Abstract:
Concerning the imagery and myth of the messianic figure in Jewish listerature. Useful if you want to learn more about the Christ's signifigance in Jewish mythology.

Paper:
Modern Christianity, if it hopes to understand its own ideology and theology, must develop a working understanding of its own Judaic background, and central to that background is the concept of the messiah and his eminent coming. However, it is disheartening to note that the messianic role in Hebraic culture has been analyzed, conceptualized, understood, and misunderstood to such a degree that the reinvention of the messianic figure as a cosmological one has been all but accepted as proper and correct by many modern Christians. This idea of a cosmological messiah, though, does not seem to be based solidly on Old Testament theology, but rather on modern interpretations thereof. An exploration of the fundamental origin of the messianic figure as portrayed in the Old Testament and a tracing of the development of the cultural role of that concept as it changed to suit the changing needs of the Judaic community needs to be initiated in order to glean an understanding of the basis for Christian faith: the messiah as personified in Jesus Christ.

Before an analysis of the cultural role of the messiah can properly begin, the term messiah must be understood. The expression comes from the Hebraic word Mashiah which can be loosely translated as "anointed one." This can be gathered from both a philological study of the ancient Hebrew language and, barring that, by reading John 1:41 which prosaically discusses exactly what the word means. A messianic figure, then, is a person who has been anointed within the context of the Judaic faith. According to most accounts in the bible this involved a ritual where, among other things, oil is spread over the individual. The messianic figures identified in the Old Testament also seemed to share one other common trait---they had an aspect of importance and meaning; that is, they all had a role to play for the Jewish people. The messianic figure was not only an anointed individual, but also an individual with a purpose to the people of God. The question then becomes, what purpose, or cultural role, did the messianic figure play?

In the beginning, the kings of the ancient Near East were anointed as a matter of standard practice. In the book of Judges, verses 9:8, and 9:15, the bland commonality associated with the anointing of a king becomes evident. This anointing was considered the norm and thus was not treated as special. 1 Samuel 10:1, where Samuel pours the oil over the head of Saul and thereby "The Lord [anoints him] ruler over His people Israel," is a further illustration of this standardized anointing of the king of a people. Here, though, this anointing has begun to take a significance beyond simple rulership. Samuel explains to Saul that he has a purpose for the people of Israel. He is to "save them from the hand of their enemies all around . . . This shall be the sign to [Saul] that the Lord has anointed [him] ruler." Later David was anointed as ruler in much the same manner (2 Samuel 2:4 and 2 Samuel 5:3). At this time, however, kings were not the only persons anointed. Exodus 29:7 gives an account of Aaron, a priest, being anointed and 1 Kings 19:16 gives an additional account of Elisha the prophet being anointed. There are instances where non-kings were anointed throughout the Old Testament and the ramifications of this will be discussed later, but nonetheless, earlier on, the anointing, though practiced with some leeway as to the recipient, was primarily a ceremony associated with the rulership of Israel. As this anointing ritual became more and more popular, the ruler of Israel became known as "the Lord's anointed," as is evident in 1 Samuel 16:6 and 24:6. Eventually the term "the anointed one" became standard when referring to the king. As of yet, however, the bible did not use the word Mashiah---or Messiah---to refer to a particular person, instead it was only used adjectivally to further designate an individual or group of individuals.

During the reign of King David, a message came from the oracle of Nathan which established the house of David as the de facto ruler to the people of God (2 Samuel 7:16). This was a dramatically momentous event in the role of the anointing ritual. Psalms 2:6-9 further pronounces the divine authority of the House of David as follows:

'I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.'
I will tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to me, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.
Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron,
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.' (Psalms 2:6-9)

As explained in this passage, the king of Israel, and thus the descendants of King David, seemed to have a particularly special place in the religion of that people. He was thereafter, it appears, a "son" of Yahweh which would grant him a significance beyond mere kingship by might and give him a divine authority.

Though it was not apparent at the onset of this tradition, this laid the foundation for the later and more matured concept of the messianic hope. There had already been a messianic hope of sorts in that the anointed persons were linked to the hope of Israel. Genesis 49:10 talks of a ruler who will come and command "the obedience of the people." Already the Old Testament began to portend the eminent coming of a great ruler. Numbers 24:17 further explains that a "scepter" (a common symbol of rulership) "shall rise out of Israel; It shall crush the borderlands of Moab, and the territories of all the Shethites." This earlier concept of messianic hope appeared to take shape as a result of the people of Israel's desire for a victory over Moab and Edom. Interestingly, this prophecy later became a reality under King David as explained in 2 Samuel 8:2 and 8:3-14. This early messianic hope was still a dynastic messianism, meaning that it was tied to the King of the Israelites, and later to the descendants of David (Psalms 89:4, 89:17, 132:10, 132:17). The messianic hope as portrayed in the Old Testament always reflected the cultural needs of the people of Israel. Until the visions of the prophet Isaiah focused the messianic image and its purpose to one main cause, the messianic hope was constantly revamped as the need arose to accomplish a specific and daunting task. Overall, this messiah was a political leader who would bring power and dignity to the Israelites and coalesce these people into a single nation under God. This coalescence would become more vital after the Diaspora when the Judaic people were split into various groups.

It was Isaiah who turned this dynastic and indistinct (in purpose) messianic idea into a true messianic hope for an ideal king with a specific task; a task which would not change as cultural needs did. There would still be messiahs and these messiahs would fulfill the immediate needs of the Israelites, but thereafter there would be the expectation of another messiah who would be special in every way. Isaiah 9:2-7 describes this new messiah as one who will lift the "yoke of [the Israelites'] burden"; who will break the "rod of their oppressor"; and who will "establish and uphold" a kingdom "with justice and with righteousness . . . forevermore." This messiah, envisioned by Isaiah, would possess the qualities and traits which the Israelites considered great; "wisdom and understanding", "council and might", and a "knowledge and fear of the Lord." Additionally, the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) attaches "piety" to this list of attributes. The qualities of this messiah are detailed in the book of Isaiah 11:1-9. This new conceptualization of a more prominent messiah is reverberated in several passages, including Isaiah 55:3-5, Jeremiah 23:1-8 (especially 5-6), Micah 5:2-6, Hosea 3:5, Amos 9:11-15, and many others.

This is still a dynastic messianism as evidenced by the prophesies of the oracle of Nathan to David (see 1 Chronicles 17:10-14), but this kingly messiah soon became more intimate, more humbled. In Zechariah 9:9, this messiah is depicted unassumingly riding on a young donkey---quite unbecoming of the grand messiah and future king of the Israelites. He was not the militant warrior king but a messenger of peace with divine authority. This sparked another transformation in the image of the messianic ideal. The messianic references in the book of the prophet, Isaiah, and others are not contradicted but reexamined through this new lens of peace. Examples of this reinterpretation can be found in Psalms. Exegesis of the scriptures provides a much different picture when viewed from this new perspective. The eminent messiah was still looked on as the great hope of the people of Israel, and he was still believed to be a king with all the qualities appertaining thereunto, but he was also a peaceful messenger of God with all the glory associated therewith. He was a bringer of hope and mercy, not war. This concept paved the way for the basis of New Testament belief.

As the idea of the Davidic messiah took shape, so too did other messianic parallel ideas come into being. Beginning with a more liberal exercising of the messianic title, the book of Habakkuk, verse 3:13, suggests that the anointed was either a king or possibly the nation under that king. The text is notably ambiguous on this point. Psalms 2:2 and 28:8 are both a great deal clearer in naming the people of Israel to be the anointed. Other examples of this liberal usage of the messianic title include its use on the gentile king Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), on a prophet (Isaiah 61:1), and apparently on the founding fathers of the faith such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Psalms 105:15). Exodus 30:22-33 describes the making of a sacred anointing oil and its subsequent use to anoint not only the priest Aaron but, even more unusually, objects, so that they might be anointed as a king (or in this case a priest) would be. The anointing was performed on the tent of meeting, the ark of the covenant, an altar of burnt offering, and other items in this text. This liberal usage of the messianic title began the application of the anointing as a way of consecrating not kings, but the high priests of Israel. The tale of the anointing of Aaron is retold in Leviticus 8:12 and again in Psalms 133:2. Since this priestly anointing takes place after the captivity of Israel, the idea of a king is nearly moot. The high priests rose in social power to become the default rulers of the Judaic people. After the captivity and subsequent exile, the Israelites had no king. As a semblance of order was regained, the Judaic people began to look back, reminiscently, to the age of Davidic messianism for their hope. Until this, however, the hope of Israel, that Israel would be delivered from its enemies and attain a position of respect and power in the world, lay with their faith, and thus their temple worship. Whereas the kingly messiah is defined as being of the lineage of David, the priestly messiah is linked to the dynasty of Aaron.

These two main parallel developments, that of the kingly and the priestly messiah, continue to evolve separately until much later when scripture links them together through the "sons of oil", Zerubbabel and Joshua. Zechariah 6:9-15 establishes Zerubbabel as the political king over Israel and its kingly messiah (as evidenced by the reference to the branch which signifies messianism throughout the bible) and also establishes Joshua as high priest of the people with a messianic authority of his own. Here, for the first time, it appears that the vague role and purpose of the messianic figure as detailed differently throughout the Old Testament becomes focused as through a lens. This view of a double-messiah is similar, it appears, to the views of the Essenes at Qumran who also expected both a priestly and royal messiah (The Manual of Discipline ix:9, The Zadokite Document vi:10, vii:21, and others). Though Zechariah 6:9-15 seems to be intended for both "sons of oil", the people of Israel seem to latch onto Zerubbabel as the fulfillment of the prophesies of messianic hope. The remainder of the book of Zechariah is ripe with references to events that would fulfill the prophesy. The restoration of Israel, the destruction of Israel's enemies, and other such discussions indicate a preoccupation with the eminent coming, or current arrival, of the Lord's messiah.

Other themes associated with, but not directly related to, the messianic figure were being developed concurrently. The medium of the deliverance of the Israelites was not always a messianic one. Sometimes the direct intervention of God is suggested, as in Isaiah 40:3-5, Isaiah 34-35, and many other scriptural passages in the book of Isaiah. Other times, there is another mediator of salvation, separate from the Davidic messiah, referred to as a "servant" of Yahweh in whom the "spirit" of the Lord is placed. Though there are great similarities between this and the Davidic or even priestly messiah, there is no evidence to suggest that they are the same individual. In fact it could be argued that this "servant" is a reference to the nation of Israel as a whole, and not an individual as the scripture states. Though the true nature and identity of this Servant is in question, there can be no doubt that he does possess certain attributes that had previously been reserved for the messiah. Daniel 7:13-14 introduces yet another character into the eschatological fray. "One like a human being" (or according to the Aramaic version, "one like a son of man") would come from heaven and establish a Kingdom of God in place of the kingdoms of earth at the end of days, and his dominion, according to the text, shall be everlasting. Here again, a figure, who is not the messiah described elsewhere, has come into the story and usurped some of the authority of the messianic figure who, as explained in other scriptures, was meant to rule over the people of Israel in an equally everlasting kingdom at the end of days. Other figures with messianic qualities show themselves in some of the apocryphal literature. Ethiopian Enoch, for instance, portrays an individual who appears to be the fruit of some messianic prophesies, but this figure does not possess all the attributes of the one prophesied. The Enochian figure is not to suffer as the other messianic ideals are foretold to do. Also, interestingly, the figure mentioned in Enoch shares the title "elect" with the Servant of the Lord discussed earlier (Isaiah 40:3-5, etc . . .). 2 Esdras 7:28-29 deviates from the standard by emphasizing a messiah who is superhuman. This messiah portends the end of everything as it is currently known and heralds the coming of a new order which will rise from the ashes of the old. Of course in this new order the Judaic people are no longer oppressed. This messianic figure, again, does not have any direct relationship to the Davidic or priestly messiah mentioned elsewhere. He does possess similar characteristics and duties, but there is no indication that they are one and the same.

Several messianic concepts arose throughout the Old Testament to combat specific socio-political ills which plagued the Israelites. These messiahs took many forms. The messiah described by the prophet Isaiah was a human one (Isaiah 9:2-7). He was a man who would suffer and die for the rest of his people (Isaiah 53:3-12). The book of Daniel discusses a superhuman who would fulfill the needs that the messiah, in other books, was foretold to fulfill (Daniel 7:13-14). This figure, some would say, may have been an angel of the Lord come to rescue the Lord's people. The book of Zechariah describes a dual messianism with both a priestly and a kingly messiah ruling side-by-side in God's name and with His grace (Zechariah 6:9-15). No matter what form the messiah took, his main function was to alleviate the Jews from the problems facing them at any given point in their history. Primarily, this task involved the deliverance of the Israelites from their captors, whoever those captors may have been (Isaiah 9:2-7). This desire for deliverance was the fundamental driving force behind the development and evolution of the messianic figure in the Old Testament.

So then it seems that the messianic figure of Old Testament revelation and theology was principally a political figure and not a cosmological one. There is only one reference to a cosmological figure with messianic qualities in the standard Old Testament books (Daniel 7:13). The figure presented there, however, does not seem to be the messiah as envisioned by Isaiah or the other prophets, but instead is a heavenly figure who is fulfilling messianic duties. The messiah talked about and hoped for by the Old Testament is first and foremost a human one---a man who would , through the anointing, be possessed of the full grace of the divine spirit (Isaiah 11:1-9).

A basic timeline of the evolution of the messianic figure can be constructed through a thorough examination of the scriptures. In the earliest parts of the bible, the Lord, Himself, was the primary intervener on behalf of the Israelites. Later, there was a shift to a kingly succession of messiahs. These kings are all anointed and it is explained that they have a part to play in God's plan which will raise the nation of Israel to a higher status. Through the captivity and subsequent exile of the Israelites, the idea of a messiah through kingly succession was stamped out. Here the obligation of the messianic duties, that of propagating and building a strong nation of Israel, fell to its own people. Eventually, the messianic focus shifted to the priests of the people who began to have some authority over them. During the post-exilic period, when people had fond memories of the monarchy, the idea of a kingly messiah was brought back to the forefront of theological thought. This time, however, the coming of a messiah greater than any other was prophesied. This grand messiah would be from the line of King David. This new messianic figure was different from all others before him in that he was to be imbued with the fullness of the divine spirit and was to be an emissary, in the flesh, to the people of the world from the Judaic god, Yahweh. This messiah would resolve the problems of the nation of Israel permanently by establishing a kingdom of God on earth which everyone, by virtue of its existence, would be forced to respect, revere, and apparently join. This new messiah was to be different in many ways. Among them, he was to demonstrate the qualities of both king and priest. This began to account for the idea of the messiah as the path of atonement for the Israelites. At times, this messiah was thought to be two separate individuals, and other times he was thought of as a single being with the qualities of both.

The idea of the messiah was altered to suit the periodic social needs of the Judaic people many times throughout the Old Testament, making it quite difficult for scholars to define a single messianic concept. There has been the concept of a priestly messiah, a heavenly servant of Yahweh, and a son of man. Throughout all these permutations, the kingly messiah has been the glue trying to hold them together as one concept. There is no canonical evidence to suggest that the people of Israel tried to focus this blurred image. It seemed impossible to do so until Jesus came into being. He fulfilled all messianic expectations to a degree which the Judaic people could not have imagined. He acted as a focus of these concepts by being a spiritual leader (the priestly messiah), the Son of God (the servant of Yahweh), the self-proclaimed Son of Man, and beyond all that, the King of the Jews. Jesus, the central figure of Christian faith, untangled the competing lines of messianic imagery and defined, for the Christian faith, what was meant by these prophesies and the messianic hope. Jesus' life was, according to the Christian faith, the consummation of Old Testament prophesy. He was not a cosmological figure, but a human one who suffered and died for His, and our, faith. "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet" (Matthew 1:22).

Works Cited

Other Works Consulted

Abstract:
Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relationship to Christianity. Not my most academic work, this paper fits the assignment given and offers some useful tidbits.

Paper:
As I stood at the check out line at the grocery store the other day, my friend and I spotted an article in the Weekly World News titled "Did Jesus Write the Dead Sea Scrolls?" This sparked an interesting discussion in which she informed me that several members of our congregation had been concerned that they should be familiarizing themselves with these "Dead Sea Scrolls" since they seemed to unlock some hidden Christian secrets. Certainly I can understand this notion, since every check-out-line newspaper seems intent upon drawing a connection between Christianity and these scrolls. Even the Discovery Channel has joined the fray with its own mini-series in which certain academic individuals were heard to claim such things as "Jesus inspired and/or founded the Qumran community (the community which apparently wrote the scrolls)." For these reasons, I have decided to address the issue here so as to stem the flow of wild speculation and hopefully give each of you a clearer understanding of the relationship of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Christendom.

To begin I should discuss briefly what the Dead Sea Scrolls are and what they are not. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of writings found near Qumran at a site in which archeological evidence suggests there existed a community of Hebrew people. Many scholars believe that the Hebrews living there were of the Essene sect of Judaism. That is to say, they were a monastic group living an ascetic life of purity in the cliffs of the Qumran area. The Essenes chose this way of life because of a conscious decision on their part to break away from the temple and the wickedness that they associated with the more social lifestyles of other Jewish sects. While at the Qumran site, it is believed by many scholars, they wrote and stored the texts that we would later call the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those texts can be divided into three primary categories: biblical, pseudopigrapha, and sectarian (Barnstone, 201).

The biblical scrolls are those that were found to be early copies of books found in the Old Testament. Among the fragments recovered from the various Qumran caves, archeologists have found pieces of every book in the Old Testament except for Ester. The pseudopigraphical texts consist of Jewish writing not found in the Old Testament such as Enoch and the Genesis Apocryphon. The last genre of writings found, the sectarian texts, are those works which detail the rules and dictates of the Qumran community. Examples of this include the Manual of Discipline and the Zadokite Document---both of which give written accounts of the rules and mores of the residents of the community. All told, nearly ten full scrolls have been discovered in the caves as well as thousands of scroll fragments (c.f., Barnstone, 201).

Now that you've been given a crash course in Dead Sea Scroll lore, it may help to try to understand why so many people relate these documents to Christianity. Are there any real and direct correlations between the two? Some would say yes---though for varying reasons. Some of these people would claim that Jesus was an Essene himself or at least closely tied to the Essene sect. They cite prove such as theological similarities between the two. Both renounced the worldly aspects of life and both seemed to hold what the temple had become as an anathema to the Jewish faith. Both, it might seem, emphasized the corruption of the world in general. But upon closer examination of the information, fundamental differences begin to show themselves. Jesus, by all accounts in the New Testament, did not live an ascetic lifestyle, not did he entirely renounce the world. Jesus ate healthily and enjoyed his wine as well. He seems to have purposefully sought out persons of a worldly nature to accompany him (tax collectors, "harlots", etc...). Perhaps the most fundamental way in which the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus differ is in their approach to dealing with the anathema of the world. The Qumran people clearly sought to distance themselves from it physically and spiritually. They moved to the desert away from the temptations of society to set up an exclusive community of like-minded individuals who would support the ascetic way of life for which they were striving. Spiritually they distanced themselves through theology that set them apart from the non-followers:

All who do not lift a hand against his holy statutes and his righteous judgements and his true testimonies; who are instructed in the former judgements with which the men of the community were judged; who give ear to the voice of a teacher of righteousness and do not reject the statutes of righteousness when they hear them---they shall rejoice and be glad, and their hearts shall be strong, and they shall prevail over all the sons or the world, and God will forgive them, and they shall see his salvation, because they have taken refuge in his holy name. (The Damascus Document, 230-231)

Whereas the Qumran community thought of their relationship to the sinners of the world as a war (c.f., The War of the Sons of Light With the Sons of Darkness, 235ff.), Jesus preached that it was a mission. Christians were told to reach these people with the message of communal salvation as opposed to retreating from them to work on personal salvation. The analogy of the circle of witness might be an appropriate way to demonstrate the difference. In Christianity, the faith community is in a continuous cycle that moves from a proclamation of the Holy Spirit to the shared fellowship of the community as manifest through worship and praise. At that point it also moves to an external sharing through missionary witnessing to those not in the faith which keeps the faith from becoming exclusive. From there it moves to guidance and training and to further inspiration or edification and finally back to the proclamation of the Holy Spirit. This circle of witness is at the heart of Christian self-understanding. Not so with the Qumran community! Their self-identity is rooted not in their relationship to external communities but rather to the internal community (to the exclusion of others). This is a strong difference which betrays Jesus as a man who's beliefs, at heart, do not mesh with those of the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls---that is the Essenes, if we are to accept popular scholarly opinion.

There are other scholars, seeking to synchronize Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, who would point to the strong messianic imagery found in many of the documents as proof of their "Christianhood". In fact, one could hardly argue the basic premise here. There is a strong interest in the messiah and messianic salvation in the Qumran literature that we've recovered. The Manual of Discipline (ix:9), The Zadokite Document (vi:10, vii:21) and other references talk about a messianic savior. Phrases like the "Son of Man" are used (The Manual of Discipline, 222), purposefully evoking Messianic imagery. While most Christians (myself included) find these Jewish messianic texts fascinating, we must not forget to take two evaluative factors into account when examining their relationship to Christianity.

First, for the most part, the Qumran authors did not possess the same understanding of the messiah that the Christian community has come to accept. Rather than a single messianic figure, they envisioned a dual messiah. In the Qumran tradition, it seems common to refer to two separate messiahs---a priestly one and a kingly one. Take a look at the following passage for an example of this:

...but they shall be judged by the first judgements which the men of the community began to be disciplined, until there shall come a prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. (The Manual of Discipline, 218)

Here the author is making mention of a messiah to fulfill the priestly duties from the line of Aaron of the Old Testament and a messiah to rule, as a king, the nation of Israel. Whatever differences Christians may have between each other, we do share the common understanding of the messiah as manifest in one person---Jesus Christ. The Qumran community did not share this view.

The second point to consider when evaluating the messianic imagery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that this is not an anomaly in Jewish history. The Old Testament and Apocrypha are ripe with references to an imminent Messiah (Genesis 49:10, Numbers 24:17, Isaiah 9:2-7, Isaiah 11:1-9, Isaiah 55:3-5, Jeremiah 23:1-8 [especially 5-6], Micah 5:2-6, Hosea 3:5, Amos 9:11-15, Zechariah 9:9, Daniel 7:13-14, 2 Esdras 7:28-29 and many other passages) and so references to a messiah in the Judaic Qumran literature is not exceptional. The Jewish community generally believed in a messianic figure to come---the Qumran community was not alone in this. It is, in fact, this messianic expectation which gave Christian faith the ability to exist. Without that Jewish background, Christianity would've been an anomaly at best and non-existent at worse. Yet it is important to note that Neither the Old Testament nor any of the recovered Qumran texts, however, make any explicit reference to Jesus as such---no matter what you may have read in a previous issue of the National Inquirer.

That point brings me to the final question to be asked. Are there any legitimate ties between Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls? The answer is yes. They are a valuable piece of Jewish history. That is enough of a reason for any Christian to want to study them. Jesus was a Jew. His followers were Jewish. A great many of the people to whom he preached were Jewish. It is invaluable for us, as Christians, to come to grips with our own Jewish religious heritage. We did not spring from nothingness. We are the result of an ancient Jewish faith. So were the Qumran people. Were they Christian? No, but they were as Jewish as Jesus was. If we are ever fully to understand our own Christianity we must understand the Judaism which we came from. Much like modern Christianity is divided into denominations and sects, ancient Judaism was too. Also like modern Christianity they were not just aware of their differences, they were acutely aware of their similarities. They all had a Jewish identity. To an extent, so do we. The Qumran authors, be they Essene or otherwise, are as much a part of our past as the Pharisees, the Sadduccees, or the Zealots. All have helped to brings Judaism and Christianity to the point that it's at now. To ignore the Jewish side of our heritage is to know only in part. To embrace and try to understand our Jewishness is to begin to know fully. What better goal to have as Christians than that?