 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
There are two basic versions of the two Messiah theory:
In order to understand the Messianic theory of the Nazarenes and Ebionites it is important to understand these two theories. I will first document each version of the two Messiah theory, then I will show evidence that both theories existed in the first century. I will also show that the two versions of the theory are related to each other. Finally I will show that the NT shows an awareness of the two Messiah theory and relates to it.
The first of the two Messiah theories is the "Rabbinic" theory. The Rabbi's have always recognized an apparent conflict between certain Messianic passages. For example: R. Alexandri said: Rabbi Joshua opposed two verses: It is written:
The Rabbinic "two Messiah" theory was one of several answers that the Rabbis found for these contradictions. It delegated the lowly, suffering servant passages to Messiah the son of Joseph (sometimes called Ephraim); and the Kingly passages to Messiah the son of David. A good example of the Ephraim Messiah in Rabbinic literature is a Midrash in which the Messiah is being warned by G-d of what awaits him:
Their sins will be upon you like a yoke of iron. They will choke your spirit. Because of their sins, Your tongue will cleave to the roof of your mouth. Do you accept this? If not, I will remove the decree from you. The Messiah replies: "Master of the worlds, how long will this last? G-d replies: "Ephraim, my true Messiah, ever since the six days of creation you have taken this ordeal upon yourself. At this moment, your pain is my pain". Messiah replies: "Master of the worlds, I accept this with gladness in my soul, and joy in my heart, so that not a single one of the House of Israel should perish. Not only for those alive, but also the dead. It is enough that the servant be like the Master. (Midrash Pesqita Rabbah 36)
Rabbi Dosa (who lived around 250 CE) was a chief advocate of the two Messiah theory. The Talmud records that he taught regarding Zech. 12:10: What is the cause of the mourning [of Zech. 12:12]--... It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse: And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, And they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son. (Zech. 12:10) (b. Sukkot 52a)
Now the Qumran community also believed in two Messiahs:
They shall govern themselves using the original precepts by which the men of the Yahad began to be instructed, doing so until there come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. (Manual of Discipline/Community rule 1Qs Col. 9 lines 10-11; from The Dead Sea Scrolls A New Translation by Wise; Abegg and Cook p. 139)
Two Messiahs are also evident in 1QSa, 1Q28a where the two Messiahs are pictured at a future Messianic banquet table. Now it has been stated in recent years that the two Messiah theory did not exist in the first century. These theorists claim that a "suffering servant" Messiah who dies was invented to get Bar Kokhba off the hook. However the Talmud tells us that Bar Kokhba failed, not because he was a suffering servant Messiah, but because he was not a Messiah of any kind whatsoever. Moreover First century sources attest to both the idea of a suffering servant Messiah and the two Messiah theory. The earliest sources for the two Messiah theory are the Dead Sea Scrolls and Targum Jonathan. Targum Jonathan identifies the pierced one of Zech. 12:10 as the "Messiah son of Ephraim." Targum Jonathan was supposed to have been written in the first century by Jonathan ben Uziel the student of Hillel.
Answer for yourself: Another question that arises is, can the priestly Messiah of the Qumran community be identified with the suffering servant Messiah?
The answer is, I believe, yes. The critical clue lies in the way that the Dead Sea Scrolls use Is. 61:1-4.
One document among the scrolls (11Q13) applies Is. 61:1-3 to a priestly eschatological figure who is called "Melchisedek" the document then speaks of a "Messiah" who is called the one "anointed of the spirit" (Is. 61:1) and to whom Is. 62:2 is also applied. This "Messiah" is identified as the figure spoken of in Is. 52:7 and as the Messiah who is "cut-off" in Dan. 9:26. This implies a connection to the suffering servant in Is. 53 who is also cut-off. A final clue is found in 4Q521 which also applies Is. 61:1 to the Messiah and which closely parallels Mt. 11:5 (which will become important later).
Answer for yourself: Finally, was there to be two Messiahs or one Messiah?
There does seem to have been confusion on this issue. While 1QS 9:10-11 refers to the "Messiahs of Levi and Israel," the Damascus Document three times refers to the "Messiah of Levi and Israel" (12:23; 14:19; 19:10).
Answer for yourself: Was there a question as to whether these would be two Messiahs or one?
A tradition found in Midrash Rabbah may provide the answer: Like Moses, Messiah will be revealed, then hidden, then revealed again. (Bamidbar Rabbah 11:2)
Now as for how these concepts were perceived by the Nazarenes: Mt. 11:2-3 And when John had heard in prison about the works of Messiah, he sent two of his students and said to him: "Are you the coming ONE or do we expect ANOTHER?"
Yeshua responds by quoting from Is. 35:5-6; 26:14 and (get this) Is. 61:1. This statement (In Mt. 11:5) parallels 4Q521 so closely that both contain "raise the dead" which is NOT in Isaiah. Yeshua is clearly referring to a key known list of criteria for the Kingly Messiah (John already knew Yeshua was the suffering one) and which cited Is. 61:1 the critical material which ties all of the Messiah's together in the Qumran literature (remember, very good evidence indicates that John had broken off from the Qumran community.)
LK. 17:25 but first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. Clearly this verse shows that the suffering Messiah first concept existed in the first century and was being cited by Yeshua.
In Heb. 5-7 the writer characterizes Yeshua as a priestly Messiah and as an antitype of Melchisedek. Like 11Q13 Paul uses a high Christology (Heb. 1; 11Q13 calls Melchisedek El and Elohim and replaces YHVH with Melchisedek in quoting from Is. 61). Both tie the work of Melchisedek to the Day of Atonement (11Q13 2:7; Heb. 8-10) Clearly Paul sees Yeshua as the Priestly Messiah characterized by the Qumran community as well as a suffering servant Messiah and Kingly Messiah.
Time will tell if he was right in light of so many unfilled Prophetic Messianic Scriptures awaiting fulfillment by the true Messiah.
Answer for yourself: Is it possible that, although the Messianic prophecies were not fulfilled in the first century, that Yeshua was "revealed" to some in the first century as "Messiah ben Yosef" but then hidden to be revealed another day as "Messiah ben David" and at that time the Messianic prophecies will be fulfilled?
It is impossible to say for sure but the scenario is worthy of consideration and we cannot rule it out completely.
Bennoah1@verizon.net