of the oracle expansions to the night visions (2:14-17 |Eng. 10-13]), there is
a more remote temporal perspective. This is in connection with the expan-
emerged from the historical present, which involved the building of the temple and the imme
diate potential for a monarchic state under the rule of a Davidide who in all likelihood would
be Zerubbabel.'' Similarly, Kcsslcr, Book of Haggai, 270: "Zerubbabel is therefore the guarantor
for that which had not yet been fulfilled, but which soon will be"; contra B. Uffenheimer,
"Zerubbabel: The Messianic Hope of the Returnees," )BQ 24 {1996) 221-28, here 224.
68. For fuller argumentation on the issues dealt with here, see M. I. Boda, "Oil,
Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 17-6:15." JHS3 (2001) Art. 10 =
M. |. Boda, "Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 1:7-6:15," in
Currents in Biblical and Theological Dialogue (ed. I. K Stafford; Winnipeg: St. John's College,
University of Manitoba, 2002) 89-106.
69. M. I. Boda, "Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7-6:15." CBQ
67 (2005) 22-41.
54
sion of Jerusalem to include "many nations" who will enter into covenant
with YHWH when he takes up residence "in that day."
While the communal vision is dominant in Zech 1:7-6:15, at a few
points the prophetic message focuses on socio-religious figures in the
restoration community. Most interpreters turn immediately to the two
central visions in the night vision series for this focus, and probably the
most common point of discussion is the enigmatic fifth vision, with its
scene of a lamp stand fueled by two olive trees U:i-6a, iob-14). These ol
ive trees are identified in the final phase of the interpretation as s'lte
bSie-hayyishur ("the two sons of fresh oil") who are "standing beside the
Lord of all the earth" (4:14)- Often this phrase is translated as "the two
anointed ones" and linked to the two key leadership figures associated
with the early Persian period: Joshua, the Zadokitc high priest, and, of
course, Zerubbabel, the Davidic governor of Yehud. For most interpret
ers this vision is expressing the political realities of Yehud in the Persian
period, highlighting the elevated role of the priest in this new era and
70
preparing the way for hierocratic hegemony in later centuries. How
ever, as I have argued elsewhere in detail, these olive trees are not the re
cipients of oil, but rather the sources, suggesting that, if anything, these
oil trees signify the source of anointing in Israel, which was often the
71
prophet, sometimes the priest, but never the king. This helps us under
stand the presence of the two prophetic speeches in the center of Zccha-
riah 4 (w. 6b-ioa), which offer encouragement and credibility to
Zerubbabel, truly a source of oil for the project. It is not by might or
power, but by God's Spirit through his prophets that this project will be
accomplished.
These two short prophetic speeches in the center of Zechariah 4 as
suredly find their Sirz im Leben in ceremonies connected with clearing and
founding activity at the temple site. As is typical of such refounding cere
monies in the ancient Near East, the participation of the monarch was es
sential, and it appears that Zerubbabel is acting the royal part, officially on
behalf of the Persian emperor, but unofficially as Davidic scion. In this
70. Tollington, Tradition and innovation, modifies this by seeing here indications that
Zechariah championed diarchk rule, which would sustain the community until the arrival
of a Davidic royal.
71. Boda, "Oil, Crowns and Thrones"; cf. D. W. Rooke, "Kingship as Priesthood: The
Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy," in Day, cd., Kingand Messiah
in Israel; Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel.
55
MARK J. BODA
way, then, the prophetic voice affirms the enduring role of the royal house
72
in the life of the community.
Whereas Zechariah 4 highlights the present role of royal and pro
phetic figures, two other passages focus (at least initially) on the priestly
figure of |oshua. In Zechariah 3 and 6:9-15 both Joshua and his atten
dants are affirmed as legitimate priestly functionaries. In each case, how
3
ever, the text alludes to the imminent appearance of one called semah?
This intertwining of priestly and royal figures is drawn assuredly from
the description of the restoration in Jeremiah 33 (cf. ch. 23), where the
futures of the royal and priestly lines are intertwined and assured by the
74
rhythms of the cosmos. In both Zechariah 3 and 6, the realization of
priestly hope is centered on the present figure of Joshua. However, the
royal semah figure belongs to the imminent future when he will come
and usher in a new day of cleansing and prosperity (3:9-10) as well as re
75
building the temple (6:12-13, 15). Although he is never identified by
name in the immediate prophetic pericopes, the two prophetic speeches
inserted into the center of Zechariah 4 (w. 6b-ioa) make it clear that
Zcrubbabel was the one who not only prepared the temple site for con
struction (w. 6b-7) but also laid the foundation (v. 9a) and would bring
the construction to completion (v. 9b). Furthermore, the phrase "you
will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you" appears after the
rebuilding prophecy of both semah (6:15) and Zerubbabel (4:9)- This
72. A. Laato, "Zechariah .|,6b-ioa and the Akkadian Royal Building Inscriptions,"
ZAW\o6 (1994) 53-69; Laato, Star Is Rising, 197-200; and M. J. Boda. "From Dystopia to My
opia; Utopian (Rejvisions in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8," in Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic
Literature (ed. E. Ben Zvi; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c
Ruprecht. 2006) 210-4S.
73. Often inappropriately translated as "Branch"; cf. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel
74. As with his denial of Davidic connections to Zerubbabel in Hag 2:20-23, so in his
denial of connections to Zechariah's semah, Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty, 53-56, cannot be
followed.
75. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, has argued that this is an allusion lo a messianic future
figure, but not to Zerubbabel. L. Tiemeyer, "The Guilty Priesthood (Zech. 3)," in The Book of
Zechariah and Its Influence (ed. C. M. Tuckett; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003) 1-20, is not willing to
accept that Joshua was present in Judah before Zerubbabel nor that Zechariah could have re
ceived this vision/oracle priortothe arrival of either, so she has recently argued that the refer
encetosemah in 3:8b must be an addition to the text, which places her in company with W.
Rudolph {Haggai, Sacharjat-8, Sacharjas-i4,Maleachi (Gütersloh: Mohr,l976|), who says this
gives the removal of sinfromthe land an "cschatological character and turns it into a descrip
tion of the general removal of all sin in the day when the Messiah comes" (p. 2).
56
Figuring the Future; The Prophets and Messiah
showcases Zerubbabel as the figure who did indeed appear with others
7
from "far away" to help build the temple. *
Prose Sermon Inclusio (Zechariah 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23)
The hope of this vision-oracle core, however, is ultimately tempered by the

77
prose sermon inclusio that now brackets the entire complex. While 1:1-6
engenders hope through the sensitive response of the people to the peni-
tential cry of Zechariah, 7:1-8:23 reveals that the conditions are not yet ripe
for the realization of the restoration in its fullness. The prophet highlights
rebellious patterns in the present that echo pre-exilic patterns. This leads
to the verdict of enduring exilic conditions for this community coupled
with the call to a repentance, which will transform their mournful fasts
into joyous feasts that evidence the realization of the hopes for the com-
munity in Zech 2:14-17 [Eng. 10-131: the presence of God and the expansion
of Jerusalem "in those days" with people from "all languages and nations"
(8:20-23). Strikingly absent, however, from 7:1-8:23 is reference to a future
hope for socio-religious functionaries, as Uffenheimer has ably summa-
rized: "Significandy, he omits the political aspects of the prophetic 'days to
come'; neither does he mention, by word or even allusion, the Shoot, or
the re-establishment of the Davidic kingdom. Redemption now is entirely
disconnected from political implementation. This, then, is the last step
taken in the process of'sobering' the dangerous aspirations awakened with
78
the appearance of Zerubbabel."
76. Four sections in Zcch 1:7-6:15 share various commonalities in vocabulary and
style: Zech 2:10-17 |Eng 6-ioj; 3:1-10; 4:6b- 10a; and 6:9-15; (1) a:6b-ioa and 6:9-15 both con-
tain the formula, "the word of the lord to" {d'har-YHWH et 4:6,8; 6:9); (2) 2:10-17; 4:6b-
toa; and 6:9-15 all contain the prophetic formula, "then you will know thai the Lord Al-
mighty h3s sent me" (wida'tem ki-YHWH fbà'Òt s'idhàni: 2:13, 15 [Eng. 9- 111: 4=9; 6:15);
(3) 3:1-10 and 6:9-15 both refer to the semah figure in connection with an address to the
priestly ligure loshua; {4) 4:6b-loa and 6:9-15 both refer to the building of the temple. These
commonalities suggest that they all belong to a common redactions! level within this cor-
pus, forging 3n even closer relationship between Zerubbabel and the semah figure.
77. Cf. M. |. Boda, "Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophctr" in Becking and
Alberts, eds., Yahwism After the Exiie. 49-69; M. J. Bada, "From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary
Function of Zechariah 7-8," CBQ 65 (2003) 390-407.
78. Uffenheimer, "Zerubbabel," 227.
57
MARK J. B O D A
Summary
The core vision-oracle complex in 1:7-6:15 has a similar sociological and

temporal perspective on the renewal to that evidenced in Haggai. Socio
logically, there is great focus on the revitalization of the community as a
whole, but not at the expense of a renewal of the traditional socio-religious
functionaries of pre-exilic Judah, that is, royal, priestly, and prophetic fig
7
ures. * These three functionaries are presented in ways that establish their
interconnectedness. Priest and king are linked in Zechariah 3 and 6,
prophet and priest in Zechariah 3, and prophet and king in Zechariah 4.
Each is essential to the other; the appearance and function of one secures
hope for the appearance of another. This tripartite balance, however, does
highlight a slight shift from the book of Haggai and the pre-exilic situa
tion. First, the priestly role is on the ascendancy, evidenced by exclusive
control over temple affairs and the granting of both crown and throne to
the next future royal in court In Haggai the focus is clearly on the royal
stream. Second, the role of the royal stream is distanced from military or
political control and focused on the rebuilding project, as is evident in the
declaration "not by might, nor by power" in 4:6b-ioa, a contrast to the
90
close association with military power in Haggai.
Temporally, the hopes expressed in 1:7-6:15 arc considered realized in
the present age, something that is true for both community and leadership.
However, there are hints of a more remote future, signaled by the use of
the phrase "in that day," one linked to the appearance of God and the other
with the appearance of the royal semah figure. The prophetic oracles in
Zcch 4:6b-ioa, however, identify Zerubbabel as the fulfillment of the
prophecy of this royalfigureand thus, as with Haggai, suggest a fulfillment
in the near future. However, this expectation that future hope has been re
alized in the present restoration community is tempered in the prose scr-
79. The evidence above clearly contradicts the denial of Pomykala, Davidit Dynasty,
60, that "Zechariah 1-8 sets forth hope for a davidic messiah,"evcn though when he does en
tertain the possibility of the royal stream of thought, his conclusions are similar to mine, es
pecially in the contrast between Zechariah 1-8 and Haggai This evidence also contradicts
A, S. nn der Woude, "Serubbabd und die messianischen Erwartungen des Propheten
Sacharja," ZAW100 Supplement (1988) 138-56, who denies that the semahfigureand the fig
ures in 4:14 relate to present figures, asserting that they belong only to the future high priest
and prince.
80. Meyers and Meyers, "Future Fortunes," 109.
5«
mon indusio which transfers hopes of restoration to a later era (1:1-6; 7:1-
8:23) and makes no mention of socio-religious functionaries. This tempo
ral perspective, at least, will only be accentuated in the sections that follow
in Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi,
Zechariah 9—14
The latter half of the book of Zechariah is clearly distinguished from the
first half by the presence of the superscription mafia" d'bar YHWH (ora
cle, the word of YHWH; 9:1; 12:1) and the vastly different prophetic genre
81
that is employed. As has been the trend in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, the
focus of the prophetic voice is on the community as a whole, but one can
not ignore key texts that reflect on the past, present, and future of leader
ship figures.
Structure
Zechariah 9-14 can be divided into two sections, separated not only by the
superscription maffd'in 9:1 and 12:1, but also by the form, style, and mood
of the prophecies contained therein. The two oracles in chs. 9-10 are fo
cused on both Israel and Judah, exhibit a positive mood, and convey hope
of return from exile, triumph over enemies, and renewal of prosperity in
what appears to be the near future. The two oracles in chs. 12-14 do not
mention Israel, focusing rather on Jerusalem and Judah, exhibit a much
darker mood, and envision a future attack on and cleansing of God's peo
ple as well as a victory through God in a more remote future (on that day:
12:3, 4. 6, 8, 9,11; 13:1, 4; 14:4, 6, 8, 9,13, 20, 21).
Leadership Figures
This transformation in form, style, and mood is showcased by highlighting

a key contrast between chs. 9-10 and 12-14 over the issue of kingship, a
contrast that reveals a change in treatment of the traditional pre-exilic
81. For details on the structure of Zechariah 9-14 and its relationship to Zechariah 1-
8, see M. 7. Boda. "Reading Between the Lines: Zechariah 11:4-16 in Its Literary Contexts," in
Boda and Floyd, eds.. Bringing Out the Treasure, 277-911 Boda, "Fasts to Feasts," 390-407.
59
MARK | . PODA
leadership functionaries. After describing the march of the divine warrior

YHWH in 9:1-7 and his taking up residence in 9:8, the prophet announces
the arrival of a royal figure in Zion (9:9-10) who will proclaim peace and
exercise global rule. Reference to kingship also appears in chap. 14, the con
cluding chapter of this literary complex. However, in this case that king is
dearly identified as YHWH alone, with no reference to the Davidic line
(14:9). This contrast identifies for us an important development that takes
place in the course of Zechariah 9-14. which represents a considerable de
parture from the approach to community and leadership functionaries ev
idenced in Haggai and Zech 1:7-6:15.
Indications of this development are foreshadowed in the opening
section of Zechariah 9-14. The focus is dearly on YHWH as divine warrior
in 9:1-8 as he marches down the Levant and takes up residence on his
throne in Zion. It is only then that he presents Zion with her king." This
sequence is essential to the proper definition of kingship in Judah. In He
brew tradition the human king was considered a vice-regent of YHWH on
earth, not the sovereign king himself (Psalm 2). The key to the identifica
tion of the sovereign king appears to be linked to the exercise of military
power, a connection that is made explicit in the Song of the Sea, which be
gins by lauding YHWH as a great warrior (Exod 15:1-3) and ends by declar
ing his sovereign authority over Israel and the nations (15:18).** Similarly,
the crisis over kingship in the early part of the book of Samuel is linked to
Israel's request for a human ruler in the midst of a military crisis (1 Sam
8:20; 12:12), a request that ends with a king of military stature (9:2). In the
former prophets it is the insignificant boy named David who comes in the
name of YHWH of hosts to take on the giant and is qualified for kingship
in Israel (1 Samuel 17). Therefore, the human king encountered in Zech
9:9-10 meets YHWH's requirements for kingship. He is sadtq, that is, one
who judges righteously; n6!a\ one who is saved, referring to his depen
dency on YHWH for deliverance; 'ani. humble or afflicted, as he rides on a
82. Some have suggested that this king is YHWH himself or the remnan: of |.:d.ih (cf.
Leske, "Context and Meaning," 663-78). but these options cannot be accepted because
(1) this is I speech of Yl IWH to the personified city o f Zion about a "king"; (2) YHWH colls
him "your king" (your • Zion); and (3) the speech contains significant allusions to (Nairn ?2.
Cf. Meyers, "Messianism," 127-42; Meyers and Meyers, "Future Fortunes," 207-22;
F. I ..I' ••-.<•!•. '":hc King's Humbleness in Zechariah 9:9: A Paradox?"/NSL18 (1092) 125 1 ;
83. This interlacing of royal and military imagery is recognized also by Mcyeri and
Mcycn, "Future Fortunes," 220.
60
Figuring the Future: The Prophets atui Messiah
lowly donkey. Iain Duguid has noted the close connection between Zech
9:10 and the traditions from which it draws. In contrast to Ps 72:13, where
the king "saves" the needy, this king is saved and is afflicted (the latter often
paralleled with "needy" and found in Psalm 7 2 ) . " This description of a
royal figure is carefully nuanced to avoid triumphalism, a rhetorical tactic
that not only draws on the tradition of kingship in Israel but also is essen
tial in the wake of the failure of the royal house that precipitated the exile.
This opening revelation of the relationship between divine and hu
man kingship thus prepares the way for the exclusive focus on the divine in
ch. 14, but it does not explain the absence of human kingship in ch. 14. Key
to this development is the complex sign-act depicted in the core passage
that lies at the seam in Zechariah 9-14 between chs. 9-10 and 12-14 — that
is, Zech 11:4-16. As I have argued elsewhere in detail, these sign-acts depict
ing the failure of a good shepherd and the appointment of a bad one play
off of two prophecies within Ezekiel (chs. 34 and 37) that are concerned
with the state of present leadership and the hope for future faithful Davidic
leadership."* Underlying the sign-act in Zechariah 11, however, is a crisis in
Davidic leadership that most likely occurred at the end of Zerubbabel's rule
and led to the appointment of his son-in-law to the governorship and, fol
lowing him, non-Davidides. Any hope of a unified province under Davidic
rule appears to have died with the demise of Zerubbabel's leadership. This
helps us to understand the transition from a focus in chs. 9-10 on Israel and
o n
fudah to the focus in chs. 12-14 Judah and Jerusalem.
Further evidence of leadership crisis can be discerned in what are of
ten identified as the Shepherd seams in Zechariah 9-14; io:i-3a; 11:1-3; 11:17;
86
137-9- These all lie at transitions between major oracular units in Zecha-
•
84. Duguid, "Messianic Themes," 2<>5-«o. Duguid .I1M.> n o t e , <i euiitr,i>t to t h e military
triumphilism of Gen 49:8-11, the imagery of which has been transferred to Y H W H himself.
T. Collins. "The Literary Contexts of Zechariah 9:9," in Tuckett, cd., The Book of Zechariah
and Its Influence, 29-40, shows how 9:9-10 uses the genre of the proclamation of the arrival
of a king and also is closely allied with Psalm 72.
85. Boda, "Reading Between the Lines," 277-91.
86. Both K. Elligcr, Pas Bitch der zwitlf klemen Propheten. II. Die Propheten Nahum,
Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi {7th ed.; AID; Gottingen: Vandenhocck &
Rwprechr, 197s) 143-44. and P. L Redditt, "Israel's Shepherds: Hope and Pessimism in Zecha
riah 9-14," CBQ 51 (1989) 631-42, do a superb job of identifying these rcdactional seams in
Zechariah y-14. J. Tromp, "Bad Divination in Zechariah 10:1-2,™ in Tuckett, ed.. The Book of
Zechariah and Irs Influence, 41-52, has recently encouraged us to read at least 10:1-2 apart
from chs. 9-10.
61
MARK f. BODA
riah 9-14 and share in common shepherd imagery and prophetic condem
nation. Reading them from beginning to end reveals an increasing severity
in the situation parallel to an increasing severity in the punishment of the
shepherds. This scries reaches a climax in 13:7 as YHWH awakens his
sword against the irresponsible shepherd he had appointed over the people
in punishment for their rebellion against his good shepherd.*' The death
of this shepherd actually represents a crucial turning point in the drama
created by the shepherd pieces, for after the resultant scattering a refined
remnant returns in covenant fidelity to YHWH. The precise identity of
these shepherds is difficult to determine, but in light of the identification
of the bad shepherd in 11:4-16 as one who followed the demise of a Davidic
shepherd, that is, Zcrubbabel, it is possible that these shepherds are images
of provincial leadership that followed Zerubbabel, possibly including even
M
his own son-in-law. Whether it also involved members of the Zadokite
leadership is difficult to tell, even though one can discern a development in
the Zecharian tradition from early affirmation to later careful delimitation
to even outright criticism of priests within Judah (cf, Zech 3; 6:9-15; 7:5),
and it appears from the book of Malachi that even the Zadokites could be
tempted into idolatrous relationships (cf. Mal 2:10-16; 3:5).** As for the
prophets, it appears that at least some of the problems can be linked to
false prophetic activity that is in turn connected to idolatrous practices
(Zech 10:1; 13:2-6).
But what does this then say about the stance of those responsible
for Zechariah 9-14 toward the traditional socio-religiousfigures?While
some have suggested that the strong criticism against prophecy in 13:2-6
indicates that the end of prophecy is near, this is hardly likely in light of
the fact that Zechariah 9-14 identifies itself as a prophetic writing and
draws heavily on the prophetic tradition for its imagery and message
(9:1; 12:1). Rather, what is attacked here is false prophecy, a fact that is
87. Cook. "Metamorphosis" 453-66. notes that although the shepherd m the end of
ch. 11 and the shepherd in 1)7 arc connected, a cleansing has occurred in ino-ip.
88. See Meyer1, *Messianism," 131, who does note that there were l«u Davidic sons
who could have succeeded Zerubbabel (Meshullam and Hananiah), but that their brother-
in-law and sister wen: chosen instead: "in all probability to keep the Davidic name in the
public eye hut at the same time making it quite clear that in :he Persian Empire there was no
turning back to the old monarchist pattern and that royally played a more symbolic role
than unything the."
89. Boda, "Pasts :o leasts," 405.
62
90
made clear by the consistent linkage between prophecy and idolatry.
The contrast between the vision of the Davidic king in 9:9 and that of
YHWH in 14:9 has suggested to others that hope of a renewed Davidic
ktngship is no longer operative. However, this does not take into account
consistent echoes of key Davidic prophecies from Jeremiah and Ezekiel
throughout the Shepherd units and sign-acts, echoes that remind the
people of God's enduring hope for the Davidic line while at the same
time reminding them of God's willingness to discipline the line.*' It es-
pecially does not take account of explicit references to the Davidic clan
in chs. 12 and 13.
These chapters clearly identify the Davidic clan as in need of renewal,
along with Jerusalem and the rest of Judah. The "house of David" will
92
mourn for their treatment of God (12:10,12) and receive cleansing from
God's fountain (13:1). There is concern on the part of the prophet that the
"honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem's inhabitants'' not exceed
that of Judah, but such honor is still available to David (12:7). Similarly, in
a shocking comparative, the weakest of Judah will be "like David" and the
house of David "like God, like the tnal'ak YHWH [angel of thcLordl going
before them" (12:8)." Although carefully nuancing David's role within Ju-
daic the prophet does not appear to be sidelining the Davidic house. Does
this then mean that this prophet is merely maintaining the orientation to-
ward the Davidic house that was discerned in Haggai and Zech 1:7-6:15?
Maybe so, but there is a fascinating line of evidence that may reveal that
the prophet in Zechariah 9-14 is suggesting a new way forward that does
90. T. W. Overholt, "The End of Prophecy: No Players without a Program " JSOT 42
¡1988) 103-15.
91. M. J. Boda and S. E. Porter, "Literature to the Third Degree: Prophecy in Zecha-
riah 9-14 and the Passion of Christ" in Translating the Hebrew Bible (ed. R. David and
M. finbachian; Montreal: Mediaspaul, 2005) 215-54.
92. Zech 12:10 is often treated as a messianic prophecy (since it is cited in the New Tes-
tament at John 19:37), but Zech 12:10 appears to be speakingabout the metaphorical piercing
of God, rather than an allusion to Josiah (it is not surprising that Zech 12:10 appears only in
John 19:37, considering onefocusin John Is to intertwine Jesus and YHWH); sec Boda,
Haggai/Zcchariah; contra R. A. Rosenberg. "The Slain Messiah in the Old Testament," ZAW
99 (1987) 259-61; Duguid, "Messianic Themes," 276; A. i-aato, Josiah and David Redivivur.
The Historical Josiah and she Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times (ConBOT;
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992) 290-91; cf. Laato, Star Is Rising.
93. The second part of this phrase appears to be an addition that seeks to soften the
original connection to divinity, as also the ancient versions do; cf. Mason, "Messiah," 357.
63
<
MARK J. B O D A
offer continuity with post prophetic hopes for leadership and yet, simulta
neously, considerable discontinuity.
The renewal among God's people that follows God's triumph over
the nations begins with thorough corporate mourning for their treatment
of YHWH. It is the description of this mourning that may offer the
prophet's way forward. Zechariah 12:12 begins with the summary state
ment that the entire land will mourn within their clans, separated by gen
der. This summary statement is then broken down into its constituent
parts with reference to the clans of David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei, end
ing with a general reference to the remaining clans. The singling out of
these four clans is striking and begs the question of its significance. Some
have seen this list as a summary of the entire leadership caste of the com
munity (royal; David; prophetic: Nathan; priestly: Levi; sapiential:
9
Shimei), * but one could also take this list as identifying clans within clans
— that is, the clans of David arc to mourn, but in particular the clan of Na
1
than achieves special status within the Davidic house. " So also the clans of
Levi are to mourn, but in particular the clan of Shimei achieves special sta
tus within the Levitical house. Biblical tradition identifies Nathan as one
of David's many sons (2 Sam 5:14), even though Solomon's line is the one
that is chosen to lead the nation both for good and ill. Biblical tradition
also indicates that there was a Shimei in the Levitical line, the son of Levi's
son Gershom (1 Chron 6:17; cf. Exod 6:16-17; Num 3:17-18), even though
the leading family of the Lcvites was usually identified as that of Levi's
other son Kohath, whose descendants included not only Aaron, but also
the great Zadokitc line that served the Davidic kings and were represented
in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 by the high priest Joshua (1 Chron 6:1-15; cf.
Hag 1:1-12; Zechariah 3). A further twist to this priestly genealogy must be
mentioned. Zechariah, the prophet, is linked to a descendant named Iddo
(Zcch 1:1,7), and, interestingly, a man named Zechariah was a leader in the
94- R- 1- Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC; Waco: Word Books. 1984) 277; C Stllhl-
muellcr. Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zeihartah (ITC;
Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1088) 149.
95. So also Meyers. "Mcssianism." 138; for other proponents see Pomykala, Davidic
Dynasty, : : : n 231 Cf. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy
Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and /.idee (new updated ed.; A3 Reference Library; New
York: Doubleday, 1093), with M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Spe
cial Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969) S9n-.lt 24U-42, on the significance of Nathan in Luke's genealogy of Jesus.
64
priestly family of Iddo according to Neh 12:16. This name Iddo is associ
ated with a family of Levites that also is linked to the line of Gershom
(1 Chron 6:21), the same family as that of Shimei in Zech 12:13. In light of
the crisis in leadership identified in the Shepherd seams of Zechariah 9-14,
this evidence may suggest that Zechariah 9-14 offers enduring hope for the
royal and priestly lines, retaining affirmation of the Davidic and Levitical
lines while looking to different clans within those traditional lines to carry
the agenda forward.
Summary
No matter what we do with this evidence for a modification of royal and

priestly hopes, it is certain that Zechariah 9-14 seriously tempers the idyllic
portrait offered in Haggai and Zech. 1:7-6:15, furthering the trend seen al
ready in Zechariah 7-8. There is enduring hope for socio-religious func
tionaries within Israel, but in the wake of the leadership crisis in late-sixth-
century Yehud greater weight has been shifted onto YHWH. The priesdy
house is largely ignored; the prophetic stream is suspect, though not dis
96
qualified. The royal stream is carefully nuanced at the outset YHWH is
the sovereign, and the king is dependent upon him. As the text progresses
there is clearly a crisis in the royal stream, and even if it is not sidelined,
97
there are suggestions of its secondary character. Accompanying this has
been an increasing transfer of hope to the remote future: "on that day."
Thus, in the face of a tightening Persian stranglehold on Yehud, Zechariah
9—14 reflects "the collapse of any hope for political independence," which
transferred "Israels dreams of a restored and independent kingdom... in
98
creasingly to the eschatological realm."
96. Contra Petersen, Late Israelite Propltecy, 45: "classical Israelite prophecy was a thing
of the past and claims for contemporary manifestations of prophecy were to be denied."
97- As W. I. Dumbrell. "Kingship and Temple in the Post-Exilic Period," RTR37 (1978)
33-42, here 40, says, agreeing with Hanson: there is "a greatly diminished Davidic interest in
these chapters"; and Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty, 125, asserts, probably too strongly, yet in
agreement tvith Mason: "there is no evidence of a hope for a davidic king or messiah"; cf.
R. A. Mason, "The Relation of Zech 9-14 to Proto-Zechariah," ZAWH {1976) 237-39. here
237.
98. Meyers and Meyers, "Future Fortunes," 210; for the impact of dissonance between
early Persian expectations and reality, especially as related to Zerubbabel, see (guardedly)
R. P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the
Old Testament (New York: Seabury, 1979) 157-68.
65
MARK |. BO DA
Maiachi
Following Zechariah 8, the two "orade" (mafia') superscriptions in 9:1 and

12:1 signal key seams in what appears to be a unified corpus stretching from
chs. 9 to 14 (especially seen in the Shepherd units that draw the entire corpus
together). However, a third mafia (oracle) superscription appears immedi
ately following Zech 14:21, introducing what we know today as the book of
Maiachi. What follows, however, does not display literary links with the pre
vious mafia" (oracle) material and thus should be distinguished from it on
one level, even if it is related by its shared identity in the Book of die Twelve
9
(Hosca-Maiachi) and possibly in an original Haggai-Maiachi corpus.*
One significant contrast between Zechariah 9-14 and the book of
Maiachi is that the latter is far more rooted in the historical circumstances
of a community operating in what appears to be Persian-period Yehud. As
Smith writes: "Maiachi was not primarily concerned with the future. His
100
primary interest was the 'here and now.'" The prophet confronts dys
functional patterns within this community, ranging from inappropriate
sacrifices to insufficient tithes and offerings, from idolatry to injustice. In
addition, the prophet employs the vocative voice, confronting his audience
in personal and direct ways (1:6; 2:1; 3:6).
Clearly this prophet views the life of the community through the lens
of the temple and its services, as Robert Kugler has so aptly written: "the
101
book was mainly concerned with the cult and the priestly abuse of it."
99, Sec M. H. Floyd, "The Mat&M a Type of Prophetic Rook," /Bf. 121 (1001) 401-22;
for the redaction of this hook, see P. L. Redditt, "The Book of Maiachi In Its Social Setting,"
CBQ JA (1994) aao-55.
mo. R. Smith, "The Shape of Theology in the Book of Maiachi." Southwestern Journal
of Theology (198?) 2$.
101. R. Kugler, "The Lcvi-Priestly Tradition: From Maiachi 10 'Testament of Levi'*
(Ph.D. di<s., University of Notre Dame. 1994) 49- (Unfortunately Kugler's excellent and ex
tensive chapter on Maiachi was excised when the dissertation wa* published as From Patri
arch to Priest: The Levi-Priesily TraditionfromAramaic Levi to Testament ofttvt [SBLr'JL 9;
Atlanta: Society of Hiblical literature, 1996]). On the social background to this book and
various views, see |. W. Rogerson, "The Social Background of the Book of Maiachi." in New
Heaven and New Eanh — Prophecy and the Millennium (ed. R. Hayward and P. ]. Harland:
VTSup-. Leiden: Brdl. 1999) 171-79: Redditt. "Book of Mabchi," 240-55; J. U Bexquist, 'The
Social Setting of Maiachi." BTB 19 {1989) 121-26. This book appear* to express concern over
the present group functioning as priest* in the temple and looks to a future that include* pu-
nlujlkm of ill* Itvitct for service in the temple.
66
This is obvious in the prophets attack on defiled sacrifices (1:6-14), un

righteous priests (3:2-5), and insufficient tithes and offerings (3:6-12), but
it is also evident in attacks on foreign marriages (2:10-12) that have "dese
crated the sanctuary" and attacks on divorces (2:13-16) for which God re
jects their offerings so that they must "flood the Lords altar with tears."
This prophetic voice is positive and passionate for the temple and its ser
vices and concerned with the present state of the community and its sacral
leadership.
What is interesting is that Malachi makes no mention of the royal
stream of leadership that has been so important in the prophetic corpora
102
we have considered so far. Reference is made to a "governor" (Mai 1:8),
but there is not even an implicit link to the Davidic or royal tradition in
the book. Rather, Malacbi isfixatedon the priestly and prophetic streams.
Malachi 2:1-9
Malachi's concern over the priesthood comes to the fore in 2:1-9, a passage
addressed directly to the "priests" (2:1). In this attack the prophet calls
down a curse on those who were to bring blessing to the community and
threatens to spread defiled matter on their faces and thus disqualify them
from their office. The concern of the prophet is clearly for what he calls the
"covenant with Levi," which is presently under threat by the priestly ad
103
ministration in the temple (2:8). The core concern seems to be related to
the integrity of both priestly instruction and practice. In this passage we
are told that the priest was nothing less than mal'&k YHWH ("the messen
ger of the Lord"; 2:7). While some have seen this as indicative of an agenda
for priestly replacement of prophetic functions, Andrew E. Hill has rightly
102-fivcnif A. Bentzen, "Prieswrschaft und Laien in der judischen Gemeinde des

tOnftcn lahrhunderts" AfO 6 (1930-31) 280-S6, did try to link the messenger in 3:1 to a royal
figure, albeit with emendation; ci. Dumbrcll, "Kingship and Temple,"33-42; and csp. Mason,
"Messiah," 338-64-
103. On this covenant with Levi and the Levi tradition in Malachi and the Old Testa
ment, see R. Fuller, "The Blessing of Levi in Dtn 33, Mai 2, and Qumran," in Konsequente
Traditionsgetchichte (cd. R. Bartelmus, T. Krflger, and H. L'tischncider; OBO; Fribourg,
Switzerland: Univcrsitafsvcrlag Freiburg Schweiz; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993) 31-44; O'Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi; Meyers, "Priestly Language." 225-37;
Kugler, "Levi-Priestly Tradition," 4l-;o; B. Glazier-McDonald, "Mal'ak habbcrit: The Mes
senger of the Covenant in Mai 3:1," HAR11 {1987) 93-104-
6?
MARK J. BOUA
treated this as merely a "clarification of the ideal of priest as teacher of

104
Yahweh's law." The term "messenger" cannot be seen a* the exclusive
possession of the prophets in Israel, considering that it is used outside of
Malachi only five other times (Isa 42:19; 44:26; 2 Chron 36:15-16; Hag 1:13).
The vast majority of uses of this term are connected to a heavenly being,
that is, an angel. While there does not appear to be a denigration of the
prophetic function, neither is there a rejection of the priestly office, even
though Malachi vehemently attacks the priestly administration of his day.
The covenant with Levi is secure, even if the present representatives must
105
be disciplined and even removed
Malachi ja-a
The bulk of the book of Malachi is focused on the present, but at a couple
of points a future orientation breaks in, signaled by such vocabulary as
"the day of his coming" (3:2), the "coming day" (3:19 [Eng. 4:1)) or "that
coming great and dreadful day of the Lord" (3:23 [Eng. 4:5)). The first of
these occurs in the much-debated verse 3:1, where in answer to the people's
disillusionment with divine justice the prophet promises the sudden ap
pearance of one called "lord" whose appearance will be prepared for by
one called "my messenger" and whose appearance is either equated with or
104. A. E, Hill Malathi {A3; New York: Doubleday, 199B) in; cf. P. A. Vcrhocf. The
Books of Ilaggai and Malachi [N1COT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 19*7; Puller, "Blessing
of Levi.'' 31-44. The replacement view was espoused in an earlier era by I. M. P. Smith.
"Malachi,° in A Critical and Exegetkal Commentary on llaggai, Zethariah, Malachi and fo-
nah (ed. H. G. T. Mitchell. |. M. P. Smith, and J. A Brewer; ICC; Edinburgh: TAT Clark. 1912
40, and more recently by Meyers," Priestly Language* 131. D. L. Petersen, Zethariah 9-14 and
Malachi: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 19111.51. likens this
aspect of Malachi to the Chronider who sought to "invest Levites with prophet-like author
ity."' On the priestly role in Torah ruling see Hag 2:10-14; cf. J. Ilegrich, "Die priesuiche
Thora," in Weiden und Wesen des Allen Testament fed, P. Vol*, F. Slummels. and |. Hempel;
BZAW; Berlin: Topelmann, 1936) 63-88; H. Huffmon, "Priestly Divination in Israel." in The
Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (cd. C. L. Meyers and M. O'Connor; Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns/ASOK, 1983) 355-59: E. M. Meyers, "The Use of Tort in I laggai 2:11 and the Role
of the Prophet in the Restoration Community,'' in Meyers and O'Connor, eds.. The Word of
the Lord Shall Go Forth, 69-76.
105. There is a long history of research on the social context lying behind the book of
Malachi. See recently, Bcrquist, "Social Seiting of Malachi," 121-26; O'Brien, Priest and Levite
in Malachi; Reddltt. "Book of Malachi," 240-55; Kuglcr, "Levi-Priesih/ Tradition." 41-7«
Rugeryju, "Social Background," 171-79.
68
, 0 6
parallel to one called "the messenger of the covenant " The key issue un
107
der debate is the identity of these three individuals in 3:i.
Clearly the text defines one of the three as a figure who prepares the
way. That is, the one called "my messenger" prepares the way for the ap
pearance of at least the "lord" ('âdôn). Commentators universally agree
that this 'âdôn is a reference to YHWH because (1) this one "whom they
seek" appears to be responding to their question: "Where is the God of jus
tice?" (2:17); (2) YHWH has just said that the messenger will prepare the
way before him (3:1); and (3) it is claimed that this one has ownership over
105
the temple. David L. Petersen, among others, has suggested that "my
messenger" is the same as the "messenger of the covenant" who appears
109
with the "lord." Beth Glazier-McDonald, however, deems this unlikely
because it fuses a figure who prepares the way with one who accompanies
the 'âdôn who emerges "suddenly." In this view the arrangement of the
language, the use of "suddenly," and the parallel language between the line
with "lord" and that with "messenger of the covenant" disqualify any
106. Conrad studies the various "messengers" in the Twelve and sees the shift from
the designation "prophet" to that of "messenger" as significant, suggesting that litis indicates
a replacement of prophecy with a restored messenger or angelic presence. See E. W. Conrad
"Messengers in Isaiah and the Twelve: Implications for Reading Prophetic Hooks" JSOT 91
(2000) 83-97- H appears rhat the term "messenger" does carry with it considerable weight
rhetorically; it is used to bolster the propheticfiguresin Haggai and Malachi, as can be seen
in Hag 1:12 in which the "voice of YHWH their God" is equated with the "message of the
prophet Haggai "a phrase that is then linked to Haggai's status as "messenger of YHWH" in
1:13. There is clearly a crisis in prophetic credibility in Haggai-Malachi (cf. Boda, "Haggai:
Master Rhetorician," 295-304). and the "messenger" nomenclature is one of many strategies
to bolster the credibility of tills new era of prophecy.
107. Some have tried to avoid the issue by excising w. ib-4 as a later expansion due to
its use of third-person speech, e.g., Petersen, Zeckariah 9-14, 207; R. A. Mason. The Books
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CBC Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 15
But even if this argument could be sustained, if still does not explain why the one responsi
ble for this expansion would place the lord and the messenger of the covenant alongside
each other. The switch to third-person speech is common in prophetic speech, making this
redactional solution unnecessary; ci B. Glazier McDonald, Malachi, the Divine Messeng
(SBLDS 98; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987) 12911.16.
108. See Hill, Malachi, although it is possible that 'àdôn here is merely 3 reference to
human lord/master, and thus a priest, or that the "temple" here is a reference to a king com
ing to his palace (as in 1 Kgs 21:1: 2 Kgs 2o:i8//Isa 39?//2 Chron 36:7; Dan 1:4; Isa 13:22; Nah
2:7; Ps 45:9,26; Hos 8:14; Amos 8:3; Joel 4:5; Prov 30:28; Ps 144:12).
109. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 42-43; cf. E. H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechari
Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody. 1994) 429-30.
69
MARK J, BODA
equation between the "messenger of the covenant" and "my messenger." In

light of this, however, how docs Glazier-McDonald explain the relation
ship between YHWH and this "messenger of the covenant"?
Glazier-McDonald contends that the language of messenger in 3:1 is
drawn from the book of Exodus, in particular Exod 23:20, which speaks of
YHWH sending a "messenger" who would go before God's people to guard
110
them on the journey. This she links to the first messenger in Mai 3:1, that
is, "my messenger." However, she then returns to this same passage to ex
plain the parallel relationship between YHWH and the "messenger of the
covenant" in 3:1: "This corresponds well with the Kxodus passage where the
roles of Yahweh and his messenger seem to merge (22:2if) |sic],""' con
12
cluding that "the messenger . . . is Yahweh's mode of self revelation."'
Through this line of argumentation Glazier-McDonald is seeking to under
mine Petersen's claim for an equation of "my messenger" and the "messen
1
ger of the covenant" and in the process has actually bolstered his case. "
First Petersen and later O'Brien have emphasized the role of the mes
114
senger in Exod. 23:20-22 as "covenant enforcer." As covenant enforcer
the "messenger" is called upon to deliver prophetic covenant lawsuits
against the people. Such a role is filled in the Old Testament by both heav
lls
enly (Judg 2 : i - 5 ) and human beings (1 Sam 2:27-36; 2 Sam 127-12; 1 Kgs
21:17-24).
If this messenger figure then both prepares for and accompanies
YHWH in Mai 3:1, what kind offigureis this? Bruce Malchow has argued
that the messenger here is a priestly figure, in particular because of the
identification of Levi as the "messenger of YHWH" in Mai 217."* The evi-
110. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 129-3* 10 alio D. K. Berry,"Malachi's Dual Design:

The Close of ihe Canon and What Comes Afterward." in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays
on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John IX W. Watts (ed. I. W. Wans and P. R. House;
jSOTSiip; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 169-302. here 281.
iu. This should read 23:211".
112. Glazier- McDonald, Malachi, 131.
113. O'Brien notes this fusion of figures and links it to the fact that messengers in the
Old Testament (whether angelic or human) function as "the 'alter-ego' of the sovereign";
O'Brien, Priest and Levile in Malachi. 7s.
114- Petersen, late Israelite Prophecy, 43-44: O'Brien, Priest and Invite in Malachi, 74-
7%
113. The "messenger/angel ot YHWH" In Judg 2:1-5 appears to be a spiritual being, es
pecially in light of other uses of this phraie in Judges (6:11; 13:1-23).
116. B. V. Malchow, "The Messenger of the Covenant in Malachi 3:1," JBl 103 (1984)
70
dence of O'Brien above, however, suggests that this is either a heavenly

(angel) or human (prophet) figure who will not arise from the Lévites but
rather be involved in the refining of the Lévites. It is difficult to ignore the
fact that the description of this messenger as "my messenger" is identical
to the name in the superscription to this book, suggesting possibly that the
redactor viewed the prophet himself as this messenger.
The timing of his appearance is conditioned by the central event of
YHWH coming to his temple (3:1), which is then called "the day of his
coming" {3:2). This kind of language does not appear to carry the eschato-
logical weight that is often placed upon it. Hill, for example, identifies it as
"pregnant with eschatological implications associated with the Day of
Yahweh," but then likens it to similar phrases that denote the presence of
YHWH in the Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi corpus, few of which (if any) are
7
eschatological in scope." It is probably this evidence that led R. Smith to
highlight the lack of cschatology in Malachi: "He did not speak of'the day
of the Lord.' He made no reference to 'The Messiah.' He has no 'full-blown'
8
system of eschatology. Yet he knows he is living in the 'not yet' era."" By
this Smith appears to be referring to the oral level in Malachi, rather than
to what are considered two additional appendices attached after Mai 3:21
[Eng. 4:3]. The reference to "day of his coming" in 3:2 does not appear to be
any more than a reference to the arrival of YHWH in his temple (3:1).
Thus, Mai 3:1 denotes some kind of messenger, whether heavenly or
human, who will come and deliver a prophetic message to prepare for the
arrival of YHWH. The actual character of this preparation is never spelled
119
out. Then YHWH with this messenger at his side will refine the Lévites
to qualify them for temple service. The timing of this arrival of YHWH is
not specified, but it is related to his return to fill the Second Temple.
252-55; see E. R. Achtemeier, Nahum-Malachi (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1986) 171-
73, who identifies Malachi as a lawsuit of a Levitical priest who acts as a messenger of the
covenant in the temple; cf. D. C. Clark, "Elijah as Eschatological High Priest: An Examina
tion of the Elijah Tradition in Mid. 3:22-24" (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1975).
117. Hill, Malachi, 272.
118. Smith, "Shape of Theology," 26.
119. See Glazier-McDonald. Malachi, 136-39 for the significance of this language in
preparations for the arrival of royalty.
71
MARK ). BODA
Malachi3:23-24 [ling. 4:5-6}
For many scholars, however, the ambiguous features in Mai 3:1 are filled out
in 3:23-24 [Eng. 4:5-6], a pericope that is treated as a later addition to the
book of Malachi, functioning either as an early interpretation of the book
itself or as a pericope inserted by canonical scribes who were seeking to
forge together either the more limited Book of the Twelve (cf. Hosea 14 and
120
Mai 3:22-24) or the broader Torah and Prophets. However, it is difficult
to deny lexical connections between 3:23-24 and 3:1, evidence thai leads
Petersen, who is sympathetic to these canonical views, to admit that the "in
121
dividual who wrote it seems interested in identifying the messenger."
Malachi 3:23-24 thus appears to be clarifying 3:1, and it does so in
three ways. Hirst, it identifies the "messenger" as "Elijah the prophet." This
choice is interesting in light of our discussion of 3:1, for there we showed
that the two figures who come as messengers for YHWH with a prophetic
tone are angels and prophets. It is well known that the Hebrew prophetic
stream was regularly associated with the divine council — that is, the an
gelic host (1 Kings 22; Isaiah 6; )cr 23:18, 22) — but Elijah's association is
even more pronounced, for he did not die and was taken up in a chariot of
fire accompanied by horsemen. Here we see a fusion of the two "messen
12
ger" traditions: a heavenly-human prophetic figure.' Second, this pas
sage identifies the timing of this preparation as "before the coming of the
great and terrible day of YHWH." What was originally a reference to God's
return to the temple now has taken on an eschatological dimension (foel
3:4 [Eng. 2:31b); cf. Joel 2:11; Jer 30:7; Zeph 1:14). Third, the activity of
123
preparation is now spelled out as the prophet is called to a ministry of ei

12 1
ther repentance or reconciliation. ' Whether 3:22-24 was an original part
See (1. L, Keown, "Messianum in the Bonk of Malachi," Review & Expositor 84
120.
(19B7) .1. here 44s; Petersen, Zechariah 9-14. 232-33: P- I-- Reddill, "Zechariah 9-14,
Malachi, and the Redaction of the Book of the Twelve," in Watts and House, eds., Forming
Prophetic, literature, 2«s>6R. here 166-67; Hill, Malachi, 363-66.
121. Petersen, Zccharia'n 9-14. IJO.
122. Slightly different is Berry, "Malachi s Dual Design." 290, who sees the messenger
as combining the roles of priest, prophet, and divine emissary ',*a$c\). The Hlijah pericope,
however, he does admit "involves the introduction or identification of the messenger who
acts in more of a divine than human role" (291).
123. See Hill. MaSaxhi 377: Glazier-McDonald. Malachi, 264-6$.
124. For lh» debate and its basis in the ancient versions, see Glacier-McDonald.
M.i!aehi, 155-$;, Hill, Malachi, 378-81.
72
125 1
of the book of Malachi or a later addition to the book, " this passage
plays a significant role in our interpretation of the book, for it functions to
clarify what was at one point nebulous.
Summary
The book of Malachi, therefore, is silent on the royal stream of leadership.

Its focus is on the priesdy and prophetic streams instead. The present
priestly leadership is corrupt, but this does not disqualify this stream from
a role in the community. A refined priestly group will be created through
the actions of a prophetic figure, which at first appears to be the prophet
himself (Malachi), but in the end is identified as Elijah, who is both heav
enly and human messenger, and who will return and usher in the appear
ance of the refining God. The timing of this appearance may have origi
nally been in the near future, if 3:1 referred to the role of the prophetic
voice of the book of Malachi (1:1), but it was interpreted in 3:22-24 [Eng.
4:4-6) as a future event that possessed a far more severe and cataclysmic
tone.
Conclusion
The books of Haggai-Malachi offer us a perspective on messianic expecta

tion in thefinalphase of prophetic tradition in the Old Testament. They re
veal an initial burst of renewal of the messianic streams of prc-cxilic Judah
as royal, priestly, and prophetic figures ascend to places of influence. The
temporal focus of Haggai and Zechariah 1:7-6:15 is assuredly in the immi
nent future. This hope, however, is carefully nuanced beginning in Zecha
riah 7-8, which reveals that fulfillment awaits the covenant obedience of the
people and leadership. Although the hope is kept alive by the introduction
of the royal figure in Zech 9:9-10, chs. 9-14 represent a serious threat to
royal hopes as the royalfigureresigns, ceding rule to an inappropriate shep
herd. The only way forward will be through a future punishment of this
shepherd leadership. Although the focus clearly shifts to Y H W H by ch. 14,
all hope for the royal and priesdy houses is not lost, even if it means peni-
125. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, 243-70; O'Brien, Malachi, 79.

126. Hill, Malachi, 363-66; Petersen, Zechariah p-14,227-33.
73
MARK I. BODA
tcntial cleansing and possibly a genealogical shift to a different royal and

priestly clan. Concerns over the validity of the priestly stream are voiced in
the book of Malachi. The way forward is linked to the appearance of a
heavenly-human messenger who is identified as the prophet Elijah in the
closing pericope of this corpus. Thus, in the end, hope for the rcemcrgence
of king and priest is carried forward by the prophetic stream, which looks
to a distant future day for the hoped-for renewal.
The interrelationship among these three functionary types is high
lighted by a common phrase shared by all three in this final phase of pro
phetic witness. In Haggai-Malachi, royal, priestly, and prophetic streams
are all called mal'ak YHWH: Hag 1:13 (prophet), Zech 12:8 (king), and Mai
2:7 (priest). Outside of these three references "mal'ak YHWH" (which is
used fifty-four times in the Old Testament) is never used for a human fig
ure; elsewhere in the Old Testament it is always used for a heavenly be
127
ing. Zechariah 1-8 stands apart from the rest of the Haggai-Malachi cor
pus as the one section that uses mal'ak YHWH to refer to a heavenly being.
There a mal'ak YHWH appears at the outset of the vision series and then at
the heart of the vision series in Zechariah 3, where he addresses the role
136
that all three functionaries will play in a future kingdom. In this same
section the mal'ak YHWH addresses each of these three functionaries,
showing their heightened role within the divine council. It may be that one
of the key uniting features of the Haggai-Malachi corpus is the identifica
tion of all "messianic" streams as mal'ak YHWH, confirming their close
identification with YHWH, by whom they arc truly "anointed," and sug
gesting heavenly access if not also origin for these figures who are repre
sented in the present by the traditional roval, priestly, and prophetic
lines.'"
117. Cf. E. W. Conrad, "The End of Prophecy and the Appearance of Angels/Messen
ger* in the Book of the Twelve.' ]SOT 73 <I997) 6J-79. Conrad. "Messengers in Isaiah and the
Twelve," 83-97. Conrad link* this lo the waning of prophecy, whereas it appears to be relate
to the heightening of all three functionary streams.
11s. Interestingly, this vision is often seen as an addition to the original series of
seven, a view bolstered by gomnionalities between it and other later pieces in 1:7-6:15; see
preceding footnote.
119. On this heavenly figure coming in human form in Malachi, see N. G. Cohen,
'From Nabi to Mai'ak to 'Ancient Figure,"* }}S 26. no. 1 (191(5) 12-24.
74
The Messiah in the Qumran Documents
AI Wolters
The topic of messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls is a minefield of contested

claims. Scholars disagree on a whole range of issues, some of them quite
basic. For example, did the Qumran sect expect one Messiah or two? Can
we speak of a Messiah only when the Hebrew term occurs? If not,
what elements need to be present to justify speaking of a messianic figure?
Is there a consistent pattern with respect to messianic expectations in the
Qumran materials, or can we speak only of different strands that were
never integrated into a single conception? Then there is the momentous
question of the relation between the messianic expectations reflected in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and the expectations that the New Testament writers
see fulfilled in Jesus Christ Running through the disputes about these and
similar foundational questions are more detailed philological disagree
ments about how to restore damaged texts and how to understand rare
and un vocalized Hebrew and Aramaic words,
Clearly, it is a dangerous enterprise for anyone to venture into this
minefield. For the purposes of this paper, I will take as my guide two rela
tively recent books on the subject by leading Qumran specialists. The first
is John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea
1
Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature; the second is Michael O. Wise, The
1
First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Jesus. These books are very
different and in some respects represent opposite poles on the spectrum of
1. (New York: Doubleday, 1995)-

2, (Sun Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999),
75
A L. W O L T E R S
scholarly work on messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Collins is one of the
acknowledged authorities on this topic, and his monograph is perhaps the
standard book-length treatment of the subject today. He gives a balanced
and judicious survey of both the relevant texts and the scholarly literature
surrounding them. Wise, on the other hand, though also a recognized
Qumran specialist, presents an audacious proposal of his own in which a
single messianic figure, in many ways foreshadowing Jesus Christ, is the in
terpretative key to a whole range of Qumran documents. By surveying the
salient features of these two monographs, 1 will endeavor to give some
sense of the current state of scholarship on this topic. My own contribu
tion will consist largely in some incidental criticisms of a methodological
and exegetical kind, the latter specifically with reference to my own re
3
search on the book of Zechariah.
I begin with three preliminary remarks about Collins's monograph,
(l) Although an important feature of his book is the way he situates the ev
idence from the Qumran scrolls within the broader context of what we
know about contemporary Judaism as a whole, my assignment calls for me
to focus my remarks on the former. (2) Like most scholars, Collins as
sumes that the scrolls discovered in the Judean Desert belonged to a dis
tinct Jewish sect, which is probably to be identified with the Essenes, and
which probably settled in Qumran, as well as other places in Israel (4-11).
(3) Terminologically, he treats as "messianic" any authoritative figure who
is the object of eschatological hopes, whether or not the term R'U/'O is used
of him (11-12).
Having defined "messianic" in this way, Collins's main thesis is that
we can discern four different kinds of messianic figures in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, as in the other Jewish documents that arc roughly contemporane
ous with them. He calls them four "messianic paradigms" and labels them
"king," "priest," "prophet," and "heavenly mcssiah" (12).
The "king" paradigm refers to the expectation of an eschatological
king of the Davidic line. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
main evidence for this expectation in the two pre-Christian centuries was
found in the so-called Psalms of Solomon (49)- This evidence was signtfi-
3.1 am grateful to both Collins and Wise for commenting on an earlier draft of this
paper, especially their comments on my presentation of their own views. Needless to say, al
though 1 have taken their comments into account in myfinaldraft, 1 am myself" solely r
sponsible for the latter. I cite their works by giving page numbers parenthetically within th
body of the text.
76
Trie Messiah in the Qumran Documents
cantly expanded in the Qumran documents. It can be found in the follow

ing texts:
(1) The pesher or commentary on Isaiah UQplsa"). Although this
document is veryfragmentary,it is clear that it refers to an eschatological
king, who will play a role in the final battle against the Kittim or Romans
(57-58). He is given the titles "Branch of David" and "Prince of the Con
gregation," which allude to messianic prophecies in Isaiah (specifically 11:1)
and Ezekiel.
(2} The controversial "Dying Messiah" text (4Q285), probably a part
of the War Rule (1QM), which describes the expected eschatological war.
The original claim that this text refers to someone who was killed is now
widely discounted, but the fragment does refer to a messianicfigure,again
designated with the titles "Branch of David" and "Prince of the Congrega
tion" (58-60).
(3) The Scroll of Blessings (lQSb), which pronounces a blessing over
the eschatological "Prince of the Congregation," who is again described in
terms of the messianic prophecy of Isa 11:1-5. He is also described as the
"scepter," an apparent allusion to the messianic "scepter" of Balaam's
prophecy in Num 24:17 (60-61).
(4} The Florilegium (4Q174) also speaks of the "Branch of David,"
who will arise "at the end of days." He is also called "the Son of God" (61).
(5) The Patriarchal Blessings text (4Q252) again interprets the messi
anic text Gen 49:10 as referring to the "Branch of David," who is here also
called the "Messiah of Righteousness," the recipient of an everlasting king
dom (62).
(6) The Damascus Document (CD), Manuscript A, mentions the
"Prince of the Congregation" (CD 7:19) in the context of a citation of
Balaam's oracle about the star and the scepter in Numbers 24, an oracle
that was widely understood as a messianic prophecy in ancient Judaism
(63-64).
These texts seem to reflect a fairly uniform cxcgctical tradition (also
attested outside of the Qumran documents) that saw the Messiah as the
Davidic king predicted in a number of texts in the Hebrew Bible. The por
trait of this king that emerges is fairly consistently that of a warrior figure
who will smite the wicked and restore the Davidic dynasty. This, too, is
part of a broader tradition in contemporary Judaism, reflected also in
4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. Collins concludes: "This concept of the Davidic mes-
siah as the warrior king who would destroy the enemies of Israel and insti-
77
fit WOI.TERS
tute an era of unending peace constitutes the common core of Jewish

messianism around the turn of the era" (68).
Although less common, there is also considerable evidence for the
second messianic paradigm in the Qumran materials, that of the eschato-
logical priest. This paradigm is illustrated in the famous phrase "the Mes
siahs of Aaron and Israel," found in the Community Rule (tQS 9:11), in
which the Messiah of Aaron is clearly a priestly figure. However, the evi
dence for this paradigm is certainly not restricted to that oft-cited phrase.
There are also a number of texts where the future royal messiah appears to
defer to a priestly figure. One of these is the so-called "Messianic Rule"
(lQSa), where a priest takes precedence over the "Messiah of Israel" This is
presumably the "Messiah of Aaron." We find similar indications in two
texts we have already considered in connection with the Davidic king,
a
namely 4Qplsa and 4Q285, as well as others (the War Scroll, iQSb, the
Florilegium, CD). "In fact, all the major rule and law books... support the
bifurcation of authority in the messianic era" (76). Collins writes: "There
is, then, impressive evidence that the Dead Sea sect expected two messiahs,
one royal and one priestly. This binary messianism had, of course, its bibli
cal precedent in Zechariah's 'two sons of oil' (Zech 4:14)" (77)- It is to be
noted that the various developmental theories, which posit a stage when
only a priestly messiah was expected in the Qumran sect, are not convinc
ing (77-83).
The third messianic paradigm is that of the prophet or teacher. It is
this paradigm that we find in the figure who is called "the one who is to
teach righteousness in the end of days" in the Damascus Document (CD
6:11) and the "Interpreter of the Law" in both the Damascus Document
(CD 7:18) and the Florilegium (4Q174). Despite the arguments of some
scholars, the future appearance of this figure is not to be interpreted as the
second coming of the founder of the Qumran sect, although he too is des
ignated as "Interpreter of the Law" in the Damascus Document (CD 6:7)
and is elsewhere frequently called the "Teacher of Righteousness." These
were interchangeable lilies that were clearly applicable to a variety of peo
ple (102-4). It was the future eschatological teacher, not the past historical
Teacher of Righteousness, who was in all likelihood identified by the
Qumran sectarians with the future "prophet like Moses" predicted in Deut
18:18. However, they may not have been totally consistent, since there is
also evidence that they also equated the prophet predicted in Deuteron
omy with the priestly messiah (114).
78
Another possible reference to the prophetic messiah is found in the

fragmentary text called "The Messiah of Heaven and Earth" (4Q521), where
the n'ttfa whom "heaven and earth will obey" may well be an anointed es-
chatological prophet, either Elijah or a prophet like Elijah (117-22).
In the light of the parallels that some scholars have drawn between
the eschatological teacher and fesus Christ, it is also worth pointing out
that the scrolls do not have an expectation of a messiah who suffers before
entering into glory (123-26).
As an introduction to his discussion of the fourth paradigm, that of
the heavenly messiah, Collins first deaJs with the mysterious text that
Baillet entitled "canticle of Michael" (4Q491 In this text the speaker
makes the remarkable claim, "I have taken my seat... in the heavens 1
shall be reckoned with gods." Although M. Baillet identified the speaker as
the archangel Michael, there is considerable evidence that he was in fact a
human being (136-39). One possibility is that he is to be identified with the
eschatological "Interpreter of the Law" who would "teach righteousness at
the end of days." The text is significant, however, not primarily because it
may allude to a messianic figure, but because it refers to a human being
who is enthroned in heaven in a way that suggests a kind of divinization
(146-49)-
The one Qumran text that may qualify as illustrating the "heavenly
messiah" paradigm is the much-disputed Aramaic fragment known as the
"Son of God" text (4Q246), which begins with the words, "'Son of God' he
shall be called, and they will name him 'Son of the Most High/" The
phraseology of this fragment has such striking parallels with the infancy
narrative in Luke 1 that Collins believes that Luke must have been in some
way dependent on it (155). Unfortunately, most of the rest of this fragment
is damaged or ambiguous, and there has been a good deal of dispute about
the identity of the figure here called "Son of God " Collins himself argues,
especially on the basis of verbal parallels with Daniel 7, that a messianic in
terpretation is most probable. In fact, 4Q246 may represent the earliest ex
ample of the messianic interpretation of the "one like the son of man" of
Dan 7:13 (155-69).
As background to rhe possibility that this last text refers to a heavenly
messiah, Collins includes a discussion of the interpretation of Daniel's
"Son of Man" in two Jewish texts that do not belong to the Dead Sea
Scrolls but are roughly contemporary with them, namely the Similitudes of
Enoch and 4 Ezra, both dated to the first century CE (177-87). Each of these
79
AL WOLTERS
interprets the "son of man" of Daniel 7 as a préexistent messiah, a tran

scendent figure of heavenly origin who can be described in quasi-divine
terms (187). These common assumptions about the Danielic "Son of Man"
bespeak a prevalent exegetical tradition in the Judaism of the first century
C E that may well have been shared by the Qumran sectarians (188).
In a final chapter, Collins briefly discusses a series of actual historical
figures in the Judaism of the first two centuries C B who could be described as
fulfilling a "messianic" expectation in some sense. Some of these arose as
prophets, others as royal pretenders, but all were eventually destroyed by the
might of imperial Rome, including the second-century Bar Kokhba, who
was hailed as the messiah by Rabbi Aqiba, one of the leading rabbis of the
day (196-204). Compared to these other royal pretenders, what distinguishes
Jesus is that, although he too apparently claimed to be the expected messi
anic king of Davidic descent, he did not exemplify the military features of
this strand of messianic expectation. This non-military aspect of his
messiahship, together with his suffering and dying, breaks the mold of the
messianic paradigms that were current in the Judaism of his day (204-9).
Looking back over this brief survey of Collins's magisterial treatment
of the evidence, I am struck by a number of points that call for comment.
The first is how sparse and ambiguous the evidence is. The Qumran Scrolls
speak very little of an eschatological messiah — even of a messianic figure
broadly defined — and when they do it is always incidental to other con
cerns and usually subject to multiple interpretations. In short, it is clear
that messianic expectation was not central to the religious worldview of
the Qumran sectarians, and what little such expectation there was is hard
to pin down.
Second, Collins shows convincingly that even this marginal messi
anic expectation was not monolithic. He is right to speak of different mes
sianic strands. In this way he steers a judicious middle course between the
earlier scholarly consensus, which had seen a common messianic expecta
tion in Judaism around the turn of the era, and the more recent reaction to
this consensus, which sees no messianic patterns at all. (See Collins s dis
cussion on pp. 3-4')
Third, it is striking that the one strand that stands out in bold relief
and that is both well-documented and widely recognized is the expecta
tion of the Davidic king. It is beyond dispute that the Qumran sectarians,
like many of their Jewish contemporaries, understood their Scriptures to
predict a future royal messiah who would deliver Israel from its enemies.
80
Fourth, I would point out that it is somewhat misleading for Collins

to speak of four distinct strands of messianic expectation. This emerges
very clearly from a passage on the first page of his last chapter (195). He
first recapitulates the overall results of his investigation in the following
words: "In the preceding chapters we have seen evidence for four distinct
messianic paradigms in Judaism around the turn of the era: king, priest,
prophet, and heavenly messiah or Son of Man." However, the very next
sentence reads as follows: "These paradigms were not always distinct." As a
matter of fact, at least with reference to the Qumran materials, it seems
that they were often not distinct. As we have seen, sometimes a messianic
figure is both priestly and prophetic (114-15), and the heavenly messiah
may also be a king (1641i67> 173)-
This raises a fifth point, which I believe is of some significance. The
fourth paradigm, that of the heavenly messiah or Son of Man, may not be
represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls at all, and in any case is not on a par
with the others. The two Qumran texts that Collins discusses in this con
nection (4Q49111 and 4Q246) do not provide clear evidence for this cate
gory. The first probably does not speak of a messianic figure at all, and it is
adduced by Collins mainly as evidence of the heavenly exaltation of a hu
man figure (149). The second may speak of a messianic figure of the re
quired type, but this interpretation is disputed by many Qumran scholars,
and its possibility can be affirmed by Collins only on the basis of a fairly
convoluted argument (155-69).* But even if this fourth paradigm did show
up clearly in the sectarian documents, it would evidently not be coordinate
with the others. The first three are defined on the basis of the societal office
to which the messiah is anointed, but the fourth is defined by the mcssiah's
cosmological status, either earthly or heavenly. There is nothing contradic
tory, therefore, in the heavenly messiah also being a king — or, for that
matter, a priest or a prophet. Consequently, I would argue that the Dead
Sea Scrolls give evidence of only three kinds of messianic expectation,
those corresponding to the three anointed offices of prophet, priest, and
king, and that there is some slight evidence that this expectation may on
occasion have been connected with a notion of heavenly exaltation.
4. In an email to me dated lune 14.2004. Collins clarifies his position asfollows:"I

never actually meant the 'throne in heaven' text or the Son of Man text to be taken as refer
ring to a heavenly messiah, although I can see how my book may have been confusing in tha
regard."
Bi
AI. WOLTERS
Finally, I would like to raise an exegetical issue related to the book of

Zechariah. Zechariah 4:14 speaks of "the two sons of oil who stand by the
Lord of the whole earth," and this verse is often cited in connection with
the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. Collins, too, speaks of this text in
his survey of Old Testament messianic passages (30, 31). As we have seen,
he also writes of the expectation of a royal and priestly Messiah in the
Dead Sea sect, that "Jtlhis binary messianism had . . . its biblical precedent
in Zechariah's 'two sons of oil'" (77)- However, there are a number of prob
lems with this use of the biblical phrase. To begin with, it is not at all clear
that Zech 4:14 is a messianic text. The primary reference is usually taken to
be the high priest Joshua and the civil governor Zerubbabel, but eminent
1
exegetes have disputed this, partly because the word for oil OHX ) is not
otherwise used for anointing, and partly because Zerubbabel was in fact
never anointed- However, quite apart from the text's original referents,
there is no evidence that the Qumran sect ever appealed to it to support a
"binary messianism," as CoDins implicitly concedes {9811.55). in fact, the
only place (to my knowledge) where this text is cited in the Dead Sea
Scrolls is 4Q254, where it has no discernible connection with the sect's
messianic expectation. Besides, if Collins's overall argument has merit,
then any biblical text that implies only a dual messianic expectation is un
likely to have found favor in a religious group that held to a triple or qua
druple expectation.
I turn now to the second book on this subject that I have undertaken
to review, that by Michael O. Wise. As I have pointed out already, it is very
different from Collins's work. It is written in a popular (not to say journal
istic) style and is aimed at a general audience. Although Wise is an ac
knowledged Qumran scholar in his own right, he wears his considerable
erudition lightly and confines most of his scholarly argumentation and
documentation to his footnotes, which are sometimes quite lengthy. Fur
thermore, much more than Collins, he sets out to prove a controversial
thesis. In addition, although Collins also makes a few passing references to
modern messianic sects, Wise makes the anthropological study of what he
calls "crisis cults" one of the foundation stones of his analysis. He refers es
pecially to the nineteenth-century Millerite movement in the United States
and to the twentieth-century Branch Davidians led by David Koresh. He
interprets the rise and development of the Dead Sea sect in the light of
what modern anthropologists have found to be typical of such crisis cults
in other times and places.
82
On many of the basic points in dispute concerning the Dead Sea

Scrolls and messianism, Wise takes a different view from Collins. Whereas
Collins accepts the consensus view that the sectarians who produced the
Scrolls were the Essenes of whom Pliny wrote, and who settled {among
other places) at Qumran, Wise makes no reference to the Essenes, and in
stead associates (although he does not identify) the people of the Scrolls
with the Sadducees, disputing the connection that is usually made between
Qumran and the sectarians (305^4). Whereas Collins denies that the his
torical Teacher of Righteousness is the same person as the eschatological
Teacher of Righteousness whom the sectarians expected, Wise affirms this
identification. On the other hand, whereas Collins identifies the historical
Teacher of Righteousness with the historical Interpreter of the Law, Wise
distinguishes them. Whereas Collins is at pains to distinguish four distinct
messianic paradigms, Wise takes almost all messianic references found in
the Scrolls to refer to the same paradigm. Whereas Collins denies that
there is a notion of a suffering Messiah in the Scrolls, Wise affirms that
there is. Whereas Collins stresses the discontinuity between the sectarian
messianic expectation and Jesus Christ, Wise stresses the continuity. In
feet, Wise argues that the Messiah of the Dead Sea sectarians defined the
shape of the messianic mold that Jesus, in his own distinctive way, filled.
Most importantly, however, Wise claims that the Qumran Messiah was not
just a religious ideal; he was an actual historical personage about whom we
can know quite a lot.
Wise's fundamental thesis is that the founder of the "crisis cult" that
produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, the so-called Teacher of Righteousness,
considered himself to be the Messiah predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures,
and that many of the messianic references in the Scrolls refer to him — ei
ther to him as a historical personage who lived in the early first century
BCE or to him as the eschatological figure who was to come again. Wise
gives him the name Judah, although it is not clear what evidence this is
based on (41). A cornerstone of Wise's argument is that Judah was himself
the author of a number of the Dead Sea Scrolls, including 4QMMT (67),
the directives contained in CD 6:11-7:4 (42-43), and especially the nine
Teacher Hymns that constitute the core of the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH
9:1-20:7) (44-45). It is especially the latter that allows Wise to reconstruct
much of the tumultuous career of the charismatic leader ludah.
In outline, that career was as follows. Judah was a respected priest
and wisdom teacher in Jerusalem who had served as a religious adviser to
83
AL WOLTERS
the Hasmonean ruler Alexander lannaeus, a ruler who had favored the
Sadducees over the Pharisees. However, Judah's position changed dramati
cally upon Alexander's death in 76 BCE. The new ruler was Alexandra, who
appointed her son Hyrcanus to the high priesthood- Under this new re
gime the Sadducees, together with priests like Judah who sympathized
with their position, lost their privileged position, and the Pharisees were
now in favor at the court. Ousted from his position of privilege, Judah
wrote his First Hymn, still in 76 B C E (46), from which it is clear that he was
under attack from the Pharisees. "The crisis of the Pharisees' rise to power
had forced Judah to rethink everything that he believed. His thoughts
about himself had also taken a new direction" (51). He now claimed to be
"a prophet given knowledge of wondrous mysteries*' (50}, which means,
says Wise, that Judah had now come to see himself as "the intermediary
between the nation and God" {51), as someone "of a stature comparable to
that of any of Israel's ancient prophets," in fact a new Moses (57). He even
began to identify himself as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (64) and to pre
dict that he would ultimately prevail against his enemies and be reinstated
in his rightful place in Jerusalem (65)- It was around this same time that
Judah coauthored the document known as "Some of the Laws of the To-
rah" (4QMMT), addressed to the new high priest Hyrcanus, and boldly
challenging the Pharisees' understanding of cultic law (67-68). In it he also
announced that the eschatological "Latter Days" were at hand, in which
the curses of Deuteronomy would fall on the Pharisees and their allies (75).
In response, the leading Pharisee of the day, Shimeon ben Shetah, urged
Hyrcanus to arrest Judah and have him tried on the charge of false proph
ecy (79). Judah was duly tried, and Wise uses the words of Judah's Fifth
Hymn to reconstruct the speech that he delivered in his defense {96). In it
he alluded to "the prophet like Moses" of Deut 18:18 and cast himself in
that role. He also applied the words about the Suffering Servant in Isaiah
53 to himself (91-92). Not surprisingly, he was found guilty by Hyrcanus,
although the punishment of death was commuted to exile (95).
In the Fourth Hymn, Judah recorded a kind of mystical vision he had

around this time, perhaps just previous to the trial (104). In an experience
like those recorded in the Similitudes of Enoch and Aramaic Levi, Judah
traveled to heaven. In Wise's words, "He seemed to have believed that he
journeyed to heaven, received direct revelation, and returned to announce
it to the millennial generation" (116). Furthermore, Wise argues that ludah
now even applied the messianic epithet "Wonderful Counselor" (Isa 9:6)
to himself (120). It is abundantly clear that Judah saw himself as the Mes
siah (122), the first one in history to do so (129). Out of the intensity of this
messianic self-consciousness, judah launched a movement that was to be
come, apart from early Christianity, "the most dynamic and enduring cri
sis cult of these centuries of Jewish civilization" (131).
Accompanied by a band of followers comprised of perhaps fifty to
one hundred men with their families (134), Judah was exiled in 74 BCE to
the "land of Damascus," probably the kingdom of Coele-Syria, more spe
cifically the "Wilderness of Damascus" or Trachonitis (138). We can deduce
from his Sixth Hymn, written around this time, that Judah and his follow
ers now began to make their living as brigands, an accepted occupation in
the ancient world (141-52). He now also began to prophesy that Gentile in
vaders would come from the north to bring judgment on Jerusalem and Us
corrupt religious establishment (141). On the basis of the prophetic chro
nology' of the book of Daniel, he calculated that this invasion would take
place soon, in a "week" of seven years, sometime between 73 and 65 BCE
(157).
We learn from Judah's Seventh Hymn and some other sources that in
the first year of his exile many of his followers deserted him (164) and that
these apostates subsequently helped Hyrcanus and the Pharisees to launch
a treacherous attack upon Judah's community (185). Many sectarians were
killed, but Judah himself narrowly escaped (188). A year or two later, how
ever, around 72 B C E (219), he didfinallymeet a violent end. We can deduce
his violent death from a passage in the Damascus Document (CD 19:5-10),
in which Judah's followers later identified him with the smitten shepherd
of Tech 13:7 (216-19). By that time his band of followers had been reduced
to a mere fifteen men and their families (219).
But this was not the end of the story. Although they were reeling with
what students of crisis cults have called "disconfirmation distress"—since
their charismatic leader had died, and his predictions had not come to pass
(221) — Judah's remaining followers came to a conclusion that others in
their situation have also frequently reached: their fallen leader had been
exalted and would eventually return. We find aspects of this new perspec
tive reflected in the "Community Hymns" that precede and follow Judah's
own compositions in the Thanksgiving Hymns (222). One of these is the
newly reconstituted fragment 1QH 26:2-10, in which the speaker (assumed
to be the Teacher of Righteousness himself, i.e. Judah) says, among other
things, "I am reckoned with the angels, my dwelling place is in the holy
85
AL W O L T E R S
council I sit on high, exalted in heaven Who is like me among the

angels?" (223). In effect, says Wise, ludah was understood to have been
raised higher than the archangels. "He had taken his seat at the right hand
of God" [224). Furthermore, ludah was also identified with both the Her
ald and Melchizedek of the manuscript uQMelchizedek: the former a fig
ure of the past (explicitly said to be "anointed," i.c., a mcssiah), and the lat
ter a figure of the future. Of Melchizedek, extraordinary things are
claimed. In effect, says Wise, "Melchizedek was the highest angel, and he
was coming in the future to atone for the sins of ludah's followers and to
establish the Kingdom of God" (230). What is more, by combining the
chronological schemes of Daniel and uQMelchizedek, it was possible to
calculate when Melchizedek (alias the Herald, alias Judah) was to return
and the eschatological End was to come. It was to be in 34 B C B {233).
The new leader of the small remnant of ludah's followers that re
mained, the one who was probably responsible for the new interpretation,
was called the "Interpreter of the Law" (238). This group composed the
"Original Manifesto," the original core of the Community Rule (iQS 8:1-
16), which became the foundation document of what was henceforth to be
called "the Society of the Yahad" (237). Most of this group returned to
Judea (239). The liny group limped along, struggling to survive, until 63
B C E . Then suddenly, after the Roman conquest of Judea, it began to grow-
rapidly again, no doubl because the Roman conquest could he seen (with
some slight adjustment) as the dramatic fulfillment of Judah's prophecy
concerning the coming Gentile invasion from the north (239). Between 63
and 34 BCE, the time between the Roman takeover and the expected return
of Judah, thousands joined the sect, and the vast majority of the Dead Sea
Scrolls were copied (243). Then, when the expected End did not come in 34
BCE, the whole movement collapsed, although a final attempted reinter-
pretation is recorded in the pesher on Habakkuk (248).
Wise's final chapter is devoted to a comparison of ludah's movement
and Christianity. It begins with a list of fifteen parallels between ludah and
Jesus, for which Wise acknowledges his indebtedness to the French scholar
A. Dupont-Sommer. It is not surprising, in the light of his entire preceding
argument, that many of these parallels are quite startling. For example, the
last two of the list read as follows: "As growing numbers came to believe
that Jesus had been glorified and now sat at the right hand of God, so it
had been with ludah. As early Christians anticipated the imminent return
of Jesus to judge the quick and the dead, redeem Israel, and initiate a mil-
86
lennium wherein believers would rule the world, so it had been with Ju-
dah's followers" (254)- Wise goes so far as to say that the sectarians of the
Scrolls represented a kind of "proto-Christianity" (256). As a final dra
matic illustration of the similarity between the two Jewish religious move
ments, he points out how the statement in the Gospels that "the dead arc
raised up, the poor have glad tidings preached to them" (Matt 11:5 and
Luke 7:22) finds a remarkable parallel in what Collins had called the "Mes
siah of Heaven and Earth" text (4Q521). Wise writes: "Both the scroll and
the Gospels connect three critical elements: the raising of the dead, the
preaching of glad tidings to the poor, and the time of the messiah" (274).
So alike are the two messiahs, in fact, that Wise considers it possible to
come to conclusions about Jesus by analogy with what we know about Ju-
dah. Finally, he makes the following summarizing statement: "In general
the analogy with the first messiah argues that much of what the Gospels
tell us about Jesus . . . happened along the lines the Gospels present. And
the specific analog)' of the first messiah is supported by a more universal
one, for the fact is that the Gospels present a story typical of crisis cults.
Not to speak of specific points and particular details, the story of the Gos
pels is plausible" (276-77).
As with Collins's book, permit me to make a few general observa
tions of an evaluative kind about Wise's remarkable book. It is a difficult
work to assess, because it does not fall into a recognizable genre. It seems
to be a kind of hybrid of historical novel and scholarly monograph, aimed
at both a general audience and Wise's academic peers. As far as its scholar
ship goes, it runs the gamut from proposing bold interdisciplinary synthe
ses to arguing the semantic nuances of Hebrew words to analyzing the
redactional layers of sectarian compositions. There is no doubt that Wise's
book is a brilliant tour de force, displaying an astonishing breadth of erudi
tion and an extraordinary capacity for bringing a vast mass of data into a
comprehensive synthesis.
Nevertheless, the book strikes me as far too clever. As a result of piling
hypothesis on hypothesis, each of which arguably has some plausibility,
Wise erects an amazingly coherent historical reconstruction, but of course
its overall plausibility diminishes with every level of supposition. Quite
apart from the many detailed and often disputed questions of textual resto
ration and translation, the whole edifice turns out to be on shaky ground if
certain disputed assumptions are not granted — for example, that the cen
tral columns of the Thanksgiving Hymns (and only they) were written by
87
A t WOLTERS
the Teacher o f Righteousness himself, or that the Teacher can be dated to

the early first century BCE, or that Judah's movement and early Christianity
both conform to the type of a "crisis cult" In addition, a good deal depends
on being able to identify biblical allusions in the Scrolls and to grasp the sig
nificance, in the mind of a given Scroll's writer, of the biblical context of the
text being alluded to. In a word, there is far too much speculation.
As a case in point, I refer to the way Wise argues that later sectarians,
after the death of their founding Teacher, expected him to come back to
atone for their sins and usher in the kingdom of God. This rests on the
rather bold hypothesis that the Melchizedek of nQMelchizedek is to be
identified with the Herald of that same document, who in turn is to be
identified with the Teacher. It is possible to make a more-oT-less plausible
argument in favor of each of these identifications, as Wise does, but their
combination is a very shaky foundation for the momentous claim that the
Teacher is a credible analogue to Jesus on this point.
It is also of interest to observe that the phrase "the Messiah(s) of Aaron
and Israel," which rightly plays such a prominent role in other discussions of
Qumran messianism, is conspicuous by its virtual absence in Wise's treat
ment, no doubt because it does not fit his overall reconstruction. He does
mention it in a footnote (32311.9), where he concedes that it cannot plausibly
be said to apply to Judah, but then he suggests rather lamely that it may rep
resent a later "Zadokite intrusion " It is also telling that he fails to deal with a
number of the other messianic texts that Collins discusses, presumably be
cause they, too, do not fit his overall thesis with respect to Judah.
Another specific criticism I would like to bring forward has once
again to do with the exegesis of a text in Zechariah. There is a passage in
the Damascus Document (CD 19:8-9) that quotes Zech 13:7b, and Wise ad
duces it as evidence that Judah died a violent death. He translates the
quoted text as follows: "Strike down the Shepherd and the sheep will scat
ter; but I will draw back my hand from the Oppressed" (217; my emphasis).
This is a very unusual translation, partly because the verbal idiom in ques
tion ( 7 ? T a'tffl) always has a violent connotation elsewhere (usually
rendered "turn one's hand against"), but also because the noun that is its
object (O'ltfX) is never understood elsewhere to mean "oppressors" (217).
Commentators differ on whether it should be understood of the "little
ones" (of the sheep), or — probably rightly — of subordinate "shepherds."
In a footnote Wise defends his rendering "oppressors" by saying that it
"follows the sense required by its equation with aniyim of Zech. 11:11" and
88
77ie Messiah in the Qumran Documents
by appealing to the meaning of the root in Syriac (320^36). I would argue

that this is an example of making a Hebrew word mean something im
plausible in order to suit one's argument. Unfortunately, this is not the
only example where Wise has a tendentious rendering of a Hebrew word.
Other examples are his translation of tokhahatzs "trial" (96,292n.i6) and
urtom as "heavenly splendor" (108-9).
Having said all this, however, it is undeniably true that speculative hy
potheses are the lifeblood of creative scholarship and are indispensable for
suggesting new lines of investigation. Thus Wise's audacious synthetic pro
posal constitutes a provocative challenge to the mainstream of Scrolls schol
arship to test the validity of his specific proposals and hypotheses. In addi
tion, his novelistic approach to his historical reconstruction adds an
immediacy and vividness of concrete detail to the discussion that is too often
sorely lacking in the sober and dry-as-dust world of Qumran scholarship.
Perhaps the greatest contribution of Wise's book is that he shows
that it is possible to construe the scattered and fragmentary data of the
Scrolls in an entirely new way. His bold and very erudite proposal shows
that all reconstructions of the teachings of the elusive religious group that
produced the Scrolls, whether about messianism or some other doctrine,
are necessarily based on a host of assumptions that have less' than certain
foundations. It has often been said that the work of Scrolls research is like
doing a giant jigsaw puzzle. This is true not only of the arduous work of
physically piecing together the thousands of Scroll fragments, but also of
the necessarily speculative work of trying to reconstitute theoretically a
system of thought or coherent doctrine from many disparate statements,
often with very little knowledge (if any) about their date, their author, or
their literary context. It behooves us to be modest in our claims to know
what the Dead Sea Scrolls teach about the Messiah.
The two books by Collins and Wise are representative of the range of
scholarly opinion on messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they arc cer
tainly not exhaustive. I have not mentioned Israel Knohl, whose little book
5
The Messiah before fesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls is re
markably similar to Wise's but identifies an entirely different historical fig
ure as the pre-Christian Messiah, or a host of other writers who nuance the
available options in various ways. But enough has been said to give some
sense of the scholarly lay of the land on this topic.
5. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).
89
Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and
Related Literature of Early Judaism
Loren T. Stuckenbruck
Introduction
In this paper I shall consider "Messiah" in early Jewish literature. This

area of study is important in relation to our understanding of early Chris
tianity for three reasons. First, it has figured prominently in the way be
liefs of Jews in "the Messiah" set the stage for the emerging belief among
early lewish Christian communities that Jesus was God's "Anointed One"
or "Messiah." In this light, differences between "Christian" and contem
porary "Jewish" understanding have often been construed as confirming
the "uniqueness" of the Christian understanding of "Messiah." This con
cern with Christian distinctiveness has, in turn, fed a polarizing mentality
that not only oversimplifies early Judaism but also reduces early Christian
views about Jesus as "Messiah" to an unnecessarily rigid spectrum of
ideas. Second, a reconsideration of this literature is becoming increasingly
necessary, given that our evidence for "Messiah" in non-Christian Juda
ism has been increased through materials published from the Dead Sea
1
materials during the last dozen years. Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls, to
1. For an early, but timely, attempt ar such a broader investigation, see John J, Collin
Vie Scepier an& the Star (New York; Doubleday. iws). During the first forty years after the
discovery of the Qumran cave materials, texts mentioning "messiah," "mcssiahs," or
"anointed figures"or containing related messianic terminology were generally only available
through the following texts: iQS col. ix, lines 9-11; lQSa col. h\ lines 11-23; iQSb col. v. lin
u
20-26; lQMcol. v, lines 1-2; col.xi, lines 7-9; 4Q161 frg. 8-10, lines 11-25; ol- '> lines 10-
19; 11Q13 col. ii, lines 15-20; CD col. ii, lines 11-13; xii> line 23-xiii, line 1; xiv, lines 18-19; xix
90
Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism
some degree, may be thought to provide an added, and previously un

available, interpretive context for contemporary lewish literature. Third
and finally, beyond shedding light on Christian origins, we learn that
early Jewish ideas about "Messiah" underwent significant development
through to the end of the first century CE. Despite the growing indepen
dence of Christian communities, especially in the aftermath of 70 CE,
speculative ideas about intermediary figures and agents of God attested in
non-Christian lewish literature continued to shape and parallel convic
tions about the exalted Jesus in Christian communities. Both communi
ties, overlapping in tradition and devotion to the God of Israel, found in
language about a Messiah ways of addressing and interpreting their expe
riences with religious and socio-political conditions under Roman rule in
the Mediterranean world.
Initially, however, it is important to delimit the focus of this review. I
do so in several ways: (i) We are looking initially at the term "Messiah" as it
occurs in the most important textual witnesses of Jewish literature pre
served in Greek (xpiorôç, a sense translation from Hebrew and Aramaic
2
rVWia), Latin functus), Syriac (XIVCS), and Ethiopie (mai/sih/h). We do
lines 7-11; and xix, line 33-uc line 1. Since 1991, however, further such texts have become
more fully available through publications: 4Q246 cols, i-ii; 4Q252 frg. 1 cot. v; 4Q285frg.5
4Q369 frg. 1 col. ii; 4(1377 frg. 2 col. ii; 4Q458frg.2 col. ii; 4Q521 frg. 2 col. ii, lines 1-2; frg. 8,
line 9; and 4Q534frg.1 col. i. The scholarly literature on these materials is voluminous. For
nearly full bibliography until 1908, see "Bibliography of Messianism and the Dead Sea
Scrolls," compiled by Martin B. Abcgg and Craig A. Evans (completed by Gcrbcn S-
Oegema), in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea
Scrolls (ed. James H. Charlesworth. Hermann Lichtenberger. and Gerben S. Oegema;
Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeckl, 1998) 204-14. For the most recent full treatment o
the Dead Sea "messianic" texts, see Johannes Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran
(WUNT II.104; Tubingen; J. C. B. Mohr [Paul SiebeckJ, 1998), which offers a material ad
vance on the still very useful work by A. S. van der Woude, Die messianischen VorstelUmgen
in der Gemeinde von Qumran (Assen: Van Gorcum. 1957).
2. While a consideration of terminology might seem overly narrow, it cautions

against unreflected use of the word "messianic" for passages that nowhere actually refer to a
Messiah; see, for instance, R. H. Charles's treatment of the concept of a "Messianic King
dom" in, e.g.. Jubilees 1:27-29; 23:26-31 and in J Enoch 6—36; S3-90; and y1—m in A Critical
History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity (London:
Adam and Charles Black. 1913) 208-11, 213-20 (1 En 6—36), 220-23 (1 En 83—90), 235-40 Huh),
250-59 U En 91-104); see also his Tlie Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1920) 2:142-43; and D. H. Russell, The Method and Message ofJewish Apocalyptic (Lon
don: SCM Press, 1964) 285-303.
9*
L O R E N T. S T U C K E N B R U C K
so, recognizing lhat there will be other eschatological figures, not desig
nated by these terms, who arc envisaged as God's agents. For this reason,
the present discussion shall not be a broad consideration of "eschatologi
cal redeemer figures" in ancient Jewish thought. Put another way, we are
not, broadly speaking, looking for "messianic"figureswho may or may not
carry the title "Messiah." Nevertheless, the narrower focus on figures actu
ally designated as "Messiah" makes it possible to pose the question of what
we arc doing in this discussion more sharply: What did early Jewish writers
have in mind when they chose this designation as a suitable one to describe
an agent of God? To be sure, some authors who speak of a "Messiah" or
"Anointed One" frequently apply other tides or descriptions for the same
figure. However, rather than simply adopting a synthetic approach, even
within a given document, we look for clues from within the narrative itself
or from the author's use of tradition that explain why "Messiah" has oc
curred in a particular instance. (2) We are here going to throw the spot
light on literature that is essentially non-Christian Jewish in character.
This means that we shall not consider passages in writings that were com
posed by Christian authors (so Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon, Apoc
alypse of Zephaniah, and Apocalypse of Sedrach). Moreover, we shall neither
attend to references to "the Messiah" in Christian additions to originally
Jewish documents (Testament of Adam) nor consider those which, though
heavily indebted to Jewish tradition, are Christian in their present form
and convey views that cannot be straightforwardly assigned to non-
Christian Jewish tradition (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs),' (3) Given
our interest in lewtsh tradition that may have shaped early Christian theol
ogy, we shall not consider views of "Messiah" in rabbinic or other later
Jewish literature (for example, the so-called 3 Enoch), (4) We shall inquire
into two aspects of "Messiah" where these occur: nature and function, ask
ing in particular what both have to do with perceptions about the activity
of the God of Israel. (5) Finally, we shall ask whether any of the texts con
sidered allow us to draw inferences about the social setting in which hope
in a Messiah was expressed.
The focus as delineated leads us to consider four Jewish works, which

were composed early enough to either pre-date or be contemporaneous
3- For an overview of "Messiah" in these Christian and Christianized documents, see

lames H. Charlesworth, "Messunotogy in the Biblical Fieudepigrapha," in Charlcsworth.
Lkhtenberger, ind Ocgcma. cds.. Qumran Messianism, 11-51 (esp. 41-49)-
92
Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early ¡udaism
with the growing early Christian movement before the Bar Kochba revolt.
These shall be considered in the approximate sequence of composition:
Psalms of Solomon, Similitudes of I Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.
Psalms of Solomon
Preserved in Greek and Syriac manuscripts from the tenth to sixteenth

4
centuries, this collection of eighteen psalms was written within a genera-
tion of Pompey's capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE and its aftermath, which
saw the overthrow and humiliation of Hasmonaean rule (see especially
2 : 1 - 5 , 1 1 - 1 4 ; 8:14-22; and 17:11-18}. The psalms are categorically critical of
the llasmonaeans, who are blamed for law-breaking activities in the
home and the temple that exceeded even what the Gentiles do (cf. 1:4-8;
2:3-5; 8:8-13). The community behind the psalms believed that Pompey's
activity, despite being a means by which God was punishing such "sin-
ners" who had set up illegitimate rule (17:6), had introduced even further
impurity and Gentile practices among Jews in Jerusalem (17:13-15, 18b-
20), so much so that the pious fled and were scattered "over the whole
earth" (17:16-183). Knowing something about these events,-especially as
they are depicted among the psalms themselves, takes on particular im-
portance since it is precisely in relation to these that what is said about the
Messiah takes shape.
All four references to "Messiah" (Greek xpioroc; Syriac míyh~) occur
in chs. 17 and 18. They may be listed as follows:
17:32(36) — "There is no unrighteousness in his days in their midst,

for all (will be) holy and their king (shall he the) Messiah Lord!'
(Kcri (kíoiACÜc, aÜTtiiv xpiordc xúpioc,; wmlkyhwn mSyh' mry")
4. The man thorough description of the textual witnesses is Rill to be found in Jo-
seph Zieglcr, Sapicnlia Salomonis (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII, 1;
Gottingen: VandenhoeckfitRuprccht. 1962) 7-65. Though use piiority of the Greek evidence
has been maintained by many scholars who hold that the Syriac version was a translation
from the Creek. Joseph L Trafton has put forth a detailed case favoring the view thai the
Syriac text groups represent an independent translation from a Semitic (Hebrew) Vorlage
and thus merit consultation for text-critical problems: so Trafton, Syriae Version of the
Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Evaluation (S8L Septuagint and Cognate Studies DJ Atlanta;
Scholars Press, iySs).
93
LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK
The heading to 18—"Psalm of Solomon concerning the Messiah Lord':'

(ipaXuoc; TOO LaXcoucov eri [emend to em?] xptorou K U p i o u ; no head
ing in Syriac)
18:5 — "May God purify Israel for the day of mercy with blessing,
for the day of election in the return of his Messiah"
(tv cxvafa xpioroO aurou; Syriac damaged)
187 — (the generation to come, v. 6 ) . . . "under the disciplinary rod
of the Messiah Lord in the fear of his God, in wisdom of spirit and
of righteousness and of strength."
(XPIOTOO KUpfou)
The present discussion will thus consider chs. 17 and 18, respectively.
In ch. 17, "Messiah Lord" is the title given to a figure whose activities
are described in w. 21-43. The psalmist petitions God to raise him up as
"king" of Israel "in the time which you see (or know)." This anointed fig
ure is to be the antithesis of the religio-political rule under the
Hasmonaeans: He will be a (legitimate) descendant of David, and i s " t o
rule over Israel your servant" in an ideal way. In the role of a king, this
agent of God will "purify Jerusalem f r o m gentiles," dispossess Jewish "sin
ners from their inheritance "and annihilate "unlawful gentiles" (w. 22-24).
In their place, he will restore t o the land (ferri Tf\t; yfjc;) " a holy people,
whom he will lead in righteousness, and will judge the tribes of people
who have been sanctified by the Lord his God" (v. 26; cf. vv. 28, 43)«
Two main features mark the rule and character of this Messiah:
(cultic) purity and justice, on the one hand, and power and might, on the
other. First, the "Messiah Lord" is to restore Jerusalem to the pure and
prominent state i t enjoyed a t the beginning of the (here idealized)
Davidic monarchy (v. 30). This state will be achieved as he judges not only
those people who have been restored (w. 26,43), but also the remaining
peoples and nations "in the wisdom of his righteousness" (v. 29). This
judgment is the pre-condition for a proper order of things. Ultimately,
the nations (v. 30), as well as Israel (cf. 7:9), will be subject to his "yoke,"
and the persecuted righteous who have been scattered throughout the
earth (cf. 17:18} will be brought as gifts by the nations "to see the glory of
the Lord" (vv. 30-31; cf. Isa 43:4-7). Unequivocally, all the rc-gathcrcd peo
ple of Israel will be holy (v. 32), leaving n o room for "sinners" and corrupt
"officials," who will be driven out (v. 36; cf. w. 23,27). By the same token,
this messianic figure will be "pure from sin" (v. 36) and powerful "in the
94
6
holy spirit" (v. 37).* His "words" will be more refined — that is, they will
be in a purer state (note the comparative expression nerrupuiuéva íírtép)
— than even the choicest gold and will be comparable to words of holy
ones (&y(cov) in the midst of sanctified peoples (v. 43).' It is possible here
that the purity of the Messiah's activity is emphasized through a compari-
B
son with angels whose worship of God is considered ideal (cf. Ps 89:5-7).
Perhaps, then, the Messiah is not only expected to rule as king but also to
perform priestly functions. This may be especially the case if the psalm-
ist's description of the Messiah's work is formulated as an antithesis to the
Hasmonaean dynasty that, since the rule of Aristobulus I (105-104 BCE),
9
incorporated into one person the claim to be "king" and "high priest."
Second, the author expects the Messiah to exercise power and au-
thority over the nations of the earth. One manifestation of this rule is the
destruction of "unrighteous rulers" and "the unlawful nations (S6vr|
rrctpávoua)" (w. 22, 24). This retribution against the enemies of God's
people might leave the impression that the Messiah is essentially a warrior
figure — that is, one who will deliver Israel through military conflict. In-
deed, it is at least true in principle that the author claims he "will crush all
their substance with an iron rod" (v. 24}, which borrows language from Ps
2:9. However, this may in fact be a description of the effect rather than the
means, since it is "by the word of his mouth" that this will be accomplished
{v. 24; cf. v. 35: "he will strike the earth with the word of his mouth for-
ever"). Thus, unlike the Hasmonaeans, this king will not rule through mil-
itary might. In emphasizing this very point, the psalmist has probably been
inspired by Isa 11:4: "he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
10
and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked." Significantly, this
5. The Greek witnesses read Év nveóucm cVyí<$. while thefragmentarySyiiac has

q)dyi\ i.e., "h]oly"and not "(spirit of) holiness").
6. In the place where the Greek uses two terms for "words" at the beginning and end
of v. 43 (£r)uara and Xóyoi), the Syriac has only one term, ptgin'.
1
7. For a possible parallel, sec 4Q521frg- col. ii, line 2: "he li.e„ his Messiah) will not
rt from the precepts of the holy ones (D'tPTTp niSOO)."
8. Concerning the exemplary worship of angels in other Second Temple documents,
sec the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (at 4Q400frg.2, lines 1-9), Musar le-Mevin (4Q418 frg-
55, lines 8-11), and Jub 1:17-22.
9. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 13.U.1; see the discussion in Emu Schdrcr, The History of
the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. by Gcza Vermes, Martin Goodman, and
Fergus Millar; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973-87) 1:217.603.
10. So, correctly, Martin Hengel, Cewalt und Gewattlosigkett (Calwer Hefte, 11B;
95
annihilation of Israel's enemies does not mean that the Gentiles as a whole
are to be destroyed. On the contrary, the psalmist does not consider all
Gentiles inimical: the Gentiles are to serve God's anointed one (v. 30; cf.
i En 52:4), for "he wiil have mercy on all nations who are before him in
11
fear" (v. 34; cf. 2 Bar72:2-4). Presumably those Gentiles who have not op
pressed or subjugated Israel will be included in the new order; though they
will not be converted as such, they will nevertheless play a positive, if
12
clearly subordinate, role.
Having reviewed the Messiah's character and activities in Psalms of
Solomon, we may consider the question of who the author thought he
would be. The title "Messiah Lord" in 17:32 (and 18:7) does not in any way
imply that his position approximates that of the God of Israel. Neither is it
correct to suppose that we have here a deliberate or inadvertent
15
Christianization of a Jewish tradition. If anything, we may instead have to
do with a very early use of Ps 110:1, in which the second "lord" in the phrase
"the Lord said to my lord" is being used of the king, so that a double title is
used (as occurs in also Dan 9:25 [VII TheocL xpioroO fYyouuivool).
Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1971) $6- The motif of a messianic figure slaying the wicked under
the influence of Isa 11:4 is attested in 4Q285 fig. S> line 4 (cf. also 2 Bar 40:2). The association
of Isa 11:4 with the "shoot of Jesse," in turn, led the Targum Isaiah to identify this figure as "a
king... from the sons of Jesse" from which will come "a Messiah from Israel." no doubt un
der the influence of Num 24:17; see William Horbury. lewish Messianism and the Cult of
Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998) 92-93.
it. A similar combination of passivity and military language may be found in John's
Apocalypse, the Christology of which juxtaposes "the Lamb standing as slaughtered," on the
one hand, with the activity of the warrior Christ, on the other, "who rules the nations with
an iron rod" (cf. Rev 2:27; 12:5; and 19:15): for a recent attempt to address this tension in the
Apocalypse, see Loren L Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT
2.167; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeckl, 2003!.
12. This is not unlike the place of the nations in Deutero-lsaiah (Isa 42:6; 49:6,22-26;
60:1-3, n)> for whom the option is either to serve God (i.e., God's people) or to be destroyed.
Perhaps Pss $0/17:34 implies the view that the nations will actually worship God in recogni
tion of God's rule (cf., e.g., Pss 86:9; 96:9-10).
13. Some have argued (e.g., Joseph IGausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel from Its Be
ginning to the Completion of the Mishnah (trans. W. F. Stinespring; London: Allen and
Umvin, 1956] 321) that in 17:32 an original genitive ("the anointed of the Lord") was cor
rupted by a Christian scribe. In 18:7, the expression XP'cTOO rupiou may be translated as ei
ther "of the Messiah/Anointed of the Lord" or "of the Messiah Lord," but its rendering de
pends on what one makes of the expression in 17:32- On the other hand, there is no way to
translate the double genitive in 18:5 other than "his (i.e., the Lord's] Messiah."
96
It is not surprising, then, to find that throughout the psalmist makes clear
that the Messiah is himself dependent on and subordinate to God, whose
activity is ultimately, and immediately, in view. Although the Messiah is a
royalfigure,ch. 17 is framed by the proclamation that the Lord, the God of
Israel, is "our king forever more" (w. 1,46). Moreover, in the main body of
the psalm, it is God who will raise up David's descendant in his own time
(v. 21), and it is God who will make him strong with a holy spirit (v. 37). In
deed, the Lord "is his [i.e., the Messiah Lord's! king" (v. 34). Because of this,
the Messiah shall place his hope in God (v. 34; cf. also v. 39) and "shall glo
rify the Lord in a prominent (place) of the earth" (i.e., Jerusalem; v. 30). The
Messiah Lord's kingship over the returnees to Jerusalem will be righteous
because he has been "instructed by God" (w. 31-323).
The Messiah is not "divine." He has neither heavenly status nor any
apparent préexistence. The sinlessness with which he is to be endowed
(v. 36; cf. Heb 4:15) functions here to make him an ideal, righteous ruler
who sets matters aright in accordance with God's timing and purposes for
Israel (cf. Acts 1:6-7). From the psalmist's perspective, he is a future agent
of God's activity. The main thrust is thus summed up nicely at the conclu
sion of the psalm: "May God hurry up (to give) his mercy to Israel, may he
rescue us from the pollution of profane enemies; the Lord himself is our
king forever more."
In ch. 18 the references to the Messiah are very brief and not devel
oped. While the points described in relation to ch. 17 may be inferred for
the superscription and v. 7 (cited above at the beginning of this section),
the one new element may seem to be in v. 5: " . . . for the day of election in
the return (óeváijei) of his Messiah " It is unnecessary from this to infer a
préexistence, as the psalmist likely has in view the return of legitimate rule
by a descendant of David whom God will set apart to fulfill Israel's hope
for a theocracy.
Similitudes o f Ethiopie or 1 Enoch (chapters 37-71)
Similitudes is a pseud epigraph i c "vision of wisdom" given to Enoch that

comprises chs. 37-71 of the earliest collection of Enochic compositions
commonly called 1 Enoch. Whereas the antiquity of the remaining parts of
1 Enoch has not been questioned, the relative date of the Similitudes has
been subject to some debate. This is so because of J. T. Milik's claim that
97
this work, no fragments of which were found among any of the Dead Sea
materials, was an essentially Christian book produced during the latter
m
part of the third century C E . Unconvinced that Similitudes shows any
trace of Christian composition, many have been more inclined to assign a
date of its production to sometime between the latter part of the first cen-
15
tury BCE and 100 C E . Indeed, the absence in Similitudes of any overt re-
sponse to Christian tradition, especially in relation to the "Son of Man"
figure, seems to push its traditions back into a period before the identifica-
tion of Jesus with the apocalyptic "Son of Man" as recorded in the Gospels
was sufficiently widespread.
Similitudes contains two brief references to a "Messiah" or "Anointed
16
One": 48:10 and 5 2 : 4 ¡
48:10 — "On the day of their trouble [i.e., that of the kings of the
earth and the wealthy landowners; cf. v. 8] there will be no rest on
the earth, and they shall fall before him and shall not rise; and
(there is) no one who will take them with his hands and raise
them, for they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah.
Blessed be the name of the Lord of Spirits!"
14. |. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments ofQumrán Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1976) 4- 58,78, and csp. 94-98 (around or just after 270 CE).
15. These earlier and later dates have been argued, respectively, by lonas C. Greenfield
and Michael E. Stone, "The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes," HTR70
(1977) Si-6S¡ and Michael Knibb. "The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,"
NTS 25 (1979) 344-57. For a discussion of the debate, sec George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1981) 221-23. Allusions
to an invasion of ludah by Parthiansand Medes in 40 BCE (1 En 56:5-*) or to the loss of farm-
land to rich landowners (much maligned in Similitudes) during the reign of Herod the Great
are not specific enough to be much help. Nickelsburg rightly emphasizes that, at the very
least, traditions contained in Similitudes were known around the nirn of the common era.
Drawing attention to the identification of Enoch with the Son of Man at the end of Simili-
tudes (1 £»71:14), he cites Wisdom of Solomon's allusion to Enoch, a prototype foi the per-
secuted righteous who will become judges over their enemies (4:10-15; cf. 4:16-5:23). Most
important for the early date, however, remains the absence in Similitudes of any overt re-
sponse to Christian tradition, especially in relation to the "Son of Man" figure.
16. Translations are my own, based on the text published by Michael A. Knibb, The
Ethiopk Book of Enoch (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) i:i36-37> 142 and 2:134,136,
which in this passage docs not differ in any essential details from the texts negotiated by
Ephraim Isaac in his essay "1 Enoch," in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. lames H.
Charleswoith; 2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983-85) 1:36-37-
98
Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early ludaism
52:4 — "And he [i.e., the interpreting angel] said to me, 'All these
things which you have seen serve the authority of his Messiah so
that he may be mighty and strong upon the earth."*
These passages occur within the "second parable" (chs. 45-57). Near the bc-
ginning of this vision (46:1-8), afiguredesignated "the Son of Man"— also
called "the Chosen One" and "the Righteous One" — has been introduced
as the agent of God (called "Head of Days" and mostly "Lord of the
Spirits") to execute judgment against the wicked who through wealth have
oppressed the righteous (46:1-8). In all likelihood, the "Messiah" referred to
in 48:10 is thought to be the same figure, just prior to 48:10, the author in
v. 6 anticipates that a "Chosen One" (identified with "that Son of Man" in
v. 2) will be disclosed by God's wisdom to "the holy and righteous ones"
whom he will deliver. This figure is preexislent, as he has been "concealed
since before the creation of the world" (v. 6), which is parallel to "that Son
of Man" who in v. 3 was named before the Lord of the Spirits "before the
stars of heaven were made." When the righteous ones are delivered, the
wicked kings of the earth and the landowners will be given over to "the cho
sen ones" for punishment (v. 9). Thus the denial mentioned in v. 10 is a
summary way, as elsewhere in the paTable (45:1-2; 467)» of-characterizing
the activities of the wicked; to oppose those who are righteous is nothing
less than a denial of the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. The phrase
"and his Messiah," this time added to "Lord of the Spirits" as the object of
denial (cf. 45:1-2; 46:7). reflects the influence of Ps 2:2: "The kings of the
earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord
and his anointed" (NRSV)." However, it is striking that the author has not
invested this designation with any further detail. No activity as such is as
cribed to God's agent when he is called "his Messiah."
The same brevity and lack of detail apply even more lo Ihe reference
in 52:4. Here, as in ch. 48, God's Messiah may be implicitly identified with
"the Chosen One" (52:6,9), while the "Son of Man" title does not occur in
this part of the vision (i.e., in 52:1-57:3)-'* A connection with the "Son of
17. Cf tuiiUtlv in Rev Ha) and m o (cf. 20-6). This christologkal addition lo a state
ment about God is elsewhere, perhaps also under the influence of Psalm 1, reformulated in
-
relation to "the limb (Rev £13; 7:10; 21:22; 22a. 3).
18. However, "the Chosen One" in 1 En 6 a n is also called "Son of Man" (1 En 63:5). The
application to the Chosen One of tradition from Isa 11:4b and Psalm no in 1 Enoch 62 (where
in v. 2 "the spirit «f righteousness is poured out upon him and the word of his mouth kill* Ihe
99
L O R E N T. S T U C K E N B R U C K
Man" tradition from Dan 7:13-14 may nonetheless be influential here. The
seer's vision of mountains of various metals in the west (52:2) is explained
by the angel as phenomena that serve "the authority" of "his Messiah,"
where the Ethiopk term for "authority" (seltan) approximates the Aramaic
löV© in Daniel 7:14, where it denotes the power given to the "one like a son
19
of man." Immediately following in the passage, the angel discloses that
these same mountains will dissipate into fluid "before the Chosen One"
(v. 6) — that is, the weapons fashioned through these metals will be useless
in saving the wicked from judgment "when the Chosen One will appear
before the Lord of the Spirits" (v. 9).
These passages allow for several observations. First, the reference to
"Messiah" in ch. 48 implies that God's designate is an ideal ruler figure who
stands in stark contrast with the wealthy and oppressive kings of the earth
and mighty who possess land. Though neither 48:10 nor 52:4 states any
thing about his activity, the Messiah's domain is conceived as terrestrial.
However, it is striking that Similitudes makes no explicit attempt to link
thisfigurewith a Davidic lineage. This apocalyptic scenario does not envi
sion the restoration of the monarchy, as in Psalms of Solomon. Second, the
texts say nothing directly about what sort of figure God's Anointed One is
supposed to be — that is, whether he is human, angelic, or divine. Some
thing, nonetheless, can be noted if the author of 48:10 is identifying God's
Messiah with the "Son of Man" and "Chosen One" mentioned earlier in
the chapter. In this case, the author must have regarded the Messiah as
precxistcnt and, as the Chosen One, yet to be revealed in the future. If in
the wider context of the second parable (chs. 45-56) the Messiah is identi
fied with the "Son of Man" and "Chosen One," then more can be said: he is
a figure exalted to sit on God's throne to judge and to dispense wisdom
sinners" and in v. 3 "he sits on the throne of his glory") may suggest that he is being under
stood asa judge in the royal messianic tradition! sec, eg., f. Thcison, Der auserwählte Richter.
Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort der Menuhensohngestalt der Bilderreden
des äthiopischen Henoch (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testament 12; Göttingen:
; ; a n
Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1975) 1 1 1 - 1 3 , - d Matthew Black, I in - Messianism of the
Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christian Origins," in The Messiah; Devel
opments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed, lames H. Charleswoith; Minneapolis: For
tress, 1992) 145-68 (here 159). who emphasizes beyond Thcison the influence of the Isaianic
Ebed-Jahweh tradition on the Chosen One as well (esp. Isa 49:2-3.7; 52:13).
19. As suggested, though with caution, by lames C. VanderKam, "Righteous One,
Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37—71," in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah,
169-91 (here 171-72).
100
(45-3; 5i:3; 55:3); he has a human and angel-like appearance {46:1); he re
moves the wicked (human and demonic} from positions of power (45:6;
46:4-7; 48:8-10; 50:6-9; 53:5-7; 55:4); and — without parallel in any earlier
or contemporary Jewish literature — he can even be worshiped alongside
God "by all those who dwell upon the earth" (48:5; cf. 46:5). Third, since
these functions are co-opted into a profile for the Messiah only by exten
sion, we may suggest that the activities and status ascribed to the eschato-
logical vice-regent in Similitudes do not seem to have resulted from a
writer's speculation about God's Messiah per se (which does not appear in
20
an absolute form). He may be a composite figure of many titles, but it is
questionable how much the title itself has shaped the author's understand
ing. The formative background for this speculation lies much more in Dan
7:9-14 and related traditions (in addition to biblical tradition, also the
seated man-like figure recording judgment in Animal Apocalypse; 1 En
90:14,17}. In short, it is not as a Messiah that God's eschatological agent
does all these things, but rather as the angelic and heavenly "Son of Man"
whom the author further anchors in tradition by applying the "messianic"
designation.
4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras 3—14)
This pscudcpigraphon, attributed to Ezra thirty years after the destruction

of the first temple in 586 B C E (cf. 4 Ezy.\), consists of a series of seven dia
logues or visions composed around the turn of the second century CE, that
is, in the aftermath of the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. These
visions, though framed by Christian compositions 5 Ezra and 6 Ezra, re
spectively, with few exceptions preserve non-Christian Jewish tradition.
The document does not survive in its original language, and so the most
important textual witnesses to 4 Ezra are preserved for us in Latin and
Syriac manuscripts. These, in addition to the evidence from Georgian, Ar-
20. For this reason one should not, conversely, hasten without further evidence to
construe the mention of a "Chosen One" in other texts (such as "the Chosen One of God,"
RnVX YrO, in 4 Q S 3 4 frg. 3 col. i, line 10) 3S a reference to a "mcsslah." Thus Craig Evans
rightly adduces allusions to Isa 11:4 in the 4 Q 5 3 4 fragment (lines 6 - 1 0 ) as more important
than the designation itself; see Evans, "Are the 'Son' Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections
on 4 Q 3 6 9 and Related Scrolls," in Charlcsworth, Lichtcnberger, Oegema, eds„ Qumran-
Messianism, 135-53 (here 1 4 4 - 4 5 ) .
101
L O R E N T. STUCKENBRUCK
menian, and Ethiopie translations, furnish enough evidence to determine

more original Jewish traditions behind the occasionally Christian intru
21
sions into the texts. In 4 Ezra several passages are concerned with a "Mes
siah" (Lat. unctus; Syr. mfyh') figure: 7:26-44 (from the third vision); 11:36-
12:34 (from the fifth vision); and, by extension, 13:3-14:9 (from the sixth
and seventh visions).
4 Ezra 7:26-44: The Temporary Appearance of the Messiah
The Messiah is first referred to in the third vision during the course of the
interpreting angel's speech that responds to the seer's queries. Ezra has
continued to question in 6:38-59 why God's covenant people do not pos
sess the world as they should, while other nations, who have no special re
lationship with God, are allowed to dominate Israel (esp. 6:55-59). The an
gel counters, first by asserting the necessity of danger and hardship (7:3-9)
and distinguishing between present and future experience and then by af
firming that all, whether righteous or wicked, are accountable to the Law.
This dialogue sets the stage for the angel's description of a time to come
when things will not be as they are now: a city and land, previously unseen
and hidden, will be disclosed, and wonders will be seen (7:26-28). This
21
time lies in the future, when a figure called "my son the Messiah" and
23
those who are with him (i.e., the righteous dead) will be revealed, while
the remaining ones (the righteous) "shall rejoice tour hundred years"
{v. 28). The passage then continues by making what might seem to be an
unusual claim:
21. Below, I cite the English translation by Bruce M. Meizget. who takes many of the
U
differences between the versions into account in his translation and notes: see Meuger. 'I"he
Fourth book of rLzra," in Charlcsworth, cd., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:517-59.
22. Here the Latin readingfiliusmeus lesus is surety secondary, and so the Syriac (6ry
miyh', dose to similar readings in the Ethiopie. Georgian, and Armenian) is to be supported;
see Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermcncia;
Minneapolis: Portress, 1990) 208.
23. I am not certain that this revealing of the Messiah implies his préexistence, as is
the case in Similitudes in relation to "the Chosen One" (1 En 48:6) who "was hidden . . . be
fore the world was created.'' Préexistence for the Messiah is a more likely concept in the later
visions of 4 Ezra (see below; cf. esp. 13:26).
102
24
And after these years my son the Messiah will die (morieturfiUus meus
christus), and all who draw human breath. And the world shall be turned
back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at thefirstbeginnings;
so that no one shall be left. (7:29-30)
The author divides time into two ages, one of this world and one of the
world to come (7:50; cf. 4:26; 6:7,20, 25-28; 7:112-15). The revelation of the
Messiah will occur as the first of several events that bring this age to a
close. Nothing is explicitly stated about a kingdom that this Messiah is to
inaugurate; however, that he is expected to rule is implied by the specifica
tion of a limited number of years, during which conditions for the righ
teous will give cause for rejoicing. The surprising element here is the men
tion of the Messiah's death, which, though attested in later Jewish
25
traditions, is unprecedented here. Unlike Christian conviction with re
gard to Jesus' death, this event is not apparently the result of any persecu
26
tion or suffering and carries with it no salvific or atoning significance.
Instead, coupled with the death of the remainder of humanity, it serves as a
"ground clearing" of this age that prepares for the judgment that leads to
life in the world to come. The Messiah's death, then, helps to mark the
closing of this age.
The hiatus between the old age and judgment is underscored by a
space of time, seven days of primeval silence, which signals the corre
spondence between Urzeit and Endzeit shared by many apocalyptic writ
ers. The judgment itself then occurs as the last event of this age, when
there is a general resurrection of both the righteous and wicked (7:32; cf.
Dan 12:2). As such, the judgment does not happen all at once; rather, it is
envisioned as a drawn-out process of "a week of years" {7:43)- Signifi
cantly, it is "the Most High," not the Messiah, who "will be revealed upon
the scat of judgment" (7:33) to pronounce punishment upon many and
2«. On this expression in conjunction with "Messiah," see the discussion of 4 Ezra 13
below.
25. Concerning these, sec, e.g., George Foot Moo re, Judaism in the First Centuries of
the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1927-30; 2:370-71.
26". This means that not too much should he inferred from the possibility that here
"servant" ultimately lies behind the Lat. "son," insofar as it may have anything to do with the
Ebed-Yahweh tradition in Isaiah 52-53. So correctly E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im
äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund: Clccrup, 1946) 133-34.
103
reward lo the few {7:138-8:3). The Messiah, aside from setting up a tempo
rary kingdom, is given no further role in any of the subsequent eschato-
logical events.
4 Ezra 11:1-12:36: The Lion Messiah
The fifth vision of the seer is interpreted by the angel in relation to the
Messiah. The vision itself opens with an eagle with twelve wings and three
heads emerging from the sea and subjecting "everything under heaven" to
itself (11:6). From the twelve wings eight smaller ones grew; each of the
twelve wings and two of the little ones ruled in succession, each disappear
ing after its reign, until three heads and six little wings remained. After
brief reigns, two of the little wings were devoured by the middle head,
which then ruled oppressively "over the whole earth" with a power greater
than all the previous rulers (11:32). This head disappeared, leaving the re
maining right head to devour the left one (11:35)- The vision shifts focus to
"a creature like a lion" that is stirred from the forest. With a human voice,
this lion addressed the eagle on behalf of the Most High. It called the eagle
"the fourth beast" that God had allowed to reign in the world and then an
nounced its doom (11:36-46). At the conclusion of the lion's words, the last
head disappeared, and two further wings ruled briefly until they disap
peared as well (12:1-3).
in the interpretation, the author explicitly acknowledges that the vi
sion is adapted from Daniel (12:11), who, however, was not given the proper
explanation for his "fourth kingdom" (Dan 7:7). This kingdom, the eagle
"from the sea," is identified as the Roman Empire, while the wings and
heads represent its kings. The lion that spoke to the eagle is interpreted as
"the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will
arise from the posterity of David" (12:32; cf. Gen 49:9-10 and Rev 5:5). He is
the one who, from "his judgment seat" (contrast with 4 Ez 7:33). will de
nounce and destroy the ungodly, while at the same time delivering the
righteous remnant among God's people. In stating that the remnant will
be made joyful, the author refers back to the earlier vision "of which I
spoke to you at the beginning" (cf. 7:28).
Several points may be noticed from this vision. First, as in Psalms of
Solomon, the Davidic pedigree of the Messiah is stressed. Nothing is ex
plicitly said about his nature. The claim that "the Most High has kept [the
104
27
Messiah] until the end of days" implies that he is a préexistent figure, or,
correspondingly, that he is a heavenly or angelic being. His status as a de-
28
scendant from David does not contradict the notion of his préexistence;
this suggests merely that the future Messiah is also a human being whose
activities will not be unleashed until the close of the present age. Second,
in contrast to the earlier vision in ch. 7, the Messiah here takes on a more
active role in the eschatological events described: whereas God is the one
who pronounces judgment in the earlier vision, the Messiah is now the
one who occupies "his judgment seat." This is, however, a preliminary
judgment, as "the day of judgment," which is yet to come, is described in
29
neither the vision nor its interpretation. Third, in addition to dispensing
judgment, the Messiah is to carry out the sentence by destroying the Ro-
0
man Empire. The Messiah, then, is a military or warrior figure as well.'
Fourth andfinally,he will deliver a righteous remnant of Israel. The rem-
nant refers to those who will live in the age to come. The author of 4 Ezra
does not think the Messiah will restore Israel to its former glory in the way
described in Psalms of Solomon. He envisions a clear break between the
past, which belongs to tin's age, and the future, which belongs Lo a difieren l
order of things. For this reason, the Messiah, as descended from David, is
involved in events that relate to a future that still lies within the present
age. When he delivers "the remnant of my people,... he will make them
joyful until the. end comes" (12:34).
%7- Significantly, the term "hidden" does not occur in any of the versions (in contras
to "the Chosen One" in 1 En 48:6); the sense of the phrase is less a statement about the Me
siah's nature than about the leschatological) timing ol his activity.
28. See Stone's apt arguments. Fourth Ezra, 210.
29. There is no inconsistency, therefore, with the scenario in ch. 7, in which Cod acts
as judge, as there the author is concerned with thefinaljudgment. The distinction between
the Messiah's judgment (i.e., of the Roman Empire) in ch. 12 and God's judgment of the
wicked in ch. 7 has sometimes not been adequately perceived; so recently, e.g., Timo Eskola
Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Dis-
course (WUNT142; Tübingen: I. C. B. Mohr | Paul Sicbeck|, 2001 ) too. On the consistency o
eschatology in 4 Ezra, see Peter Schäfer, "Pie Lehre von den zwei Welten in 4- Buch Esra und
in der tannattischen Literatur," in Schäfer, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des
rabbinischen Judentums (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums 15; Leiden; Brill, 197») 244-91-
30. As emphasized by Michael E. Stone, "The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra," i
Ruinions ¡H Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Envin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner
(Studies in the History of Religions 14; Leiden; Brill, 1968) 29S-312 (here 302), though at the
expense of noting the importance of the Messiah's juridical activity.
105
LOREK T. STUCKENBRUCK
4 Ezra iy.1 -$6: The Man from the Sea
In this section, the eschatological deliverer is not actually designated "Mes-

siah." However, his function as one who destroys the enemies of the righ-
teous at a time appointed by God ( 1 3 : 2 6 , 5 2 ) makes it clear that the author
is thinking of the figure he has called the Messiah in chs. 7 and 1 2 . The
dominant designation here is, instead, "son," which in the Latin version is
rendered by the term ftlius. Scholars have argued that the messianic back-
ground for this term is strengthened in the more ambiguous Greek none,
("son," "servant"), which, in turn, goes back to the Hebrew ("servant";
cf. Ps 8 9 : 2 0 - 3 7 , csp. w. 2 0 and 2 6 - 2 7 ) . This seems, however, a remote way
3 1
of establishing the messianic profile of the "man." More important maybe

two further considerations. First, there is the reception of Psalm 2 , which
at once refers to the conspiracy "against the Lord and his anointed one
(h*WB )" (Ps 2 : 2 ; cf. 1 En 4 8 : 1 0 ) and the Lord's decree to the psalmist, "You
are my son ('33 ); today I have begotten you (TmV)" (Ps 2 : 7 ) . The identi-
fication of "his [the Lord'sl anointed one" together with "my (the Lord's]
son" was certainly current in Jewish circles by the turn of the Common
Era, as is attested in the Dead Sea documents (esp. lQSa col. ii, lines 1 1 -
1 2 " ) . While 4 Ezra does not explicitly cite Psalm 2 , the fixed designation
"my son" in the sixth vision ( 1 3 : 3 2 , 3 7 , 5 2 ; cf. 1 4 : 9 ) would be consistent with
this, and, as such, it is possible that the author knew the identification of
"my son" and "anointed one" based on the biblical tradition. In this light
the double designation "my son the Messiah" in the Syriac version of 7 : 2 8
31. So, C-g.. Ulrich B. Mullet, in Messias una Menichentohn in jQdischen Apokatypsen
und in dex Offtnbarung Johannes (Studicn rum Neucn Testament und seiner Uimvelt 6\
Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1 9 7 1 ) 9 0 ; and John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New
Yot It: Crossroad. i 9 « 7 > 1 6 6 6 7 , 244-
31. The reading instead of '^p, as argued by the original editor of iQïfla. is a
more accurate construal of the letters: "when [God] will hclgjet the Messiah"; cf.
D. Barthélémy, in D. Barthélémy and I. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD1; Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 195S) 117-iS- Evans, "Are the 'Son* Teats at Qumran Messianic?" 1 4 1 - 5 2 argues similarly
that 4 Q 1 7 4 (col. i, lines 10-13 • 4 Q 2 4 6 (coL i, line 9-ii, line 1 ) , 4 Q 5 3 4 Org. 3 col. i, lines 1 0 - 1 1 ) ,
and 4 Q 3 6 9 (h"g-1 CoL ii, lines 6 - 1 0 ) all convey tradition that associates the Davidic descen-
dant with "sonship" in relation to God. Of these texu, 4 Q 2 4 6 ha* vpecial affinity with the
sonsflip terminology in 4 Ezra 1 3 , as the authors of both documents depict God's Son in
terms that draw heavily on the "one like a son of man" tradition in Daniel 7, see Zimmer
mann, Messianisehe Texte, 1 6 7 - 7 0 : 4 Q 2 4 6 is evidence that in pre-Christian times the "son of
man"fromDaniel 7 could already be understood as 'Son of God" ( 1 7 0 ) .
106
takes on a special importance. Second, and even more salient, is the au
thor's use of tradition from Daniel 7 without making an explicit claim
about the protagonist's Davidic pedigree. The "man from the sea" is an
imaginative interpretation of Daniel's "one as a son of man," which places
the author in a position to claim more about the nature of this eschatolog-
ical figure than in the previous visions. The interpretation of this "man" as
"my son" reflects a fusion of ideas: the heavenly "one like a son of man" in
Daniel 7 is ultimately appropriated by the author, not as the heavenly Son
of Man (as is the case in Similitudes), but as God's "Son" in whom the sym
3
bolic significance of "the man from the sea" is not lost.* The role of God's
eschatological agent in 4 Ezra 13 is thus universalized; beyond ch. 12's focus
on the Roman Empire, the judgment and destruction that he metes out
from Mt. Zion embrace all nations and inhabitants of the earth who as
semble against him (13:33-39; cf. Psalm 2). In his destruction of Israel's ene
mies, the "man" of the vision reflects what has been associated with "Mes
siah" in earlier tradition. While he is militaristic, his function as a warrior,
similar to Psalms of Solomon (17:24,35), is qualified by the fact that he ac
complishes this without conventional military instruments and draws on
tradition from Isa 11:4:
And behold, when he saw the onrush of the approaching multitude, he

neither lifted his hand nor held a spear or any weapon of war; but I saw
only how he sent forth from his mouth as it were a stream offire,and
from his lips aflamingbreath, andfromhis tongue he shot forth a storm
of sparks. (4 Ez 13:9-10)
The author's use of Isaiah 11 is more elaborate than that of Psalms of Solo
mon, The result described, however, is every bit what one could expect
from military engagement: the multitude is completely burned, leaving
only "the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke" (13:11).
Thus, the identification of "my son" and "man" from ch. 13, on the
one hand, with the "Messiah" from chs. 7 and 12, on the other hand, is im
plicit, based on tradition-historical considerations and on the prominence
of a figure in the parallel scenarios of eschatological events in the docu
ment Why is this implicit? For the author, the concept of "Messiah" re-
33. As we have seen above, the fusion between "Son of Man" and "Messiah" is more
explicit in Similitudes.
107
L O R E N T. STUCKENBRUCK
mains in the strict sense one concerned with a human designate of God
descended from David. Because the author wished to emphasize the
préexistent nature of this figure even more than in the previous visions
(esp. 13:26; cf. 13:32, as 7:28), "Messiah" was in itself no longer sufficient; he
found it necessary to use more comprehensive, far-reaching, though still
related, designations. The interplay of the human imagery in the vision
and the language of divine sonship in the interpretation feeds the author's
claim that eschatological events will involve more than simply the restora
5
tion of a Davidic kingdom. *
2 Baruch
The author of 2 Baruch composed his work soon after 4 Ezra, that is, after
the destruction of the Second Temple and perhaps at the turn of or during
the early part of the second century CE. 2 Baruch has much in common
with its predecessor, including its use of the Babylonian destruction of the
First Temple as the analogy through which to interpret the more recent
catastrophic events at the hands of Rome." There are, however, many dif
ferences in the way the author of 2 Baruch treats common themes. Not sur
prisingly, this applies also to those passages that refer to the Messiah. The
text is preserved in an important Syriac manuscript from Milan (dated
sixth to seventh century CE), which claims that the version is a translation
from Greek. The Greek is extant, however, only through a small fragment,
6
while a more secondary version exists in an Arabic version.' The original
language may have been either Hebrew or Aramaic
References to God's eschatological "Messiah" or "Anointed One" oc
cur in three groups: (1) 29:3 and 30:1 (within a section, chs. 26-30, which
describes eschatological calamities and the messianic age); (2} 39:7 and
40:1 (within chs. 35-40, a forest vision and its interpretation); and (3) 70:9
34. Despite my reservation simply ro brand "one like a man" as "die Messiah," I agree
with John Collins's observation that ch. 13 reflects a conceptual development that moves be
yond thai of chs. 7 and 1 2 ; cf. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 1 6 6 - 6 7 .
3 5 . See further Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 1 7 S .
36. See A. F. J. Klijn. "2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,"in Charieiworih. ed., Old Tes
tament Pteudepigrapha. 1 : 6 1 5 - 1 6 . The Engliih translation! given here follow those of Kujn,
with the exception that, for clarity's sake, I have preferred the term "Messiah" to his equiva
lent tendering. "Anointed One."
108
and 72:2 (within chs. 53-76, a vision of clouds and its lengthy interpreta
tion). We discuss these texts in turn.
2 Barucfi 29:3 and 30:1:

The Messiah's Revelation and Return
Chapter 26 begins with a description of eschatological "tribulation," which

is to be a lengthy process divided into twelve periods. After recounting the
worldwide calamities associated with each of these periods, the author
goes on to claim that protection will be reserved for those who are "found
1
in this land" (29:2). It is then that "the Messiah" (Syr. miyh ) "will begin to
be revealed," a motif we have already noticed in the first reference to the
Messiah in 4 Ez 7:28 and in what happens to "the Chosen One" in the Si
militudes (1 En 46:6). This disclosure ushers in an age of bliss characterized
by abundance of food, fertility, wonders, and good health for the protected
righteous ones of the land. The author has here added the Messiah to an
already known tradition of apocalyptic speculation about a period of fu
ture bliss and reward (see Book of Watchers in 1 En 10:17-22 and Book of Gi
ants in 1Q23 frgs. 1 + 6 + 2 2 ) , making his appearance the means by which
3 ?
this period is initiated.

In 30:1, a further, spectacular event is associated with the Messiah's
appearance, also referred to as a return "with glory": the resurrection of
those who "sleep in hope of him." Unlike the general resurrection of both
the righteous and wicked in 4 £27:32, this event is limited to the righteous
who "will enjoy themselves" (2 Bar 30:2), while "the souls of the wicked
will waste away" and undergo torment (30:5). The "returning" of the Mes
siah may be a hint that the author considers him to be a descendant from
David (cf. Pss Sol 18:5) and for the author probably implies that he is
38
preexistent. In 2 Baruch 2 9 - 3 0 , the presence of the Messiah is enough to
37- For a publication and discussion of this combined group of fragments, sec
L. Sluckenbruck, "1Q23 (Re-edition)," in Qumran Cave 4 XXVI; Cryptic Texts and Miscella
nea, Part 1 (cd. Stephen J. I'fann ct al.; DID 36; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000) 50-52.
3S. Scholarly opinion is divided on how to interpret the motif of the Messiah's "re
luming.™ P.-M. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch: Introduction, traduction du Syriac et
commentaire (2 vols.; Sources chrctiennes 144-45; Paris: du Cerfs. 1969) 1:416 argues that this
return is an even more future event that has in view* his resumption of glory and his resur
rection. Along these lines, iherelbre, Ulrich B. Muller has argued that this part of the sen-
109
LOREN T. STUCK EN B RUCK
generate the events described. 1"he text does not attribute any activities to
him; what happens in relation to him is ultimately regulated by the God of
Fsrael.
2 Baruch 39.7 and 40:1:

"My Messiah" as the Fountain and the Vine
In response to his despondence over the destruction of Jerusalem and

the Temple, the seer is given a vision of a forest. He sees a large forest
surrounded by "high mountains and rugged rocks" (36:2; cf. 39:2), At the
appearance of a vine watered by a great fountain, the forest is drowned
and uprooted, with the exception of one cedar tree (36:5). In a fashion
similar to the lion episode in 4 Ezra 12, the vine then speaks to the cedar,
reproving it for its wickedness, and decrees for it a period of "sleep in
distress and rest in pain" until the time for an eternal torment comes
( 2 Bar 36:7-11).
In the interpretation, the forest is interpreted as four world king-
doms (cf. Dan 7:2-8), each of which, being increasingly evil, is destroyed in
turn. The last of these kingdoms will be in power through "a multitude of
times," and the unrighteous will seek refuge in it (2 Bar 39:5-6). The dura-
tion of this kingdom is measured, and when the time of its end draws near,
"the dominion of my Messiah, which is like the fountain and the vine, will
be revealed" (39:7). The remaining cedar from the vision represents a ruler,
who — while the rest have been destroyed — is taken alive to Mt. Zion,
where a court proceeding conducted by "my Messiah" against him takes
place. After convicting this remaining archenemy of his evil deeds, the
39
Messiah "will kill him" (cf. Isa 11:4b; 4Q285 frg. 7. line 4 ). The Messiah's
dominion then commences; it is to last for a limited time, that is, "until the
tencc (i.e.. "when be return* in glory"") must be a Christian addition; cf. Mûller, Messias un
Mensihentohn, 1 4 2 - 4 4 - 1 ' should be noted, however, thai the interpretation that construes
the Messiah's "return" in relation to his préexistence derives from a consideration of the
wider narrative context (cf. 39:7) and thus contrasts with that of Pss Sol 18:5, where
préexistence is not in view (see above).
39. As is now well known, this fragment preserves a citation of Isa 10:34 *nd goes on
to describe the messianicfigure— called "the branch of David" (line 3) and "the prince of
the congregation" (line 4 ) — who slays an inimical figure ( 1 0 * 0 . 1 1 ) with language that al-
ludes to Isa 11:4-
110
40
world of corruption" is complete. The author at this point does not go on
to describe what will ultimately happen after this. As in 4 Ezra, the Mes
siah's reign is intended as a prelude to the end.
2 Baruch 70:9 and 72:2:

"The Messiah" as Slayer of Israels Enemies
The main actor in the eschatological events is God "the Most High," who
orchestrates a series of catastrophes among the nations of the earth (war,
earthquake, fire, and famine) and delivers over — expressed through a
passivum divinum — all who have escaped with their lives "into the hands
of my Servant, the Messiah" (70:9). As the following passage in 72:1-6
shows, the primary function of the Messiah is to destroy the wicked ones,
that is, those who are inimical to Israel; as in chs. 39-40, and unlike 4 Ezra
12 (and 13), nothing is said about his rescue of the righteous. However,
whereas in chs. 39-40 the Messiah convicts and slays the single ruler sym
bolized by the cedar, according to 72:2 his role is more comprehensive: he
convenes all nations, sparing some and killing others.
Three things may be noted about the Messiah's activity in this pas
sage. First, destruction is not the lot for all Gentiles, but rather is confined
41
to those nations which "ruled over" Israel. The same is similarly implied
in the way the nations are treated in Pss 50/17:34 (see above and n. 12). Sec
ond, the Messiah's profile as a warrior is not mitigated by allusions to bib
lical tradition (as in Psalms of Solomon 17 and 4 Ezra 13). The nations to
whom Israel has been subjected "will be delivered up to the sword" (2 Bar
72:6). Just who will do the killing is not specified. The "sword" is, however,
a general way of referring to conflict by material means and occurs in ear
lier apocalyptic documents as the means by which revenge is taken out
upon the wicked (cf, e.g., Jub 5:7,9; 1 En 62:13; 90:34; and 91:12; in the latter
two the sword being wielded by the righteous). Third, the Messiah will sit
down "on the throne of his kingdom" (2 Baryyi), inaugurating a reign, the
40. A similar idea, though explained differently, is found in 1 Corinthians 15, in which
Paul draws on a combination of Pss 8:6 and 110:4 to argue that the reign of Christ will last
until "all his enemies" (i.e., "every ruler and every authority and power") have been sub
jected "under his feet," before the kingdom is handed on to "God the Father" (t Cor 15:24-
28).
41. So Charlesworrh, "Messianology in the Biblical Pseudcpigrapha," 35.
Ill
LOREK T. STUCKENBRUCK
bliss during which is described in details inspired by Gen 3:16-18 and Isa
11:6-8 (2 Bar 73:10-74:4). As in 4 Ezra 7 and 12 and in 2 Baruch 30, joy ac-
companies his reign and here sums up the emotion awaiting those who
will be rewarded for their righteousness.
Conclusion
Our survey of "Messiah" in four non-Christian Jewish writings has encoun-

tered a very broad profile: an eschatological ruler, chosen by God to act de-
cisively against the wicked on behalf of the righteous of God's people Israel.
Beyond this, diversity takes over. The texts considered reveal the degree to
which this messianic speculation varied from author to author and even
within the documents themselves. There is no indication that the variation
within documents was considered problematic in the transmission of the
text, so that copyists, beyond isolated instances, seem not to have attempted
to either systematize or harmonize what passages relate about God's
anointed one. We have considered a number of motifs held in common by
more than one of these writings in relation to a "Messiah"figure:Davidic
lineage, préexistence, effects of his disclosure or coming; warrior activity;
the interpretation of certain biblical texts (esp. Psalm 2; Daniel 7; and Isaiah
n); and other designations that apply from the narrative contexts (e.g.,
"Son," "Son of Man," "Chosen One"). While in this discussion we have had
occasion to note where parallels between these traditions exist, it is striking
that the motifs arc neither found in all the literature nor, if there, handled in
the same way. Thus, beyond their immédiate literary presentations, these
compositions resist any attempt to streamline or synthesize their respective
12
ideas,* ideas that are integral to the particular concerns of the authors and
their communities and that also depend on their respective approaches to
the tradition-historical building blocks they had to hand.
Thus, at least in relation to this material, lames Charlesworth is cor-
rect to say that the question "Why did Jews not recognise Jesus was the
Messiah?" is misconstrued;'** this question easily assumes a high degree of
42. Thus the synthetic and thcmaUc overviews of ancient lewiih mesjianic ideas are
in danger of leaving J misleading impression; so, e.g.. Schùrer. The Hittory of the Jewish Peo-
ple, 2:488-554
43. Charlesworth. "From Mcssianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects," in
Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 3-35 (here 13).
112
Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Forty Judaism
c o h e r e n c e i n J e w i s h t h o u g h t , as w e l l a s p r e s u p p o s i n g t h a t e a r l y C h r i s t i a n
c o m m u n i t i e s , w h i c h thrived i n culturally a n d geographically diverse parts
o f the rvléditerrancan w o r l d , w o u l d have shared a c o m m o n understand
ing. 4 4
I find it h a r d t o i m a g i n e that Jewish readers o f D a n i e l 7, Psalms of
Solomon, o r a n y o f the other d o c u m e n t s considered here w o u l d have tried
to n e g o t i a t e t h e texts a r o u n d a basic c o r e t r a d i t i o n — n o t f o u n d i na n y o n e
o f o u r passages — a b o u t G o d ' s eschatological Messiah. W h a t w ed o h a v e
here, h o w e v e r , is a series o f d o c u m e n t s c o m p o s e d near t h e t u r n o f t h e
C o m m o n E r a b y J e w s w h ow e r e inspired b y biblical tradition a n d subse
q u e n t patterns a n d traditions o finterpretation t o express their h o p e i na
w o r l d restored t o b e i n g totally i n the c o n t r o l o f the G o do fIsrael. S u c h a
d y n a m i c h o p e d r o v e their descriptions o f eschatological events to b e "cre
a t i v e l y b i b l i c a l " ate v e r y t u r n . W e s h o u l d n o t b e s u r p r i s e d , therefore, i f fig
ures called "Messiah" p a r t i c i p a t e i n a t least s o m e o f the apocalyptic
r e f o r m u l a t i o n s o fthis h o p e .
44. I f w e a l l o w f o r s u c h d i v e r s i t y i n b o t h e a r l y C h r i s t i a n a n d J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s ,
there is n o reason t o s u p p o s e that, b e y o n d the reconciliation o f "Messiah" b y Christians t o
t h e e x p e r i e n c e s o f Jesus, J e w i s h a n d C h r i s t i a n ideas w e r e necessarily v e r y d i s t i n c t f r o m o n e
a n o t h e r ; t h e r o a d f r o m a D a v i d i c M e s s i a h i n Psalms of Solomon t o J e s u s t h e M e s s i a h i n
John's A p o c a l y p s e w h o , as t h e L a m b a n d D a v i d i c L i o n o f J u d a h , h o l d s R o m e t o a c c o u n t f o r
its o p p r e s s i o n o f t h e f a i t h f u l , is o n o n e level n o t v e r y far. B r o a d l y s p e a k i n g , J e w i s h ideas
a b o u t " M e s s i a h " c e r t a i n l y s h a p e d t h o s e o f Jesus' f o l l o w e r s . A t t h e s a m e t i m e . r»ie ways of
achieving the views that were shared a m o n g t h e texts r e v i e w e d h e r e c a n h a r d l y b e said t o b e
c o h e r e n t a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s , n o t t o m e n t i o n h o w these w e r e r e a p p l i e d a n d r e a d a p t e d b y
C h r i s t i a n s . 1 a m t h e r e f o r e less i n c l i n e d t o speak as c o n f i d e n t l y a s W i l l i a m H o r b u r y a b o u t
" T h e C o h e r e n c e o f M e s s i a n i s m " ; see H o r b u r y , Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, c s p .
64-108, w h o is v e r y a w a r e o f I h e d i v e r s i t y o f t h e sources.
l'3
PARTII
NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE
/. Howard Marshall
It w o u l d b e d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r t a k e t h e task o f d e l i n e a t i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f
Jesus as M e s s i a h in M a r k a n d M a t t h e w w i t h o u t m a k i n g s o m e c o m p a r i s o n
b e t w e e n t h e t w oG o s p e l s ; a n dt h e c o m m o n a s s u m p t i o n , w h i c h I share, that
M a t t h e w utilized M a r k in the composition o f his o w n Gospel further e n
courages such an approach. T h eterm " M e s s i a h " i n its G r e e k translation
"Christ" figures in both Gospels, seven times in M a r k a n d sixteen times i n
M a t t h e w , b u t o u r c o n c e r n is w i t h t h e b r o a d e r m o t i f o f M e s s i a n i s m i n r e l a
t i o n t o t h e d e p i c t i o n o f J e s u s . T h e r e is a g e n e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n t o d a y among
scholars that, w h i l e the G o s p e l s c o n t a i n a n u m b e r o f w o r d s o r phrases used
as d e s i g n a t i o n s o f Jesus, t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i m takes place T h r o u g h t h e
m e d i u m o f narratives i n w h i c h these designations find their p r o p e r c o n
t e x t s . T h e G o s p e l s c o n t a i n c h r i s t o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t s , b u t t h e C h r i s t o l o g y is
revealed t o t h e readers b y t h e m e d i u m o f a d e v e l o p i n g story. 1 shall argue
t h a t t h e C h r i s t o l o g y is c o n c e r n e d t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e e x t e n t w i t h w h a t J e s u s
d o e s , a n d that a variety o f m o t i f s c o n t r i b u t e t o a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h i m as
Messiah. T h e question w h e t h e r Jesus i s t h e Messiah o f Jewish expectations
gives w a y t o a consideration o f t h e w a y i n w h i c h Jesus t r a n s f o r m s these e x
pectations b y w h a t h e says a n d d o e s . A l t h o u g h there is c o n t i n u i t y w i t h O l d
T e s t a m e n t a n d J e w i s h e x p e c t a t i o n , f r o m n o w o n M e s s i a h s h i p is u n d e r s t o o d
in t e r m s o f w h a t Jesus d i d . T h u s the apparently s i m p l e Jewish q u e s t i o n " A r e
y o u the Messiah?" c a no n l y b e a n s w e r e d i n the t i m e - h o n o r e d m a n n e r o f the
p h i l o s o p h e r w h o r e s p o n d s w i t h , " W e l l , it all d e p e n d s o n w h a t y o u mean
b y . . . , " a n d i n this p a r t i c u l a r case it i s n o t s o m u c h a q u e s t i o n o f c h o o s i n g
a m o n g a set o f e x i s t i n g o p t i o n s as o f r e c o g n i z i n g that a n u m b e r o f existing
"7
I. H O W A R D MARSHALL
e l e m e n t s h a v e b e e n b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r i n a n e wb l e n d that is f u n d a m e n t a l l y
1
s h a p e d b yt h e c r e a t i v i t y o f Jesus t h e M e s s i a h .
T h e Gospel o f M a r k
The Prologue
M a r k ' s s t a r t i n g p o i n t is " t h e g o o d n e w s a b o u t Jesus t h eMessiah" (Mark

v.i),1
W h e t h e r Jesus is f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s o p e n i n g q u a s i - t i t l e as " S o n
o f G o d " is a m o o t p o i n t ; a s i g n i f i c a n t m i n o r i t y o f v e r s i o n s a n d c o m m e n t a -
tors regard t h e p h r a s e as a later a d d i t i o n , a n d I a m i n c l i n e d n o wto agree
1
with them. T h u s M a r k is c o n c e r n e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h Jesus a n d h i s s i g n i f i -
c a n c e as t h e t h e m e a n d a u t h o r o f g o o d n e w s , a fact that i si l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e
way in which h e is t h e subject o r central c o n c e r n o f virtually every
p e r i c o p c . The title is o f c o u r s e M a r k ' s o w n w o r d i n g , a n d t h e r e f o r e w h a t w e
have here is a n editorial c o m m e n t revealing hiso w n understanding.
W h a t h a p p e n s w a s p l a n n e d b y G o da n d f o r e t o l d b y h i m t h r o u g h a
p r o p h e t . I n t h e first p a r t o f a c o m p l i c a t e d c i t a t i o n , s o m e b o d y , p r e s u m a b l y
G o d himself, a n n o u n c e s that h e will send a m e s s e n g e r ahead o f " y o u " w h o
w i l l p r e p a r e y o u r w a y . I n t h e o r i g i n a l p r o p h e c y ( M a i 3:1) G o d i s s e n d i n g a
messenger t o prepare t h e w a y ,a n d then h e h i m s e l f ( G o d ) will suddenly
1. In addition to work* cited below, see M. Dc longc, Chrisiology In Context: The Ear-
liest Christian Response to Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1 9 8 X ) ; B. Witheringlon 11), The
Many Faces of the Christ: The Chtistologics of the New 7 e « i a i N r n i and Beyond INew York:
Crossroad, 1 9 9 S ) .
a. Biblical citations are normally from thcTNlV (New Testament) and NIV (Old Tes-
tament),
3. Signiftcandy, the conservative but textually well-informed TN1V relegates it to the
margin. It is retained by N KSS', but bracketed by NA. It & i accepted by R. T. Prance, IlM Gosp
of Mari (Grand Rapids: Berdmans; Carlisle: Patcmoilet, 2 0 0 2 ) 33; R. A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26
(Dallas: Word, 15*89) 6; R. H. Gundry, Mart: A Commentary on His Apology Jar the Cross
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1993) 33: refected by K. fetch, Dos Markustvangelium (2 vols.;
Freiburg; Herder, 1 9 7 6 ) 1:74; |. Marcus, Mark i-¿: A New Translation with ¡ntroduítion and
Commentary (New York: Doubleday. 2 0 0 0 ) 141. M. D. Hooker is uncertain in A Commentary
on the Cospel according to or Mark (London: A 8c C Black, 1991) 34; but in M. D. I looker,
""Who Can This Be?" The Chmlology of Mark's Gospel." in Contours of Chriitology in the
New Testament (ed. R. N. Lnngcncckcr: Grand Rapids: kerdmant, 2 0 0 5 ) 7 9 - 9 9 , she is inclined
to omission. The case against its originality is fully presented by P. M. Head. "A Text-Critical
Study of Mark l.l 'The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'" NTS37 (1991) 6 1 1 - 2 9 .
118
4
c o m e t o h i st e m p l e . H e r e in M a r k , J o h n is this m e s s e n g e r sent b y G o d . B u t
t h e r e i s a c h a n g e o f p r o n o u n f r o m " b e f o r e me" i n t h e t e x t o f M a l a c h i t o
" b e f o r e you" a n d t h u s t h e p r o p h e c y o r i g i n a l l y addressed t o t h e p e o p l e is
n o w s e e n as a d d r e s s e d t o t h e p e r s o n w h o s e w a y is t o b e p r e p a r e d b y t h e
messenger. T h e s e c o n d part o f t h e statement t h e n apparently identifies t h e
m e s s e n g e r w i t h t h e v o i c e i n t h e desert w h ocalls t o p e o p l e , " P r e p a r e t h e
w a y f o r t h e L o r d , m a k e s t r a i g h t p a t h s f o r h i m " a n d t h u s t h e p e r s o n w h o is
t o f o l l o w h i m is t h e L o r d h i m s e l f ( a s i n M a l a c h i ) . T h i s s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s
t h a t , i f t h e s t a t e m e n t is a d d r e s s e d t o J e s u s , h e i s i d e n t i f i e d a s t h e L o r d o r h e
is t h e L o r d ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f J e s u s a s L o r d is n o t t a k e n f u r t h e r a t t h i s p o i n t ,
5
a n d indeed this t e r m d o e s n o t figure to a n y great extent i n thestory. N e v
ertheless, John's o w n t e s t i m o n y is that h e is t o b e f o l l o w e d b y s o m e b o d y
more powerful than h i m s e l f a n d w o r t h y o f i m m e n s e respect. Whereas
J o h n m e r e l y b a p t i z e s w i t h w a t e r t o g r a n t f o r g i v e n e s s o f sins, Jesus w i l l b a p
tize w i t h t h e Spirit t o t h e s a m e effect. H i s p o w e r w i l l b e greater i n that h e
will d o something that corresponds to baptizing with water b u t will be
" b a p t i z i n g * w i t h t h e S p i r i t . A g a i n , t h e p o i n t is n o t e x p l i c i t l y f o l l o w e d u p i n
t h a t J e s u s is n o t r e c o r d e d i n M a r k a s b a p t i z i n g w i t h t h e S p i r i t ; t h e o n l y
b a p t i s m that w e hear o f is Jesus' o w n " b a p t i s m ' V d e a t h i n w h i c h t h e disci
ples w i l l s h a r e , a n d it is i n A c t s that w e h e a r that t h e d i s c i p l e s w i l l b e b a p
t i z e d w i t h t h e S p i r i t ( A c t s 1:5). I t i s i m p l i c i t i n J o h n ' s m e s s a g e t h a t t h o s e
w h o respond t o his message will b e ready for the Stronger O n ew h e n he
comes a n d will attach themselves toh i m .
W i t h o u t a n yi n t r o d u c t i o n , lesus a p p e a r s o n t h e scene a n d u n d e r g o e s
John's b a p t i s m . N o e x p l a n a t i o n is g i v e n as t o w h y t h e p e r s o n w h o (as w e
k n o w ) is t h e S t r o n g e r O n e w * h o w i l l b a p t i z e w i t h t h e S p i r i t s h o u l d h i m s e l f
u n d e r g o t h e b a p t i s m t h a t is m e a n t t o p r e p a r e p e o p l e f o r h i s o w n c o r n i n g ,
I n s t e a d , t h e focus i s o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e v e n t i s t r a n s f o r m e d b y a n e x p e r i
e n c e o f Jesus h i m s e l f i n w h i c h h e sees that t h e h e a v e n s a r e o p e n e d . T h e
H o l y Spirit descends u p o n h i m , s o that h e is e n d o w e d w i t h t h e Spirit, like
A. See M. J. Boda's contribution to this volume, "Figuring the Future: The Prophets
and Messiah," 68-71 above.
5. Nor does the thought of a people prepared for the coming of the Lord/|csus by the
preaching and baptism of lohn figure in the story: it is only in John 1 that we hear of people
coming to Jesus after having heard the testimony of John. And the message of Jesus repeats
that of |ohn; preaching of repentance is not superfluous because lohn has already done it
and people have already responded.
119
I. HOWARD MARSHALL
( h e M e s s i a h i n I s a 11:1-4, a n d i m p l i c i t l y e q u i p p e d ( o b a p t i z e p e o p l e w i t h t h e
Spirit.'' A h e a v e n l y voice, w h i c h can o n l y b e t h ev o i c e o f G o d , declares, " Y o u
are m y S o n , w h o m 1 love; w i t h y o u I a m well pleased." T h e heavenly voice
identifies h i m fa) w i t h t h eS o n o f G o d addressed i n P s a l m 2 w h o is t h e Mes
7
siah, a n d ( b ) w i t h t h e S e r v a n t o f G o d i n w h o m G o d d e l i g h t s ( I s a 42:1); t h i s
l a t t e r f i g u r e is a f u t u r e d e l i v e r e r a n d is t o b e u n d e r s t o o d as t h e M e s s i a h ( a l
t h o u g h t h e r e is n o r e f e r e n c e t o D a v i d i n t h i s p a r t o f I s a i a h a n d t h e t e r m
" k i n g " i s n o t u s e d ) . S i n c e t h e S e r v a n t i n I s a i a h i s a b o v e a l l a p e r s o n w h o is
g i v e n a task o f r e s t o r a t i o n t o p e r f o r m , t h e e v e n t h e r e is t o b e u n d e r s t o o d a s
an identification a n d c o m m i s s i o n i n g o f Jesus t o fulfill this role. A l t h o u g h ,
then, t h e actual t e r m " M e s s i a h " d o e s n o t figure i n t h e s t o r y , y e tt h e c o n c e p t
o f m e s s i a h s h i p is i m p l i c i t . I n f a c t , it i s t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f S o n s h i p a n d
S e r v a n t h o o d t h a t a r c e x p l i c i t . It m a y b e e n o u g h b y w a y o f e x p l a n a t i o n t o
say that f o r C h r i s t i a n s b y t h e time o f M a r k t h e e q u i v a l e n c e o f these catego
ries w a s self-evident a n d t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n t h e light o f this
f a c t , it w i l l b e a p p a r e n t t h a t , h o w e v e r J o h n m a y h a v e u n d e r s t o o d h i s r o l e ,
M a r k c o u l d a p p l y t h e M a l a c h i p r o p h e c y t o t h e c o m i n g o f Jesus, w h o , b ythe
t i m e o f t h e w r i t i n g o f t h e G o s p e l , w a s k n o w n as L o r d t o h i s followers.
T h e b a p t i s m is directly f o l l o w e d b y the testing in the wilderness. T h e

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s is t h a t T e s u s is t e s t e d t o s e e w h e t h e r h e w i l l o b e y t h e
Spirit a n d b e faithful to hiscalling. H e t r i u m p h s . *
The Story of the Mission
T h e actual w o r k o f Jesus n o w b e g i n s . H e a n n o u n c e s t h a t G o d h a d set a

9
t i m e f o r t h i n g s t o h a p p e n a n d that this t i m e h a s n o wa r r i v e d . T h e rule o f
6. The coming down can be interpreted in the light of Isa 64:1 as the tearing of the
heavens for God to come down and assist his people, and in the light of Isa 63:14 LXX. as God
coming down in the person of the Holy Spirit. Sec P. H. Y. Ryou. "Apocalyptic Opening, B*-
ittalological 'Inclusio': A Study of the Rending of the Heaven and Temple Curtain in Mark's
Gospel, with Special Reference to the Motif of 'Seeing,'" unpublished doctoral thesis, Glas-
gow. 2004.
7. For this identification sec L T. Stuckenbruck's contribution to this volume, "Mcssi
nnic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related literature of Early i-i-.i-n--.-n.' 106 above.
S. J. B. Gibson/'Icsus* Wilderness Temptation according to Mark."/SNT53 (19*4) 3-34-
9. More precisely, that God has appointed a period of time to elapse at the end of
which he will act; it has now run its course
120
G o d h a sc o m e ; this is g o o d n e w s , b u t it c o m e s t r u e o n l y f o r t h o s e w h o r e
p e n t a n d believe. T h i s a n n o u n c e m e n t c o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as s i m p l y p r o
p h e t i c , i n w h i c h a n o b s e r v e r , i n f o r m e d b y G o d , a n n o u n c e s w h a t G o d is
d o i n g . H o w e v e r , it is t o b e u n d e r s t o o d as t h e peTtormatory language o f
o n e w h o i s a u t h o r i z e d to c a r r y o u t t h e p u r p o s e o f G o d . S i n c e , w h e r e t h e
term is a c t u a l l y u s e d , t h e M e s s i a h i s t h e o n e w h o w i l l r u l e o n b e h a l f o f
G o d , t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s p r e s e n t h e r e . It w i l l b e c o n f i r m e d i n w h a t f o l
l o w s that w h a t Jesus d o e s g o e s b e y o n d m e r e a n n o u n c e m e n t b ya c o m m e n
tator o r newscaster. I n d e e d , this is t h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t . M a r k is s h o w i n g u s
w h a t a m c s s i a h , or r a t h e r , w h a t the M e s s i a h d o e s , a n d i t i s n o t w h a t w o u l d
have been expected.
It is also i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e at this stage that t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f

G o d ' s r u l e calls f o r r e p e n t a n c e as w e l l as t h e r e v i v a l o f h o p e . T h e m e s s i a n i c
h o p e i n Pss Sot 17:29 v e r y definitely includes the p u r g i n g o u t o f the sinners
a m o n g t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e as w e l l as t h e o v e r c o m i n g o f their e x t e r n a l e n e
1 0
mies. A n d it w i l l b e c o m e c l e a r t h a t Jesus' u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h i s task is p r i
marily concerned with the former."
The opening incident in Capernaum (Mark 1:21-39) states three

things that will b e illustrated a n d d e v e l o p e d in w h a t follows. First, o n e
m a i n activity o f Jesus is teaching a n d p r o c l a i m i n g . S e c o n d , his o t h e r m a i n
a c t i v i t y is t h e o v e r c o m i n g o f d e m o n s a n dillness. T h i r d , as a result o f these
1 2
t w o a c t i v i t i e s J e s u s is i d e n t i f i e d a s t h e H o l y O n e o f G o d . T h e demons
k n o w w h a t is as y e t u n k n o w n t o h u m a n b e i n g s .
a . T e a c h i n g i s o f p r i m a r y i m p o r t a n c e . I n c h s . 1-8 M a r k uses r o u g h l y
o n e - t h i r d o f h i sspace f o r teaching that c o v e r s a r i c h v a r i e t y o f topics. Jesus
is m o s t c o m m o n l y a d d r e s s e d b y f r i e n d a n d f o e a s " T e a c h e r " ; t h e r e is n o
1 5
c o r r e s p o n d i n g t e r m for a d d r e s s i n g h i m as a d o e r o f m i g h t y w o r k s . This
a c t i v i t y m a y fit i n w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e S e r v a n t o f Y a h w e h a s a
t e a c h e r ( c f . p e r h a p s I s a 50:4) b u t g i v e s t h e p e o p l e t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t h e is
a prophet. T h e teaching consists o f brief statements a n d dialogues w i t h the
exception o f t h e t w o m o r e lengthy sections i n M a r k 4 and 7:1-23.
W h a t is interesting f r o m o u rp o i n t o f v i e w is that i n t h e teaching w e
d o n o t hear again explicitly o f the rule o f G o d until M a r k 4:11,26,30; a n d
Stuckenhruck, "Messianic Ideas," 9 4 - 9 6 above.

10.
11. The call of the fishermen is not so much a call to repentance and conversion (al
though it must presuppose such a response) as a call to share in the work.
12. So also in Luke 4:14; cf. |ohn 6:69; but not in Matthew, who omits the incident.
13. Contrast Matthew's use of "Son of David" in connection with healings.
121
the t e r m " C h r i s t " w i l l n o t r e a p p e a r u n t i l M a r k 8:29. A c c o r d i n g t o M a r k 4

t h e secret o f t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d h a sb e e n g i v e n t o t h edisciples, b u t Jesus
s c a r c e l y r e f e r s t o it d i r e c t l y . T h e t w o p a r a b l e s w h e r e h e d o e s r e f e r t o t h e
k i n g d o m o f G o d ( M a r k 4 : 2 6 , 3 0 ) i n d i c a t e t h a t it is p r e s e n t a n d g r o w i n g
a n d w i l l b e c o m e p o w e r f u l b u t s a yn o t h i n g a b o u t its n a t u r e . M o r e impor
tantly, the o p e n i n g parable m u s t b e taken to indicate that the k i n g d o m
g r o w s a s t h e w o r d i s p r o c l a i m e d a n d is a c c e p t e d b y p e o p l e w h o r e s p o n d t o
it like g o o d s o i l . O n e m i g h t a s s u m e from t h e references t o Satan's k i n g d o m
that b y implication J e s u s is a d v a n c i n g t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d o r h i s o w n
k i n g d o m over against Satan's.
b. T h e o t h e r two-thirds o f Mark's space is d e v o t e d to mighty

1
w o r k s . * N o less t h a n t w e n t y p e r i c o p e s d e a l d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e
m i g h t y w o r k s d o n e b y Jesus a n d describe a m i x t u r e o f e x o r c i s m s , healings
o f illnesses a n d d i s a b i l i t i e s , a n d s o - c a l l e d n a t u r e m i r a c l e s . T h e r e is a b l e n d
o f general a c c o u n t s o f s u c h activity a n dspecific e x a m p l e s . T h e c o n t i n u i n g
story indicates that Jesus delivers p e o p l e from illness a n ddisability as well
as f r o m d e m o n i c p o s s e s s i o n . B u t t h e latter is especially p r o m i n e n t (cf.
M a r k 1:32, 3 4 , 3 9 ; 3:15; 5 : 1 5 - 1 8 ; 6 : 1 3 ; 7 : 2 6 ; t f . 9 : 3 8 ) , a n d it i n d i c a t e s forcibly
t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l d i m e n s i o n o f t h e m i s s i o n . T h i s is c l a r i f i e d b y r e f e r e n c e t o
the k i n g d o m / r u l e o f Bcelzebul, w h i c h is the p o w e r b e h i n d this aspect o f
h u m a n suffering. A t the same time sinners w h o need forgiveness a n d vic
t i m s o f t h e p o w e r o f evil a r e alike t h eobjects o f t h e m i s s i o n . T h e p r o m i s e
of forgiveness associated w i t h J o h n continues w i t h Jesus.
c. T h i s m a t e r i a l s h o w s i n d i f f e r e n t w a y s w h o Jesus i s ,o r i n w h a t c a
pacity h e is behaving.
T h e h e a l i n g o f a paralytic gives Jesus h i m s e l f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t od e

c l a r e t h a t t h e S o no f M a n h a s a u t h o r i t y t o f o r g i v e s i n s ( M a r k 2 : 1 0 ) . It is n o t
immediately clear w h y this form o f self-reference is i n t r o d u c e d at this
p o i n t . A s t h e t e x t s t a n d s , t h e e x p l i c i t p o i n t m a d e b y Jesus is t h a t t h e S o n o f
Man h a s a u t h o r i t y t o f o r g i v e s i n s o n e a r t h ; it w o u l d f o l l o w t h a t t h i s is e i
ther a n e w p o i n t about t h e p o w e r s o f t h e S o n o f M a n o r a contested o n e .
B u t t h e i m p l i c i t p o i n t w o u l d b e t h a t J e s u s is t h e S o n o f M a n , a l t h o u g h this
is s i m p l y a s s u m e d w i t h o u t a r g u m e n t . T h e s t a t e m e n t might be unpacked
14. Roughly 190 verses deal with mighty works and ion with teaching. This might sug
gest that the mighty work* are more important in Mark's narrative. However, Mark 1:17,38«
39; 6:12-13 would suggest that the mighty works are closely integrated with (he teaching, and
when Jesus himself takes the initiative, ft is to teach rather than to heal or exorcise, although
he respondi promptly to request* for healing and other mighty works.
122
as: " B u t I w a n t y o u t o k n o w t h a t I a m t h e S o n o f M a n a n d i n t h a t c a p a c i t y
h a v e a u t h o r i t y t o f o r g i v e sins." S o it m i g h t b e t h a t t h ea u t h o r i t y o f t h e S o n
o f M a n t o f o r g i v e is t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d , a n d t h e real p o i n t is t o i d e n t i t y Jesus
as t h e S o n o f M a n w h o c a n forgive sins b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g that h e c a n also
h e a l t h ep a r a l y z e d m a n . T h e r e is t h e d e e p e r p o i n t that p e r h a p s t h e healing
o f a paralyzed m a n , w h o s e situation m a y have been thought to b ea penalty
f o r s i n , c o u l d t a k e p l a c e o n l y i f h e w a s first f o r g i v e n , a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e h e a l
ing is the appropriate m e a n s o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g that h e h a s b e e n forgiven
1 5
a n d that Jesus h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o f o r g i v e .
Likewise, t h e Sabbath incident is used t o argue that t h e S o n of M a n is

l o r d o f the Sabbath ( M a r k 2:28), a n d again this l o o k s like either a piece o f
fresh n e w s a b o u t t h e S o n o fM a n o r a contested statement. I n b o t h o f these
cases t h e a u t h o r i t y t o act o n b e h a l f o f G o d is at issue.
T h e r e is a c h a i n o f references i n w h i c h people possessed b y d e m o n s
state w h o J e s u s is, initially " t h e H o l y O n e o f G o d " ( M a r k 1:24), then "the
Son of G o d " (Mark 3:11). S u c h statements s t a n d o v e r against the alternative
explanation that h e is possessed b y a n evil spirit and empowered b y
Beelzebul, a statement that Jesus counters b yr e p l y i n g that h eisd r i v i n g o u t
d e m o n s b y t h e Spirit. T h e m a n p o s s e s s e d b y L e g i o n a l s o k n o w s h i mt o b e
t h e S o n o f G o d ( M a r k 5:7), a n d t h i s is f o l l o w e d b y t h e a m b i g u o u s state
m e n t t h a t t h e L o r d h a s d o n e t h e e x o r c i s m , w h i c h is p r o m p t l y r e s t a t e d t o
say that Jesus h a s d o n e t h e e x o r c i s m ( M a r k 5:19-20). I n hisversion Luke
edits t h e statement a b o u t t h e " L o r d " t o refer specifically t o " G o d " ( L u k e
16
8:39). It c o u l d , h o w e v e r , b e d e l i b e r a t e l y a m b i g u o u s , i n w h i c h case w e
w o u l d have evidence that M a r k w a scapable o f a m b i g u i t y a n dm i g h t e x
pect to find other examples o f the s a m e thing h a p p e n i n g . T h eraising o f
lairus's d a u g h t e r again must carry the unspoken implication that t h e
p o w e r o f G o d h a s b e e n at w o r k .
A l l a l o n g w e h a v e t h e w a y i n w h i c h n e w s a b o u t Jesus spreads ( M a r k
1:28, 45) a n d i n w h i c h t h e spread o f this n e w s is actually e n c o u r a g e d b y
him (Mark 5:'9)> a s i s evidenced b y the size of the c r o w d s w h o flock t o see
a n d h e a r h i m . Y e t this is crossed b y t h e w a yi n w h i c h Jesus d o e s n o t w a n t
m i g h t y w o r k s t o b e m a d e k n o w n ( M a r k 1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26) a n d attempts,
15. C f . C . D . M a r s h a l l , Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e

U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1989) 78-90.
16. M a r k 1:34 d o e s n o t state w h a t t h e d e m o n s k n e w ; L u k e 4:41 m a k e s it e x p l i c i t that
t h e y k n e w Jesus l o b e i h e C h r i s t .
123
I. HOWARD MARSHALL
unsuccessfully, to silence the d e m o n s ( M a r k 1:25,34; 3:12). I s t h e point sim

p l y t o e m p h a s i z e ihat n o t h i n g , n o t e v e n t h e c o m m a n d o f Jesus, c o u l d p r e
vent the spread o f n e w s a b o u t t h e sensational impression that h e w a s mak
ing? A n d is t h e r e p e r h a p s a n e l e m e n t o f s e l e c t i v i t y i n t h a t Jesus is u n d e r
constraint to cover a w i d e r geographical area rather than to concentrate o n
o n e particular place ( M a r k 1:38-39)?
M o r e explicitly w e have the t w o pericopes in which the question o f
J e s u s ' i d e n t i t y is r a i s e d a n d a n s w e r e d b y h u m a n a c t o r s i n t h e s t o r y . T h e c l i
m a x at Caesarea Philippi produces strange answers. In what sense c a n Je
sus " b e "J o h n the Baptist, w h o has a p p a r e n d y just recently b e e n p u t t o
death? T h e o n l y realistic sense w o u l d s e e m t o b e : " y o u a r e s o m e b o d y like
J o h n , " w e r e it n o t t h a t H e r o d h a d v o i c e d t h e u n l i k e l y t h e s i s t h a t J o h n h a d
been resurrected. H e r o d could have been sufficiently ignorant n o t to k n o w
that Jesus w a sb o r n before J o h n w a s killed a n d c o u l d h a v e a s s u m e d that Je
sus h a dappeared o u t o f n o w h e r e . M a r k ' s readers, o f c o u r s e , w e r e better i n
f o r m e d . R. T . France speculates w h e t h e r H e r o d w a sexpressing c r u d e l y t h e
7
idea that w h a t e v e r spirit a n i m a t e d J o h n h a d n o wpassed into Jesus.' This
is c o n c e i v a b l e , s i n c e w e a l s o h a v e t h e e q u a t i o n s o f J o h n a n d J e s u s w i t h t h e
Elijah w h o w a s to return, alongside the m o r e nuanced statement in Luke
that J o h n w o u l d act " i n the spirit a n d p o w e r o f Elijah" ( L u k e 1:17), the
prophet w h o m o r e than others d i d m i g h t y works. " O n e o f the prophets"
p r e s u m a b l y m e a n s a p r o p h e t like o n e o f t h e o l d prophets. " Y o u a r e t h e
M e s s i a h " ( M a r k 8:29) i s a r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t w h a t l e s u s is d o i n g i s b r i n g i n g
i n t h e r u l e o f G o d , t h a t h e is t h e a g e n t a n d n o t t h e c o m m e n t a t o r .
B u t t h e n w h y d o e s J e s u s tell t h e m n o t t o tell a n y o n e a n d p r o c e e d t o
talk a b o u t t h e suffering a n d r e s u r r e c t i o n o f the Son of Man?" T h e best e x
planation is s t i l l t h a t M a r k e n v i s a g e s J e s u s a s c a r r y i n g o u t a p r o g r a m t h a t
differs f r o m that o f t h e M e s s i a h as traditionally u n d e r s t o o d . T h e r e f o r e , t o
b e k n o w n a s t h e M e s s i a h o r M e s s i a h d e s i g n a t e is t o i n v i t e t h e k i n d o f r e
s p o n s e t h a t w e get i n J o h n 6:14-15, w h e r e the crowds want to make h i m king
b y force. T h e r e m a y b e a trace o f this i n M a r k 6:45 and 8:9-10, w h e r e Jesus
1 9
dismisses thec r o w d s . F u r t h e r , Jesus' repeated teaching l o h i sdisciples that
h e m u s t s u f f e r , b e k i l l e d , a n d b e r a i s e d f r o m t h e d e a d is n o t t h e k i n d o f t h i n g
17.France. Gospel of Mark, 235.

18. The exclusive use of "Son of Man" in this connection is consistent throughout the
rest of the Gospel right up to Mark 14^41.
19. France. Gospel of Mark, 3 7 0 - 7 1 , is doubtful whether Mark was aware of this nuance.
124
that o n e p r o c l a i m s to the p u b l i c at large (as o p p o s e d t o threats t o g o o n

h u n g e r s t r i k e o r r e a d i n e s s t o b ea m a r t y r ) . Jesus is c o n s c i o u s o f a d i v i n e l y
a p p o i n t e d fate t h a t is h i s c h i e f c o n c e r n a n d f r o m w h i c h h em u s t n o t b e d i
verted. A s h a soften b e e n said, w h o h e is — that i s ,w h a t h ec a m e t o d o —
cannot b e understood apart f r o m the story o f his suffering, because h e
c a m e t o suffer. T h e r e f o r e , it c a n n o t b e hisa i m t o b e k n o w n s i m p l y as a per
f o r m e r o f m i g h t y w o r k s o r e v e n asa teacher. H e h a st o g r a p p l e w i t h evil a n d
b e t e m p o r a r i l y o v e r p o w e r e d b y it. O n l y disciples c a n b e g i n t o u n d e r s t a n d
t h i s , a n d i f t h e y f i n d it d i f f i c u l t t o d o s o , h o w m u c h m o r e s o w i l l t h e c r o w d s .
I f w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h t h e M e s s i a h o f J e w i s h e x p e c t a t i o n , c o u l d Jesus
h a v e d e f e n d e d f r o m S c r i p t u r e t h e thesis that t h e Messiah m u s t suffer? O n e
p o s s i b i l i t y l i e s i n t h e v i e w e s p o u s e d b y F. J . M a t e r a t h a t c e r t a i n o f t h e
P s a l m s w e r e seen as messianic, i n c l u d i n g those w h i c h refer t o o p p o s i t i o n
t o t h e p s a l m i s t a n d h i s s u f f e r i n g s . P s a l m 22 i n p a r t i c u l a r i s a p s a l m o f D a
v i d a n d c o u l d h a v e b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h i s w a y , a s i n d e e d it w a s l a t e r u n
derstood b y 1 Clement a n d Justin. 2 0
A n o t h e r route that w a s certainly fol
lowed lay in the identification o f the Messiah w i t h other O l d Testament
figures. M a r k later m a k e s it clear that t h e r e j e c t i o n a n d suffering o f Jesus
are t o b e s e e n as t y p i f i e d b y o r fulfilling t h e p i c t u r e s o f t h e rejected s t o n e i n
P s a l m IL8, a n d t h e S e r v a n t i n I s a i a h 53. B u t h e r e J e s u s b r i n g s t h e S o n o f
Man back into t h e picture.
C e r t a i n l y " S o n o f M a n " i n M a r k 8:31 w o u l d m a k e excellent sense

s i m p l y as a s e l f - r e f e r e n c e i n a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e a n " I " s t a t e m e n t w o u l d b e
embarrassing. 2 1
Nevertheless, i nM a r k 9:12 [esus refers to what is written
a b o u t t h e S o n o f M a n , that h em u s t suffer. G r a n t e d t h a t there isn o clear
statement about a S o n o f M a n suffering i n the O l d Testament, w e d o
h a v e t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n D a n 7:5, 7, 19, 21, 25, w h e r e e v e n t u a l l y t h e s a i n t s
are identified a s t h ep r e y o f t h e beasts a n d t h e kings represented b y
t h e m ; the implicit identification o fthe figure like a S o no fM a n w i t h the
saints ( D a n 7:14-18 and 27) c o u l d suggest that t h e S o n o f M a n e n d u r e s
o p p r e s s i o n , " a n d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f r e s u r r e c t i o n i n D a n i e l 12 c o u l d l e a d
20. E J . M a t e r a , The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15 ( C h i c o ,

CA: S c h o l a r s , 1982) i27-3s.The a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e use o f P s a l m s 22 a n d 69 is, o f
c o u r s e , that Jesus i s seen as t h e r i g h t e o u s sufferer.
2.1. T h i s s t a t e m e n t is g e n e r a l l y t a k e n t o b e a n e x a m p l e o f i n d i r e c t s p e e c h , as it c e r
t a i n l y is taken t o b e i n M a t t h e w . N e v e r t h e l e s s , it is p e r f e c t l y i n t e l l i g i b l e as direct s p e e c h ( s o
H . B . S w e t e , The Gospel according to St Mark f L o n d o n : M a c m i t l a n , 1898) 168; M a r k 9:9 I s n o t
a parallel because it i* a c o m m a n d ) , a n d i s p e r h a p s b e t t e r s o u n d e r s t o o d .
125
to the interpretation t h a t t h e S o n o f M a n is k i l l e d a n d y e t r i s e s f r o m t h e
2 3
dead to reign (along with the other oppressed saints).
B u t i f w e find s u f f e r i n g p r e s e n t i n D a n i e l 7, t h e n w e h a v e o p e n e d u p
the w a y to a recognition that Jesus'use o f " S o n o f M a n " in c o n n e c t i o n with
h i s s u f f e r i n g s is m o r e t h a n a e u p h e m i s t i c w a y o f s p e a k i n g a b o u t himself,
t h a t it e x p r e s s e s h i s c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h a t h e f u l f i l l s t h i s s p e c i f i c r o l e w i t h a l l
t h a t it i n v o l v e s .
We m u s t n o t m a k e t h e m i s t a k e o f t h i n k i n g that f o r M a r k ( o r e v e n , as
1 w o u l d h o l d , f o r the historical Jesus) the realization that Jesus m u s t suffer
1 4
did n o t c o m e about until halfway through t h e story. F o r M a r k it is a l
ready there in M a r k 2:20; 3:6; 6:14-29. T h e r e have been hints o f death ear
lier, b u t n o w f o r t h e first t i m e it b e c o m e s a n d r e m a i n s t h e m a t i c . J e s u s is
u n d e r s t o o d as seeing h i m s e l f as t h e suffering S o n o f M a n w h o u n d e r s t a n d s
h i s r o l e all t h e m o r e clearly i n t h e light o f t h e P s a l m s a n d Isaiah 53.
W h e t h e r w e u n d e r s t a n d t h e statements as a u t h e n t i c or vaticinia ex
eventu, i t is e n t i r e l y c o m p r e h e n s i b l e o n e i t h e r s c e n a r i o t h a t J e s u s s h o u l d b e
represented as f o r e k n o w i n g w h a t w a s t o h a p p e n t o h i m a n d as f i n d i n g t h e
b a s i s f o r it i n S c r i p t u r e .
F o l l o w i n g t h e p r o p h e c y o f Jesus' s u f f e r i n g a n d r e s u r r e c t i o n , it is p s y
c h o l o g i c a l l y f i t t i n g t h a t t h e r e is a p r o m i s e o f t h e f u t u r e c o m i n g o f t h e S o n
of M a n in the glory o f his F a t h e r (Mark 8:38). T h i s assumes that t h e S o n o f
M a n i s a / t h e S o n o f G o d . P a r a l l e l w i t h t h i s is t h e p r o p h e c y o f t h e k i n g d o m
of G o d coming with p o w e r after t h e suffering a n d w e a k n e s s , a n d then
t h e r e is a p r o l c p t i e r e v e l a t i o n o f J e s u s a s t h e S o n o f M a n i n g l o r y a s a c o n
f i r m a t i o n t h a t t h e p r o m i s e w i l l b e f u l f i l l e d . It i s a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t t h e b a p
tismal statement is r e p e a t e d a n d t h a i it a f f i r m s J e s u s a s t h e S o n o f G o d
r a t h e r t h a n a s t h e M e s s i a h ( M a r k 9:7); implicitly h e is d i s t i n g u i s h e d from
3 5
Elijah a n d M o s e s . B y accepting the w a y o f t h e S o n o f M a n , Jesus h a s
committed himself to o b e y the will o f G o d , a n d G o d confirms a n d u p
h o l d s h i m as h i s o b e d i e n t S o n .
22. M . D . H o o k e r . The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term
"Son of Man" and its Use in St Mark's Gospel ( L o n d o n : S F C K . 1967).
23. C f . ('.. M . T u c k e t t , Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Fol
lowers { L o u i s v i l l e : W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n K n o x . 2001) na-13.
24. O u r c o n c e r n i n t h i s essay is p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e C h r i s t o l o g y o f the l-lvangclists a n d
n o t w i t h the historical q u e s t i o n o f h o w lesus u n d e r s t o o d h i m s e l f a n d h i s destiny.
2% O e a r l y . f o r M a r k . J e s u s is s u p e r i o r t o M o s e s a n d E l i j a h .
126
The Way to the Cross
T h e n e x t little section f o r b i d d i n g t h e rejection o f a n o n - d i s c i p l e casting

o u t d e m o n s a s s u m e s t h a t s u c h a p e r s o n m u s t b e o n t h es i d e o f " u s , " a n d it
states t h a t t o g i v e a d i s c i p l e a c u po f w a t e r " i n m y n a m e " b e c a u s e y o u b e
l o n g to the Messiah will lead to reward ( M a r k 9:38-41). H e r e , t h e n , Jesus is
implicitly identified as t h e Messiah. B y this statement Jesus implicitly ac
2 6
cepts w h a t Peter h a dconfessed at Caesarea P h i l i p p i . It c o u l d b e t h a t t h e
usage here is influenced b y post-resurrection usage, w h e n " S o n o f M a n "
w o u l d h a v e been replaced b y " C h r i s t " (cf. 1 P e l 4:16).
T h e conversation with the rich m a n ( M a r k 10:17-31) implies that le-
sus is t h e representative o f G o d i n that h e can formulate commandments
that s t a n d a l o n g s i d e t h e l a w .D e s p i t e t h e fact that it w a s G o dw h o g a v e
2 7
c o m m a n d m e n t s , nevertheless here Jesus authoritatively d o e s s o .
I n t h ec o n t e x t o f the s t o r y asa w h o l e , James's a n d J o h n ' s a s s u m p t i o n

that t h e S o n o f M a n w i l l sit i n g l o r y ( M a r k 10:35-45) i s based o n Mark 8:38
w i t h i t s r e f e r e n c e t o D a n i e l 7. T h e y a l s o h a v e t o l e a r n , n o t s o m u c h t h a t t h e
S o n o f M a n is t o d i e ( t h e y h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n t o l d t h a t ) , b u t t h a t h i s d e a t h i s
a v o l u n t a r y piece o f service t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e m a n y a r e r a n s o m e d . T h e
S e r v a n t m o t i f e m e r g e s h e r e , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r I s a i a h 53 i s t h e d i r e c t
background.
B a r t i m a e u s addresses Jesus in a n e w w a y as S o n o f D a v i d , which

looks messianic (Mark 10:47-48). T h i s i s t h e first s u c h a d d r e s s f r o m a n
o u t s i d e r . T h e call f o r h e a l i n g m a y s i m p l y b e b e c a u s e Jesus a l r e a d y h a s a
reputation (cf. t h e Z a c c h a e u s s t o r y f o r h i s f a m e having gone ahead of
h i m ) , b u t t h i s d o e s n o t e x p l a i n t h e title. It m a y b e s i m p l y o f a p i e c e with
the v a r i e d d e m o n i c cries, w h i c h express t h ea u t h o r i t y o f Jesus u s i n g differ
e n t i d i o m s . T h e r e is a l s o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n f l u e n c e from a tradition of
D a v i d ' s s o n , S o l o m o n , as a m i r a c l e w o r k e r . " T h e incident o f t h ecolt m a y
a g a i n i d e n t i f y Jesus as " L o r d " ( M a r k 11:1-3); t h i s could hardly be the m e a n
ing f o rt h e audience i n t h e village, a n d a reference t o G o d is possible. T h i s
26. A l t h o u g h Jesus d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y a c k n o w l e d g e Peter's s t a t e m e n t a n d p r o c e e d e d t o

speak i n t e r m s o f the S o n o f M a n , t h e r e a r e n o g r o u n d s t o s u p p o s e that h e rejected the i d e n
t i f i c a t i o n o f h i r a as t h e M e s s i a h .
27. C f - G u n d r y . Mark, 560-61. 1 o w e this p o i n t t o a n u n p u b l i s h e d p a p e r b y S . I.
Gathercole.
?S. K . Merger, " D i e k ö n i g l i c h e r . M e s s i a s t r a d i t i o n e n des N e u e n 'lestameiits," NTS TO
(»973-745 »-42-
127
I. HOWARD MARSHALL
i s p e r h a p s s u p p o r t e d b y M a r k 11:9 w h e r e t h e c r o w d s s a l u t e t h e o n e who
w
c o m e s i nt h e n a m e o f the L o r d , that is, s i m p l y w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y o f G o d .
M a r k is u n l i k e l y t o b e s a y i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e m i s t a k e n b e c a u s e i n fact i t w a s
the L o r d himself c o m i n g rather than s o m e b o d y "in his name.'* T h e c o m i n g
o f Jesus a n d t h e c o m i n g o fthe k i n g d o m s t a n d i n parallel; e a c h interprets
the other.
'Ihe repeated use o f D a v i d f o r m s the b a c k g r o u n d o roccasion for t h e

q u e s t i o n i n M a r k 12:35-37. I s t h e M e s s i a h t h e S o n o f D a v i d ? W e c a n a s s u m e
that t h e D a v i d i c descent o f Jesus w a staken f o rg r a n t e d b yt h e t i m e o f
Mark. Moreover, t h e passage cannot b e intended as a denial o f
H a r t i m a e u s ' s c o n f e s s i o n . T h e p r o b l e m isr a t h e r that the q u e s t i o n p o s e d is
n o t " H o w can D a v i d call his s o n L o r d ? " b u t r a t h e r " H o w can D a v i d ' s L o r d
be his son?" T h e a n s w e r t ot h e f o r m e r question w o u l d b e that G o d exalted
his s o n ; a na n s w e r t ot h e second c o u l d b ethat t h e L o r d w h o c a m e from
h e a v e n b e c a m e i n c a r n a t e b yM a r y a n d entered D a v i d ' s line b y a d o p t i o n
t h r o u g h J o s e p h . B u t this ish a r d l y e v e n h i n t e d ati n M a r k , w h o n e v e r m e n
tions Joseph.
M a r k 13 l o o k s f o r w a r d t o t h e c o m i n g o f s o m e b o d y a f t e r a p e r i o d o f
horror. People are l o o k i n g f o r w a r d t ot h e c o m i n g o f the Messiah, and false
p r o p h e t s w i l l m a k e f a l s e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s o f h i m ( M a r k 13:21-22). A t l a s t t h e
S o n o f M a n w i l l c o m e ( M a r k i3:26-27),and i t is i m p l i c i t t h a t h e is t h e Mes
siah. T h e u s eo f S o n o f M a n i s appropriate here, because t h e Daniel 7
p r o p h e c y is b e i n g a l l u d e d t o ; t h e r e is n o O l d T e s t a m e n t r e f e r e n c e t o a sec
o n d c o m i n g o r r e t u r n o f t h e M e s s i a h . N o o n e k n o w s w h e n it w i l l happen,
not e v e n angels o r theS o n , a statement that does n o tnecessarily identify
J e s u s a s t h e S o n , b u t t h e c o n t e x t d e m a n d s t h a t h e i s ( M a r k 13:32). T h e
p o i n t is t h a i t h e p e r s o n c l o s e s t t o t h e F a t h e r d o e s n o t k n o w .
A t t h e trial o f Jesus, a c l a i m t od e s t r o y the t e m p l e a n d b u i l d another

in three d a y s isa t t r i b u t e d t o h i m , b u t falsely, a c o m m e n t that m a y b e i n
t e n d e d l od e n y that h e said this, o r t oi m p l y t h a t this w a s a m i s u n d e r s t o o d
or m u d d l e d statement ( M a r k 14:57-58). I n t h e l i g h t o f 2 S a m 7:13 ( c f . Z e c h
6:12-13), a s t a k e n u p i n 4 Q F l o r i I e g i u r n , r e b u i l d i n g t h e t e m p l e i s a t a s k that
3 0
w o u l d b eundertaken b ytheMessiah. T h e r e p o r t o f w h a t Jesus is s u p
p o s e d t o h a v e said i sf o l l o w e d u p b y t h e h i g h priest's q u e s t i o n t oJesus c o n
c e r n i n g w h e t h e r h e is t h e M e s s i a h a n d t h e S o n o f G o d . J e s u s r e p l i e s Y e s ( t o
29. That )csu* hu this authority is implied in Mark 11:27-33.

30. O. Detr. What Do We Know about Jesus? (London: SCM, 1968) 87-92.
128
b o t h questions) a n d then adds that they will see t h e S o n o f M a n at t h e

right h a n d o f G o d and corning with the clouds ( M a r k 14:61-62). H e r e Jesus
uses t h e phrase that h e h a s frequently u s e d a n d seems to prefer; h e adds a
p o i n t t h a t w i l l c o n f i r m a n d v i n d i c a t e w h a t h e h a s s a i d ; a n d t h e r e is a n i m -
plied threat o f j u d g m e n t .
P i l a t e ' s c o n c e r n i s w h e t h e r h e is t h e k i n g o f t h e J e w s ( M a r k 15:2). T h e
i m p l i c a t i o n is that t h e Jewish authorities told Pilate that this w a s w h a t Je-
sus c l a i m e d t o b e . Jesus' r e p l y is a p p a r e n t l y , " S o y o usay. It's n o t h o w I
w o u l d p u t it." T h e p r i e s t s a n d o t h e r s u n d e r s t a n d t h i s as a p a r a p h r a s e o f
"Messiah" (Mark 15:32).
Finally, t h e c e n t u r i o n u n d e r s t a n d s Jesus t o b e t h e S o n o f G o d ( M a r k
15:39). I t s e e m s clear that for M a r k this m e a n s "the S o n o f G o d , " n o t "a S o n
o f G o d , " a n d t h a t it is r e l a t e d t o t h e r e n d i n g o f t h e v e i l o f t h e t e m p l e i n M a r k
15:38 a s a n acted p a r a b l e o f t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e t e m p l e . I n its c o n t e x t , t h e
r e n d i n g o f t h e veil has b e e n u n d e r s t o o d as t h e acto f G o d o r o f Jesus, b u te i -
1
t h e r w a y it is p r o b a b l y t o b e s e e n as p a r t o f t h e v i n d i c a t i o n o f J e s u s . *
N o further Christology follows. T h e account o f thee m p t y t o m b with

w h i c h t h e G o s p e l , as w e h a v e it, c o n c l u d e s a n n o u n c e s t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n o f
Jesus t h e N a z a r e n e , w h o w i l l m e e t his disciples i n Galilee, a n d n o t h i n g
3 2
more.
Putting Things Together
1. O n e t h i n g t h a t s t a n d s o u t i m m e d i a t e l y i s t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f t h e t h r e e c o n -
cepts o f Messiah/Christ, S o n o f M a n , a n d S o n o f G o d . O t h e r associated
concepts are H o l y O n e o f G o d ; S o n o f David; King; Lord; Servant of
Y a h w e h ; Stone; a n d R i g h t e o u s Sufferer.
T h e s e concepts arealready interrelated i n t h e O l d Testament. T h i s is

m o s t o b v i o u s l y t h e case w i t h K i n g a n d M e s s i a h . F u r t h e r , t h e p r i v i l e g e o f
t h e K i n g i s t h a t h e is t r e a t e d b y G o d a s h i s S o n . T h e D a n i e l i c " o n e like a s o n
31. Sec France, Gospel ofMark, 656-5S, and Gundry, Mark, 949-51. for these contrast-
ing views. H. L Chronis, "The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 1537-39»" IBL 101
'.1982} 97-i 14, is followed by Tuckett, Christology, 116, who holds that the rending of the veil
symbolizes the way ¡11 which God is now visible, but visible "precisely in thefigureof the
dead Jesus hanging on a cross"; this seems rather too subtle.
32.1 tend to agree with those scholars who think that Mark 16:8 is not the intended
end of the Gospel.
129
1. HOWARD MARSHALL
o f m a n " h a s messianic features, a n d t h e identification o f t h e S o no f M a n

with the Messiah c a n b e seen i n s o m e o f the intertestamental literature."
T h e S e r v a n t o f Y a h w e h h a s s o m e k i n g l y f e a t u r e s ( I s a 42:1-4).
2. M a r k h i m s e l f i d e n t i f i e s J e s u s a s " C h r i s t " ( M a r k 1:1), w h i c h i n t h e
light o f w h a t f o l l o w s m u s t retain titular sense. T h i s i sc o n f i r m e d a n d i l l u
m i n a t e d as t h e s t o r y d e v e l o p s . Peter r e c o g n i z e s that this is s o after a series
o f events. Jesus i m p l i c i t l y accepts t h e d e s i g n a t i o n w h e n h e talks t oh i s dis
c i p l e s a b o u t t h e m s e l v e s b e i n g a t t a c h e d t o h i m a s t h e M e s s i a h ( M a r k 9:41).
H e engages i n dispute w i t h the scribes over the inadequate understanding
o f t h e M e s s i a h as S o n o f D a v i d , a n d seeing t h e M e s s i a h as a n exalted figure.
H e k n o w s o f the hope o f a future c o m i n g o f theChrist a n d o f thepossibil
i t y o f false c l a i m a n t s . T h e h i g h p r i e s t is a w a r e o f t h e s p e c u l a t i o n t h a t J e s u s
is t h e M e s s i a h a n d a s k s h i m p o i n t b l a n k w h e t h e r h e i s . J e s u s s a y s Y e s a n d
adds a sign b yw h i c h they will k n o w . N o t surprisingly, then, the members
o f t h e S a n h e d r i n scoff at h i m o n t h e cross, i m p l y i n g that h e c a n n o t b e t h e
M e s s i a h o r else h e w o u l d c o m e d o w n . T h e i r scoffing m a k e s it clear that
they (and Mark) understand Messiah t o mean king o f Israel. Conse
quently, references t o Jesus as a k i n g b e l o n g in this circle o f ideas. H o w e v e r ,
the t e r m is u s e d o f J e s u s o n l y i n t h e t r i a l b e f o r e Pilate a n d t h e n i n t h e
t i t u l u s o n t h e c r o s s . It is t h e R o m a n e q u i v a l e n t f o r M e s s i a h . A n d h e r e i t i s
m i s u n d e r s t o o d i n a political sense.
What Jesus d o e s a n d w h a t h a p p e n s t o h i m is crucial in showing

h o w t h e t e r m " M e s s i a h " i st ob e u n d e r s t o o d . H e a n n o u n c e s t h e d a w n o f
the k i n g d o m o f G o d , a n d b y his proclamation a n d his deeds h e i n a u g u
rates it. H e h a s b e e n c o m m i s s i o n e d b y G o dt o d os o a n d e q u i p p e d w i t h
the Spirit. H e c a n t h e r e f o r e s p e a k w i t h a u t h o r i t y a n da l s o act w i t h t h ed i
v i n e a u t h o r i t y that o v e r c o m e s d e m o n s , disease, a n d o t h e r f o r m s o f evil.
H e is e n g a g e d i na conflict w i t h Satan a n d w i t h his agents, b o t h d e m o n i c
a n d h u m a n . H e c o m e s t o r e s c u e t h e v i c t i m s o f s i n a n d t o call s i n n e r s t o
r e p e n t . H e r e c o g n i z e s t h a t h e is c a l l e d t o s u f f e r , b u t h e s e e s t h i s s u f f e r i n g
as t h e m e a n s o f r a n s o m i n g t h e m a n y a n d h e k n o w s t h a i G o d w i l l v i n d i
cate h i m . A s part o f h i s task h e w i l l b r i n g t h e t e m p l e t o a ne n d a n d w i l l
create a n e w o n e , n o d o u b t u n d e r s t o o d b y M a r k as t h e c h u r c h . A l l o f t h i s
33. So rightly W. D. Davi«and D. C. Allison \r.,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 3:531,
draw attention to the melding of the figures of the Messiah and Son ol Man in 4 Ezra 13 and
1 Enoch 4?. 52.1 would argue that this is already true in Daniel 7.
130
brings t o a climax a n d to fulfillment what w a sa d u m b r a t e d a n d p r o p h e

sied i n Scripture.
3. T h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f J e s u s a s t h e S o n i s p o w e r f u l l y p r e s e n t . U n
less t h e r e w a s s o m e t h i n g else c l i m a c t i c i n t h e p u t a t i v e l o s t e n d i n g , t h e t w i n
d e s i g n a t i o n s o f M e s s i a h / K i n g o f Israel a n d S o no f G o d d o m i n a t e t h e c r u
3 4
cifixion. It s e e m s t h a t M a r k r e c o g n i z e s t h e t w o t e r m s " M e s s i a h " a n d
" S o n o f G o d " a s e s s e n t i a l l y c o n v e y i n g t h e s a m e r o l e , a n d t h e r e f o r e it m a y
3 5
b e w r o n g to prioritize either o n e over the other. It is a l s o l i k e l y that,
whatever their origins a n d their meanings f o rc o n t e m p o r a r y Judaism, for
M a r k t h e y have their Christian m e a n i n g , w h i c h developed i n t h e light o f
the p e r s o n a n d career o f Jesus.
4. N e g a t i v e l y , t h e r e h a s b e e n n o e v i d e n c e t h a t p r i e s t l y c o n c e p t i o n s
p l a y a p a r t i n t h e G o s p e l . It is t r u e t h a t J e s u s w i l l b r i n g t h e t e m p l e t o a n
e n d a n d build another o n e , b u t even in the account o f the rending o f the
veil t h e m o t i f o f h i m as h i g h priest o r priest d o e s n o t arise. Jesus is t h e d e
s t r o y e r a n d b u i l d e r o f a t e m p l e , n o t the officiant w i t h i n o n e .T h e t e r m
"Christ" does n o t appear to have a priestly nuance.
5. T h e e n i g m a t i c f a c t o r i s t h e u s e o f t h e t e r m " S o n o f M a n . " O n e p o s
sible u n d e r s t a n d i n g is t h a t it is n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a s e l f - d e s i g n a t i o n that
a d d s v e r y little t o t h e p i c t u r e . T h a t is t o say, i f i n e v e r y case w h e r e t h e t e r m
is u s e d w e w e r e s i m p l y t o s u b s t i t u t e "I," t h e r e m i g h t b e n o loss o f m e a n i n g .
Jesus h a sa u t h o r i t y t o f o r g i v e sins a n do v e r t h e s a b b a t h . H e w i l l suffer a n d
be rejected. H e will b e a s h a m e d o f those w h o a r e a s h a m e d o f h i m w h e n h e
c o m e s i n h i s Father's g l o r y . H e c a m e t o s e r v e a n d g i v e h i s life. H e w i l l b e
betrayed. H e will c o m e in theclouds w i t h p o w e r a n dg l o r y a n d gather his
chosen people. H i s judges will see h i m sitting o n t h e right h a n d o f G o d
a n d c o m i n g w i t h t h e c l o u d s . N o t h i n g , it c a n b e a r g u e d , is a d d e d t o t h e
force o f t h e s e u t t e r a n c e s b y t h e t e r m " S o n o f M a n " w h i c h is a b l a n d self-
d e s i g n a t i o n . T h e fact that n o b o d y e x c e p t Jesus uses t h e t e r m f i n d s its o n l y
.14. He cannot be called the Son of Man because this is recognized as a self-
designation.
3 5 . B. Gerhardsson, "The Christology of Matthew," in Who Do You Say That I Am? Es
says on Christology (ed. M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer; Louisville; Westminster John Knox,
1999) 1 4 - 3 2 . says; "All groups needed a cluster of appellations to identify Jesus. The different
high designations were taken front different contexts and may originally have had different
points, but when applied to Jesus they became pliant and shaded into one another to suit
their new function. In the long run they became essentially synonymous; all of them signify
(he 'whole' Jesus" (20).
131
viable e x p l a n a t i o n in t h e fact that this w a so r i g i n a l l y a n A r a m a i c i d i o m f o r

5
r e f e r r i n g t o o n e s e l f a n d t h a t J e s u s u s e d it i n t h i s w a y . *
H o w e v e r , there are references to h i m "coming," especially coming

with the clouds, a n d people w h o k n o w the b o o k o f Daniel will recognize
a n a l l u s i o n t h a t c a n c o m e o n l y f r o m t h e r e i n w h i c h t h e r e is a r e f e r e n c e to
a f i g u r e like a m a n .A n d s o t h e y w i l l d e d u c e that lesus c a n s a ythese things
about himself in virtue o f his being t h e fulfillment o f what was under
s t o o d as a p r o p h e c y . It p r e s u m a b l y f o l l o w s , t h e n , t h a t w h a t e v e r e l s e is s a i d
a b o u t t h i s S o n o f M a n is t r u e o f J e s u s . T h e p u z z l e is t h e p r e s e n c e o f s a y
ings that refer t o t h e S o n o f M a n ' s a u t h o r i t y o n earth a n d his suffering,
w h e r e t h e D a n i e l i c b a c k g r o u n d is n o t o b v i o u s . A l t h o u g h I h a v e claimed
a b o v e that t h e o p p r e s s i o n o f t h e saints i n Daniel 7 c o u l d h a v e l e d to a rec
ognition o f the suffering o f the S o n o f M a n , his function in forgiveness
a n d as l o r d o f t h e s a b b a t h h a s n o clear basis i n D a n i e l . H e r e il w o u l d s e e m
t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S o n o f M a n ( D a n 7:14) is b e i n g extrapolated i n a
new way.
I f J e s u s b e g a n b y u s i n g i t a s a s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n , i t w o u l d fit i n w i t h a
distaste f o r titles a n d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s s e e n i n t h e G o s p e l . It h a d t h e a d v a n
tage o f being a m b i g u o u s , especially if the apocalyptic u n d e r s t a n d i n g w a s
not a w e l l - k n o w n , c o m m o n p l a c e o n e . I therefore continue to maintain
that w e m u s t r e c o g n i z e the fact that t h e usage in t h e G o s p e l s has a d o u b l e
o r i g i n i n t h e u s e o f " S o n o f M a n " as a self-reference a n d a s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f
a figure based o n Daniel 7a n d kept alive i n 4 Ezra a n d 1 Enoch. Some m a y
find t h i s c o i n c i d e n c e o f s o u r c e s u n l i k e l y , b u t t h e r e is n o m o r e convincing
explanation.
" S o n o f M a n " is u s e d a s a m e s s i a n i c t e r m . I f t h e t e r m w a s u n d e r s t o o d
to b e m e s s i a n i c i n its O l d T e s t a m e n t u s a g e , t h e n Jesus o r t h e e a r l y c h u r c h
c o u l d u s e it i n t h i s w a y . T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f D a n i e l 7 is d i s p u t e d , b u t t h e
figure like a S o n o f M a n is certainly g i v e n d o m i n i o n a n d a k i n g d o m from
G o d , a n d t h i s k i n g d o m is g i v e n a s a p o s s e s s i o n t o t h e s a i n t s o f t h e M o s t
H i g h f o r e v e r a f t e r t h e i r f o e s h a v e b e e n d e f e a t e d . B u t t h i s is p r e c i s e l y what
is s a i d e l s e w h e r e a b o u t t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d a n d t h e M e s s i a h . Then, once
J e s u s u s e d it o f h i m s e l f , i t w o u l d b e c o m e m e s s i a n i c f o r h i s f o l l o w e r s b c -
36. For this type of explanation, see D. R. A. Hare. Murk (Louisville: Westminster
lohn Knox. 1996) 37: "Mark apparently regards it as a mysterious name that Jesus uses when
he wants 10 speak indirectly (modestly) about his present vocation, anticipated suffering,
and future glory." 1 lare, however, is prepared to allow that lesus may have been influenced b
Daniel 7.
132
cause t h e r e w o u l d b ea n a t u r a l t e n d e n c y t o equate t h e v a r i o u s t e r m s u s e d
3 7
of him.
The q u e s t i o n " A r ey o u t h e S o n o f M a n ? " does n o t arise, partly b e
cause n o b o d y else e v e r uses the phrase. T h i s m u s t b e significant. A g a i n , t h e
use o f" L o r d " d o e s n o t arise, because it i ss i m p l y a tide o frespect i n t h e
G o s p e l s , a n d it w o u l d s e e m likely that they a r e b e i n g faithful historically i n
this respect.
6. O u t o f a l l t h i s a r i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f J e s u s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p t o G o d . F o r
M a r k t h e f u n d a m e n t a l s are i n p o s i t i o n w i t h t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o fJesus b y
God as h i s S o n , t h e bearer o f t h e Spirit, d e s t i n e d t o sitat h i s r i g h t h a n d ,
p r o l e p t i c a l l y s e e n i n h e a v e n l y g l o r y a t t h e t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n . H e is s u p e r i o r t o
a n g e l s , a n d t h e r e a r e h i n t s o f h i s s h a r i n g t h e l o r d s h i p o f G o d . T h e r e is n o
d i s c u s s i o n a s t o w h e t h e r Jesus is a h u m a n b e i n g . I t ist a k e n f o rg r a n t e d t h a t
t h i s is w h a t h eis, a n d this isn o t s e e n t o b ei n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h h i s r o l e a n d
status. A t this stage i nchristological thinking there w o u l d appear to b e n o
threats t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h i m as a m a n a n d therefore n o n e e d t o d e
fend i t . "
I n s u m m a r y , t h e n , w e h a v e a c o n c e p t o f Jesus as t h e o n e w h o is u n
d e r s t o o d especially i n t h e light o f t h e O l dT e s t a m e n t as C h r i s t , S o n o f G o d ,
a n d S o no f M a n ; these terms are m u t u a l l y interpretative, a n dtheir signifi
cance u n d e r g o e s a p r o f o u n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n t h e light o f his actual ca
3 9
reer a n d b e h a v i o r .
37.! d o n o t accept t h e v i e w that o n l y those S o n o f M a n s a y i n g s w h i c h m a k e state

m e n t s that c o u l d b e t r u e o f p e o p l e i n g e n e r a l ( n o t necessarily all p e o p l e ) a n d hence o f lesus
i n p a r t i c u l a r g o back t o | e s u s h i m s e l f , a n d that Jesus d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d h i m s e l f i n t h e l i g h t
o f D a n i e l 7 ( s o e s p e c i a l l y M . C a s e y , Son of Man ( L o n d o n : S P C K , 19791)- E v e n i f this v i e w
w e r e c o r r e c t , M a r k u n d e r s t o o d s o m e o r all o f t h e S o n o f M a n s a y i n g s i n t e r m s o f t h e
Danielic S o n o f M a n .
38. F o r a s u m m a r y o f t h e e v i d e n c e , sec R . P. M a r t i n , Mark: Evangelist and Vieologian
( E x e t e r : P a t e r n o s t e r , 1972) 107-8,12O-26.
39. O n t h e r n c s s i a n i s m o f M a r k , see f u r t h e r E . K . B r o a d h c a d , Naming lesus: Titular
Christology in the Gospel of Mark ( S h e f f i e l d : S h e f f i e l d A c a d e m i c Press, 1999); J- P . K i n g s b u r y ,
The Christology of Mark's Gospel ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : Fortress, 1983); E . S. M a l b o n . " T h e C h r i s t o l
o g y o f M a r k , " i n P o w e l l a n d B a u e r , e d s . . Who Do You Say That I Ami 33-481 R . C . T a n n e h i l l ,
" T h e G o s p e l o f M a r k as N a r r a t i v e C h r i s t o l o g y , " Scmeia 16 (1980) 57-96.
133
I, HOWARD MARSHALL
The Gospel of Matthew
W i t h i n t h e l i m i t s o f this essay, it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o g o t h r o u g h M a t t h e w in
the s a m e k i n d o f w a y as w e h a v e d o n e w i t h M a r k , tracing t h e s t o r y o f Jesus
in detail t h r o u g h t h e G o s p e l , a n d t o s o m e e x t e n t it w o u l d b e r e p e t i t i o u s
4 0
and even tedious t o d o so.
M y theory about Matthew (and mutatis mutandis a b o u t L u k e ) is t h a t

it i s a c a s e o f " a l l t h i s a n d m u c h m o r e . " M a t t h e w t a k e s o v e r m u c h o f M a r k
4 1
a n d a l t e r s it i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e s p e c t s , a s w e l l a s a d d i n g o t h e r m a t e r i a l . T h e
r e s u l t is a filling o u to f t h e p i c t u r e . T h e b a s i c s t o r y is s t r u c t u r e d i n t h e s a m e
way, with Matthew bringing o u t even m o r e sharply the division into the
t w o s e c t i o n s i n w h i c h J e s u s p r e a c h e s a b o u t t h e k i n g d o m ( M a t t 4:17) and
then instructs his disciples that h e m u s t suffer ( M a t t 16:21) a n d does so.
First, h o w e v e r , w e n o t e s o m e o m i s s i o n s a n d c h a n g e s o f e m p h a s i s .
One m i n o r p o i n t is that t h e phrase " t h e H o l y O n e o f G o d " h a s disap
p e a r e d , a l o n g w i t h t h e rest o f t h e s t o r y i n w h i c h it s t a n d s ( M a r k 1:21-28;
M a t t h e w h a su s e d s o m e o f t h e p h r a s e o l o g y e l s e w h e r e ) ; e v i d e n t l y Matthew
d i d n o t t h i n k it i m p o r t a n t t o r e t a i n it. M o r e i m p o r t a n t , t h e c o m m a n d s t o
secrecy h a v e largely disappeared ( t h o u g h see Matt 8:4 par. M a r k 1:43-45;
Matt 12:16 par. M a r k 3:12). T h i s is t r u e o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s i n M a r k 1:25 (where
t h e w h o l e s t o r y h a s g o n e ) , M a r k 5:43 ( w h e r e t h e s t o r y g e n e r a l l y is a b b r e v i
a t e d ) , a n d M a r k 7:36. Matthew s i m p l y records t h e spread o f Jesus' f a m e ,
a n d the subtleties o f Mark's presentation are a b s e n t
A s i n M a r k , t h e r e is a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f J e s u s a s a g e n u i n e h u
m a n b e i n g , b u t s i n c e t h e r e is n o s p e c i f i c v o c a b u l a r y d e d i c a t e d t o it, t h i s is
m u c h m o r e a basic feature o f t h e narrative that is s i m p l y taken f o r g r a n t e d
a n d t h e r e f o r e i n d a n g e r o f b e i n g o v e r l o o k e d . R i g h t at t h e o u t s e t , h o w e v e r ,
the g e n e a l o g y traces t h e forebears o f Jesus back t o A b r a h a m a n dt h u s i n d i
cates t h a t h e is a m e m b e r o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e a s w e l l a s s p e c i f i c a l l y b e
longing t o the kingly line o f D a v i d (Matt 1:1,2,17).
40. R. T Prance, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter Paternoster, 1989) 279-317,
is an excellent summary* organized mainly by christological designations. See also C. S-
Keener, A Commentary vn the Gospel ofMatthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1999) 53-68. For
a narrative approach, sec X L. Donaldson. "The Vindicated Son: A Narrative Approach to
M.itthean Christology," in Longenccker. ed., Contours of Christology, 100-121.
41. For a detailed discussion of Matthew in relation to Mark, see P. M. Head, Christol
ogy and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997).
134
I n t e r m s o f d e s i g n a t i o n s f o rJesus, M a t t h e w * s C h r i s t o l o g yis n o t m a r k
edly different from that o f M a r k , w i t h t h es a m e useo f "Christ," " S o no f
G o d , " a n d " S o n o f M a n " B u t there a r edifferences o r c h a n g e s o f e m p h a s i s .
Jesus as Messiah and Son of David
W h e r e a s M a r k b e g a n h i s G o s p e l s i m p l y b y designating itssubject as "Jesus

Christ," M a t t h e w has h i sbirth narrative i n w h i c h the significance o f both
o f these terms emerges m o r e vividly. A s i n t h ecase o ft h eother three G o s
pels, t h eo p e n i n g material is o f great i m p o r t a n c e i n anticipating w h a t is t o
f o l l o w i n t h e rest o f t h e s t o r y . I t also m a k e s clear t o t h e readers w h o t h e
subject o f t h eG o s p e l is b ysharing w i t h t h e m i n f o r m a t i o n that w a s appar
e n t l y n o t k n o w n t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a r i e s o f Jesus d u r i n g h i sm i s s i o n .
H e r e at t h eo u t s e t t h en a m e " J e s u s " takes o n s i g n i f i c a n c e b y b e i n g e x -

plicidy associated w i t h salvation, a n d specifically w i t h salvation f r o m s i n
(Matt 1:21), a l t h o u g h s u b s e q u e n t l y t h e m o t i f is n o m o r e p r o m i n e n t t h a n i n
M a r k , N e i t h e r M a t t h e w n o r M a r k takes u pt h econcept o f salvation i n t h e
w a y that L u k e d o e s . M a t t h e w , h o w e v e r , d o e s stress f o r g i v e n e s s m o r e than
42
M a r k d o e s a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y ties it t o t h e d e a t h o f l e s u s ( M a t t 26:2s).
T h e r o l e o f Jesus as M e s s i a h is h i g h l i g h t e d f r o m t h e start b y t h e i d e n
tification o f h i m as " t h e C h r i s t " ( M a t t 1:17,18) a n d b y t h e s t o r y o f the quest
o f the M a g i , i nw h i c h t h estraight equation is m a d e between t h e Christ a n d
t h e k i n g o f t h e J e w s ( M a t t 2:2-4). A s i n M a r k , t h e t e r m " k i n g " i s p r o m i n e n t
in the passion narrative (Matt 27:11,29,37,42), b u t i t i s a l s o u s e d at t h e e n t r y
o f J e s u s i n t o J e r u s a l e m ( M a t t 21:5; c i t i n g Z e c h 9:9); h e r e M a t t h e w ' s w o r d i n g
b r i n g s o u t w h a t is o n l y i m p l i c i t i n M a r k 11:10, where thecrowds look for
w a r d t o t h e c o m i n g k i n g d o m rather than t h ec o m i n g king. T h e traditional
role o f t h e king o ra messianic figure a s a s h e p h e r d o f t h e p e o p l e is a l r e a d y
p r e s e n t i n M a t t h e w 2:6 ( w h e r e i t o c c u r s i n t h e c i t a t i o n o f M i c 5:2). Matthew
as narrator introduces t h e m o t i f o f c o m p a s s i o n f o rt h eshepherdiess sheep
i n M a t t 9:36 a n dapplies it b r o a d l y to t h e teaching a n d healing m i s s i o n o f
l e s u s ( c f . M a r k 6:34, w h e r e it i s a l s o u s e d e d i t o r i a l l y i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e
4 3
f e e d i n g o f t h e five t h o u s a n d ) . T h e m e t a p h o r o fshepherding also figures
42. Is it significant that the word "forgiveness" is no: used in connection with the ac
tivity of John the Baptist (contrast Mark 1:4)?
43. See also Matt 10:Si 15:241 26:31.
135
I. HOWARD MARSHALL
as a m o t i f i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e last j u d g m e n t , w h e r e t h e r i g h t e o u s a n d
u n r i g h t e o u s a r e separated asa s h e p h e r d separates t h es h e e p f r o m t h e goats
(Matt 25:32-33); t h e f u n c t i o n o f j u d g m e n t h e r e is t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m G o d t o
the S o n o f M a n w h o acts as k i n g a n d l o r d ( M a t t 25:34' 4°).
A s n a r r a t o r . M a t t h e w c a n r e f e r t o J e s u s s i m p l y as " t h e C h r i s t " ( M a t t
11:2) i n a c o n t e x t w h e r e t h e i s s u e i s p r e c i s e l y w h e t h e r J e s u s i s t h e o n e w h o w a s
t o c o m e . M a t t h e w k n o w s t h a t J e s u s is t h eC h r i s t , b u tJ o h n i n p r i s o n n a t u r a l l y
w o n d e r s w h e t h e r t h e d o e r o f t h e m i g h t y w o r k s is i n fact t h eC h r i s t . V a r i o u s
other uses c o m b i n e t o m a k e t h e t e r m m o r e p r o m i n e n t than i n M a r k a n d
Luke (Matt 16:20; 23:10; 24:5; 26:68; 27:17,22). I t is a m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t o f
t h e v o c a b u l a r y o f t h e n a r r a t o r a n d t h e c h a r a c t e r s t h a n it i s i n M a r k .
T h e c e n t r a l i t y o f t h e m e s s i a n i c m o t i f is r e i n f o r c e d b y M a t t h e w ' s dis
t i n c t i v e u s e o f t h e t e r m " S o n o f D a v i d " ; i t sets t h e t o n e r i g h t i n t h e v e r y
first verse o f t h e G o s p e l a n d is u s e d e s p e c i a l l y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h healings
p e r f o r m e d b y Jesus ( M a t t 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31 p a r . M a r k 10:47-48; c f .
also M a t t 21:9,15 f o r its u s e a t t h e e n t r y t o J e r u s a l e m ) . P e r h a p s e v e n more
clearly than in M a r k , the question i n M a t t 22:41-46 is n o t m e a n t t o b e c o n
s t r u e d as a d e n i a l b y J e s u s o f t h i s d e s i g n a t i o n a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r h i m s e l f ,
b u t is r a t h e r a n i n v i t a t i o n t o p o n d e r t h e riddle o f h o w D a v i d ' s s o n c a n also
b e h i s l o r d . It w o u l d b e r e a s o n a b l e t o a s s o c i a t e t h i s t e r m w i t h t h e g r e a t e r
interest i n this G o s p e l i n t h e relationship b e t w e e n t h e l e w i s h people asa
p e o p l e a n d J e s u s . M a t t h e w is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e r o l e o f Jesus a st h e J e w i s h
Messiah w h o is rejected b y t h el e a d e r s o f t h e p e o p l e b u t w h o takes o n a
c o s m i c role after h i s resurrection.
M o r e o v e r , t h e r o l e o f t h e S o n o f D a v i d is s e e n t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e
4 4
written i n t h elight o f Jesus' c o m p a s s i o n a t e a c t i o n s f o rt h e n e e d y . T h e
D a v i d i c M e s s i a h t u r n s o u t t o b eless o f a k i n g l y r u l e r i n h i se a r t h l y career
t h a n m i g h t h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d ; w e m a yc o m p a r e t h e w a yi n w h i c h t h e a p
p a r e n t l y political i m a g e r y i n t h eh y m n s i n L u k e ' s b i r t h n a r r a t i v e gives w a y
to a m o r e spiritual understanding o f the Messiah's role i n t h e course o f
that G o s p e l .
T h e exalted position o fJesus is further u n d e r l i n e d b yt h e v e r y much

greater f r e q u e n c y o f use o f the address " L o r d " (Kyrie), w h i c h is the n o r m a l
44. C Burger, law ah Davidssohn; Eine traditionsgeschichtliehe Untertuehung

(Gottingcn. Vtndenhoeck & Ruprechl, 1 9 7 0 ) 9 0 - 9 1 ; 1- Goppdl, Theology of lh« New Tata-
mtnt (Grand Rapid*- txrdmans, 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 2 ) 2 ^ 2 0 - 2 1 . We do not need to go inlo the origins
of this presentation, which Burger regards as being an entirely Matthcan redaction of his
Marcan material.
136
Jesus as MessiaJi in Mark and Matthew
address b y sympathetic, committed people t o Jesus, s o m e t i m e s corre

4 5
s p o n d i n g t ot h e u s e o f " R a b b i " i nM a r k . A l t h o u g h very often "Lord"
n e e d b e n o m o r e t h a n a basic title o f respect, t h e f r e q u e n c y o f usage a n d
the c o n t e x t u a l i n d i c a t o r s s u g g e s t t h a t there isa r a t h e r greater d e g r e e o f
reverence i n its use. Several p e o p l e w h o c o m e t o Jesus are said t o s h o w r e v
erence to h i m (proskyneo); t h i s is t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a t t i t u d e t o a k i n g s h o w n
b y t h e m a g i ( M a t t 2:2), a n d s o m e t h i n g o f t h e s a m e a u r a m a y s u r r o u n d t h e
4 6
subsequent uses. This motif reaches itsc l i m a x i n the final, post-
resurrection scene w h e r e Jesus is w o r s h i p e d b y t h eE l e v e n a n d proclaims
his absolute authority.
Jesus as Son of Man and Son of God
W e s a w t h a t i n M a r k t h e t e r m " S o n o fM a n " is b r o a d l y m e s s i a n i c . Matthew

has the t e r m m o r e frequently than M a r k , basically because h ehas m o r e say
4 7
ings o fJesus available t o h i m . T h e general t e n d e n c y that results ism o r e o f
a stress o n t h e i d e n t i t y o f Jesus a s a figure w h o isrejected o n e a r t h (Matt
8:20; 11:19; 12:32) a n d a s t h e c o m i n g S o n o f M a n ( M a t t 10:23; 13:41). I n t h e
f o r m e r case M a t t h e w isf o l l o w i n g t h e t r a d i t i o n f o u n d i n b o t h M a r k a n d Q ,
w h e r e t h e S o n o fM a n is a f i g u r e w h o h a s a u t h o r i t y o n e a r t h b u t w h o s e a u
t h o r i t y is n o t accepted, a n d i n t h e latter case h ereflects t h ec o n c e p t o f t h e
c o m i n g S o n o f M a n i nDaniel 7. B u t M a t t h e w also adds it editorially i n
M a r c a n p a s s a g e s ( M a t t 16:13; 16:28; 24:30; 26:2) a n d o n o c c a s i o n s u b s t i t u t e s
the first-person p r o n o u n ( M a t t 16:21; c o n t r a s t M a r k 8:31; c f . M a t t 5:11 w i t h
L u k e 6:22); t h e i d e n t i t y o f J e s u s a s t h e S o n o f M a n i s q u i t e c l e a r .
Similarly, t h eu s e o f additional source material leads t ot h e m u c h

greater p r o m i n e n c e o f" S o n o fG o d ' ' i n M a t t h e w . T h e title isp r o m i n e n t i n
the t e m p t a t i o n n a r r a t i v e , w h e r e it is p r e c i s e l y a s S o n o f G o d t h a t J e s u s i s
tempted t o d i s o b e y G o d a n d t u r n a s i d e f r o m h i s m i s s i o n ( M a t t 4:3, 6; c f .
Luke 4:3,9). I n M a r k t h e d e s i g n a t i o n is u s e d o f Jesus o n l y b y n o n - h u m a n
45. U n c o m m i t t e d p e o p l e a d d r e s s h i m as " T e a c h e r " i n M a t t h e w .

46. C f . M a i l 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15125*. 20:10; 28:9.17- T h e t e r m is also used i n M a r k 5:6 a n d ,
after the r e s u r r e c t i o n , i n L u k e 24:52. I n e a c h o f t h e S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s there are i s o l a t e d e x a m
ples o f p e o p l e f a l l i n g o n t h e i r k n e e s b e f o r e Jesus ( M a t t 17:14; M a r k 1:40; 10:17; L u k e 5:8).
47. M a t t h e w lias 30 usages. 13 t a k e n o v e r f r o m M a r k , P. s h a r e d w i t h L u k e , 4 e d i t o r i a l
a d d i t i o n s , a n d 5 i n passages p e c u l i a r t o this G o s p e l . C £ I. H . M a r s h a l l , " S o n o f M a n , " in Dic
tionary of Jesus and the Gospels ( D o w n e r s G r o v e , I L - I n t e r V a r s i t y Press. 1991) 776-77-
137
I. HOWARD MARSHALL
actors b e f o r e t h e c r u c i f i x i o n , b u t i n M a t t h e w t h e disciples w o r s h i p Jesus as

t h e S o n o f G o d a f t e r t h e s t i l l i n g o f t h e s t o r m ( M a t t 14:33). a n d P e t e r ' s c o n
f e s s i o n a t C a e s a r e a P h i l i p p i i n c l u d e s t h i s p h r a s e ( M a t t 16:16). M o r e o v e r ,
M a t t h e w includes t h e explicit statement o fJesus a b o u t t h e relationship o f
the F a t h e r a n d t h e S o n a n d t h e latter's role i n r e v e l a t i o n o ft h e F a t h e r
( M a t t 11:25-27; c f . L u k e 10:21-22). F o r M a t t h e w , t h e n , t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f J e
sus as S o n o fG o d b y h u m a n b e i n g s o c c u r s m o r e p o w e r f u l l y t h a n i n M a r k ,
w h e r e i t does n o t e m e r g e until t h e confession o ft h e c e n t u r i o n after t h e
d e a t h o f Jesus ( M a r k 1539). 4 8
T h i s isb a c k e d u p b y t h e fact t h a t Jesus refers t oG o da s F a t h e r v e r y

m u c h m o r e frequently. C a r e i sn e e d e d here, h o w e v e r . A l o n g s i d e t h e n u
m e r o u s r e f e r e n c e s t o G o d a s " m y ( s o m e t i m e s ' m y h e a v e n l y ' l F a t h e r " (17)
t h e r e a r e a l s o a b o u t a s m a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o ' y o u r F a t h e r ' (21). T h i s indicates
that M a t t h e w b r i n g s o u t t h e n e w relationship w i t h G o de n j o y e d b yt h e dis
ciples a l o n g w i t h Jesus m u c h m o r e fully than d o e s M a r k . C o n s e q u e n t l y ,
this usage m a yreflect a d e v e l o p i n g t h e o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f G o d (the
Father) i n ah e i g h t e n e d awareness o ft h e personal relationship o f believers
g e n e r a l l y t o G o da sF a t h e r r a t h e r t h a n a n a r r o w l y christological d e v e l o p
m e n t ; nonetheless, it remains significant. T h e personal relationship o f
b o t h Jesus a n d his disciples t ot h e F a t h e r ism u c h m o r e o p e n l y a n d fully
expressed i nM a t t h e w t h a n i n M a r k .
T h e r e h a s b e e n s o m e d i s c u s s i o n as t ow h e t h e r t h e c o n c e p t o f M e s
9
siah o r that o f S o n o f G o d h a s priority i n Matthew's C h r i s t o l o g y . * T h e d e
bate is p r o b a b l y futile, a n dw e s h o u l d recognize that b o t h lines o f t h o u g h t
5 0
are essential f o r a full u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the role a n d status o f Jesus.
48. I n o n e o r t w o places M a t t h e w u s e s t h e t e r m " t h e S o n " r a t h e r t h a n " t h e S o n o f

G o d " ( o r equivalents); see M a t t 11:27a, 27b; 24:36; 28:19. Since t h e S o n o f M a n has G o d as h i s
F a t h e r ( M a t t 16:27), J . P. Meier. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the
First Gospel ( N e w Y o r k : P a u l i s t , 1978) 82-83, '72. w a n t s t o a r g u e that " t h e S o n " is n o t neces
sarily equivalent t o "the S o n o f G o d " here b u t rather h a s connections also w i t h " S o n o f
M a n . " e s p e c i a l l y i n M a t t 24:36. B u t it w o u l d b e p a t e n t l y r e d u n d a n t a n d a w k w a r d t o i n c l u d e
" o f G o d " i n M a t t 11:27 a n d 28:19. T h e case f o r 24:36 m i g h t s e e m t o b e m o r e p l a u s i b l e b u t is
e x p o s e d t o t h e o b j e c t i o n t h a t , w h e r e a s " t h e S o n " is a c u r r e n t s y n o n y m f o r " t h e S o n o f G o d , "
the t e r m " S o n " is n e v e r f o u n d e l s e w h e r e as a c o n t r a c t i o n f o r " S o n o f M a n . "
49. F o r t h e latter v i e w s e e especially I. D . K i n g s b u r y , Matthew Structure, Christotogy,

Kingdom (2nd cd.: M i n n e a p o l i s : F o r t r e s s , 1989); cf. I. P . K i n g s b u r y , Matthew as Story (Phila
d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1986).
50. See, f o r e x a m p l e , | . K . R i c h e s , Matthew (Sheffield: S h e f f i e l d A c a d e m i c Press, 1996)
88-93.
138
At the outset, Jesus is principally the messianic Son of David, or per

haps we should say the Davidic Messiah, thus emphasizing his role in rela
tion to Israel; and his divine origin and authority are stressed rather than his
sonship. Nevertheless, his sonship is present. It is implicitly expressed in the
announcement of the birth of lesus and then becomes explicit in the quota
tionfromHos n:i in Matt 2:15. The pregnancy of Mary is brought about by
the Holy Spirit rather than by a human husband (or any other human be
ing), and the fact that the child is to be called 'Tmmanuel" ("God [is] with
us") indicates that in some way he is to be identified with God; the role of be
getting is carried out by God through the Spirit, and thus God is involved in
what we would call "parenting"Then in Matt 2:15 the Evangelist himself ap
plies the saying in Hos 11:1 to Jesus, where the Lord himself says, "Out of
Egypt I called my son." This confirms that Matthew sees the birth of Jesus as
the birth in this world of the Son of God; he then recounts how God himself
directly addresses Jesus as his Son at his baptism. Matthew's account (like
that of Luke) thus provides an explanation for the saying at the baptism,
which comes without any warning or preparation in Mark's account.
At the very end of the Gospel, Jesus is named in a trinitarian formula
as the Son, thus emphasizing his cosmic status for the world after the res
urrection, and his personal relationship to the Father has become evident.
Matthew's concept of sonship shows a notable kinship to that of John.
Jesus as Servant, Wisdom, and New Moses
But this exaltation lies in the future, and over against it must be placed the
identification of lesus as the Servant of the Lord who works quietly and
gently rather than by raising his voice (Matt 12:18-21; citing Isa 42:1-4)- This
is confirmed by the claim of Jesus to be gende and humble (Matt 11:29; cf.
21:5) and by his invitation to the weary and heavy-laden to come to him
sl
and find rest (Matt n:28-3o). We have already noted that as Son of David
Jesus performs merciful acts. The citation of Isa 53:4 (Matt 8:17), which is
related to the healings done by Jesus, further enlarges the understanding of
his Servant-role.
51. For a full exploration of the significance of the term "Servant of the Lord," includ
ing especially its connections with justice, see R. Beaton, Isaiahs Christ in Matthew's Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
139
According to L). Hill, Matthew gives content to the concept of Jesus

52
as Son of God by his development of servanthood. A corrective to any
one-sided understanding of Jesus as Servant, however, is offered by
R. Beaton, who has reinvestigated Matthew's use of Isa 42:1-4 and drawn
out the way in which he uses Isaianic material to describe the functions of
Jesus in a rather more varied way in relation to both justice and compas
sion, st) that Jesus can be characterized as both aggressive and compassion
ate. This emphasis is worth making over against the constant tendency to
play down the judgmental actions of Jesus. The Jesus of Matthew pulls no
punches in his strong attacks on the hypocrisy that he sees in some repre
sentatives of Jewish religion (Matthew 23), and the threats of judgment in
this Gospel are especially severe. At the same time, Matthew stresses the
compassion of Jesus as the one who offers relief to the weary and burdened
(Matt 11:28-30).
The role of Jesus cannot be ascertained purely by a study of titles and
designations. As we have just seen, the ascription of a Servant-role to Jesus
is not accompanied by a christological use of the term itself outside the ac
tual citation from Isaiah 42. In particular, his role as teacher and miracle-
worker is of central importance and is not tied to any one type of
christological designation." Space forbids an examination of how this
motif is developed in the course of the narrative. Two further possible as
pects of his status that are not expressed in titles require consideration
here.
First, there is the question whether the Jewish figure of Wisdom is
significant for Matthew's Christology. On occasion Jesus speaks in the
manner of a wise teacher, using the kind of sayings found in the Wisdom
tradition. In Luke 7:35 he says, "Wisdom is proved right by all her chil
dren," and he appears to be an envoy (Gk. child) of Wisdom. However,
Matt 11:10 has the same saying in the form, "wisdom is proved right by her
actions," which has been taken to imply an identification of Jesus himself
54
with Wisdom. There is also the puzzling problem of the saying of Jesus in
Luke 11:49-51 that is said to emanate from "the Wisdom of God" (or per
haps, as TNIV paraphrases, "God in his wisdom") who speaks in the first
52. D. Hill, "Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthaean ChristologyJSNT tS (1980)

2-10.
53. Cf. Davics and Allison, Matthew, 3718-21.
54. But is the saying really anything more than a comparison between Jesus and Wis
dom, or simply a proverbial saying?
14O
person of sending envoys; in Malt 23:34-39' however, this saying is uttered

by Jesus himself, who sends his messengers. Does this mean that Matthew
silently identified Jesus as Wisdom? But then, if we did not know the paral
lel in Luke, who would pick up the alleged identification in Matthew? Sim
ilarly, Jesus speaks in a style that could be seen as typical of an utterance by
Wisdom herself in Matt 11:28-30, although we have no precise parallel else
where to confirm this supposition.
These pieces of evidence have been sufficient to persuade some
scholars that for Matthew Jesus is seen in the role of Wisdom. Admittedly,
there is no use of the term as a title for him, but in view of what has just
been said about the lack of the term "Servant," this is not a decisive objec
tion. Certainly this identification would be appropriate in a Gospel that
places so much stress upon Jesus as a teacher and emphasizes the divine
origin and authority of his sayings (cf. Matt 8:8). It would also be appro
priate in complementing the understanding of Jesus as the Son of God; in
both cases we have a divine agent who is close to God. Even so, it cannot be
said to play a major role in the Gospel compared with the other christo-
55
logical categories.
More significant than the motif of Wisdom is the fact that Jesus may
56
be seen as a counterpart to Moses with an authority that exceeds his.
This is particularly evident in the Sermon on the Mount, where the "But I
say to you" of Jesus is juxtaposed with what was said to the people long ago
(Matt 5:21-22), and obedience to his words is the decisive criterion by
which people stand or fall (Matt 7:24-27). The motif is present in other
ways also, including some parallel features between Moses and Jesus in the
birth story. This understanding of Jesus as a new Moses does justice to the
major place that teaching has in the Gospel and fits in with the overall
thrust of the Gospel as a work that is especially concerned with the rela
5
tionship of Christianity to Judaism. '
Of crucial importance is the final scene in the Gospel in which the
55. For a "high" estimate of Matthew's Wisdom Christology, see M. J. Suggs. Wisdom,
Christology and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970)1
F. W. Burnett, The Testament ofJesus-Sophia: A Redaction-CriticalStudy of the Esehatological
Discourse in Matthew (Lanham: University Press of America, 1981). For a much more re
strained view, sec Davics and Allison, Matthew, 2:295.
56. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3718-21. More fully, D. C. -Allison Ir., Tlte New Moses:
A Matihaean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, )993).
57. Another possibility is that Jesus is seen as embodying Israel (cf. Matt 2:15).
»41
I. HOWARD MARSHALL
exalted position of the risen Jesus is graphically depicted in the

58
Christophany placed on a mountain top. Here we do not have the com
paratively "cosy" kind of scene in which Jesus kindles a fire and cooks
breakfast by the seashore or sits and chats with his disciples over a meal in
Emmaus or Jerusalem. Rather, he addresses them using the language of
complete omnipotence and is worshiped. There are echoes here of the po
sition of the Son of Man in Daniel 7. A trinitarian formula places him
alongside God the Father and the Holy Spirit. There have been hints of this
future exalted position earlier in the Gospel. The final scene forms an
inciusio with the opening one in which the name of Immanuel, "God (is)
with us," is to be given to the child (lsa 7:14). and in Matt 18:20 Jesus prom
ises his disciples that where two or three of them are together, he will be
with them, in a well-known saying that is remarkably close to a rabbinic
statement that promises the presence of the Shekinah to students gathered
together round the Torah (Pirqe Aboth 3:2,6). Here the reference is unmis
takably to the future spiritual presence of Jesus with the disciples. The
Gospel powerfully proclaims the future cosmic, omnipotent, and omni
present power of Jesus as the Son of God. His presence is equivalent to the
presence of God.
Putting Things Together
Although this survey of Matthew has been structured around his use of ti
tles and motifs, it has taken into account the narrative in which they are
embedded and which has its own contribution to make to the total picture.
It demonstrates that for Matthew the concepts of the Davidic Messiah,
Danielic Son of Man, and Son of God combine with other elements to
present an understanding of Jesus in which he is afigureof authority as a
teacher and as the future Judge who fearlessly attacks the sin and hypocrisy
that hefindsin Israel, but who is also the compassionate healer of sickness,
both physical and spiritual. He has a close filial relationship with God as
his Father, and the worship that he receives after his resurrection is prefig
ured in the respect shown to him during his mission. Jesus is seen in com
parison with such Jewishfiguresas Moses and Wisdom, with more to offer
58. Sec T. I- Donaldson, fesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthatan Theology (Shef
field: JSOT, 1985).
142
to the people than they ever could. Nor should we ignore the thesis devel
oped by W. Carter that the picture in this Gospel stands in conscious con
trast to that of the Roman Emperor and the imperial power and that it
demonstrates the superiority of Jesus over against Caesar and anything
59
that he could offer. Tuckett's term "enhancement" aptly characterizes the
60
relationship of this portrayal to that of Mark.
Conclusion
In our examination of both Gospels we have seen that the understanding

of Jesus as a person reflects how he behaved and taught so that what results
is a reinterpretation of elements from Old Testament and Jewish expecta
tion. The term "Christ" has retained the meaning of the future deliverer
and ruler of the people of God when he sets up his kingdom, but has been
reinterpreted to accommodate the earthly mission of Jesus, who came as
God's representative to combat evil and the forces of Satan in their victim
ization of humanity, to teach God's ways, to die to deliver peoplefromevil,
to rise from the dead, to be spiritually present with his people as they carry
out his purpose in the world, and finally to be the king who judges and
saves, condemns and rewards. Commenting on Matthew, J. K. Riches ob
serves that "'Son of Man'... becomes a kind of portmanteau title which
can assume meaning from other titles and also from the narrative of the
61
Gospel itself"; "the various titles interanimate each other." Yet the differ
ent designations do not become simply equivalent to one another; rather,
each brings its own characteristic contribution to the total picture of the
one whose coming is good news for Mark and the incarnation of salvation
from sin for Matthew.
59. W. Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations (Harrisburg: Trinity Press In
ternational, 2001). This motif is, of course, not confined to this Gospel.
60. Tuckett, Christology, 120. See his whole discussion (119-32). On the messiology of
Matthew see also IX A. Hagncr, Manhev/ i-y (Dallas: Word, 1993) bu; U. Luz, The Theolog
of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); D. Verscput, The
Rejection of the Humble Messianic King: A Study of the Composition ofMatthew 11-12 (Frank
furt: Peter Lang, 1986); and D. J. Verscput, "The Role and Meaning of die 'Son of God' Tit
in Matthew's Gospel," NTS 33 (1987) 532-56.
61. J. K. Riches, Conflicting Mythologies: Identity Formation in the Gospels of Mark and
Matthew (Edinburgh: TStT Clark. 2000) 2*1.
143
The Messiah in Luke and Acts:
Forgiveness for the Captives
Stanley £. Porter
Introduction
There have been many different concepts of the Messiah in the Old Testa
ment and later Jewish thought' Even though many were not clearly artic
ulated and some were not formalized, they nevertheless helped to set ex
pectations in people's minds. Many of these varying definitions and
expectations of the notion grew out of shifting social, cultural, political,
and, most importantiy, theological situations. Without doubt, political op
pression and theological division helped to develop a wide set of expecta
tions regarding God's anointed. Within the New Testament itself, there are
a number of at least differing emphases, if not different conceptualiza
tions, of what it means that Jesus was the Messiah, as other papers in this
volume indicate. In Luke's Gospel and Acts, in conjuncrion with the other
Synoptic Gospels and the Pauline letters, although there arc both affinities
and differences, there is an emphasis upon Jesus as the anointed prophet
i. Useful books include: S. Mowinckcl. He That Cometh (trans. G. W. Anderson; New
York: Abingdon, 1954); The lord's Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts
(ed. P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess, and G. ). Wenham; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995J; Israe
Messiah in the Bible and the Pead Sea Scrolls (cd. R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R.; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2003); andG. S.Ocgcma. The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations
from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba (JSPSup 27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1998). For
a recent summary of many of the issues, with important clarifications regarding messianic
terminology, see C. A. Evans, "Mcssianism" in Dictionary of New Testament Background {ed.
C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter; Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press. 2000} 698-707-
144
The Messiah in Luke and Acts; Forgiveness for the Captives
In (he Gospel, Luke draws upon a number of Old testament passages —

especially Isaiah, but not only prophetic sources narrowly denned — that
resonated with current Jewish thought to depict Jesus as both the messi
anic prophet, and hence the eschatological prophet coming in the last
times, and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy concerning the
anointed coming one. In both Luke and Acts, he continues to develop the
idea of lesus as anointed prophet, while also depicting other, and poten
2
tially complementary, viewpoints, such as royal son of David.
1 am far from the first to suggest that this notion of Jesus as messi
3
anic prophet in Luke-Acts is an important crrristological theme. In fact, it
is a theme that has been well developed by a number of recent authors on
the topic. For example, Earle Ellis describes the Messiahship of Jesus in
these terms: "His whole life, death, and resurrection are one continuing
4
fulfilment of prophecy." Luke Johnson goes further aud sees a prophetic
5
structure to the entirety of Luke and Acts. This is not to deny that there
6
are other messianic themes that Luke brings to the fore, or to say that the
prophetic theme is the only one he suggests. Some have even suggested
that Luke has nothing of his own to say about Jesus as Messiah that is not
7
alreadyfoundin his sources. 1 wish to argue that a consistent and funda
mental development of Jesus as the anointed prophet stands at the heart of
Luke's depiction of Jesus as Messiah, no doubt some of it dependent upon
his sources (since, after all, they are depicting the same Jesus), but some of
it reflecting his own insights and developed depiction.
2. As Dr. Craig Evans has reminded me, the exalted place of David in messianic
thought is not a Lukan innovation but is already significant at Qumran. See his "David in
the Dead Sea Scrolls" in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S. E.
Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1 9 9 7 ) 183-97.
3. 1 grant that it is one important christological theme among many. Numerous
works address the Christology of the New Testament. Not all of these treatments are equally
helpful, since they tend to conflate christological categories.
4. E. E. Ellis, The Gospel ofLuke (rev. ed.; NCB; Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1974)
5. L. T. [ohnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1991) 1 5 - 1 7 » 17-20,
Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992) ia-12,12-14.
6. It must be conceded that a number of scholars suggest a variety of messianic
themes in Luke. For example, D. Bock, Luke ( 2 vols.; BECNTi Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994)
1:29-31; C. I.. Blomberg, "Messiah in the New Testament," in Hess and Carroll R.,eds., Israel
Messiah, 111-41, esp. 117-19,123-25.
7. The sources are presumably Mark and Q. See I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and
Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan, 197») 1 6 8 - 6 9 .
M5
STANLEY E. PORTER
Discussion of the messianic nature of Jesus as depicted in Luke-Acts

8
usually focuses around usage of the term XP'ordc,, or "Christ" Fitzmycr
9
has categorized the usage in Luke and Acts in terms of titular and
1
nominal " usage. According to his analysis, all of the usage in Luke's Gos
pel is titular, while the slight majority of the usage in Acts is nominal. As
will be shown below, what this indicates is that in the Gospel and Acts the
author is depicting and describing the Messiah, to the point where the title
becomes associated with and, in fact, part of the name of Jesus. This usage
is no doubt important, but what is more important is the context in which
such language, and related terminology, is used within the two books.
What 1 want to do is to take an essentially serial approach to the material
and highlight those passages that clearly emphasize Luke's view of Jesus as
messianic prophet.
T h e Messiah i n Luke
Luke's Gospel was almost assuredly written before the book of Acts. Al
though this has been disputed by some scholars (in fact, the relationship
11
has been called into question by some), the prologues to the respective
works and the way in which Acts finishes, as well as historical tradition, in
11
dicate that the Gospel preceded Acts. On the basis of this, it makes sense
to treat them in this order.
S. Many Treatments of christological titles and their meaning can be found in a vari
ety of sources, such as New Testament theologies.
9. See J. Fitzmyer. The Gospel according to Luke (AB 28 and 28A; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1981) 1:197. Titular usage includes: Luke 2:11 (but see below), 16; 3:15; 4:41; 9:20;
20:41; 22:67; 23:2, 35. 39; 24:26, 46; Acts 2:31, 361 3n8,20 (?); 4:16; 5:42: 8:5: 9:22; 17:3; 18:5,28;
26:23.
to. Nominal usage includes: Acts 2:38; 3:6; 4:10, 33; 8:12 I37, where the best manu
scripts do not include the verse|; 9:34; 10:36,48; 11:17; 15:26; i6u8; 17:3 <?); 20:21; 24:24; 28:31.
He notes also that in a few of these passages the word "name" is also used: e.g., 4:10; 8:12.
li. M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity ofLuke and Acts (SBLMS; Min
neapolis: Fortress, 1992)-
12.1. H. Marshall, "Acts and the 'Former Treatise,"* in The BookofActsin Its First Cen
tury Setting, vol. 1: Ancient literary Sening(cd. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. 1993) 163-82.
146
The Messiah in Lake and Acts: Forgiveness for the Captives
Birth Narrative
As Ellis slates, "According to some Jewish tradition the prophetic gift ceased
at the dose of the Old Testament period, but its presence or revival was gen
13
erally expected in the messianic times," This notion of the "coming one"
14
looks forward to a revival of the prophetic voice. 'l"he prophetic revival
was sometimes associated with the forerunner to the Messiah (e.g., Elijah)
and sometimes associated with the Messiah himself, including one like Mo
13
ses. The Lukan birth narrative (Luke 1:5-2:40) depicts Jesus' advent as the
fulfillment of prophetic utterance. It does this in two significant ways: first,
in terms of seeing the coming of Jesus himself as prophetically foretold; and
second, in terms of distinguishing Jesus from John as the prophetic fore
runner. One need not speculate about a "Baptist Nativity" account lying be
16
hind the narrative in Luke 1-2, despite a number of clear parallels, to ap
preciate that a number of common elements in the depiction of John and
Jesus indicate that they have a complementary relationship."
The depiction of the coming of John the Baptist as the forerunner of
the Messiah, a part of the prophetic depiction of the Messiah, is clearly made
throughout the birth narrative, but not finally established until John's minis
try in the desert (see the next section). Some of the significant indicators of
John's own prophetic status as forerunner of the Messiah arc as follows: in
the birth narrative, news of Elizabeth's pregnancy precedes Mary's (Luke 1:13
vs. 1:31); John is described in terms of an Old Testament prophet in the wil
derness (1:15); he is to befilledwith God's Spirit (1:15);" he utters the mes
sage of a prophet to repent (1:16-17); he is said to be one who goes before the
Lord (1:17); he is described as being in the spirit and power of the prophet
Elijah, seen to be the Messiah's forerunner, possibly citing the prophet
13. Fills. Luke, 7 a .

14. Passages referred to by Ellis in this discussion include 1 Mace 14:41 and losephus,
Apion 1.41.
15. Ellis. Luke, Mention of Moses in Luke and Ads occurs around twroly-nine
72.
limes. Mo*« is linked to Elijah in Luke 9:-0. .13, in the transfiguration.

16. On this, see W. Wink. John the Baptist m the Gospel Tradition (SNTSMS r. Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 6 * ) 5 8 - * ] , who ably refutes such a hypothesis.
17. Sec R. E. Brown. The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City. NY: Doubleday. 1979) 291-
9».
18. See M. Turner. Power from on High: Tne Spirit m Israel's Restoration and Witness in
Lukc-Acn (Sheffield; Sheffield Academic Press, 1 9 9 6 ) 151.
147
STANLEY E. PORTER
Malachi (3:24 l.XX) ( 1 : 1 7 ) ; " and IrSacharias labels him a prophet of God des
tined to go before the Lord to prepare the way ( 1 7 6 ) . * In these ways, John is
clearly established as the forerunner of the coming one, the Messiah.
The depiction of the birth of Jesus is also seen in terms of prophetic
fulfillment. Although his birth is predicted after that of [ohn, his life is seen
in terms of being the fulfillment of prophecy as the coming one (Luke
1:32); he is clearly one appointed for a divine purpose (1:31-33); he is de
picted in terms of a royal and military triumph, certainly some of the char
acteristics associated with the Messiah (1:32-33); there are confirmatory
prophetic utterances by Elizabeth (1:42-45); there is a "'revival" of prophecy
by Zach arias (1:67); the shepherds are told of a savior who is born, Christ
2
Lord (2:ii); ' Simeon, who was expecting the Lord's Messiah (2:26), utters
prophetically laden words regarding his eyes seeing salvation and a light
being revealed to both Gentiles and Israel (2:29-32, echoing passages in Isa
52:10; 42:6; 4 9 : 6 ) ; " and Jesus is received in the temple and adulated by the
prophetess Anna as the one anticipated in terms of the redemption of Is
rael (Luke 2:36-38). These are all elements that go toward establishing Jesus
as the eschatological prophet.
Although a certain number of royal or regal elements are also con
23
nected with this depiction of Jesus, the prophetic element is also well es
tablished, if not at the forefront. After a period of barrenness, both literally
and prophetically, the prophetic voice has been heard again. This time it
19. See Hock, l.ukt, 1:83-91; cf. Wink. John the Baptist, 41.
20. I lake seriously f. A. T. Robinson's hypolhcsi* that the h y m n of ZacharUs may
have originally been written of Jesus, rather than John ("Elijah, John and Jesus." in Twelve
New Testament Studies [London: SCM Press, 1961) i#-5i). Perhaps the passage itself is suffi
ciently pivotal t o contain elements not only of John but also of Jesus (Luke 1:69 regarding
the house of David; 1:71. 77 regarding a deliverer of salvation).
21. The phrase xpAOtbe, Kupioc; has troubled s o m e scholars Most arc troubled by the
lack o f the article (e.g., Bock, Luke. 1:227; cf. 227-28; Johnson, Lute, 50). The more difficult is
sue is probably the use o f KUpioc in this construction (note that there are a number of textual
variants: see I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke [N1GTC; Grand Rapids: Ecrdmaiu, 1978] 110).
It may well be that the uie in Luke 2:u without the arnde is nominal, that a. the angels tell the
shepherds that the savior they arc to see has the name of 'Christ (the) lord " Proper names
often do not appear with the article in Greek ( s e e S. E. Porter. Idioms of the Greek Ne» Testa-
mem [Biblical Languagci: Greek l; 2nd ed4 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 199«) 107)-
22. See Bock. Luke. 1:30.
23. Luke 1:32: "the throne o f his father David"; Luke 1:69: 'the house of his servant
David"; Luke 2:4: Joseph "was o f the house and lineage o f David"; Luke 2:11: "city of David.
Sec Bock, Luke, 1:30.
148
The Messiah in Luke and Acts: forgiveness for the Captives
foretells two individuals, one the forerunner of the other, and the latter be
ing the prophesied Messiah.
iohn the Baptist and Jesus
John the Baptist continues to be a provocative character within the biblical

account and in recent scholarship. Of the many roles that John performed,
the most notable being his role as "Baptizer," one that also merits attention
M
is that of prophet In this prophetic capacity, he looked forward not only
to the coming of God in judgment but also to God's anointed agent or
23
Messiah. The appearance of John the Baptist as a prophetic forerunner
and then the baptism of Jesus further establish the prophetic messianic
character of Jesus. John takes on the character of an Old testament
prophet in his wilderness proclamation (Luke 3:3). This includes his mes
sage of repentance and forgiveness of sins (3:3). Hefindsthe basisforthis
in the prophet Isaiah, whose message regarding making ready and straight
the way of the Lord he sees as paving the way for the coming of the salva
16
tion of God (3:4-6; citing Isa 4o:3-5). John sees this message in terms of
his already prophesied (see the birth narrative) task of paving the way for
the one of whom he is the forerunner. He recognizes that there is one
whom he is anticipating who will be mightier than he is (Luke 3:16). John's
announcement of a coming baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire (3:16) has
27
two significant elements, each of them prophetic in nature. His an
nouncement creates a transition between himself as the forerunner and
the coming one. Thefirstelement is the act of baptizing in the Holy Spirit
The sign of a prophet was to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and the epitome
of this propheticfigurewas Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah. The sec
ond is the act of baptizing in fire. Elijah was the prophet who called down
24. R. L. Webb, "John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus," in Studying the His
torical Jesus; Evaluations of the State of Current Research led. B. Chilton and C A. Evans;
NTT519; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 179-2*9. esp. 197-206.
25. Sec R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNTSup
62; Sheffield; Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 219-306, esp. 259-60,304-6.
26. On dispute regarding the textual version that stands behind John's utterance, see
Bock, Luke, 1:290-91.
27. See Webb, John the Baptizer, 290-95; cf. Turner, Power from on High, 170-87, esp.
178-79.
149
STANLEY E. PORTER
fire on the prophets of Baal at M t Carmcl in response to their unrepentant

sinfulness (l Kgs 18:20-40). John is here standing as himself an Elijah figure
passing the prophetic catling to the prophesied eschatological prophetic
figure, who will take up these prophetic functions and separate the wheat
from the chaff in judgment (Luke 3:17).
The depiction of John the Baptist in relation to Jesus reinforces both
the prophetic role of John as forerunner of the coming one and the role of
Jesus as that coming one who is the Messiah foretold and anticipated
through the prophetic word and who will come in prophetic judgment.
Jesus and the Nazareth Synagogue
The scene in which Jesus preaches in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke

4:16-30) has been widely discussed in recent scholarship — and for good
reason. As others and I have argued elsewhere, in many ways this passage is
programmatic in Luke's Gospel for announcing the mission of Jesus, espe
cially in terms of seeing the Old Testament as motivating the message of
28
the Gospel. This is the first extended use of the Old Testament specifi
cally by Jesus after the beginning of his public ministry. Furthermore, this
is the first sermon of Jesus in this Gospel. As a result, it has the character of
an inaugural address for his ministry and the explicit proclamation of his
Messiahship. Along with this, there arc statements by Jesus that interpret
the Old Testament quotation and then the response by those who hear this
address. In this passage, Jesus enters into the synagogue, takes the scroll
with Isaiah in it, and opens it and reads. He cites Isa 61:1-2, with one line
from Isa 58:6, in Luke 4:1^-19- As Foakes-Jackson and lake have indicated,
28. See, e.g.. D. L Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: lucan Old Testa
ment Christology (JSNTSup 11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 17-37; Bock, "Proclamation from
Prophecy and Pattern: Luke's Use of the Old Testament for Christology and MisAion,"in The
Gospels and the Scriptures of Israelicd. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner: ISNTSup 104; SSEIC 3;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 280-307; M. L Strauss, The Davidk Messiah in
Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfdlment in Lukan Christology (JSNTSup no; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 199-260; A. J. Kdstcnbcrgcr and P. T. O'Brien, Salvation to the
Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (Downers Grove, IL InteiVaisity Press,
2001) 111-15: and S. E. Porter, "Scripture Justifies Mission: The Use of the Old Testament in
-
Luke-Acts, in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. S. K. Porter; Grand
Rapids: Herd mam, 1006) 104-26 (I draw 00 this paper in some of what follow*).
150
Jesus' reading of this passage from Isaiah as a summary of his mission

functions as a substitute for Mark's announcement of Jesus' message in
29
1:15. The passage reads as follows:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because of which

he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor,
ht has sent me to proclaim forgiveness to the captives and sight to
the blind,
to send out the oppressed in forgiveness jlsa 58:6],
to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
(My translation)
Jesus then announces that "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your
hearing" (Luke 4:21). At first his words are received favorably, but when Je
sus clearly appropriates these words for himself (w. 23-24) and extends his
interpretation to those outside of Israel (w. 25-27), the people in the syna
gogue become angry with him and want to kill him; so he walks through
the crowd and goes on his own way. This episode, and especially the use of
the Old Testament passage, has raised a number of questions. Initially, it
seems as if his hearers react not to the use of the Old Testament passage or
to his saying that it is fulfilled in their presence, but to Jesus' interpretation
50
and application of it to those outside of Israel. It is not Jesus' appropria
tion but his hermenéutica! extension that angered his audience. By exam
ining a number of the issues connected with this passage, we can under
stand the significance of the passage and the nature of the reaction that it
generated. 1 believe that much of the reason for the reaction stems from
the fact that Jesus is thereby appropriating to himself the role of messianic
51
prophet by both reading the prophecy, which uses the term "anoint," and
31
announcing its fulfillment in himself and his ministry.
29. F. I- Foakes-Iackson and K . Lake, "Christology," in The Ails of the Apostles (cd. K J.
Foakcv-lack win and K. Lake; 5 vols.; The Beginnings of Christianity 1; London: Mac mil lar.,
1910-33) 1:345-418, etp.390. A n equivalent statement may be (bund at the dose of the Gospel,
Luke 14*7.
30. Many scholars have noted apparent differences in the response recorded in Mark.
This will be considered below.
31. The noun xpioróe; is not used in th:s passage, but the language of anointing of a
prophet clearly is.
3a. This paper is concerned with Luke's depiction of Jesus. largue in my earlier paper,
151
STANLEY K- PORTER
Some have noted that Jesus does not cite all of Isa 61:1-2, but only up
to the first clause of v. 2, with the result that the words of judgment that
follow arc omitted." This apparent omission may not be significant, since
it may well be that the theme of judgment is also included in what is being
alluded to here, even if the wording is not cited explicitly, since Jesus in
cludes it elsewhere in the Gospel (e.g., Luke 7:22-23; i8:7). * Certainly 3
nQMelch 2. which alludes to Isaiah 61, makes mention of vengeance (2.13),

and there appears to have been a view by the Qumran community, and
hence within at least certain streams of Judaism, that vengeance and com
3
fort went hand in hand with the corning of the Messiah. '
These messianic connections make it more important to note the
kind of figure being depicted here. The four major themes that have been
proposed are the final eschatological prophet, the Messiah, the suffering
36
servant, and a royal Davidic figure. As I noted in my earlier paper on this
passage, "Scripture Justifies Mission," it is probably unnecessary to differ
entiate strongly between them. In that paper, I instead emphasized the
a
complex figure being described. This was supported by 4Q521 1 » MJi
passage noted for its allusions to Isaiah 61, where thefigurewho is speak
ing and appropriating for itself the actions of Isaiah 61 appears to be God.
In the Qumran text, the Messiah is mentioned specifically in line 1, with
reference to the heavens and earth obeying him. Then, in line 5, the Lord is
said to visit the pious. It is the Lord who will "glorify the pious ones on the
"Scripture | • • r 1»1 - MiMion," that there is good reason for this episode to go back to J
himself. If this is so, and there are good reasons for thinking so, then lesus himself made a
explicit claim to Mwdihihip at the outset of his public ministry, but in terms that he him
self defined, including his being the eschatological prophet. This has implications for the de
velopment of Christology in the early church. See C. F. D. Moule. The Origin of Chrirtvlogy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 34-35.
33. E.g-, Slrau»», Davidu Messiah, 220.
34. Cf. J. Jeremías, Jesus' Promise the Nations (SBT 24:I.ondon: SCM Press, 1958) 45-
10
46, who argues that the reason the crowd reacts so strongly to Jesus is that he had left out t
message of iudgment.
35. C. A. Evans, Luke (NIBC: Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990) 74-
36. These are gleaned from C A. Kimball. Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in
Luke's Cospel (ISNTSup 9* Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) »1-12. «nd Strauss,
Davidie Mcsiúifi, 116 • 33, who provide arguments; they are summarized in Porter, "Scripture
Justifies Mission," 113-14- Cf. also Turner, Powerfrom on High. 233-38; A. 1 iato, A Scurfs Ris
ing: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish
Messianic Expectations (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
152
throne of the eternal kingdom," and who will "release the captives, make
the blind see, raise up the downtrodden," and (though this is not certain
due to a lacuna in the manuscript) "heal the slain, resurrect the dead, and
7
announce glad tidings to the poor."' In other words, there was a tradition
in the Judaism of the time in which God himself was the one who was ap-
propriating the proclamation and accomplishment of the actions of Isaiah
61. If the Scroll switches subjects in the lacuna — and this is not certain —
then at the least the Messiah is depicted as performing the same kinds of
actions that God himself also performs.
No doubt the kind of understanding that Jesus had of his messianic
calling was transmitted to John the Baptist, which leads to a third parallel
episode between the two. The phrase that I have translated "to proclaim
forgiveness to the captives" could be translated "to proclaim release to the
captives." This is the way that it is translated in many versions, including
the RSV/NRSV and NASB (the NIV7TNIV has "freedom''). This is appar-
ently how John the Baptist understood what Jesus was proclaiming in his
18
messianic role. In Luke 7:18-23, John, who was probably in prison (cf.
Matt 11:2), sends two of his disciples to enquire regarding whether Jesus is
1
the Messiah. * Jesus responds to the enquiry by summarizing his activities,
including quoting part of Isa 61:1. John quite possibly interpreted Isa ¿1:1-2
in terms of an expected literal physical release of prisoners, such as himself,
while Jesus apparently interpreted the passage differently. Jesus' interpreta-
tion includes both the physical healing of those who are afflicted, some-
40
thing expected from the Messiah, and the spiritual healing of sinners
through forgiveness. Both are evidenced throughout Luke's Gospel. In
particular, the same root for "forgiveness" is used in two episodes where
Jesus fulfills the Isaianic and messianic expectations. These include the
healing of the paralytic man in Luke 5:17-26 (esp. w. 20,21,23,24), and the
forgiveness of the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 (esp. w. 47, 48, 49)- This
37. Sec C. A. Evans. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (Leiden: Brill,
1996) 12a for translation; cf. 129, where he discusses whether the last statement does not sug-
gest that the Messiah is now the subject of the verbs.
3$. For many of the insights that follow, I am grateful to Dr. Craig Evans, whose re-
sponse at the Bingham Colloquium led to significant improvements and expansions in this
and other parts of my paper,
39. It is unclear whether John the Baptist accepted that Jesus was the Messiah. See Ev-
ans, Luke, ii<5.
40. See Evans, Luke, 119,
»53
STAN1.F.V B . P O R T E R
latter episode occurs soon after the visit from John's disciples. In both epi
sodes, the question is raised regarding who has the prerogative to forgive
sins. In thefirst.Jesus directly links forgiveness of sins with healing so that
the man can rise and walk. In the latter, Jesus does not link forgiveness to
healing, but simply informs the woman that her sins are forgiven. This lat
ter scene gives graphic evidence of Jesus' understanding of his messianic
calling to include the forgiveness of those held captive by sin.
Included within Jesus' appropriation of the quotation from Isa 61:1*
2 is more than I had space to say in my first paper about how these four
proposedfiguresmight be related to each other and to what Luke is doing
m depicting Jesus. I believe that the four figures revolve around the no
tion of the eschatological prophetic Messiah, as indicated by several key
factors. The anointing language in lsa 61:1-2 (Luke 4:18) is clearly related
to the anointing by the Spirit and proclamation of a prophet.*' Jesus'own
response to the reaction of the crowd is that "no prophet is acceptable in
his home town" (Luke 4:24), using the same word for "acceptable" that is
used in the quotation of Isa 61:2. This linked response indicates that Fesus
saw himself as performing a prophetic role in this passage, being the es
chatological prophet proclaimed in the Old Testament quotation. This is
consistent with other language in Luke's Gospel in which Jesus is seen as a
prophet (e.g., Luke 7:16, 39; 13:33-34; 24:19). Some have questioned
whether the anointing language is prophetic because in the Old Testa
ment anointing and the Spirit refer to anointing a king (1 Sam 16:12-13;
2 Sam 2 3 : 1 - 2 ) . " However, even the royal Davidic figure is also probably
prophetically messianic in nature <cf. Luke 20:41), since enthronement
language is common to the Davidic tradition (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Psalms
2; 110) and the prophetic tradition (Isa 9 *-7i na-las Mic 5:1-5; Daniel 7,
:
esp. vv. 7 , 1 4 ) . " The same can be said of the suffering servant, because of
Linkage between Isa 61:1-2 and Isa 52:7, the latter of which is the start of
the suffering servant song (Isa 52:7-53:12), according to ancient paragraph
markers," such that Isa 61:1-3 fay be cither a suffering servant song or a
41. Cf. R. P. Mcnzies, The Development offtar/yChristian Pneumutology with Special

Reference to Luke-Acts (ISNTSup Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 146-77. csp.
177-
4,2. Cf. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 2jo. 227-2*.
43. See Evans, ksus and His Contemporaries, JV'-M-
I wish lo thank my former stu
dent Richard Van Egmond for bringing some of this material to my attention.
Evans, lake, 74.
4 4 .
"54
45
midrash upon one. Others have questioned whether in Luke's Gospel
there is reference to "the" prophet, or only to "a" prophet, with reference
46
to "the" prophet occurring only in Acts. The appropriation by Jesus of
the messianic role, and the specific prophetic language used to indicate
thisfigure,suggests that there is more than simply reference to a prophet
47
here.
The proclamation of Luke 4 is thus prophetically messianic, in terms
of both the citation used and the content of the citation. It depicts one
who is anointed by the Spirit of God to proclaim a specific prophetic mes
sage. This message inaugurates Jesus' mission and, by his specific appro
priation, clearly labels him as the prophetic Messiah.
Peter's Acclamation
In Luke 9, in a passage very similar to Mark and Matthew, Jesus is with his
disciples, and he questions them about his identity. The answers they give
in some ways summarize the discussion that has been given above. When
asked who people say that he is, the disciples answer Jesus by saying: "John
the Baptist, Elijah and one of the prophets of old" (Luke 9:19). These are
the same answers that are earlier recorded as having been given to Herod
regarding Jesus (Luke 97-8). When pressed by Jesus for a personal re
sponse, Peter answers for them all by saying that lesus is "The Christ of
God" (Luke 9:20). At first glance, it may appear that we have two different
categories of response — a haphazard and popular group of wrong an
swers and the onerightanswer. This is probably not correct. Bock is prob
ably more accurate when he states regarding the proposed answers that
"The basis for each possibility is tied to the prophetic character of Jesus'
48
ministry.'' As we have already noted, ties have been established with each
45. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition. 111, referring to Ellis, Luke, 97, and J. A. Sanders, "From
Isaiah 61 to Luke 4,* in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sa
cred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Foruess, 1993) 46-69, here 49.
46.E.g.,O.Cullmann, Oiristohgy ofthe New Testament {\ns\i>,S. C Guthrie and C. A.M.
Halt London: SCM Press, 1959) 30; C. F. D. Moulc, "'1lie Christology of Acts," in Studies in Luke-
Acts (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martynj Philadelphia; Fortress, 1966) 159-85, esp. 162.
47. In fact, I would argue that references to "the" prophet have been in play since the
beginning of the Gospel on the basis of the parallels between John and Jesus.
48- Bock, Luke, 1:841.
155
STANLEY F. PORTER
of these — John, Elijah, and the prophets — in terms of Jesus' prophetic

and messianic character. In other words, "From Luke's point of view, these
responses are not so much wrong as incomplete. In contrast, Peter's reply
4
centers on Jesus' messianic position." * This is confirmed by the unique
phrasing that Luke uses, affirming that the Messiah is anointed and sent by
0
God.* Thus, what Peter is affirming is that a number of prophetic figures
have been proposed for who Jesus is. Rather than switching categories al
together, Peter affirms that Jesus is the prophetic Messiah, that is, the Mes
siah or Christ who comes as fulfillment of the prophets noted earlier, in
51
cluding John, Elijah, or any others (e.g., Isaiah?).
Jesus and the Authorities
Once Jesus is arrested, he isfinallytaken before the authorities in Jerusa

lem. Atfirsthe is held in custody by the religious authorities overnight so
that he can appear before the Sanhedrin. When he is in the custody of the
religious authorities, he is mocked and beaten. They also demand that he
prophesy regarding who it is that has hit him (Luke 22:64). Luke has word
ing similar to that in Mark, but Matthew at this point expands it by having
the enquirer ask Jesus to "Prophesy to us, you Christ, who is the one that
struck you?" (Matt 26:67). Luke retains the Markan form of the account at
this point. When Jesus appears before the Sanhedrin, however, the Lukan
account is different from that in Mark and Matthew. The Sanhedrin tell
him, "If you are the Christ, tell us" (Luke 22:67), to which Jesus says that if
he does answer, they won't believe him. At that point, Jesus states: "But
from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power
of God" (Luke 22:69; citing Ps 110:1). Then the Sanhedrin asks if he is the
son of God, to which he replies in the affirmative. At this point, they dis
count the need for witnesses, since they have heard directly from him.
There has been much recent scholarship regarding Jesus and the ac
cusation of blasphemy made against him in Mark's and Matthew's ac-
49. Hock, Luke, r'11 However, one need nol continue Us Dock does) by saying lhat
the 'regal" category of messianism is now reintroduced from the infancy narrative.
50. L Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan, 1986) 1A4,
51.1 note that Matt 16:14 records the disciples including leremiah with the proposals
regarding lesus. In light of Luke's use of luiah (see above on Luke*), it makes sense for him
not to mention any other prophets, leaving the implication that Isaiah is included.
156
1
counts.' However, that accusation is not explicitly made in Luke's Gospel.
Instead, the charge of blasphemy is made against those who were earlier
interrogating Jesus (Luke 22:65). This does not mean that Jesus was not
charged with blasphemy — he almost assuredly was (see below). But Luke
docs not use the term directly of Jesus, no doubt to ensure that accusations
of irreligious behavior were properly focused." Nevertheless, there are
several other differences in the accounts as well. These include Luke's quo-
tation from Dan 7:13 that does not make specific reference to coming with
the clouds of heaven, and the change in ordering, so that Jesus' response
comes before the question regarding his being the son of God.
Luke, however, is interpreting Jesus' messianism in keeping with his
emphases. Several features are to be noted. The first is that the quotation of
Ps 110.1 here in Luke 22:69 invokes the discussion in Luke 20:41-44.** In this
earlier passage, in dialogue with some scribes, Jesus asks them how it is
that they say that the Christ is David's son (Luke 20:41). Jesus then cites Ps
110:1 — "the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until 1 make your
enemies a footstool for your feet" (Luke 20:42-43), where the point is, as
Bock says, that "it is more important to see Messiah as David's Lord than
as his son."" This would appear to indicate that in Luke 20 and 22 Luke is
emphasizing the royal or Davidic messianic characteristics of Jesus. There
is no doubt that this is the case. However, two further factors should be
considered. The first is that it appears that Luke treats the Psalm quotation
as prophetic in nature, since he sees it being fulfilled in Jesus." The second
is that, even though Luke does not cite the entire quotation from Dan 7:13
regarding coming with the clouds of heaven, he does refer to the son of
7
man seated at the right hand of power.' Not only does this enthronement
52. See I v ins, Jesus and His Contemporaries, 407*34; D. L- Bock, Blasphemy and Exal-
tation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus- A Philological-Historical Study of the
Key Jewish Tlitmes Impacting Mark ¡ 4 * 1 - 6 4 (WUNT 2.106; Tubingen: Mohr Sicbeek. 1998).
53. See Bock, Luke, 2:1790.
54. On Psalm 110 in Christian usage, sec M. I lengcl, Studies in Early Christology (Ed-
inburgh: WtT Chirk, 1995) 119-225.
35. Bock, Luke, 2:1796.
56. See lohnson, Luie, 314-15, wheic he notes that Mark 12:36 refers to the Holy Spirit
and Matt 22:43 'he Spirit rather than to David; lohnson. Acts, 51-52.
57. See Hengel. Studies in Early Christology, )Rs-8v, esp. 1S7. Hengcl notes that Luke
"limits himself — consistent with his theology — to the presence of the one who is exalted
to therighthand of God and c-rnits the mention of Icsus as the Coming One according to
Dan. 7:13." There are other places where Luke clearly Indicates lesus as the coming one. us I
-57
STANLEY E. PORTER
language indicate fulfillment of the Davidic promises of 2 Samuel 7 as well

as Psalm 110, but, as noted above, it is also associated with the prophetic
tradition of Isaiah 9 and n and Daniel 7. As Evans notes, the contexts of
Daniel 7 and Psalm no are similar, and they were combined in later Jewish
5
exegesis. " So, the reference here is to both the royal Davidic and the pro
phetic Messiah.
The Risen Jesus
After the resurrection, two episodes further reveal Jesus' messianic charac
ter in Luke's Gospel. In thefirstepisode, the risen Jesus travels along the
road to Emmaus with two men and talks with them about the Christ. After
they have expressed their disappointment about events surrounding Jesus'
death, the risen Jesus expresses his dismay that they have not believed what
the prophets wrote and asks whether it was not necessary (eoei) for the
Christ to suffer the things recounted. In the second episode, in Jerusalem
with a larger group, after eating together with them, he opens his hearers'
minds and says that "it is written ly^Ypanrail that the Christ should suffer
and rise again from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:46)-
There are four factors to notice here that confirm the eschatological
5
prophetic messianic role of Jesus in Luke's Gospel. * Thefirstis that Jesus
refers specifically in v. 25 to what the prophets have said (even if that in
cludes the psalmist, since the psalmist was seen as a prophet by Luke). Je
sus refers to the prophetic tradition that had predicted the Messiah's suf
fering and death (see above on the suffering servant idea) — even if that
set of expectations was counter to much messianic expectation of the
60
time. The second is that Luke uses the word "necessary" to depict the
things that Jesus underwent as following a prescribed prophetic plan, laid
down in advance of the actions that took place. The use of the language of
necessity makes clear the prophetic line of continuity from the Old Tcsta-
hm noted, and there is the sense in which Luke sees Jesus as the one who hai already com
as the episode on the road to Emmaus indicates (see the next section).
58, Evans. Jesus anil His Contemporaries, 417,418 19. He cites Midr. Ps. 2.9. as combin
ing Pi 110:1 and Dan 7:13.
59- See L W. Hurtado. "Christ," in !>icnonary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J. B. Green
S. McKnight.and I. H.Marshall; Downers Grove: InterVarrity Press, 1992) 100-17. here "4-
6a Bock, Luke, 2:1916.
158
ment to the events in the New. The third factor is that Jesus refers to what
stands written (this form of the verb appears about sixty-seven times in
the Greek New Testament). The use of this language indicates specific ref
erence to the Old Testament prophetic tradition, in which passages written
in the Old Testament stand written as witnesses and testimony to the es
tablished prophetic word of God. The fourth is that the risen Jesus is refer
ring to events that have already transpired, that is, the end of the age has
come in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus' citation in v. 47 of what
may be seen as a paraphrase of his message of repentance for forgiveness of
sins as recorded in Mark 1:15 serves to round out the account, with the
Messiah both opening and closing the Gospel.
The Messiah in Acts
Having treated the Gospel of Luke, I turn now to the book of Acts. Al
though the word "Christ" (xpioroc,) is used more often in Acts than in the
Gospel, half of that usage is nominal in nature.*' That is, it indicates that
the usage has already become associated with the name of Jesus. I wish to
62
concentrate on the titular usage.
Pentecost
Just as the sermon in the synagogue in Nazareth marked the definition and
inauguration of Jesus' rninistry, so the opening of the second of Luke's two
61.1 tend to accept Fitzmycr's analysis of titular and nominal usage, although this has
been disputed. Some of the major disputants include H. J. Cadbury, "The Titles of Jesus in
Acts," in Foakcs-Jackson and l.ake,eds.. The Acts of the Apostles, 5:351-75, esp. 358-39, who ar
gues for titular use; Mottle, "Christology of Acts," 174-76; S. S. Smalley, "The Chrislology of
Acts Again." in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament (cd. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley:
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 79-93. esp. 85-88. both of whomfinda mix of
usage; and most recently Blomberg, "Messiah." 125. who, recapitulating the discussion, ar
gues for predominantly titular usage (questioned by W. W. Klein's response in the same vol
ume, "Cbristos: Jewish Tide or Hellenistic Name? A Response to Craig l_ Blomberg." in Hess
and Carroll R., eds., Israel's Messiah, 143-50).
62.1 do not mean to imply by this that the messianic sense does not rest with the
nominal usage, but that the nominal usage does not reveal its messianic content in the same
way that the titular usage does.
159
STANLEY E. PORTER
v o l u m e s b e g i n s l i k e w i s e w i i h a p r o g r a m m a l i c s t a t e m e n t for t h e b o o k in
A c t s 2:14-36." T h i s o c c u r s w h e n Peter s t a n d s u p a n d a d d r e s s e s t h e c r o w d
i n o r d e r to explain t h e b e h a v i o r o f b i s f e l l o w d i s c i p l e s , a n d h e e x p l i c i t l y
cites Joel 2:28-32 (LXX 3:1-5) i n A c t s 2:17-21; Ps 16:8-11 i n A c t s 2:25-28; a n d
Ps 110:1 in A c t s 2:34-35." O n t h e b a s i s o f h i s e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f Jesus a s t h e
6
p r o p h e s i e d c r u c i f i e d a n d r e s u r r e c t e d o n e , ' Peter t h e n s p e a k s o f h i m as t h e
M e s s i a h . In A c t s 2:30-31, Peter s a y s t h a t b e c a u s e D a v i d w a s a p r o p h e t , h e
c o u l d l o o k f o r w a r d t o t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n o f t h e M e s s i a h . In A c t s 2:36, after
c i t i n g Ps 110:1, Peter says that all t h e h o u s e o f Israel s h o u l d k n o w that G o d
had m a d e * * l e s u s . w h o w a s c r u c i f i e d , b o t h Lord a n d Christ. T h i s d e s i g n a
tion w a s in p l a c e f r o m t h e a d v e n t o f h i s m i n i s t r y , n o t initiated a t t h e resur
rection ( s e e A c t s 2:31)." T h e n , i n A c t s 2:38, after the c r o w d i s p i e r c e d t o t h e
heart b y w h a t t h e y have h e a r d , Peter tells t h e m t o r e p e n t a n d b e b a p t i z e d
in t h e n a m e o f l e s u s t h e Christ.
T h i s p a s s a g e c o n t i n u e s t h e p r o p h e t i c a n d royal o r D a v i d i c m e s s i a n i c
figure that w a s e s t a b l i s h e d i n Luke's G o s p e l . " T h e first q u o t a t i o n is f r o m
63. See Bock, Proclamation, 105-44.

64. There is also the allusive use of Old Testament language in Acts 230 and 31, the
latter paraphrasing Ps 16:10. On the text used by Luke, see G, |. Steyn, Septuaginl Quotations
in the Context of the Petrine and l\iuline Speeches of the Acta Apostotorum (Kainpcn: Kok
Pharos. 1995) 64-128. who believes that the Septuagint text is followed.
65. There has been widespread neglect of the idea of the importance of the vuflering
of lesus in Acts. As I will point out. this is a common theme in the messianic passages that
we ate discussing. See P. P. Moessner, "The "Script' of the Scriptures in Acts: Suffering as
(iod's 'Plan' (JJouAii) for the World for the 'Release of Sins,'" in History, literature and Society
in the Book of Acts (ed. B. Wiihcrington III; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199*0
2IB-50, esp. 221 and 225-27.
66. The verb gives no Indication of when this act took place.
67. Note that there is no article here. Some have posited that an adoptionist Christol-
ogy is revealed here, whether in Acts itself or in a source used by Luke. For example,
R. Bultmann (New Testament Theology [trans. K. Grobel: 2 vols.; New York: Scribners, 1952,
195511:27), Cullmann (Chriaology. 216), and Robinson ("The Most Primitive Christology of
All?" in his Twelve New Testament Studies, 139-53, esp. 140-41) equate Lordship and
Messiahship with the resurrection. C K. Barrett (A Critical and Fjtegetical Commentary on
the Acts of the Apostles [ICQ Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1994- »9981 1:151-52) thinks that this is
not Luke's position, but that it reveals an early source, perhaps the kind of early adoptionlsl
Christology that Paul countered in Kom 1:4 and Phil 2:6-11. Barrett, however, does not be-
lieve that Jesus made a public claim to being the Messiah (1:152), which would push back the
origins of Jesus' Christology and claim to Messiahship much earlier than some haw
thought, and certainly tu before the resurrection.
68. See Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 131-47.
160
Ps 16:8-11, which refers to the continuation of the Davidic dynasty and

hence is a royal psalm. However, as Peter says, David was able prophetically
to see that one of his descendants would sit upon his throne, and thus he
69
was a prophet prophesying about the Messiah. The second quotation is
from Ps 110:1, which, as we have seen, is an important Lukan (and early
Christian) ascension or enthronement psalm, and also a royal Davidic
psalm. Similarly to the first example, David is seen by Peter here as a
prophet, since he says that "it was not David who ascended into heaven,
but he himself says . . . thus indicating that David's utterance of the
psalm had a prophetic fulfillment in a later, eschatological prophetic fig
ure. The third quotation is reminiscent of the proclamation of John the
Baptist in its call for repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins (cf.
Mark 1:15; Luke 3:16-17)- As noted above, the message of John is associated
with his prophetic role as anticipating fulfillment in the eschatological
prophetic Messiah,
Peter's Sermon in the Temple
In this, Peter's second major sermon in the book of Acts, lie follows the
same pattern as noted in hisfirstsermon, the one given at Pentecost. Here
he refers in Acts 3:18 to the things that God announced beforehand by all
the prophets, that is, that the Messiah should suffer. This leads htm to call
for the people to repent of their sins, in anticipation of the sending of
70
Christ Jesus, appointed beforehand for such a purpose (3:20)7' Unlike
the Pentecost sermon, which had a combination of royal and prophetic
69. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 137; Johnson, Acts, 51-52. Cf. also Acts 4:25-26, where Da
vid, by the Holy Spirit, speaks of the rulers gathering 3gainst the Christ (Ps 2:1).
70. This usage may well be nominal, rather than utular, especially as there is no article
with the noun.
71. Robinson ("Most Primitive Christo!ogy "esp. 149-53; followed by R. H. Fuller, The
i
Foundations of New Testament Christology [New York: Scribners, 1965; 158-59) argues that
there is an underlying primitive Christology in this passage indicating that Jesus, though
designated Messiah, had not actually been sent yet as the Messiah, and that there was future
expectation regarding his Messiahship. This has been refuted by Moule, "Chrisrology," 167-
69; I). I.. Jones, "The Title C/trisMnn Luke-Acts," CBQ32(1970! 69-76, esp. 71-73; E. Frank
lin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Atts (London: SPCK, 1975)
57. It is worth noting llial Robinson's position is in tension with Acts 3:18 and docs not best
suit the ordering of events as presented by the grammar of the verses involved.
161
STANLEY E. PORTER
messianic elements, this sermon is clearly focused upon the Messiah as ful
filling what was prophesied. As Johnson states, "Peter strikes one of the
central themes of Luke-Acts, that the events in the story of the prophet and
the people fulfill the prophecies of Torah (Luke 1:1), most specifically the
72
necessity of the Messiah's suffering before entering his glory." Thus, all
the prophets, Peter says, foretold the suffering of the Christ, which elicits
human repentance in anticipation of the return of the Christ, who was ap
pointed for such a purpose. Later Christianity did not erase the signs of the
75
early prophetic view of the Messiah; rather, this theme is still readily
present.
Paul's Speech in Thessahnica
When Paul arrives in Thessalonica, he finds a synagogue, where he pro

ceeds to teach for three sabbaths so that he can reason from the Scriptures
(Acts 17:2). While there, he opens up the meaning of the Scriptures and
sets out evidence that the Christ, whom he identifies as Jesus, had to (£6et)
suffer and rise from the dead (Acts 17:3). Some have questioned the Pauline
usage in Acts as out of keeping with that in the epistles by contending that
74
Paul's use in the epistles is nominal, whereas this usage is titular. We
should note that Paul's usage in Acts is both titular and nominal. The same
in fact is true in his letters, where there is clear identification of Jesus with
his Messiahship in, for example, Rom 1:3 and especially 9:5.'*
There are several observations to make about this passage in support
of the prophetic messianic hypothesis. The first is that Paul's explaining
the Christ comes about as a result of his reasoning from the Scriptures.
This implies a prophetic use of the Scriptures, especially in light of the sec
ond factor, which is that Paul was explaining Christ's suffering and resur
rection from the dead. No doubt Paul was drawing upon passages such as
72. lohcson. Acts. 68. He cross-references Luke 24:26-27, 44-4*»; and Acts 17:2-) (see
below).
73. As believes Robinson. "Mast Primitive Christology," 150-51.
74. A representative and highly influential position in this regard is W. Kramer,
Christ, Lord. Son of Cod (SBT 50; London: SCM Press. 19A6) 203-14.
75. Sec Moule, "Christology," 174-75. Note that Rom 1:3 has been thought by some to
reflect an early christological formulation. This would draw the lines of thought a n d expres
sion even lighter between Paul and Acts as reflecting earliest Christian thought.
l62
The Messiah in Luke ana Acts: Forgiveness for the Captives
Isaiah 53 that demonstrated that the Messiah had to suiter (seen elsewhere
in the Lukan writings as well, such as Luke 9:22; 17:25; 24:26, 46; Acts
76
3:18}. The third observation is that the link between the Scriptures and
fulfillment in Christ is drawn by usage of the verb of necessity, "must."
Paul's Defense before Agrippa
There has been much discussion of Paul's speeches, including his speech
77
before Agrippa. For whatever reason, Festus aits it off right after Paul
has laid out a number of considerations regarding the Messiah. First, Paul
says that he has stated nothing except what the prophets and Moses said
was going to occur (Acts 26:22). Luke here reemphasizes a theme that we
have seen throughout the two books, that what has taken place regarding
the Messiah has occurred in terms of prophetic fulfillment of what God
78
had said in the Old Testament. The mention of the prophets and Moses
is not meant to suggest that they are in opposition to each other; rather,
they are complementary, with Moses, representing the Torah, seen to be a
prophetic voice. Second, Paul notes that these prophets had specified that
the Christ had to suffer but that his resurrection would proclaim light to
79
lews and Gentiles (Acts 26:23). Once more the Christ is seen as fulfilling
prophetic messianic expectations.
Conclusion
Messianic complexity is somewhat clarified in Luke-Acts. This is not be

cause there are not a number of positions that could be argued for regard
ing presentation of the Messiah in Luke and Acts, instead, it is because one
major and at least one minor emphasis emerge from the discussion.
Throughout the two works, the author wishes to present Jesus as the es-
chatological prophetic messianic figure. That means that the Christ is the
76. As noted by Johnson, Acts, 305.

77- SeeS. E. Porter, The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric and Theology
(WUNT115; Tubingen: Mobx Siebeck. 1999! 158-61.
78. lohnsor., Acts. 438.
79. The grammar of the passage is actually stated in terms of verbless protases: ''if the
Christ is a sufferer, if he is first from resof rection of the d e a d . . ,
163
STANLEY E. PORTER
one who was foretold by the writers of the Old Testament, often in pro
phetic books but also in other books whose authors became prophets as
their writings were seen later to be fulfilled in the ministry, suffering, and
resurrection of Jesus. A subsidiary but also important theme is that of the
Messiah as the royal Davidic figure. This theme is not as prominent as the
prophetic messianic motif, in my view, and in fact is often linked to the
prophetic notion, since ideas of ascension and enthronement are often
linked in the Old Testament passages cited.
164
Remembering Jesus:
John's Negative Christology
Tom Thatcher
Any d i s c u s s i o n o f J o h n ' s messianic beliefs is e s s e n t i a l l y a discussion o f

1
John's v i e w o fJesus. T h e first c h a p t e r o f t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l a p p l i e s a v e r i
t a b l e c a t a l o g u e o f m e s s i a n i c titles t o Jesus t o m a k e t h ei d e n t i t y o f t h e p r o
t a g o n i s t i m m e d i a t e l y clear. J e s u s is J o s e p h ' s s o n ( J o h n 1:45). b u t J o s e p h ' s
s o n a l s o h a p p e n s t o b e " t h e S o n o f G o d , " a s w e l l as " t h e W o r d , " " t h e L i f e , "
"the Light o f Humanity," "Christ" (xptcrroc,), "the only-begotten
(uovoyevric,) i n t h e b o s o m o f t h e Father," " t h e L a m b o f G o d w h o takes
a w a y t h esin o f t h ew o r l d , " "the M e s s i a h " (ueoofac,), "the o n e w r i t t e n about
i n t h eL a w b yM o s e s a n d i n t h eP r o p h e t s , " "the K i n g o f IsraeL" a n d , finally,
Jesus' self-designation, " t h e S o n o f M a n " (1:29-51). Even the most casual
r e a d e r c a n s c a r c e l y fail t o s e e t h a t J o h n ' s m e s s i a n i c b e l i e f is e n t i r e l y c o n
flated w i t h t h e identity o f Jesus o f Nazareth.
The Puzzle of John's Christology
B e c a u s e J o h n ' s C h r i s t o l o g y is t i e d t o t h e p e r s o n o f J e s u s , o n e c o u l d t h e o
retically o u t l i n e John's messianic beliefs b y g o i n g t h r o u g h t h e text o ft h e
1. The term* "John" and "Fourth Evangelist" will be used synonymously throughout
\his essay to refer to that individual who b primarily responsible for the text of the Fourth
Gospel as it exists today. The masculine pronoun "he" will be used in agreement with the
gender of the English name "John." For sake of convenience, this essay will closely associate
John with the "hlder," the author of 1-2-3 lohn, under the assumption that these two indi
viduals, if not the tame person, held very similar beliefs about leiu*.
165
TOM THATCHER
Fourth Gospel and highlighting statements by or about Jesus that reflect

specific christological themes. These passages could then be distributed
across a grid of theological categories that would, when taken together,
represent the totality of John's Christology A convenient starting point for
such an inquiry may be found in John 20:30-31, a passage universally rec
ognized as the purpose statement of the Fourth Gospel: "But then also Je
sus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not writ
ten in this book. But these things have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of Cod, and so that by believing you may have
life in his name" Similar statements appear in the christological creeds of
the Johannine Epistles, which everywhere emphasize that "Jesus is the
Christ/Son of God come in flesh" and assert that eternal life is granted to
those who accept this claim (1 John 1:2; 2:22,25; 4:2. >5i 5:1.5> 13; * John 7).
Very conveniently for modem readers, John's summaries fit neatly with the
Western theological tradition's approach to the mystery of the Incarna
tion, holding in perfect tension the human and divine aspects of Christ's
nature. "Jesus," the human being who came from Nazareth (John 1:45-46)
and died on a cross in Jerusalem, was at the same time "the Christ," both in
the sense that he fulfilled Israel's messianic hopes and also, on a more
metaphysical level, in the sense that he was the divine "Son of God." Eter
nal life in the name of this individual is promised to those who are able to
comprehend this mystery.
But while quick recourse to John 20:31 and the creeds of 1 John offers
a simple solution to the puzzle of Johannine Christology, it also obscures
the depth of the problem. For a broader look reveals that John's thinking
about Jesus appears to be unstable, at least from the perspective of tradi
tional theological categories. For example, although John highlights Jesus'
dual nature, he seems uncertain what to do with it, at one moment wal
lowing in the wounds of Jesus' crucifixion and the taste of his blood (see
fl
John 6:53-58; 19:31-35; 20:26-27), t the next presenting "the earthly life of
Jesus merely as a backdrop for the Son of God proceeding through the
1
world." As a result of this shifting emphasis throughout the narrative, the
Fourth Gospel sometimes exhibits a "low Christology" — one that pri
marily reflects "OT or inter testa mental (Jewish messianic| expectations...
that do not in themselves imply divinity" — and at other times expresses
1. Ernst Kasriiiauii, The Testament ofjesux A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of
Chapter 17 (trans. Gerhard Krodcl; Philadelphia: Fortress, i y 6 R ) 13.
166
perhaps the "highest Christology" evident in the New Testament, making

5
statements that explicitly "move him (Jesus) into the sphere of divinity.'*
This problem is only one of several that might suggest that John docs not
4
have a firm grip on the identity of his main character.
Many modern scholars, overwhelmed by the conflicting
christological claims of the Fourth Gospel, have simply torn the text in de
spair. Most current theories of the composition history of the Gospel of
John depend to some extent on its many theological "aporiae" — the ap
parent gaps, tensions, and paradoxes in John's thinking. In fact, it is fair to
say that two of the most significant movements in recent Johannine schol
arship, source-critical analysis and the developmental approach, both de
pend heavily on the inherent ambiguity of John's Christology.
Johannine source criticism has relied heavily on the apparent incon
sistency of John's theology. Redaction criticism, the analysis of a biblical
text in light of the author's theological and literary development of materi
als drawn from earlier sources, has been most successful in the study of
Matthew and Luke, because the presumed sources behind these texts
(Mark and Q, a sayings source) are readily available for comparison and
analysis. But in the case of the Gospel of John, as with Mark, obvious
sources cannot be so easily identified. One must therefore reconstruct the
hypothetical source documents from which John may have drawn mate
rial, and these sources must be reconstructed from evidence in the text of
the Fourth Gospel itself. Johannine source critics have attempted to de
velop internal criteria to determine which parts of the Fourth Gospel were
derived from these source(s) and which parts reflect John's own editorial
revisions and theological tendencies. The christological tensions apparent
in the text facilitate this process by allowing scholars to suggest that the
Fourth Evangelist utilized sources that did not entirely reflect his own
theological perspective. In most versions of this theory, it is argued that the
Fourth Evangelist, writing somewhere toward the end of the first century,
was responsible for the "high" christological statements in the text, while
traces of an older, "lower" Christology reflect the perspective of his
sources.
1. Raymond Brown. The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates
of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) i$n. 1 •
4. See the convenient survey of the Fourth Gospel's theological tensions in Raymond
Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (cd. Francis J. Moloney; APR! New York:
Doubleday, aooj) 238-41, 249-51.
167
TOM THATCHER
A convenient example of this approach may be found in the work of

its most significant recent proponent, Robert Fortna. Fortna proposes two
stages in the composition history of the Gospel of John, "basic document
and redaction." Fortna calls John's basic source document the "Signs Gos
pel," an early Christian account of seven notable miracles followed by the
story of Jesus' passion and resurrection. In Fortna's view, this primitive
Signs Gospel was produced in a Jewish Christian milieu "as a missionary
tract with a single end, to show . . . that Jesus is the Messiah."* As such, it
evidenced a low Christology, being content simply to argue that the hu
man Jesus fulfilled Israel's messianic hopes. The Gospel of John betrays a
low Christology at exactly those points where John is dependent on this
Signs Gospel (SG), due to the fact that John "regards SG . . . as gospel, and
treats its language more conservatively than Matthew and Luke treat
Mark," quoting the text verbatim and often adding to, but never subtract
6
ing from, its contents. The high Christology of the Fourth Gospel reflects
John's additions to this primitive text, primarily evident in Jesus' lengthy
discourses. As a result, while the narrative portions of the Fourth Gospel,
drawn from the older Signs Gospel, reflect the more earthly "Jesus familiar
from the Synoptic Gospels," the discourses offer "the more familiar por
7
trait of the [divine) Jesus of universal Christianity." Fortna, along with
other source critics, thus solves the christological puzzle of the Fourth
Gospel by arguing that the conflicting statements about Jesus' identity
must originate in two different places.
Theological tensions also play a key role in the "developmental ap
proach" to the Gospel of John. Advocates of this position argue that the
Fourth Gospel as it exists today is the last in a series of revisions of an ear
lier document that is now lost. Over time, the lohannine Christians faced
new challenges and encountered new religious ideas in the world around
them. Each new challenge forced them to revise their thinking about Jesus
and, in turn, to revise their gospel so as it make it harmonize with these
new ideas. The Gospel of John is thus the end product of the series of theo
logical "developments" from which this approach derives its name.
5. Robert T. Fortna, The Cospel of Signs; A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Un
derlying the Fourth Gospel (SKTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970) 77,115.
6. Robert T. Fortna, "Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Redaction-Critical Perspec
tives." NTS 21 (1974-75) 504; sec also Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Prcdeceaor: From
Narrative Source to Present Gospel {Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 7.
7. Fortna, Fourth Gospel and lit Predeceuor, i-j.
168
Advocates of the developmentaJ approach, such as Raymond Brown,

highlight christological tensions in the Gospel of John as evidence for this
process of theological development. Brown notes that "part of the diffi
culty in analyzing Johannine Christology . . . is that the [Fourth] Gospel
contains statements that seem to have opposing views." He highlights five
such apparent contradictions, including Jesus' "equality and subordina
tion in relation to the Father" and "statements capable of being read as
Gnostic Christology . . . (alongside) others that would cause trouble for
8
Gnostics." In his most recent treatment of the subject, Brown explains
these tensions in terms of a three-stage tradition history. Stage one repre
sents the ministry and teaching of the historical Jesus, which provided the
foundational data for all Gospel traditions and all extant Gospels; stage
two represents the development of that common tradition to meet the pe
culiar needs of the Johannine community over time; stage three represents
the actual composition of the Fourth Gospel on the basis of the traditional
9
information developed in stage two.
According to Brown, the theological tensions in the text may be ex
plained by the fact that the author of the Fourth Gospel did not personally
live through all of stage two, but rather inherited his information about Je
sus from the mysterious "Beloved Disciple," an associate of the historical
Jesus (John 13:23; 19:26-27; 20:2; 21:7, 20-24). While the Fourth Evangelist
was a devoted follower of this Beloved Disciple, he sought to "comple
ment" his mentor's somewhat outdated perspective in order to make it
more relevant to his own immediate situation. His example was followed
by a later redactor, who added a few further finishing touches to produce
10
the version of the Fourth Gospel that exists today. In the process,
Johannine Christology gradually evolved to higher and higher levels, from
an earlier view of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah to the later, more fully devel
oped incarnational Christology now evident in the Fourth Gospel. While
Brown stresses that he does not wish to emphasize discontinuity between
these three stages of development, his analysis nevertheless depends on ap
parent theological discrepancies in order to reconstruct the history of the
Johannine community."
8. Brown, Introdmtion to the Gospel of John. 250.

9. See Brown, Introduction to the Gospel of John, 62-78.
10. Brown, Introduction to the Gospel of John, 78. 195-96. 251. "Complement" is
Browns term. p. 251.
11. Sec the similar disclaimer in Brown, Community of the Beloved Disciple, 51-54.
169
TOM THATCHER
In some branches of Johanninc scholarship, then, the ambiguity of

John's Christology is not only taken as a given, but is in fact exploited as a
foundational principle of interpretive method. Source critics and develop
mental theorists see John's theological aporiae not as a liability, but rather
as a window into the composition history of the text These approaches
have yielded fruitful results in exegesis, and for this reason they have
played a significant part in Johannine studies for the past fifty years,
Yet despite the success of these methods, one must question their
treatment of the data under consideration. Essentially, source-critical and
developmental approaches begin with a taxonomy of categories that re
flect the Western philosophical and theological tradition. The text of the
Fourth Gospel is dissected, and each distinct unit or theme is sorted into
one of the familiar christological categories. In the process, it is observed
that materials from different sections of the book seem to fall into catego
ries that logically conflict: John 10:3, 26 suggests the "predestination of
11
those who come to Jesus"; but John 3:19-21 "indicate(s} choice." Remark
ably, this observation leads to the conclusion that, because these perspec
tives are irreconcilable, the Fourth Gospel must not represent the
christological beliefs of any single individual, but is rather a pastiche of the
views of several authors/sources. This conclusion is "remarkable" because
it obscures what would otherwise appear to be a more logical solution:
that traditional Western theological categories are inadequate to describe
John's messianic beliefs, or, indeed, even to describe the way that John con
structs a •Christology." Since these categories are obviously not applicable
to the data from the text, it would seem more fruitful to abandon them and
to assume that John's beliefs about Jesus are coherent at some other level.
The present study will adopt this approach, treating the text of the
Fourth Gospel as a unified composition and attempting to describe its
Christology in terms relevant to John's own beliefs and situation. Regard
less of its composition history, the author/redactor/final editor who pro
duced the version of the Fourth Gospel that exists today clearly was not
concerned about the fact that his narrative sometimes advocates a "low
Christology" with a "final eschatology" and sometimes a "high Christol
ogy" with a "realized eschatology." For the Fourth Evangelist, at least, the
text is coherent at some level, and this essay will seek to determine the level
at which John's Christology comes clearly into focus. In order to do this, it
u. Brown, Introduction to the Gospel 0 } John, 250.
170
Remembering Jesus: Johns Negative Christology
will be necessary to first identify and discuss the generative mechanism of

John's messianism, the means by which he created christological ideas and
statements, and then to outline the rhetorical objectives of the
christological claims of the Johannine literature. While this approach will
not produce a comprehensive survey of the content of John's Christology,
it will expose the underlying processes that produced that content.
The question of the Fourth Gospel's christological generative mech
anism concerns the means by which John constructed his image of Jesus as
the Messiah. Obviously, John's thinking was not built on the platform of
modern theological categories and the sharp divisions between them, such
11
as "equality or subordination," "human or divine," "election or choice.
John did not, in other words, reflect on things that Jesus did and then try
to decide whether his words and deeds meant that he was equal to God or
subordinate to God, etc. Instead, John refers to the process by which he
painted his portrait as a "memory" of Jesus, a "witness" to Jesus* true iden
tity. A coherent theory about the way this witness and memory worked is
critical to any study that seriously seeks to understand John's Christology
on its own terms.
The question of the rhetorical objectives of John's christological
claims concerns the interplay between what John says about Jesus and the
historical context in which he made those statements. The Fourth Gospel
and 1-2-3 John, like all other texts, were written in response to a specific sit
uation, and the christological claims of those texts should therefore be
seen as reactions to external social realities. It is in reference to these social
realities, not to modern theological categories, that the apparent tensions
in John's Christology become coherent. The theological guideposts of the
Johannine books are not, in other words, explicit in the texts themselves.
Instead, John's thinking about Jesus as the Messiah finds its conceptual
moorings in the real world of his audience.
John's Charismatic Christological Memory Machine
John does not refer to his thinking about Jesus as a "messianic belief" or a
"Christology," and he does not talk about Jesus in terms that can be easily
reduced to abstract propositions that fit neatly into modern theological
categories. He speaks, instead, of his "memory" of Jesus or "witness to" Je
sus, the recollection of things that Johannine Christians have known about
171
TOM THATCHER
Jesus "from the beginning" (1 John 2:7.24; 3:")- For John, Christian "mem
ory" is not a simple act of recalling information about things that lesus
said or did. Rather, Christian memory is a complex combination of the re
call of the historical Jesus, post-resurrection faith, and a Christian inter
pretation of the Hebrew Bible — all melted together by the heat of the
Holy Spirit. This charismatic memory is the generative matrix that pro
duced all of [ohn's statements about Jesus, and what we today call John's
"Christology" is the image of Jesus that this memory matrix produced un
der the specific circumstances in which the Johannine books were written.
John's first explicit indication of the means by which Christians pro
duce images of Jesus appears at the conclusion of his version of the "tem
ple incident," the story of Jesus' disruption of activity in the temple courts
during a Passover festival (John 2:13-22). Jesus justifies his radical actions
by claiming that practices such as animal vending and currency exchange
effectively turn God's house into a market. When the "Jews" ask to see his
credentials, he urges them to "destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it." John quickly clarifies that Jesus was not suggesting that they or he
should actually damage the building. Rather, "he said this about the 'tem
ple' of his body. Then when he was raised from the dead, his disciples re
membered that he said these things, and they believed the Scripture and the
word that Jesus spoke" (2:21-22).
John's main verb here, cpvriotlnoav ("they remembered"), is entirely
appropriate by any count, for Jesus' actions in the temple would theoreti
cally fall within the finite range of personal experiences that the disciples
might bring to mind at a later date. But it is important to stress that their
"memory" of the temple incident was not a simple act of recall, as evident
from the complementary- verbs "was raised" and "believed." Christian
memory of Jesus begins with the recall of events from the actual past,
but this recollection is interpreted through post-resurrection faith
(tnlortvaav). Faith is informative not only for second- and third-
generation believers who never actually saw the historical Jesus, but also
for eyewitnesses who only later understood Jesus' ultimate destiny. As
such, the disciples' "belief" is not a certainty about what happened at the
temple (i.e., not "I really do believe that Jesus said this"), but rather a new
understanding of the words that Jesus spoke on that occasion in view of
messianic passages from the Hebrew Bible. One such passage, Ps 69:9, is
quoted directly in John's account: "His disciples remembered that it had
been written, 'Zeal for your house will consume me*" (John 2:17). In its
172
Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christohgy
original context, this verse describes the psalmist's persecution because of

his concern for the temple, and John cites it to explain Jesus' "zealous" ac-
tions. Notably, however, John does not cite the specific verse from the He-
brew Bible that the disciples later "believed" on the subject of the "three
days" that Jesus would spend in the tomb before the "raising" of his body
(cf. Matt 12:39-40)." Vague references to "Scripture" are not uncommon
in the Fourth Gospel, even when John is citing the Hebrew Bible to prove a
key theological point (see 7:38; 17:12; 19:28; 19:36; 20:9}. Perhaps in all these
cases, as at 2:22, John is pointing his reader not to specific passages but
rather to a mode of recall, a way of understanding ambiguous things that
Jesus said and did against the backdrop of the sacred text
The peculiar mode of remembering described at John 2:22 surfaces
again some ten chapters later in the story of the triumphal entry (John
12:12-16). The disciples watch in amazement as the crowds wave palm
branches and proclaim Jesus "King of Israel." John explains that, "at first,
his disciples did not know (gyvoxiav) these things. But when Jesus had
been glorified then they remembered (ctpvijoBqoav) that these things had
been written about him and that they did these things to him" (12:16). "At
first" (TO nptSrov) here must mean "when this happened," and John's as-
sertion that they "did not know these things" must mean that they did not
understand the significance of Jesus' actions at that Lime. This significance
became apparent only after Jesus' death and "glorification" subsequent
events that clarified their memory of Jesus and their understanding of "the
things that had been written about him," specifically Zech 9:9, which is
loosely quoted at John 12:15. Here again, John portrays the disciples'
"memory" of Jesus as a complex interface between their recollections of
things that Jesus did, their awareness of Jesus' ultimate destiny, and a mes-
sianic reading of passages from the Hebrew Bible.
These two passages, and others like them, reveal that John's Christol-
ogy, his image of Jesus as the Messiah, emerges at the intersection of three
currents: the recall of things that the historical Jesus presumably did and
13. Commentators arc generally agreed thai John 2:22 docs not refer specifically to
v, 17, because John seems to be citing Ps ¿9:9 to explain Jesus' actions in the temple rathe
than to explain his cryptic remark about rebuilding the temple in three days. See C. K.
Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (2nd cd.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978} 201; Ray-
mond E. Brown, The Gospel according U> John: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (ABj Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966,1970) 1:116; Rudolf Schnackcnburg,
The Gospel according to St John (trans. Kevin Smyth; New York; Crossroad, 1987) 1:353.
173
TOM THATCHER
said; a post-resurrection understanding of Jesus' ultimate destiny; and a

messianic interpretation of the 1 lebrew Bible, not only specific passages but
the entire text taken as a whole. The interplay of memory, faith, and Scrip
ture may therefore be viewed as lohn's christological formula, the genera
tive matrix through which he developed statements about Jesus' messianic
identity. Because John's thinking about Jesus was founded on this formula
rather than a fixed content o f ideas, his Christology must have been dy
namic rather than static, capable of reconfiguration as needed and there
fore resistant to the narrow categories of the Western theological tradition.
But if John's messianic belief was a generative formula rather than a
fixed creed, how would it be possible for his community to maintain any
semblance of doctrinal unity and continuity? John solves this problem by
stressing that the memory of Jesus is ultimately charismatic. According t o
the Fourth Gospel, Jesus made a number of specific promises to the disci
ples just before his death concerning the coming of the "Paraclete"
(nap6K).nToc.!,a title for the Holy Spirit that is unique to the Johanninc lit
erature. It is clear from these "Paraclete sayings," preserved now in John
13—17, that the Spirit will function in the Christian community "as remem
brancer and interpreter."" Specifically, the Paraclete will "teach you all
things and remind you of all things that 1 said to you" (14:26), "guiding"
the disciples "into all truth" by speaking "only what he hears" from Jesus
(16:13-14). While the work o f the Spirit is personal, this teaching ministry
would never, in John's view, lead t o innovation or division. As
Schnackenburg suggests, the Paraclete "simply continues Jesus' revelation,
not by providing new teachings" but only by enhancing and clarifying his
words, thus fulfilling the ministry of "a commemorative deepening of that
revelation."'* For John, the Spirit is the ultimate source of the commu
nity's Christology, guiding individual believers in their recall o f Jesus'
deeds and their understanding of those deeds against the backdrop o f the
Hebrew Bible.
In Johanninc terms, then, "Christology" is the image that emerges
when a Christian interprets events from Jesus' life through the lens o f the
14. F. F. Unicc, The Gospel of John: Inttodmtion, Exposition, and Note* (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmana, lyKj) yt$.
1*. Scluiackenburg. Gospel according 10 St. John. 3344. 3** 3:142; tee also 3:'5*-5a;
Barren, Gospel according to St John, 467-efc Brown. Gospel according to John. 2.713-16; Rudolf
Btilmunn. The Gospel of John; A Commentary (trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray. R. W. N. Hoare.
and I. K. Riches; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 57s.
174
resurrection against the backdrop of the Hebrew Bible under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit Because Christology is guided by the Spirit, it remains
consistent from place to place and from generation to generation (see
i John 2:20-27}. Yet because John's Christology is a formula rather than
specific content, it remains flexible, capable of adaptation to a variety of
situations. The presentation of Christ in the Fourth Gospel and 1-2-3 John
reflects one such adaptation to one specific social setting. The contours of
that setting will be the subject of the following section.
The johannine Framework
As noted above, John's Christology is a formula that makes it possible for

Christians to construct memories of Jesus under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit. Following Culpepper's rule that "theological developments are of
ten precipitated by social crises," this means that the specific christological
statements of the Fourth Gospel and 1-2-3 John are products of this gener
ative formula as shaped by John's circumstances at the moment those texts
6
were produced.' As such, the Christology of the Johannine literature be
comes coherent only when viewed against the backdrop of the "social cri
sis" that led to the composition of these books. Before proceeding, it will
be helpful to briefly identify and outline the most salient elements of this
crisis as they impacted John's presentation of Jesus.
John 3:16, perhaps the most well-known verse in the Christian Bible,
introduces a key term in the Johannine literature, "the world." In John's
vocabulary, "the world" refers to all people who have not accepted John's
claims about Jesus. God loves the world, so much so that he sent his Son to
give the world eternal life. But the world, failing to recognize this (John
1:10), did not accept Jesus' proclamation and resented his expose of its evil
deeds. Jesus' very presence brings judgment to the world's unbelief (9:39;
12:31), and for this reason the world hates Jesus and rejoices at his death
(7:7; 16:19-20). Unfortunately for the disciples, the world will also hate
them and seek to kill them (15:18-20; 16:33). In John's view, non-Christians
are uniformly hostile to believers, to the point that the relationship be
tween the two groups must always be expressed in dualistic terms such as
16. R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospc! anil Lcllen of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts;
Nashville: Abingdon, 1998I 57.
175
TOM T H A T C H 11H
"love and hate""light and darkness,""truth and lies." While it is ultimately

impossible to know why he felt this way, such evidence suggests that John
had experienced persecution from non-believers at some point.
One specific source of this persecution may be evident in John's fre
quent references to a subgroup within the world of whom he is particu
larly wary, "the Jews." This designation is inherently ambiguous, since al
most every character in the Fourth Gospel, including Jesus, is Jewish by
race and religion. In some instances it seems that John is thinking of "the
Jews" as the Jewish religious leaders who oppose Jesus (John 5:10; 9:22); yet
on other occasions it appears that a "Jew" is any Jewish person who does
not accept Jesus' claims about himself {6:41-42; 8:48-59; 10:24-39). What
ever their specific identity, "the Jews," like "the world "are generally hostile
to Jesus and the disciples, a fact that comes with little surprise since they
are "children of the devil" (8:44-45)- From time to time, some Jews seem
interested in Jesus' message and miracles, but ultimately they turn against
him when he reveals his true identity and agenda (6:14-15, 25-58; 8:30-59).
Most scholars today explain these data by following J. Louis Martyn's the
ory that the Johannine community was a messianic Jewish group that had
been banned from the synagogue for their confession of Jesus (see 9:22;
17
16:2). Removed from the relative safety of the Jewish fold, the Johannine
Christians would be left alone to face a hostile and unbelieving world
without the rights and privilege* granted to Jews in the Roman empire.
Sometime after this excommunication from the synagogue, a hereti
cal sect emerged within the Johannine churches, whom the author of 1-2-
3 John calls "the Antichrists." This group is first mentioned at 1 John 2n8,
where the Elder warns that "as you have heard that Antichrist is coming,
even now many Antichrists have come." Despite the Elder's polemical pro
tests, it is clear that the Antichrists, unlike the world and the Jews, were an
internal threat to the community. His admission that "they went out from
us" (2:19) indicates that even he considered them Christian at one time,
and it seems that Diotrephcs, the leader of one Johannine church, pre
ferred their doctrine over the older orthodox perspective (3 John 9-10).
The Antichrists were probably former disciples of the Elder, Christian
17. I I_ Martyn. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2nd cd.; Nashvflle:
Abingdon, 1979) 50-66. Most scholars who take this position today sec John's experience as a
local phenomenon and therefore do not folio*' Martyn's attempt to pinpoint a universal ex
communication of all fewish Christians.
176
teachers w h o d e p a r t e d from b i s traditional C h r i s t o l o g y . B e c a u s e t h e y were

k n o w n t o , a n d a c c e p t e d by, m e m b e r s o f John's c h u r c h e s , it w a s e a s y for
t h e m t o s e c u r e a f o l l o w i n g . T h e Elder therefore g o e s to p a i n s t o specify
that true b e l i e v e r s m u s t a d h e r e t o t h e traditional perspective, for " w h o e v e r
d e n i e s t h e S o n d o e s n o t h a v e t h e Father, e i t h e r " (1 J o h n 2:23).
T h e christological s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l a n d 1-2-3 John
were d e v e l o p e d from t h e m e m o r y f o r m u l a d e s c r i b e d a b o v e in r e s p o n s e t o
the c l a i m s o f t h e w o r l d , the Jews, a n d t h e Antichrists. T h i s reactive p o s t u r e
g e n e r a t e d w h a t N o r m a n Peterson calls the " a n t i - l a n g u a g e " o f the J o h a n -
n i n e literature, t h e u s e o f t h e o l o g i c a l t e r m s a n d c o n c e p t s that h a v e b e e n
b o r r o w e d f r o m o r t h o d o x Judaism a n d A n t i c h r i s t i a n i t y b u t " t r a n s f o r m e d in
contrastive or antistructural ways." John's a n t i - l a n g u a g e leads h i m t o ex
press h i s m e s s i a n i c beliefs largely i n n e g a t i v e t e r m s , p r o d u c i n g a portrait o f
18
Jesus that clarifies w h a t h e is n o t or w h a t h e is "greater t h a n . " Specifically,
Jesus is n o t w h a t the l e w s and the A n t i c h r i s t s say that h e is, a n d h e is i n fact
greater t h a n a n y t h i n g that either o f these g r o u p s w o u l d a d m i t .
A detailed e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e full s p e c t r u m o f John's r e s p o n s e s t o
t h e c l a i m s o f the Jews a n d t h e A n t i c h r i s t s i s b e y o n d the s c o p e o f t h i s study.
F o r p u r p o s e s o f i l l u s t r a t i o n , t w o key t h e m e s i n John's C h r i s t o l o g y will b e
d i s c u s s e d , o n e that reflects h i s r e s p o n s e t o t h e c h a l l e n g e o f the Jews a n d
a n o t h e r that reflects h i s r e s p o n s e t o t h e c h a l l e n g e o f the Antichrists. John's
ability t o g e n e r a t e i m a g e s o f Christ that o p p o s e Jewish c l a i m s is e v i d e n t in
h i s e m p h a s i s o n Jesus' s u p e r i o r i t y over M o s e s , a n d his ability t o generate
m e m o r i e s that o p p o s e the A n t i c h r i s t s ' c l a i m s is e v i d e n t i n h i s insistence
that Jesus c a m e "in water a n d b l o o d . "
More Than Moses
A c c o r d i n g t o J o h n , Jesus is n o t w h a t t h e Jews s a y that h e is: h e is far s u p e

rior, n o t o n l y to their c l a i m s a b o u t h i m , b u t a l s o t o their e n t i r e religious sys
t e m . T h i s a n t i - c h r i s t o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h expresses itself i n a w i d e variety o f
w a y s i n the Fourth G o s p e l , i n c l u d i n g the "I a m " s a y i n g s , w h i c h d r a w o n
18. Norman R. Peterson. The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light: Language and
Characterization in the Fourth Gospet < Valley Forge. PA Trinity Press International. 1993} 5.
Peterson's comments are limited 10 the Fourth Gospel, but apply equally, in my view, to the
christologkal statements of 1-1-3 John-
177
TOM THATCHER
m e t a p h o r s thai e x p l i c i t l y c o m p a r e Jesus t o t h e beliefs a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s o f Ju

d a i s m ("I a m t h e light o f t h e w o r l d " ; "I a m t h e g o o d s h e p h e r d " ; "1 a m t h e
resurrection a n d t h e life"; "I a m t h e v i n e " ) , a n d t h e m a n y a n a l o g i e s b e
t w e e n Jesus a n d t h e t e m p l e that arc c u r r e n t l y a t t h e forefront o f a c a d e m i c
d e b a t e . " T h e d i s c u s s i o n here will f o c u s o n o n e p r o m i n e n t c u r r e n t in John's
2 0
a n t i - C h r i s t o I o g y : Jesus' categorical s u p e r i o r i t y t o M o s e s . It is i m p o r t a n t
t o stress at t h e o u t s e t that t h e c h r i s t o l o g i c a l c l a i m s o f t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l d o
n o t necessarily r e s p o n d t o beliefs that m o s t first-century Jewish p e o p l e ac
tually-held a b o u t e i t h e r M o s e s o r Jesus; t h e y r e s p o n d , i n s t e a d , t o beliefs that
John thinks Jewish p e o p l e h e l d . A s s u c h , this d i s c u s s i o n w i l l f o c u s o n beliefs
h e l d by "the Jews" a s a character i n t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l a n d o n w a y s i n w h i c h
Jesus, in John's v i e w , s u r p a s s e s t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e s e p e o p l e . "
T h e J o h a n n i n e Jews m a k e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t reveal a w i d e s p e c t r u m o f
beliefs a b o u t t h e M e s s i a h , a n d J o h n o c c a s i o n a l l y s u g g e s t s that t h e r e i s
s o m e d i s a g r e e m e n t a m o n g t h e m a b o u t t h e s p e c i f i c s o f t h e Christ's i d e n t i t y
(
a n d m i s s i o n ( J o h n 7:30-31, 4 '-44). T a k e n collectively, " t h e Jews" b e l i e v e
that t h e Scriptures say t h e Christ w i l l c o m e from B e t h l e h e m , rather t h a n
Galilee (7:42, 52). S o m e o f t h e m , h o w e v e r , are n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d
about his place of birth, because they apparently adhere t o t h e doctrine of
a " h i d d e n M e s s i a h , " t h e a n c i e n t Jewish b e l i e f that t h e M e s s i a h ' s i d e n t i t y
a n d o r i g i n s w o u l d r e m a i n u n k n o w n until h e a p p e a r e d s u d d e n l y a n d d r a
m a t i c a l l y o n t h e p u b l i c s c e n e a s Israel's r e d e e m e r (7:27). John t h e Baptist
a l s o s e e m s t o h o l d t o s o m e f o r m o f t h i s d o c t r i n e , t e l l i n g t h e P h a r i s e e s that
19. Fur a convenient summary discussion of the Johannine "I am" sayings, sec
Gary M. Burgc,'"I Am'Sayings," in The Dictionary ofJesus and the Gospels (ed, loci B.Green,
Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall; Downer* Grove, FL; InterVarsiry Press, 1991) 354-
>fr. For disc union of John's temple Christology, see Mary Coloc, God Dwells with Us: Temple
Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2 0 0 1 ) ; Alan Kerr. The Temple
of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (JSNTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca
demic Press. 2002».
20. For fuller discussion of John's Moses Christology against the backdrop of ancient
lewish beliefs, sec the classic study by Wayne Mceks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and
the Johannine Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1967). A more literary approach to the issue, similar
to 111.11 adopted here, may be found in Peterson, Gospel ofJohn and the Sociology of Light, fto-
109.
2t. Statements by the Samaritan woman of lohn 4 have been included here where
they seem consistent with messianic belief* expressed elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel hy the
lews <cf. 4:19.25 with 7:40; 4:29 with 1 0 : 2 1 ) . In point of tact, lohn does not seem to see a sig
nificant difference between the messianic views of Samaritans and "lews."
173
"there is o n e a m o n g y o u w h o m y o u d o n o t k n o w " a n d s l a t i n g that G o d

had c a l l e d h i m t o reveal t h i s individual's i d e n t i t y (1:26-31)."
Whatever his point o f origin, once the Messiah appears the
J o h a n n i n e Jews e x p e c t h i m t o p e r f o r m "signs," a t t e s t i n g m i r a c l e s t h a t w i l l
verify h i s i d e n t i t y a n d a u t h o r i t y (John 2:18, 23; 3:2; 6:30; 7:31). T h e s e s i g n s
w i l l n o t , h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e t h e M e s s i a h ' s d i v i n i t y ; t h e y are, i n s t e a d , t h e
s i g n s o f a n e s c h a t o l o g i c a l p r o p h e t , specifically t h e " p r o p h e t like M o s e s "
m e n t i o n e d at D e u t 18:18 ( J o h n 1:21; 6:14; 7:40). Like M o s e s , t h e M e s s i a h
w i l l offer h i s p e o p l e m i r a c u l o u s p r o v i s i o n a n d h e a l i n g (6:30; 9:32-33; 10:21)
a n d w i l l a l s o b e a revelatory m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. A s s u c h , t h e
Christ w i l l b e a n e x e m p l a r y teacher w i t h special m i r a c u l o u s insight (4:25,
29; 7:26; 10:19-21), a n d h e w o u l d t h e o r e t i c a l l y h a v e a u t h o r i t y t o b a p t i z e —
t o purify p e o p l e a n d grant t h e m a c c e s s t o a n e s c h a t o l o g i c a l c o m m u n i t y o f
t h e r e d e e m e d {1:19-25). T h i s s a m e p r o p h e t i c a u t h o r i t y w o u l d a l l o w t h e
M e s s i a h t o criticize a n d p o s s i b l y r e v i s e t h e t e m p l e c u l t (2:18). F o r all t h e s e
r e a s o n s , t h o s e Jews w h o d o s u s p e c t that Jesus m a y b e t h e M e s s i a h seek t o
install h i m as a t h e o c r a t i c ruler, t h e " K i n g o f Israel," n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a p o l i t
ical leader b u t a n e w M o s e s w h o will lead h i s p e o p l e o u t o f o p p r e s s i o n
(6:15; 12:12-15). Yet, u n l i k e M o s e s a n d t h e D a v i d i c k i n g s , this m e s s i a n i c
p r o p h e t w o u l d " r e m a i n forever," n e v e r suffering d e a t h (12:34)."
Overall, t h e s e b r i e f g l i m p s e s s u g g e s t that t h e Jews, at least in John's

v i e w , e x p e c t e d t h e Christ t o fill t h e s h o e s o f M o s e s : e m e r g i n g s u d d e n l y
from obscure origins w i t h n o o b v i o u s credentials b e y o n d h i s unique d i
v i n e c a l l i n g ( s e e E x o d 3:11); s e r v i n g as t h e u l t i m a t e p r o p h e t i c v o i c e o f G o d
in t h e redeemed c o m m u n i t y ; authorizing his p r o n o u n c e m e n t s with m i
r a c u l o u s s i g n s , s i g n s that w o u l d i n c l u d e s u p e r n a t u r a l p r o v i s i o n a n d h e a l
i n g . T h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s are e s p e c i a l l y significant i n v i e w o f the fact that t h e
J o h a n n i n e J e w s refer t o t h e m s e l v e s a s " d i s c i p l e s o f M o s e s " a n d insist that
they follow Moses' teaching because they k n o w that G o d spoke t o h i m
( J o h n 9:28-29). In r e s p o n s e t o t h e Jews' beliefs, t w o o f Jesus' m o s t c h a r a c
teristic traits i n t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l e x p l i c i t l y c o n t r a s t h i m w i t h M o s e s .
First, w h e r e a s M o s e s w a s a m a n w h o c a m e f r o m t h i s w o r l d , Jesus " c a m e
d o w n f r o m h e a v e n " (6:38; 13:3; 16:28). S e c o n d , b e c a u s e h e w a s earthly, M o -
22. See discussion in Drown. Gospel according to John. 1153.

13. The Jews base this conclusion on "the Law." bul it is impossible to determine ex
actly what verse from the Hebrew Bible they and John have in mind. For possibilities, sec the
discussion in Brown. Gospel according to John, 1:468-69; I). A. Carson. The Gospel according
to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 445-46.
179
TOM THATCHFR
s e s c o u l d p r o v i d e o n l y for t h e t e m p o r a l n e e d s o f h i s p e o p l e , w h e r e a s Jesus
t h e Christ is e m p o w e r e d t o grant eternal life t o t h o s e w h o a c c e p t h i m . B e
c a u s e Jesus c a m e f r o m h e a v e n , h e c a n reveal u n i q u e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
G o d that n o o t h e r p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g M o s e s , c o u l d reveal; b e c a u s e eternal
life is g r a n t e d o n l y t o t h o s e w h o accept t h i s u n i q u e r e v e l a t i o n , the d i s c i p l e s
o f M o s e s c a n n o t b e s a v e d . Jesus' s u p e r i o r i t y t o M o s e s is t h u s a key t h e m e
i n John's a n t i - C h r i s t o l o g y .
B e c a u s e M o s e s w a s o f this e a r t h , h e o p e r a t e d u n d e r t h e r e s t r i c t i o n
articulated b y J o h n t h e B a p t i s t at John 3:27: " N o m a n is a b l e t o receive a n y
t h i n g except w h a t i s g i v e n t o h i m f r o m h e a v e n . " M o s t n o t a b l e for J o h n , this
m e a n s that M o s e s w a s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o receive a full r e v e l a t i o n o f G o d . A l
l u d i n g t o E x o d 33:i8—34-'8, J o h n n o t e s that " n o o n e h a s e v e r s e e n G o d " (1:18;
1 John 4:12) — M o s e s d e s i r e d t o b e h o l d G o d ' s glory, b u t w a s p e r m i t t e d
o n l y t o s e e h i s "back" ( E x o d 33:23). Jesus, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w a s "in t h e
Father's b o s o m " ( J o h n 1:18), a n d Christ's i d e n t i t y a n d m i s s i o n m a y b e
s u m m a r i z e d b y s a y i n g t h a t " h e c a m e f r o m G o d a n d w a s g o i n g back t o
G o d " (13:33; 16:28). Jesus h i g h l i g h t s t h e p r i m a r y p r i v i l e g e o f this u n i q u e l y
i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p at John 8:38: "I s a y w h a t I s a w w i t h t h e F a t h e r " {&
tyw titipaxa nxrpct rw naxpx XaXu)). H a v i n g b e e n i n t h e Father's b o s o m , Je
s u s c a n reveal G o d t o a n u n p r e c e d e n t e d d e g r e e . A s s u c h , " n o o n e c o m e s t o
the Father e x c e p t t h r o u g h m e , " b e c a u s e Jesus, a n d Jesus a l o n e , is "the way,
the t r u t h , a n d the life" (14:6).
B e c a u s e M o s e s w a s " f r o m below," h e w a s a b l e t o p r o v i d e o n l y t e m p o
ral s u s t e n a n c e . H e n c e , t h e m i r a c u l o u s f o o d that M o s e s g a v e the Jews in t h e
w i l d e r n e s s , m a n n a , q u i c k l y " s p o i l e d " ( E x o d 16:20; John 6:27), a n d t h o s e
w h o a t e t h i s b r e a d e v e n t u a l l y d i e d (6:58). I n a s i m i l a r w a y , M o s e s p r o v i d e d
p h y s i c a l h e a l i n g t o t h o s e b i t t e n b y snakes by "lifting u p " t h e b r o n z e s e r p e n t
a c c o r d i n g t o G o d ' s i n s t r u c t i o n , yet t h o s e w h o w e r e t h u s h e a l e d u l t i m a t e l y
d i e d o f o t h e r a i l m e n t s ( N u m 21:6-9). By c o n t r a s t , a n y o n e w h o k e e p s Jesus*
w o r d s w i l l n e v e r s e e d e a t h ( J o h n .1:14-16; 6:51; 10:28). Jesus i s , i n fact, "the
r e s u r r e c t i o n a n d t h e life," m e a n i n g that t h o s e w h o accept h i m w i l l e n j o y
"eternal life" (11:25-26; 20:30-31). T h e a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t t h i s life is given d i
rectly t o Jesus, a s a s o n , b y t h e Father (17:2)."
14. |ohn 11:50-91 implies thai "eternal life" results from keeping the commands of the
Father as restated by lesus, which apparently include accepting Jesus as the exclusive media
tor of God's grace (see ako 14:10). As such, "life" » given by the Father through the revela
tion of Jesus.
180
Because the Law was given through Moses (John 1:17), the Jewish
Scriptures bear all the earthly limitations that Moses himself bore. The
writings of Moses are therefore categorically distinct from, and inferior
to, the teachings of Jesus, following the maxim that "the one who comes
from above is over all; the one who comes from the earth is from the earth
and speaksfromthe earth" (3:31). Moses, being from the earth and unable
to grant eternal life, could only give a Law that brings Judgment and
death; Jesus, beingfromabove, could reveal God's "grace and truth" in all
its fullness (1:17; 3:14-17)- Moses, for example, gave regulations about
keeping the Sabbath, regulations that make it illegal for the blind and
lame to receive healing on that day (5:10,16; 9:14-16)." Jesus, having come
from heaven, bears an authority that inherently transcends anything that
Moses said, allowing him both to heal on the Sabbath and to command
others to work on that day because "my Father is working until now and I
am also working" {5:8,17). Moses, of course, allowed "work" on the Sab
bath in extreme cases, conceding that the Sabbath could be broken if
needed to follow the teaching of "the fathers" that a child must be cir
cumcised on the eighth day; Jesus, bearing a higher mandate, is autho
rized ""to make the whole person healthy on the Sabbath" (7:19-23).
Claims of this sort lead the Jews to protest, in John's view accurately, that
Jesus "said that God was his own Father, making himself equal to God"
(5:18). As a result of this unique equality, God's judgment of the world
will not be based on the Law of Moses, but rather on acceptance or rejec
tion of Jesus and his teachings (3:17-18).
In John's view, it is logical that Jesus* words should supersede Moses'
Law, for the Law in fact pointed to Jesus and when understood correctly
speaks about Jesus (John 5:39). Ironically, the Jews, while claiming to be
disciples of Moses (9:28), show that they do not trust Moses'words by fail
ing to accept what Moses said about Jesus, leading Jesus to ask at one point,
"If you don't believe what that man wrote, how will you believe my
words?" (5:45-47). On his best days, then, Moses, like John the Baptist,
could only herald the coming of one greater than himself.
The theme of Jesus' superiority to Moses, and its reflection of John's
a$. Whether or not John 7:53-8:11 was original rothc Fourth Gospel, the story of the
adulterous woman illustrates the principle at 1:17. As the Pharisees point out, Moses com
manded that those guilty of adultery must be stoned; Jesus, by contrast, reveals God's grace
by extending forgiveness.
181
TOM THATCHFR
underlying chrisiological formula, is perhaps most explicit in the story of

the feeding of the five thousand at John 6. John's presentation of this event
specifically sets Jesus' actions against those of Moses through two means.
First, while the Synoptics contextuali/.e the miracle by associating it with
the mission of the Twelve and the fate of John the Baptist (Mark 6:29-31;
Matt 14:12; Luke 9:1-10), John frames the story by noting that "the Passover,
the feast of the Jews, was near" (John 6:4). The allusion to Passover con
nects the feeding to the Exodus, Moses' shining moment as the mediator,
redeemer, and provider of Israel. Second, John makes the analogy between
Moses and Jesus explicit in the long discourse on the "bread of life" at 6:22-
58, a passage designed to demonstrate both the inherent superiority of Je
1
sus' ministry and the inability of "Moses disciples" to comprehend his
messianic identity.
On the day after the miraculous feeding, the crowd catches up with
Jesus on the other side of the lake (John 6:22-25). Jesus is not impressed
with their exuberance and immediately questions their motives: "You are
not seeking me because you saw signs, but rather because you ate of the
bread and werefilled"(6:26). This statement is inherently ambiguous, be
cause the "sign" in question was in fact the miraculous supply of bread that
they had eaten the previous day. But before the Jews can point this out, Je
sus proceeds to exhort them: "Do not work for the bread that perishes but
rather for the bread that remains to eternal life, which the Son of Man will
give to you. For the Father God has set his seal on him'* (6:27). Here again,
one wonders why the lews would have to "work" for something that they
will receive as a gift. But politely ignoring this problem, they proceed to ask
Rabbi lesus (6:25) what works they must do in order to please God, and he
answers that they need only to believe in the one whom God has sent
(6:28-29). The [cws, detecting that Jesus claims to be such an individual,
then shift the discussion from what they must do to what AY must do. They
wish to see an attesting "sign" to verify his claims, and they remind him of
one of Moses' most famous signs, the provision of manna in the wilder
ness (6:30-31). The discussion that follows this request is obviously calcu
lated to demonstrate Jesus' categorical superiority to Moses. Christ is, in
tact, so much greater than Moses that any comparison obliterates the Jews'
theological taxonomy, making it impossible for them to comprehend Je
sus' words and making John 6:32-58 a textbook case of Johannine irony
and misunderstanding.
The Jews* remarks in this exchange reveal a theological taxonomy
182
Remembering Jesus: Johns Negative Christohgy
that includes three distinct categories: (1) God (John 6:28); (2) mediators
between God and humanity; and (3) gifts of God, which are administered
to his people through these mediators. In the immediate context, category
3 (the gifts of God) would include things like Moses' manna and the mi
raculous bread that Jesus has recently supplied. The Jews' comments to this
point in the story reveal their belief that Jesus belongs in category 2. Like
Moses (6:31-32), Jesus is a mediator sent by God, as evidenced by their ac
clamation of Jesus as a "prophet'' and their subsequent attempt to pro
claim him "king" (6:14-15). In John's view, however, Jesus is completely su
perior to Moses, not only as a mediator, but also in the sense that he
participates in all three categories at once, a possibility that the Jews cannot
conceive. As the "Son of Man" (6:27), Jesus, like Moses, reveals God to the
Jews and provides them with divine gifts. These gifts include miraculous
bread. But while Jesus can, like Moses, provide such material sustenance,
he can also give the Jews another type of "bread": his own flesh. This flesh
is itself a gift that God gives to the world, a "living bread" that provides,
unlike manna, eternal life to all who eat it (6:49-51). Jesus can grant this
eternal life because he, utterly surpassing Moses, also falls into the Jews'
category 1: Jesus himself is "from God," having "come down,from heaven"
(6:38,46). Jesus is thus superior to Moses not only in the sense that he is a
belter mediator between God and Israel who gives better provision, but
also in the sense that his identity completely explodes the Jews' way of
thinking about God, mediators, and gifts.
The Johannine Jesus is, then, superior to Moses in every conceivable
way, doing everything that Moses did and a great many things that Moses
could never hope to do. Moses, recognizing this, wrote the Law >— the
foundational document of Jewish faith and practice — to point the Jews to
Jesus. These anti-christological claims are driven by two powerful currents
in John's context: his underlying messianic memory formula, which insists
that Jesus is the interpretive key to the Hebrew Bible; and his urgent need
to defend his claims about Jesus against the attacks of the Jewish commu
nity, the "disciples of Moses," of which he had once been a member. It is
this emphasis on Jesus' inherent superiority to Moses that generates the
"high Christology" that sometimes appears in the Fourth Gospel, state
ments that elevate Jesus to a point where he seems almost completely ab
stracted from the realm of human affairs because he, unlike Moses or any
other human being, "came down from heaven" and therefore falls into the
same category as God.
183
TOM THATCHER
The Water and the Blood
John's attempt to portray Jesus as superior to the expectations of "the

Jews," and, indeed, as superior to Judaism itself, has generated those ele
ments of the Fourth Gospel that reflect a "high Christology" — so high, at
times, that "one feels that one has been transported into the [Gnostic]
16
world of C[orpus] Herm[cticum] 13 and the AOYOC TÂeioc." Yet, at the
same time, John occasionally evidences a very "low Christology," reveling
in the physicality of Jesus (John 6:53-58), adamantly insisting that water
and blood flowed from his crucified body (19:34-35; 1 John 5:6), and even
suggesting that the resurrected Lord could be touched with human hands
(John 20:17,27). As noted earlier, this apparent contradiction has led many
scholars to posit multiple sources or editions of the Fourth Gospel. In fact,
however, such statements do not conflict with John's claims that Jesus
came "from above." Instead, they conflict, explicitly and intentionally, with
the teachings of the Antichrists. Viewed as a response to this group, John's
emphasis on Jesus' "flesh" appears to highlight not so much the humanity
of Jesus as the historical specificity of the revelation of God that he pro
vided.
Because the Antichrists left no literary remains, their views must be
reconstructed entirely from the few polemical comments about them in 1-
2-3 John. The primary difference between their views and those of John is
summarized in terms of two contrasting "confessions." Like the Elder, John
confesses that "Jesus Christ came in the water and in the blood," while the
Antichrists claim that "Jesus came in water only" (1 John 5:6). As many
scholars have observed, the Antichrists' version of the slogan seems to sug
gest that they adopted a pneumatic Christology. "Water" here most likely
refers to the "living water" that Jesus offers his disciples, a metaphor for the
Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39)." As noted earlier, John believes that all Chris
tians enjoy the Spirit's ongoing guidance in developing memories of Jesus.
From John's perspective, the Paraclete establishes a close connection be
tween the human Jesus of the past and the risen Lord who continues to op
erate in the community, because the Spirit is in fact simply the form in
which Jesus himself comes to believers (14:16-18). But it seems that the
US. Bultmann, Goipei of John, 132.

27. For further discussion of this slogan, see Tom Thatcher, "Water and Blood in
AntiChrist Christianity (1 John 5:6)," Stone Campbell Journal 4 (2001J 235-48.
184
Antichrists interpreted Testis' words about the Spirit in a different way: if

the resurrected Lord, through the Spirit, continues to speak and act in the
church, there is little need to worry about the life and teachings of the hu
man Jesus. In fact, if the same divine Word that appeared incarnate in the
human Jesus continues to speak through believers, there is really not so
much difference between Christians and Jesus himself. From this perspec
tive, there would be no point in stressing that "Jesus (the man| is the (spir
itual] Christ," for every believer possesses the spiritual Christ in the form
of the Paraclete.
Even if John did not substantially disagree with the Antichrists' un
derstanding of the Spirit, he could scarcely ignore their inherent threat to
his own authority. By emphasizing the ongoing presence of the spiritual
Christ, the Antichrists could freely modify or reinterpret the established
Johannine Jesus tradition in light of new revelations. As Rensberger notes,
"If the opponents claimed that their ideas were inspired by the Spirit...
they would not hesitate to offer new concepts built up from their basic in
18
terpretation of the tradition." From the perspective of the Antichrists,
anything that the Paraclete is saying now would be just as authoritative as
anything that Jesus said back then, and of course therefore of equal author
ity with John's teachings and with the orthodox creeds of the community.
The reality of this threat is evident from the very existence of 2 and 3 John,
both of which seek to prevent local Christian leaders from going the way of
Diotrephes and allowing the Antichrists access to their churches.
John responded to the Antichrists' challenge by emphasizing that Je
sus came "in the water and in the blood," meaning that Christ comes to the
church both in the form of the Spirit and in the form of the historical Je
sus, whose memory lives on in community tradition and in the testimony
of the Beloved Disciple. As such, the current experience of Christfindsits
moorings in the past, in the deeds and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. At
least three aspects of John's anti-Christology reflect his attempt to shape
the memory of Jesus in a way that would counter the Antichrists' claims:
an emphasis on the temporal distance between the historical Jesus and the
community's present experience of the Paraclete; an emphasis on the
physicality of Jesus; and the unique presentation of Mary, Jesus' mother, in
28. David Rensbergei, 1 John, 2 John,$ John (ANTC; Nashville; Abingdon, 1997) 24. See
also Brown, Community of the Beloved Disciple, 138-41; Gary M. Burgc. The Anointed Com
munity: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19B7} 218-19.
185
TOM THATCHER
the Fourth Gospel. All three of these facets merit a complete study, but
each will be only briefly reviewed here-
First, while the Fourth Gospel is still often thought of as the "spiri
tual gospel" because of its emphasis on Christ's transcendent deity, the
fohannine literature in fact betrays a greater interest in the historical Jesus
than any other primitive Christian text. Against the claims of the
Antichrists, John everywhere attempts to portray Jesus as a historical fig
ure, a person who lived and died in the past and whose teachings function
as a benchmark for later Christian faith and experience. This emphasis
emerges in the Johannine epistles in the repetition of the phrase cur' (xpyfc,
"from the beginning," which is used to contrast the innovative doctrines of
the Antichrists with the teachings of the historical Jesus |i John 1:1; 2:24).
In two passages, the Elder uses the phrase cor' Apxfte to refer to a specific
saying of the historical Jesus, the "new commandment" of John 13:34 and
15:12. In John's view, the community's traditional christological creeds and
the love command arc both authoritative because they originate in the
teachings of the human Jesus, rather than in the revelations of the
Paraclete. For this reason, the Fourth Gospel appeals to the "witness" of
the Beloved Disciple, a member of the community whose testimony must
be accepted as final simply because he, unlike the Antichrists, had direct
contact both with the Paraclete and with the Jesus who lived in the past
(John 21:24).
Second, while John agrees with the Antichrists' emphasis on Christ's
heavenly origin, he balances these claims with an emphasis on the physi-
cality of Jesus. Jesus' physical body locates Christ in a specific time and
space different from the time and space in which the community now ex
periences revelations of the Spirit- First John 5:6-8 notes that there are
"three witnesses" to the claim that "Jesus is the Son of God," "the Spirit
and the water and the blood," and the Fourth Gospel shows that all three
of these witnesses originate with the earthly ministry of the human Jesus
(John 7:37-39; 19:31-35; 20:21-22). Because the Paraclete was given by Jesus
and represents the ongoing presence of Jesus in the community (14:16-18),
the Spirit simply reminds the disciples of things that the historical Jesus
said and guides their understanding of those teachings (14:26) — even af
ter Jesus' departure, the Spirit can only "take from me and proclaim to
you" (16:14). The Prologue to the Fourth Gospel thus emphasizes not only
that Jesus came "from above" but also that Christ came to this earth to re
veal himself at a particular moment in a particular location. The
186
Antichrists therefore must notforgetthat "the Word becamefleshand tab

ernacled among us," and that it was only within this human particularity
that "we beheld his glory" (1:14).
Third, John's anti-Christology expresses itself in the Fourth Gospel's
unique portrait of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary is mentioned several
times in the Gospel of John, and her two most significant appearances oc
cur in incidents that are unique to the Fourth Gospel yet critical to John's
Christology. At John 2, Mary appears at Cana to encourage Jesus to perform
thefirstof his "signs" (turning water into wine), an act that leads his new
disciples to "believe in him" (2:1-11). Mary is also present at the cross of Je
sus, where she is consigned to the care of the Beloved Disciple and presum
ably, like that individual, witnesses Jesus' death and sees "water and blood"
flow from his pierced side (19:23-35). As a spectator to these two events,
Mary can support both of the anti-christological claims discussed in this
essay: as a witness to Jesus' signs, she can testify that he came "from above";
as a witness to his death, she can testify that the "word becameflesh"in the
violent course of human history. Further, as an added bonusforJohn, Mary
is an associate of the Beloved Disciple and adds further weight to the credi
bility of that individual's "witness." For these reasons, Raymond Brown has
suggested that Mary functions in the Fourth Gospel as the Beloved Disci
2
ple's female counterpart, a symbol of true discipleship. *
In view of John's interest in Mary as a star witness to Jesus' signs and
death, two aspects of her characterization in the Fourth Gospel are nota
ble. First, while John tends to focus on specific individuals rather than
vague groups of people, he always refers to Mary as "Jesus' mother" and
never reveals her actual name. By contrast, Jesus' father is called "Joseph"
on two separate occasions, despite the facts that he is not an actor in the
story and, in John's view, is not even Jesus' true "father" (John 1:45; 6142;
see 2:1-5; 19:25-27). Second, the label "the mother of Jesus" is especially no
table in view of the fact that the Fourth Gospel does not include a Christ
mas story and generally does not seem particularly interested in the cir
cumstances of Jesus' birth. These two aspects of Mary's characterization
suggest that John is less concerned with her specific historical identity than
3.9. Brown, Community of the Beloved Disciple, 192-98. Alan Culpepper suggests that
Mary and the Beloved Disciple together represent "The beginning of a new family for the
children of God" {Anatomy of she Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design [Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983) 134).
187
TOM THATCHER
with the fact that Christ had a mother — that he was born and lived at a
specific moment in the past. In other words, John's presentation of Mary is
one aspect of his ami-Christology, another way in which his messianic for
mula expressed itself in opposition to the claims of the Antichrists.
The Johannine Christ, then, is a much more historicalfigurethan the
Antichrists would like to admit. The Christ did come "from above" and
continues to come from above to the community in the form of the
Paraclete, yet these ongoing appearances originated in the particular time
and space in which the Word was manifested in the body of Jesus of Naza-
reth. For John, this earlier manifestation set the guideposts for all subse
quent encounters with the Christ, so that the community's established
christological creeds can function as touchstones for genuine experience
of the Paraclete (i John 4:1-6). Here again, John's anti-Christology is driven
by two powerful currents: his underlying messianic memory formula,
which insists that any image of Christ must incorporate recollections of
the words and deeds of the historical Jesus; and his urgent need to counter
the claims of the Antichrists, who wished to minimize the significance of
Jesus' temporal ministry. As a result, John emphasizes the raw physicality
of Jesus to underscore Christ's historicity and limits the revelatory work of
the Spirit to a memory of things that Icsus did and said years ago.
Conclusion
Against the backdrop of the preceding discussion, John 20:30-31 comes

into focus at the intersection of two streams in John's negative Christology.
Contra the claims of "the Jews," Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God," who
camefromabove to grant an eternal life that Moses and, indeed. Judaism
as a faith system could not provide. This emphasis could lead to a thor
oughly spiritualized Christology, one that ignored the historical (esus in
preference for the Christ The Antichrists seem to have moved in this di
rection; but contra their claims, John insists that the Son of God is also "Je
sus," the one who came "in the water and in the blood" at a particular mo
ment in history (1 John 5:6; see [ohn 19:34-35).
But while John 20:30-31 may be correctly identified as the purpose
statement of the Fourth Gospel, it does not span the breadth of John's
Christology, nor does it even summarize the content of John's beliefs
about Jesus. Johannine Christology is not so much a set of beliefs as an on-
18»
Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christoìogy
g o i n g p o t e n t i a l to create m e m o r i e s o f lesus that m e e t the challenges that

w o u l d threaten to u n d e r m i n e o r t h o d o x faith. T h e apparent tensions m the
C h r i s t o l o g y o f the F o u r t h G o s p e l are s i m p l y the result o f the w i d e range o f
p a r t i c u l a r c h a l l e n g e s t h a t f a c e d J o h n at t h e t i m e the text w a s p r o d u c e d ,
a n d these challenges p r o v i d e the constellation of points within which
J o h n ' s p i c t u r e o f J e s u s t a k e s s h a p e as a u n i f i e d image.
169
Divine Life and Corporate Christology:
God, Messiah Jesus, and the
Covenant Community in Paul
S . A . Cummins
For the apostle Paul, an integral aim and outworking of God's self-
disclosure in Jesus Christ is the incorporation of the whole of humanity
into Messiah Jesus and his Spirit, and thereby into the divine life that is
eternal communion with the triune God. The historical and theological
dimensions of such a claim involve at least two key interrelated aspects of
Paul's Christology: namely, that Jesus' messianic identity and destiny en
compass an Israel-specific life and death transposed into his exaltation as
universal living Lord, and that this pattern and path are replicated in the
lives of all those who are incorporated into him as the messianic and
Spirit-empowered eschatological people of God. This necessarily selective
study will explicate this wide-ranging and contentious claim by consider
ing a scries of interrelated elements under three headings: "Monotheism
and Messiahship in the Judaism Known to Paul"; "Monotheism, Messiah
Jesus, and Paul's Conversion and Gospel"; and "Monotheism, Messiah Je
sus, and the Eschatological People of God." While reference will be made
to various aspects of Paul's letters, the third section will use Gal 2:15-21 and
Romans 5-8 as specific sites in which to explore many of the complex and
contested issues in view. By this route it will be shown that Paul's under
standing of Jesus as Messiah lies at the very heart of his theology,
eeclesiology, and eschatology: the Messiah and his faithful followers are
agents of the divine life that embraces redemption, reconciliation, and a
glorious new creation.
190
Divine Life and Corporate Christology
Monotheism and Messiahship

in the Judaism Known to Paul
That early Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism was a diverse and complex
phenomenon has been well documented and debated within recent schol
1
arship. Moreover, what is true of Judaism in general is often deemed to be
the case regarding its expectations of a coming eschatological redeemer
and ruler figure, the Messiah. Hence, scholars have become accustomed to
1
speaking of "Judaisms and their Messiahs." Certainly, as other contribu
tors to this volume have rightly observed, due caution is required regard
ing simplistic and overly synthesized estimations of the diverse and much
disputed evidence. Nonetheless, it may still be argued that early Judaism
viewed its history and identity in terms of certain common beliefs and
practices (fundamentally, that there was but one God who had chosen Is
rael), and that its hopes for a Messiah were more widespread and cohesive
than is often allowed.
Of course, how strictly Judaism adhered to its belief in one God
1. Among the on-expanding studies: V.. Schrjrer, The History of the Jewish People in
the Age of Jesus Christ ftps BJC—MJ*. tys) (> vols.; rev. and ed. M. Black. G. Vcrntei, R Millar
and M. Goodman: Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973-87): Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to
Hadrian, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); Grabbe, An Introduction to Pint Century Juda
ism: Jewish Religion and History in the Second Temple Period (Edinburgh: TfltT Clark, 1996);
Louis 11. Feldmnn, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Anitudesand Interactions from Alex
ander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press-1993); John M. G. Ilarclay, Jews in
the Mediterranean Diaspora: Prom Alexaiuler to Trajan (323 BCE-117 <-**) {Edinburgh: TOT
Clark, 199«): lames C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2001); and Frederick f. Murphy Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time ofJesus (Pcabody,
MA: Hendrkkion. 2002).
2. So Jacob Neusnet, William Scon Green, and Ernest S- Frerkhi, eds.. Judaisms and
Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian t'a «jmbridge: Cambridne University Press,
1987). Recent and varied studies on the Messiah include I. H. Charlesworih, ed.. The Messiah:
Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); John J. Col
lins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Litera
ture (New York: Pnublcday, 1995); Kenneth li. Pomykala, The Dandic Dynasty Tradition in
Eady Judaism: Its History and Significance for Mcnianism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); Dan
Cohn-Shcrbuk, The Jewish Messiah (Edinburgh; T&T Clark, 1997); Gcrben S. Oegcma, 7fie
Anointeil and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to BarKodiba (ISPSup
IT, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1998!; I- H.Charlesworth, H. Ljchtcnbcrger,and G. S-
Ocgema. eds., Qumran-Messianism: Studies in the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Tubingen: J. C B. Mohr (Paul Sicbcck). 1998).
191
S. A. CUMMINS
(monotheism), and what this might have meant for any estimation of Jesus,
3
has been the subject of much scholarly scrutiny of late. On the one hand, it
has been argued that arigorousJewish monotheism disallowed entirely the
ascription of divinity to anyone other than Israel's God Hence, any such
claims concerning Jesus could not have been made from within a Jewish
monotheistic milieu but instead would have constituted a complete depar
4
ture therefrom. On the other hand, a growing number of scholars have
suggested that a range of intermediaryfiguresdiscernible within early Juda
ism — e.g., angels, exalted human beings, and/or personified divine attrib
utes (word, wisdom, glory), some with messianic associations — held a
subordinate divine or semi-divine position, and so in some sense partici
pated in divinity. If, then, the distinction between God and such entities was
not absolute, perhaps this provides both precedent and a set of categories
against which to evaluate early Jewish-Christian exalted estimations of Je
5
sus. However, following Richard Bauckham, it would appear preferable to
adopt a third position. One may readily concur that Jewish monotheism
was indeed strict, differentiating the one God from all other reality. From
this standpoint, some of the so-called intermediaryfiguresare in fact lo be
seen as aspects of God's own unique identity (e.g., his wisdom, word, glory),
and the remainder are to be recognized as the unambiguously creaturely
(albeit exalted) servants of God. Yet, on this view, it must then be argued
that a high Chrtstology, one which included the early church's worship of
3. Recent notable discussions include Carey C. Newman, lames R_ Davila, and

Gladys S. Lewis, eds.. The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from ihe 5(. An
drews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship ofJesus (JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill,
1999); and Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North, eds., Early Jewish and Christian
Monotheism (Early Christianity in Context i/JSNTSup 263; London/New York; T&T Clark,
2004).This summary overview is indebted to Richard J. Bauckham, Cod Crucified: Monothe
ism and Chtistology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999J t-5; see also
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids;
Eerdmans, 2003) 42-48.
4. So P. M. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile Cod (Cambridge;). Clarke, 1991); sec
his more recent "Monotheism, Worship and Christological Developments in the Pauline
Churches,' in Newman et at, eds.. The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, 214-33.
5. Cf. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (London: SPCK, 1982); Andrew Chester, "Jewish
Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline Chtistology,'' in Paulus und das
antike Judentum (ed. Martin Hengcl and Ulrich Heckcl; WUNT $8; Tubingen; J. C. B. Mohr
[Paul SiebeckJ, 1991) 17-89; C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphk Christology: Antecedents and Early
Evidence (AGJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998).
192
Divine Life and Corporate Christohgy
Jesus, could thus emerge only "by identifying Jesus directly with the one
6
God of Israel, including Jesus in the unique identity of this one God."
As to the fundamental characteristics of Israel's God, for our purposes
it will suffice to stress that Jewish monotheism regarded God as the sole Cre
ator of and Lord over all things, sovereignly accomplishing his creation-wide
purposes through his ongoing covenant relationship with Israel, especially
initsTorah-obedient and temple-focused pattern of life. We may thus speak
of acreational (and covenantal), eschatological, and cultic monotheism.' As
witnessed throughout the Scriptures, Israel's Creator God has always shown
himself to be righteous; he will be faithful to the Abrahamic covenant whose
ultimate universal outworking is expected and assured.
It is within this wider context, then, that messianic expectations
tended to focus upon a preeminent human agent of Clod, a redeemer/royal
figure in the tradition of King David, who would deliver earthly Israel from
its ongoing subjugation under foreign rule and inaugurate the eschatologi
cal age and reign of God." Thisfigureand the accompanying eschatological
scenario could indeed be envisaged in highly exalted — even apocalyptic —
terms. A case in point involves the elevated messianic interpretations of the
Danielic "one like a son of man"figurein subsequent Jewish texts and tradi
9
tions, possibly in 4Q246 and more clearly in 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Haruch.
Yet, even in these cases where thefigureis characterized by angelic and su
perhuman traits, this is not meant to displace but rather to be coordinated
10
with its role as an earthly and human messianic ruler. (Indeed, joscphus
6. Bauckham. God Crucified, 4 ,
7. Ci. Bauckham. God Crucified, 9-13; Bauckham. "Paul'* Chriitology of Divine Iden
tity" (unpublished paper) 3; see alio N. T. Wright. The New Testament and the People of God
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 144-79.
8. On the prevalence, persistence, and general coherence of such mctsianic expecta
tions in relation to both the Old Testament and early Judaism, see William Ilorbury. lewish
Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press. 199*); cf. the summary estimation
indebted thereto in S. A. Cummins, Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Matcubean
Martyrdom and Galatians l and 2 (SNTSMS 114; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001) 39-42- See also William Ilorbury, Messianism among lews and Christians; Twelve Bibli
cal and Historical Studies (Edinburgh: TBtT Clark, 2003).
9. On which see Cummins. Paul. 47-52; cf. the relevant discussions by Wolteis and
Stuckenbruck in th)>. volume.
»0. ilorbury maintains that there is adequate biblical precedent to suggest that the
Messiah could be leen as the earthly embodiment of an angel-like spirit; Jewish Messianism
66-87, 97* 10».
193
S. A . CUMMINS
indicates that the religio-political and nationalistic aspects of messianic ex

pectation were widely known infirst-centuryIsrael, which resented and re
11
sisted Roman rule.) Of further note is thefeetthat just as Israel as a whole
was called God's own "son" (or "child"), so the king-Messiah figure was of
ten viewed in terms of divine sonship in the Old Testament (cf. 2 Sam 7:14;
Pss 2:7; 89:27-28) and was variously attested as such at Qumran UQFlor; cf.
lQSa, 4Q369, and perhaps 4Q246); there are also later Jewish references to a
12
messianic "son of God" (1 Enoch 105:2; 4 Ezra 7:28-29; 13:32,37,52; 14:9).
Thus, without carrying connotations of divine status, the "son of God"-
Messiah connection served to stress the intimacy of the relationship be
tween God and his messianic agent.
In an influential essay. Nils Dahl has argued that for Paul (and the
early church overall) the term "Christ" did not receive its content from a
previously fixed Jewish messianic concept, but rather from the person,
11
work, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Yet insofar as the latter must
itself be viewed in relation to the former, it may still be contended that
Jewish monotheism and messiahship constituted a vital element in Paul's
understanding of Jesus as Messiah. Moreover, Jewish understandings func
tioned not simply by way of "backdrop," but as a monotheism and election
that are themselves radically and paradoxically reconfigured via Jesus' life
and ministry (Dahl's positive and very important point) and Paul's own
understanding thereof. That being the case, we must now also reckon seri
ously with the influence of Jesus' own messianic life and ministry as pro
claimed by the earliest church, which Paul first persecuted and then em
braced after his own encounter with the risen Jesus.
11. N. T. Wright. Satis and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1996) 481-86,
stresses the national and lerusalem temple-focused dimensions of first-century messianism.
Among the many pertinent publications by R. A. Horsley, see his " 'Messianic' Figures and
Movements jn First Century Palestine." in Charlesworth.ed.. The Messiah, 276-95; and (with
John S. Hanson) Bandits. Prophets and Messiahs (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International,
1999) 88-134.
12. Collins, Scepter, 154-721 considers the evidence (or the Messiah as "sou of God"
(especially 4Q246 and 4Q174). concluding that "the notion that the mcssiah was Son of God
in a special sense was rooted in Judaism" (169). Again, note the pertinent discussions in
Wolters and Stuckenbruck in this volume. See also Hurtado. Lord Jesus Christ, 101-8.
13. Nils A. Dahl, "The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul * in Jesu: the Christ: The Historical
Origins of Christologicat Doctrine (ed. Donald H. Juel; Minneapolis: Fortress, 199') >$Z5-
194
Divine Life and Corporale Chrisloiogy
Monotheism, Messiah Jesus,

and Paul's Conversion and Gospel
As tar as we can tell, Paul himself did not have any direct contact with Je
sus' earthly life and ministry. Rather, his initial (if mixed) knowledge of Je
sus probably came to him from details acquired during his persecution of
the early church, supplied both by the Jewish authorities and by the first
followers of Jesus. This knowledge was later significantly augmented (and
revised) after he, too, became committed to Christ and had the benefit of
the teachings that were transmitted by the Jerusalem-based apostles (cf.
Gal 1:18-19; 1 Cor I5:jff.) and were circulating in the life of the church at
large. Certainly his letters give adequate indication that in his own apos
tolic ministry he both presupposed and drew upon a knowledge of the ac
tivities and teachings of Jesus, as evident for example in his employment of
oral traditions and early christological formulae in connection with his
14
mam' churches, which would have been similarly informed.
Paul's pre-conversion knowledge of Jesus would have included an
awareness of and response to the earliest church's insistent claim that Jesus
was the Messiah, confessed from the outset by both Aramaic-speaking
Jewish Christians (Jesus as KlVtfO {masiha"], corresponding to the He
brew WVn [mátiah]) and then Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian and
,s
Gentile converts (Jesus as Xpicróc [Christ]). This was a wide-ranging
contention that understood Jesus' messiahship as necessarily encompass
ing both his faithful life resulting in crucifixion and his ensuing resurrec
1
tion. " That is, for the earliest church (and later the converted Paul), Jesus'
resurrection confirmed — even as it also transposed — his already existing
17
status and role as the Messiah, even if the true nature and full scope of
14. Cf. Michael B. Thompson. Clothed with Christ: Ihe Example tint! Teachings of Jesus
it Romans 12.1-0" J (ISNTSup 59: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, )99i>; l>avid Wcnham,
Paul: follower of Jems or Founder of'Christianity?'(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Wenham,
Paul and Jesus: The True Story (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
15. Cf. Martin Hengel," 'Christos* in Paul."in his Between Jesus and Paul Studies in the
Earliest History of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1983) 76-77.
\6. Compare,forexample, Acts 2:36; 3:18.20; etc.; early confessional statements, later
taken up into Paul's post-conversion writings (tg.. Rom 5:6,8; 1 Cor Bni; iV3l; and the wider
phenomenon of the early church's experience of the Spirit as "the Spirit of Chris!" (Rom 8:9:
cf. Gal a • f 1
17. This point is well made by I. Howard Marshall. "A New Understanding of the
Present and the Future: Paul and Fschatology.'" in The Road from Damascus (cd. R. N.
195
S. A. CUMMINS
this was recognized and achieved only with the resurrection. These crucial
interrelated elements are worth reiterating: the earliest church proclaimed
a paradoxical messiahship that necessarily embraced Jesus' obedient
earthly life and vocation; a humiliating self-sacrificial death; and an en
tirely unexpected glorious resurrection.
By his own later testimony, the pre-conversion Paul was zealously
committed to his way of life "in Judaism" (Gat 1:13-14; Phil 3:5-6) — to the
Jewish monotheism, election, and messiahship as outlined earlier —
which was now being compromised and jeopardized by this dangerous
Jesus-focused messianic movement. The nature and extent of the concern
cannot be overestimated. It was not just the immediate worry that a di
vided and disrupted nation could become all the more susceptible to Ro
man repression. More fundamentally, it was entirely inconceivable that
God would reveal hisrighteousness,rescue and restore Israel, fulfill the
covenant and uphold the Torah, and inaugurate the long-awaited eschato-
logical age through this Jesus — a crucified (and thus cursed) messianic
pretender, purportedlyrisen— and his apostate Jewish and now also Gen
18
tile followers (Gal 5:11; 1 Cor 1:23; cf. Deut 21:23). The blasphemous impli
cations concerning the very identity of God and the destiny of Israel were
scandalous. From such a standpoint Paul's zealous opposition — which he
only later viewed as persecution (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13,23; Phil 3:6) — was
understandable.
From the foregoing we may thus conclude that when Paul later tells
his Corinthian converts that "though we once knew Christ from a human
point of view, we know him no longer in that way" (2 Cor 5:16), he is not
stating any lack of interest in the historical Jesus, about whom he would
have been adequately informed in the ways just noted. Rather, he is attest
ing to the stark contrast between his pre- and post-conversion under
standing of Jesus as Messiah. While following a life "in Judaism" he had an
"according to theflesh"(or an "of man") perspective; as an apostle of Jesus
he now had an "of God" outlook, which originated with his remarkable
encounter with the risen and exalted Jesus Christ.
In the course of his zealous persecution of the church, Paul is dra-
Ifingenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.1997) 54-55; see also Wright, lesus and the Victory of
God. 486-89.
18. Cf. A. Hultgrcn, "Paul's Pre-Christian Persecutions of the Church: Their Purpose,
Locale, and Nature," JBl 95 (1976) 97*m.
196
Divine Life and Corporate Christobgy
matically transformed when God revealed his son "in him [Paull" (Gal
i:i5-i6a).'* This apocalyptic encounter can be viewed as a radical rework
ing of the Jewish messianic expectations concerning a human redeemer
figure noted earlier. Paul the exemplary and fervent Jew now realizes that
the one he had been persecuting — in virtue of his pursuit of Jesus' follow
10
ers — was in fact Israel's (and the nations') messianic Son of Gad. More
over, the crucified but now risen Messiah Jesus also occupies a role in rela
tion to God that entails a share in divine lordship. Certainly elsewhere Paul
explicitly refers to his encounter as having "seen Jesus our Lord" (1 Cor 9:1)
and to his former way of life as "loss" compared to "the surpassing value of
knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil 3 7 - * ) - Thus, even in respect to Paul's
conversion, Jesus as Messiah, Jesus as Son of God, and Jesus as Lord are al
ready held in close alignment, with the post-resurrection title "Lord" fur
ther radicalizing the Messiah/Son of God designations in a wholly unprec
2
edented way. ' Remarkably, the now glorified Jesus is (as Dauckham has
put it) being included within the unique identity of God. Paul's astonish
ing new understanding of Jesus strains explication: this Jesus, Israel's di
vinely sent cruciform Messiah and Son of God, now risen and exalted in
glory, who in this way discloses who God is even as God himself.
Moreover, Paul can also say that God has revealed this Jesus "in me
[tv euofj" (Gal 1:16): the exalted Son of God has reconfigured and is com
pletely constitutive of Paul's entire life, a transformed existence that he can
otherwise describe as "Christ in me" (e.g.. Gal 2:20) and can also conjoin
to the operation of the Holy Spirit inasmuch as "God has sent the Spirit of
bis Son into our hearts" (Gal 4:6). Paul now embodies a remarkable new
existence shaped and sustained by Messiah Jesus. It is this astonishing
19. There it some debate as to whether this encounter is best understood is a "conver
sion" or 1 "call" (cf. Gal 1:1s; Isa 41:6; 49:1-6; Jer 1:5). Insofar as the event entailed both dis
continuity and continuity with Paul's former Jewnh way of life, both may be kept in view
Nonetheless, given the dramatic change in Paul's life in relation to God, "conversion" itself is
an acceptable term. On the lancr. sec especially Alan Segal, Paul the Convert; The Apostolate
anil Apostasy oJSaul the Pharisee {New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); and Segal, "Con
version and Messianism: An Outline for .1 New Approach," in Chailesworth, ed.. The Mes
siah, 96-340. More broadly, see the essays in Longenecker, ed., The Road from Damascus.
30. That persecuting the church is tantamount to persecuting Jesu* himself (cf. Gal
1:13-161; Phil 3:6-7: and Acts 9:1-5) is consistent with the "corporate Christology" to be con
sidered below.
at. The account of Paul's conversion and its immediate aftermath in Acts 9 indicatesa
similar interplay among these three designationi (cf. 95.17, 20-12,17).
197
S. A. CUMMINS
chrisiological and pneumatological redefinition of Jewish monotheism

that is to be announced as the gospel (the truly "good news") to the whole
22
world, Jew and Gentile alike, from Jerusalem to Rome and beyond. Paul's
conversion is accompanied by a call to play a leading role in the spreading
of this good news as an aposde to the Gentiles within the wider life of an
inclusive and ever-expanding church of God. As his letters amply testify, it
will be a costly vocation, entailing a daily dying andrisingwith Messiah Je
sus and his often afflicted people. Yet it will also be marked by the
covenantal blessings of a truly divine life, which comes even now with be
ing the glorified messianic eschatological people of God.
Monotheism, Messiah Jesus, and the

Eschatological People of God in Paul
The outworking of Paul's transformative encounter with Messiah Jesus,

Son of God and Lord, and of his resultant gospel is everywhere evident in
his extant letters. Of course, the precise manner in which his understand
ing of Jesus' messiahship is disclosed therein is much debated. This is due
largely to the wide range of complex and interrelated philological,
exegetical, and theological elements requiring consideration. In the neces
sarily selective analysis that follows, it will be argued that for Paul "Christ"
denotes "Messiah" and that the term is to be understood in an essentially
representative and incorporatfve way. The extent and manner to which
this is variously discernible in the letters themselves, allowing us to appre
ciate their nature and significance in ways that would not otherwise be
possible, will be considered by means of an exegetical and theological anal
ysis of two "test cases," Gal 2:15-21 and Romans 5-8.
22. Far 3 summary but pertinent estimation of Paul's gospel, cf. N. T. Wright, What
Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1997) 39-62; also Graham N. Stanton,
"Paul's Gospel," in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (cd. lames D. G. Dunn; Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 173-84. On the provocative resonances of Paul's
gospel concerning Christ in relation to Rome, which cannot be explored here, see N. T.
Wright, "Paul's Gospel, Caesar's Empire," in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, in
terpretation (ed. Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000) 160-83.
198
Divine Life and Corporate Christoìogy
Paul's Incorporative Christ

1
The bare statistics alone arc intriguing: of some S3 instances of Xptoroc; in
the standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament, a dispropor-
tionate number of these (approximately 380) are to be found in the Pau-
23
line letters. Even if one excludes, for example, Ephcsians and the Pastoral
episdes as not being written by Paul himself, there are still about 180 in-
24
stances of the word. Across the Pauline corpus, "Christ" is used fre-
quently in the combinations "Jesus Christ," "Lord lesus Christ," and
"Christ Jesus." with the last expression not found anywhere else in the New
Testament. Perhaps most notable is the fact that there are about 220 in-
stances of Xptrrroc; by itself, almost equally divided between articular and
anarthrous forms, which are often deployed interchangeably in a wide
range of expressions: for example, "body of (the) Christ." "(the) Christ ac-
cording to the flesh," "day of (the) Christ," "in/into (the) Christ" "word of
2
(the) Christ," and "servants of (the) Christ." *
The current scholarly consensus still seems to be that Xptcrroc in Paul
has all but lost its titular significance (as "Messiah") and has become "more
2 1
or less equivalent to a proper name in Paul's letters." * Yet given the currency
of Jewish messianic expectations, the clearly titular use of Xptordc, in the
17
Gospels and Acts, the early church's proclamation of Jesus as Messiah, the
pre-conversion Paul's strenuous opposition thereto and his dramatic en-
counter with the risen Jesus, it seems prima facie probable that Paul would
have deployed the term assuming and evoking its messianic associations. In-
deed, there appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest that for Paul Xptcnrdc,
regularly retains the titular sense of Israel's "Messiah" and that much of its
significance resides in its representative and incorporative aspects.
23. So Craig Biomberg, "Messiah in the New Testament," in Israel's Messiah in the Bi-
ble and the Dead Sea Serollt (eel. Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R.: Grand Rapids:
4 M
Baker Academic, 2003; 111,125, using UBS = NA , and acknowledging that the counts are
approximate due to the many textual variants, which, he notes, do not materially affect the
general figures.
24. So lames D. G. Dunn, The 'I neology ofPaid the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans,
1998) 196-97 nn. 70 and 76, also observing that the figures arc inexact due to the variant
readings.
25. From Biomberg, "Messiah," 126.
26. So Dunn, Theology of Paul, 197. Influential in this regard is Hengcl,"' 'Chrisms' in
Paul"
-
27. On which see Biomberg. "Messiah, 114-23.
'99
S. A. CUMMINS
Certainly Paul knew — and assumed that his Corinthian readers

knew — the original meaning of XpiOToc as an "anointed one," as his
wordplay at 2 Cor 1:21 readily indicates. Moreover, many otherwise skepti
cal scholars recognize a titular sense to the word at Rom 9:3, 5, wherein
Paul rhetorically wishes himself "cut off from Ithe] Christ for the sake of
my own people, my kinsmen according to the flesh . . . from (whom), ac
cording to the flesh, comes the Christ" Dunn allows that a similar case
could be made for Rom 15:3 and 7; and he conceives it just possible that the
distinctive Pauline use of "Christ Jesus" (in contrast to "Jesus Christ") is "a
direct translation equivalent of "Messiah Jesus,'with Christos still bearing
28
titular force." Arguably, though, the titular use of Xptordc; is also contcx-
tually indicated in various other instances, such as 1 Cor 1:13; 10:4; 15:22;
:2 6 : 2 : 39
2 Cor 5:10; 11:2-3; Gal 5 4; Phil 1:15,17; 3 7 - Additionally, while Paul
recognized and confessed that "Jesus is Lord" (cf. Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil
2:11), he conspicuously fails to write that "Christ is Lord," as might be ex
0
pected if "Christ" were but an interchangeable name for Jesus.*
If Paul uses Xpioroc; with Jesus' messiahship clearly in view, he also
arguably employs it in a manner that indicates its representative and
incorporative significance. In the ancient world, not least in Israel, the
people were represented by and saw their identity and destiny as being
bound up with that of their king. We have already,forexample, noted this
in connection with Jewish messianic expectations concerning a Davidic
Messiah/Son of Godfigure.It is interesting, therefore, that wefindnotable
and recurring patterns in the way in which Paul deploys prepositional
phrases that together suggest that he intends to convey precisely this kind
of relationship between Christ and his people. The most striking of these
involve (a) the expression "into Christ [at; Xpiorovj" (e.g., Rom 6:3; Gal
2:16; 3:27); and (b) the phrase "in Christ [tv Xpiorwl" (e.g.. Gal 1:22; 2:4,17;
3:14,26,28)." We may also note Paul's use of the possessive genitive, "those
28. Dunn. Theology of Paul, 198-99.

29. In all of these instances the word is also articular, though the case does not rest on
the presence (or absence) of the article alone, the use of which with proper names can be
quite flexible. See the similar list offered in Dahl. Jesus the Christ. 17 and 24 n. 11. wherein he
detects "messianic connotations." even if he adds that "in no case can Christos be translated
'Messiah.'" He also cites, as notable anarthrous instances, 1 Cor 1:23; Rom 15:8; and Gal 3:16.
Cf. also Dunns list, Theology of Paul, 199 n. 88.
30. So Dahl, Jesus rlie Christ, 38.
31. For a wider consideration of this and related evidence, see Cummins. Paul, 198-
200
of Christ [ol TOO XpioroDj " (cf. Gal 3:19; 5:24)- From this and other consid
erations," it would appear that Paul's prepositional and syntactical usage
is not arbitrary; nor is it adequately accounted for simply by reference to
grammatical, syntactical, and idiomatic variation.
Of course, the degree to which Xpioróc retained a messianic sense
for Paul, and the various ways this is so, cannot be determined on philo
logical grounds alone. Rather, it needs to be made on a case-by-casc and
cumulative cxegetical basis, not least in a way that is alert to the theologi
cal, christological, and ecclesiologica I aspects of the texts in question. With
this in mind, we now consider in more detail Paul's wide-ranging under
standing of "Christ/Messiah" in two passages central to two of his most
significant letters: Gal 2:15-21 and Romans 5-8.
Dying and Rising with Messiah Jesus

and His People (Galatians 2:15-21)
By any estimation Gal 2:15-21 is one of the nerve centers of Pauline theol
ogy. In this passage Paul seeks to uphold the truth of the gospel by means
of a tight line of argument that encompasses a host of contentious and in
terrelated issues: for example, Jew-Gentile relations, justification, "works
of law,'' faith in/of Jesus Christ, sin, the efficacy of the cross, the resurrec
tion life, and the grace of God. In all of this Paul's understanding of Mes
siah Jesus plays the prominent and pivotal role, and it does so with partic
ular reference to its Israel-specific outworking in the lives of his fellow
Jewish converts and the implications of this for the inclusive composition
and vocation of the whole people of God.
Paul has just rebuked Peter for bowing to Jewish (-Christian) pres
sure for stricter Torah observance by withdrawing from table fellowship
with the mixed (Jew + Gentile) Christian community in Antioch (Gal 2:11-
1 4 ) . " Paul's concern is not just that such a move undermines the
20/ii more fully, M. T. Wright, The Oimax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law hi Pauline The
ology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901, 41-5« cf. ifl-«o, 157-74-
32. Sec Blomberg, "Messiah " who hits extensive evidence along nimilur and related
lines.
33. •Icwishf-atristian)'' is an awkward but adequate shorthand way of recognizing
Paul's interaction with a wide andfluidrange of Jews whose understanding of and commit
ment to Mcixah Jesus differed in various respects from his own.
201
S. A. CUMMINS
inclusivity and unity of the church. Rather, inasmuch as table fellowship is

founded and focused upon the Lord's Supper and all that this signifies, it
also threatens the community's commensatity with their eschatological re
deemer as participants in the now inaugurated messianic kingdom of God.
Indeed, Peter's failure to remain faithful to the truth of the gospel repre
sents a retrograde step away from his new life "in Christ" and toward his
former existence "in Judaism," which Paul now views as bound up with the
old evil age (cf. Gal 1:4),"
Paul begins his theological reflection on this scenario by ironically
appropriating a piece of intra-Jewish polemic espousing Jewish superior
ity over Gentiles (Gal 2:15), which he immediately relativizes by locating it
within his decidedly christological understanding of the messianic people
of God (Gal 2:16). He reminds Peter of what he already ought to know;
that a person's justification — present standing and ultimate vindication
before God — is not a function of adherence to "works of the law" and the
way of life they represent, but of "faith in/of Jesus Christ [rrfcrni; 'In,oou
35
Xpicrrou] " For Paul, the (re)adoption of the "works of the law" and thus
36
of a life "in Judaism," involved putting oneself back "under the law." That
Is, from Paul's God-in-Messiah-Jesus standpoint, life "under [the curse of]
the law" meant that Israel was both bound by and unable to obey an other
wise good Torah, and so incurred its condemnation rather than its bless
ing. This was due to the fact that Israel (no less than the Gentiles) was
bound up with the old age/sphere of Adamic sin. The only solution to this
situation is justification "through faith in/of Jesus Christ [f>\tx TdarfMC,
'In.oou XpirjT0u|."
Given the earlier case for a titular and incorporate understanding
of XpiOTdc, it may be suggested that in making this assertion Paul is claim-
34. For a detailed outworking of this summary estimation, sec Cummins, Paul, 16I-
88.
35. Whether mane. TncoC Xpiorov is to be interpreted as "faith ill Jesus Christ" or
"Mthtfullncss) of Jesus Christ" is much disputed. Sec the lively exchange between James
D. G. Dunn, "Once More, niXTlX XPIETOY" (arguing for the former), and Richard B.
Hays,"METIS and Pauline Theology: What Is at Stake?" (preferring the latter), both in
Pauline Theology IV: Looking Back, Pressing On (ed. E. Elizabeth Johnson and David M. Hay;
Atlanta; Scholars Press, 1997), 61-B1 and 33-60, respectively.
36. A condition cognate with being "under a curse," "under the elemental spirits of
the universe," and "under sin" (cf. Gal 3:10; 4:3; Rom 3:9; 7:14). and in direct contrast to being
"under grace" (Rom 6:14,15).
202
Divine Life and Corporate Christohgy
ing thai vindication as a member of God's people is in virtue of the incor

poration of one's identity and destiny into Messiah Jesus. Moreover, it is
likely that "faith [moncj" here has in view the exemplary faithfulness of Je
sus (not least in respect of the cross), which is both the climactic and de
finitive demonstration of God's covenant faithfulness (Rom 3:21-26) and
that which enables the reciprocal faithfulness of those believers conformed
37
to him. Such is the full scope of divine grace centered upon Christ. And it
is "into Messiah Jesus [eic Xpior6v]" that Jews such as Peter and Paul be
lieved (Gal 2:16b). On the basis of similar prepositional statements else
where (cf. Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27; Phil 1:27-30), it is evident that Paul
is here reminding Jewish Christians that their belief "into Christ," marked
out by baptism, entails dying and rising with him. Vindication is now a
function of covenant faithfulness to God-in-Christ, and the eschatological
people of God are those Jews and Gentiles demarcated by their common
life in the Messiah.
Paul then echoes the objection of those in Antioch (and elsewhere)
who hold an antithetical position: "if in seeking to be justified in Messiah
Jesus, we IJewish Christiansj are found to be sinners, then is the Messiah a
servant of sin?" (Gal 2:17). There is little doubt that the initial premise —
that justification is being sought in Christ — is indeed correct. However,
commentators are divided as to whether the second premise — that those
(Jews like Peter and Paul) seeking justification in Christ are thus found to
be sinners — is to be taken as (a) true, followed by a false deduction there
from (Christ is a servant of sin), or (b) false, followed by an equally false
conclusion (Christ is a servant of sin). The answer depends upon the per
spective adopted. From the standpoint of those advocating justification via
the "works of the law," it is true: Jews seeking to be justified in Christ arc
indeed sinners, tantamount to Gentiles outside the Torah. And it follows
that Christ himself is also a servant of sin, a messianic pretender, duly con
demned under the Torah. However, from the standpoint of those advocat
ing justification in Messiah Jesus, it is false: Jews seeking to be justified in
Christ are not sinners, for it is precisely in this way that they are found to
be faithful to the God of Israel definitively disclosed in this Jesus. More
over, far from being a servant of sin, the Messiah himself, whose divine
equality with God was expressed through becoming a servant unto death,
is in fact the startling means whereby God has shown his covenant faith-
37. For such a reading, sec Cummins, Paul, 200-201.
203
5. A. CUMMINS
fulness lo Israel and thence to the whole world."' It is on this basis that
Paul immediately and emphatically denies any such claims against Christ
and his followers (Gal 2:17).
At this point Paul proceeds to offer both a negative and a more posi
tive explanation for his denial. First, he counterclaims that it is in fact any
one (even Peter in Antioch) who rebuilds his or her dismantled former
way of life "in Judaism" by seeking justification in "works of the law" who
thereby proves to be a "transgressor [rrapaf36TT|<;]" (Gal 2:18). This Jewish-
specific term carries a certain ambiguity that must be allowed to operate.
From a Jewish standpoint, were Peter to put himself back under "works of
the law," he would show himself to have been a transgressor of Torah dur
ing the period in which he had been a follower of Jesus and thus at odds
with a life "in Judaism "From Paul's Jewish-Christian standpoint, however,
the problem is more profound: Peter is in danger of returning to an Israel
whose ongoing Torah transgression attests to the fact that it serves, rather
than solves, the worldwide problem of sin.
This brings Paul to his second and positive point: the sin of Israel
(and the world) has in fact now been dealt with in Messiah Jesus: "For I
through the law died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been
crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:19). This highly compressed and much de
bated statement is to be read both personally and corporately, and it has
three interrelated (indeed, superimposed) elements in view. First, there is
the individual "I" (Paul-in-Israel-in-Adam), who through his abuse of To
rah in service of persecuting the Messiah and his people became con
fronted with and was transformed by the crucified and risen Messiah (Gal
1:13-16). He thus died to his former way of life in order that "I" (Paul-in-
l.srael- in - Christ) might live to God. Second, Paul's own experience repre
sents a particular instance of the transformation of the corporate "I"
(Isracl-in-Adam), which was subject to the outworking of sin's abuse of
Torah within Israel (cf. Rom 7:1-25). Yet in virtue of Israel's conformity to
its crucified Messiah, and thereby death to that condition it was in, a now
transformed "I" (Israel-in-Christ) may live to G o d . " Third, both of these
scenarios were made possible because of Messiah Jesus' own experience of
sin's abuse of Torah in Israel, a subset of sin operative in the world, which
j * . Sec further, Cummins, AIM', 306-12.

W. For this reading of Gal 2:19-30 in relation lo Rom 7:1-8:11,1« Cummins, POuL 219-
3J-
204
Divine Life and Corporate Christotogy
culminated in his crucifixion at the hands of the Jewish and Roman au
thorities — thereby paradoxically accomplishing the deliverance of Paul,
Israel, and the whole of humanity (e.g., Gal 3:13; 4:4-5; Rom 3:21-26).
Astonishingly, the rejected Jesus was in fact Israel's Messiah who, via
his death and resurrection, now has a share in divine glory. Moreover, it is
this glorified Messiah who transforms and takes up residence in all of
those conformed to his death and resurrection: "1 (in Christ] live, but no
0
longer I [in AdamJ"; rather "Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20a).* Even now,
those in Christ who have Christ in them can, like him, live "to God" (cf.
Gal 2:19; Rom 6:to; 14:8-9) as participants in resurrection life, the glory of
God's inaugurated reign. Such is the grace of God (Gal 2:21),
The Glorification of the Eschatological

Messianic People of God (Romans 5-8)
The divine solution to humanity's sin through a crucified and risen Mes
siah Jesus, whose indwelling enables those conformed to him to "live to
God" (Gal 2:15-21), is played out on an even grander scale in Romans 5-8.
The Messiah lesus focus of Romans is evident from the outset with Paul's
announcement that the gospel of God, long promised by the prophets in
the holy Scriptures, centers on "his Son, who was descended from David
according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power ac
cording to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus
1
Christ our Lord" (Rom ig-4)* In what follows, Paul insists that God's
righteousness has been fully manifest in the atoning death and resurrec
tion of Jesus Christ, so that notwithstanding the sin of humanity (Jew and
Gentile alike), God can declare even now that all those who believe in this
God so revealed in this Messiah Jesus are thereby constituted as his cove
nant faithful people (Romans 1-4). Then in Romans 5-8 Paul is concerned
to unfold the amazing outcome and eschatological outworking of God's
righteousness in Jesus. He argues that the complete restoration of human
ity and creation has, in principle, been accomplished, and that those con-
40. Thii is further explicated by Paul: "and the life I now live in theflesh,I live in the
faithfulness of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20b).
41. 1 hu v the interplay between the Davidic Messiah and Son of God. and Iran' messi
anic status both before and after the resurrec lion, both noted earlier, are here also in view.
205
S. A. CUMMINS
formed to Christ and the Spirit (who live in the "Spirit of the Messiah,"
41
Rom 8:9) are even now participants in the messianic age.
The sheer scope of the transformation is extraordinary: from present
justification arising out of Messiah Jesus' redemptive death (Rom 5:1-11) to
final justification in the form of glorification (Rom 8:31-39). And the man
ner in which Paul's argument moves his readers in Rome back and forth
across the intervening terrain is spellbinding. Present justification means
Jesus-enabled access to divine grace, covenant blessing, and, even in and
through suffering, the Spirit's assurance that this will ultimately issue in
full glory with God (Rom 5:1-5). Such is the reconciling love of God in the
death of Christ (Rom 5:6-11; cf. Gal 2:20). This theme is then immediately
recapitulated, with Paul telling the world's story at its widest level: from
Adam, to Torah, to Jesus, to glorification with God (Rom 5:12-21). In the
Jewish retellings of this story, Israel — or a particular group within Israel
— emerges as the people through whom humanity's sin is to be defeated
once and for all. But in Paul's retelling it is in Messiah Jesus that Adam's
trespass (wherein Israel itself is implicated) isfinallyundone. The result is
"justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom
5:21; cf. 6:23).
Moreover, God's covenant people are marked out by their baptism
"into Christ Jesus," his death and resurrection, so that "just as Christ was
raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so [they] might walk in the
newness of life" (Rom 6:4). Paul does not here elaborate in any detail on
the nature of this glorious new resurrection life, but the wider context sug
gests that even now it includes entrance into that realm within which God
is truly worshiped, the Spirit is at work, and the covenant blessings
43
brought about by Jesus are operative (cf. Rom 5:1-2; 12}. Now justified
rather than enslaved to sin, just as Christ himself "lives to God" so they too
are "alive to God in Messiah Jesus" (Rom 6:10-11; cf. Gal 2:19-20), partici
pants in the reign of God, which is yet to be ultimately realized (Rom 6:11-
13) — all this attested by their present righteous lives (Rom 6:15-23).
However, at this stage Paul determines that he must say more con-
42. Among the many commentaries on Romans $-8 to which this exposition is vari
ously indebted, cf. lames D. G. Dunn. Romans 1-8 (WBC 38a; Dallas: Word, 198B) 242-^13;
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (N1CNT; Grand Rapids: Ecrdnians, 1996) 290-547!
and N. T. Wright, "The Letter to the Romans," in The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 10 (ed.
Lcander E. Keck: Nashville: Abingdon, 2002) 508-619.
43. Cf-, for example. Rom 5:1-2; 8:1-17; 12:1-21.
206
cerning how Israel and the Torah functioned with God's redemptive plans
for humanity ultimately achieved in Christ (Rom 7:1-8:11). This passage
offers a more extended treatment of the Isracl-in-Adam problem so cryp
tically alluded to in Gal 2:19-20:" That is, the subject throughout, the em
phatic "I" is Paul the Jew-become-Christian, now viewing retrospectively
the problem of the outworking of sin's abuse of Torah within Israel, a
Jewish-specific function of the wider problem of Adamic sin." The solu
tion to this problem is Israel's deliverance through Messiah Jesus:
"Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25; cf. 7:4-6).
Paul therefore concludes that "those who are in Messiah Jesus" are
excluded from God's condemnation because they have been set free from
the Torah as taken over by sin and are instead the beneficiaries of the To-
rah's fulfillment in Jesus and the Spirit, who together effect covenant life
46
(Rom 8:i-2). This is further explicated with the claim that what a sin-
weakened Torah was unable to do, God did by sending his Son as "a sin of
fering" (Rom 8:3). God thus condemned sin and enabled the covenant de
cree (Deut 30:6-20) to be fulfilled by those living according to the Spirit.
Hence, Paul can now speak of two antithetical ways of existence, the flesh
and the Spirit, with the former hostile to God and leading to death and the
latter leading to life and peace (Rom 8:4-7)- He then uses a series of inter
related designations to denote the indwelling Spirit: "the Spirit," "the Spirit
of God," "the Spirit of Christ," and then simply "Christ" It would appear
that the same Spirit is the Spirit of God and of the Messiah. It follows
therefore that the Messiah himself lives in believers, providing life-giving
7
power (Rom 8:10; cf. Gal 1:16; mo).* This, he cryptically adds, is "on ac-
44. Thai this is the case appears prima facie likely on the basis of certain common
ground: the emphatic "I |eysiia concentrated use of the phrases "through the law [Sict
vduaul" (and "through the commandment |oio: Tfl,c evroXflc]"}. and shared key issues or
themes (Torah, sin, death, deliverance through )e$US Christ/God's Son).
45. The problem, then, lies not with an otherwise holy, just, and good Torah (Rom
7:12), but with sin; see Cummins, Paul, 219-25.
46. Christ is thus "the end of the Torah" (Rom 10:4) in the dual sense of cessation and
tultiliment: that is. the important but provisional role of the Totah comes to an end as its
purposes find their fulfillment in Messiah Jesus, who makes possible covenant faithfulness
(righteousness) for all who believe tn him.
47. See Wright, "Romans," 583-84- Wright also notes that the difficult parenthetical
statement — "though the body is dead because of sin" (Rom 8:10b) — could be an acknowl
edgment that even believers are still subject to the vicissitudes of mortal life (cf. Phil 3:21,
207
S. A. C U M M I N S
c o u n t o f r i g h t e o u s n e s s " : t h a t is, a result o f G o d ' s c o v e n a n t faithfulness

demonstrated inthe death and resurrection o f the Messiah. Paul then c o n
cludes that i fthe Spirit o fthat G o d w h o raised Jesus from the dead dwells
in believers, then that s a m e G o d will also, b yhis i n d w e l l i n g Spirit, g i v e
4 8
t h e m r e s u r r e c t i o n life ( R o m 8:ii).
P a u l b r i n g s R o m a n s 5-8 t o i t s c o n c l u s i o n b y r e f l e c t i n g b r o a d l y u p o n
the present a n d future situation o f the c h u r c h w i t h i n the l o n g o u t w o r k i n g
o f G o d ' s c o v e n a n t a l a n d c r e a t i o n - w i d e p u r p o s e s ( R o m 8:12-39). H e affirms
Christ's p e o p l e a s t h e s o n s / c h i l d r e n o fG o d a n d " h e i r s o fG o d a n d joint
heirs w i t h Christ," i n b o t h present suffering ( i nw h i c h t h e y are sustained
b y the Spirit) a n d ultimate glorification (which they will enjoy " w i t h him
[the Messiah]") (Rom 8:12-17). T h e n , within a Jewish apocalyptic
w o r l d v i e w r e w o r k e d i n t h e light o fJesus a n d t h e Spirit, P a u l anticipates
t h e u l t i m a t e e r a d i c a t i o n o f e v i l a n d r e n e w a l o f a l l t h i n g s ( R o m 8:18-25). H e
k n o w s that a t p r e s e n t the c h u r c h f i n d s itself s h a r i n g a n d b e a r i n g the b i r t h
pains o fthe n e w o r d e r ; t h e y are the e m b r y o n i c eschatological children o f
G o d awaiting the divine glory about t ob erevealed, i n the light o f w h i c h
their identity a n d destiny will b e fully a n d finally revealed. I n the mean
time, the Spirit — w h o , w e recall, isalso the Messiah — helps the saints,
i n t e r c e d e s o n t h e i r b e h a l f , a n d e n a b l e s t h e m t o l o v e G o d ( R o m 8:26-28). 49
T h e y are those t h r o u g h w h o m G o d has c h o s e n t od e m o n s t r a t e his g l o r y ,

d o i n g so b y h a v i n g t h e m c o n f o r m t othe i m a g e o fhis S o n , the firstborn o f
a w o r l d w i d e m e s s i a n i c f a m i l y ( c f . 2 C o r i n t h i a n s 3; C o l 1:15-20).
Set w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o fhis a r g u m e n t t o date, the full c o n t e n t and

scope o fPaul's very c o m p r e s s e d s u m m a r y r e m a r k t o the c h u r c h i n R o m e
can n o w b e u n p a c k e d : h a v i n g c h o s e n t h e m t ob e h i s p e o p l e t h r o u g h w h o m
h e rescues the w o r l d , G o d called t h e m t h r o u g h the gospel o f Christ; a n d i n
obediently responding they s h o w themselves even n o w tobe his covenant
p e o p l e w h o r a d i a t e t h e g l o r y o f G o d i n C h r i s t i n t h e w o r l d ( R o m 8:30; c f .
where Paul speaks of "the body of our humiliation" being transformed by the Lord lesus
Christ into "the body of his glory"); alternatively, it might be a summary referent of the con
dition just described in Romans 7.
48. the subtle shift from "lesus" to "Christ" is probably to be explained on the basis
of the former referring to the historical human Jesus and the latter to the Messiah who rep
resents and even now is present with his people. On the lack of interchangeability of "Jesus"
and "Christ" in this letter, sec Lcandcr E. Keck, " 'Jesus' in Romans,'' JBL108 (1989) 443-60.
49. It may be that Rom 8:18 offers an echo of the Jewish Shcma (Dcut 6:4-5), now
made possible in Christ and the Spirit.
208
i Cor 3:18)- F i n a l l y , w i t h a rhetorical flourish at R o m 8:31-39, P a u l recapitu

l a t e s a n d c e l e b r a t e s t h e m a i n t h e m e s o f t h e e n t i r e l e t t e r s o f a r : j u s t w h o is
g o i n g to b r i n g a c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e G o d w h o s e c o v e n a n t l o v e is d e m o n
strated in the c r u c i f i x i o n , resurrection, a n d exaltation o f his S o n , Messiah
Jesus; a n d w h o has thereby defeated evil a n d r e d e e m e d , justified, a n d rec
o n c i l e d t h e m e s s i a n i c p e o p l e o f G o d ; a n d w h o t h u s a l l o w s t h e m , as with
their Messiah, to have a share in the g l o r y o f G o d ?
Conclusion
Jewish messianic expectations envisaged an eschatological redeemer/ruler

w h o w o u l d deliver the nation from foreign subjugation and bring about
t h e n e w age. It w a s i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f just s u c h a v i s i o n
that a zealous Paul o p p o s e d the w a y w a r d first followers o f the crucified
m e s s i a n i c p r e t e n d e r Jesus. In the c o u r s e o f this o p p o s i t i o n h e dramatically
a n d transformatively experienced a d i v i n e disclosure, as a result o f w h i c h
h e realized that this l e s u s was indeed the n o w risen a n d exalted Messiah,
S o n o f G o d , a n d , e v e n m o r e a s t o n i s h i n g l y , L o r d . I t w a s , t h e n , i n mis way
that Israel's G o d h a d h i m s e l f a c t e d t o fulfill the A b r a h a m l c c o v e n a n t and
rescued, restored, a n d in principle re-created Israel a n d all the nations.
W h a t w a s true o f Messiah Jesus w o u l d n o w also be t r u e o f t h o s e w h o b e
lieved in h i m . I n virtue o f the Spirit o f C h r i s t a m o n g t h e m , they were n o w
constituted a n d e m p o w e r e d as the messianic eschatological people o f G o d .
A n d if they h a d been chosen, called, a n d justified b y this G o d - i n - C h r i s t -
m-the-Spirit, then even in a n d t h r o u g h their present suffering they w o u l d
know, reflect, a n d ultimately enjoy eternally the transfiguring glory of
God.
209
Messianic Themes of Temple,
Enthronement, and Victory in Hebrews
and the General Epistles
Cynthia Long We$tfall
Introduction; T h eMessiah i n Collocation a n d Scenarios
A point o f departure forthestudy o f the Messiah i nHebrews a n dthe G e n

e r a l E p i s t l e s is t h ea c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t t h e t e r m " M e s s i a h " b e c a m e t h e
central c h r i s t o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t . A t least that h o l d s t r u e historically, a n d
t h e r e i n lies t h e r u b . " C h r i s t " o r x p i o r o c , t h e G r e e k t e r m f o r t h e M e s s i a h ,
b e c a m e t h e central w a y o f d e s i g n a t i n g t h e church's u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Jesus,
w i t h t h e result that t h e t e r m " C h r i s t o l o g y "h a s b e c o m e a catch-all t e r m f o r
1
beliefs a b o u t lesus. X p i o n a v o i h a d b e c o m e a familiar t e r m f o r Jesus' f o l
l o w e r s b y t h e t i m e L u k e w r o t e A c t s ( A c t s 11:26; 26:28; 1 P e t 4:16). A t s o m e
p o i n t " C h r i s t " w a s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e n a m e o f Jesus o f N a z a r e t h s o that
2
his default n a m e b e c a m e "Jesus Christ," a n di ntime, thereligion founded
b y Jesus a n d t h e apostles b e c a m e k n o w n a s " C h r i s t i a n i t y . " T h e c h a l l e n g e i s
t o find w h e r e a n d h o w t h e c o n c e p t o f M e s s i a h i n H e b r e w s a n d t h e G e n e r a l
E p i s t l e s fits i n t o t h i s p r o c e s s .
W h i l e t h e title " M e s s i a h " o r " C h r i s t " literally m e a n s " t h e a n o i n t e d
1. G. £- Ladd. A Tlieology of the New Testament (rev. cd.; Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans,
1993) »33-
2. J. P. Meier asserts. "So current was the name Jesus that some descriptive phrase like
'of Nazareth' or 'the Christ (Messiah)' had to be added to distinguish him from the many
other bearers of that name." He adds, "So important was it to use 'Christ' as a distinguishing
name for Jesus that, by the time of Paul in the mid-fifties of the tst century A.D., 'Christ' was
well on its way to becoming Jesus' second name" (J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus, vol. 1 |New York: Doubleday, 1991I 206).
210
o n e " s e m a n t i c a l l y it i s u s e d h e r e t o refer t o G o d ' s e s c h a t o l o g i c a l d i v i n e l y

a p p o i n t e d a n d a n o i n t e d a g e n t w h o s e s a v i n g acts w o u l d restore o r free Is
rael from o p p r e s s i o n a n d / o r i n a u g u r a t e the D a y o f t h e L o r d , w h i c h i s p o s
1
s i b l y t h e e n d o f n o r m a l t i m e a n d h i s t o r y . H o w e v e r , it w o u l d b e a m i s t a k e
t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e Jews s h a r e d a c o m m o n e x p l i c i t a n d c o h e s i v e p i c t u r e o f
t h e M e s s i a h ' s i d e n t i t y a n d f u n c t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , "Messiah" was n o t the
o n l y title u s e d for this e s c h a t o l o g i c a l figure. V a r i o u s titles were u s e d inter
c h a n g e a b l y w i t h "Messiah," a n d c e r t a i n titles c o u l d easily b e c o m e m e s s i
1
anic if u s e d i n m e s s i a n i c contexts." As N . T. W r i g h t q u i p s , " M e s s i a h s h i p , it
s e e m s , w a s w h a t e v e r p e o p l e m a d e o f it." H e a l s o states: "Jesus' Jewish w o r l d
offers . . . a flurry o f c o n f u s e d e l e m e n t s , s o m e o f w h i c h m a y b e present i n
s o m e messianic movements T h e h o p e o f t h e n a t i o n w a s central, orga
n i z i n g itself a s m u c h a r o u n d s y m b o l s , praxis a n d s t o r i e s as a r o u n d proof-
5
t e x t s . " M e s s i a n i c figures a n d c l a i m s creatively e x p l o i t e d t e r m i n o l o g y , i m
a g e s , a n d s y m b o l s t h a t e v o k e d m e s s i a n i c r o l e s a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s that w e r e
r e c o g n i z e d as s u c h e v e n b y t h o s e w h o d i d n o t p o s s e s s a m e s s i a n i c h o p e .
Therefore, W r i g h t a n d o t h e r s m a k e a c o n v i n c i n g case that Jesus c o n

s c i o u s l y e v o k e d m e s s i a n i c roles a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s in stories, s y m b o l s , and a c
t i o n s that were r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e p e o p l e a n d the Jewish leaders. Everyone is
agreed t h a t t h e w r i t e r s o f t h e G o s p e l s a n d Acts p r e s e n t e d Jesus as t h e Mes
s i a h , t h e Christ. I lowevcr, it is c l a i m e d that "Christ" quickly b e c a m e a n a m e
rather t h a n a title. T h i s raises a n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s a b o u t the c o n c e p t o f the
M e s s i a h i n t h e rest o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t . O n e q u e s t i o n is this: A s the title
"Christ" was b e c o m i n g a n a m e for Jesus, w a s it stripped o f all m e s s i a n i c se-
3. See C . A. Evans, "Messianism," in Dictionary of New Testament Background fed.

C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, Downers Grove, 1L: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 69S-707. Accord
ing to Charles-worth, Jewish "messianology" developed out of the Maccabcan wars of the
second century BC: "Palestinian Jews yearned for salvation from their pagan oppressors. For
an undeterminable number of Jews the yearning centered on the future saving acts by a di
vinely appointed, and anointed supernatural man: the Messiah. This eschatological figure
will inaugurate the end of all normal time and history. I, therefore, use the term 'Messiah' in
its etymological sense, to denote God's eschatological Anointed One, the Messiah" (1- H.
Charlcsworth, "From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects," in The Mes
siah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity |ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 199*1 3-35; see p. 4).
4. Charlcsworth observes: "There was considerablefluidityamong the various titles
that could be or become messianic titles" (Charlesworth, "From Messianology to Christol
ogy" '3).
5. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 482-83.
211
CYNTHIA LONG WESTFALL
6
ni ¡1 n i ic c o n t e n t a n d d i d it b e c o m e m e r e l y a d e s i g n a t i o n rather t h a n a title? A
m o r e specific q u e s t i o n f o r o u r p u r p o s e is this: W e r e references t o Christ o r
Jesus Christ i n H e b r e w s a n d t h e General Epistles m e s s i a n i c ? M a n y scholars
insist t h a t t h e a n s w e r i s a n u n e q u i v o c a l N o . A further q u e s t i o n is this: Is
there additional c o n t e n t in H e b r e w s a n d t h e General Epistles that reflects,
d e v e l o p s , o r reframcs t h e Jewish o r early C h r i s t i a n c o n c e p t o f t h e Messiah?
W h i l e scholars will d i s c u s s t h e C h r i s t o l o g y o f H e b r e w s a n d t h e General
7
Epistles, t h e y d o n o t o f t e n find t h e C h r i s t , t h e M e s s i a h , in t h i s c o r p u s .
W e w i l l e x a m i n e t h r e e factors to d e t e r m i n e t h e m e s s i a n i c c o n t e n t i n
H e b r e w s a n d t h e General Epistles. T h e first f a c t o r i s t h e c o n t e x t a n d p a r t i c i -
p a n t r o l e s that are relevant i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r references t o Christ
8
m i g h t have s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t . T h e second factor is the occurrences o f
"Christ" i n e a c h letter. W e will e x a m i n e t h e c o l l o c a t i o n patterns o f "Christ"
w i t h t h e n a m e "Jesus" a n d o t h e r lexical i t e m s . T h e third factor is t h e a u -
thors' u s e o f m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s . "Scenario" i s a linguistic t e r m t h a t i s u s e d
t o i n d i c a t e " a n e x t e n d e d d o m a i n o f reference" o r a s s o c i a t e d b u n d l e s o f i n -
f o r m a t i o n that lie b e h i n d a text. A s c e n a r i o i n c l u d e s s e t t i n g , s i t u a t i o n s , s p e -
5
cific i t e m s , a n d "role" s l o t s . F o r e x a m p l e , a restaurant s c e n a r i o i n c l u d e s a
waiter, c u s t o m e r s , c o o k s / c h e f s , m e n u s , f o o d , tables, a n d chairs. M e n t i o n i n g
t h e s c e n a r i o "restaurant" w i l l activate r o l e s a n d i t e m s i n a restaurant, a n d
6. The belief that xptcrdc. became primarily a name in place of a title is based in large
part on the second-century use of the title "Christ" by the pagans Tacitus and Suetonius; in
their usage, "Christ" was clearly a designation that lacked messianic semantic content
(Suetonius, Divus Claudius 25.11; Tacitus, Annales 15.44).
7. For those who do look for the Christ, the search is usually limited to a discussion of
his divinity or a discussion of the use of "Christ" as a title.
8. The context and the participant roles are two aspects of the register of the dis-
course. Registers are "a configuration of meanings that is associated with a particular situa-
tion" and also includes subject matter, mode (e.g., persuasive, explanatory, and imperative
discourses), and medium (spoken or written). See I. Reed. A Discourse Analysis of
fkihppians' Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1907) 54-55; see also M. A. K. I lalliday and R. Hasan, Language, Context and
Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semioiic Perspective (Geelong. Australia: Deakon Uni-
versity, 1085) 38-39.
9. A. J. Sanford and S. C. Garrod, Understanding Written Language (Chichester:
Wiley, 1981) 110. In choosing the term "scenario," I recogni7« that "frames," "scripts," "sche-
mata," and "mental models" are similar concepts that refer to stereotypic representations of
default features and arc found in psychological and computational approaches to discourse.
For a fuller description of these concepts and what differentiates them, see G. Brown and
G. Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) 236-56.
212
m e n t i o n i n g a partial d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i t e m s o r r o l e s i n a restaurant, s u c h
as a waiter t a k i n g a n order, will activate a restaurant s c e n a r i o . S u c h scenar
i o s are usually shared i n f o r m a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e a u t h o r a n d recipients that
p r o v i d e a k e y t o i n t e r p r e t i n g a text. M e s s i a n i c t e r m i n o l o g y , s y m b o l s , a n d
i m a g e s m a y b e r o u g h l y c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o three s c e n a r i o s t h a t are c l o s e l y c o n
n e c t e d w i t h J e w i s h royal m e s s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n : e n t h r o n e m e n t , victory, a n d
the t e m p l e . References t o v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f Jesus' e n t h r o n e m e n t , h i s v i c
t o r y o v e r e n e m i e s o r b e n e f i t s from h i s v i c t o r y , a n d h i s relationship t o t h e
t e m p l e w o u l d e v o k e t h e b r o a d e r interpretive s c e n a r i o o f M e s s i a h .
If a n a r g u m e n t c a n b e m a d e for s o m e m e s s i a n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s a m o n g
the a u t h o r s a n d recipients, a n d i f t h e r e is a significant pattern o f occurrences
o f m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s b o t h w i t h a n d w i t h o u t xpior6<;, w e m a y c o n c l u d e that
H e b r e w s a n d t h e General Epistles refer t o Jesus as t h e M e s s i a h , t h e Christ.
W e m a y t h e n b e i n a p o s i t i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t w a s m e a n t by t h e t e r m b e
y o n d a n a m e a n d to explore w h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g w a s shared a b o u t t h e M e s
siah a n d if t h e a u t h o r s a d d e d a n y n e w i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e c o n c e p t .
Context and Participants
T h e p a r t i c i p a n t roles in H e b r e w s a n d t h e General Episdes a r e i m p o r t a n t i n

d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e a u t h o r s a n d readers p o s s e s s o r share u n d e r s t a n d
ing o r recognition of messianic terminology a n d content. Whether the ori
e n t a t i o n o f the a u t h o r a n d t h e text is Jewish o r G e n t i l e is particularly signif
icant. E v e n if a Jewish w r i t e r w e r e a d d r e s s i n g a c h u r c h c o m m u n i t y that w a s
p r i m a r i l y G e n t i l e i n o r i e n t a t i o n , it is n o t clear that t h e u s e o f "Christ" o r re
lated s y m b o l s w o u l d b e v o i d o f m e s s i a n i c s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t . W h e t h e r t h e
r e c i p i e n t s were Jewish o r G e n t i l e in b a c k g r o u n d i s a l s o o f i m p o r t a n c e . It is
a r g u a b l e t h a t XpioTOC, b e c a m e a n a m e w i t h little s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t relatively
1 0
early in t h e G e n t i l e c h u r c h . H o w e v e r , it i s u n l i k e l y t h a t Jewish Christian
r e c i p i e n t s w o u l d h a v e failed t o r e c o g n i z e m e s s i a n i c a l l u s i o n s if t h e y h a d
b e e n e x p o s e d t o Jewish m e s s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n s . W h i l e Palestinian Jews
m i g h t h a v e a greater e x p o s u r e to m e s s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a n Hellenistic
10. However, K. H. Rcngstorf asserts; "In the Gk. Churches . . . the word christos,
when linked with Jesus, completed relatively quickly the transition from an adj., which it is
essentially, to a proper name. And in the process it retained its traditional reference to Jesus'
status." K. H. Rengstorf, "Jesus Christ," in The New International Dictionary of New Testa
ment Theology, vol. 2 (cd. C- Brown; Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan, 1976) 330-48; sec p. 338.
213
Jews, H e l l e n i s t i c Jews t e n d e d t o b e e x p o s e d t o a p o c a l y p t i c a n d p s e u d e p i -
graphic literature t h a t c o n t a i n e d m e s s i a n i c c o n t e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e c i r
c u l a t i o n o f t h e oral t r a d i t i o n a n d p e r h a p s o n e or m o r e G o s p e l s w o u l d i n d i
c a t e shared i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t Jesus' M e s s i a h s h i p w i t h the a u t h o r s .
The Occurrence ofXpiordc;
T h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f "Christ" w i t h "Jesus" i n N e w T e s t a m e n t a n d extra-

biblical literature i s u n d e n i a b l e . O n e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r xpiordc, h a s s e m a n t i c
v a l u e as a n h o n o r i f i c title or w h e t h e r it b e c a m e virtually a u t o m a t i c a s a
d e s i g n a t i o n for Jesus b y the t i m e H e b r e w s a n d t h e G e n e r a l Epistles w e r e
w r i t t e n . T h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f xptorbc, w i t h o t h e r lexical i t e m s i s i m p o r t a n t . If
x p t o r d g o c c u r s w i t h m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s that i n c l u d e t e r m i n o l o g y , s y m
b o l s , a n d i m a g e s , t h e n it is likely t h a t it h a s m o r e s e m a n t i c v a l u e t h a n
m e r e l y d e s i g n a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , if t h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f a n y o f t h e c o r p u s i s
Jewish i n b a c k g r o u n d , a n y n a m e c o u l d c a r r y s i g n i f i c a n t s e m a n t i c w e i g h t .
W h e n D . A. H a g n e r d e s c r i b e s the n a m i n g o f Jesus i n the n a t i v i t y n a r r a
tives, h e s t a t e s , " N a m e s h e l d far m o r e i m p o r t a n c e in t h a t c u l t u r e t h a n i n
o u r s , b e i n g t h o u g h t o f as l i n k e d w i t h or p o i n t i n g t o t h e actual character
a n d destiny o f the individual." Furthermore, there w a s a rabbinic v i e w that
the Messiah was n a m e d before the creation o f the w o r l d . " According t o
H . B i e t e n h a r d , t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n s a n d t e a c h i n g s o f t h e p o w e r o f the n a m e
o f Jesus t h r o u g h o u t t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t " s h o w that t h e O T m a n n e r o f
s p e a k i n g o f t h e n a m e o f Y a h w e h h a s b e e n transferred t o Jesus a n d h i s
2
n a m e . " ' T h e r e f o r e , for a first-century Jewish C h r i s t i a n , t h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f
t h e n a m e o f Jesus w i t h t h e d e s i g n a t i o n "Christ" c o u l d still a m o u n t t o a di
rect p r o c l a m a t i o n o f G o d ' s s a l v a t i o n t h r o u g h the M e s s i a h .
W e m u s t n o t b e a n a c h r o n i s t i c in o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w t h e a u
t h o r s a n d r e c i p i e n t s related t o n a m e s , n o r a s s u m e t h a t if early C h r i s t i a n s
d i d u s e TnooOc. x p i o r d g as a n a m e it w o u l d h a v e e q u a l s e m a n t i c v a l u e t o
o u r u s e o f Jesus Christ as a n a m e .
11. D. A. Hagner, Matthew i-y (Dallas: Word, 1993) 19. Hagner also adds that the sig
nificance of the child and his role "is seen particularly in the importance of the naming in
the passage, as well as in the content of the names themselves, lesus and Emmanuel" {22}.
12. H. Bietenhard, "Name," in Brown, ed.. The New International Dklionary of New
Testament Theology, 2:654-55.
214
Messianic Scenarios
M e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s t h a t o c c u r apart f r o m xpiordc, are e q u a l l y essential i n a

s t u d y o f t h e M e s s i a h i n H e b r e w s a n d t h e General Epistles. T h e t h r e e m e s
s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s o f e n t h r o n e m e n t , v i c t o r y , a n d t e m p l e are o v e r l a p p i n g
p r a g m a t i c c a t e g o r i e s that c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e b r o a d s p e c t r u m o f Jewish
m e s s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n s . T h e y a r e r o u g h l y correlated t o t h e a n o i n t e d k i n g s ,
5 1
p r o p h e t s , a n d priests i n t h e H e b r e w B i b l e . It i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e that
references t o believers s h a r i n g i n e n t h r o n e m e n t , v i c t o r y , o r t e m p l e scenar
i o s a r c a l s o m e s s i a n i c . A s C . K. Barrett o b s e r v e s :
It i s a familiar o b s e r v a t i o n that in Daniel 7, the S o n o f man vision is i n

terpreted as a representation o f t h e p e o p l e o f the saints o f the M o s t
H i g h ; if h e receives a k i n g d o m , that m e a n s that t h e p e o p l e do. If this
m e a n s that in any s e n s e or at a n y stage h e i s identified with the Messiah,
the s a m e interpretation applies, foe the king is the representative o f the
1
people; in their king the p e o p l e as a w h o l e experience defeat o r victory. ''
R e f e r e n c e s t o believers' s a l v a t i o n e v o k e the M e s s i a h w h o s a v e d t h e m , a n d
references t o b e l i e v e r s ' spiritual v i c t o r y e v o k e Christ's victory, w h i c h is the
b a s i s o f t h e b e l i e v e r s ' victory.
T h e e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e n a r i o is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n that
t h e Messiah w o u l d be the Davidic king through w h o m G o d w o u l d rule his
5
p e o p l e . ' E n t h r o n e m e n t i s e v o k e d b y royal i m a g e r y a n d t h e m e s o f l o r d
s h i p a n d i n h e r i t a n c e . Royal i m a g e r y is related to t h r o n e s , scepters, c r o w n s ,
a n d k i n g d o m r e f e r e n c e s . L o r d s h i p references relate t o t h e rule o f t h e M e s
s i a h . T h e y i n c l u d e p a t r o n - c l i e n t a l l u s i o n s s u c h as t h e titles "Lord," " M a s
6
ter," a n d " S h e p h e r d , " ' a s w e l l as references t o b e l i e v e r s as "slaves" o r "ser
v a n t s " a n d t o the o b l i g a t i o n o f o b e d i e n c e . I n h e r i t a n c e t h e m e s a r e based o n
Jesus a s t h e p r i m a r y o r firstborn s o n a n d h e i r o f G o d . Jesus' p e o p l e share
'-3- Evans, "Messianism," 699.

14. C K. Barrett, 'The Christology of Hebrews," in Who Do You Say Thai I Am? Essays
on Christotogy fed. M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer; l.ouisville: Westminster John Knox. 1999)
119-20.
15. Wright, Jesus and the Victor/ of Cod, 477.
16. Wright states: "Jesus' use of 'shepherd' imagery, therefore, is comprehensible
within this Jewish setting as an evocation of messianic roles and expectations" (Wright, Jesus
and the Victory of Cod, 534).
215
h i s s t a t u s as heirs a n d a l s o receive a n i n h e r i t a n c e b y v i r t u e o f t h e i r royal

M e s s i a h w h o is G o d ' s S o n . A d d i t i o n a l k i n s h i p l a n g u a g e e x p r e s s e s t h e b e
lievers' r e l a t i o n s h i p t o G o d , Jesus, o r e a c h o t h e r , r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t are
b a s e d o n Jesus' m e s s i a n i c i d e n t i t y a n d w o r k .
T h e v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n that " t h e k i n g
w a s t o b e t h e o n e w h o w o u l d fight Israel's battles" a n d restore Israel f r o m
7
e x i l e . ' T h i s e x p e c t a t i o n w a s t r a n s f o r m e d b y Jesus a n d h i s f o l l o w e r s s o t h a t
m e s s i a n i c v i c t o r y i s e v o k e d t h r o u g h references t o t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f G o d ' s
p e o p l e t o himself, s a l v a t i o n a n d its b e n e f i t s , a n d t h e P a r o u s i a . T h e restora
tion o f God's p e o p l e includes reconciliation, the believers' approach t o
G o d , f o r g i v e n e s s , a n d f e l l o w s h i p . S a l v a t i o n a n d its b e n e f i t s i n c l u d e eternal
life, r i g h t e o u s n e s s , g r a c e a n d p e a c e , h e a l i n g , a n d p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e d e l i v
e r a n c e . W h e n s u f f e r i n g is v i e w e d a s c o n f l i c t l e a d i n g t o v i c t o r y , it i s related
t o t h e v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o . T h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f Christ's P a r o u s i a is related t o
t h e D a y o f t h e L o r d , r e s u r r e c t i o n , a n d t h e d e f e a t o f Christ"s e n e m i e s , w h i c h
i n c l u d e s m i l i t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s . T h e d e p i c t i o n o f l e s u s as G o d ' s final
p r o p h e t fits best i n t o t h i s e s c h a t o l o g i c a l c a t e g o r y .
T h e t e m p l e s c e n a r i o is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m e s s i a n i c royal r o l e s a n d
priestly functions. Wright summarizes:
T h e t e m p l e . . . f u n c t i o n e d as t h e central political, as well as religious,

s y m b o l o f Judaism. It p o i n t e d n o t o n l y t o Y H W H ' s p r o m i s e t o dwell
with his p e o p l e , a n d t o h i s dealing with their sins, their impurities, a n d
ultimately with their exile, b u t a l s o t o his l e g i t i m a t i o n o f the rulers w h o
built, rebuilt o r ran it. It w a s b o u n d u p inextricably with t h e royal h o u s e ,
16
and with royal a s p i r a t i o n s .
T h e m e s s i a n i c r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e t e m p l e is e v o k e d by references t h a t a s s o
ciate Jesus o r h i s p e o p l e w i t h t h e b u i l d i n g , e x p l a n a t i o n o f s a c r i f i c e ( s ) , a n d
t h e p r i e s t h o o d o f Jesus o r t h e believers.
T h e three scenarios o f e n t h r o n e m e n t , victory, a n d t e m p l e corre
s p o n d t o v a r i o u s e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t w e r e c i r c u l a t i n g o r a l l y a s w e l l as i n lit
erature. H o w e v e r , t h e t e r m i n o l o g y , s y m b o l s , a n d i m a g e s t h a t e v o k e t h e s e
17. Wright, lesus and the Victory 0/God, 484, see pp. 126-27,203-4. See also CA. Evans,
"Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel," in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel (ed. C C.
Newman; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999) 77-100.
iS. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 411.
216
Messianic Themes of Tempie, Enthronement, and Victory
s c e n a r i o s are s o m e t i m e s " m u t a t i o n s " o f t h e Jewish m e s s i a n i c h o p e . N e v

e r t h e l e s s , e v e n u n i q u e a s s o c i a t i o n s m a d e by t h e a u t h o r s are r e c o g n i z a b l e
a s fulfilling Israel's h o p e i n a n u n e x p e c t e d way.
Christ i n the B o o k o f Hebrews
H e b r e w s h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e e n u n d e r s t o o d as a letter a d d r e s s e d t o Jewish
C h r i s t i a n s . W h i l e t h i s v i e w h a s n o t g o n e u n c h a l l e n g e d , t h e author's e x
tensive u s e o f t h e Septuagint together w i t h t h e nature o f t h e argument
that is based o n a n e m o t i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n a n d understanding o f Moses,
t h e l a w a n d p r o p h e t s , c o v e n a n t , p r i e s t h o o d , a n d sacrifice w o u l d i n d i c a t e
that t h e a u t h o r a n d p r o b a b l y t h e recipients a r e Hellenistic Jewish-
1 9
Christians. T h e S e p t u a g i n t w a s a c c o r d e d s a c r e d a u t h o r i t y for Jewish life
1 0
a n d worship in the Hellenistic c o m m u n i t y . N e w a p o c r y p h a l b o o k s were
a d d e d t o t h e H e b r e w Bible, a n d intertextual r e l a t i o n s h i p s have b e e n s u g
gested between Hebrews and apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works
Martyrdom of Isaiah, t a n d 2 Enoch, Sirach, t h e W i s d o m o f
such as the
Solomon, theAscension of Isaiah, 4 Ezra, t h e Exagoge of Ezekiel, a n d
21
uQMelchizedek. T h i s c a t e g o r y o f literature offers a variety o f m e s s i a n i c
expectations that would be "shared information" in the Jewish-
H e l l e n i s t i c c o m m u n i t y . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e a u t h o r o f H e b r e w s h a d a vari
ety o f messianic materials in circulation with w h i c h h e could draw c o n
n e c t i o n s a n d m a k e n e w a s s o c i a t i o n s . S u c h a literary e n v i r o n m e n t i n
cludes rich, i f n o t consistent, messianic associations.
X p i a r o q o c c u r s t h i r t e e n t i m e s i n t h e b o o k o f H e b r e w s . It c o l l o c a t e s
w i t h Jesus o n l y t h r e e t i m e s (10:10; 13:8,21). It o c c u r s t e n t i m e s a l o n e , u s u
ally w i t h t h e article (3:6,14; 5:5; 6:1; 9:11,14, 24,28; 10:12; 11:26). There is a
d e f i n i t e pattern o f xpioroc, o c c u r r i n g w i t h m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s . The part
nership a n d sharing o f God's people w i t h Christ is an overarching messi-
19. This generalization would not exdude Gentile believer* who were first Hellenistic
Jewish proselytes or Samaritans.
20. Sec W. T. Wilson, "Hellenistic Judaism," in Evans and Porter, cds.. Dictionary of
New Testament Background, 477-82, see p. 4B0.
21. P. J. Hariin, "Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphical Sources in the New'lestament" in
Evans and Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background, 69-71. see p. 70; H
son, "The Jewish Antecedents of die Chrisiology in Hebrews," in Charlesworlh- ed„ The
Messiah, 512*35.
217
a n t e t h e m e (3:6,14; 11:26)." Passages t h a t e v o k e t h e e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e

n a r i o d e p i c t C h r i s t as s e a t e d ar t h e r i g h t h a n d o f G o d after c o m p l e t i n g t h e
priestly f u n c t i o n o f sacrifice (10:12), as t h e s o n o v e r G o d ' s h o u s e (3:6), u n
c h a n g i n g (13:8), a n d t h e m e a n s t o o b e d i e n c e (13:21). O n l y t w o p a s s a g e s
e v o k e t h e v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o . H i s sacrificial f u n c t i o n i s c o n t r a s t e d w i t h h i s
salvific s e c o n d c o m i n g (9:28), a n d M o s e s is d e s c r i b e d as s h a r i n g Christ's
sufferings w h i l e h e l o o k e d a h e a d t o t h e reward {11:26)." H o w e v e r , t h e p a s
sages t h a t e v o k e t h e t e m p l e s c e n a r i o d o m i n a t e w i t h references t o Christ's
h i g h p r i e s t h o o d (3:14; 9:11), h i s sacrifice (9:14,28; 10:5,10,12), a n d his w o r k
in t h e h e a v e n l y tabernacle (9:11,14). O n e c a n c o n c l u d e f r o m t h e s e p a t t e r n s
3 4
t h a t "Christ" i s u s e d w i t h full m e s s i a n i c c o n n o t a t i o n s .
T h e m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s apart f r o m t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f xpioruc. are e x
tensive i n H e b r e w s — w e suffer from a n a b u n d a n c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n . A l l three
s c e n a r i o s are repeatedly w o v e n together. In c h s . 1-4, t h e p r i m a r y s c e n a r i o i s
m e s s i a n i c victory: Jesus is p r e s e n t e d as G o d ' s u l t i m a t e m e s s e n g e r in t h e last
d a y s — a p r o p h e t like M o s e s . W e m u s t h e a r h i s w o r d t o e n t e r t h e v i c t o r y o r
goal o f G o d ' s rest. E n t h r o n e m e n t a n d t e m p l e s c e n a r i o s are m a p p e d o n t h e
d o m i n a n t v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o . C h a p t e r 1 presents t h e u l t i m a t e m e s s e n g e r a s t h e
2 5
anointed a n d enthroned Son o f G o d . Jesus' h u m a n i t y in c h . 2 qualifies h i m
t o b e a h i g h priest w h o i s able t o h e l p p e o p l e i n their t i m e o f n e e d . T h e great
est c o n t r i b u t i o n o f H e b r e w s t o o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Jesus as M e s s i a h i s t h e
e x t e n d e d a r g u m e n t i n 5:1-10:18 that u n i q u e l y e x p l a i n s Jesus' h i g h p r i e s t h o o d
aa. C. L. Blomberg notes that ihe believers' partnership with Chrisi in 3:14 "almost
exactly matches Wright's 'incorporativc' texts in Paul, in which the messiah is closely bound
up with his people." C. L. Blomberg. "Messiah in the New Testament," in Israel's Messiah in
ihe Bible and ihe Dead Sea Scrolls (cd. R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2003) m-4i-
23. The reference to Christ in the OT context of Moses'life in 11:26 leads Blomberg to
conclude, "this passage surely is referring to the mcssiah in the abstract rather than to Jesus
personally" (Blomberg, "Messiah in the New Testament," 133).
24. Contra P. Ellingworth, who asserts that in the book of Hebrews, "the traditional ti
tle 'Christ' is not developed in any distinctive way." P. Ellingworth, "Jesus and the Universe in
r
Hebrews," CBQ 30 U96S) 3S9-8S. N. A. Dahl cOncludcs,"n Hebrews 'Jesus' is a personal name
while Chrisios is used with reference to Christ's rank and work as king and high priesL" N. A.
Dahl, "Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion of Jesus," in Charlesworth, ed., Ttie Messiah, 382-
403. However, "Jesus" has similar messianic associations.
25. As B. Lindars claims. "Hebrews here reproduces the apostolic proclamation that
Jesus is Ihe Messiah and builds on a wcll-csublishcd tradition of proof-texts in support of
it." B. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991) 35-
218
a n d h i s m e s s i a n i c r e l a t i o n s h i p to central t e m p l e i n s t i t u t i o n s : the sanctuary,

the c o v e n a n t , t h e Law, and t h e sacrifice. His f u n c t i o n a s high priest p r o v i d e s
t h e basis o f t h e believers' s e r v i c e i n t h e t e m p l e a n d reconciliation w i t h G o d
s o that t h e y c a n f o l l o w Jesus i n t o t h e H o l y o f H o l i e s {10:19-22). T h e last third
o f H e b r e w s (10:19-13:25) a p p l i e s Jesus' r o l e s a s m e s s e n g e r a n d h i g h priest t o
t h e believer. T h e m e t a p h o r o f r u n n i n g t h e race w i t h Jesus a s t h e a u t h o r a n d
finisher o f o u r faith is a n o t h e r v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o i n w h i c h t h e M e s s i a h leads
h i s p e o p l e t o t h e goal (12:1-17). T h e c l i m a x o f H e b r e w s depicts t h e believers'
a c c e s s t o G o d a n d Jesus in h e a v e n l y Jerusalem, w h i c h i n c l u d e s m e s s i a n i c res
t o r a t i o n (12:18-28), a n d c o n c l u d e s w i t h g o i n g t o Jesus o u t s i d e t h e earthly
" c a m p " a n d offering p r i e s t l y sacrifices o f praise a n d d o i n g g o o d (13:13-16).
T h e climax and c o n c l u s i o n o f Hebrews ultimately m a p messianic enthrone
m e n t a n d victory, particularly t h e v i c t o r y o f r e s t o r a t i o n a n d reconciliation,
o n t h e t e m p l e s c e n a r i o , w h i c h h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d far b e y o n d Jesus' s y m
bolic actions in the temple.
B a r n a b a s L i n d a r s s p e a k s o f h o w t h e earliest C h r i s t i a n s n o t o n l y d i s
c o v e r e d w a y s i n w h i c h m e s s i a n i c p r o p h e c i e s w e r e fulfilled in Christ but
2 6
a l s o "enlarged the s c o p e o f w h a t w a s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e p r o p h e t i c " Wright
d e s c r i b e s Jesus' c l a i m t o M e s s i a h s h i p as o n e t h a t "redefined itself a r o u n d
Jesus' o w n k i n g d o m - a g e n d a , p i c k i n g u p several s t r a n d s available w i t h i n
p o p u l a r m e s s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n b u t w e a v i n g t h e m i n t o a striking n e w p a t
27
tern." These dynamics were at work with the author o f Hebrews, w h o
significantly extended t h e t e m p l e scenario. Perhaps the process o f inspira
tion involved t h e exposure o f the author t o the Q u m r a n expectations of a
p r i e s t l y m e s s i a h a n d a p o c a l y p t i c literature a b o u t M e l c h i z e d e k . T h e a u t h o r
c o u l d h a v e l o o k e d a g a i n a t t h e S c r i p t u r e s a n d f o u n d that G o d h a d m a d e a
p r o m i s e a n d an o a t h , d e c l a r i n g t h a t O n e w o u l d b e a p r i e s t forever a c c o r d
i n g t o t h e order o f M e l c h i z e d e k ( H e b 7:17-22; cf. Ps 110:4).
Christ i n t h e Book o f James
28
T h e Jewish o r i g i n o f t h e b o o k o f James h a s b e e n w i d e l y a c c e p t e d . J. H .
C h a r l e s w o r t h n o t e s that it is difficult t o "judge if a d o c u m e n t is essentially
26. Lindars, Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, $2.

27. Wright, fesus and the Victory of God, 538.
18. Among other internal evidence, such as the sociological situation characterized
219
C Y N T H I A LONG WESTFALL
Jewish o r C h r i s t i a n . P e r h a p s it is a l s o t i m e t o e x a m i n e s o m e old p r o b l e m s ;
f o r e x a m p l e , have w e assessed accurately James, H e b r e w s a n d R e v e l a t i o n b y
29
labeling t h e m s i m p l y ' C h r i s t i a n ' ? " I n fact, t h e J e w i s h c h a r a c t e r o f James is
s o p r e v a l e n t a n d the explicit C h r i s t o l o g y s o scarce that s o m e h a v e s u g g e s t e d
30
that t h e w o r k is n o t C h r i s t i a n . T h e a u t h o r i s i d e n t i f i e d i n the letter as
James, traditionally l i n k e d w i t h James the half-brother o f Jesus, a n d a pillar
in the J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h i n Jerusalem. T h i s is n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
the register o f the letter, e x c e p t that t h e literary q u a l i t y o f t h e Greek i s u n e x
pectedly h i g h . James e x h i b i t s intertextuality w i t h the w i s d o m literature in
the H e b r e w Bible, o t h e r Jewish literature, a n d t h e G r e e k v e r s i o n o f the Ser
3 1
m o n o n t h e M o u n t in Q . T h e r e c i p i e n t s are i d e n t i f i e d a s "the t w e l v e t r i b e s
dispersed abroad." At m o s t , w e c a n say, "the a u t h o r l o o k s o n t h e recipients o f
the epistle as the t r u e Israel," a n d the w o r d otctcjropct w o u l d a p p e a r t o i n d i
c a t e t h e p a r t o f Judaism living o u t s i d e o f Palestine, t h o u g h s o m e s c h o l a r s
32
t h i n k the w o r d is m e t a p h o r i c a l . G i v e n a Jewish P a l e s t i n i a n o r i g i n o r a H e l
33
lenistic Jewish s e t t i n g , t h e a u t h o r w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s .
T h e r e a r e o n l y t w o o c c u r r e n c e s o f xpior6c, i n J a m e s (1:1; 2:1), a n d
b o t h o c c u r w i t h the n a m e o f Jesus. I n 1:1, "Jesus C h r i s t " o c c u r s w i t h "Lord"
3 1
a n d p o s s i b l y " G o d " ' a n d i s c o u p l e d w i t h James's i d e n t i t y as "slave" o r
"servant." S o m e d i s m i s s t h e p h r a s e " s e r v a n t / s l a v e o f t h e Lord l e s u s Christ"
35
as " f o r m u l a i c . " H o w e v e r , P. P e r k i n s states t h a t i n s u c h a c o n t e x t , "the
by conflict between die rich and pour, the Palestinian origin is suggested by Jas 5:7» which is
characteristic of the Palestinian climate more than other options- P- Davids, The Epistle of
fames (N'IGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19R2) 14.
29. J. H. Charlcsworth, Jesus within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological
Discoveries (New York: Doubleday, 1988) 31.
30. Sec Davids, James, 14-15 for arguments against the Christian character of tames.
31. For the literary relations of James with Jewish and Greco-Roman literature, see
L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James (New York; Doubleday- i99Sl 26-88.
3a. Davids, James, 63.
33. However, among some scholars there is a shift away from an early date and Pales
tinian origin in favor of a later date and diaspora setting. "Scholars most often cite Hellenis
tic sources, not Semitic ones, lo explain details." I. Reumann, "Christology of James," in
Powell and Bauer, cds., who Do You Say Tliat I Am? 128-39, see p . 129.
34. Some have suggested 1:1 should he translated as "servant of Jesus Christ, God and
Lord" because of the syntactic parallel with 1:27: "before God the Father"
9eou KOI Kupfou 'Irioou Xpioroo 5ouXoc {1:1)

nopct OGIS KOI nctrpf (1:27)
35. Blomberg, "Messiah in the New Testament," 134.
220
Mcssiank Tliemes of Temple, Enthronement, and Victory
christological titles 'Lord' a n d ' M a s t e r ' r e m i n d the a u d i e n c e o f t h e disgrace

36
attached to rejecting a divine benefactor," and Bauckham similarly
c l a i m s t h a t t h e p h r a s e s u g g e s t s that C h r i s t i a n s have b e e n b o u g h t f r o m c a p
37
tivity or s l a v e r y . Similar p h r a s e s o c c u r in s a l u t a t i o n s i n R o m 1:1, Phil t;i,
Jude t, a n d 2 Pet 1:1. T h e rate o f o c c u r r e n c e in b o t h the N e w T e s t a m e n t a n d
3
the H e b r e w B i b l e ( s e r v a n t o f G o d ) ' w o u l d classify t h e phrase as a c o m
m o n c o l l o c a t i o n rather t h a n f o r m u l a i c ; t h e r e f o r e t h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f "Lord"
a n d "slave" is best t a k e n a s a p a l r o n - c l i e n t reference thai e v o k e s a m e s s i
anic e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e n a r i o . T h e o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e o f x p i o r o c in 2:1 e v o k e s
a clearer e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e n a r i o . It is a c o m m a n d n o t t o s h o w favoritism
w h i l e h a v i n g faith i n "our g l o r i o u s Lord fesus Christ." L o r d s h i p and o b e d i
e n c e are at i s s u e , w h i l e " g l o r i o u s " p o i n t s t o w a r d e n t h r o n e m e n t and m o s t
3
likely refers t o the e x a l t e d p o s i t i o n o f t h e M e s s i a h . '
l a m e s activates e n t h r o n e m e n t a n d v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o s i n the rest o f t h e
e p i s t l e . T h e p o o r b e l i e v e r i s raised u p i n s t a t u s , g i v e n a c r o w n o f life, and
d e c l a r e d t o b e an h e i r o f the k i n g d o m , w h i l e t h e h u m b l e believer will b e
e x a l t e d by G o d ( 1 : 5 , 9 , 1 2 ; 4:10)- G o d g i v e s birth t o b e l i e v e r s b y the w o r d o f
truth s o that t h e y b e c o m e a k i n d o f first fruits o f w h a t h a s b e e n created
(1:18). W h i l e l o r d s h i p a n d o b e d i e n c e characterize t h e t e x t u r e o f fames,
m e s s i a n i c v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o s are a l s o e v o k e d . T h e m o s t natural u n d e r s t a n d
i n g o f t h e " w o r d o f t r u t h " t h a t c a u s e s birth a n d "the i m p l a n t e d w o r d t h a t
is a b l e t o save y o u r s o u l s " i s t h a t it refers t o Jesus (1:18, 21), a n d "the law o f
liberty" w o u l d b e h i s t e a c h i n g (1:25). A s t r o n g e s c h a t o l o g i c a l v i c t o r y s c e -
j6. P. Perkins. "Christ in Jude and 2 Peter," in Powell and Bauer, eds.. Who Do You Soy
Thai I Am! 153-65, see p. 156.
37. Bauckham states: ''The more characteristic Christian phrase became 'servant of
Jesus Christ.' suggesting die idea that Christians have been bought by Christ from captivity
or slavery and now belong to him as his slaves The phrase could be uied of those called
to special lervice. Christian workers, not j . an indication of privileged rank, but, as In the
case of the term Gicocovoc. ('servant'), indicating that the Christian worker exemplifies the
servant role which all God's people are called to play." R. J. Bauckham, lude, 2 Peter (Waco;
Word, 1983) i j .
38. Abraham (Ps 105:42), Moses (Neh 9:14), David (PS 89:3). and Daniel (Dan 6:20)
are all called the servant of God.
39. However, this is taking the genitive bolsyt; in the phrase rt\v jrirmv rod fpiov K U P F O U
'irpoü XpiOToC rf\z 66e>ii as either a genitive of quality (Messiah of glory) or apposition
(glorious Lord Jesus), because the word order would indicate that it modifies Christ or lesus
rather than faith or favoritism. See Reumann for the o:her interpretive possibilities
(Reumann, "Christology of James" 131).
221
n a r i o i n c l u d e s j u d g m e n t (2:12-13; 4^2; 5'9- c £ 5:1) a n d references t o t h e last

d a y s a n d t h e c o m i n g o f t h e Lord, t h e M e s s i a h (5:3,7,9).
W h i l e t h e C h r i s t o l o g y is less e x p l i c i t i n J a m e s , t h e l o r d s h i p a n d t h e
e s c h a t o l o g i c a l c o m i n g o f t h e M e s s i a h are pervasive i n t h e epistle. T h e ref
e r e n c e s t o l o r d s h i p a n d t h e p a r o u s i a w o u l d activate a fuller b o d y o f m e s s i
a n i c i n f o r m a t i o n , particularly i n a c o m m u n i t y w i t h a Jewish b a c k g r o u n d .
C h r i s t in 1 Peter
T h e register o f 1 Peter i s a n i n t e r e s t i n g c o n u n d r u m . T h e t r a d i t i o n a l a u
t h o r s h i p o f Peter t h e A p o s t l e t h r o u g h S i l v a n u s t h a t is attested i n t h e d i s
c o u r s e (1:1; 5:12) i s q u e s t i o n e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y o f s c h o l a r s h i p . S o m e s u g g e s t
4 0
that it o r i g i n a t e d w i t h a P e t r i n e "circle" l o c a t e d i n R o m e , which would
a s s o c i a t e 1 Peter w i t h Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y i n a n y e v e n t . U n l i k e t h e o t h e r
G e n e r a l Epistles, t h e internal e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s that t h e r e c i p i e n t s w e r e
largely G e n t i l e s (1:14,18; 2:9-10,12,25; 3:6; 4:3-4). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , J. R.
M i c h a e l s o b s e r v e s , " N o N T letter is s o c o n s i s t e n t l y a d d r e s s e d , directly o r
1
indirectly, t o 'Israel,' t h a t is ( o n the f a c e o f i t ) t o Jews" (1:17; 2:6,9, n ) . * T h e
a u t h o r c h o s e t o a d d r e s s t h e m a s if t h e y w e r e Jews, w i t h o u t a n y l a n g u a g e
4 2
that displaces J u d a i s m . T h e deliberate u s e o f H e b r e w S c r i p t u r e is o n e o f
t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g features o f t h e e p i s t l e . M i c h a e l s asserts:
1 Peter is linked t o Judaism n o t b y t h e law, b u t by a shared self-

understanding. T h e author sees h i m s e l f a n d his readers a s a c o m m u n i t y
situated in t h e w o r l d in m u c h t h e s a m e way t h e Jews are situated a n d
sharing with the Jews a c o m m o n past If they b e g a n to s e e themselves
40. Bauckham insists that there would not be a Petrine "school" because there arc no
theological resemblances between 1 and 2 Peter to be explained: "The authors cannot both
be disiiples of Peter who share a common debt to Peter's reaching. If both letters derive from
a Petrine 'circle,' the circle cannot be a 'school' with a common theology, but simply a circle
of colleagues who worked together in the leadership of the Roman church" (Bauckham,
fade, 2 Peter, 146).
41.1. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Waco; Word, 1988) xlv.
42. Euscbius claimed that Peter wrote to "those of the Hebrews" in the "Dispersion o f
Pontus and Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and BithyniaMichaels sympatruzes: "Even though
the testimony of Euscbius is not a reliable guide to the audience of i Peter, his mistake was a
natural one" (Michaels, t Peter, xh'i).
222
as ' h o n o r a r y J e w s ' . . . . they a l s o began to see the heroes and heroines o f

4
the Jewish stories they loved a s " h o n o r a r y Christians." *
S o m e s c h o l a r s find inter textual ity w i t h i Enoch in t h e reference to t h e

p r e a c h i n g to t h e spirits in p r i s o n i n 1 Pet 3:19." If s o , t h e reference w o u l d
a s s u m e that t h e readers k n o w i Enoch s o that t h e y w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d t h e
i d e n t i t y o f t h e spirits in p r i s o n a n d t h e c o n t e x t in w h i c h t h e p r e a c h i n g
t o o k p l a c e . In that case, t h e m e s s i a n i c references t o t h e " S o n o f M a n " i n t h e
section o f the Similitudes a n d t h e v a r i o u s references t o t h e a p o c a l y p s e
w o u l d a l s o b e s h a r e d i n f o r m a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i r repertoire w o u l d
4 5
m o s t likely i n c l u d e a d d i t i o n a l a p o c r y p h a l a n d p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c a l w o r k s .
T h e Jewish o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e e p i s t l e a n d t h e a u t h o r ' s a n d r e c i p i e n t s ' p r o b
a b l e familiarity w i t h m e s s i a n i c literature s u g g e s t c o n v e r s a n c e with messi
anic concepts.
T h e r e are t w e n t y - t w o o c c u r r e n c e s o f x p ' o r o c in 1 Peter. "Jesus
C h r i s t " o c c u r s eight t i m e s , a n d "Christ" o c c u r s a l o n e thirteen t i m e s . "Je
4 6
sus" never occurs a l o n e . Every o c c u r r e n c e o f "Christ" is linked w i t h a
m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o , a n d all three s c e n a r i o s o c c u r in 1:2: believers have b e e n
c h o s e n a n d d e s t i n e d b y G o d t h e Father a n d s a n c t i f i e d b y t h e Spirit t o b e
o b e d i e n t t o Jesus Christ a n d t o b e s p r i n k l e d b y his b l o o d , a n d grace a n d
p e a c e are i n v o k e d for t h e m . E n t h r o n e m e n t is t h e m o s t d o m i n a n t s c e n a r i o
that o c c u r s w i t h "Christ." T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f believers w i t h their M e s
siah t h r o u g h s u f f e r i n g is t h e m o s t c o m m o n t h e m e (2:21; 3:16; 4:1,14; 5:1).
As in H e b r e w s , a n a b u n d a n c e o f s i g n a l s e v o k e s m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s
t h r o u g h o u t t h e b o o k . In a d d i t i o n t o t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the believers w i t h
t h e i r suffering C h r i s t , o t h e r m e s s i a n i c t h e m e s m e r i t h i g h l i g h t i n g . T h e w e l l -
43. Michaels, 1 I't'ta, 1.

44, C. L. Weslfall, "The Relationship between the Resurrection, the Proclamation to
the Spirits in Pi ison and Baptismal Regeneration: i Peter 3.19-11." in Resurrection {cd. S. E.
Porter, M. A. Hayes, and D. Tombs; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 106-35, see pp.
124-29- See also W. Dalton, "The Interpretation of 1 Peter 3,19 and 4,6: Light from 2 Peter."
Bib 60 (1979) 546-55. Palton argues that the author of 2 Peter used 1 Peter as a source, so that
2 Peter gives a clarification of the identity of the spirits in prison.
4$. For a general description of J Enoch, see J. I. Collins, "Enoch, Books of," in Evans
and Porter, eds., Dictionary ol New Testament Background, 313-18.
46. Rlombergsuggcm that perhaps the fact that "Jesus* never occurs uncompounded
indicates that "Christ" really is a substitute name. However, he concurs that "then- are nu us
ages of Christos in (his letter that could not preserve some nuances of its original meaning as
'messiah'" (Blomberg. "MlMJah in the New Testament," 135-36).
223
CYNTHIA LONG WESTBALL
d e v e l o p e d p a s s a g e o n t h e b e l i e v e r s ' n e w b i r t h to a n i n h e r i t a n c e i n heaven
a n d a s a l v a t i o n t h a t i s ready t o b e r e v e a l e d in t h e last t i m e e v o k e s m e s s i a n i c
e n t h r o n e m e n t a n d v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o s (1:3-9}. T h e i m a g e r y o f Jesus t h e c o r
n e r s t o n e a n d t h e believers b e i n g b u i l t t o g e t h e r i n t o a t e m p l e t h a t h o u s e s t h e
p r e s e n c e o f G o d is e n t w i n e d w i t h t h e p r i e s t h o o d o f the b e l i e v e r (2:4-10). A s
i n H e b r e w s , t h e t e m p l e s c e n a r i o is d e v e l o p e d b e y o n d o t h e r N e w T e s t a m e n t
literature b y a d d i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f p r i e s t h o o d . A s w i t h Paul a n d in H e
b r e w s , 1 Peter d e v e l o p s a n d e x p l a i n s h o w Jesus' d e a t h b r o u g h t r e c o n c i l i a
t i o n , r e d e m p t i o n , a n d restoration (1 Pet 1:18-20; 2:24; 3:18). A s R. H . Stein
states, "Jesus d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t h e n e e d e d t o p r o v i d e d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a
t i o n s o f h o w h i s d e a t h w o u l d b r i n g a b o u t forgiveness a n d sea] t h e n e w c o v e
7
nant. H e w o u l d leave t o h i s followers t h e t h e o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n . " *
T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e b e l i e v e r s ' i n h e r i t a n c e , t h e s h a r i n g o f Christ's
suffering, a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e t e m p l e t e r m i n o l o g y , i n c l u d i n g Christ's s a c
rificial w o r k a n d t h e p r i e s t h o o d o f t h e believer, a r e related t o m e s s i a n i c
s c e n a r i o s . T h e t h e o l o g y o f t h e early c h u r c h d i d n o t d e v e l o p i n a v a c u u m ,
b u t d r e w o n a n d a d v a n c e d m e s s i a n i c beliefs that were shared o r r e c o g
n i z e d b y Jewish C h r i s t i a n s .
Christ in 2 Peter
2 Peter m a k e s a direct c l a i m t o P e t r i n e a u t h o r s h i p . H o w e v e r , i t d i s p l a y s d i s
tinct differences i n s t y l e f r o m 1 Peter that m a y h a v e b e e n a c c o u n t e d f o r b y
t h e u s e o f a n a m a n u e n s i s o t h e r t h a n S i l v a n u s , o r e v e n b y t h e direct a u t h o r
s h i p o f Peter. H o w e v e r , t h e m a j o r i t y o f s c h o l a r s h o l d that 2 Peter is p s e u d
o n y m o u s a n d p r o b a b l y w r i t t e n b y a n o t h e r m e m b e r o f t h e P e t r i n e circle i n
R o m e . Regardless o f t h e a u t h o r s h i p , t h e o c c a s i o n f o r w r i t i n g t h e e p i s t l e
d e m o n s t r a t e s a clear e n g a g e m e n t w i t h m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o s . T h e o c c a s i o n
for t h e letter i s a p o l e m i c against o p p o n e n t s w h o d e n i e d t h e P a r o u s i a o f Je
4 8 49
sus Christ. Intertextuality p l a y s a large r o l e i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n o n 2 P e t e r .
W h a t is m o s t r e m a r k a b l e i s i t s p r o b a b l e d e p e n d e n c e o n either Jude o r a
c o m m o n a p o c a l y p t i c s o u r c e a n d its reference i n 3:15-16 t o Paul's letters a s
47. R. H.Slcin,/esMs xhe Messiah (Downers Grove, IL: InierVarsity Press, 1996) 153. See
also Rom 3:24-26; 2 Cor 5:21; Titus 2:141 Heb 2:11-18; 1 John 2:2.
48. For further discussion of the opponents to apostolic leaching on the Parousia, see
Bauckham. fade, 2 Peter, 154-56.
49. See Bauckham, tude, 2 Peter, 138-51.
224
Scripture. B e s i d e s intertextual ties w i t h t h e H e b r e w Scripture, i Peter, P a u

Enoch (2:4}
line letters, a n d G o s p e l t r a d i t i o n s , t h e r e is a n a l l u s i o n t o i and
a n apocalyptic source such a s t h e Book of Eldad and Modad.
Xpioroc, o c c u r s e i g h t t i m e s i n 2 Peter, a n d every t i m e it o c c u r s w i t h
"Jesus" H o w e v e r , it also o c c u r s w i t h "savior" four t i m e s , w h i c h is a m e s s i
a n i c reference (1:1,11; 2:20; 3:18). It i s i n t e r e s t i n g that e v e n t h o u g h t h e e p i s
tle i s particularly c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e Parousia, "Christ" o c c u r s w i t h e n
t h r o n e m e n t a n d v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o s t h a t are m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h present
ethical b e h a v i o r (1:1, 8; 2:20; 3:18).
'I"he a c c o u n t o f the t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n o f Jesus in 1:16-19 e v o k e s a p o w e r
ful m e s s i a n i c e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e n a r i o . A l o n g w i t h t h e Father-Son l a n g u a g e ,
t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f "power," "majesty," "honor," "glory," a n d "majestic
g l o r y " i s royal. H o w e v e r , t h e t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n i n c o n t e x t is u s e d to s u p p o r t
t h e a p o s t o l i c p r o p h e t i c t e a c h i n g s a b o u t t h e s e c o n d c o m i n g . It m o r e fully
c o n f i r m s t h e p r o p h e t i c m e s s a g e (1:19).*° T h e author's p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e
k n o w l e d g e o f the Lord a s t h e basis o f p i e t y i s d e v e l o p e d i n c h . 1 (1:2,4.5-6.
8), t h e n e x t e n s i v e l y illustrated b y a p o l e m i c against false teachers i n c h . 2
w h o b r i n g in destructive o p i n i o n s a n d "deny t h e M a s t e r w h o b o u g h t
t h e m " (2:1); after t h e y h a v e e s c a p e d t h e d e f i l e m e n t s o f t h e w o r l d t h r o u g h
t h e k n o w l e d g e o f Christ t h e y b e c o m e e n s n a r e d again {2:20). T h i s e v o k e s a
v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o that is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e present a s p e c t s o f salvation e x
perienced through the messianic provision of revelation/knowledge. H o w
ever, it i s l i n k e d w i t h t h e a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o r denial o f t h e l o r d s h i p o f
C h r i s t , t h e M e s s i a h a n d Master. T h e e s c h a t o l o g i c a l v i c t o r y s c e n a r i o i n 3:3-
10 is n o t o n l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e denial o f the Parousia b u t i s a l s o l i n k e d
w i t h a c o n c e r n for e t h i c a l b e h a v i o r (3:11-14). A p o s t o l i c e s c h a t o l o g i c a l
t e a c h i n g and k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e s e c o n d c o m i n g o f the M e s s i a h is v i e w e d
as essential a n d is m e a n t t o p r o d u c e h o l y b e h a v i o r in t h e present.
T h e r e f o r e , 2 Peter h a s a very h i g h p e r c e n t a g e o f m e s s i a n i c c o n t e n t ,
w h i c h m a p s current victory in righteousness o n eschatological victory and
utilizes e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e n a r i o s f o r s u p p o r t a n d c o n f i r m a t i o n .
50. Perkini assert*: "The author's argument has only one point 10 make: The divine
glory conferred on Jcsut ai the transfiguration is evidence for the truth of apoMolic teaching
about his second coming in power (Matt. 24:30: Mark 9:1; 13:26: Luke 21:17). Therefore, 2 Pe
ter pursues a new exegetical reading of the story: The divine glory evident at the Parousia
was witnessed there" (Phcme Perkins, "Christ in lude and 2 Peter," in Powell and Bauer, cdv,
w7)o Do You Say That ! Am? 115-65. sec p. 161.
225
Christ in Jude
Jude i s o f t e n treated after or b e f o r e 2 Peter b e c a u s e o f the parallels b e t w e e n

t h e m . T h e epistle c l a i m s t o b e w r i t t e n by "Jude t h e b r o t h e r o f James," a n d
the traditional v i e w is that h e is t h e h a l f - b r o t h e r o f Jesus. A m o n g o t h e r
p r o b l e m s c o n c e r n i n g a u t h o r s h i p , t h e G r e e k is c o n s i d e r e d t o o s o p h i s t i
cated for a G a l i l e a n Jew. It is difficult t o r e c o n s t r u c t the s i t u a t i o n o f t h e a u
t h o r or t h e r e c i p i e n t s , e x c e p t that it a d d r e s s e s t h e r e j e c t i o n o f all m o r a l a u
thority ( a n t i n o m i a n i s m ) b y appealing to apocalyptic Jewish writings.
T h e r e are six o c c u r r e n c e s o f "Christ" i n Jude, w h i c h is s i g n i f i c a n t i n
s o s h o r t a b o o k . Each o c c u r r e n c e c o l l o c a t e s w i t h "Jesus," b u t four o f t h e six
o c c u r r e n c e s a l s o i n c l u d e "Lord." In v. 4, Jesus i s referred t o as "our o n l y
Master a n d Lord Jesus Christ." Jude refers t o h i m s e l f as "a slave o f Jesus
Christ" i n v. 1. T h e s e p a t t e r n s a l o n e d e m o n s t r a t e a c o n c e r n w i t h Jesus'
Lordship, e v o k i n g an e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e n a r i o . T h e c l o s i n g v e r s e is interest
ing: "to the o n l y G o d o u r Savior, t h r o u g h Jesus C h r i s t o u r Lord, b e glory,
majesty, p o w e r , a n d a u t h o r i t y , b e f o r e all t i m e a n d forever." Jesus is a
préexistent s o u r c e o r a g e n t w h o c o n t r i b u t e s t o G o d ' s e n t h r o n e m e n t , a n d
G o d is called "savior" rather t h a n Jesus. Rather t h a n reflecting a l o w C h r i s -
51
t o l o g y , Jude is f u s i n g the i d e n t i t i e s .
Jude's p r i m a r y c o n c e r n is e x p r e s s e d i n w . 3-4. H e is c o n c e r n e d t h a t
the salvation h i s r e c i p i e n t s share m a y b e p e r v e r t e d i n t o l i c e n t i o u s n e s s . In
v. 8, he d e s c r i b e s t h e b e h a v i o r o f "intruders": " T h e s e d r e a m e r s a l s o defile
t h e flesh, reject a u t h o r i t y , a n d slander the g l o r i o u s o n e s . " T h i s b e h a v i o r
perverts t h e grace o f the Lord a n d M a s t e r Jesus Christ. It i s a rejection o f
the Messiah's l o r d s h i p a n d rule. T h e r e c i p i e n t s are t o l d that s u c h b e h a v i o r
i s a s i g n that t h e y are in t h e "last t i m e , " a n d t h e y a r c t o l o o k forward t o the
m e r c y o f Jesus Christ that leads t o eternal life, w h i c h is a m e s s i a n i c e x p e c
t a t i o n o f victory.
Christ in the Johannine Epistles
T h e J o h a n n i n e epistles are formally a n o n y m o u s . T h e traditional v i e w o n au

t h o r s h i p h o l d s that the epistles, particularly 1 J o h n , w e r e written by t h e s a m e
a u t h o r as the G o s p e l o f John. Recent s c h o l a r s h i p has favored the v i e w that
the G o s p e l a n d epistles are t h e p r o d u c t o f a J o h a n n i n e c o m m u n i t y or s c h o o l .
51. Perkins, "lude and l Peter." 15S.
226
A n o t h e r c u r r e n t v i e w that h a s received w i d e s u p p o r t c l a i m s that t h e G o s p e l

was w r i t t e n "to u n d c r g i r d a C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y t h a t h a d b e e n recently e x
p e l l e d from t h e Jewish s y n a g o g u e . " " If John t h e a p o s U e i s the a u t h o r o f the
J o h a n n i n e c o r p u s , t h e u s e o f "Messiah" o r "Christ" w o u l d b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
t h e G o s p e l . I f the J o h a n n i n e c o r p u s i s w r i t t e n b y t h e J o h a n n i n e c o m m u n i t y ,
w e m a y h a v e as a c o n t e x t a c o m m u n i t y b r e a k i n g w i t h t h e parent religion o f
Judaism. W h e n w e s e c t h e t e r m "Christ," it w o u l d b e e n d o w e d w i t h H e b r e w
t h o u g h t , e v e n t h o u g h it w o u l d n o w b e "a t h o r o u g h l y Christian c o m m u n i t y ,
41
independent o f and distinct from Judaism."
T h e r e are s i x o c c u r r e n c e s o f "Jesus Christ" i n i J o h n , a n d t w o o c c u r
rences w h e r e t h e a u t h o r states: " W h o i s the liar b u t t h e o n e w h o d e n i e s Jesus
i s t h e Christ? E v e r y o n e w h o b e l i e v e s that Jesus is the Christ h a s b e e n b o r n o f
G o d " (2:22; 5 : 1 ) . " T h e c o n f e s s i o n a n d b e l i e f t h a t Jesus i s t h e C h r i s t / M e s s i a h
a r c d e p i c t e d as essential. I n v i e w o f t h e Jewish o r i e n t a t i o n o f the epistle, it i s
u n l i k e l y t h a t "Christ" here i s a reference t o Jesus' full d i v i n i t y a n d h u m a n i t y
55
rather t h a n h i s m e s s i a h s h i p , a s s u g g e s t e d by Stephen S m a l l e y . Six o u t o f
e i g h t o c c u r r e n c e s have a n e a r reference t o F a t h e r - S o n t e r m i n o l o g y . Each o c
c u r r e n c e o f "Christ" e v o k e s the e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e n a r i o that involves the re
l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the royal Messiah a n d h i s p e o p l e . T h e r e are t w o interest
i n g references t o t h e believers' a n o i n t i n g i n 2:27, w h i c h f o r m a c o h e s i v e tie
w i t h Christ, t h e a n o i n t e d o n e . U. C . v o n W a h l d e states, "Just as Jesus w a s
christos, s o the believer is a l s o " 5 6
Anointing and kinship belong t o the be
liever t h r o u g h lesus. Conversely, t h o s e w h o a b a n d o n t h e c o m m u n i t y , deny
the Father a n d the S o n , a n d d o n o t c o n f e s s that Jesus is from G o d o r that h e
c a m e i n the flesh are antichrists, just as t h e liar a n d deceiver e x p e c t e d at t h e
last h o u r i s t h e antichrist (2:18,22; 4:3; cf. 2 J o h n 1:7). T h e terms "antichrist"
a n d "antichrists" o c c u r o n l y i n t h e J o h a n n i n e epistles a n d are associated
w i t h t h e denial o f t h e k i n s h i p b e t w e e n Jesus a n d t h e believers a n d the rejec
t i o n o f t h e m o r e g e n e r i c m e s s i a n i c s c e n a r i o o f Jesus b e i n g s e n t .
52. L. M. McDonald and S. £. Porter. Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Pea-
body, MA: Hcndrickson. 2000) 307.
53. U. C. von Wahlde, The johannine Commandments: i John and the Struggle for die
Johannine 'tradition (New York: Paulist Press, 1090) 1.
54. Blombcrg claims, "Clearer evidence emerges in these final texts for an unambigu
ously titular "Christ' than in all the previous New Testament Epistles surveyed" (Blombcrg,
"Messiah in the New Testament," 137).
55. S. S. Smalley, t, 2 , } John (Waco: Word, 1984) 113-14.
56. Von Wahlde, Johannine Commandments, 146.
227
T h e rest o f i John i s d o m i n a t e d b y k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y , w h i c h acti

vates a n e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e n a r i o . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e Father a n d
t h e S o n i s a s s o c i a t e d i n s e p a r a b l y w i t h M e s s i a h s h i p ( e . g . , 2:22-23). S i m i
larly, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e b e l i e v e r s a n d t h e S o n a n d Father is a s s o
c i a t e d i n s e p a r a b l y w i t h l o v e f o r e a c h o t h e r (1:10-11; 3:14-18; 4*7-12). T h e r e
are a l s o references t o b e i n g b o r n i n t o the f a m i l y o f G o d , a n d t h e r e is e v e n a
reference t o G o d ' s s e e d (ajrepuct) a b i d i n g i n t h e m (3:9; 4:7; 5:4). T h e b e l i e v
ers are c a l l e d c h i l d r e n repeatedly, a l t h o u g h t h e t e r m w a s u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e
a b l y f o r G o d ' s c h i l d r e n a n d John's "children." T h e r e f o r e , a p r i m a r y c o n
c e r n i s f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p , w h i c h is a l s o d e s c r i b e d a s f e l l o w s h i p o r a b i d i n g
i n G o d . T h e a n t i t h e s i s t o b e i n g i n a f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e Father a n d
S o n i s t h e a n t i c h r i s t w h o d e n i e s Jesus' M e s s i a h s h i p o r h i s i n c a r n a t i o n
{2:18-23; 4:2-3; 5:1). T h o s e w h o s i n a l s o are n o t i n r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e F a
t h e r a n d S o n (1:6; 3:8-10; 5:18). I n a d d i t i o n , a s i n H e b r e w s a n d 1 Peter, t h e o
logical e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e o f f e r e d for Jesus* sacrifice f o r s i n s t h a t e v o k e a
t e m p l e s c e n a r i o . H e w a s revealed t o take a w a y s i n , h e laid d o w n h i s life f o r
u s , h i s b l o o d c l e a n s e s u s from s i n , a n d h e i s t h e a t o n i n g sacrifice f o r t h e
s i n s o f t h e w h o l e w o r l d (1:7; 2:2; 3:5,16; 4:10). V i c t o r y s c e n a r i o s a r e e v o k e d
b y c o n q u e s t t e r m i n o l o g y a n d e s c h a t o l o g i c a l h o p e . T h e b e l i e v e r h a s shared
i n Jesus' m e s s i a n i c c o n q u e s t a n d c o n q u e r e d t h e d e v i l , t h e spirit o f t h e
a n t i c h r i s t , a n d t h e w o r l d (2:13-14; 4:4; 5:4-5). T h e b e l i e v e r w h o a b i d e s i n
h i m w i l l h a v e c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e M e s s i a h ' s s e c o n d c o m i n g (2:28). T h e o n e
w h o h o p e s t o b e like h i m w h e n h e i s revealed purifies h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f
(3:2-3). T h e o n e w h o h a s l o v e p e r f e c t e d w i l l h a v e b o l d n e s s o n t h e d a y o f
j u d g m e n t (4:17). J o h n d e p i c t s t h e b e l i e v e r s ' r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h G o d t h e
Father a s a s y m b i o t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p o r n e t w o r k that m u s t i n c l u d e the m e s s i
anic S o n , love for G o d ' s people, a n d ethical behavior.
S e c o n d J o h n a n d particularly 3 John d o n o t a d d s i g n i f i c a n t n e w i n
formation t o t h e messianic concepts in 1 John. In 2 John, t h e antichrist is
a g a i n i d e n t i f i e d a s o n e w h o w i l l n o t c o n f e s s t h a t Jesus w a s i n c a r n a t e d
(v. 7). T h e c o m m a n d for t h e b e l i e v e r s t o g u a r d t h e m s e l v e s s o t h e y w i l l re
c e i v e a full reward is s o m e w h a t different (v. 8), b u t t h e b e l i e f that a n e s c h a
tological h o p e i n t h e Messiah's s e c o n d c o m i n g s h o u l d effect o u r c u r r e n t
r i g h t e o u s n e s s i s n o t u n i q u e . "Abiding" i s g i v e n a s l i g h t l y different s p i n , b e
c a u s e i t i n v o l v e s a b i d i n g i n t h e t e a c h i n g a n d n o t g o i n g b e y o n d it (v. 9).
W h o e v e r a b i d e s i n Christ's t e a c h i n g h a s b o t h t h e Father a n d t h e S o n . T h i s
letter w i t h t h i r t e e n v e r s e s e v o k e s m e s s i a n i c v i c t o r y a n d e n t h r o n e m e n t s c e
n a r i o s , a n d "Christ" o c c u r s in t h e letter t h r e e t i m e s . T h e e x p l a n a t i o n a n d
228
d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e M e s s i a h i n Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y p e r m e
ate t h e literature.
Conclusion
In H e b r e w s a n d t h e G e n e r a l Epistles, w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h c h u r c h e s that are

arguably Jewish in o r i e n t a t i o n if n o t i n u n a l l o y e d c o m p o s i t i o n . F u r t h e r
m o r e , m u c h o f t h i s c o r p u s d i s p l a y s s o m e d e g r e e o f intertextuality with the
H e b r e w B i b l e as well as J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c a n d p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c a l litera
ture, w h i c h i s o f t e n c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y m e s s i a n i c c o n t e n t . I n s u c h c o n t e x t s ,
the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Jesus a s the C h r i s t w a s n o t v o i d o f m e s s i a n i c c o n t e n t .
F u r t h e r m o r e , if W r i g h t i s c o r r e c t in h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t e r m i n o l o g y , i m
a g e s , a n d s y m b o l s t h a t Jesus u t i l i z e d i n t h e G o s p e l s t o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f a s
t h e M e s s i a h , t h e n s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s o c c u r i n H e b r e w s a n d t h e General E p i s
tles that c o n t i n u e t o d e v e l o p t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Jesus' m e s s i a h s h i p . E n
t h r o n e m e n t , victory, a n d t e m p l e scenarios e v o k e d a messianic frame
a m o n g t h e early H e l l e n i s t i c a n d P a l e s t i n i a n J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s , i n s u c h a
w a y that m u c h o f t h e C h r i s t o l o g y in H e b r e w s a n d t h e General Epistles
5 7
s h o u l d b e regarded as m e s s i a n i c . T h e authors o f Hebrews and the Gen
eral E p i s t l e s n o t o n l y e n l a r g e d the s c o p e o f w h a t was c o n s i d e r e d p r o p h e t i c
i n t h e H e b r e w B i b l e , b u t t h e y w e r e p o s s i b l y i n s p i r e d b y t h e variety o f m e s
s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d m a d e u n i q u e a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h t h e w o r k o f Christ
in u n e x p e c t e d w a y s . H e b r e w s , i Peter, a n d 1 J o h n p r o v i d e d a t h e o l o g i c a l
e x p l a n a t i o n for h o w Jesus' d e a t h w o u l d b r i n g a b o u t f o r g i v e n e s s a n d t h e
n e w c o v e n a n t . First J o h n e x p l o i t e d k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y t o e x p l a i n o u r re
l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G o d a n d e a c h o t h e r . H e b r e w s a n d 1 Peter e x p l a i n e d Jesus'
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e t e m p l e i n n e w ways. H e b r e w s p r o v i d e d t h e m o s t d e
tailed a n d a r g u a b l y t h e m o s t o r i g i n a l m e s s i a n i c C h r i s t o l o g y i n the N e w
T e s t a m e n t . H o w e v e r , t h i s c o r p u s o f literature h a s o f t e n b e e n o v e r l o o k e d i n
d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t t h e M e s s i a h . Part o f t h a t m a y b e d u e t o n a r r o w d e f i n i
t i o n s o f the c o n c e p t o f M e s s i a h , a n d part o f it m a y b e d u e t o t h e fact that
s c h o l a r s a n d t h e o l o g i a n s have b e e n interested i n chrisrological q u e s t i o n s
t h a t t h e t e x t s d i d n o t answer.
57.1 do not wish to overstate the presence of messianic themes in this corpus. There is
christological information and there are concepts that He outside of what should be consid
ered as essentially messianic, such as Jesus' divinity.
229
The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments:
A Response
Craig A- Evans
Introductory C o m m e n t s
T h e nature a n d i m p o r t a n c e o f m e s s i a n i s m for early J u d a i s m a n d C h r i s

tianity c o n t i n u e t o b e e x p l o r e d a n d d e b a t e d . T h e d e f i n i t i o n o f m e s s i a n i s m
a n d h o w far back it m a y b e traced are a m o n g the p o i n t s that are t h e m o s t
s h a r p l y d i s p u t e d . S i m p l y p u t , is t h e r e m e s s i a n i s m i n t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t ,
a n d , if t h e r e i s , h o w d o e s it c o m p a r e t o t h e m e s s i a n i s m e x p r e s s e d in the
N e w Testament? A n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h
m e s s i a n i s m played a role i n t h e s h a p i n g o f t h e t h e o l o g i e s o f v a r i o u s ex
p r e s s i o n s o f Judaism a n d Christianity. W h a t w e r e t h e m e s s i a n i c ideas w i t h
w h i c h Jesus a n d h i s f o l l o w e r s w e r e familiar? W h i c h parts o f these ideas
w e r e a d o p t e d by Jesus a n d the w r i t e r s o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t ? A n d finally,
d o e s t h e m e s s i a n i s m o f the respective N e w T e s t a m e n t w r i t e r s c o h e r e a n d
p e r h a p s e v e n f o r m a unity?
T h e s c h o l a r s in t h i s v o l u m e h a v e w r e s t l e d w i t h t h e s e difficult q u e s
t i o n s . To their c r e d i t , t h e y have a l l o w e d their respective biblical a u t h o r s t o
have their say, w i t h o u t foisting u p o n t h e m a h a r m o n i z i n g s y n t h e s i s t h a t
h o p e s t o s m o o t h a w a y diversity a n d t e n s i o n . I n m y j u d g m e n t , a great
strength in this c o l l e c t i o n o f s t u d i e s , a n d t h e c o n f e r e n c e o u t o f w h i c h t h e y
grew, is t h e f r e s h n e s s o f t h e a p p r o a c h e s that are t a k e n . I find n o o v e r - t r o d
p a t h w a y s a n d p r e d i c t a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s . O n t h e w h o l e , t h e s e essays are
m a r k e d by i n n o v a t i o n a n d i n s i g h t It is a p l e a s u r e t o r e s p o n d t o t h e m .
230
T r e m p e r L o n g m a n III, " T h e M e s s i a h :
E x p l o r a t i o n s i n t h e L a w a n d Writings**
Tremper Longman has framed the i s s u e w e l l , r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t there i s

n o t h i n g i n t h e Torah a n d W r i t i n g s that is e x p l i c i t l y m e s s i a n i c , i n t h e s e n s e
u n d e r s t o o d in later t i m e s . Yet, later writers d i d find m e s s i a n i s m in t h e I-aw
a n d the W r i t i n g s . By w h a t h e r m e n e u t i c a l strategy w e r e t h e y able t o d o
this? L o n g m a n s q u e s t i o n i s right t o t h e p o i n t . I found h i s p a p e r v e r y s t i m
ulating.
H e rightly begins w i t h the definition o f the term Messiah. T h e w o r d
tells u s little, b u t o t h e r c o n c e p t s offer s o m e h e l p . T h e v e r b masah a n d the
n o u n ( o r adjective) maSiah u s u a l l y refer t o c o n s e c r a t i o n rituals. I n t h e Law
t h e reference i s t o p r i e s t s , c o n s e c r a t e d for the Lord's c u l t i c w o r k . I n the
W r i t i n g s t h e reference is m o s t l y t o Israel's kings (reflecting c u s t o m a n d u s
a g e o f t h e narratives o f S a m u e l - K i n g s ) . L o n g m a n f o c u s e s o n t h e Psalter:
P s a l m 2, p o s s i b l y a c o r o n a t i o n p s a l m , p e r h a p s a l s o r e c i t e d o n the e v e o f
h o l y war. A l t h o u g h i t i s n o t e x p l i c i t l y D a v i d i c , the e c h o e s o f t h e D a v i d i c
c o v e n a n t o f 2 S a m u e l 7 e n c o u r a g e u n d e r s t a n d i n g P s a l m 2 as D a v i d i c ( a s ,
i n d e e d , t h e a u t h o r o f Acts i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t u n d e r s t a n d s it, a n d as t h e
author o f lQSa also understands it).
P l a c e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e Psalter, P s a l m 2 m a y h a v e set t h e t o n e
for all t h a t f o l l o w s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e p s a l m s t h a t refer t o t h e Lord's
a n o i n t e d . L o n g m a n w o n d e r s if p e r h a p s t h e r e m a r k a b l e c l a i m s o f t h i s
p s a l m h e l p e d t o create t h e h o p e o f a future k i n g w h o w o u l d live u p t o
t h e m , g i v e n t h e fact that Israel's h i s t o r i c kings h a d n o t . I n m y j u d g m e n t ,
L o n g m a n ' s c r i t i q u e o f Gerald Wilson's t h e o r y o f t h e t h e m e u n d e r l y i n g the
Psalter's o r g a n i z a t i o n is d e v a s t a t i n g .
T h e "greater k i n g w h o w o u l d d e r i v e f r o m t h e D a v i d i c l i n e ( a s re
flected i n G e n 49:10 a n d N u m 24:17! m i g h t h a v e c a p t u r e d t h e i m a g i n a t i o n
1
o f t h e p e o p l e . " I n d e e d , it a p p e a r s that it d i d just that. T h e s e texts are para
p h r a s e d explicitly as m e s s i a n i c i n t h e A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e o f S c r i p t u r e
k n o w n a s t h e T a r g u m . ' I h e s e texts a r e a l s o u n d e r s t o o d i n a m e s s i a n i c s e n s e
i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t e r a a n d earlier, as w e s e e i n t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls a n d
i n a l l u s i o n s t o t h e m i n the N e w T e s t a m e n t , P h i l o , a n d J o s e p h u s . A n d for
t h o s e w h o o b j e c t t o a n a p p e a l t o t h e T a r g u m , w h i c h after all p o s t d a t e s t h e
N e w T e s t a m e n t , I o f f e r t h e r e m i n d e r t h a t t h e e d i t e d f o r m o f the H e b r e w
1. Tremper Longman III, "The Messiah)'' 25.
231
CRAIG A. E VA MS
Bible, t h e M a s o r e t i c Text, i s n o older. I m e n t i o n t h i s b e c a u s e o f a c o m m e n t

2
that L o n g m a n m a k e s i n a f o o t n o t e , i n w h i c h h e w o n d e r s h o w G e n 49:10
m i g h t have b e e n " u n d e r s t o o d w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e original a u t h o r
a n d a u d i e n c e o f Genesis." V e r y g o o d q u e s t i o n . B u t w h a t is m e a n t b y t h i s
"original a u t h o r a n d a u d i e n c e " i s v e r y difficult t o say. G e n e s i s 49> e d i t e d
a n d c o n t e x t u a l i z e d a s w e n o w h a v e it i n t h e H e b r e w Bible, m a y w e l l h a v e
reflected m e s s i a n i c h o p e — if n o t f o r t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r , p r o b a b l y f o r
m a n y o f t h e earliest readers a n d hearers.
Professor L o n g m a n raises s o m e i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s i n h i s d i s c u s
s i o n o f G e n e s i s 14 a n d P s a l m 110.1 have little t o a d d , b u t I m i g h t p o i n t o u t
that t h e p r i e s t - k i n g o f P s a l m n o m a y w e l l have e n c o u r a g e d t h e m e n o f
Q u m r a n t o g i v e p r i o r i t y t o t h e p r i e s t s i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n for a n d e n g a g e
m e n t o f the great h o l y w a r at t h e e n d o f days, w h e n t h e s o n s o f light d e
3
stroy the s o n s o f d a r k n e s s . O n e s h o u l d a l s o recall t h a t m o n a r c h s i n a n t i q
u i t y o f t e n d i d take o n p r i e s t l y roles. Even t h e R o m a n e m p e r o r , o f a later
era, w a s called Pontifex Maximus, " H i g h Priest," a s well a s Imperator,
" C o m m a n d e r . " C l o s e r t o t h e J e w i s h c o n t e x t , t h e H a s m o n e a n rulers w e r e
p r i e s t - k i n g s , a t least s o m e o f t h e m ( e . g . , A r i s t o b o l u s I, A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s ,
a n d p e r h a p s A n t i g o n u s , t h e last H a s m o n e a n r u l e r ) . T h e r e f o r e , e v e n i f e l s e
w h e r e i n S c r i p t u r e there is e x p r e s s e d resistance t o k i n g l y e n c r o a c h m e n t
u p o n priestly roles, there w a s a measure o f precedent i n the twilight o f t h e
p o s t - e x i l i c / i n t e r t e s t a m e n t a l era.
I e n c o u r a g e Professor L o n g m a n t o give m o r e a t t e n t i o n t o t h e m y s t e
rious figure d e s c r i b e d in D a n i e l 7,* e s p e c i a l l y in light o f t h e fact t h a t it is
t h i s figure t o w h o m | e s u s refers a n d p r o b a b l y i n light o f w h i c h h e h i m s e l f
d e f i n e s h i s m e s s i a n i c task ( e . g . , M a r k 2:10,28; 8:31; 10:45; 14:62)- L o n g m a n
i s right t o l o o k at D e u t e r o n o m y 18, a p a s s a g e a l l u d e d t o i n t h e N e w Testa
m e n t (e.g., M a r k 6:15; J o h n 1:21; A c t s 3:22; 7:37) a n d greatly e m p h a s i z e d in
S a m a r i t a n t r a d i t i o n s o f late a n t i q u i t y (e.g., Memar Marqa 4:12).
T h e r o l e o f Isaiah i n t h e m i n i s t r y o f Jesus a n d i n t h e e x c h a n g e b e
t w e e n h i m a n d t h e i m p r i s o n e d J o h n t h e Baptist i s a v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g area o f
study. In m y v i e w , Jesus' a l l u s i o n t o h e a l i n g a n d e x o r c i s m i s m e a n t t o allay
John's d o u b t s ( " G o a n d tell J o h n w h a t y o u h e a r a n d see"; M a t t 11:2-6; Luke
2. Longman, "The Messiah." I$t\.I2.
3. As seen especially in the War Scroll (lQM, 4QM).

4.1 am, of course, classifying Daniel as prophecy, which reflects the Christian view of
the canon of Scripture, not the rabbinic view.
232
7:18-23). T h e s e a c t i v i t i e s o f Jesus d i d n o t create t h e d o u b t s . It w a s John's

l a n g u i s h i n g i n p r i s o n t h a t c r e a t e d t h e m . After all, a c c o r d i n g t o Isa 61:1-2,
o n w h i c h Jesus b a s e s h i s N a z a r e t h s e r m o n (Luke 4:16-30), t h e A n o i n t e d
O n e is t o Set t h e c a p t i v e s free. T h e r e f o r e , Jesus alludes t o t h i s Isaianic p a s
s a g e in h i s reply t o J o h n . W e d o n o t k n o w if t h i s reply satisfied t h e i m p r i s
o n e d baptizcr.
Professor L o n g m a n c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e "Old T e s t a m e n t d i d n o t p r o
5
v i d e t h e first c e n t u r y C R w i t h a c l e a r b l u e p r i n t f o r t h e M e s s i a h . " T h i s i s
c o r r e c t , strictly s p e a k i n g . B u t m o r e t h a n o n e s c h o l a r h a s r e m a r k e d h o w
t e x t s s u c h a s G e n 49:10; N u m 24:17; a n d l s a 11:1 figure s i g n i f i c a n d y i n d i
verse Jewish circles, including Christian teachers a n d writers o f the b o o k s
that w o u l d e v e n t u a l l y find their w a y i n t o t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , w r i t e r s a n d
c o l l e c t o r s o f t h e c o r p u s w e call t h e D e a d S e a Scrolls, a n d v a r i o u s o t h e r
i n t e r t e s t a m e n t a l writers, i n c l u d i n g s o m e o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t P s e u d e p i g -
r a p h a , J o s e p h u s , a n d P h i l o . T h e s e s a m e t h r e e O l d T e s t a m e n t texts c o n
t i n u e t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n e s s e n t i a l l y t h e s a m e s e n s e i n later r a b b i n i c a n d
targumic traditions.
1 agree t h a t t h e r e w a s diversity i n m e s s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n i n late a n t i q
6
u i t y { a n d h a v e said s o m y s e l f i n v a r i o u s p l a c e s ) , b u t t h e r e d o e s s e e m t o b e
a c o r e o f material o u t o f w h i c h the diversity c o u l d s p r i n g . T h e r u b for early
C h r i s t i a n s — a n d it w a s a b i g r u b — w a s t h e c r u c i f i x i o n o f Jesus. T h i s
m a d e it n e c e s s a r y t o p o n d e r t h e S c r i p t u r e s afresh, a s L o n g m a n p o i n t s o u t
i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f L u k e 24.1 w i l l r e t u r n t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f diversity w h e n
I respond t o Loren Stuckcnbruck's paper below.
I greatly appreciate what L o n g m a n says u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f
"Hermeneutical Implications." T h o s e c o m m i t t e d to a "single-meaning
h e r m e n e u t i c " s t r u g g l e t o d o fair, d e s c r i p t i v e exegetical analyses o f m a n y
N e w T e s t a m e n t p a s s a g e s that cite a n d interpret O l d T e s t a m e n t passages,
often reading N e w Testament ideas into the O l d , or d o w n p l a y i n g the i n n o
vative e l e m e n t in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , c l a i m i n g t h a t it h a s n o t really a d d e d
anything t o t h e O l d Testament text.
I w o u l d add t o Longman's hermeneutical observations b y returning
t o t h e p o i n t I m a d e a b o v e . W h a t w e call Bible m a y i n d e e d c o n t a i n very o l d
5- Longman, "The Messiah," 30.

6. For example, see C A. Evans, "Messiantsm," in Dictionary of New Testament Hack-
ground (ed. C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter; Downers Grove. IL: IntcrVarsity Press, 2000) 698-
707.
233
CRAIG A. EVANS
t r a d i t i o n s , w h i c h in m a n y c a s e s a r e b a s e d o n v e r y o l d s o u r c e s , b u t it i s t h e
Bible as a w h o l e that is a u t h o r i t a t i v e o r c a n o n i c a l . T h a t fact i n effect u p
d a t e s its c o n t e n t s . I a m n o t a d v o c a t i n g i g n o r i n g a n c i e n t h i s t o r y o r t h e data
o f a r c h a e o l o g y that a d d r e s s the q u e s t i o n o f " w h a t really h a p p e n e d " ; I a m
s a y i n g that t h e Bible is in a s e n s e a contemporary b o o k , b y v i r t u e o f its u p
dating by various editors a n d tradents. T h e original m e a n i n g o f G e n 49:10
m a y well have b e e n m e s s i a n i c , i n the full s e n s e o f the h o p e o f a c o m i n g
a n o i n t e d deliverer. O f c o u r s e , the d y i n g patriarch Jacob very p r o b a b l y w a s
n o t t h i n k i n g o f any s u c h t h i n g — b e y o n d p e r h a p s a g e n e r a l h o p e that t h e
G o d o f A b r a h a m is faithful a n d s a v i n g . B u t t h e final e d i t o r that g a v e u s
w h a t b e c a m e Ihe b o o k o f G e n e s i s , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f w h a t b e c a m e t h e Bible,
m a y well have t h o u g h t o f G e n e s i s 49 as m e s s i a n i c .
1 c o n c l u d e w i t h an e x a m p l e o f w h a t I m e a n , an e x a m p l e t h a t h a s
n o t h i n g t o d o with m e s s i a n i s m . W h a t d o w e m a k e o f D e u t 26:2? It reads:
"You shall take s o m e o f t h e first o f all t h e fruit o f the g r o u n d , w h i c h y o u
h a r v e s t f r o m y o u r land t h a t t h e LORD y o u r G o d g i v e s y o u , a n d y o u shall
p u t it i n a basket, a n d y o u shall g o t o t h e p l a c e w h i c h t h e LORD y o u r G o d
w i l l c h o o s e , t o m a k e h i s n a m e t o d w e l l there." M o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s recog
n i z e that the "place" that G o d w i l l c h o o s e "to m a k e h i s n a m e t o d w e l l " is
Jerusalem a n d the t e m p l e . But d i d M o s e s k n o w a b o u t Jerusalem a n d t h e
t e m p l e ? M o s e s p r o b a b l y d i d n o t , b u t a later e d i t o r d i d . D e u t e r o n o m y o f
the Bible — that is, canonical D e u t e r o n o m y — k n o w s a b o u t Jerusalem a n d
t h e t e m p l e that w u u l d e v e n t u a l l y b e b u i l t t h e r e . T o s e e the t e m p l e i n D e u
t e r o n o m y 26 is n o t t o "read s o m e t h i n g i n t o t h e text," but to r e c o g n i z e
s o m e t h i n g that i s i n the text, as it e v e n t u a l l y c a m e t o b e e d i t e d a n d final
i z e d , n o t i n t h e t i m e o f M o s e s , b u t in a m u c h later t i m e . Likewise i n t h e
c a s e o f m e s s i a n i s m : it p r o b a b l y is i n t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , the B i b l e , e v e n if
t h e c o n c e p t itself d o e s n o t reach b a c k i n t o t h e h i s t o r y that parts o f t h e O l d
T e s t a m e n t narrate.
Mark J. B o d a , "Figuring t h e Future:

T h e Prophets a n d Messiah"
M a r k B o d a takes o n w h a t I b e l i e v e is t h e m o s t c o m p l i c a t e d area o f O l d
T e s t a m e n t m e s s i a n i s m . His l e a r n e d p a p e r i s p r i m a r i l y f o c u s e d o n three o f
the M i n o r P r o p h e t s : I l a g g a i , Z e c h a r i a h , a n d M a l a c h i .
I a m d e l i g h t e d that P r o f e s s o r B o d a i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e
234
c u r i o u s d e s i g n a t i o n "the t w o s o n s o f o i l " (cf. Z e c h 4:14). W i t h o u t d i s p u t -

i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h o w e r e t h e o r i g i n a l referents, I t h i n k it i s i n t e r e s t i n g
that this unusual passage appears at Q u n i r á n i n an eschatological c o m -
m e n t a r y o n G e n 49:8-12 ( i . e . , 4(3254!, p e r h a p s s u g g e s t i n g that a m o n g s o m e
Jews i n late a n t i q u i t y t h e t w o s o n s o f oil w e r e n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e a n o i n t e d
k i n g a n d t h e a n o i n t e d high p r i e s t w h o w i l l s e r v e t h e Lord faithfully s i d e by
s i d e . T h i s d i a r c h i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f m e s s i a n i s m s e e m s t o b e a n integral
7
part o f Q u m r a n ' s e s c h a t o l o g y . H o w e v e r , here 1 a n t i c i p a t e a n issue that I
shall t a k e u p m o m e n t a r i l y w i t h Professor W o l t e r s .
I e s p e c i a l l y a p p r e c i a t e Boda's t r e a t m e n t o f M a l a c h i a n d t h i s b o o k ' s
i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o m i n g D a y o f t h e Lord a n d t h e m e s s e n g e r that i s s e n t b e -
fore, a c o n c e p t t h a t recalls c o v e n a n t ideas e x p r e s s e d i n F.xodus 23. Readers
o f t h e N e w ' l e s t a m e n t c a n n o t fail t o n o t i c e t h e c i t a t i o n o f M a i 3:1, c o m -
b i n e d w i t h Isa 40:3, i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f J o h n t h e Baptist i n M a r k 1. B u t
w h a t o f t e n g o e s u n n o t i c e d i s h o w d e e p l y t h e Baptist i s h i m s e l f b a p t i z e d in
8
the themes and images o f the messenger prophet.
I f o u n d m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g Boda's o b s e r v a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e mal'ak
adonai ( " m e s s e n g e r o f t h e Lord") figures, w h o are n o m e r e m o r t a l s . We
m a y h a v e h e r e a n i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e m e s s i a n i c tradition that
created a m a t r i x o u t o f w h i c h early C h r i s t i a n i t y e m e r g e d .
A s it t u r n s o u t , t h e M i n o r P r o p h e t s p l a y m a j o r r o l e s i n N e w Testa-
m e n t m e s s i a n i s m a n d e s c h a t o l o g y . Jesus, t h e resurrected s o n o f D a v i d , ful-
fills t h e p r o p h e c y o f A m o s 9:11 (cf. A c t s 15:15-18); t h e c o m i n g o f t h e Spirit,
i n the a f t e r m a t h o f the r e s u r r e c t i o n a n d a s c e n s i o n o f M e s s i a h Jesus, fulfills
t h e p r o p h e c y o f Joel 2:28-32 (cf. A c t s 2:14-21); w h i l e the b i r t h o f t h e D a v i d i c
s c i o n i n B e t h l e h e m fulfills t h e p r o p h e c y o f M t c 5:2 (cf. M a t t 2:1-6). Jesus
h i m s e l f c o m p a r e s h i s m i n i s t r y t o that o f J o n a h , w h i c h t h e c h u r c h later
7. For an investigation o f the messianic diarchism of ¿echarían and Haggai, see

J. I. M. Roberts, "The Old Testament's Contribution to Messianic Expectations." in The Mes-
siah Developments in EarliestJudaism and Christianity (cd. J. H. Charlcsworth; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992) 39-51, esp. 40,49-50. This Princeton conference volume offers a rich collec-
tion of studies.
8. See J. A. Trumbower, "The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist' and
1
J. IX Ci. Dunn, "John the Baptist's Use of Scripture,* in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel
(ed. C. A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner; JSNTSup 104; SSEIC 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1994) 28-41 and 42-54, respectively; and C A. Evans, "The Baptism of John in a
IVpological Context,'' in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (ed. S. E.
Porter and A. R. Cross; JSNTSup 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002j 45-71.
235
CRAIG A. EVANS
w o u l d d e v e l o p i n t o a t y p o l o g y o f d e a t h , burial, a n d r e s u r r e c t i o n " o n t h e
t h i r d d a y " (cf. M a t t 12:38-41).
Al W o l t e r s , " T h e M e s s i a h i n t h e Q u m r a n Documents"
Professor Al Wolters provides u s with a succinct distillation o f t h e

n i e s s i a n i s m at Q u m r a n . T h e q u e s t i o n s that h e raises in h i s o p e n i n g p a r a
g r a p h are i n d e e d t h e q u e s t i o n s that h a v e d r i v e n r e s e a r c h in this i m p o r t a n t
area, a n d , s o m e t i m e s , h a v e actually h i n d e r e d w o r k — s u c h a s c o n f u s i o n
o v e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f o n e o r t w o M e s s i a h s at Q u m r a n , a p o i n t t o w h i c h I
shall return in a m o m e n t .
Professor W o l t e r s f o c u s e s h i s r e m a r k s o n t h e recent w o r k o f t w o
Scrolls s c h o l a r s — J o h n C o l l i n s a n d M i c h a e l W i s e . H i s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e
a r g u m e n t s a n d c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f C o l l i n s is i n m y j u d g m e n t o n t h e w h o l e
penetrating a n d s o u n d . M y only reservation concerns what is said about
Z e c h 4:14, t h e p a s s a g e t h a t m e n t i o n s t h e " t w o s o n s o f oil," t h e q u e s t i o n o f
Q u m r a n ' s b i n a r y o r d i a r c h i c m e s s i a n i s m , a n d t h e larger q u e s t i o n o f w h y
Q u m r a n does n o t s e e m to be preoccupied with messianism.
C o n t r a r y t o Professor W o l t e r s , 1 t h i n k t h e r e i s i n fact a m e a s u r e o f
e v i d e n c e that Q u m r a n a p p e a l e d t o Z e c h 4:t4 i n s u p p o r t o f d i a r c h i c
m e s s i a n i s m . T h i s e v i d e n c e lies i n t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h i s d i s t i n c t i v e p h r a s e ,
that i s , "the t w o s o n s o f oil" ( f o u n d n o w h e r e else i n H e b r e w literature), i n
4Q254, a m o n g t h e f r a g m e n t s o f c o m m e n t a r y o n G e n 49:8-12, t h e o r a c l e
p e r t a i n i n g t o Jacob's s o n Judah. S o m e Q u m r a n s c h o l a r s , h o w e v e r , w o n d e r
if t h e p h r a s e f r o m Z e c h a r i a h 4 w a s p a r t o f t h e c o m m e n t a r y o n G e n 493-7*
t h e o r a c l e c o n c e r n i n g S i m e o n a n d Levi." In m y v i e w , it d o e s n o t m a t t e r , for
t h e " t w o s o n s o f oil" a p p l y t o b o t h Levi t h e priest a n d J u d a h t h e p r i n c e .
This interesting fragmentary commentary, w h e n taken i n c o n j u n c t i o n
w i t h t h e several r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e e x p e c t e d d u o c a l l e d " t h e a n o i n t e d o f
Aaron a n d o f Israel" ( C D 2:12; 5:21-6:1; 12:23-13:1; 14:19; 19:10-11; 20:1; 1QS
9:11) — i n c l u d i n g t h e b l e s s i n g s o n t h e priest a n d t h e p r i n c e in i Q S b 4-5
a n d their s e a t i n g t o g e t h e r in l Q S a 2:10-15, a t w h a t i s a n e s c h a t o l o g i c a l b a n -
9. For further discussion of technical aspects o f this line of interpretation, see C. A.

F.vans, "'The Two Sons of Oil': Early Evidence of Messianic Interpretation of Zechariah 4:14
in 40.2514 2," in The Prove International Conference on rlie Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological In-
novations. New Texts, and Reformulated Issues led. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; ST15J 30;
Leiden: Brill, 1998) 566-75-
236
q u e t o f s o r t s — p r o v i d e s s i g n i f i c a n t e v i d e n c e for t h e p o s i t i o n that C o l l i n s
takes. N e v e r t h e l e s s , I find t h a t Professor Wolters's c r i t i c i s m is o n t h e w h o l e
o n target.
T h e r e a s o n w h y m e s s i a n i s m a t Q u m r a n i s n o t clearer, as W o l t e r s
r i g h t l y o b s e r v e s , is t h a t it is n o t e m p h a s i z e d . A n d t h e r e a s o n it i s n o t e m
p h a s i z e d i s n o t for lack o f interest; it i s for lack o f controversy. W h a t is at
i s s u e w i t h t h e m e n o f t h e r e n e w e d c o v e n a n t is t h e lack o f c u l t i c a c c u r a c y
a n d t h e s o r r y deficiency, i n their v i e w , o f p r i e s t l y e t h i c s i n Jerusalem.
T h e r e i s n o a n o i n t e d Jewish k i n g lo c r i t i c i z e , just the a n o i n t e d priest a n d
h i s c o r r u p t c o l l e a g u e s . B e c a u s e Cod w i l l raise u p t h e M e s s i a h i n d u e
c o u r s e , it i s a s s u m e d t h a t t h e a n o i n t e d p r i n c e w i l l b e r i g h t e o u s a n d will
follow the guidelines set o u t by the righteous priests o f t h e renewed cove
n a n t , w h o a n t i c i p a t e r e s t o r i n g t r u e w o r s h i p a n d g o o d g o v e r n m e n t in Is
rael s o m e d a y . T h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s e x p l a i n w h y Q u m r a n ' s p r i e s t l y a n d
h a l a k i c v i e w s a r e d i s t i n c t i v e a t m a n y p o i n t s , w h i l e t h e i r m e s s i a n i s m is
n o t . T h e M e s s i a h for w h o m t h e y w a i t i s n o t m u c h different f r o m t h e Mes
1 0
siah a w a i t e d by o t h e r s .
1 a p p r e c i a t e Professor Wolters's c r i t i q u e o f M i c h a e l W i s e ' s i m a g i n a r y
r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e f o u n d i n g o f t h e Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e life o f
its f o u n d e r , w h o i s c a l l e d Judah. W i s e d o e s i n d e e d p u t t o g e t h e r a w e l l -
i n f o r m e d s c e n a r i o o f w h a t m i g h t have b e e n . T o q u o t e f r o m m y o w n jacket
b l u r b , " t h e r e is m u c h t o learn f r o m t h i s e n g a g i n g a n d w e l l - w r i t t e n book,"
W h a t I d i d n o t g o o n t o say a t t h a t t i m e w a s t h a t I r e m a i n totally u n p e r -
s u a d e d . I s u s p e c t t h a t Wolters's jacket b l u r b for t h i s b o o k s h o u l d b e u n d e r
s t o o d i n t h e s a m e spirit. O f it h e says, " S i m u l t a n e o u s l y brilliant, d a r i n g ,
a n d readable." Professor Wolters a n d I l e a r n e d m u c h f r o m t h i s i n t e r e s t i n g
b o o k , t o b e sure; b u t a t t h e e n d o f the day, all that W i s e g i v e s u s i s i n f o r m e d
fiction. I c o n c u r w i t h Professor Wolters's s k e p t i c a l a s s e s s m e n t .
10. See C. A. Evans, "Qumran's Messiah: How Important Is He!" in Religion al

Qumran {cd. J. |. Collins and R. Kugler; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Litera
ture; Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 2000) 135-49- For an assessment of Qumran's messianism,
see L, H. Schiffman, "Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls," in Charlesworth
(cd.), The Messiah, 116-29; and the papers in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic
Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, H. Liihlcnbcrger, and G. S.
Qegenw; Tubingen: Mohr ISicbcckj, 1998). All of the messianic texts are listed in M. G.
Abcgg |r. and C. A. Evans, "Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls" in Charlesworth et
aL, eds., Qumran-Messianism, 191-203.
237
CRAIG A . EVANS
Lo re II T. Stuckcnbruck, "Messianic Ideas in the

Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism"
Loren Stuckcnbruck begins his paper with a refreshingly clear and precise
set of guiding questions, marked by tight controls. He rightly wishes to
avoid anachronism and slippery definitions. His selection of Psalms ofSolo
mon, Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch constitutes a well-chosen
data base. The potential gains in insight from a work such as the Testaments
of the TWelve Patriarchs are offset by the uncertainty created by the many
Christian interpolations, which often have mcssianism (or Christology) as
their focus. Indeed, it has even been argued that the Testaments was origi
nally composed by a Christian. Professor Stuckenbruck rightly omits it
In Psalms of Solomon 17-18 we find a zealous, energetic messianic son
of David, who will purge the land of sinners. He is not divine, nor does he
have heavenly status. To be sure, he will enjoy divine assistance. In this
sense, he is a true descendant of David, through whom the nation of Israel
will be restored.
In the Similitudes of Enoch (or 1 Enoch 37-71), which is probably pre-
Christian in origin since there is no allusion or response to a specifically
Christian idea, we find two passages that mention a Messiah. This Messiah
is terrestrial, and he may not be Davidic (at least there is no indication that
he is). We are told nothing about the nature of this Messiah. Is he divine?
But if he is related to the mysterious Son of Man figure, inspired by Daniel
7, then the Messiah of the Similitudes may well be a heavenly figure of
some sort. The tide "Messiah" does not seem to have shaped the author's
11
mcssianism as much as the Son of Man figure has.
In 4 Ezra 7 we have the interesting anticipation that the Messiah and
all of humanity will die. There will be a time of silence. The Messiah's
death appears to be natural; he is not martyred. His death has no value,
atoning or otherwise. The Messiah has no further role.
The Messiah of 4 Ezran-12 plays a different role, taking part in escha-
tological judgment. In 4 Ezra 13 the messianic ("my son") figure once again
11. The Princeton conference volume (ie., Charlesworlh, cd., The Messiah) has sev
eral important studies that investigate the messianism of the book of Enoch. See F. H.
Borsch, "Further Reflections on 'The Son of Man': The Originwnd Development of the Ti
tle." 130-44; M. Black. "The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribu
tions to Chrislological Origins,' 145-68; J. C. VanderKam, 'Righteous One. Messiah, Chosen
One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71" 169-91.
238
appears as a judge. I agree with Stuckenbruck's appeal to Ps 2:2,7, which is

also seen in iQSa: "when God will beget the Messiah among them" Psalm 2,
with its metaphorical language of the Lord's Messiah as "begotten," makes
important contributions to the messianism of New Testament times.
Professor Stuckenbruck finds a different messianic figure in
2 Baruch. The Messiah is revealed and returns "with glory." The righteous
are resurrected; the souls of the wicked will rot. This Messiah may be
Davidic, perhaps even préexistent. Visions in other chaptersforeseea Mes
siah who will slay Israel's enemies (probably including the Romans) and
will sit in judgment on them in court at Jerusalem. A period of messianic
bliss will follow.
Professor Stuckenbruck concludes by commenting on the messianic
diversity of these Jewish writings of late antiquity. In general I agree with
him; the diversity of views in these texts must be acknowledged. Neverthe
less, there may be core elements. We find Isaiah 11 echoed in the Psalms of
Solomon (cf. 17:24, 29, 36, 37) and in 4 Ezra (cf. 13:10), as Stuckenbruck
points out The "son of man" figure of Daniel 7 is reflected in the Simili
tudes of Enoch and in 4 Ezra. Three passages in particular — Gen 49:10;
Num 24:17; Isa 11:1-10 — frequently appear in contexts that are messianic.
But as has been shown in intertestamental writings surveyed here,
12
messianism could be entertained without them.
I. Howard Marshall.
"Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew"
Professor Howard Marshall treats us to thoughtful overviews of the messi

anic portraits of Jesus as we have them in the Gospels of Mark and Mat
thew. With regard to Mark, I agree that in referring to himself as the "Son
of Man" Jesus was alluding to Daniel 7 and that this passage readily invites
a messianic identification. As Professor Marshall notes, the son of man is
13
"given dominion and a kingdom from God" Of whom else can that be
said, except the Messiah?
12. Another factor to take into account is the date of these documents. Both 4 Ezra
and 2 Baruch are post-70 ce, so perspectives of messianism may well have been altered in
the years immediately following the disastrous rebellion.
13.1. Howard Marshall, "Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew," 132.
239
CRAIG A. EVANS
There are three points with regard to Mark that I wish to raise. First,
I would like to hear more of Professor Marshall's views of the role played
by the heavenly voice at the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:11) and at the later
14
Transfiguration (Mark 9:7), where Jesus is addressed: "You are my son."
The allusion to Ps 2:7 seems clear; Psalm 2 is messianic (as seen esp. in v. 2).
That it was understood this way in Jewish texts of late antiquity is seen in 4
Ezra 13, as Loren Stuckenbruck has discussed, and probably in lQSa 2, in
reference to the time "when God will have begotten the Messiah." These
two heavenly utterances in Mark's Gospel — the first at the outset of Jesus'
public ministry in Galilee; the second shortly after Jesus' announcement to
his disciples that he is going to Jerusalem to suffer and die — play a pivotal
role. The heavenly voice seems both times to confirm the messianic iden
tity of Jesus.
Second, Professor Marshall treats the "Son of Man" passages judi
ciously He rightly comments on the abruptness of the first occurrence of
this Danielic epithet in Mark 2 and goes on to explain its meaning in refer
ence to the theme of suffering, which Jesus the Messiah will have to un
dergo. Daniel makes many other significant contributions to Mark's pre
sentation of Jesus. The announcement of the rule of God in Mark 1:15
("The time [kairos] is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand"; cf.
10:30; 13:33) probably reflects Daniel's frequent reference to the time of the
end (Dan 7:12, 22: "the time [Jfrtiroj] came when the saints received the
kingdom"; 8:17-18: "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the
time [kairos] of the end"; 9:26-27: "until the time [kairos] of the end"; 11:35:
"until the time (fcairosl of the end, for it is yet for the time [kairos] ap
pointed"; 12:4: "shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time
[kairos] of the end"). According to Dan 7:14, the Son of Man will be "given
dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him." But according to Jesus, the "Son of man also came not
to be served but to serve" (Mark 10:45). This is a significant qualification of
the Danielic vision, which coheres with the suffering theme that Professor
Marshall discusses. Moreover, the very charge brought against Jesus at his
l
hearing before the Jewish council, "We heard him say, I will destroy this
temple that is made with hands, and in three days 1 will build another, not
14. The heavenly voice speaks in the second person ("Ycm arc") in the baptism and in
the third person ("'litis is") in the Transfiguration. The second-person tradition is probably
the older tradition and has the strongest claim to authenticity.
240
made with hands'" (Mark 14:58), surely alludes lo Daniel's vision of the
coming stone that will crush the kingdoms that have opposed God and his
people: "a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image on
its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces" (Dan 2:34; cf. v. 45).
Daniel's visions, especially that of the coming Son of Man, appear to un
derlie essential components of the Christology and eschatology we find in
15
Mark.
The third point has to do with the cry of blind Bartimaeus, "Jesus,
Son of David, have mercy on me!" (Mark 10:47; see v. 48 also). Professor
16
Marshall remarks that the "call for healing... does not explain the title"
But perhaps it does, at least in part. I wonder if addressing Jesus as the son
of David has anything to do with Solomonic traditions, in which David's
famous son was well known for healing and exorcism. After all, it was in
his name that Jewish exorcists conducted their ministrations. We have the
example of Eleazar in Joscphus, as well as examples in the magical pa
pyri." At least one exorcist, according to Mark 9:38, discovered that the
18
name of Jesus was effective in casting out demons. It is plausible, then,
that Jesus' ministry of healing and exorcism, evidently consistent with pro
phetic expectations in Isaiah (such as 35:5-6 and 61:1-2), gave rise to the
hope in the minds of some that he was the awaited eschatological son of
David. Indeed, Qumran's alludes to these very Isaianic passages in
reference to expected healing when the Messiah appears. The blind man's
call for healing may well tell us something about Jesus'* messianic status in
Mark.
With regard to the presentation of Jesus as Messiah in the Gospel of
Matthew, Professor Marshall's treatment is again concise and to the point.
The messianism is more explicit, at times almost formal. The royal compo
nent comes to the fore. The divine sonship of Jesus is also emphasized; so
is his role as the Lord's Servant Jesus as teacher of wisdom and even as
Wisdom incarnate constitutes fascinating portraits in Matthew's presenta
tion. Matthew's Messiah Jesus is seen at the end as God's vice regent of
15. See IX Wenham, "The Kingdom of God and Daniel," ExpTim 98 (1987) 132-3«;
C A. Evans, "Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel; lesus and Daniel's Visions," Journal for
the Study of the Historical Testa 1 (2003) 161-70.
16. Marshall, "Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew," 127.
17. See Joscphus, Antuptmes fi.2.5 §§46-49; and Papyri Graeme Magicae IV.3007-86.
18. Professional exorcists, the seven sons of one Sceva, discovered that the name of Je
sus was indeed powerful, hut only when invoked by his followers {cf. Acts 19:11-20).
241
CRAIG A . E V A N S
heaven and earth, in contrast to the Roman emperor. Here we have again a
theme found in Mark that is then further developed in the Gospel of Mat
thew. Often what Mark alludes to (such as an Old Testament passage or
theme) Matthew develops more fully and explicitly.
I find the portrait of Jesus as master teacher, as almost a new Moses,
very interesting. This presentation of the Messiah may well be on the tra
jectory that will emerge more formally and emphatically in much later
rabbinic texts where in the messianic era the Law is studied and obeyed
9
perfectly.' Matthew's presentation of Jesus may represent an early stage
in this concept. Of course, the presentation of a Torah-observant and
Torah-teaching Messiah no doubt was intended to fend off"criticism ema
nating from the synagogue, to the effect that the Jesus movement was
antinomian.
Stanley E. Porter, "The Messiah in Luke and Acts:

Forgiveness for the Captives"
Professor Stanley Porter argues the thesis that "a consistent and funda
mental development of Jesus as the anointed prophet stands at the heart of
2
Luke's depiction of Jesus as Messiah." " Porter's thesis is well founded. The
prophetic emphasis is seen in the I.ukan birth narrative, where one figure
after another speaks oracles, sometimes as songs and sometimes specifi
cally noted as due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself is said
to befilledwith the Holy Spirit, traveling and ministering in the power of
the Spirit. Of course, in his sermon in the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus
quotes from Isaiah 61: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has
anointed me to preach... ."The Lukan Gospel ends on a note of prophetic
fulfillment, with the risen Jesus instructing his disciples (Luke 24:25-27,44.
49; Acts i:6-8).
The prophetic orientation of the Lukan infancy narrative is seen at
19. On (his topic, see J. Ncusncr, Messiah in Contexr. Israel's History and Destiny in
Formative ludaism (Philadelpliia; Fortress, 1984) i8y-wo. This tradition is based on infer
ences, largely front the Psalter, that David, the prototype of the Messiah, occupied himself
with Torah. On David as a scholar among the rabbis, sec b. Ma'ed Qatan 16b. However, the
rabbis themselves continue in their role as teachers of Torah.
20. Stanley K. Porter. "The Messiah in Luke and Acts; FuriuVeuess for the Captives "
145.
242
many points, not least in the points of contact with the story of Samuel, Is
rael's great priest, prophet, and judge. The births of Samuel and Jesus are
brought about by God (1 Sam 1:9-20). Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), in
which she praises God for what has been done in her, parallels Samuel's
mother Hannah's Magnificat (1 Sam 2:1-10), in which she thanks God for
her son. The name of the elderly woman in Luke's story, who sings praise,
is Anna (Luke 2:36-38), which is from the Hebrew name Hannah. Hannah
dedicates Samuel to the temple, which becomes his house (1 Sam 1:21-26).
Mary brings the infant Jesus to the temple (Luke 2:22-24), to which he later
returns as a lad, calling the temple his Father's house (Luke 2:41-52). In the
context of the temple, it is said of Samuel: "Now the boy Samuel continued
to grow both in stature and in favor with the Loan and with men" (1 Sam
2:26). In what is clearly an echo of this passage, Luke says of the boy Jesus:
"Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and
man" (Luke 2:52).
Professor Porter also calls our attention to points of contact with the
stories of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. The parallels here are not inci
dental but go straight to the heart of theological issues with which the
21
Lukan evangelist is deeply concerned. Elijah and Elisha provide the ex
amples in Jesus' explication of Isaiah 61 in the Nazareth sermon (Luke 4:16-
30, esp. w . 25-27). The implication is that the ministries of these great
prophets of old will shed light on the meaning of Jesus' prophetic ministry.
This is indeed the case. The resuscitation of the widow's only son (Luke
7:11-17) offers a half dozen points of contact with the stories of Elijah and
Elisha, both of whom raised only sons (cf. 1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:18-37).
'I"he incident in which the disciples wonder if Jesus should call fire down
from heaven as judgment on the unwelcoming Samaritans (Luke 9:51-56)
is a clear allusion to the fire that Elijah called down on the troops of the Sa
maritan king (2 Kings 1:9-16)." The rejection of the would-be follower,
who wishes first to return home and bid farewell to his family (Luke 9:61-
62), is an unmistakable allusion to Elijah's summons of Elisha (1 Kings
19:19-21}. Parallels with other prophets and their various oracles confirm
21. Aspects of this interest arc explored in C. A. Evans, "Luke's Use of the FJijah/Elisha
Narratives and the Ethic of Election," in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Luke and Scripture:
Tfie Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993} 70-83.
22. The allusion to 2 Kings 1 was obvious to early Christian scribes, who glossed Luke
9:54-35 accordingly (cf. A C D and other authorities).
243
CRAIG A . E V A N S
the inference that the Lukan evangelist has taken pains to highlight the
prophetic dimension of Jesus' ministry.
In the book of Acts, Professor Porter rightly recognizes the program
matic function of the Pentecost sermon, on analogy with Jesus' Nazareth
sermon in Luke. He also calls our attention to the prophetic role of David.
This is no Lukan innovation, for there are pre-Christian Jewish traditions
in which David is depicted as a prophet or as one moved by the Spirit of
God (e.g., iiQPs* 27). The parallel between Jesus and David is thus appar
ent. Prophetic fulfillment finds expression in Paul's later speeches in Acts.
An important concomitant are the hints in Acts that Jesus is the ful
fillment of the promise of Moses that God would someday raise up a
prophet like him: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among
their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to
them all that I command him" (Deut 18:18). Twice this very passage is cited
in reference to Jesus (cf. Acts 3:22-23; 7:37). Thus, the Lukan evangelist has
appealed to an interesting diversity of prophetic traditions associated with
Old Testament worthies who loomed large in Jewish late antiquity: David,
Elijah, and Moses. Such an impressive collocation lends substantial sup
port to the bold claim that in Jesus God has raised up a Messiah who will
indeed bring forgiveness to the captives.
Tom Thatcher, "Remembering Jesus:

John's Negative Christology"
Tom Thatcher interacts with current Johannine scholarship that has grap
pled with the complicated history of the development of Johannine litera
23
ture, particularly the Gospel, and the Christology that it advances. "John's
Christology," we are told, "is a formula that makes it possible for Christians
24
to construct memories of Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
Dr. Thatcher focuses on two "themes"or what may be better termed
strategies: (1) the evangelist's "ability to generate images of Christ that op-
23. Al many points Thatcher's approach to the Johannine literature is innovative.

Readers may wish to consult his The Riddle ofJesus in John: A Siudy in Tradition and Folklore
(SBI.MS ;>i Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); and his contributions to R. T.
Forma and T. Thatcher, Jesus in Johannine Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
2001),
24, Tom Thatcher, "Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology," 175-
244
pose Jewish claims," particularly with regard to Moses; and (2) the evange
25
list's "ability to generate memories thai oppose the Antichrists' claims."
Concerning the first theme, Thatcher reviews in what ways the
fourth evangelist portrays Jesus as superior to Moses. He is so "in every
conceivable way, doing everything that Moses did and a great many things
26
that Moses could never hope to do." Thatcher mentions the Jewish teach
ers' self-designation: "we arc disciples of Moses" (cf. John 9:28}. This rele
vant observation opens up some interesting possibilities that Thatcher
could pursue further. For example, he could delineate some of the numer
ous parallels with targumic and midrashic traditions, traditions generated
27
by the "disciples of Moses," that is, the early rabbis and interpreters of
28
Scripture in the synagogue. These parallels are part of the evangelist's
strategy, to find the common ground and, in effect, to prove that he is a
better "disciple of Moses" than the unbelieving Jewish teachers of his time.
Concerning the second theme, Thatcher examines in what ways the
evangelist counters those whose exalted Christology denies the reality of
the humanity and incarnation of Jesus, along with his pre-Easter teaching.
They deny Jesus' humanity and earthly ministry, they believe, by warrant
of the Holy Spirit. Because they deny the earthly teaching of Jesus, these
false teachers, who at one time would have been viewed by the evangelist as
Christians, are designated "Antichrists." The elitism and divisiveness of
these Antichrists stand in tension with the command to love one another.
Thatcher has again touched on a very interesting and potentially very
enlightening theme. One may wonder if the Johannine author's reference to
his opponents as "antichrists" (antichristoi) in 1 John 2:18 correlates to his
assurance in 1 John 2:27 that true believers are to have God's "anointing"
(chrisma), which teaches them everything. In essence, the Johannine writer
proposes a scenario in which warfare occurs between false christs {i.e., the
"antichrists") and the true christs (i.e., the Johannine Christians who have
received the divine anointing). The Johannine believers have received the
anointing (or spirit) promised them by Jesus (as in the fourth Gospel's
upper-room discourse in John 14-16) and therefore know the truth, a truth
1
25. Thatcher, "Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology,' 177.
26. Thatcher, "Remembering )esus: John's Negative Christology," 183.
17. For example, sec b. Yoma 4a, where in the future, when the temple is rebuilt and
sacrifice is restored, two "disciples of Moses" will train the new high priest,
28. See the survey in G A. Evans, Word and Glory. On the ExegeticaS and Theological
Background of John's Prologue (ISNTSup By; Sheffield: [SOT, 1003) 151-68.
245
CRAIG A.EVANS
that is now assailed by false christs or falsely anointed ones. Dr. Thatcher
does not pursue this line of interpretation, but it seems to me that it could
shed light on aspects of his assessment of the Johannine opponents.
S. A. Cummins, "Divine Life and Corporate Christology:

God, Messiah Jesus, and the Covenant Community in Paul"
Dr. Cummins divides his paper into three principal parts, each consisting
of clearly delineated questions that take us right to the heart of the matter.
In the first two parts he investigates Paul's faith before conversion and his
faith after conversion. He rightly interprets 2 Cor 5:16 ("even though we
once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no
longer") as meaning that Paul's understanding of the Messiah has
changed, not that the pre-Eastcr fesus is of no interest.
It is clear that Paul's understanding of the Messiah changed with his
conversion. But how did his understanding of monotheism change (as
suming that it did)? That is a question that I would like Dr. Cummins to
address more directly. Did God's revealing of his Son to Paul lead Paul to
revise his understanding of the Godhead? Did it set him on a path leading
to trinitarian theology? These are not easy questions, 1 realize, but I would
29
like to hear more. I wonder if Judaism's strict monotheism, which ex
cludes hypostases, for example, is a reaction against Christianity? One
thinks of the polemical interpretation of Isa 44:6 ("I am the first and 1 am
the last; besides me there is no god"), which is applied against the Chris
tian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus (cf. Mek. on Exod 20:2 [Bahodesh $5];
Song Rab. 1:9 §9). How would Philo have fared, had he spoken of the Logos
0
as the second God (theos)* in the second or third century, instead of the
early, pre-Christian first century?
29. Thai is, more lliaii what is staled 011 pp. 197-98 of S. A. Cummins, "Divine Life
and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah lesus, and the Covenant Community in Paul" For
a recent attempt to identify trinitarian elements in Paul's letters, sec (». IX Pec, "Paul and the
Trinity: The Experience of Christ and the Spirit of Paul's Understanding of God,™ in The
Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (ed. S. T. Davis, D. Kendall, and G. F.
O'Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 49-72-
30. "for nothing moral can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father
of the universe, but [onlyl in that of the Second God, who is his Logos" (Qutiest. in Gen. 2.62
[on Gen 9:6!; cf. Fug. 101: Migr. Abr. 174; Op. Mund. 10).
246
The third part of the paper speaks to Paul's ideas of monotheism,

Messiah Jesus, and the eschatological people of God. Much of the discus
sion here focuses on the question of faith, works of the law, and fellowship
(involving Jews and Gentiles). In Messiah fesus the barriers that divided
Jews from non-Jews are broken down. Non-Jews today are scarcely able to
appreciate the dilemma that Paul and other Jewish believers in Jesus faced.
The idea that the Law of Moses no longer had to be scrupulously observed
was very difficult Dr. Cummins explores this complicated problem, sug
gesting solutions along the way: the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus conveys
fulfillment to the believer; believers are therefore excluded from divine
31
condemnation.
Cynthia Long Westfall, "Messianic Themes of Temple,

Enthronement, and Victory in Hebrews and the General Epistles"
Cynthia Westfall wraps up our conference with an assessment of the mes

sianic themes in Hebrews and the General Epistles. She examines the re
spective contexts of these writings and what bearing they may have on
their messianic ideas, the occurrences of "Christ" in the respective writ
32
ings, and the respective "authors' use of messianic scenarios."
She then works her way systematically through Hebrews, James, l-
2 Peter, Jude, and i -3 John. She finds a variety of approaches and emphases,
and she calls attention to the messianic/christological innovations in He
brews. If nothing else, West fall's assignment illustrates the diversity of the
writings of the New Testament and their respective strategies in formulat
ing Christology, Christology not apparently restricted to what was avail
able in contemporary Jewish messianic ideas and hopes.
The adoption of priestly scenarios in Hebrews is intelligible when it
is remembered that most references to the "anointed" one in the Penta
teuch are in fact to priests, usually the high priest. Once the identification
of Jesus as "anointed" took hold—and indeed, became ubiquitous among
his first followers —- informing this designation with data under this head-
31. See Cummins, "Divine Life and Corporate Christology," 207-S. I would like Dr,
Cummins to probe the contribution that Rom 10:4 could make to his insightful thesis: 'For
Christ is rhe end | telos] of the Law, in righteousness for everyone who has faith."
32. Cynthia Long Westfall, "Messianic Themes of Temple, Enthronement, and Vic
tory in Hebrews and the General Epistles," 2i2.
247
CRAIG A . EVANS
ing was a natural consequence. West fall's suggestions arc consistent with
this approach.
In l Peter, Dr. Westfall underscores enthronement, new birth, and the
Christian community as a spiritual building, all of which are evocative im
ages. 2 Peter is distinctive for recalling the story of the Transfiguration
(Mark 9:2-8 and parallels). First John is distinctive for describing the be
liever, and not just Jesus, as ''anointed."Thus we have "christs" in the plural,
the possible significance of which was probed above in connection with
Tom Thatcher's paper. Here it might be added that the Johannine writer has
introduced an innovative element into the more familiar cschatological sce
nario in which the tearful antichrist figure was expected soon to arise.
Westfall rightly concludes with the suggestion that the christological contri
butions of the General Epistles have been underappreciated in much of pre
vious scholarship.
West fall's perspective coheres with recent, encouraging develop
ments in scholarly investigations into Judaic Christianity, as preserved
largely in the General Epistles (James and Hebrews paramount among
them) and in the brief quotations of early church fathers. As work in Ju
33
daic Christianity continues, the neglect that Westfall decries will, we all
hope, be addressed.
In concluding my response, I wish to express my gratitude to Professors

Stanley Porter and Mark Boda for convening a superb conference. Thanks
also go to the contributors, who enriched participants and audience alike
with fresh and insightful studies.
33. One should consult the probing studies of Richard Uauckham, Bruce Chilton, Pe
ter Davids, lohn Painter, Wiard Popkes, and Robert Wall, among others. For recent collabo
rative efforts, see B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds.. James the Just and Christian Origins
(NovTSup 98; lîdcn: Brill, 1999); B. Chilton andJ. Neusncr, eds.. The Brother of Jesus: James
the fust and His Mission (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, iooi|; and B. Chilton and C. A.
Evans, eds.- The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (NovTSup
115', Leiden: Brill. 2004).
248
Index of Modem Authors
Abegg, A.. 91 Black, M-, 100,191,238

Abcfcfi, M. C, Jr„ 137 Block, D. I., 36
Achtcmcicr, E. R-, 7> Blomberg, C. L, 4 . '59. ' 9 9 - 201, 218,
Ackroyd. P. R., 52 220, 223, 227
Alberl/., R.,49 Bock, D. L„ 44,145.14«, 150,155-58,160
Alexander, T. D., 25 Boda, M. J„ 5.15. 46-48,53> 5 4 . 5 « . 57.
Allison. L). C, 130.140* Mi 5 9 , 6 1 - 6 3 , 69, n8, 234,148
Anderson, H., 217
Bogaert, P.-M., 109
Arens, A., 24
Borsch. F. R , 238
Bousset, W.,3
BaÜIct. M., 79 Brewer, J. A.. 68
Halrfcrmann, l-, 36 Bright, ]., 4 2
Barclay, I. M. G.. 191 Broadhead, E. K., 133
Barrclt, C K., 160,173. *74. Brown, C . 213,214
Bartelmus, R., 67 Brown, G-, 212
Barthélemy, D., 106
Bauekham, R . 1 9 2 , 1 9 3 . 221, 222, 224» Brown, R. E„ 3, 6 4 . H 7 . 1 6 7 , 1 6 R , 17".
248 173- '79.185.187

Brown lee, W. H„ 40
Bauer, D. R., 131.133» 215, 220
Bruce, F. F., 174
Bcaslcy-Murray, G. R., 174
Buchanan, G. W„ 2
Beaton, R., 139
Bultmann, R.,3,160,174.184
Bvgrich, I . 68
Bürge, G. M.. 17». 185
Bentzen, A., 67
Burger, C, 136
Berger, K., 127
Burnett, F. W, 141
Bcrquisl, J. U 66
Berry, T>. K„ 70,72
Bctz, O.. 4. "38 Cadbury, H. J., 159
Bielcnhard, H., 214 Caird, G. B., 4
249
IN'OKX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Carroll R.. D. M., 2, 4. 37. 44. '44.145- Davis, S. T.. 14*

159. 199. 218 Day, L, 40.46.35
Carroll. R. P., 65 De longe, M, 3.118
Carson. D. A.. 179 Donaldson, T. L, 134,142
Carter, W, 143 Duguid. I., so, 61,63.63.67
Casey. M., 133 Dunn, I. D. G.. 3.198.199. 100. 206
Casey, P. M., 191 Dupont-Sommer, A., 86
Ccrfaux, L, 3
Charles, R. H.,91 Eckstein, H.-J., 30
Charlcsworth, L H., 2, 29. 30, 36, 91, 92, van Esmond, R.. 154
98, loo, 101.102, ill, 112,191,104,197, Eichrodt, W., 41
211, 217-20,139-38 Eiliger, K_, 01
Giestei, A„ 2,192 Ellingworlh, P., 218
Childs, B., ao Ellis, E. E., 145,147. »33
Chilton, B., 149« 248 Evans, C. A., 2, 9,30,101,106,144.149.
Ononis. H. L, 129 130,132-34.157. a". «5- 216, 217. 223,
Uarfc, D. G., 71 233> 233. 236, 237,143. 243. 24»
Clements. R. E., 20,33
Cohen, N. G.,74 Farmer, W. R., 4
Cohn Sherbok. D.. 191 Fee, G. D., 246
Coleson,). E., ji Feine, R. 3
Collins, 1.1., 2,6,36-3«, 75.76.78.79> Feldman. L. H.. 191
80-82, 88, 90.106,108,191,194,223, Ferreiro, A., 48
236.137 Firzmyer. J.. 146.139
Collins. T., 61 Floyd, M. H-. 46, 47. 66
Coluc, M., 178 Foakes-Jackson, F. J., 151,139
Conrad, E. W„ 69, 74 Fortna, R. T, 167
Cook, S. L., so, 31,62 France, R. T., 4. 118,124.129.134
Crcach, J., 21 Franklin, E., 161
Cross, A. R., 235 Freedman, D. N., $ 0
Cullmann, O., 3,135,160 Frerichs, E, S., 191
Culpepper, R. A., 17s. 187 Fuchs, a , 36
Cummins, S. A., 193, 200, 202, 203,204, Fuller. R. H., 3,67. «8,161
207, 246.147
Cummins, T. 8 Garrett. S. R., 33
Garrod, S. C , 112
Dahl, N. A., 3,194, iao, 218 Cerhardsson, B., 131
Dalmon, C , 4 Gibson. J. B-, 119
Dallon, W., 123 Gieschcn, C. A., 192
Dassmann, 1., 36 Gillingham. S. E- 40
David, R., 63 Glazier-McDonald, B.. 67, 69, 70,7'. 72,
Davids, P., 220, 248 73
Davics,W. D„ 130.140.141 Goldingay, J., 26,32
Davila, I. R., 192 Goodman, M., 93-"'»"
250
Goppelt, t., 3, 136 Hultgren, A., 196

GouldcT, M., 14 Hurtado. L. W.. 158,192,194
Gowan, D. E.. 42
Grabbe, L. L., 191 lenson, P. P., 13,32
Green, L B., 158.178 [eremias,)., 152
Green, W. S., 191 Jinbachian, M., 63
Greenfield. J. C, 98 lohnson, E. E., 202
van Groningen, Ci., 14 Johnson, L. T„ 145,146,157.161.162,163,
Guelich, R. A., 118 220
Gundry. R. H., 118,127 Johnson, M. D., 64
Guthrie, P., 4 [ones, D. L , 161
Guthrie, S. C., 155 had D. H., 194
Hafcmann. S„ 23 KaUer, W., 32,33

Hagncr, D. A.. 143. «4 Kasemann, E..166
Hall, C A. M.. ljs Keck, L. E., 155, 208
Halliday, M. A. K., 212 Keener, C. S„ 134
Hamm, B., 36 Kendall, D„ 246
Hanson, J. S„ 194 Kcown, G. L.,72
Hanson, R D., 47, 51 Kerr, A., 178
Haie, D. A., 132
Kcssler, J., 4 7 , 4 9 . 5 0 , 5 2 , 5 4
Hsrlind.P. 1.66 Kimball, C A , 15s
Hartin, P. !.. 217
Kingsbury, J. D., 133,138'
Hasan, R„ 212
Kliusncr, I., 96
Hayes, M. A., 1,4}. 223
Klein, W. W., 159
Hays, P . M., 202
Klijn.A. F. J., 108
Hays, J. D.,44
Knibb, M , 9 8
Hays, R. B., 202
Knohl, l„ 8 9
'ward, R., 66
Kostenbcrger, A. J., 150
Head,
Hav P.M.. 118.134 Kramer, VV.,3,162
Hcckel. U.. 2,192
Knigcr, T., 67
1 leim, K., 20
Kugel, ]., 14
Hcmpd, (., 6«
Kugler. R. A., 2.47, 67-68,237
Hengcl, M., 2, 4, 95» 15?. '92,195.199 Kummel.W. G.,3
Hess, R- S„ 1, 2, 4 , 1 3 . 37,43. 44, 46,144,
145. 159, 199. 21« Laaio, A., 2,45. 49. 56, 63,152
Hill, A. P., 67, 68, 69, 7". 72, 73 Ladd, G. E„ 4.43. 210
Hill, D., 140 Lake, K„ 151,159
Hoare, R. W. N., 174 Laudmesser, C, 50
Hooker, M. D , 118,126 Laubscher, F., 60
Horbury, W., 2, 20, 29. 96,113, *93 leske. A., 50
Horsley. R. A., 194.198 Lewis, G. S., 192
House, P. R-, 70, 72 Uchtenberger, H.. 2, 50,91.101,191. »37
Huflmon, 11,6B
I.indars, B.,159, 218, 219
251
INOKX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Lindblom,}., 42 Murphy, R. H., 35,36

Long, V. P., 19
Longenecker, R. K.. 4,118,134,196,197 Neusner, (.» 29,103,191. 242, 248
Inngman, f„ III, 4,19, 26, 231, 232, 233 Newman, C. C., 192,216
Loren, J. L., 96 Nickelsburg, W. E„ 98
Luz, U., 143 Nogalski,J. 1>., 53
North, W. E. S„ 192
Malbon, E. S., 133
Malchow, B. V., 70 O'Brien, J. M., 47, 67, 68, 70, 73
Manson, W.,3 O'Brien, P. T„ 150
Marcus, ]., 118 O'Collins, G. R, 246
Marshall, C. D., 123 O'Connor, M„ 68
Marshall, I. H„ 4,7. '37. 145.146,15a. Oegema, G. S., 2, 91,101,144,191, 237
178.195. 239,24". 241 Oswalt,)., 14
Marrin, R. P„ 133 Overholt, T. W., 63
Marryn, 1.1.., 155, 176
Mason, R. A„ 49. 50.63- 67, 69 Painter, J., 248
Matera, R J„ 123 Parry, D. W., 236
Matthews, V. IL, 51 Parsons, M. C, 146
McCann, |. C, 40 Perkins, R, 3.220,221,225,226
McConville, J. G-. 32 Perrin, R.. 34
McDonald, L. M-, 227
Pcrvo, R. I., 146
McKnight, S-, 158.178
Meeks, W„ 178 Pcsch, R., n8
Meier, J. V., 138, 210 Petersen, D. L., 45,50,53,65,68,69,70.
Menzies, R. R. »54 72.73
Merrill, E. H., 6 9 Peterson, N. R„ 177
Metzger, B. M„ 102 Pfann, S.)., 109
Meyers, C. L„ 30,53,57> 6u. 68 van der Ploeg, J. R M„ 42
Meyers, E. M., 47, 5«, 53,57> 60, 62, (14, Pola, X, 49
Pftlger, O., 41, 51
6 5 , 6 7 . 68 Pomykala, K. E„ 2,49- 5°- 53. 50,64,191
Michaels, J. R-, 222, 223 Popkes, W., 248
Milik, ). T., 97,98,106 6
Porter, i>. E„ I, 2, 7,43» 3.144. '45. "48,
Miliar, R, 93 150,152,163,2ii, 217, 223, 227, 233, 235,
Mitchell, H. G T-, 68 242, 243,244,248
Mocssncr, D. R, ifii> Powell, M. A., 131,133, 220, 21>
Moltmcy, R)., 167 Provan,I„ 19
Moo, D.)., 206
Moore, G. R, 103
von Rad, G., 42,43
Morris, L., 156
Rawlinson, A. K. [., 4
Moulc. C. R D., 4,152,155,162 Rayou. P. H. Y., 119
Mowinckel, S - , ¡ 1 . 144 Rcddttt, P. L, 46,6t, 6 6 , 68,72
Müller, U. B., 106,110 Reed, ]. T„ 212
Murphy. R |., 191 Rengstorf, K. H.. 213
252
Rensberger, D, 1S5 Stuhlmudkr, C., 64

Rcumann, J., aio, 221 Stummeis, P., 68
Riches, L K„ 138, 143.174 Suggs, M. J., 141
Ringgrrn, H.. 1 Swete. H. B., ias
Roberts, J. J. M., 36.37,3«, 30,46,23$
Robinson, I. A., 148,160,161 Tannehill. R. C., 133
Rofe, A., 34 Thatcher, T., 8,184. 244.245
Rogerson, j . W., 06, 68 Theison, )., 100
Rooke, D. W„ 55 Thompson, M. B., 195
Rose, W. H., 36, 3?, 38,49,53,55.56 Thompson, T L., 36
Ròsei. C, 22 Tiemeyer, L„ 56
Rosenberg, R. A., 6j Tollington. I. E„ 47.48. 55
Rowley, H. H., 44 Tombs, I)., 1,43- 223
Rudolph, W., 56 Trafton, I. L.. 93
Russell, D. If.. 91 Tromp, ]., 61
Ttumbower, |. A.. 235
&ebct M.. 36, 41 Tuckctt, C M„ 3.5*. 61.126,129,143
Sailhamcr, J. H.,33. 47 Turner, M., 147. '49. '52
Sanders, J. A., 243
Sanford, A. J., 212 Uffenhcimcr, B„ 54. 57
Sattcrthwaitc, P. B.i 2, 4.13. 20, 25. 46, Ulrich, E., 236
144 L'tzschneider, H., 67
Schifl'maii, L. H., 237
Schmidt, W. II., 50 VanderKam, |. C, 100,191,138
Schnackenburg, P.., 3,173,174 Van der Woude, A. S., 58,91
SehGrer. F~, 95,111,191 Van Gemercn, W. A., 14
Seccombe. D., 4 Verhoef, P. A.. 68
Segal, A., 197 Vermes. G„ 95
Selman, M. 1, 20 Verscput, IX J., 143
Smith, J. M. P., 68 von Wahlde. V. C . 127
Sjobcrg, E.. 103
Smallcy. S. S., 159. 227 Wall. R.. 248
Smith, R., 66 Walton, ]. H., 24. 32
Smith, R. L, 64 Waterman, L., 52
Stanton, G. N,, 19H Watts, J. W.. 70.72
Stautter. E., 4 Webb, R. L„ 149
Wenliam, D., 195
Stcgncr, W. R., 150
Wenham, G. J„ 2,13, 46,144
Stein, R. II., 224 Westermann, C., 20
Steyn, C. I-, 160 Westfall, C. L., 9. 223, 247. 248
Stinespring, W. F., 96 Williamson, H. G. M., 34
Stone, M. E., 98.102,105 WUson, G. H., 17, 20, at. 22. 23
Strauss, M. I .150,154* '52,160,161 Wilson, W. T., 117
Stuckcnbruck, L. T., 6,109,119.120.192. Wink. W., 147. U8
193.194.238
253
INDEX OP MODERN AUTHORS
Wise, M. 0., 6,75.76,82,87.88,8-1, 236, Wright, N. X, a, 193. »94. i9<S. «98.201»

237 206,207,211, 215,216,21B, 219
Witherington, B., UI, 118,160
Wolf, H., 52 Yule, G-, 212
Wolff, H. W., 53
Wolters, A., 5,193,194, 235, 236, 237 Zakovitch, Y„ 34
Wrede, W., 3 Ziegler. J., 93
Wright, D. P., 30 Zimmermann, 91,106
254
OLD TESTAMENT 29:7 15. 39 16:32 39

29:36 39
Genesis 30:26 »5. 39 Numbers
3:»5 6 30:30 15. 39 3:3 15.39
3:16-18 112 33:18-3*8 180 3:17-18 64
14 25, 232 33:23 180 6:15 38
14:17-20 6 40:9-» 'S. 39 73 39
31:13 15.39 40:13 39 7:10 39
49 232,234 40:15 IS- 39 7:84 39

49:5-7 236 7:88 39
49:8-12 6, 25, 2 6 , 235, 236 leviticus 18:8 37
49:8-11 61 2:5 38 24 77
49:9-10 104 4y 15 24:7 26
49:10 24, 231, 233, 239 4:5 15. 39 24:17-19 6
4:13 39 24:17 24,25.96,231,
Exodus 4:16 39 233, 239
3:11 179 6:13 39 35:25 15. 39
15:1-3 60 6:20 13
15:18 60 6:22 15 Deuteronomy
16:20 180 7=» 39 6:4-5 208
22:2lf 7» 7:35 38 18 27- 28, 232
23 235 7:36 39 18:15-22 26
23:20-22 70 8:2 38 18:18-19 6
23:20 70 H:io 36. 39 18:18 179.244
25:6 15. 38 8:11 39 21:23 196
28:41 15.39 8:12 15. 38. 39 26 234
29:2 38 8:30 38 30:6-20 207
255
INDEX OK ANCIENT SOURCES
M 28 3:18 53 4:18-37 243

34UO 28 339 38 9:3 38
5:3 3» 9:6 38
Judges 5:17 38 9:12 38
9:8 3» 6 26 11:12 3»
9:15 38 6:21 53 14:21 53
7 15, 18, 19. 21,158. 17:13 44
1 Samuel 231 17:23 44
1:9-20 243 7:5 53 20:18 69
1:21-28 243 7:8 53 23:20 53
2:1-10 243 7:i3 128 23:30 38
2:10 3» 7:14 «7.194 25 40
2:27-36 70 7:15-16 20 52
8:18 26 25:18
2:35 38
6:12-13 154 12:7-12 70
12:7 1 Chronicles
8:20 60 38 5:40 (Eng. 6:14! 52
9:2 60 19:11 38 6:1-15 64
9:16 38 19:22 38 6:17 64
10:1 38 22:51 38, 40 6:21 65
12:3 38 23:1-2 "54 11:3 38
12:5 38 23:1 38 14:8 38
12:12 60 16:22 14,16. 39
13:8-15 26 1 Kings 17:4 53
15:1 38 i:34 38 29:22 39
15:1/ 16,38 1:39 3«
16 17 1=45 38 2 Chronicles
16:3 38 4 21 6:42 16.38
16:6 38 5:15 38 16:22 16
16:8-10 53 11:32 53 22:7 38
16:12 38 11:34 53 23:" 38
16:13 38 11:36 53 29:22 38
17 38 17:17-24 243 32:16 53
247 38 18:20-40 150 367 69
24:11 38 19:15 38 36:15-16 68
24:16 38 19:16 14. 28.38. 39
24:23 38 19:19-21 243 Nehemiah
21:1 69 9:4 221
2 Samuel 21:17-24 70 12:16 65
1:14 38 22 72
1:16 38 Psalms
i:2l 38 2 Kings 1-2 40
2:4 38 1 243 1 40
2:7 38 1:9-16 243 2 17,18. 19) 20. 22.
256
Index ofAncient Sources
2 6 , 40, 6Q, 1 6. 89:20 106 11:4b 99, no

107,112,120,125, 89:21 (Eng. 20) 38 11:6-8 112
231, 239 89:26-27 106 13:22 69
2:2 16, 17.35.38, 99. 89:27-28 194 19:1 27
106, 239 89:39 38, 40 21:5 38
2:6 18 89:52 38 39:7 69
27 17, 106,194> 239 96:9-10 96 40-66 44
7:14 17 104:3 27 40:3-5 149
8:6 111 105:15 14.16, 28, 39 40:3 235
16:8-11 160,161 105:42 221 42 140
18:10-13 27 107 22 42:1-4 13°. 139. MO
18:50 (51) 16 108-UO 22 42:1 120
18:31 38 110 26, 99- 157.158, 42:6 96,148,197
20:6 (7) 16 232 42:19 68
20:7 38 110:1 96,156,160,161 43=4-7 93
22 47>125 110:4 111, 219 44:6 246
28:2 16 113:1 44 44:26 68
28:8 38 116:10 160 45:i 38,39
41 at, 22,23 118 47 49:1-6 197
41:9 47 119 22 49:2-3 121
42 23 132 23 49:6 96,148
45:8 16 132:10 16, 3:Ï, 40, 53 497 121
457 (8) 3« 132:17 16,38 49:22-26 96
45:9 69 134:1 44 50:4 121
45U6 69 135:1 44 52-53 47,103
68 33 138-145 22 52:7-53:12 154
68:33 27 144:12 69 52:7 '54
«9 125 52:10 148
69:9 172,173 Proverbs 52:13 121
72- 21, 60, 61 30:28 69 53 125,126,163
72:13 6l 53:4 139
72:20 23 Isaiah 58:6 28, 150, 151
73 23 6 72 587 28
78:70 53 6:12 96 60:1-3, 96,154
84:9 do) 16 7:14 142 61 152, 242
84:10 38 9 158 61:1 39.153
84:20 (21) 16 9:2-7 154 61:1-2 28,150,152*54
84:38 (39J 16 9:6 84 63:14 (LXX) 120
86:9 96 10:34 110 64:1 120
89 23 11 112,158
89:3 53. 221 u:i-10 239 Jeremiah
89:5-7 95 11:1 233 P$ 197
89:20-37 106 11:4 95.101, 107, no 22 53
257
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
22:14 38 9:25-26 16, 38 2:20-23 4 9 . 5 0 . 51. 52. 5 3 .
23 56 9:25 l6,35. 9 f i
54, 56
23:18 72 9:26-27 240 2:2lt>-22 53

23:22 72 9:26 16 2:23 53
30:7 72 12 107.126 4:6b-ioa 58

33 56 12:11 104
12:12 103 Zcphaniah

Lamentations i:i4 72
4:20 16 Hoses
8:14 69 Zechariah
Fïckicl ila 139 1-8 4 9 . 53. 56.58,59.
34 61 '4 72 64.74
37 61 1-6 49
Joel 1:1-6 57-59.59
Daniel 2:11 72 1:1 64
1:4 69 2:28-32 <LXX 3:1- 5 ) '60, 1:4 47
2:34 241 235 1:7-6:15 54-57, 58, 60, 63,
2:45 241 3 : 4 (Eng- 2:31b) 72 73.74
6:20 221 4=5 69 17 64
7-12 26 1:12 54
7 6 , 2 9 . 79» Ho,106, Amos 2 : 1 0 - 1 7 (Eng. 6-10} 57
1 0 7 , 1 1 2 , 113» 126, 6:6 38 2:13 (Eng. 2:9) 57
127.13«. 1 3 1 . "33. 8:3 69 2 : 1 4 - 1 7 (Eng. 10-13) 54. 57

1 4 2 , 1 5 4 , 158, 215, 9:1 235 2:15 (Eng. 2:11) 57
232, 238. 239 3 49.56.58,62.64.

7:2-8 110 Micah 74
7:5 125 5:1-5 '54 3a-io 57
77 104. 1 2 5 , 1 5 4 5:2 13.135. 235 3:8 49
7:9-14 101 3:8b 56
7:u 240 Nah uni 3:9-10 56
7:-3-l4 100 1:3 27 3no 57

7:13 79.157 2-7 69 4 49- 55. 56. 58, 236
7:14-18 125 4:1-6a 55
7:14 ion, 1 3 1 , ' 5 4 . 24O Haggai 4:6-ioa 55

7:19 125 1:1-12 64 4:6 57
7:21 125 1:1-11 SI 4:6b-ioa 56,57
7:22 240 1:12-15 SI 4:6b-7 56
7:25 125 1:12-13 52 4:8 57
7:27 125 1:13 68.74 * 9 56,57
8:17-18 240 2:1-9 51 4:9a So"

9:14 16 2:6-9 52, 53, 5 4 4:9b 56
9:24-26 6. 39 2:6 53 4nob-i4 55
9:24 16,39 2:10-19 51. 52 4:14 5 5 . 5 8 , 235, 236
258
htdcx of Ancient Sources
5:1-4 47 13:1 59.63 OLD TESTAMENT

6 56,58 13:2-6 62 APOCRYPHA
6:0-15 56, 57, 62 13:4 59
6:9 57 '37-9 61,85 1 Maccabees
6:12-13 56,128 137 62 14:41 147
$6, 57 13:7b 88
6:15
6:16
49
14 27, 29, 66,73 Psalms of Solomon
57.65,73 14:4 1:4-8 93
7-8 59
57-59 2:1-5 93
7:1-8:23 14:6 59
62 2:3-5 93
75 14:8 59
47 2:11-14 93
7-7 14:9 59. 63
57 7:9 93
8:20-23 14:13 59
- 0 , 47, 50, 51.59" 8:8-13 93
9-14 65,66,69.73 14:20 59
8:14-22 93
59.61 14:21 59
9-10 17 93. 97. »1
9 66 17:1 97
9:1 59, 62,66 Malachi »7:5 97
9:8 60 1:1 73 \ \6
7 93
9:9-10 60.73 1:6-14 67 177 97
9:9 50, 61, 63,135, 1:6 66 17:11-18 93
173 1:8 67 17:13-15 93
i0:i-3a 61 2:1-9 67 17:16-181- 93
10:1-2 61 2:1 66,67 i7:i8b-20 93
10:2 62 17Ü1-43 93
2-7 67,70
11 47 17:22-24 93
2:8 67
li:i-3 6l 17:22 95
2:10-12 67
11:4-16 59.61, 62 17:23 93
2:13-16 67
liai 88 17:24 95.107. 239
2:17 69
11:17 61 17:26 93
3:1-2 68-71
12-14 59. 61 17:27 93
3:1 51,67,68-70,71-
12 47, 63 17:28 93
73. «8. 235
12:1 59.62, 66 17:29 93. m . 239
59 3:2-5 67
12:3 17:30-31 93
12:4 59 3:2 68,71 17:30 93
12:6 59 3:6-12 67 17:31-323 97
1K7 63 3:6 66 17:32(36) 93. 96
12:8 59- 63,74 3:19 (Eng. «0 68 17:34 96, 97, i l l
12:9 59 3:21 (Eng. 43) 71 17:35 95.107
U:i0-13:i 62 3:22-24 71 17:36 93. 97. 239
12:10 63 3:23-24 (Eng. 4:5-6) 51. 17:37 95. 239
12:11 59 72-73 17:39 97
12:12 63. 64 3:23 (Eng. 4:5) 68 17:43 93. 95
13 47.63 4 27,29 17:46 97
259
18 93 62:1 99 3:1 101

i8:j 93. 9*. 1 0 9 , 1 1 0 62:5 99 4:26 103
18:7 93. 9 6 62:13 ill 67 103
71:14 98 6:20 103
63-90 91 6:25-28 103
O L D TESTAMENT 90:14 101 6:38-59 102
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 90:17 101 6:55-59 102
90:34 ill 7 105, 1 0 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 2 ,
1 Enoch 91-104 91 238
2:4 225 91:12 ill 7:3-9 102
+110-15 96 7:23 103
4:16-5:23 98 2 Barnabas 7:26-44 102-4
6-36 91 30:2 109 7:26-28 102
10:17*22 109 30:5 109 7:28 102,104,106,
37-71 97-101, 238 36:7-11 no 108, 109
45-57 99 39:5-6 110 7:28-29 194

45-56 100 397 110 7:29-30 103
45:1-2 99 72:2-4 96 7:32 109
45:3 101 72:6 111 7:33 103, 104
45:6 101 73U 111 7:43 103
46:1-8 99 73:ib-74:4 112 7:50 103
46:1 101 7:112-15 103
46:4-7 101 2 Baruch 7:138-8:3 104

46:7 99 26-30 IO8 11-12 238
48 99, 100,130 29-30 109 11 112
48:6 99,105,109 29:2 IO9 11:1-12:36 104,IO5
48:8-10 101 29:3 IO8-IO 11:6 IO4
48:0 99 30 112 11:32 IO4
48:10 98,99,100 30:1 IO8-IO 1K35 104
49:6 102 35-40 IO8 11:36-12:34 102
5-3 101 36:2 110 11:36-46 IO4

$2 130 36:5 110 12 105 , 106,108, n o
52:1-57:3 99 39-40 111 12:1-3 104
52:2 100 39:2 no 12:32 104
52:4 96,98-100 39=7 108,110, U l 12:34 105
52:6-9 101 40:1 108,110, U l 13 103, 1 0 6 , 1 0 7 , 1 0 8 ,
52:6 99.100 53-76 109 i n . 130,238,240
52:9 99. 100 70:9 IO8, U l , 112 13:3-14:9 102
53:5-7 101 72:1-6 111 13:9-10 107
55:3 101 72:2 109, 111, 112 13:10 239

55:4 101 13:11 107
56:5-8 98 4 Ezra 13:26 102, IO6, IO8
02 99 3-14 101, 102 13:32 106,108,194
260
13:33-39 107 lQM 4Q400

13:37 1 0 6 ,.194 5:1-2 90 frg. 2:1-9 95
13:52 106,.194 11:7-9 90
14:9 106, 194 4Q418
iQS frg. 55 line* 8-11 95
Jubilees 5:9-11 90
1:17-22 95 9:11 236, 78 4Q458
1:27-29 ?! frg. 2 col. 2 9<
5-7 111 lQSa
5=9 111 2 24O 4Q491
23:26-31 91 2:10-15 236 11 81
2U1-12 90
4-5 236 4Q521
RABBINIC
5:20-26 90 1 2:1-13 152
LITERATURD
frg. 2 2:2 95
b. Mo'ed Qatan IQ23 frg. 2:1-2 9«
16b 242 frg. 1 IO9 frg. 8 Unc 9 91
frg. 6 IO9
('. Yoma frg. 22 109 4Q534
AH 245 frg. • coL 1 9>
4Q161 frg. 1:10-11 106
Mek. on Exod 20:2 frg. 8-10:11-25 90 101
frg. 3 1:1«
frg. 3 col. 1
Bahoilesh $ 246
4Q174 lines 6-10 101
Pirqe Ahoth 1:10-13 IO6
142 3:10-19 90 11Q13
3:2
3:6 142 2:15-20 90
4Q246
Midrash on Psalms 1:9—2:1 IO6 Damascus Document
2:9 158 (CD)
4Q252 2:12 236
Song Rab. 1:9 frg. 1 en!. 5 2:11-13 90
91
9 246 5:21—6n 236
4Q285 6:7 78
Memar Marqa
frg. 5 91 6:11-7:4 83
4:12 232
frg. 5 line 4 96 6:11 78
frg. 7 line 4 110 7:18 78
QUMRAN 7:19 77
LITERATURE 4Q369 12:23-13:1 90,236
frg. 1:2 91 14:18-19 90
lQH 14:19 236
9:1-20:7 83 4Q377 19:5-10 85
26:2-10 85 frg. 2 COL 2 91 19:7-11 90
261
19:8-9 88 11:27b 138 27:11 "35

19:10-11 236 11:28-30 139,140,141 27:17 136
19:33-20:1 9' 11:29 "39 27:22 136
20:1 236 12:16 134 27:29 135
12:18-21 "39 27:37 135
12:23 13« 27:42 135
NEW TESTAMENT 12:32 137 28:9 "37
12:38-41 236 28:17 "37
Matthew 12:39-40 173 28:19 138
1-13 143, 214 13:41 137
1:1 134 14:12 182 Mark
1:2 IM H:33 '37.138 1-8 121
1:17 134.135 15:22 136 1-8:26 118
1:18 135 15:24 »35 1:1 118
2:1-6 235 15:25 137 1:11 240
2:2-4 •35 16:13 -37 1:15 "5". 159. "61, 240
2:2 »37 16:14 156 1:21-39 121
2:13 139. >4- 16:16 138 1:24 123
3:10 29 16:20 136 1:25 124.134
4:3 137 16:21 134 1:27 122
4* »37 16:28 137 1:28 1*3
4:17 134 18:20 142 1:32 122
5:11 137 20:20 137 1=34 122, 123, 124
5:21-22 141 20:30-31 136 1:38-69 122, 124
7:24-27 141 21:5 135.139 i:39 122
8:2 137 21:9 136 1:40 137
8:4 134 21:15 -36 1:43-45 134
8:8 141 22:41-46 136 1:44 124
8:17 139 22:41-45 25 i:45 123
8:20 '37 23 140 2:10 122, 232
9:18 •37 23:10 136 2:20 126
9:27 136 23:34-39 141 2:28 123, 232
10:6 135 24 34 3:6 126
10:23 137 24:5 "36 3:11 123
11-12 »43 24:30 137. 225 3:12 124, 134
11:2-6 232 24:36 138 3:15 122
11:2 136 25:34 136 3:38 126
1i:3 30 25:40 136 4 121
11:5 87 26:2 "37 4:11 121
11:19 33.137.140 26:28 "35 4:26 121
11:25-27 '38 26:31 135 4:30 121
11:27 '38 26:67 "56 5=7 123
11:27a '38 26:68 136 5:15-18 122
262
5:19-20 123 14:41 124 4 155.156

5:19 123 14Ì57-58 128 4:16-30 7.150, 233, 243
5:43 124.134 14:58 241 4:18-19 150
6:12-13 122 14:61-62 129 4:18 154
6:13 122 14:62 232 4:21 151
6:14-29 126 15:2 129 4:23-24 151
6:15 232 15:32 129 4:24 '54
6:29-31 182 15:34 47 4:25-27 151. 243
6:45 124 15:37-39 129 4:34 120
7:1-23 121 15:38 129 4:41 123,146
7:26 122 15:39 129.136 5:8 137
7:36 124.134 16:8 129 5:17-26 »S3
8:9-10 124 5:20 »53
8:26 124 Luke 5:21 153
8:29 122,124 1—2 147 5:23 »53
8:31 125,137, 232 la. 162 5:24 »S3
8:38 127 1:5-2:40 147 6:22 137
9:1 225 1:13 147 7:16 154
9:2-8 248 1:15 147 7:18-23 »53. 233
97 126, 240 1:16-17 147 7:22-23 152
9=9 125 124.147 7:22 »7
9:12 125 1:
3 33I_
14S 7:3S 140
9:38-41 127 1:32-33 148 7:36-50 153
9:38 122, 241 1:32 148 7:39 »54
9:41 130 1:42-45 148 7:47 153
10:17-31 127 1:46-55 243 7:48 153
10:17 I37 1:67 148 7'-49 153
10:30 24O 1:69 148 8:39 123
10:35-45 127 1:71 148 9 7
10:45 232,240 1:77 148 9:1-10 182
1047-48 127. 136 sal 146,148 97-8 155
10:47 241 2:22-24 243 9:15-56 243
10:48 241 2:26 146 9:19 155
11:1-3 127 2:29-32 148 9:20 146,155
11:19 128 2:36-38 148, 243 9:22 163
11:27-33 128 2:41-52 243 9:30 147
11:32 128 2:52 243 9:33 147
12:35-37 128 3:1 »49 9:61-62 243
13 34,128 3:3 149 10:21-22 138
13:21-22 128 3:4-6 149 11:49-51 140
13:26-27 128 3:15 146 13:33-34 154
13:26 225 3:16-17 161 17:25 163
13:33 240 3:17 150 18:7 152
263
19:19-21 243 2:21-22 172 6:38 179.183

20 157 2:22 166,173 6:41-42 176
20:41-44 157 2:23 179 6:42 187
20:41 146,154.157 2:25 16Ó 6:46 183
20:42-43 157 3:2 179 6:49-51 183
21 34 3:14-16 180.181 6:51 180
21:27 225 3:16 175 6:53-58 166,184
22 157 3:17-18 181 6:58 180
2i:65 156.157 3Ü9-21 170 6:69 120
22:67 146.156 327 180 77 175
22:69 156,157 3:3- 181 7:19-23 181
23:2 146 4 178 7:27 178
23:35 146 4:2 166 7:30-31 178
23:39 146 4:15 166 7:31 179
24 30, 233 4:19 178 7-37-39 184,186
24:l6 30 4:25 178 7:38 '73
24:19 154 4:29 178 7:40-44 178
24:21 30 5=1 166 7:40 -78,179
24:25-27 242 5=S 166 7:42 178
24:25-26 31 5:8 181 7:52 178
24:25 158 5:10 176,181 753-8:ii 181
24:26-29 162 5:i3 166 8:30-59 176
24:26 163,146 5:15 179 8:38 160
24:44-49 31,162,242 5:16 181 8:44-45 176
24:46 146,15*.163 5:i7 iSl 8:48-59 176
24:52 •37 5:18 181 9:14-16 181
26:47 159 5:39 181 9:22 176
5:45-47 181 9:28-29 179
lohn 6:4 182 9:28 181, 245
1:2 166 6:14-15 124,176 9:32-33 179
1:14 187 1 6:14 179 9:39 175
1:17 181 6:22-58 182 10:3 170
i:iS 180 6:22-25 182 10:21 1-8.179
1:21 179. 232 1 6:25-58 176 10:24-39 176
1:26-31 179 6:25 182 10:26 170
1:29-51 165 6:26 182 10:28 180
i:45-4ti 166 6:27 180. 182, 183 10:34 179
1:45 105, 187 6:28-29 182 11:25-26 180
2 i«7 6:28 183 11:50-51 180
2:1-5 187 6:30-31 182 12:12-16 173
2:13-22 172 6:30 179 12:12-15 179
2:17 172.173 6:31 179 12:15 173
2:18 179 6:32-58 182 12:16 173
264
12:31 »75 2:25-28 160 20:21 146

13:13 »79 2:30-31 160 24:24 146
13:23 169 2:30 160 26:22 163
13:33 180 2:31 146,16O 26:23 146
13:34 18Ó 2:34-35 160 26:38 210
14—16 245 2:36 146,160,195 28:31 146
14:6 180 2:38 146,160
14:10 180 3:6 146 Romans
14:16-18 184.186 3:17-23 28 1-4 205
14:26 174)186 3:18 146, 161, 163,195 1:1 221
15:18-20 175 3:20 146,161,195 1:3-4 205
16:2 176 3:22-23 244 1:3 162
16:14 186 3:22 232 1:4 160
16:19-20 175 4:10 146 3=9 202
16:28 179 4:25-26 18,161 3:21-26 203, 205, 224
16:33 175 4:26 146 5-8 % I90,198. 201,
16:38 ISO 4:33 146 205
17:12 173 5:15-18 235 5:1-11 206
19:23-35 187 5:42 146 5:1-5 206
19:25-27 187 707 28, 232, 244 5:1-2 206
19:26-27 169 8:5 146 5=6 I95
19:28 173 6:12 146 5:6-11 206
19:31-35 166, 186 8:37 146 5:8 I95
19:34-35 184,188 9:1-5 197 5:12-21 206
19:36 173 9=5 197 5:21 206
19:37 63 9:17 197 6:3 200,203
20-24 169 9:20-22 197 6:4 206
20:2 169 9:22 146 6:10-11 2o6
20:9 173 9:27 197 6:11-13 206
20:17 166 9:34 146 6:14 202
20:21-22 186 10:36 146 6:15 202
20:26-27 166 10:48 146 .6:15-23 206
20:30-31 180,188 11:17 146 6:23 206
20:31 166 11:26 210 7 204, 208
21:7 169 15:26 146 7:1-8:11 207
21:24 186 16:18 146 7:4-6 207
16:23 163 7:12 207
Acts 17:2-3 162 7:14 202
1:6-8 242 17:2 162 7:24-25 207
97 17:3 146,162 8*1-17 206
LO"?
• 11 J .
2U4-36 7.160 18:5 146 207
8:1-2
2U4-21 235 18:28 146 8:3 207
2:17-21 160 19:11-20 241 8:4-7 207
265
8:9 195 1:13-14 196 1:15 200

8:10 207 1:13 196 1:17 200
8:12-39 208 1:15 197 1:27-30 203
8:12-17 208 1:16 197, 207 2:6-11 160
8:26-28 208 1:18-19 195 2:11 200
8:28 208 1:22 200 3:5-6 196
8:30 208 1:23 196 3:6-7 197
8:31-39 206, 208 2:4 200 3=6 196
9:3 200 2:11-14 201 37-8 -97
9:5 162, 20Ü 2:15-21 190,198. 201-5 3-7 200
10:4 247 2:15 202 3:21 207
10:9 20O 2:16 200, 202
12:1-21 206 2:16b 203 Colossians
13:3 200 2:17 200, 203. 204 1:15-20 208
15:7 200 2:18 204 2.T3-15 33
15:8 200 2:19-20 206,207
2:19 204. 205 Titus
1 Corinthians 2:20 197, 206, 207 2:14 224
1:13 200 2:203 205
1:23 196, 200 2:20b 205 Hebrews
8:11 195 2:21 205 1:3 25
9Ü 197 3 26 2:11-18 224
10:4 200 3:10 202 3:6 217, 218
12:13 203 3:13 205 217, 218
3:14
12:23 200 3:14 200 3:21 218
isgff 195 3:16 200 4:15 97
3:26 200 5:1-10:18
15:3 195 218
15:9 3:27 20(1, 203 217
196 5:5
15:22 3:28 200
200 5:6 25
15:24-28 3:29 201
110 6:1 217
202
15:25 25 « 205
7:17-22 219
4:4-5 7:17 25
195. "97
2 Corinthians 4:6 7:21 25
196
3-5 8 5:11 9:4 218
200, 201
3 208 5Î24 9:11 217, 218
20O
3:18 209 6:2 9:14 217
5:16 196,246 9:24 217
5:21 224 Ephesians 9:28 217, 218
4:7-10 33 10:10 217
Gaia lians 6:10-20 34 10:12 217
1-2 8 10:19-13:25 219
1:4 202 Philippians 10:19-22 219
i:i3-i6a 197 1:1 221 11:26 217, 218
266
12:1-17 219 3:19 223 3:9 228

i2:i8-28 219 4:1 223 3:11 172
13:6 217, 218 4:3-4 222 3:14-18 228
13:13-16 219 4:6 223 3:i6 228
13:21 217 4:14 223 4:1-6 188
4:16 127, 210 4:2-3 22s
James 5:1 223 4:3 227
1:1 220 4:4 22s
221 2 Peter 4:7-12 228
ü5
1:9 221 1:1 221, 225 47 228
221 1:2 225 4:10 228
IM
i:iS 221 225 4:12 180
1:4
1:21 221 1:5-6 4Ü7 228
225
221 1:8 225 Su 22?, 228
1:25
1:27 220 1:11 225 5:4 228
2:1 220, 221 1:19 5:4-5 228
225
2:12-13 222 2:1 225 5:6 184,I88
221 2:20 225 5¡6-8 186
4:10
5:18 225
4:12 222 3:11-14 225
5:1 222 3:15-16 224
225
2 John
57 220, 222 3:18
222 7 ?, 9,166, 227, 228
5:9
j John
3 John
1 Peter 1:1-10 228
9-1O 176
1:2 223 1:1 186
1-3-9 224 1:6 228
Jude
1:10-12 33 17 228
1 221, 226
1:14 222 2:2 224. 228
3-4 226
a? 222 2:7 V2 226
4
1:18-20 224 2:13-14 228
1:18 222 2:18-23 228 Revelation
2:4-10 224 2:18 176, 227, 245 2:26 96
Zzi 222 2:19 176 5=5 IO4
2:9-10 222 2:20-27 175 5:i3 99
2:9 222 2:22-23 228 7:10 99
2:11 222 2:22 227 11:15 99
2:12 222 2:23 I77 12:5 9«
2:21 223 2:24 172, 186 12:10 99
2:24 224 2:27 227. 245 19:15 96
2:25 222 2:28 228 20:6 99
3:6 222 3:2-3 228 21:3 99
3:16 223 3-5 228 21:21 99
3:18 224 3:8-10 228 21:22 99
267
PHILO A N D Migr. Abr. OTHER ANCIENT

IOSEPHUS "74 246 WRITERS
Philo Op. Mund.

Suetonius
Quaest in Gen 2.62 20 246
THyus Claudius
(on Gen 9:6) 246
25:11 212
Josephus
tug. Antiquities
246 13.".! 95 Tacitus
101
A/males
15:44 212
268

The Messiah in The Old and New Testaments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Messiah in The Old and New Testaments

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

The Messiah in The Old and New Testaments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Messiah in the

Old and New Testaments

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

G R A N D RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

The McMaster Mew Testament Studies series, edited by Stanley E. Porter, is

Wm. B. Ecrdmans Publishing Co.

Printed in the United States of America

library of Congress Catalogicg-in-Pubbcalion Data

Introduction: The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments

PART I: OLD TESTAMENT AND RELATED PERSPECTIVE

The Messiah; Explorations in the Law and Writings 13

Figuring the Future: The Prophets and Messiah 35

The Messiah in the Qumran Documents 75

Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature

PART I I : NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE

Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew

The Messiah in Luke and Acts: Forgiveness for the Captives

Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology

Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus,

Messianic Themes of Temple, Enthronement, and Victory

The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments: A Response

Index of Modern Authors

Index of Ancient Sources

It was clear thai before attempting to understand the notion of Messiah in

comments of our respondent firmly in mind, been transformed into these

mit Harvard Tfieologtcal Review

S)OT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

MARK J. BODA, Professor of Old Testament, McMaster Divinity College,

S. A. CUMMINS, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Trinity Western

CRAIG A, EVANS, Payzant Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies, Aca­

TREMPER LONGMAN III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies,

I. HOWARD MARSHALL, Honorary Research Professor of New Testament,

STANLEY E. PORTER, President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament,

LoittN T. STUCKENBKUCK, B. E Westcott Professor of Biblical Studies, Uni­

TOM THATCHER, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Cincinnati Chris­

CYNTHIA LONG WESTFALL, Assistant Professor of New Testament,

AL WOLTGRS, Professor of Religion and Theology/Classical Languages, Re­

Qumran messianism by leading Qumran scholars. The first is John Collins

14. Sec footnote 7 above for the full reference.

Mark so that the various christological statements and designations can be

1. In this we follow the prescription of P. P. Jeiison. "Models of Prophetic Prediction

sages that anticipate a future leader of God's people who is connected to a

The Use of the Term M$H

In the Pentateuch, anointing (and the root tnih) is connected to consecra­

Background to the Psalms* Use of

our topic as we will see, David's anointing is mentioned a number of

Psalm 2 as a Coronation Psalm

certainly not the only possible understanding of the contemporary use of

9. Though of course, if it is David» it could not be a coronation song perse, since it

Messianism and the Shape of the Psalter

Now again, let me say that I am looking at Psalm 2 as a single example of a

published dissertation The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter" and numerous

I have already raised some of the many questions we may have

The scepter shall not depart from Judah,

I see him, but not now;

Warrior King and Priest?

11. X D. Alexander. "Messianic Ideology in the Book of Genesis," in Sallerlhwaile et

I saw one like a human being

This fascinating text shares a similar escha to logical hope of future

CRAIG A, EVANS, Payzant Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies, Aca

LoittN T. STUCKENBKUCK, B. E Westcott Professor of Biblical Studies, Uni

TOM THATCHER, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Cincinnati Chris

AL WOLTGRS, Professor of Religion and Theology/Classical Languages, Re

In the Pentateuch, anointing (and the root tnih) is connected to consecra

3. M. Ssba, "Zum Vethaltnis von 'Messianismus' und 'Escharologie' im Alren Testa

These three definitions highlight the difficulty of finding a definitive start

No Old Testament tradition is more closely associated with messianic ex

Alberto Ferreiro's recent publication of the Ancient Christian Commen

functionary streams, Kessler demonstrates that Haggai affirms the endur

Haggai's treatment ofleadership figures is firmly rooted in the historic re

This is obvious in the prophets attack on defiled sacrifices (1:6-14), un

preparation is now spelled out as the prophet is called to a ministry of ei

The books of Haggai-Malachi offer us a perspective on messianic expecta

cantly expanded in the Qumran documents. It can be found in the follow

interprets the "son of man" of Daniel 7 as a préexistent messiah, a tran

some degree, may be thought to provide an added, and previously un