The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament

102.

The Messiah and His Titles

MICHAEL A. RYDELNIK 

This is a book about the Messiah in the Old Testament. Although it has become accepted in critical scholarship that the term Messiah has no technical usages in the OT and that the concept of a messianic deliverer did not develop until the second century BC,¹ this book has taken a decidedly different direction. It affirms, along with many outstanding biblical scholars, that there indeed was a clearly intended messianic message in the Hebrew Bible.²

But where should this study of OT messianism begin? It seems necessary, before addressing any other subject or passage, to be clear about the subject—to understand what is meant about the Messiah. Therefore, this article will address two foundational elements of this entire study. First, it will seek to develop a biblical, theological definition of the word Messiah. Then, it will examine some (though not all) of the other titles the OT uses for this individual.

THE MEANING OF THE MESSIAH 

At the outset, it is imperative to define the term Messiah as it is used throughout this entire book. So this section will examine a number of biblical ideas and passages that describe the Messiah, and then it will articulate a biblical, theological definition derived from that examination.

A BIBLICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSIAH 

The Messiah is described in the Bible beginning with the word Messiah or Anointed One, and then in a variety of other ways. All of the following provide a portrait of the future messianic figure.

A Consecrated Person. The Hebrew root of the word Messiah is the verb mashach, meaning to rub or smear. For example, it is used of rubbing oil on a shield (Isa 21:5) or smearing paint on a wall (Jer 22:14). The verb is also used of smearing oil or anointing objects used in worship such as an altar (Gn 31:13), the tent of meeting (Ex 30:26), and the tabernacle and all that is in it (Ex 40:9-11). These texts indicate that the purpose of this anointing was to consecrate or set apart these items for use in worshiping God. The adjectival noun form of the word is used 39 times in the OT and exclusively with living beings. The noun and verb are both used of people, such as the anointed priest (Lv 4:3), anointing a king (2Sm 2:4; 5:3), or anointing a prophet (1Kg 19:16). It indicates that all these were consecrated to serve God. Even a pagan king (Cyrus) is called anointed because, in His providence, God consecrated (set apart) Cyrus to serve in bringing the people of Israel and Judah back from captivity (Isa 45:1).

With regard to the technical use of the term Messiah or Anointed One to refer to an eschatological Deliverer, it is commonly understood to be somewhat rare in the OT. Most will acknowledge that Dan 9:25-26 ("until Messiah the Prince; The Messiah will be cut off) and Ps 2:2 (the LORD and His Anointed One) use the term Mashiach" to refer to this end-of-days Redeemer. W. C. Kaiser, Jr. indicates six additional OT uses of the technical sense of Messiah (1Sm 2:10, 35; Ps 20:6; 28:8; 84:9; Hab 3:13).³ Some additional technical usages are 2Sm 22:51; 23:1; and Ps 89:51. Thus, in the narrow sense, the word Messiah is referring to an individual, uniquely consecrated to the service of God. However, since other passages of the OT reveal more about this figure, the definition of the term must go beyond this narrow definition.

A King from the Line of David. In addition to being consecrated to God’s service, the Messiah is viewed as a royal figure. This first becomes apparent in Gn 49:10, where the scepter and the ruler’s staff are promised to the royal descendant of Judah, He whose right it is.⁴ This is developed further in the Davidic covenant, where David is promised a seed or offspring, a royal heir of his house, who would have an eternal house, kingdom, and throne (2Sm 7:12-16). Isaiah also promised a divine child who would rule over a vast dominion and reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom (Isa 9:6-7 [5-6]). According to Isaiah, this King will be established in the tent of David (Isa 16:5). Amos anticipated the fall of the Davidic house and foresaw this King coming when God restores the fallen booth of David (Am 9:11-12). These passages, and in particular the Davidic covenant, reveal that the future Redeemer will be a royal figure, a King from the line of David.

The Servant of the Lord. Although the Scriptures present the future Redeemer as a King, the prophet Isaiah also depicts Him as the Servant of the Lord. This is His title in the Servant Songs of Isaiah (Isa 42:1-13; 49:1-7; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). As God’s unique Servant, He will bring justice to the nations (42:1) and restore Israel to the Lord (49:5-6). The Servant will also serve God by obeying Him despite a violent attack and shaming (50:6-7). The Servant’s ultimate work would be to provide a substitutionary sacrifice to pay for the sins of Israel (53:4-6).

Isaiah also links his description of the Servant with the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. God will make an everlasting covenant with the Servant, in accordance with the promises assured to David (Isa 55:3). This association with the Davidic covenant fits with the promise that the Servant will be a covenant (mediator) for Israel (42:6; 49:8). Additionally, J. A. Motyer has identified various links between the royal figure of a Redeemer in Isaiah’s book of Immanuel (Isa 7-12) and the Servant of the Lord in the Servant Songs. For example, both the Servant and the King are endowed with the Spirit (42:1; 11:2), both bring about justice for the nations (42:3; 11:4) and both establish righteousness (9:7; 11:5; 53:11). It is insufficient to see the Redeemer as a mere Servant; He will be a Royal Servant of the Lord.⁵

An Eschatological Deliverer. When Jacob gave his oracle of the tribes of Israel, he declared what would take place in the days to come (Gn 49:1), using a phrase that literally translates in the end of days (be’acharit hayamim). Then, he promised a scepter that will arise from Judah, who would be the rightful King (whose right it is) and whom the peoples (not just Israel) would obey (49:10). The point is that this early prediction of the Messiah identifies Him as an eschatological figure.

Similarly, in the prediction of a ruler in Balaam’s fourth oracle (Nm 24:17-19), the seer declares that he is describing events that will take place in the future (Nm 24:14). Just as in Gn 49:1, the Hebrew literally says in the end of days. Balaam goes on to describe the King as both a star and a ruler who will arise but not now … but not near, indicating that this King would come in the distant future.

Nearly a thousand years later, Jeremiah prophesied that the Lord would raise up a King, a Righteous Branch of David (Jer 23:5-6). To introduce this ruler, the prophet declared, The days are coming, using this phrase commonly used to announce eschatological events (cf. Jer 16:14; 30:3; 31:31). In a further prediction of the coming of this Righteous Branch, the prophet declared He will arise in those days and at that time (Jer 33:15), also indicating an end-of-days coming of the King. In both Jer 23:5-6 and 33:15, the prophet predicted that in the day when this King came, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety. Not only would the King Messiah come at the end of days, but He also will be the great Deliverer of His people, The Redeemer [who] will come to Zion (Isa 59:20).

A Redeemer from Sin. Although the OT emphasizes the Messiah as a royal deliverer, there is evidence that He was also to be a Redeemer from sin. The most significant passage that shows the Messiah in this way is the fourth Servant Song, Isa 52:13–53:12. One of the main concepts found there is that the Servant was to be a substitutionary sacrifice for sin. The prophet puts the description of the Servant in the mouth of Israel, at a time when the nation will have finally come to believe in Him. They confess that they have gone astray but the the LORD has punished Him for the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:5-6). They declare that He was killed, cut off from the land of the living … struck because of [the] people’s rebellion (53:8). As such, the Servant became a restitution offering (‘asham), the same word used for the restitution offering in Lv 5:14–6:7. Not only would He die, but the song hints at His resurrection, saying God will prolong His days (53:10). The outcome of the Servant’s death and resurrection will be that He will justify many, and He will carry their iniquities (53:11). This summary of the fourth Servant Song details one of the most crucial features of the Messiah—He would provide redemption from sin.

A Perfect Ruler. One final aspect of the Messiah in Scripture is that He is always depicted as a perfect ruler who will establish a kingdom of peace, justice, and righteousness. An example of this expectation is in Isa 9:7, where the promised King is described as ruling from the throne of David over a vast kingdom of peace (shalom), having established it with justice and righteousness from now on and forever. Just two chapters later, the same King is described as one who will judge the poor righteously and execute justice for the oppressed of the land (Isa 11:4). There will be such peace that the wolf will live with the lamb (11:6), and His influence will be so great that the land will be as full of the knowledge of the LORD as the sea is filled with water (11:9).

This expectation of the King is not limited to Isaiah—Jeremiah also anticipates that the Lord will raise up a Righteous Branch of David. He will reign wisely as king and administer justice and righteousness in the land (Jer 23:5; cf. 33:15). Similarly, the calendar of redemption as described in Dan 9:24-27 will culminate with the Messiah bring[ing] in everlasting righteousness. The psalmist also depicts the future Messianic King as establishing this perfect kingdom, promising that "He will judge⁶ Your people with righteousness and Your afflicted ones with justice (Ps 72:2). At that time, the people will experience peace⁷ and righteousness (72:3), and the King will vindicate the afflicted among the people, help the poor, and crush the oppressor (72:4). This is no ordinary king from the line of David within the boundaries of the Davidic kingdom. He will rule from sea to sea and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth" (72:8).

A THEOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF THE MESSIAH 

Based on the above description, it is possible to give a theological definition of the term. The Messiah is the eschatological, royal, Servant of the Lord, springing from the Davidic dynasty, who is consecrated by God to provide redemption from sin, bring deliverance for Israel, rule the world, and establish a kingdom of peace, justice, and righteousness. Therefore, when speaking of OT messianic prophecy, it is this King that the Hebrew Bible foretells, through both prophetic prediction and pattern.

THE TITLES OF THE MESSIAH

Beyond the above description and definition of the Messiah, there are numerous titles used throughout the OT for this eschatological King. Many of them will be highlighted in the articles in this book. Nevertheless, what follows is a brief summary of some of the most important titles, beyond the word Messiah itself. However, this is by no means to be taken as a comprehensive list.⁸

THE SON OF GOD 

In Ps 2, David uses two words for the Lord’s Son, ben (2:7) and bar (2:12). The Lord says of the Anointed One (Messiah, 2:2), You are My Son; today I have become Your Father (2:7). The last phrase is literally translated, Today I have begotten You. The term begotten refers to coronation. It is describing the day the King is declared the Son of God and thus begotten. Even those who understand the psalm to refer to David, and not the Messiah, realize that David was a grown man when he was declared the son and begotten. Therefore, they conclude that begotten must refer not to his birth but to his coronation as king, or his enthronement. When spoken of the Messiah, it is describing the eternal Son taking His throne and does not imply that He is a created being. Allen Ross writes, This is also a figure of speech (an implied comparison), assuming a comparison between the coronation of the king and the idea of begetting a son. Since ‘today’ the king is designated God’s son, today is also his begetting, his coronation. He was already grown, even if a youth, but was being crowned as king, that is, the ‘today’ on which he is ‘being begotten.’ … The psalm in its context of a coronation decree is therefore used properly for the exaltation and coronation of Jesus.⁹ Therefore, the title Son of God indicates the deity of the Messiah and the term begotten refers to His exaltation and coronation.

THE SON OF MAN 

The title Son of Man is Jesus’ favorite self-identification and is commonly understood to refer to His full humanity. However, in the interpretation of this title from its OT background, it is more likely an expression of deity. It appears in Dan 7:13-14 in the midst of the vision of the Ancient of Days. In this scene, thrones were set in place (7:9) with one obviously for the Ancient of Days. But for whom was the second throne? None other than the other figure present, One like a son of man (7:13). This One also is deity, but He appears to be fully human (like a son of man).¹⁰

As the Divine Son of Man, He is granted all power and authority: He was given authority to rule, and glory, and a kingdom; so that those of every people, nation, and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed (7:14). Therefore, when the High Priest asked Jesus to state plainly if He was the Messiah, the Son of God and Jesus responded by citing Dan 7:13-14 in Matthew’s Gospel, ‘But I tell you, in the future you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven’ (Mt 26:64), this was taken as Jesus affirming His full deity. The High Priest tore his garments and declared Jesus guilty of blasphemy (26:65). He clearly understood the title Son of Man to mean full deity and not mere humanity. The title Son of Man is an OT expression for the divine Messiah.

THE SON OF DAVID 

The Messiah was understood to be one who would come from the line of David. It is because of the Davidic covenant that the future King was called the son of David. There God states, I will raise up after you your descendant (lit. seed), who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom (2Sm 7:12). The Latter Prophets keep reminding their hearers of this promise. Isaiah called the Messiah a shoot … from the stump of Jesse (David’s father, Isa 11:1), and Jeremiah identified Him as a righteous Branch of David (Jer 23:5; 33:15). Jeremiah and other prophets, when depicting the King Messiah’s reign, merely called Him David, although they actually were referring to David’s greatest Son (Jer 30:9; Ezk 34:23-24; Hos 3:4-5). According to P. J. and E. Achaemenes, the coming of the son of David is the only hope of Israel at the end of the books of 1 and 2 Kings, when Israel is in captivity: The authors of this history are telling a defeated and exiled Israel that a descendant of David still lives. God yet preserves alive the bearer of the promise of David, and thus there is still hope that the expected Messiah will come. As long as the seed of David is preserved, Israel has a hope for the future. The son of David is the true hope of Israel.

THE TEACHER 

The Messiah is called the Teacher of Righteousness (Jl 2:23a) in some translations and the Teacher who will guide Israel, saying, This is the way, walk in it (Isa 30:20-21). In both passages, the Messianic Teacher will not only guide to truth but also provide for Israel, giving them rain and crops (Jl 2:23b; Isa 30:23).¹¹

THE SERVANT OF THE LORD 

In Isaiah, Israel is depicted as a failed servant, spiritually deaf and blind (Isa 42:19). Regardless, the nation remains a chosen servant, just incapable of fulfilling its commission (43:10; 44:1). God promises never to forget His servant Israel (44:21), but what will He do to restore the nation? In His kindness, God promises the mysterious Servant of the Lord, who will be successful (in contrast to Israel’s failure). He will act wisely (52:13), a metonymy for He will succeed. God’s ideal and perfect Servant will bring Jacob back to Him (49:5) and restore the protected ones of Israel (49:6). The Servant of the Lord will achieve this by being cut off from the land of the living … because of my people’s [Israel’s] rebellion (53:8). But the Lord declares it is insufficient for the messianic Servant of the Lord to merely restore Israel. Therefore, God promises, I will also make you a light for the nations, to be my salvation to the ends of the earth (49:6). Israel was called to be a nation of priests (Ex 19:6), mediating the truth of the one true God to the nations. Although the servant nation failed, the messianic Servant of the Lord will succeed.

THE PROPHET LIKE MOSES 

God promised that He would one day raise up for Israel a Prophet like Moses (Dt 18:15-19). Although all the prophets were like Moses in that they spoke for God, the Torah itself indicates what was unique about Moses’ prophetic office—He spoke to God directly (lit. mouth to mouth; Nm 12:6-8). Therefore, the expectation was that one day, God would send the Prophet like Moses who would also speak directly with God. Many years later, at the time of the close of the canon of Scripture,¹² when the epilogue was placed at the end of the Pentateuch, the inspired addendum reminded Israel that after all these years, No prophet [had] arisen again in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face (Dt 34:10). So the key message at the time when the canon of the OT was closing was to keep looking for the Messiah, the Prophet like Moses.

IMMANUEL 

In Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah predicts the virgin birth of the Messiah.¹³ The passage says that the virgin mother of the Messiah will give Him the title, Immanuel. This indicates that God would be with the nation of Judah in a special way through the birth of this boy. Moreover, the title suggests that this boy will be deity, God with us. In Isa 8:8, Isaiah confirms that he intended this as a divine title, saying that the Assyrian army will conquer Judah and its spreading streams will fill your entire land, Immanuel! Here the child Immanuel is identified as deity because the land of Israel is seen as actually belonging to Him. Additionally, in the next great vision of the King Messiah, Isaiah uses a variety of divine titles to describe Him (see below).

WONDERFUL COUNSELOR

In Isa 9:6, the King Messiah is given four glorious dual throne titles, each reflecting His deity.¹⁴ In the first one, the word Wonder stands in epexegetical construct to Counselor; hence, the child is a wonder of a counselor or more simply, Wonderful Counselor. The term wonder is used exclusively of the acts of God on behalf of His people and the judgment of their enemies (Cf. Ex 3:20; 15:11; 34:10; Jos 3:5; Neh 9:17; 1Ch 16:12; Ps 40:5 [MT 40:6]; Isa 25:1; 29:14). This wondrous nature of God is especially evident in Jdg 13:15-21, where the name of the Angel of the Lord is wonderful (13:18) meaning beyond comprehension. Then the Angel does a wonderful thing (13:19) and ascends in the flame of Manoah’s sacrifice. Additionally, the word Counselor reflects a uniquely divine attribute. For example, God needs no counselor (Isa 40:13), and the Messiah has the Spirit of counsel upon Him (Isa 11:2). Ultimately, Isaiah uses both of these titles together to describe the Lord, indicating that God alone is wonderful in counsel (Isa 28:29).

MIGHTY GOD

Some have tried to assert that this phrase in Isa 9:6, commonly translated Mighty God (‘el Gibbor) should be understood as mighty warrior. However, the title is used consistently of deity (Dt 10:17; Ps 24:8; Jer 32:18; Neh 9:32). In fact, in the nearest context it is used of God (Isa 10:21). Although gibbor can mean hero, and ‘el can mean great, whenever these two words are used together, they refer to deity. Thus, the born child and the given son, is no less than God Himself.

FATHER OF ETERNITY

This title in Isa 9:6, commonly translated eternal Father, indicates the divine eternality of the Messiah. The word translated eternity does not merely mean a long time, but rather it refers to forever. This is supported by the very next verse that speaks of His reign never ending. Some have misunderstood this name as a declaration that the child is God the Father. Rather, it is stating that He is the Father of forever, a phrase that means He is the Creator of time or Author of eternity. Thus, the child is identified with the divine Creator whose first act was to create time.

PRINCE OF PEACE

The word prince used in Isa 9:6 does not necessarily mean the son of the king. Rather it means ruler or leader (Isa 3:14). Here it indicates one who will be the Ruler of Peace. According to Isaiah, Messiah will establish peace between humanity and God (Isa 53:5), and His reign will institute universal peace (Isa 2:4; 11:6-9) for all humanity.

THE BRANCH OF THE LORD

The title the Branch is used for the Messiah repeatedly in the OT (Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zch 3:8; 6:12). The root word means sprout, growth, or branch. A Phoenician inscription (third century BC) uses the phrase Tsemach Tsedek for the rightful heir to the throne. When used this way it refers to a son or scion of a king.¹⁵ David used the verb (tsamach) in his last words when reflecting on his hope for the Messiah based on the Davidic covenant: "He has not (yet) made it grow? (2Sm 23:5, author’s translation).¹⁶ Isaiah 4:2 states that the Branch of the Lord will be glorious in His kingdom. This statement views the Messiah as the Son of Yahweh, and the verses that follow describe the cleansing of Israel, similarly described in Zch 3:8-10, a passage that also uses the messianic title the Branch. In Jer 23:5-6 and 33:15-16, the Branch is the righteous son of David who will save Judah and Israel and execute justice. His deity is recognized by His other title The LORD [Yahweh] Our Righteousness. Jeremiah 33:19-26 goes on to assure readers of the coming of the Branch because of God’s faithfulness to His covenants. In Zch 6:12, the Branch" is the rightful king who unites the priesthood and the monarchy.

THE LORD (YAHWEH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS 

Having already called the Messiah the Righteous Branch (Jer 23:5), Jeremiah also uses another messianic title, Yahweh Our Righteousness (Jer 23:6). It is most likely that the thought here is not to be construed as a divine epithet because the same title is used of the city of Jerusalem in Jer 33:16. Thus, it should be understood to mean Yahweh is Our Righteousness. However, it should not be considered a mere theophoric title without divine significance because theophoric titles generally use the shortened form of God’s name, Yah. This is seen in the names like Jeremiah (Yah Exalts) or Elijah (My God is Yah). Only messianic titles use the full name of God, Yahweh. This indicates that in some unique way, like the Angel of Yahweh (Ex 3:1-6; Jdg 13:1-23), the Messiah is identified as God Himself.

THE ONE SHEPHERD 

In Ps 80:1, God Himself is called the Shepherd of Israel. This makes the messianic title One Shepherd even more significant. In Ezk 34, after rebuking the false shepherds of Israel, God promises to restore the nation at the end of days. At that time, God will regather the people from all the lands in which they have been scattered (Ezk 34:13). Then, God will appoint a single shepherd (lit. One Shepherd) over them, called My servant David (Ezk 34:23). Under the care of the One Shepherd, Yahweh will be their [Israel’s] God (Ezk 34:24). Ezekiel repeats the same promise in 37:24, looking at the day when Israel is restored to their land and to their God, under the care of the One Shepherd.¹⁷

While the above references refer to the One Shepherd when He will establish the messianic kingdom, Zechariah uses the term Shepherd to describe a much different situation. In speaking of the death of the Messiah, He writes, Sword, awake against My shepherd … Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered (Zch 13:7). Seemingly before the Messiah ever begins to shepherd the people of Israel, He must be struck and Israel will be scattered. Then God will one day regather them under that Shepherd, and they will know the Lord.

THE LIGHT TO THE NATIONS 

In the Servant Songs, God promises that the Servant will restore Israel to their God (Isa 49:5-6). But these same songs indicate that the Servant’s ministry will go beyond Israel to the whole world. Thus, He will establish justice on earth, and the islands will wait for His instruction (Isa 42:4). Not only will the Servant be a new covenant mediator for the people of Israel, but He will also be a light for the nations. In Isa 49:6, God tells His Servant that the task of restoring Israel is insufficient for One so great as He, promising I will also make you a light for the nations, to be My salvation to the ends of the earth. The Servant of the Lord is not just the Messiah of Israel but also the Messiah of the whole world.

CONCLUSION 

Much more could be written about the Messiah’s OT titles, and much more has been written in the other articles in this Handbook. The purpose of this article has been to explain what the word Messiah means. The understanding of this OT figure should not be limited just to those passages that use the specific word Messiah. Therefore, to develop and present a comprehensive biblical, theological definition of the term Messiah, the other key attributes of this biblical person were examined. Then, some of the other titles used for Him were surveyed. Based on this description, definition, and other titles, this Handbook uses an expansive approach to the issue of messianic prophecy. Under the heading of messianic, virtually all the predictions about this glorious individual, whatever the title, are examined—to make it possible for readers to see, as Jesus said, that everything written about [Him] in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Lk 24:44).

________________________

1. J. Becker influenced many with his view that no messianic figure from the Davidic house is discernible in Jewish thought until the second century BC (Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament, trans. D. E. Green [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 79).

2. See W. C. Kaiser, Jr. The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); also, J. H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 153–54; W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998), 1–35.

3. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament.

4. The MT takes this as a proper noun, Shiloh.

5. J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 13.

6. Many translations understand these verbs in Ps 72 as if they have a jussive force and so translate them as if they are a prayer or request (e.g. may He rule). It is better to understand them as a simple imperfect (as the NET Bible does), anticipating the Messiah and His kingdom.

7. The HCSB renders shalom (peace) as prosperity.

8. Approximately 65 titles have been identified as messianic.

9. Allen Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume I (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2011), 208.

10. Of course, the Messiah Jesus is indeed fully God and fully man, a fact foretold in Isa 9:6 and affirmed in the NT, especially Phl 2:6-9. Yet this text is describing Him as deity who looks like humanity.

11. For this alternative translation of Jl 2:23 and the linkage of these two passages, see the article The Teacher of Righteousness in this Handbook.

12. For a defense of seeing Dt 33–34 being added to the Pentateuch near the end of the canonical period by a biblical writer from the time of Ezra, or even Ezra himself, see Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville: B&H Publishers, 2010), 60–65. There it demonstrates that the passage is clearly post-Mosaic since it includes Moses’ death and burial. It uses postexilic terms like man of God to speak of Moses (Dt 33:1), does not remember where Moses was buried, and assumes it has been a long time since Moses’ ministry, long past the time of Joshua.

13. For a defense of interpreting Isa 7:14 as a direct messianic prophecy, see the article The Virgin Birth in Prophecy in this Handbook.

14. Some have maintained that these are merely theophoric names, a long title that contains the name of God but which does not indicate that the bearer of the name is deity. They often will compare these titles in Isa 9:6 grammatically to the long title in 8:3, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Swift is the booty, fast is the prey). Then the title is translated A Wonderful Counselor is the Mighty God, The Eternal Father is the Prince of Peace. In response, the name in 8:3 (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) is dependent on the same words being used in 8:1. Second, the title in 8:3 is not parallel syntactically to 9:6 because all the words in 9:6 are substantives that do not have subjects and predicates. Moreover, titles such as used in 9:6 frequently reflect the nature of the person who is named (e.g. 2Sm 12:24-25; Isa 1:26; Hos 1:10).

15. W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Tsemach in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1980), 769.

16. See the article David’s Last Words in this Handbook.

17. Ecclesiastes 12:11 also uses the term One Shepherd as the One who was the source of the divinely inspired wisdom of Ecclesiastes. See the article Messianism in Ecclesiastes in this Handbook.

Messiah and the Hebrew Bible

¹

JOHN H. SAILHAMER 

In a book review for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Walt Kaiser has made a strong plea for the importance of the question concerning the Messiah and the Hebrew Bible. The question, says Kaiser, could be a defining moment for evangelical scholarship and ultimately for the Church’s view of the way we regard Scripture.² According to Kaiser, the question ultimately comes down to whether the NT interpretation of an OT text is, in fact, the meaning intended by the OT author. Kaiser states, if it is not in the OT text, who cares how ingenious later writers are in their ability to reload the OT text with truths that it never claimed or revealed in the first place? The issue is more than hermeneutics, says Kaiser. The issue is that of the authority and content of revelation itself!³

Another evangelical OT scholar, Gordon McConville, has also stressed the importance of the Messiah in the OT. McConville says, "If the Old Testament is the problem of Christian theology … [then] the Messiah is at the heart of that problem."⁴ McConville goes on to say that the validity of a Christian understanding of the Old Testament must depend in the last analysis on [the] cogency of the argument that the Old Testament is messianic.⁵

These are strong statements. And they come from two respected biblical scholars. I believe they accurately reflect the current state of mind of evangelical scholarship. If liberalism once defined itself as a quest for the historical Jesus, evangelicalism may well be in the process of defining itself as a quest for the biblical Jesus. I believe this question lies at the heart of much of the current evangelical discussion about biblical theology.

EVANGELICAL VIEWS OF THE MESSIAH AND THE HEBREW BIBLE 

Evangelical views of messianic prophecy can be traced to the work of two early 19th century OT scholars, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802–1869) and Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann (1810–1877). The views of these two men still set the agenda for much of evangelical biblical scholarship. In many respects, their views were similar. Both were influenced greatly by the Berlin revivals in the early 19th century. For both, the last word on the meaning of messianic prophecy in the OT was that of Jesus and the NT. Both believed fulfilled prophecy offered essential support for the truth of the gospel. Both also believed that in giving us messianic prophecy, God had intervened in a real way in human history. He had made known His will and purpose. Messianic prophecy was thus not a product of a human yearning for a better life, but the result of a supernatural revelation.

In spite of these basic similarities, each man offered a fundamentally different set of answers to essential questions.

Hengstenberg. Hengstenberg’s understanding of messianic prophecy was shaped by two primary concerns: (1) his own experience of conversion, which was sudden and undeniable; and (2) his desire to use his spiritual experience as a basis for the defense of the Bible. For Hengstenberg, God’s work in the world was accomplished by means of specific divine interventions. These were miraculous events within the arena of ordinary history. The incarnation was a prime example. It marked a new beginning for God’s relationship with the world. In the incarnation, the Word had become part of the world. Israel’s history was a record of the many and diverse instances of that intervention. Although Israel’s history was a part of ordinary human history, it was also, like his own conversion, punctuated with miraculous exceptions.

That a prophet could foresee the exact name of the future Persian king Cyrus (e.g. Isa 45:1) was an exception to ordinary history, but such an exception was to be expected given the divine origin of the prophetic Word. When God stepped into the flow of human history, His actions were direct and clear to anyone who witnessed them. They were, in fact, so self-evident that they could be used as proof of the truth of the gospel.

As Hengstenberg saw it, God’s acts in history had an immediate but short-range effect on the rest of history. As miracles, they did not become part of the rest of history. They were historical, but not part of history. They were, in fact, exceptions to history and as such were clear signs of God’s activity. God’s acts in history were like our stepping into the current of a river. Our feet may make a splash, but there are no ripples made in the river. The ripples are lost in the flow of the river. Hengstenberg’s own conversion was a divine splash whose ripples were quickly dissolved by the flow of time. There was nothing left for the historian to fix upon and to draw conclusions from. It was a super-natural (miraculous) event lost within the course of ordinary history.

For Hengstenberg, the divine revelation of messianic prophecy consisted of similar kinds of miraculous events. In this way, his entire understanding of messianic prophecy came to be shaped by his own conversion experience. As Hengstenberg understood it, the prophets of old were given sudden, miraculous, panoramic visions of the whole of the messianic future. Those visions were like flashes of supernatural light and insight. Often, they came so suddenly and faded so quickly the prophet could record only a small portion of the vision. One is reminded of flashbulbs from the 1950s which left one momentarily stunned and unable to see anything but a large blue dot that faded slowly from one’s eyes. The prophet hurriedly recorded the vision as it faded from his sight.

Hengstenberg believed the prophetic visions came so quickly that in some cases, new visions would appear to the prophet in the midst of other visions. The prophet would have to stop recording one vision to pick up his description of another. What the prophet was ultimately able to record were only bits and pieces of the visions he had seen. Hence, for Hengstenberg, to discover Messiah in the OT meant gathering all the bits and pieces of the one grand vision and piecing them back together. It was as if the prophetic books were large scrapbooks containing scattered fragments of once-whole Rembrandts and Michelangelos. A single verse in the Bible might contain fragmented pieces of several visions. Only the trained eye could spot a piece of both a Rembrandt and a Michelangelo and in the same verse. Only one who knew the whole vision could piece the fragments together.

In finding and piecing together such splintered visions, the NT was indispensable. It was like the picture on the cover of a jigsaw puzzle. For Hengstenberg, little or nothing was left to the prophet. He merely recorded the visionary fragments from which the student of prophecy must piece together the whole.

Given these assumptions about the nature of prophecy (which were novel and unusual in Hengstenberg’s day), it is not hard to understand the approach he took to the Messiah in the OT. Following Hengstenberg through the Hebrew Bible is like following a trained geologist through the Black Hills. We watch him pick up a stone here and a rock there and tell us they were once part of a great prehistoric mountain range. Hengstenberg can point to a fragment here and a text there and reconstruct for us the great messianic mountain range that once inhabited the prophet’s mind. Without knowing the whole scope of messianic prophecy as Hengstenberg, we have to follow him and take his word about the messianic parts of a verse.

Though few evangelicals today openly adopt Hengstenberg’s approach, his legacy continues to influence the contemporary discussion. That legacy, as I understand it, consists of three commonly held assumptions:

—Assumption 1: The meaning of any one messianic prophecy is not immediately transparent. There is a need for some kind of translation of what is said in the OT into what is seen in the NT. For Hengstenberg it meant a spiritual interpretation—looking to the NT for clues to the OT’s meaning. Another word for this is typology. In any event, for Hengstenberg, the NT held the key to the meaning of the OT.

—Assumption 2: The messianic meaning of the OT consists of the predictive nature of its prophecy. To be messianic, the OT must accurately predict the historical events in the life of Jesus. We thus judge the messianic intent of the OT by indexing it to the picture of Jesus in the Gospels. Once again, the NT holds the key to the meaning of the OT.

—Assumption 3: The value of the messianic prophecies in the OT is largely apologetic. To the extent that an OT passage proves to be messianic and thus predictive of the life of Jesus, it shows that Christianity, or the gospel, is true. This is the argument from prophecy. In actual fact, this legacy goes back to the apologists in the early church. It is to Hengstenberg, however, that the credit must go for reviving this concern. In saying this is one of the legacies of Hengstenberg, I am not saying it remains, at present, a productive use of messianic prophecy. Hengstenberg did not convince many, even among his own evangelical colleagues.⁶

von Hofmann. Whereas Hengstenberg had focused his attention on piecing together the messianic prophecies in the text of Scripture, von Hofmann looked beyond the text to the historical events they recorded. According to von Hofmann, it was not the text of Scripture that was messianic; it was history itself that was messianic. It was not Israel’s historical writings that were messianic, but the history that Israel itself experienced. That history was a living picture of the coming Messiah. It was a vaticinium reale,⁷ a material prophecy consisting of the actual events. Von Hofmann believed the events of Israel’s history were an inspired messianic picture—just as he believed the Bible was an inspired text.

To be sure, the Hebrew Bible functions as our primary means of seeing the picture in history, but the messianic picture itself and the means of seeing that picture were found by looking beyond the Scriptures to Israel’s history as history. The full messianic picture can only be seen as one observes Israel’s history unfold itself into the first century and the life of Christ. The history becomes clearer, and the picture more focused, as it moves closer to the coming of the Redeemer. Because it was truly God at work in this history, Israel’s history was unlike any other. It was a holy history. God Himself had caused it. God was not merely working in history, history was God at work. Von Hofmann believed that just as God can be seen by a botanist in every leaf of a tree, so God can be seen by the historian in every moment of Israel’s history. For von Hofmann, in fact, there was not a moment in all of world history in which something divine does not dwell.⁸ History is God working out His will in the world. In Israel’s history, God was, as it were, submerging Himself into history, making it increasingly more sacred and increasingly more messianic. Ultimately Israel’s sacred history culminated in God’s final act stepping into history, that is, the incarnation.

For von Hofmann, God did not momentarily step in and out of history, as Hengstenberg had envisioned. In Israel’s history, God was increasingly immersing Himself in the world. The incarnation of Christ was thus not a unique and new beginning, but a final stage in a long process of God’s becoming a part of the world. The boundaries of world history had already been permanently breached by a real divine presence with Israel. God, in effect, had carved out a sacred history (Heilsgeschichte) in the midst of His work in the world (Weltgeschichte).

With such a view of the Bible and history it is not hard to see how everything in the Hebrew Bible could ultimately be about the Messiah. It does not initially have to look messianic for it to be an early stage of a developing prophecy. To quote von Hofmann: It is a long way between the death of an animal whose skin covered [man’s] nakedness, and the death of the Son of God whose righteousness covers [man’s] sin. Yet these are like the beginning and the end of the same journey.⁹

It is thus also not hard to see how, in von Hofmann’s approach, everything in the Bible could be understood in strictly historical terms. Only the one who understands history as moving toward Christ can understand the messianic element in the Hebrew Bible. The meaning of Israel’s history is messianic only when one sees God’s messianic intentions behind the actual events of that history. The task of understanding the OT as messianic lies in recognizing the divine patterns in these early events and pointing to how they replay themselves throughout the remainder of Israel’s history. History’s meaning thus becomes typological and finds its ultimate meaning only with the coming of the antitype. The mere historical similarity between the exodus and our Lord’s sojourn to Egypt in Mt 2 constitutes for von Hoffman a material prophecy of the coming Messiah. Once again, in such an approach, the NT holds the key to the meaning of the OT.

In such a context, the meaning of biblical words and terms, such as the anointed one or the king, spoken at a certain moment in Israel’s history, transcended the meaning of those words when understood solely within the context of the rest of history. Behind all events in Israel’s holy history lay the mind of God and His will. Every word spoken within Israel’s history had thus a horizontal (historical) range of meaning as well as a vertical (messianic) one. Within Israel’s salvation history, not only were biblical words fraught with divine intentionality, but so were the historical events that constituted that history. God was the author of both. His will and intention lay behind both. While David might have referred to himself as the anointed one in Ps 18, the real event that lay behind Ps 18 carried with it the potential of being understood by the historian as part of a prophetic history. Proof of this comes when the historian views Ps 18 from the perspective of its NT fulfillment.

To appreciate the legacy of von Hofmann, one must know something of how evangelicals viewed history before his time. Before von Hofmann there was a fundamental distinction between how evangelicals viewed biblical history and how it was viewed by biblical critics. Biblical history, as critical scholarship had come to view it, was an understanding of the history of Israel within the context of what we might call ancient analogies. By that I mean that Israel’s history was not viewed on its own terms but as part of the history of other ancient peoples. The Bible played an increasingly minor role in reconstructing its own history.

For evangelicals before von Hofmann, biblical history meant simply that history which could be read off the pages of the Bible. Before von Hoffman, evangelical biblical scholars had a largely realistic historical understanding of the Bible. What they read in the Bible was what they understood to have happened. If the Bible said the Nile turned to blood, they took that to mean the Nile River turned to "real blood. Von Hofmann marks the turning point of evangelical biblical scholarship away from such a realistic view of history. Even C. F. Keil, the most conservative evangelical OT scholar of his day, was willing to concede that the changing of the water into blood is to be interpreted … not as a chemical change into real blood, but as a change in the colour, which caused it to assume the appearance of blood."¹⁰ Note that von Hofmann did not alter the newly developing critical attitude toward Israel’s history. He accepted it as such, though he practiced it conservatively and was even willing to render it the status of divine revelation. Nevertheless, with von Hofmann, the holy history that progressively revealed the coming Messiah was no longer merely the history we read in the Bible. Revelatory prophetic history (Heilsgeschichte) must be reconstructed and augmented from our knowledge of the ancient world.

A second, and important, legacy of von Hofmann is that OT messianic prophecy could no longer be viewed apologetically. Having assigned the meaning of the OT to a history that finds its meaning in the events of the NT, one could no longer speak of fulfillment in terms of verification or validation. It was the fulfillment that validated the earlier history, not the other way around. Von Hofmann was thus quick to jettison the notion that OT messianic prophecy could be used in any way to defend the truth of Christianity. With von Hofmann it was history that validated Christianity, not the miracle of fulfilled prophecy.

Von Hofmann’s legacy among modern evangelical approaches to the OT is felt at many levels. Nowhere is it more tangible than in the study of messianic prophecy. My purpose is not to critique modern evangelical approaches for their dependence on von Hofmann. I have tried to do this elsewhere.¹¹ My purpose now, as I stated earlier, is to seek an alternative to the approaches of both von Hofmann and Hengstenberg.

Before moving on to that part of the article, let me briefly summarize what, I think, these two evangelical views have in common. Though quite different in detail, both Hengstenberg and von Hofmann share important evangelical assumptions about the Messiah in the OT. Here I have listed three:

—Assumption 1: Both men (Hengstenberg and von Hofmann) understood messianic prophecy as a genuine (supernatural) vision of the future. Prophecy was a history of the future.

—Assumption 2: Both men saw the NT as the primary guide for understanding OT messianic prophecy. Without a NT picture of Jesus, we could not truly understand the OT. The NT serves as a kind of searchlight cast back over the OT. Without that light from the NT, the OT messianic vision is at best hazy and uncertain.

—Assumption 3: For both Hengstenberg and von Hofmann, the messianic vision of the OT is not presented in a straightforward, holistic manner. The messianic picture is scattered in bits and pieces throughout the OT.

As stated above, Hengstenberg explained this as a function of the rapidity of the visions. The visions came so quickly, the prophets simply could not record them fast enough. The prophetic books were like large scrapbooks containing scattered fragments. To be sure, the prophets saw the whole picture, but they recorded only a small portion of what they had seen. Only one who knew the whole vision (from the NT) could piece the fragments together.

A RESPONSE TO HENGSTENBERG AND VON HOFFMAN 

I want to make it clear that I believe there is much truth in these three assumptions. Nevertheless, I still believe there is room for more work in each of these areas. As a summary of what lies ahead in this paper, I would like to add my own response to each of these three points.

—Response 1: Prophecy is not just a "history of the future. It is also a history for the future." It is not merely a description of the destination of Israel’s history, it is also a road map that explains how to get there.

—Response 2: The NT is not so much a guide to understanding the OT as it is the goal of understanding the OT. Unless we understand the OT picture of the Messiah, we will not understand the NT picture of Jesus. The OT, not the NT, is the messianic searchlight.

—Response 3: For Hengstenberg (and von Hofmann) viewing the messianic vision in the OT was like looking into a huge mirror that had been shattered into a thousand pieces. Hengstenberg believed that to see the Messiah in the OT, we must look at the NT picture of Jesus as it is reflected through the pieces of this shattered mirror. What remains of the OT messianic picture is now only small bits and pieces scattered throughout the OT.

Now, I think most of us would agree with Hengstenberg on this point—at least in part. That is certainly the impression one gets from reading the OT prophets. I would like to suggest, however, that these bits and pieces (of the messianic vision) are not randomly scattered, as Hengstenberg believed. There is a recognizable pattern. They follow an order. A good number of them, for example, fall along what we might call the compositional seams of the OT books, the transitional comments the biblical authors use to tie their texts together.

Some of these bits and pieces of prophetic visions also fall along the seams of the OT as a whole, what is called the Tanakh.¹² What I am suggesting is that the shape of the Hebrew Bible as a whole is a meaningful context for viewing the scattered bits and pieces of prophetic visions. Rather than a shattered mirror, I think a better image of the OT is a stained-glass window. To be sure, it is made of fragmented pieces of glass, but like a stained-glass window, each piece belongs with the others and plays a crucial part in the picture of the whole.

If these initial observations are valid, I believe they suggest new possibilities for viewing the Messiah in the OT. If there is an order and pattern to the distribution of messianic texts, then we should ask: what is the meaning that lies behind the order?

Let me briefly outline what taking such an approach might entail. There are many ways to look at the messianic stained-glass window in the Hebrew Bible. The approach I have in mind begins by looking at the Hebrew Bible in the shape we find it just at the threshold of the coming of Christ. It looks at the OT’s last word about itself, at how the OT was understood by those who gave it its final shape. Here I have in mind the Tanakh: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. To be sure, there were and are other shapes to the Hebrew Bible, but judging from texts such as Lk 24:44, the Tanakh is the form of the OT with which Jesus and the NT authors were most familiar.

Viewed from this perspective, the OT has all the appearance of being a single work with a single purpose. It is connected by literary seams linking Dt 34 and Jos 1 and similar seams linking Mal 3 and Ps 1. These passages fall together in the order of books in the Tanakh. There are also clear links within these individual parts and a distinct compositional strategy that goes from the first word in the Hebrew Bible (bereshit) to the last (veyā‘al). If we follow along the lines of these compositional seams, I believe, we will find the Tanakh to be motivated primarily by a hope in the soon coming of the promised messiah. It is that perspective on the OT that, I believe, gives us the best view of what the OT authors believed about the Messiah. It is also that perspective that shows most clearly the literary and theological dependency of the NT on the OT.

A PROPOSAL FOR UNDERSTANDING THE MESSIAH IN THE HEBREW BIBLE 

In the remainder of this article, I would like to describe what I think is a possible approach to understanding the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. I can only describe it in outline. I am not going to try to argue a case for it.¹³ I am not going to try to convince you of it. My goal is simply to explain to you what I think is a plausible approach for understanding Jesus in light of the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures. I will attempt to describe this approach with the help of three basic propositions: (1) the nature of OT messianic prophecy consists of both prediction and identification; (2) the OT messianic vision is a fragmented vision that becomes increasingly more cohesive as one moves toward the final stages of the formation of the Hebrew Bible; and (3) the Hebrew Bible is both text and commentary.

PROPOSITION #1: PROPHECY AS PREDICTION AND IDENTIFICATION

The central element of the approach I have in mind lies in an attempt to clarify the question of predictive messianic prophecy. There is, of course, prophetic prediction in the OT. Prediction is a major apologetic theme, for example, in passages such as Isa 41. There are also other important features to the notion of prophetic fulfillment. To highlight those features, I would suggest that alongside terms such as fulfillment we also use the terms identification and exposition. The OT not only predicts the coming of a Messiah; it also describes and identifies that Messiah.

Here is an important difference from Hengstenberg and von Hofmann’s idea of prophecy as a history of the future. As we said above, messianic visions in the OT are not only visions of the future, they are also visions for the future. They explain the future as well as reveal it. The amazing thing about OT prophecy is not only that the prophets foresaw what would happen. That, as Hengstenberg rightly held, was miraculous. But equally amazing was that, when it came, the future the prophets foresaw (and here I have in mind the NT) actually followed the plan the prophets had laid out for it. When the future came at a specific time and place, there were people waiting for it. There were those, like Simeon and Anna, who understood it in terms of the OT prophetic vision. In other words, the prophet’s vision was such that it preserved and carried with it a people who both understood the prophets and were there waiting for the fulfillment of their vision. By falling in line with that vision, the NT writers show that they accepted the OT as pre-interpreted, and they also were in fundamental agreement with its interpretation. That interpretation, we can see, began long before the time of its fulfillment. Already within the OT itself we can discover clear signs of an ongoing process of inter-biblical, or (I would prefer to say) intertextual interpretation.

In the Pentateuch, for example, the Messiah is a prophetic priest-king like Moses, who will reign over God’s kingdom, bring salvation to Israel and the nations, and fulfill God’s covenants. As I understand it, this messianic vision is part of the compositional strategy of the whole of the Pentateuch. In the Prophets and Writings, we find a full and detailed exposition of the Pentateuch’s messianism. It is in that exposition that the OT messianic hope is extended and deepened to the very point at which we find it in the NT. Thus, the last word in the Hebrew Bible is as messianic as any passage in the NT. I have in mind, of course, texts such as the vision of the Son of Man in Dan 7. That vision, and the book of Daniel as a whole, is equal to any messianic Christology in the NT.

To be clear, what I am describing is often viewed in terms of a process of reinterpretation. Earlier, nonmessianic sections of the OT are re-interpreted by later authors and subsequently understood as messianic. That is very far from what I have in mind. What I have in mind is that when the OT reads and interprets itself, as is happening in Dan 7, it does so by drawing on the real, historical intent of the other OT authors. There is no need to speak of a re-interpretation of texts. I think, for example, it is possible to show that the Pentateuch is already thoroughly messianic and that the rest of the OT understands this and expands on it by way of textual commentary and exposition.

There is a direct link, in other words, between the beginning of the OT and the end of the OT, as well as the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT. From a literary perspective, there is no intertestamental gap between the Testaments. The last word in the Hebrew Bible can also be understood as the first word in the NT. It is a verb without a subject (veyā‘al, 2Chr 36:23, lit., let him go up). Its subject could very well be taken from the first chapter of Matthew in the NT. It is a call for the coming of that one