Michael Rydelnik. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
I would like to thank B&H Academic for my review copy of this book. See here for B&H’s page about it.
The question of whether or not the Hebrew Bible predicted the coming
of Jesus Christ has long occupied my mind. I suppose that, somewhere in
my mind when I was reading the Bible as a teenager, I was wondering
whether the New Testament’s application of Old Testament passages to
Jesus was actually faithful to what those Old Testament passages meant
in their original contexts. That question was pushed to the forefront
of my mind, however, after I listened to a tape in which an Orthodox Jew
attempted to systematically dismantle Christian interpretations of the
Hebrew Bible. Listening to that tape inspired so many aspects of my
academic journey: my decision to focus on interpretations of the Hebrew
Bible, as well as two of my theses, one on ancient biblical exegesis,
and another on the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
To be honest, several evangelical attempts to explain the New
Testament’s use of the Hebrew Bible have not satisfied me. I have
appreciated evangelical scholars’ acknowledgment that how the New
Testament interprets the Hebrew Bible is often inconsistent with the
sense of the Hebrew Bible’s passages in their original, immediate
contexts. But it is how they then go on to defend Christianity that
really baffles me. Some evangelical scholars argue that a passage in
the Hebrew Bible may have meant something non-Christian in its original
context, and yet it could also have a deeper meaning that relates to
Jesus Christ. Other evangelical scholars point out that ancient
exegesis did not limit itself to the original, literal, historical,
immediate contexts of biblical passages, and thus the New Testament is
participating in acceptable interpretational practices of its time.
These scholars would shy away from saying that Christians today can
employ creative exegesis (or eisegesis) that disregards a biblical
passage’s immediate context, however, arguing that the New Testament
authors were divinely-inspired, whereas Christians today are not.
Why have I not been satisfied with such evangelical arguments? It is
not because I deny that New Testament authors may have used a form of
midrash or pesher in approaching the Hebrew Bible. Rather, it is
because the evangelical arguments present a rather disjointed picture of
the Bible. I would have an easier time being an evangelical were I to
believe that the Old Testament directly predicted Jesus Christ, and that
the New Testament was the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures, for
that is neat and linear. I would have a harder time being an
evangelical were I to believe that the Hebrew Bible only predicted Jesus
Christ in a secondary sense, or that New Testament authors were simply
echoing the eisegetical methods of their own time.
Michael Rydelnik’s The Messianic Hope is an argument for the
Hebrew Bible being Messianic, as well as a direct prediction of Jesus
Christ. Rydelnik is disturbed by how many evangelical scholars have
approached this issue, believing that it robs evangelicals of a
significant piece of evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, namely, that
Jesus fulfilled Old Testament Messianic prophecy. I have wanted to read
this book for a long time, but I became more exposed to Rydelnik’s
thought when my church went through a Bible study curriculum that he
hosted: The Unbreakable Promise: God’s Covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David With Michael Rydelnik.
While I did not agree with a lot that Rydelnik argued in that
curriculum, what he had to say did intrigue me and make me think. The
same was true of The Messianic Hope. (Actually, reading The Messianic Hope cleared up some of the confusion that I had after watching The Unbreakable Promise.) In this book review, I will summarize key points in each chapter, then I will give my overall assessment and critique.
In Chapter 1, “Why Messianic Prophecy Is Important,” Rydelnik
highlights the predictive value of Messianic prophecy for Christianity.
Chapter 2, “The Nature of Prophecy and Fulfillment: How Old Testament
Scholarship Views Messianic Prophecy,” is a survey of how biblical
scholars, including evangelical scholars, have approached the Hebrew
Bible’s passages that the New Testament applies to Jesus, as well as the
apparent problem of how the New Testament interprets those passages for
Christianity.
In Chapter 3, “Text-Critical Perspectives on Messianic Prophecy,”
Rydelnik argues that the Masoretic Text de-eschatologizes or
historicizes biblical passages that were originally eschatological and
Messianic. For example, the Septuagint for Numbers 24:7 is about a
coming king of Israel who will contend with Gog, the eschatological
enemy of Israel in Ezekiel 38-39. The MT, however, says that the King
of Israel will be above Agag, who was the Amalekite king of I Samuel
15. According to Rydelnik, the MT is making the Hebrew Bible less
Messianic and more historical, possibly in an attempt to counter
Christian claims that the Hebrew Bible was Messianic and predicted Jesus
Christ. Rydelnik defends the LXX and other readings as the original
ones, by considering what makes more sense within the passage’s
immediate literary context. Rydelnik holds that certain passages within
the Hebrew Bible not only predicted a Messiah, but also presented the
Messiah as divine (i.e., long-living).
In Chapter 4, “Innerbiblical Perspectives on Messianic Prophecies,”
Rydelnik argues that certain passages in the Hebrew Bible that
Christians considered to be Messianic were interpreted as such elsewhere
in the Hebrew Bible. This is an argument that appears throughout
Rydelnik’s book. Rydelnik seems to believe that seeing how a passage
was interpreted elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible can not only clue us in on
how the passage was interpreted at early stages, but can also give us
insight as to what the passage originally meant. In Chapter 5,
“Canonical Perspectives on Messianic Prophecies,” Rydelnik contends that
the order of books in the Hebrew Bible, their internal organization (in
the case of Psalms), and even their inclusion in the Jewish canon
related to the Jewish hope for the Messiah. For example, the Book of
Judges laments the time when Israel lacked a king and people did what
was right in their own eyes, and many scholars maintain that this
reflects a defense of ancient Israelite monarchy, such as that of King
David. Rydelnik notes, however, that Judges 18:30 mentions the exile,
and so Rydelnik concludes that the Book of Judges is expressing a
longing for God to restore the Davidic monarchy after Israel’s exile: to
raise up the Messiah, in short.
In Chapter 6, “New Testament Perspectives on Messianic Prophecy,”
Rydelnik argues that New Testament authors believed that the Old
Testament literally and directly predicted Jesus Christ. There was no
belief within the New Testament that a biblical passage had another
meaning in its original context, yet applied to Christ in a secondary
sense. Rather, according to Acts 2:29-30, David was knowingly speaking
of Christ when he was discussing resurrection, not himself. According
to Mark 12:36-37, David was speaking about his Lord, seated at the right
hand of God. According to I Peter 1:10-11, the Old Testament prophets
were aware that they were predicting the coming of the Messiah, even if
they may not have known all of the details. In Chapter 7, “Decoding the
Hebrew Bible: How the New Testament Reads the Old,” however, Rydelnik
does not believe that every passage from the Hebrew Bible that
the New Testament relates to Jesus Christ originally pertained to
Christ, or Christ’s time. Rachel weeping for her children in Jeremiah
31:15, for example, concerned the exile, even though Matthew 2:18
relates it to Herod’s slaughter of the children in Bethlehem. For
Rydelnik, Matthew was recognizing that Rachel has wept for her children
since the time of Babylonian exile, since God’s people Israel has
continued to suffer. Rydelnik also in this chapter offers an
interesting explanation for Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1, as Matthew
applies to Jesus a passage that originally concerned Israel coming out
of Egypt. Rydelnik believes that Numbers 24:8, in which God appears to
lead the king of Israel out of Egypt, is relevant to how Matthew
approaches Hosea 11:1.
In Chapter 8, Rydelnik discusses the contribution of the eleventh
century Jewish interpreter Rashi to biblical exegesis, specifically
exegesis that interpreted passages in the Hebrew Bible as related to
historical events, rather than to the coming of the Messiah. According
to Rydelnik, Rashi still employed a Messianic interpretation of certain
passages, but not for many of the passages that Christians were
interpreting in reference to Jesus Christ. In those cases, Rashi tended
to interpret the passages as relating to their original historical
contexts, not the coming Messiah. In doing so, Rydelnik points out,
Rashi was departing from a lot of traditional Jewish interpretation.
In Chapter 9, “An Example of the Law: Interpreting Genesis 3:15 as a
Messianic Prophecy,” Rydelnik argues that Genesis 3:15 is about
Messiah’s defeat of Satan, not the hostility between humans and snakes
(who were a common threat to people in that day), as some Jewish
commentators, and even a number of evangelical scholars, have
maintained. In Chapter 10, “An Example from the Prophets: Interpreting
Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic Prophecy,” Rydelnik argues that Isaiah 7:14
was Messianic and was predicting that the Messiah would be born of a
virgin. Because the prophecy is directed to the house of David in
general, Rydelnik does not believe that its significance is limited to
the time of King Ahaz: it could have addressed Ahaz’s situation, while
foretelling an event far in the future. In addition, Rydelnik looks at
the use of the Hebrew word almah in the Hebrew Bible and sees
good reason to believe that it means a virgin, not just a young woman.
Rydelnik also brings ancient Near Eastern languages into the
discussion. In Chapter 11, “An Example from the Writings: Interpreting
Psalm 110 as a Messianic Prophecy,” Rydelnik contends that Psalm 110 is
Messianic. He not only looks at Psalm 110 itself, but also at what he
believes are interpretations of Psalm 110 elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.
After chapters of heavy (and yet very lucid) biblical exegesis,
Chapter 12 was quite refreshing to read. There, Rydelnik tells the
story of when he was a high school student and was challenging an
educated Jewish speaker on the interpretation of biblical passages.
Rydelnik was quoting to the speaker passages that he (Rydelnik) believed
predicted Jesus, and the speaker offered alternative explanations for
all of them. Rydelnik would go on to get degrees related to the Bible,
and the speaker would later become a national radio talk show host (and I
have my guess about who that is), who did not want to debate Rydelnik
because the host was afraid of alienating his Christian listeners.
Rydelnik narrates that he long felt like a failure because he could not
defend Jesus being the Messiah back when he was a high school student,
but a later event would convince him that God could use even his
ineptitude for God’s glory. One of Rydelnik’s high school teachers, a
Jew, decided to investigate the Bible and later became a Messianic Jew
as a result of that high school encounter between Rydelnik and the
speaker. The passages that Rydelnik was quoting sounded Messianic to
the high school teacher, whatever the educated speaker was saying, and
so the teacher decided to study the issue.
Now, for my critique. Here are some items:
—-Rydelnik states that the Masoretic Text contains rabbinic
traditions. Why, however, would rabbinic traditions want to
de-eschatologize and historicize passages in the Hebrew Bible, as
Rydelnik says the MT does, when even Rydelnik acknowledges that the
rabbis strongly believed in the coming Messiah and even interpreted as
Messianic some of the passages that Christians deemed to be
Christological? And yet, while I believe that there is a possibility
that certain passages were originally historical and later became
interpreted as eschatological, I do not thoroughly dismiss Rydelnik’s
argument regarding the Masoretic Text. There are scholars who have
argued that there is strong Karaite influence behind the MT, and I
wonder if that could have contributed to the MT embracing a more
historical reading of certain passages.
—-Rydelnik regards Micah 5:2 as a direct prophecy of Jesus Christ,
specifically Christ’s birth in Bethlehem. My problem with that
interpretation is that Micah 5 mentions aspects of Micah’s historical
context: the threat of Assyria, for example. Micah 5 could reflect
Micah’s hopes of what God would soon do about the Assyrian threat,
namely, raise up a Davidic king, rather than being a prophecy about a
Messiah who would enter the picture about five hundred years in the
future. Rydelnik should have addressed this issue. Come to think of
it, Rydelnik, overall, should have addressed historical context more
often than he did: Even if passages are Messianic, how were they
relevant to their original historical contexts?
—-Rydelnik argues that Genesis 3:15 is interpreted in reference to
the Messiah and Satan elsewhere within the Hebrew Bible. Why, then, is
there such a dearth of depictions in the Hebrew Bible of Satan as the
grand enemy of God, as opposed to being merely a prosecuting attorney?
Moreover, while we are talking about inner-biblical interpretation, why
is Isaiah 11:8 irrelevant to Genesis 3:15? In Isaiah 11:8, the young
child plays on the hole of the snake. That seems to me to interpret
Genesis 3:15 in reference to the struggle between humans and snakes, the
interpretation of Genesis 3:15 that Rydelnik disputes, for the point of
Isaiah 11:8 appears to be that humans will no longer need to be afraid
of snakes.
—-Rydelnik argues that the serpent in Genesis 3:15 is Satan rather
than a simple snake, and that the second part of Genesis 3:15 concerns
the Messiah (the seed of the woman) smiting Satan. While Rydelnik is
open to the possibility that the first part of Genesis 3:15 is about the
descendants of the woman being in conflict with the followers (the seed
of) Satan, the serpent, he maintains that the second part concerns a
conflict between two specific individuals: the Messiah and Satan.
Rydelnik notes that the conflict is between the woman’s seed and one
specific snake, the one from the Garden of Eden. This would not fit the
interpretation that Genesis 3:15 is about the conflict between humans
and snakes, Rydelnik contends, for the snake who will be defeated will
be the one from the Garden of Eden. According to Rydelnik, that shows
that the snake from Eden must be more than a simple snake, for this
snake will be around for a very long time, living far longer than other
snakes do! I am not entirely convinced by Rydelnik’s argument here, and
the reason is that, within the Hebrew Bible, it seems to me that an
individual can be equated, on some level, with his offspring. When the
prophets talk about David ruling over Israel in the future, are they
referring to David specifically, or is David being equated with his
dynasty, or his descendants, or one of his descendants? The latter
makes more sense to me. I think that recognizing that a person can live
on in his descendants, not only allows for the serpent in Genesis 3:15
to be equated with his offspring, but also explains passages that
Rydelnik believes indicate that the Messiah will be divine. When Psalm
72:5 says that the king will last as long as the sun and moon, is that
saying that a specific individual will live that long, or rather that
the king’s dynasty will last that long? (I should also note that, in
the Book of Daniel, people express the hope that the kings of Babylon
and Persia will live forever. How literal is that?)
—-Rydelnik makes a fairly decent case that the Hebrew word almah
(used in Isaiah 7:14) means a virgin, rather than merely a young
woman. For example, Rydelnik refers to Song of Songs 6:8, where the alamot seem to be distinguished from wives and concubines. If the alamot had sex, Rydelnik argues, then they would have been in the concubine category, and thus the alamot
probably refer to ladies who are virgins, yet will eventually become
either wives or concubines. I am not entirely convinced, however, that almah has to mean a virgin, or primarily concerns virginity. Almah is arguably the feminine form of elem, which appears in I Samuel 17:56 and 20:22. Elem most likely means a young man: When Saul in I Samuel 17:56 wants someone to inquire who exactly the elem
David is after David has killed Goliath, I don’t think that he is
focusing on David being a virgin, but rather is saying that David is a
young man. Moreover, while Rydelnik says that the Greek word parthenos, which the LXX uses in Isaiah 7:14 to translate almah, means virgin, many scholars have noted that parthenon in Genesis 34:3 refers to Dinah after
she was raped, as Shechem is said to love her and to attempt to comfort
her. I do not rule out that Song of Songs 6:8 sees the alamot as virgins, for young women probably were virgins in that day; I am doubtful, however, that the word almah itself has the innate meaning of virgin.
—-In The Unbreakable Promise, Rydelnik said that there is a
sudden shift to the singular in Genesis 22:17 as Abraham’s seed is
discussed. According to Rydelnik, the seed in the second part of
Genesis 22:17 refers to a single individual (whom Rydelnik interprets as
the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ), not the collective nation of
Israel. This puzzled me, since it did not look to me as if there were
any shift in Genesis 22:17. Rather, it seemed to me that zera in both of its uses there was a singular noun, most likely applied to Abraham’s seed in a collective sense. In The Messianic Hope,
however, Rydelnik explains his stance more fully. He noted that the
second part of Genesis 22:17 affirms that Abraham’s seed will inherit
the gate of his (singular) enemies. In addition, on page 140,
Rydelnik refers to a scholarly article by Jack Collins, which (in
Rydelnik’s words) “demonstrated that when a biblical author has a
collective sense for ‘seed’ in mind, he uses plural pronouns and verbal
forms to describe it[, whereas] when he has an individual in mind, he
uses singular verb forms and pronouns to describe the ‘seed.’” I did a quick search on zera. I believe that zera
can be used with a singular verb form and still have a collective
sense. At the same time, I do notice that there are times when plural
pronouns are used with zera when zera is obviously collective. Can a singular pronoun be used when zera is collective? I do not yet know. Perhaps I should look at more of the passages at some point! This article
by a Jewish counter-missionary looks at examples in the Hebrew Bible in
which a singular pronoun can have a collective sense, and that might be
relevant.
—-Even if Rydelnik is right that the Hebrew Bible is Messianic—-and
he may be on to something there, as far as the organization and
inner-biblical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible is concerned—-does
that mean that the Messiah has to be Jesus? Even rabbinic Judaism
believed that the Hebrew Bible was Messianic, but it did not think that
Jesus was that Messiah! I suppose that it depends. Rydelnik makes a
fairly decent case that Psalm 22:16 means that someone’s hands and feet
are being pierced. Rydelnik believes that this predicts Jesus’
crucifixion, but is there reason to believe that piercing hands and feet
could have been a way that people were tortured in the Psalmist’s
time? How plausible is that? Moreover, Isaiah 53 could be significant
in that it may be about someone who dies for the sins of others;
unfortunately, Rydelnik does not engage that passage or its many
interpretations that much, at least not in this book. (He does host a
Bible study curriculum about it, though!)
Good book!