Back to Ellis Home

Back to Ellis School

The Messiah in the Minor Prophets

 

 

__________________________

 

 

 

By

Andrew B. Ellis

 

Surely one of the most daunting tasks in biblical research is the exegesis of Hebrew scripture in its proper context, especially when the passages in question are presumed to be Messianic.  In this study, it is our purpose to view the Messiah in the Minor Prophets and to discuss certain passages in question to both try and understand their place in history and to determine the context with their ancient audience. 

  In Christian thought, the term messiah means the anointed one of God to come and fulfill scripture, and to save the sins of the world.  In the Hebrew scripture however, the word messiah occurs some 39 times, and surprisingly, the word itself is rarely used to specifically describe the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  Messiah in Hebrew literally means, “chosen, or anointed one.”  Walter Kaiser says that the term is in fact used to describe a perpetual “anointed one” nine of the 39 times.[1]  David used this term in reference to Saul when he said in 1 Samuel 24:6, “Far be it from me… to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the Lord’s anointed.”  David also recognized himself, as messiah, when he pleaded with the Lord, “Do not turn away the face of your anointed.” 

This same term is translated christos in the Greek, which is familiar as it would later become the proper name of Jesus of Nazareth because of his recognition of the messiahship he fulfilled.  However, it is clear that there has always been “a hope for a divinely appointed deliverer figure in the Old Testament period.”[2]  R.E. Clements worded it this way, “Anyone who comes to the Old Testament from a Christian perspective is likely to do so with a strong expectation of finding in it a clear and positive message concerning the promise of a coming messiah.”[3]  However, it is not always simple to distinguish which prophetic words are “messianic” passages.

One great disservice that modern-day Christian students perform is the “backwards reading of the Bible.”  What we mean is this: it is simple to come to the table of the “messianic prophecy” discussion and be predisposed to some set of ideas, thinking that we have a fair understanding of the prophecy on the basis of the New Testament’s use and fulfillment of it.  But it is imperative to look at each prophecy in the light of its immediate context to understand what the prophet is saying and to what people it is being said.  While Klein asserts that “Messianic passages are conspicuously absent from Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Malachi”, he also admits that Hosea 3:5 and Amos 9:11-15 could be considered “supplementary” passages.  It is our opinion that these two passages should be included as Messianic in nature, primarily on the basis of the context; of the raising of the “fallen booth of David” in Amos 9, and in Hosea 3:5 the sons of Israel return and seek the “Lord their God and David their king.”  According to Alphonsus Benson, the Amos account must indeed be taken as a Messianic text because it refers to the “remnant of Joseph” and also the recurring theme of the Restoration of Israel necessitated a new Davidic king who would rule in the new kingdom.[4]  Although this is not the current focus, any in depth study of the Restoration of Israel clearly shows messianic implications.

We begin with the analysis of some passages in the latter prophets, and the first is Micah 5:2.  “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah… from you one will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel.”  Just as Isaiah spoke in Isaiah 11 of the kingship going back to the “stump of Jesse,” Micah resumes the kingship from Bethlehem, providentially the childhood home of David himself.[5]  This passage is interesting in that just as David was an “unknown” until Samuel came and anointed him - (not only the youngest of Jesse’s sons, but also a shepherd) - so also Christ would be an “unknown” in the sense of his humble beginnings.  Unexpected greatness would spring from an unlikely place, Bethlehem, and not Jerusalem. 

According to James Dunn, the silence of the first century authors regarding Jesus as the Davidic Messiah means they did not understand Micah (nor any other prophet) to be messianic in nature, and had no concept of a “pre-existent” Christ.[6]  However, what silence does he refer to?  The gospel writer Matthew certainly knew of it, as he recorded for the Jewish Christian community in Matthew 2:6.  Dunn probably refers to writers “outside” of the canon of the scriptures, such as Trypho, the second century Christian whom he credits as the first to mention a pre-existent messiah concept.[7]  Gerhard von Rad mentions that the only plausible interpretation of the Micah passage lies in the revelation of the Messiah in Bethlehem, which is significant because of its unexpected place as the origin of the great king.[8]  However, the passage is viewed with skepticism by some because of the lack of the term messiah in the passage.  Harder critical scholars tend to denounce the passages that do not clearly show a context of Messianism, and this is the case with the exegesis of Klaus Koch, who says that Micah 5:1-2 are not to be taken away from their context of verses 3-5, they must remain true there, and not in some New Testament application.[9] 

At a point such as this where it is clear that there are harsh skeptics of the nature of the prophecy and the fulfillment of it, it is helpful to understand a level-headed approach that Messianic prophecy is by no means limited to purely Messianic passages.  “The establishment of the messianic throne of the house of David is also the center of the mighty historical work which comprises the Pentateuch, and the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings.”[10]  This is indeed sound reasoning, as there was knowledge all the way back to the promises of Abraham that the world would be blessed through his seed.  Certainly there was a hope alive in the people of God for a savior who would set them free.

Another valuable point that needs to be made is that of the hope of Israel toward a promised reversal of things that would happen in the future.  Isaiah, who was a contemporary to Micah prophesied of the “shoot from Jesse’s stump” in Isaiah 11:1.  Many of the passages in question clearly show that the time of the Davidic ruler’s coming will be during a time of Great trial and darkness.[11]  Clearly futuristic in nature, the immediate context gives light to God’s plans for the people.  Micah 5:1-5 “imagines a new royal possibility of peasant stock who will prevail even over Assyria.”[12]

Another section that deserves our attention is that of Haggai.  Prophesying in 520 B.C., Haggai was the Lord’s servant to stir the people to rebuild the temple, and the restore its glory to a point “greater than the first.”  The primary point of our attention in this book is the role of Zerubbabel, a descendant of David as the governor of the people and his correlating ruler, Joshua the High Priest.  The imagery is brought forth here that shows “priest and king” aspect of the ruler of Judah.  If there is a unifying theme to this book of Haggai, it is the imperative nature of the command to rebuild the temple. 

The main passage of Haggai that we must address is Haggai 2:7.  In a passive way, the chosen servant Zerubbabel is to be the Messianic figure and likeness to Christ in the future.  Although Haggai only proposes linkages to the past, the future is clearly seen in the testimony of Zechariah, his contemporary.[13] 

Herbert Wolf addresses the controversy in the book of Haggai over the presumed messiahship of the book.  In 2:7, Haggai uses the phrase “wealth of all nations” to describe the God’s shaking of the nations.  The debate becomes heated when all the language of the book is taken into account… the KJV translates “desire of all nations shall come,” the NASB translates “wealth of the nations,” the ASV 1901 renders desire “precious things” and the NEB “the treasures of all nations shall come hither.”  The discussion is based on the presence of a plural verb with a singular subject, which is interpreted in several ways. 

The argument seems to come down in the court of whoever is doing the translating, but Wolf says, “Parallel passages provide strong support for seeing the concept of ‘valuable treasures’ in Haggai.”[14]  Wolf goes on to show that both Isaiah 60:5 and Zechariah 14:14 describe the “wealth of all the nations” in silver, gold and garments.  He rightly shows their correlation and even in the Haggai passage is “silver and gold” mentioned in the next immediate verse.  It appears that this may not be truly Messianic, but the fact remains that Zerubbabel is the anointed one in the line of David who will finish the temple and is the pledge of the Davidic dynasty.

While addressing the grammatical issues, Walter Kaiser believes the “desire of the nations” is the Messiah, not silver and gold to complete the Temple.[15]  He states that Herbert Wolf’s conclusion is the same as his, although it does not appear that Wolf truly comes down on a particular side of the grammatical coin. 

In one particular paragraph, Kaiser states “the most sought-after Person of all persons is also the one to whom all ‘desirable items’ and ‘wealth’ will flow in that day, for everything that is valuable, prized, and precious belongs to him as Lord, creator, and owner of all things.  That explains adequately the singular and plural connotation that most commentators and translators have failed to grasp.”[16]  The interesting thing about that statement is that it appears to be based on an emotional argument, not sound reasoning from the text.  In context – as Wolf states – the “desire of the nations” certainly fits perfectly with the “treasures” translation (or wealth) that will be brought for the temple. 

In his commentary, Homer Hailey reminds us that God stirred Darius (Ezra 6:6-15) and Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:12-26) to help in construction through their goods and riches.  With the riches and financial aid of these two foreign kings added into the picture, Haggai’s context appears to be in unity with the “non-messianic” interpretation of this verse.[17]  “I will shake the nations” tends to make more sense in this light as well.

This brings us to Zechariah.  Jack Lewis has a very clear and concise summary of Messianic text that is simple to understand.[18]  Zechariah is the other Old Testament book (besides Daniel) that has the greatest impact on the book of the Apocalypse, Revelation.  The first statement of the book that addresses the Messiah is in 3:8.  “Behold I am going to bring in my Servant, the Branch.”  This statement is repeated in numerous places throughout Jeremiah and also Isaiah.  The Branch was to distinguish the lineage of David, and the branch from his seed that would be the anointed one. 

In a critical commentary on Zechariah, Roy Rosenburg remarks that the Branch is transformed into a Messianic figure only through transparent exegetical processes.  He assesses that the practice of attributing Christ Jesus to the Branch as the suffering offspring of David are merely Christian traditions, and have no basis in Pharisaic-Rabbinical backgrounds.[19]  Although Rosenburn claims the slain Messiah has no basis in Zechariah, (as we will see later in Zech. 13), he never at any point offers another explanation for who the Messiah is.  Zerubbabel is presumed by most skeptics to be the Messiah, and as the Lord’s anointed, he is; but indeed Zech. 6:9-15 shows us that his power was bent to that of Joshua, the High Priest.  Thus we acquire the symbolism for the priest/king of Christ.

Zechariah 6:9-15 is the passage that gives the most trouble for the harsh exegetes.  This passage is the subject of much investigation by some scholars who doubt the validity of another Messiah than Zerubbabel.  Joseph Blenkinsopp adequately sums up the skirmish when he observes (with surprising certainty) that the Jewish Messianic movement focused on Zerubbabel; and in the text of Zechariah 6:11-12 replaced Joshua’s name with that of Zerubbabel, because it fits their formula.[20]  The problem is that if Zerubbabel is the one who is intended here as the Messiah, why is there an abrupt reference to the Branch in 6:12-13, when Zerubbabel has just been mentioned in 4:9?  Zerubbabel is said to be the one who will “finish the temple” but in 6:12, the Branch will build the Temple of the Lord.  The interesting thing about this is that 4:9 speaks of “finishing” and 6:12 speaks of “building.”  The fact that 6:12 shows the Branch to “build the temple of the LORD” shows that there is another building taking place.  Indeed, a greater structure than the Temple Zerubbabel will build.[21]Could it be that this passage is truly Messianic and refers to the Restoration of Israel in the true Messiah?  In that kingdom, the Branch (the Messiah) will “build the temple of the LORD.”  The Messiah will be a priest and a king on his throne (c/f Hebrews 7 and Melchizidek).[22] 

Klaus Koch mentions that this splitting and merging of the offices of priest and king gave rise to the Jewish hope of two messiahs.  This is certainly true of the Qumran community, in which the Essenes clearly had hope of two messiahs.[23] 

Zechariah 9:9 presents the Messiah as the king who is coming “endowed with salvation.”  The imagery of the king being “humble and mounted on a donkey” is given here to describe a king who reigns in peace.  During this time of history, horses and donkeys had certain images attached to them.  The horse was the choice mount for a warrior, and a champion.  The donkey was the transportation of kings and princes.  The donkey not only presented the image of kingly position, it also bore the scene of peace.[24] 

Zechariah 12:10 is also one of the most recognizable similarities to the sufferings of the Messiah in the New Testament.  Eric Klein mentions the difficult task of applying Old Testament passages to New Testament scenes, and says that “however complex the factors that led to the development, the deity of the messiah is totally lacking in Old Testament texts… small wonder that this Christian doctrine leads to conflict and tension with Judaism.  The deity of Christ goes beyond what was predicted for the Messiah in the Old Testament material.  One might say that the fulfillment turns out to be greater than the promise.”[25]

What Klein points out is true, at least in some sense, that in Zechariah, the picture is not painted of a Messiah that is divine, but merely a priest and king.  And indeed he is mistreated and abused by his own, and “they will look on me whom they have pierced.”  The most pertinent thing that Israel seems to hope for in history is a serious Davidic (messianic) recovery.[26]

In Zechariah 13:1 is typically seen as connected with the preceding chapter.  One can be assured, though, that the Priestly work of the Messiah, his making atonement for sin, is indicated.”[27]  This is indelibly clear in the next set of verses in chapter 13.    The atoning fountain that is opened for the cleansing of sin and impurity is altogether descriptive of the same concept as is present in I John 2:2 conveys this idea as well in the words “propitiation” and John describes it as atonement “not only for our sins, but the sins of the world.” 

What remains in Zechariah are several passages that are similar in meaning and relate to the king of Israel in his reign.  The remaining occurrence of historically Messianic content for us to address is in Malachi.

According to Gerald Keown, there are “no direct references to the coming of the Messiah, the ‘anointed one.’”[28]  However, what remains is clearly more than simply for their own time.  One thing that is important for us to remember is that Christian readers typically read the scripture from back to front; that is, the scripture of the Hebrews relates often only in what is specifically Messianic.  But it should not escape our notice that the claims of the prophets, whether specifically Messianic or not, are of extreme value to the Christian.  They help us understand how God is the Savior and the glory ultimately is not to the Messiah, but given through the Messiah to God the Father.  Keown also relates this importance in the light of understanding the Jewish origins of the prophecy’s context.

The clear Davidic path that Israel anticipated had been disrupted by Exile and the corruption of the Davidic line of Kings, so naturally the people were beginning to look elsewhere for the meaning of God’s promises.  Surely some doubted the promises would be fulfilled at all, but the unraveling of the Davidic kingship in the eyes of the people surely hindered their faith. 

One passage that has typically been misapplied as Messianic is 1:11.  “From the rising of the sun… will my name be great among the Gentiles” has typically been dubbed Messianic, however Jack Lewis surmises that this could not be the case because of grammatical hindrances.[29]  The most promising Messianic text in Malachi is perhaps Malachi 3:1ff.  The messenger that the Lord will send will “clear the way before me,” and will pave the way for the Elijah prophet.  This “new” Elijah will “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children” and the “children to the fathers” so that God will not curse the land.  Traditionally, John the Baptist has dominated all interpretations of the messenger of 3:1, however, as E.W. Hengstenberg assesses, it is possible that the messenger is either all the prophets before him, or a specific prophet in the mind of Malachi, the messenger.[30]

Whatever the proper application of the messenger and the message of Malachi, the underlying motive is abundantly clear, that the Lord loves his people, and he desires them to turn back to himself.

In a day of religious pluralism, it is important to understand God did not establish a new religion with the Messiah, but merely fulfilled it.  Thus, the Lord’s one religion is the Restoration of Israel, as it has always been Israel.  The proper application of Messianic passages will help us to further comprehend the Lord’s eternal plan and how it came to pass.

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Benson, Alphonsus. “’…From the Mouth of the Lion’ the

Messianism of Amos.” Catholic Bible Quarterly. 19

(1961): 199-212.

 

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel.

Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997.

 

Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

 

Clements, R.E. “The Messianic Hope in the Old Testament.”

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 43,

(1989): 3-19.

 

Dunn, James D.G. Christology in the Making.  2 Ed. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

 

Hailey, Homer. A Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Temple

Terrace, FL: Religious Supply, 1993.

 

Harrelson, Walter. “Messianic Expectations at the Time of

Jesus.” Saint Luke’s Journal of Theology. 32 (1988):

28-42.

 

Hengstenberg, E.W.  Christology of the Old Testament and a

Commentary on the Messianic Predictions.  Vol. 4

Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1956.

 

Kaiser, Walter. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand

Rapids:Zondervan, 1995.

 

Keown, Gerald L. “Messianism in the Book of Malachi.”

Review and Expositor.  84 (Sum. 1987): 443-451.

 

Klein, Ralph. “Christology and Incarnation:  Fulfillment

and Radical Reinterpretation of the Old Testament

Prophets.” Ex Auditu 7,(1991) 9-17.

 

Koch, Klaus. The Prophets: the Assyrian Period.

Vol. 1 & 2.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

 

Leupold, H.C.  Exposition of Zechariah. Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1971.

 

Lewis, Jack P. The Minor Prophets.  Henderson, TN: Hester

Publications, 1998.

 

Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. “Zechariah 9-14.” ­The

Anchor Bible 25C. New York, Doubleday, 1993.

 

Rosenburg, Roy A. “The Slain Messiah in the Old Testament.”

            Zeitshcrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.

99:2 (1987): 259-261.

 

Van Groningen, Gerard. Messianic Revelation in the Old

Testament.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

 

Vischer, Wilhelm. The Witness of the Old Testament to

Christ. Vol. I.  Tr. A.B Crabtree.  London:

Lutterworth Press, 1949.

 

Von Rad, Gerhard. The Message of the Prophets.  San

Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1965.

 

Wolf, Herbert. “The Desire of All Nations” in Haggai 2:7:

Messianic or Not?” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society. 19 (Spr. 1974): 97-102.