Part II of Zarley’s book is entitled ‘Messianism in the Old Testament.’ Zarley begins by describing the departure of Christianity from Judaism. In some ways this was a natural and inevitable step, but the process by which it occurred was ultimately detrimental to the faith. Rather than simply moving on from the Law of Moses while retaining the essentially Jewish character of their religion, Christians became increasingly influenced by Gentile ideology, which tainted their interpretation of OT Messianic passages. Over time, Christianity became a Gentile religion in its own right. Obscured to the point of oblivion, Christianity’s Jewish heritage was all but lost, and with it the essential foundations of a strictly Unitarian belief.
Zarley goes on to reclaim the Jewishness of Jesus by detailing various aspects of OT Messianism. He shows that the title of ‘Kurios’ is not equivalent to ‘Yahweh’, and demonstrates that the antipathy of post-apostolic Judaism towards Christianity was largely a reaction to the veneration of Jesus, then Binitarianism, and finally Trinitarianism. Zarley notes,
Contemporary Jewish writer David Klinghoffer explains that in the early centuries of the Common Era, and more so in medieval times, rabbis opposed Christianity for four reasons. He observes, in their order of importance,
The top four are the seeming reversion from monotheism to the worship of multiple deities [Father, Son, Holy Spirit]; the problem of Christianity’s abrogation of the law of the Torah; the true Messiah; and the person of Jesus himself.” Klinghoffer says of the first reason, “In Talmudic and other early rabbinic literature, the most often heard polemical theme directed against Christians has to do with the charge that the latter worshipped two gods. Not three, as in later Christian formulations – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – but two. In the first centuries of our [common] era, not all Christians had yet become formal Trinitarians, for the Holy Spirit had not yet joined the pantheon.[1]
A critical breakthrough in Jewish-Christian relations came with the advent of the Enlightenment era, which brought new attitudes and new approaches to the study of Christian origins, including a renewed interest in the historical Jesus. By the 20th Century, liberal Jewish scholars had concluded that the historical Jesus was legitimately Jewish. While still rejecting him as Messiah, they nevertheless acknowledged him as an ethical teacher, knowledgeable in the Jewish Scriptures, and unfairly maligned by the religious leaders of his day.
Zarley follows up these observations with a review of Messianic terminology in the OT. He examines the meaning and use of ‘Messiah’ and the Tetragrammaton, Jewish reservations about the use of the divine Name, confusion arising from its mistaken conflation with Kurios, and the concept of an eschatological Messiah in pre-Christian Jewish thought. Drawing on expert scholarship, Zarley describes the variety of Jewish Messianic expectations during the 1st Century CE, with particular reference to the Qumran community. Zarley notes,
Oscar Cullman rightly says of that time, “Judaism had by no means a single fixed concept of the Messiah.” Most Jews believed that there would be only one eschatological Messiah, which they designated “Messiah Ben David” and is verified in the NT gospels. But many Jews also believed in other eschatological figures, e.g. that a special Moses-like prophet would appear someday, in accordance with Deut 18.15-19 (cf. Jn 1.21, 25; 6.14; 7:40). Jews had no consensus about the relation between these two figures. [2]
Theories about the identity of Messiah included hypotheses regarding his role and origins. Jews originally expected an eschatological king-priest, but not one who exhibited the now-familiar attributes of a spiritual saviour. At some point the idea of a king-priest was lost and Jews began to entertain the idea of two separate Messiahs: one a king, and the other a warrior. Zarley quotes the Jewish scholar, Raphael Patai, as saying,
This splitting of the Messiah into two persons, which took place during the Talmudic period,[3] achieved another purpose besides resolving the dilemma of a slain Messiah. According to an old tradition, the Messiah was perfectly prefigured in Moses. But Moses died before he could lead the Children of Israel into the Land of Promise. Consequently, for the parallel to be complete, the Messiah, too, had to die before accomplishing his great task of ultimate Redemption. Since, however, the Messiah would not be the True Redeemer of God if he did not fulfil that ultimate task, the only solution was to let one Messiah, like Moses, die, and then assign the completion of the work of Redemption to a second Messiah.[4]
Zarley also examines Jewish speculation about a pre-existent Messiah figure. This minority view is connected with a tradition which stated that Messiah would have secret origins, remaining ‘concealed’ from his people until a seemingly miraculous appearance at the appropriate time. The primary source for an allegedly pre-existent Messiah is a section from the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch which repeatedly speaks of the ‘Son of man’ and equates him with the Davidic Messiah. The passage commonly interpreted as a reference to pre-existence reads:
Therefore the Elect and the Concealed One existed in his [God’s] presence, before the world was created, and forever. 1 Enoch 48:6.
Zarley cites J. D. G. Dunn to show that even if the reference is to a literal, personal pre-existence, it is the first time this idea appears in Jewish thought.[5] He concludes: “Regardless, Jews have never thought that pre-existence necessitated deity”, and “While normative Judaism never adopted any uniformity regarding the Davidic, eschatological Messiah, it certainly never subscribed to the notion that this Messiah would be God incarnate”.[6]
Zarley takes the reader on a comprehensive tour of OT Messianism, noting key features along the way:
- Yahweh and the Messiah are distinguished from each other
- Messiah is Yahweh’s agent; Yahweh is Messiah’s God
- ‘Son of God’ does not imply deity, but is applied to angels and humans alike
- The Shema (Deut 6:4-5) unequivocally defines the OT’s explicitly Unitarian character
- The ‘Angel of the Lord’ is not a pre-existent Messiah
- The ‘Son of Man’ is a human figure elevated to the right hand of God, not a divine figure who comes down from God to humanity
He finishes this section with a critical review of common Trinitarian OT proof texts, including timeworn chestnuts such as Gen 1:26 and Isa 9:6.
Of particular interest is Zarley’s brief digression into the work of the ‘New History of Religions School.’[7] This was a liberal scholastic movement of the late 20th Century which sought to prove that Jewish monotheism was more flexible than previously believed. Proponents of this view (including well-known figures such as R. Bauckham and L. Hurtado) typically take their arguments from angelology, resulting in what has become known as ‘angelomorphic Christology.’[8] Zarley responds by citing contemporary Christian academics who have exposed the inherent weaknesses of angelomorphic Christology by demonstrating there was no shift from low to high Christology in the 1st Century, and that the high Christology we find in the 2nd Century was a result of post-apostolic Hellenization.[9]
Part II is a testament to the breadth of Zarley’s research and personal understanding. It provides the perfect foundation for his study of NT Christology (Part III) while debunking common misconceptions about OT Messianic passages and addressing the latest developments in Christological theory.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)