Mashiachs

Greg,

We both really enjoy exploring scripture and trying to understand the context beyond what we often hear in Sunday school.  We both take what is said and not said regarding the Word seriously, especially from the pulpits we both turn to for our guidance.  I am eager to share with you some things I have learned about the understanding of the “messiah” from a Hebrew perspective.

Being Christians, we have heard the word “messiah” thousands of times, but we have almost exclusively heard that phrase tied to Jesus of Nazareth, which makes sense given our Christian context being almost exclusively the source.  However, I have been learning a bit more since our days in our Judaism class with Professor Corn.  Do you remember him talking about the word “mashiach?”  He had explained that there were lots of “mashiachs” (messiahs) in the Hebrew scriptures, but we did not really dig into it any further.

The word “messiah” means “anointed.”  As we know, anointing someone is when oil is poured over their head, “normally as part of a ritual installing someone into a high office (mostly priests and kings)” (Stanley 529).  Technically, anyone anointed can be referred to as “mashiach,” but we find that often times in our Hebrew Scriptures it is applied to kings.  More specifically, the title is “applied often to the kings of Judah” (Stanley 529).

In 2 Samuel 5 we find King David being anointed over Israel.  YHWH had specifically made a covenant with David the mashiach to ensure that the throne of Israel would always have someone from the Davidic line (2 Samuel 7).  The house of David made sense for this kind of title and legacy because David was a terrific mashiach.

The idea of the mashiach was pretty specific in expectation.  Reza Aslan writes about this role from a post-dcvidic time saying, “. . .the one major thing that the messiah was supposed to do. . .is to reestablish the kingdom of David to set the Jews free from the yoke of occupation” (Aslan, Messiahs [Bible Odyssey]).  David had excelled at this role when he led Israel to war against all of the nations that were against them.  He had established Israel as a great nation which is where the Davidic covenant came from.  The hope was that his lineage would be a succession of messiah kings to ensure Israel’s prosperity.

Of course, just a few years later Israel was no longer an independent nation.  Rather, they had been conquered, exiled, and occupied by Assyria and Babylon before they experienced a return to greatness.  During their exile we find the prophets foretelling of the rise of a new mashiach who would once again lead Israel.  Oddly enough, when Persia conquered Babylon and allowed the return of the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem, Cyrus (the conquering Persian king) was named “YHWH’s anointed” in Isaiah 45 (Fried, Cyrus the Messiah [Bible Odyssey]).  Not only could mashiach be any Israelite or Jew elected to high office, but a foreign ruler as well.

The Hebrew prophets who spoke of YHWH raising up an “ideal ‘anointed one’ (Messiah) to rule over Israel with justice and to inaugurate an era of peace and prosperity” (Stanley 529).  According to Zechariah 9, this mashiach would be a “warrior to judge the nations and rescue his people from foreign domination.  In that day, a king from the line of David will bring peace to the land” (Stanley 488).  It seems that this is definitely not referring to Jesus given the strong message of anti-violence taught by the Nazarene.  In fact, Jesus did not do any of the things an expected mashiach was supposed to do.  The Christian writers understood his work to be on a larger (heavenly/spiritual) scale by establishing God’s Kingdom rather than Israel and delivering people from the oppression of sin rather than the oppression by foreign domination.

Judaism’s greatest mashiach was the original, Moses.  Moses fit the bill of a mashiach although we do not have a specific “anointing” other than the calling at the burning bush (Exodus 3).  Moses led the oppressed and enslaved Israelites out of Egypt, gave them the LAW from YHWH which was to be the ordinances they were governed by, and then led them to the Promised Land.  Through Moses Israel was established and judged.  Not until David do we find this mashiach expectation so greatly fulfilled.

After Israel was exiled to Babylon and then released by Cyrus the messiah, they returned and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem.  The prophet Haggai spoke of the Persian governor Zerubbabel (a descendant of David) being placed as Israel’s leader.  “Haggai may even have thought that he was the promised Messiah (2:9, 23)” (Stanley 470).

Zechariah seconds this notion about Zerubbabel but also Joshua who is the high priest at the time of Zerubbabel.  Zechariah describes “‘the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth’ (4:14)” (Stanley, 471).  There is a debate about which of the two was from the line of David given that Joshua is referred to that lineage by Zechariah.  It is thought “that the Persians eventually became suspicious of Zerubbabel and removed him from the office before the community had a chance to make him a king.  The prophecy that spoke of Zerubbabel wearing a crown and ruling over YHWH’s people was then transferred to Joshua, whom YHWH had already placed in charge of his restored temple (3:1-7)” (Stanley 472).

All this to point out the use of “mashiach” (anointed one/Messiah) was not regarded with the same fervor and exclusivity that we as Christians speak of it today.  Many times in scripture we find people appointed to fulfill a divine duty and consequently “anointed” for the task.  While the expectations were specific in some cases (connecting the ruler to Davidic lineage), with people like Cyrus the expectation is flexible.  I wonder when the idea of mashiach lost it’s flexibility and became rigid to the point where Christianity only ever speaks of Jesus as the Messiah?

Makes me wonder.

I’m eager to hear your response to all of this new information. Let’s keep digging and see what else we can find in the rich soil of biblical study.

Peace,

Joe