Messiah and King
saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” Matthew 2:2 ESV
King– Christian teaching has conditioned us to believe that the Jews expected a personal redeemer/Messiah from the time of Moses. This is partly due to the interpretation of Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh as if they were designations of the Christian Messiah. In other words, rather than reading the texts within their own context, we have been trained to read the texts as if their true meaning can only be determined after the life of Yeshua. This amounts to systematic eisegesis, importing meanings into the text that are not part of the thinking of the original authors or audience. I am not claiming that these texts cannot be understood from the perspective of post-resurrection theology. Perhaps they can. What I am saying is that we need to understand the development of the idea of a personal Messiah because the idea of a personal Messiah was not always part of the way Israel thought about the Messiah.
Joseph Klausner’s seminal work on the development of the idea of the Messiah makes some startling claims: “Yet the word ‘Messiah,’ to designate the expected redeemer, does not occur either in the Holy Scriptures [Old Testament] or in the books of the Apocrypha. We find it in this sense for the first time in the Book of Enoch, and precisely in that part of this Pseudepigraphic book which was composed, in the opinion of all the best scholars, in the time of Herod the Great.”[1]
What Klausner demonstrates is that our idea of the Messiah, derived from the apostolic writings, owes more to the Book of Enoch than it does to the books of the Tanakh. Yet most of us have no idea what the Book of Enoch says (or perhaps that it even exists). The Book of Enoch was a major influence in Matthew’s gospel, creating Matthew’s concept of the Messiah. Enoch’s Messiah follows the Jewish development. “Hence the Jewish people did not separate faith, which is spiritual, from social life, which is practical and political. Hence Israel was not able to imagine a man who had attained a completely divine stage. And hence its Messiah was not entirely spiritual: he was spiritual and political at the same time.”[2] This is the direction of Matthew’s treatment of “Son of Man,” Messiah.
Did you understand what Klausner said about the connection between spiritual and political? Do you realize that Yeshua as king is not merely a divine title associated with a spiritual realm? The magi came to worship a new king, a political figure in this world. That is consistent with the Jewish expectation. It also explains that disappointment of the disciples and the crowds. But it isn’t what we, as post-Christian Western believers, usually think. Who do you suppose is closer to the meaning of the text?
Topical Index: Messiah, Book of Enoch, Klausner, Matthew 2:2
[1]Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1955) Scholar’s Choice edition, p. 8.
Despite the thousands of years separating 21st century Westerners from the Jews of 2nd temple era I would suggest there is little separating us on this topic of a desire for a political King over a spiritual King. Those living in Israel under the heavy thumb of Rome yearned for freedom from the yoke of oppressive taxes, the tyranny of unjust laws, a compromised and corrupt religious system, a omnipresent, harsh military presence and a host of other legitimate complaints. So their desire for a powerful political King to free them was understandable and even seen as necessary if they were to fulfil their mission as a kingdom of priests to the gentile nations. While we in the post modern America have never known this type of foreign national political oppression we have however succumbed to the Greek idea of the primacy of the individual. In doing so we too now desire a King to deliver us from the tyranny of the real and imagined oppression of the self. We not only want a King to police, protect and prosper us in our present physical circumstances, but also in our practice of religion. In the body politic some want more personal freedom, less taxes, smaller government, an end to bipartisan bickering, (while others want the opposite). In our religious state we cry out for prosperity, not holiness; we want ease, not trials and tribulations to grow us; we seek mere and more intellectual knowledge instead of truth. Sadly our spirtual desire for a King to redeem us and make us fit for service to the King and his eternal kingdom is overshadowed by our desire for an king/personal redeemer/messiah to satisfy our fleshly needs. So, it seems, we cannot judge them without condemning ourselves. Skip concluded: “It also explains that disappointment of the disciples and the crowds.” Yes it does, both then and now.
Excellent. Thanks.
“……we too now desire a King to deliver us from the tyranny of the real and imagined oppression of the self. We not only want a King to police, protect and prosper us in our present physical circumstances, but also in our practice of religion.”
How ironic is it Michael that America once had a King who said “I have seen the Promised Land ….. and we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
And he was killed the next day.
The world has its own version of “promised land,” and it is NOT biblical. Therefore, any prophet who proclaims a vision other than what the world wants is a threat to society.
Believers today do not esteem Jesus as Lord or King. They (we?) treat Him as their personal Savior. He is their servant in heaven. The Lord who redeemed Israel from slavery delivered them so they could serve Him. We want a government that will protect our right to make our own moral choices. We would be very disappointed in a King that would enforce His own holy standards. If Yeshua would come into our world as a man, He would be seen as an unloving enemy of personal freedom.
No doubt about it. In fact, anyone who actually considers him as a king in the human realm is likely to be excoriated for removing his deity, and thereby situating him in the very practical human realm rather than in the “pie-in-the-sky” heavenly abode.
A rebuilt earth as our final home is not taught much, either, I have noticed. Heaven is portrayed as a place that does NOT require us to fulfill a ‘job’: steward. Who wants to work in the next life?
Maybe the trouble is, that we do not want THE King, we want a king. Big difference! Maybe similar to the scenario in the old testament where they were wanting a king instead of a Samuel. Enter Saul. We want someone who will take care of us, someone like Saul, towering and beautiful to represent us, someone who will bless us in spite of ourselves, but not someone who will rule us! More like a caretaker! We want to call the shots and when they don’t work out the way we think or want, we want someone to fix the situation for us. We certainly don’t want to live in the consequences of our choices, especially if they are poor and don’t enhance us! We want to look good! We have become an “unrulable” people! Our situations have become the results of our choices,. God help us !
And what shall we make of Gabriel’s words to Daniel about the Messiah?
This is what I love about this blog: balance. Thank you, Paul.
Paradigm is not a Western invention: the East labors under the same constrictions. Israel did not WANT a ‘personal God’: a God who looked at each person individually. Instead, they wanted the political king, too: a king who represented the peoples’ popular wants and needs. I think this is the paradigm THEY were reading into the text. They skipped over Isaiah 53 altogether because they did not want what it promised and they ignored the Suffering Servant in favor of the Conquering King – of course, the exclusive king who, according to their paradigm, stomped on everyone who wasn’t a Jew. Now where in the text did they get that idea??? Daniel? The rabbis dealt with him by cursing the fingers and bones of any who dared read him. If you ignore the text altogether, I guess you don’t have to answer as to why your paradigm does not exactly match the text.
I want to say if we learned all these bad habits, who did we learn them from? Doesn’t this come down to a human problem more than it is a Jew vs. non-Jew problem? Or is that too personally uncomfortable? I wager nobody on the planet – in the flesh, anyway – wants personal accountability. It had to have been a big coup to figure out how to separate a personal God from personal accountability. Congratulations, us. But, are we really different from anybody else?
I think you will have to back up some of these statements this time. Yes, we all have paradigms, but does that mean they are all equally wrong?
Most rabbinics including Rashi and many others think it’s talking about Israel,can’t recall the one sage who claims it could be king Josiah.I find it pretty strange when the pronoun he and a man of sorrow is used and in singular form throughout Isaiah 53. Unless Israel has become transgender and I missed it, Israel is always referred to as a she.
Not quite. Even the biblical text refers to Israel as “son.” The pronouns don’t really seem to matter that much. I think this is a case of paradigm perception (perhaps on both sides). The rabbis often treated Israel as the “collective” Messiah. Klausner’s book is a must read on this topic.
Sorry that’s even dumber yet ,when did Israel do no violence,or have no deceit in its mouth or ever keep their mouths shut. Even if you you replaced Israel with every pronoun it sounds nothing like the Israel the bible talks about collective or not.
Good point, Pam. Isaiah was a prophet not only to the Israel of that day, but to those specifically to whom the prophecies referred to, which included the Israel of Yeshua’s time, but also to the spiritual Israel of whom we “upon whom the ends of the world are come” are, too. I read Isaiah 53 as being written to me, too, and with perfect prophetic hindsight (thanks, Skip, for teaching me this). I can see God in events because they were prophesied about long ago. I think Isaiah was also written for an audience of today, including me. Yeshua, in perfect hindsight, is clearly portrayed in that Suffering Servant, no matter what or who the Israel of yesteryear before the prophecy happened, thought.
I liken their take on Isaiah to a lot of the takes of people today trying to figure out what in the world Revelation is talking about! I have seen some truly silly stuff.
I agree hindsight is an advantage,that’s why I don’t touch revelation. It was written that if the rulers of the world had known they never would of crucified the Lord of glory.God does use ambiguity as a means to not reveal things before there time.Even Yeshua had to explain who he was to the Jews and the knock out punch was the ressurection. I do not think that all Israelites were in total ignorance though they were always looking forward to a messiah king so many Jews did accept him. Now all unbelievers have this mindset not just jews,they want to set the terms on what constitutes a messiah or not. Good luck with that one especially after the fact.Judaism in second temple and before is not anything like Judaism today and Christianity is not anything like it was than either.Heard a good quote today from Jonah Goldberg”Ingratitude is the spirit that inebriates us with despair,and in our darkest moments,makes suicide seem heroic” I am just grateful to be alive to be able to be redeemed and proclaim the greatest redemption of all ,Yeshua and the hope to come.
I really hate when political commentators take an illness like suicide and turn it into a political statement. What does a comment like that mean. Suicide is heroic??? Sorry maybe that is on some intellectual plane I am not on. Most of you can run circles around me on an intellectual level. But is seems like an asinine comment to me.
I just read about Jonah Goldberg. That tells me part of the story. But he has a book coming out called The Suicide of the West. How bout the Greed of The West or Maybe the Selfishness of the West. The only thing conservatives have going for them is their view on abortion and that is about it as far as i can tell. That makes all the other bad behavior acceptable I guess.
Greed and selfishness is not a sole invention of the west it’s been around as long as man has existed. It came from the East and moved west and now it’s a global lifestyle.You don’t see the west jumping at the chance to move east.I may not like what the west has become that’s for sure and don’t see it getting better but the alternative isn’t appealing either.To say for now I’m grateful to live in the west is an understatement.
Hi Pam, I realize greed and selfishness didn’t originate in the West. I was talking about the author’s title of his book.
Sorry Libby to offend you. But having both a mother and aunt have a lobotomy ,pretty rare in the 60’s .I know what he means and don’t find him insultive or political and if anyone should you would think it be me. It would be to long for this space to describe. I loved my mother and never held her illness against her. If this warrants more discussion please contact me at pamjam1007@gmail.com
You didn’t offend me, Pam. But maybe you might want to tell me what that comment means? People kill themselves and so that word to me is about illness, not politics. Even if we do have “suicide” bombers-people who want glory. If it is not a political comment, then what is it?
To be honest my mom perfected this mantra “you would be better off without me” even as a girl of 12 I new she had no right to determine that. My mother was very sick no doubt,but she could use despair as a mighty weapon when she choose too,plus top that with a whole lot of guilt . She often told me I hope you have this illness someday than you will understand. Thank goodness her prayers were not heard.
It sounds like your mom needed medical help which would have included possibly medicine and talk-therapy. I still don’t know what that quote means except from a political view. People say we are too politically correct, but if you are in the group, where you are affected by the words, you feel differently. Can we ever be too KIND? Note kindness does not include enabling.
In other words, giving a drug addict a place to live is not helping. And then telling him/her to get a job and get over it. Most people wouldn’t dare give medical advice on cancer or heart, but most people appear to be experts on treating addiction and that would include mental illnesses. A HUGE DISCONNECT in this arena.
Guess I am a oversensitive. NOT
Hi Libby, my mother lived on a psychiatrists couch an was given every med known to man, that’s why a lobotomy became a desperate last resort and that didnt work and made her worse. My mother was beautiful, brilliant and a great artist but also a great manipulator and ungrateful.so that quote is relative to me so I get it. Again my intent was not to offend anyone.
I’m sorry if you feel offended by me. But again, how is suicide heroic??
I think Israel thought it WAS Messiah because they were given the job of being an object lesson to the world (and to themselves, as part of that world, of course) of exactly what (Who) Messiah was to be (come like). Their entire economy (this word used in the older term of it, meaning “a system of rules, regulations, rites and ceremonies, as the Jewish economy.” Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 edition) was an allegory of Messiah, so that people could recognize Him and His function when He did get here.
Not at all. Even the West has some paradigms right! Which is to say, I think we were created to operate through paradigms, or ways to view reality. Of course, if we purchase the pure, rose-colored “eyesalve” of heaven, we get to see the world through the eyes of purity. That’s a great paradigm! (Sorry, couldn’t resist a little fun!)
But, I digress. What do you want me to back up? That Jews could possibly suffer from poor paradigms? Didn’t they participate in “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”? Didn’t this give Yeshua a continual headache? Didn’t they reject Him because He did not ‘fit’ their Messiah paradigm? Was that paradigm not built by their refusal to see the prophetic Scripture correctly because it, too, did not ‘fit’ their paradigm?
Can I just say , I am very excited to see intelligent people, engaged in intelligent conversation, over intelligently written well researched articles !!!
I feel like I have found a hidden treasure chest packed full of Gold, only instead of keeping it for myself, I am gonna share it with everyone I know. Thanks!
I am glad you are finding this useful. Please remember that this site exists only because avid readers support it, so perhaps you will consider becoming one of those people. Just go to
skipmoen.com/donate
and make a decision.
Skip
Perhaps a summary of what and where the money donated goes might be helpful. Is the money donated just for the site itself or does it include other functions of your ministry?
Thank you for sharing your insights into God’s Word and the sharing of your own personal journey.
God bless.
You can go to the home page and look for what we do. You can read a bit about it here (https://skipmoen.com/donate/). But we also have a pretty important project going in Jakarta which you can read about on the home page in the right lower corner (Children Under the Bridge). Maybe this will answer your question.
I’m a bit late here, but I must counter the assertion regarding Matthew’s use of “son of man”. First of all, “the Book of Enoch” is probably better called 1 Enoch, in order to differentiate between 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. Secondly, prior to the discovery of the DSS, the only extant copy was in Ethiopic, a language which lacks the [definite] article. Yet Matthew uses the article when he quotes Jesus using the term as a 3rd person self-reference: “the Son of Man”. Thus, with this evidence, we cannot be certain Matthew was sourcing 1 Enoch here.
Importantly, while the DSS have portions of 1 Enoch in Aramaic, these manuscripts do not contain any “son of man” references—references found only in what are known as Similitudes (chapters 37-71) of 1 Enoch.
Given that the source cited in this blog post is from 1955, the author had to rely on R.H. Charles’ now-outdated work, which postulated that 1 Enoch was written well B.C., except chapters 1-5, which he thought were “late pre-Christian”. Charles recognized, however, that the work was completed in stages, and was a composite, with multiple authors. Many now believe that the Similitudes were completed sometime late first century A.D., possibly either as a Christian interpolation, or that it contains Christian interpolations.
This blog post does an excellent job in delineating the issues: