THE MESSIAH IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The concept of the Messiah has been both a unifying and a dividing factor between Christianity and Judaism. Christians speak about it as a question of the fulfilment of prophecy, whereas the Jews try to nullify the Church's Messianic interpretation. This being so, we should try at least to listen to each other, to discuss the common roots of our respective traditions. Indeed such discussions have already taken place.

In October 1976 representatives of the evangelical churches and of the synagogues met in Berlin for a joint discussion, in which they issued an official public statement. This encouraged Christians to make the fundamentals of their faith known to Jews, and vice versa. It was felt that this kind of dialogue could promote mutual understanding. In discussing these things we are not, however, talking in a vacuum: behind us is a history of almost two thousand years of controversy. The schism between the mother and daughter religions created a conflict of tragic proportions, which is still going on. Nevertheless, a comparison of Jewish and Christian origins will show both parties the way to a better understanding of the roots of their respective faiths.

The 'Theology of Fulfilment'  controversy

The Christian church has traditionally considered Christ to be the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies. One result of the religious debate of our day, however, is that some Christian theologians, those who represent the very liberal position, have called this kind of interpretation into question, in part because thus one of the major obstacles to Jewish/Christian dialogue can be removed.

In the autumn of 1981 a Dr. John Pawlikowski from Chicago was in Israel and gave a lecture against this "theology of fulfilment" to a Jewish audience, offering in its place the idea of a continually unfolding revelation. Jesus' Messiahship, he maintained, was based primarily upon his own awareness of his call.

In my remote homeland Finland a typical article in a clerical magazine stated that this "Bible-issue is a festering sore in the mother church's heart". The writer saw the problem as being specifically the Messianic prophecies,

    "which play a central role in the New Testament, because the writers of the NT read the Old Testament as a book which made constant reference to the salvation experienced in Christ. You do not need to be much of an exegete, however, to see that such bridges from one testament to another are without exception artificial, nor do they convince those who think rationally."8
In the same way he declares that, "the Virgin Birth, for example, and the Doctrine of the Trinity have been put in a questionable light as a result of critical Bible studies". These and similar thoughts have been echoed in many theological treatises. They maintain that these matters "have been cleared up in the last two hundred years", and that they are "the common property of permanent and internationally generally approved research", One of these scholars crystallises his argument by saying that: "No OT student claims, neither could he with any basis claim, that Isaiah chapters 9 and 53 and Psalm 22 speak of Jesus". "The Jews," he generalises, "do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. They see in the Suffering Servant of the Lord primarily the nation of Israel."9 Similar statements have been made in the ongoing international discussion. But is it also true?

Of course no-one can demand that Jesus' name should appear in the OT prophecies before they can be applied to him. We understand perfectly well what Jesus meant when he claimed that Moses spoke of him. Even after the resurrection he is said to have spoken about Moses and all the prophets, "explaining what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself". Jesus functioned in a way that was understood by his contemporaries, and all Jewish exegesis from Jesus' time to the Middle Ages, even up to the present day, is founded on the same method. Precisely because of this fact that the fundamentals of 'fulfilment theology' are beginning to fade, we will try in what follows to speak of the roots of our faith.

Judaism's traditional stance

The concept of the Messiah has been entirely neglected in Judaism, left with hardly the status of a step-child. Making the rounds of the Jewish libraries only rarely will a slim volume on Messianic Expectation turn up amidst the vast literature on the Torah, the Jewish law. The Halakha10 interpretation has completely taken over the position of guardian of the Jew's religious life, and the Torah has become a substitute for the Biblical idea of Salvation. Franz Delitzsch, in his day perhaps the most profound expert on Judaism, stated that the Jews no longer believed in the Messiah. Rather they have the general expectation that liberation for them will be effected without a Messiah figure. Along with this "nationalistic narrowing down" Judaism has also lost its universal character.11 Jewish scholars have, on the whole, written on the Messiah concept only in their apologetic works. Foremost among these are Rabbi David Qimhi's "Book of the Covenant, the Polemics of RaDaQ12  with the Christians" from the end of the 12th century, and the " Strengthening of Faith" by the 16th century Rabbi Isaac Ben Abraham Troki of the 'Karaim' sect.13

Jewish Messianic belief is epitomised in the works of the Mediaeval scholar Moses Maimonides (RaMBaM - Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon), of whom it was said "From Moses to Moses no-one has risen like Moses". In his book "Ordinances of the Kings" he compresses all that he has to say about the Messiah into six pages: The Messiah-King will be first and foremost a teacher of the Torah; he will reinstate the strict punishments of the Law of Moses and draw up his own laws, which the people will then be compelled to observe; first he will initiate the milhemet mitsvah, the war of ordinances, and only then the overthrow of the dominating powers, and he will also build the Temple.

When he mentions Jesus RaMBaM speaks respectfully, using the full form of his name Yêshûa, 'saviour'.14 According to the Mediaeval slanderous treatise Toldôth Yeshu, the letters of the shorter, most widely used version of the name, Yeshu, were an abbreviation for "May his name and all memory of him be blotted out". RaMBaM states in his pamphlet that "Jesus the Nazarene, who appeared to be the Messiah, was put to death on the orders of the Great Synagogue", and that "the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene and that Ishmaelite [Mohammed] who came after him attempted to make straight the way for the Messiah-King and to restore the whole world so that together it would serve God". This favourable reference brings to mind the word used by Josef Klausner in his book "Jesus of Nazareth". For him Jesus was like a trailblazer of the Kingdom of God.15

James Parkes states in his book "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue" that,

    "Before the destruction of Jerusalem, the first Christians fled to the East bank of the Jordan and the Pharisees to Jamnia - that is why in the absence of the Temple the Jewish people had only the Torah as the foundation of their spiritual existence."16
The ultimate disillusionment for them was when Rabbi Aqiba proclaimed Simon Bar-Kokhba as the Messiah. The subsequent military disaster estranged them completely from Messianic thinking and resulted in a simplified halakha Judaism in which the Hebrew statutes became axiomatic. We will see, however, that the Synagogue's earliest sources still spoke a great deal about the Messiah, referring to an even wider corpus of data than the Christian Church.

It was really only at the end of the last century that interest in the Messiah began to grow. From then on the subject has been studied by, to mention a few Jewish writers, Leo Baeck, C.G.Montefiore, Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem, Josef Klausner, David Flusser, Schalom Ben-Chorin, and others less well-known.17 The former prejudices have abated to the extent that New Testament lectures are now given in Jerusalem's Hebrew University, and selected extracts are even taught in the schools.

Christian study of Jewish sources

In the first few decades of this century in Christian circles there was a flurry of interest in the Rabbinic literature. This gave birth to many outstanding works illuminating the Jewish background of the Messianic concept, the most famous of which are the works of Hugo Gressmann, Moritz Zobel, S.Mowinckel, Eugen Hühn, and L.Dürr. These and corresponding studies, which laid the foundation for Joseph Klausner's books, attempt to explain the Messianic Expectation historicocritically, and its explicitly religious nature is neglected.18

The specially Judaic character of the Messianic concept was perhaps most deeply understood in the 19th century by Alfred Edersheim and E.W.Hengstenberg, and in our own time by, for example, Gösta Lindeskog. The general presentation of the Messianic prophecies by the renowned Franz Delitzsch, who was mentioned above, is also without peer.19 We might say that a century ago Christian theologians took the Rabbinic sources more seriously than they do in our own time.

Worth mentioning of those Christian apologists whose aim was the defence of their faith and who used the Rabbinic literature are Alexander McCaul, A.Lukyn Williams, and Bernhard Pick. Dr McCaul compared the doctrines of the Talmud and the New Testament. His books have appeared in English, German, and even in the RaSHI Hebrew script.20 A.Lukyn Williams replied to Troki's disputed "Strengthening of the Faith", in a work which was given a preface by Strack.21

It is worthwhile acquainting oneself with the extensive work which learned men have done towards clarifying the roots of the Messianic concept. Historicocritical research tries to undermine the Bible's specific Messianic character because a similar expectation of salvation is found amongst other peoples; Jewish writers, as a result of their own historical disillusionment tend to deny a personal Messiah -- and the greater part of today's scholars is inclined to narrow down the Messianic Hope to what in their opinion are the precious few biblical prophecies upon which it can be based.

OUR COMMON HERITAGE

We often forget that both the devoted Jews and Christians do have a common exegetical startingpoint for Biblical studies. In the Daily Prayers, so-called "Sidûr" in Hebrew, there is a long section of beautiful morning prayers. It includes "Thirteen principles of the faith", which are to be repeated in every day. There we read as follows:

    clause 6: "I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets are true."
    clause 7: "I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses our teacher, peace be unto him, was true, and that he was the chief of the prophets, both of those that preceded and of those that followed him."
    clause 12: "I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah, and, though he tarry, I will wait daily for his coming."
    clause 13: I believe with perfect faith that there will be a resurrection of the dead at the time when it shall please the Creator, blessed be his name..."22
Every member of the Jewish community is bound to accept these words composed by famous Moses Maimonides RaMBaM (1135-1204). They resemble the words in Luke 24:44 and Acts 28:33 according to which the Christians approach was based on the prophecies found "in the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms". This Messianic interpretation" is not "an artificial bridge". All this raises the question what other sources ought to be used in order to shed light on the roots of our Christology.

From the scientific point of view it should be possible to approve as justifying a Messianic interpretation those OT passages into which the Jewish prescriptive and generally approved OT commentaries have read the Messianic concept, and those interpretations which the NT has understood as being Messianic. The older the tradition of interpretation, the greater the relative weight which can be assigned to the source as an original exponent of the Messianic concept.

It must of course be borne in mind that the NT speaks of the "mystery of Christ".23 Connected with this Messianic mystery are historical and "cosmic", temporal and spiritual features which ought not to be watered down. This becomes apparent from the old Jewish sources in particular.

It may be that it is not possible to study spiritual phenomena or those of the history of ideas by a purely historicocritical approach. It is said that when the apple fell on Isaac Newton's head he discovered the Law of Gravity. If we cut this apple into pieces we would not find the law in the apple -- neither would a surgeon have been likely to find it in Newton's head: it was somewhere in between the apple and the head. Spiritual phenomena cannot be dissected, they must be internalised. This also applies to the Messianic mystery.

If we study the Bible and the Rabbinic literature carefully, we cannot fail to be surprised at the abundance of Messianic interpretation in the earliest works known to us. An old Hebrew saying goes, "I did not seek, and so I did not find -- then I sought, and I found!" and another, "When we reveal the palm of our hand, another two palms are still hidden" -- in other words, when we look into an issue, behind it there are two new challenges which we could not have seen without looking at the first. And the Talmud states unequivocally: "All the prophets prophesied only for the days of the Messiah." 24

----------
8.        Dr. Timo Veijola in "Pappisliiton Jäsenlehti"
9.        Prof. Risto Lauha
10.      the word Halakha means "decision", "norm", "systematized" legal precept. It is a Rabbinic word derived from halakh, to walk. It is part of the Mishna, the interpretation of the law.
11.      Franz Delitzsch, "Messianische Weissagungen in geschichtlicher Folge", Leipzig 1890, p 11,102.
12.      In the Rabbinic literature the Sages' names are written in these abbreviated forms, ie Rabbi David Qimhi.
13.      The Karaim sect, which official Judaism does not accept, bases its exegesis solely on the OT and not on the Jewish tradition. The books mentioned are in Hebrew.
14.      RaMBaM, Hilchot Melachim, 11:4.
15.      J.Klausner, "Jesus von Nazareth", Jerusalem 1952, p574
16.      p77.
17.      cf Bibl.
18.      cf Bibl.
19.      cf Bibl. for main works.
20.      RaSHI script.
21.      cf Bibl.
22.      Daily Prayers, A New Edition revised by Dr. M. Stern, New York 1928.
23.      eg. Eph.3:4, and Col.2:2
24.      Berakoth 34b.


The next chapter "CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE METHOD OF STUDY"

Back to the main page of Risto Santala's books