The Messianic Hope

Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?

Michael Rydelnik

• Publisher: B&H Academic
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780805446548
• eBook ISBN: 9781433672972
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

In The Messianic Hope, book six of the New American Commentary Studies in Bible & Theology series, Jewish Studies professor Michael Rydelnik puts forth a thesis that the Old Testament was intended by its authors to be read as a messianic primer. He explains at length how the text reveals significant direct messianic prophecy when read in its final form. Users will find this topical study an excellent extension of the long-respected New American Commentary series.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION: WHY MESSIANIC PROPHECY IS IMPORTANT

Why write a book advocating the idea that the Hebrew Bible is messianic?¹ Since Jesus told his disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44), it would seem obvious to affirm the messianic nature of the Hebrew Bible. But this is not the case. Although few evangelicals² would deny that there are some direct messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, it is becoming increasingly popular to reject the idea that the Hebrew Bible has specific predictions of the Messiah. Instead, evangelical scholarship tends to affirm that the messianic prophecies are merely a form of general promise. Frank Thielman writes that “the difficulty in seeing such texts as references to the Messiah and the circumstances of his life seems to demand some other approach.” He then goes on to endorse “promise” as opposed to prediction as the most valid.³

Thielman’s is not a lone voice. There is a growing movement by evangelicals away from interpreting the Hebrew Bible as a messianic book. In this chapter, I will begin by defining some significant terms, such as what I mean by the word Messiah and the terms historical interpretation and literary interpretation. Then I will attempt to demonstrate the evangelical shift away from interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures as messianic. Having done that, I will present the reasons that it remains crucial to maintain a messianic understanding of the Hebrew Bible.

The Definitions of Key Terms

Since this book is about messianic prophecy, it is imperative to understand the meaning of the word Messiah. Further, since it is about how messianic texts should be interpreted, it is also essential to define the terms historical interpretation and literary interpretation.

The Meaning of “Messiah”

The Hebrew word

(mashiach) is commonly and accurately translated as “anointed.” It is used 39 times in the Hebrew Bible, generally with another noun, such as “the anointed priest.” The word also has a technical meaning, commonly translated as “the Messiah” and defined by W. H. Rose as “a future royal figure sent by God who will bring salvation to God’s people and the world and establish a kingdom characterized by features such as peace and justice.”⁴ It has become somewhat of an accepted scholarly opinion that the technical term “Messiah” (the Anointed One) did not develop until the period of the Second Temple.⁵ Even if this is correct, as Rose points out, it is unnecessary “to conclude on this basis that one can speak of messianic expectations properly only after a particular word was used to refer to the person at the center of these expectations.”⁶

Alternatively, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. correctly asserts that the Old Testament does indeed use the word “anointed” in its technical sense of “Messiah” at least nine times out of its thirty-nine usages, citing 1 Sam 2:10,35; Ps 2:2; 20:6; 28:8; 84:9; Hab 3:13; Dan 9:25,26.⁷ I would also add 2 Sam 22:51; 23:1; and Ps 89:51 to Kaiser’s list. Moreover, “Messiah” is not the only or most common designation for this future royal figure. Some of the other terms used for this king include “the Branch,” “the Holy One,” and “the Servant of the Lord.” In this work, I am not limiting the discussion of the Messiah only to those passages that use the exact Hebrew term

, but I include all terms and passages relating to that future royal figure as “messianic.”

The Meaning of Historical and Literary Interpretation

Biblical scholars come at the issue of interpretation from a variety of presuppositions and approaches. While critical scholarship has, by and large, abandoned biblical inspiration and adopted methodologies such as source criticism, form criticism, and tradition history, evangelical scholarship has maintained a commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. In their struggle to determine the meaning of biblical texts, some evangelical scholars have adopted a historical reading of the text that often minimizes direct messianic prophecy. In rejecting this sort of historical interpretation, I do not mean to indicate that there is no historical dimension to a biblical text or that the historical events did not happen. I fully affirm the historicity of Scripture. Rather, throughout this book, what I mean by a historical reading or historical interpretation is biblical interpretation that is constrained to find the referents of Old Testament prophecy within the historical confines of the prophet’s own time.

In contrast to the historical interpretation of the Bible, there is a growing movement among some biblical scholars to approach the text of Scripture by focusing not upon how the text developed historically but rather upon its final canonical form. As a result of carefully examining the compositional strategies of the biblical authors themselves and reading Scripture according to its final form and in conjunction with its innerbiblical interpretations, there is a growing tendency to see the Old Testament as an eschatological, messianic text. In my judgment, this method takes a far more literary approach to a text, looking for the meaning of the author’s words. As a result, biblical prophetic texts finds their referents in the distant future, with a messianic or eschatological fulfillment. This method of literary interpretation is the approach I am attempting to adopt in this book.⁸

The Shift Away from Messianic Interpretation

Although evangelical scholarship still recognizes that there is something messianic about the Hebrew Bible, for the most part it sees it as a story that finds its climax in Jesus, not as predictions that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled. As such, it is becoming quite common to state that biblical authors did not have an intentional messianic meaning. For example, noted evangelical Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman III writes, “It is impossible to establish that any passage in its original literary and historical context must or even should be understood as portending a future messianic figure.”⁹

Klyne Snodgrass, in his explanation of the New Testament’s use of the Old writes, “The early church applied such texts to Jesus because of their conviction about his identity. The conviction about his identity did not derive from the Old Testament. They found Jesus and then saw how the Scriptures fit with him.” He goes on to say that it would be better to view Jesus as the climax rather than the fulfillment of the Scriptures.¹⁰

Larry W. Hurtado posits that out of the postexilic biblical hope for a renewed Davidic monarchy, Jews began to look for “a future agent (‘messiah’) to be sent by God, usually to restore Israel’s independence and righteousness.” This expectation did not derive from the predictions of the Hebrew Bible but rather grew out of the hopes of the post-biblical Hellenistic age. He maintains that “recent research suggests, however, that ancient Jewish eschatological expectations of deliverance and sanctification of the elect did not always include the explicit or prominent anticipation of a ‘messiah.’ ”¹¹

The minimization of direct prediction is reflected not only by such general statements, but also specific expositions of texts that were previously viewed as directly messianic. For example, evangelical scholar John H. Walton rejects the messianic interpretation of Genesis 3:15, which speaks of the woman’s seed striking the head of the serpent and the serpent striking the woman’s seed. Although this has long been thought to speak of the Messiah’s defeat of the enemy and thus has been considered the first messianic prediction, Walton maintains that the verse only affirms a struggle between good and evil that will “continue unabated.”¹² While recognizing that this is not the “traditional interpretation of the passage,”¹³ he proceeds to ask, “How can we identify a passage as messianic if the Old Testament context offers no such support for such an interpretation either conceptually or textually, and the New Testament suggests no fulfillment connections?”¹⁴

Deuteronomy 18:15–19, a passage which speaks of a future prophet like Moses, is another example of a passage that has long been held to be directly, or at least progressively messianic, but that in recent years has been rejected as such by evangelical scholars. Daniel I. Block argues that “the literary context of Deut. 18:15 provides no hint whatsoever that Moses’ original hearers should have understood his prediction of a prophet like himself either eschatologically or messianically.” Nor does he find any support for the messianic interpretation in Moses’ epitaph written in Deut 34:10–12 or in the New Testament. Instead, he maintains, “It is preferable to interpret this text primarily as a prediction of either the continued existence of the institution of prophecy or a succession of prophets, rather than as a prediction of an eschatological messianic prophet.”¹⁵ Longman concurs with this opinion when he writes, “Deuteronomy 18 understood within its ancient context may be perfectly explainable in terms of the rise of the prophetic movement and prophets like Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and so on.”¹⁶

Another case where evangelical scholarship seems to have shifted is with Psalm 110, in which David announces, “This is the declaration of the Lord to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool,’ ” and that “the Lord has sworn an oath [to “my Lord”] and will not take it back: ‘Forever, You are a priest like Melchizedek’ ” (Ps 110:4). In times past, Delitzsch called this psalm “prophetico-Messianic” and affirmed that “the future Messiah stands objectively before the mind of David.”¹⁷ However, evangelical scholar Herbert W. Bateman IV has rejected the idea that David spoke of the future Messiah as his Lord but instead has argued that the psalm is directed to David’s son Solomon. He writes, “Thus it seems reasonable that Psalm 110 refers to Solomon’s second coronation in 971 B.C. when David abdicated his throne to his son Solomon” and that “David did not speak the psalm to the Messiah, the divine Lord.”¹⁸

Just one more example will suffice to demonstrate this trend of interpretation. One of the most well-known passages about the birth of the divine Messiah is Isa 9:6–7. It describes the birth of the Son of David, announces his throne titles as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace,” and promises that he will rule from the throne of David over an eternal kingdom of justice and peace. Evangelical scholar Paul D. Wegner understands this not as referring to the divine titles of the Son of David but rather as indicating a theophoric name. He states, “The name would then be translated as ‘a wonderful planner [is] the mighty God; the Father of eternity [is] a prince of peace [or well-being].’ ” Although Wegner recognizes that Isaiah is speaking of a future deliverer, he nonetheless alleges that, “This deliverer does not correspond exactly to the later concept of the Messiah which included a restoration of the Davidic dynasty and an eschatological perspective.”¹⁹

Many more examples could have been presented because evangelical scholarship has so readily rejected direct predictions of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. In a thoughtful essay, Gordon McConville has articulated the issue at hand. According to McConville, “Modern Old Testament scholarship has been largely informed by the belief that traditional Christian messianic interpretations of Old Testament passages have been exegetically indefensible.”²⁰ He traces this to S. Mowinckel, the Old Testament scholar who argued that the “original meanings had nothing to do with the hope of deliverance by an eschatological Messiah.”²¹ Mowinckel posited that there was no preexilic messianism in Israel, a claim rejected by some but accepted by many others, including evangelicals...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Dedication
• Other Books in Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Abbreviations
• Series Preface
• Author Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 5
• Chapter 6
• Chapter 7
• Chapter 8
• Chapter 9
• Chapter 10
• Chapter 11
• Chapter 12
• Bibliography
• Name Index
• Subject Index
• Scripture Index