messiah - full essay Flashcards
intro
The Hebrew term ‘mashiach’, or in its Greek form, ‘Christos’, translates as ‘anointed one’. The title is rooted in Old Testament prophecy; indeed, prophets such as Isaiah anticipated the coming of a royal, Davidic Messiah who would liberate Israel. In the Synoptic Gospels, it is assumed that Jesus is the Messiah; Matthew begins his Gospel with a stated aim of providing ‘an account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah’. However, the question lies in the following: did Jesus consider himself the Messiah, or was this title rather assigned to him by the Gospel writers following his death? Whilst acknowledging the difficulty in discerning Jesus’ psychology, I will argue that Jesus did not view himself as the Messiah in the Old Testament political, kingly sense. Rather, Jesus did recognise himself as the ‘anointed one’; he was aware of his close relationship with God and promoted regal messianic teachings insofar as he taught the eschatological kingdom of heaven. For the purpose of this essay I will examine aspects of Jesus’ life including, his political conforming with Old Testament prophecy, his interaction with the disciples, his crucifixion and his eschatological teaching.
para 1
Jesus’ fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy through his political action could suggest an inner messianic consciousness. A key event when examining this theme is Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. In Mark 11:1-10, Jesus is described as entering Jerusalem on a donkey, greeted by exclamations of ‘Hosanna… Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David’. This is reminiscent of both 1 Kings 1:32-40, where Solomon rides to Gihon on a donkey and is proclaimed king, as well as 2 Kings 9:12-13, where garments were placed on steps before the newly anointed King Jehu. This parallels Mark, where ‘many people spread their cloaks on the road’. It has been argued that the entry into Jerusalem was a political act arranged by the disciples to fulfil the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. This is alluded to in Matt 21:5 and John 12:15, where the Old Testament passage is directly quoted to prove the fulfilment of ‘what had been spoken through the prophet’. For Reza Aslan, this is evidence that the entry into Jerusalem was an orchestrated political act to promote Jesus’ intention to free Israel from the Romans. This argument seems to promote Jesus’ messianic consciousness, as his entry into Jerusalem clearly aligns with both Old Testament Scripture and the political expectations of the Messiah. This argument is substantiated through further evidence of Jesus’ political behaviour, insofar as he anticipated and encouraged socio-political change. A particularly relevant example is Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, detailed in Mark 11:15-18. Evans highlights how this event could be interpreted as ‘part of this cleansing of Jerusalem’. If this is correct, the event seems to have Old Testament basis; Psalms of Solomon 17:29-30 states, ‘he will…cleanse Jerusalem in holiness’.
para 1 ao2
However, whilst parallels can be drawn between Jesus and the Jewish kings of the Old Testament, this is not sufficient evidence for Jesus’ messianic consciousness, insofar as Messiah entails a political, kingly figure. Unlike the Jewish kings, Jesus was not militant. Aslan’s portrayal of Jesus as a purely political figure is incorrect; it fails to recognise the ethical intention behind Jesus’ actions. With regards to the cleansing of the temple, Jesus’ true message was not messianic political liberation, but rather an ethical statement concerning the dangers of materialism. As Hengel states, Jesus’ real ‘zeal’ was ‘love for one’s enemies and an openness toward… the ‘sinners’’. Hence, it can be said that Jesus did not view himself as a political, militant Messiah. It is interesting to note how whilst Jesus is frequently referred to as ‘son of David’, Chilton highlights how the most commonly used title to describe Jesus is rather ‘rabbi’. Indeed, it is only post-resurrection that Jesus explicitly admits his Messianic status. This can be seen in Luke 25:26-7, where Jesus links his messianic status to the necessity of his suffering, rather than political activity. This suggests that Jesus did in fact have an awareness of his messianic status, but only insofar as his fulfilment of prophecy. With regards to the militancy of the anticipated Old Testament, kingly Messiah, Jesus did not conform.
para 2 and ao2
Whilst Jesus does not admit his messianic status until after the resurrection, passages such as Peter’s confession seem to suggest at least an awareness amongst both Jesus and his disciples of his messianic status. However, it is important to acknowledge the diverging interpretation of the event across the Synoptic Gospels. Whilst all united in Peter’s statement, ‘You are the Messiah’, Mark 8:30 for instance, depicts Jesus’ reaction as dismissive, whilst Matthew 16:13-20 portrays a far more positive reaction to Peter’s recognition of Jesus’ messianic status. Despite the variations across the Synoptics, is interesting to see how in all three accounts, Jesus follows Peter’s confession with a description of the necessary suffering of the Messiah. This reinforces the idea that Jesus did not conceive of himself as a political, kingly Messiah, but rather recognised himself as the Messiah insofar as he must endure suffering. As Neusner states, ‘only in terms of the suffering…Son of Man do Christians confess Jesus as the Messiah’. They are similarly united in Jesus’ demand for the disciples to remain quiet. Wrede calls this the ‘messianic secret’, as he argues that Jesus did not view himself as the Messiah. He claims that the sensationalisation of Jesus seen in this passage was the work of the Gospel writers, who aimed to explain why Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah until after his death. This argument is supported by Conzelmann and Lindemann, who state that the pericope ‘has no historical core; instead it is a theologoumenon’. However, it is clear that this argument does not stand, for it fails to recognise the other events that allude to Jesus’ messianic status, such as his entry into Jerusalem. Although the reaction to Peter’s confession varies according to the Gospel, in none of the versions does Jesus deny his messianic status. This suggests that whilst Jesus did not actively vocalise his messianic consciousness, he was aware of it, as seen in his emphasis on the necessary suffering he – as the ‘anointed one’ - will have to endure.
para 3
Although Jesus’ emphasis on the necessity of his suffering conforms with messianic expectation, Jesus’ eschatological teaching concerning the kingdom of God implies a recognition of his messianic authority. This can most clearly be seen in Luke, who presents Jesus as the sole deliverer of eschatological truths, ‘I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God… for I was sent for this purpose’. Luke here depicts Jesus’ awareness of his messianic status, as he recognises his role in teaching the eschatological hope offered by God. The argument that Jesus is conscious of his messianic insofar as he recognises himself as an anointed teacher of wisdom is substantiated in his eschatological teaching. Indeed, in the Synoptics, Jesus aligns his eschatological teaching with warnings concerning contemporary materialist attitudes, ‘it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God’.
para 3 ao2
However, it has been argued that it is wrong to interpret Jesus’ teachings as sufficient evidence for his messianic consciousness. As Dahl argues, it was the fact that Jesus was crucified as a messianic pretender that led the early church to ‘read as messianic predictions texts not applied to the Messiah in Judaism’. Jesus’ teachings concerning the kingdom of God are not indications of messianic consciousness; rather, they reflect the Gospel writers’ infusing of Jesus’ teaching with messianic authority. Although this argument seems to threaten Jesus’ messianic consciousness, I would respond that whilst the resurrection cemented contemporaries’ views of Jesus as Messiah, Jesus himself was aware of his messianic status all along. A further threat to Jesus’ messianic consciousness is posed by Bultmann, who argues that Jesus was not the Messiah since ‘nowhere are sayings preserved in which Jesus promises to return again or soon’. Whilst Jesus never vocalises that he is ‘the one to come’, he indirectly acknowledges his messianic status in passages such as Luke 7:22, which is reminiscent of both Isaiah 61:1 and Isaiah 35:5. With this knowledge, Bultmann’s argument can be overcome. Indeed, by directly referencing Old Testament messianic prophecy, Jesus is evidencing his fulfilment of messianic expectation, which ultimately suggests messianic consciousness.
para 4
In a similar vein to Jesus’ eschatological teaching is his crucifixion, which Jesus previously predicted as a necessary part of the Messiah’s role in securing eternal life. A key aspect of the passion narrative is Jesus’ confession before the high priest, which could suggest Jesus’ willingness to admit his messianic status. As seen before, an issue lies in the lack of harmony between the Synoptic accounts. Contrary to Peter’s confession, Mark presents a purely affirmative response to the high priest’s question, ‘are you the Messiah?’, as he replies, ‘I am’. Whilst the positive response seems contradictory to Jesus’ denial of Peter’s confession, the phrase ‘I am’ is reminiscent of the Old Testament. Indeed, it is the title ascribed to God in the Old Testament, as seen in Exodus 3:14. This suggests Jesus’ messianic consciousness as well as his knowledge of his divinity, as he appears to equate himself with God. The high Christology of this interpretation is not as clear in the other Synoptic accounts, with Jesus stating in Matthew, ‘you have said so’ and in Luke, ‘you say that I am’. In both these cases, Jesus’ is more evasive with regards to his messianic status. Whilst this inconsistency makes it difficult to affirm Jesus’ messianic consciousness, the Synoptics all portray Jesus’ charge of ‘King of the Jews’ as a reaction to belief in Jesus as a messianic pretender. As Dahl states, Jesus’s messianic status ‘belongs to the dogmatic motifs of the passion story’.
para 4 ao2
Nonetheless, Jesus’ crucifixion as a ‘messianic pretender’ has led some to conclude that he was no more than a political liberator. Reimarus for instance argued that Jesus’ failure to achieve political liberation led the disciples to ‘invent the message of the resurrection and of a suffer Saviour’. This argument is inadequate, as it fails to recognise Jesus’ prediction of his crucifixion, as seen in Matthew 26:2. A further response to Reimarus lies in the argument that the resurrection alone is not sufficient evidence for Jesus’ messianic consciousness. Rather, evidence for Jesus’ messianic status and consciousness should be seen in his pre-resurrection comportment. This can particularly be seen in Jesus’ miracles. For instance, Luke 18:35-43 details Jesus’ healing of a blind beggar, which once again parallels the Old Testament; indeed, Isaiah 35:5 states, ‘the eyes of the blind shall be opened’. Here, Jesus conforms with messianic expectation without appearing as political or militant. Whilst Jesus’ behaviour may have been contrary to contemporary norms – and thus, seen as threatening – he was messianic in his desire to liberate the oppressed. Hence, Jesus did seem to possess a messianic consciousness, as he actively recognised the necessity of his resurrection and acted in a way that conformed with Old Testament messianic prophecy.
conc
Overall, it has become clear to me that the extent of Jesus’ messianic conscious depends on one’s definition of Messiah. Jesus did not view himself as the political, regal Messiah of the Old Testament, yet was aware of his messianic status. This can be seen in his acknowledgement of the necessity of his suffering, his challenging of socio-political norms as well as his frequent fulfilment and allusions to Old Testament prophecy. Although it could be argued that Jesus was solely a political liberator and did not view himself as the Messiah, this argument fails to recognise the importance Jesus placed on eschatological teaching. Jesus as a figure went beyond the political; his work was rather orientated towards the ethical and the theological, as he frequently aligned earthly behaviour with one’s eschatological fate. I have found Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection the most interesting aspects of the study of Jesus’ messianic consciousness; indeed, his resurrection was the ultimate fulfilment of eschatological expectation. Jesus’ resurrection is an area that I believe warrants further study; the historicity of the event is a particularly fruitful area. By looking at various sources for the resurrection, an exploration of contemporary attitudes to Jesus’ messianic status could be possible.
