William Most - Outline of Christology

7/30/2019 William Most - Outline of Christology

1/134

Outline of Christology

Table of Contents:

I. From Eternity

II. Jewish Thought on the Preexistence of the Messiah

III. The Messiah in Prophecy

IV. The Covenants

V. Can We Trust the Gospels?

VI. The Genre of the Infancy Gospels

VII. The Annunciation

VIII. His Entry into the World

IX. Theotokos

X. The Presentation in the Temple

XI. The Finding in the Temple at Age 12

XII. The Hidden Life

XIII. Cana

XIV. The Special Problem of Mark 3. 20-35

XV. The Mode of His Teaching

XVI. More on Parables

XVII. Jesus' Self-Revelation

XVIII. Basic Teachings
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=1http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=2http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=3http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=4http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=5http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=6http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=7http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=8http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=9http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=10http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=11http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=12http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=13http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=14http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=15http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=16http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=17http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=18http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=1http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=2http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=3http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=4http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=5http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=6http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=7http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=8http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=9http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=10http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=11http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=12http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=13http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=14http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=15http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=16http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=17http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=18


2/134

XIX. Jesus and the Law

XX. The Miracles of Jesus

XXI. How Did the Redemption Operate?

XXII. The Resurrection

XXIII. Development of the Theology of Jesus

XXIV. Conclusions

XXV. The Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary

Addenda: course info; reading list; paper topics; study Q & A

"I. From Eternity"

Hebrews 13. 8: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." How is this true since

He was born in time? Because there is only one Person in Jesus, a Divine Person. Even though His

humanity did not always exist, yet His Person does - we say does, to indicate that He is outside of

time.

Did the Father always plan to send His Son into this world? Yes in the sense that all the decrees of

God are eternal, identified with His Person, which is eternal, timeless. So the decree for the

incarnation always existed. Furthermore, it is clear that in the present arrangement of Providence,

He surely did come because of sin. Thus the Nicene Creed says: "For us men and for our salvation,

He came down from Heaven." And He Himself said in Matthew 20. 28: "The Son of Man... came to

give His life as a ransom for many."

But, we may ask further: WouldHe have come if Adam and Eve had not sinned?

We need to notice that this question deals with a futurible, that is, with what would happen, if

something else would take place. Some scholars think God Himself does not know the futuribles.

They are in error of course, for many times in Scripture He does know them. ( 1 Sam 23. 10-13; Jer

38. 17-23; Mt 11. 21-23; Lk 10. 13. And it is a universal belief: If we pray for something that would

be bad if He would grant it, He would not give it.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=19http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=20http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=21http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=22http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=23http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=24http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=25http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=26http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=19http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=20http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=21http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=22http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=23http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=24http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=25http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=9&ChapNum=26


3/134

So the debate goes on. In general, Dominicans tend to say no, He would not have come; while

Franciscans tend to say yes, He would have. Those who say He would have come independently of

sin like to appeal to two Scriptural texts:

Proverbs 8. 22 ff: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways... ." - But in the original

setting, this line referred to the virtue of wisdom. Later Jews tended to think of it as almost a

person. Then Christians could relate it to 1 Cor 1. 24 where Christ is called "the wisdom of God."

This is true in as much as He is the divine Logos. But since the basic meaning of the text refers to

the virtue not to a person, the text is not at all conclusive.

Colossians 1. 15-17: "He is the image of God, the first born of all creation. For in him all things

were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations or

principalities or powers - all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things." -

Christ, presumably as incarnate, is the goal, the one for whom all things were created. This could be

taken to mean that logically the decree for incarnation precedes the decree for the creation of all

else. To take this otherwise would require us to say that this holds only for the actual order of

things, and does not refer to the hypothetical order: would He have come if there had been no sin

of Adam and Eve?

But it is probably better to broaden the picture. It was, as a matter of fact, not only for the sin of

Adam and Eve that He came, but for all sin. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would there have

been sin in other humans? Had Adam and Eve not sinned, their children would have inherited thegift of integrity, the coordinating gift, that made it easy to keep all drives in their proper places.

Lack of it does give an inclination towards evil. But Adam and Eve sinned even with this gift, and so

could their descendants have sinned, at least many of them, without it.

But further, St. Paul in Galatians 2. 20 says: "He loved me and gave Himselffor me." Vatican II, in

Gaudium et spes 22 taught: "The Son of God loved me, and gave Himself for me." It means that

Christ offered His death was offered for each individual person, not just for humanity in a block.

With this motivation or attitude, it seems clear He would have come even for the sins of one person,

whoever it might be.

"II. Jewish Thought on the Preexistence of the Messiah"

a) Scripture:


4/134

Micah 5. 2: "And you, Bethlehem, Ephrathah, you are little to be among the clans of Judah, from

you shall come for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from the days of

eternity."The Targum Jonathan on this verse reads: "whose name was spoken from days of old,

from the days of eternity." Samson Levey, a major Jewish scholar (The Messiah. An Aramaic

Interpretation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1974, p. 93) comments that although there does

not seem to be a Rabbinic doctrine of a preexistent Messiah, yet the last words of the Hebrew text

do tend to suggest such a preexistence.

Malachi 3. 1: "Behold, I send my messenger and he will prepare the way before my face, and the

Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple, the messenger of the covenant in whom you

delight." R. H. Fuller (The Foundations of New Testament Christology, Chas. Scribner's Sons, NY,

1965, p. 48: The starting point for this expectation is Mal 4:5 f. (Mt. 3:23f. ). In this passage, an

editorial note commenting on Mal 3: 1, Elijah appears as the forerunner not of the Messiah but of

Yahweh himself... followed by the coming of Yahweh to his temple for the eschatological judgment."

Fuller uses the number Mal 4. 5, following some English versions and the Vulgate. The Hebrew has

it at 3:23-24. Jesus in Mt 11. 13 used a modified form of the text (by influence of the familiar and

similar sounding Ex 23. 20, and makes clear that he is the one, the Messiah, and by implication, is

Yahweh Himself.

b)Intertestamental literature:

First Enoch 48. 1-6 (Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha I): (p. 35): "... even before the creationof the sun and moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the

Lord of Spirits... . he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of Spirits) prior to the creation of

the world and for eternity.

(p. 9) Comments by editor of segment, E. Isaac: "The Messiah in 1 Enoch, called the Righteous

One, and the Son of Man, is depicted as a preexistent heavenly being who is resplendent and

majestic, possesses all dominion, and sits on his throne of glory passing judgment upon all mortals

and spiritual beings." And also on p. 9 :"... it is clear that the work originated in Judea and was in

use in "Qumran before the beginning of the Christian period."

c)Rabbinic thought:


5/134

Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim 4. 4. 54a: "Seven things were created before the creation of the

world, namely: Torah, repentance, paradise, gehenna, the throne of majesty, the temple, and the

name of the Messiah."

Pesikta Rabati, Piska 33. 6 (775-900 AD). From: W. Braude, Yale Judaica Studies, 18. , 1968, p.

641-43): "You find that at the very beginning of the creation of the world, the king Messiah had

already come into being, for he existed in God's thought even before the world was created. But

where is the proof that the king Messiah existed from the beginning of God's creation of the world?

The proof is in the verse, 'And the spirit of God moved, ' words which identify the king Messiah, of

whom it is said, 'And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him (Isa 11. 2)."

COMMENTS: 1. As Levey notices, Micah 5 implies preexistence of the Messiah. Mal 3. 1 as used by

Jesus implies even divinity. The words of 1 Enoch do state a real preexistence. The Rabbinic texts

are at least close. For in Hebrew thought the name at times approaches identification with the

person. The naming of things brings them into existence: Is 40. 26. To cut off a person's name

means not only death but obliteration of his existence: cf. 1 Sam 24. 22 and Ps 9. 6.

2. We notice that in 1 Enoch the Messiah is called Son of Man.

"III. The Messiah in Prophecy"

We notice that all the following prophecies involve Mary inasmuch as she is the Mother of the

Promised One, inseparably joined with Him even in the eternal decrees.

Genesis 3:15: The Protoevangelium (Revised Standard Version):"I will put enmity between you

and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall

bruise his heel."

Targum Onkelos: "And enmity I will put between you and the woman, and between your son and

her son. He shall be recalling what you did to him in the beginning; and you shall be observing him

in the end."

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: "And I will place enmity between you and the woman, and between

the offspring of your sons and the offspring of her sons. And it will happen: when the sons of the

woman will observe the precepts of the Torah, they will aim to strike you on the head; and when

they will forsake the precepts of the Torah, you will aim to bite them in the heel. But for them there


6/134

will be a remedy; whereas for you there will be no remedy. And they will be ready to make a

crushing with the heel in the days of King Messiah."

Fragmentary Targum: "And it shall be: when the sons of the woman observe the Torah and fulfill

the commandments, they will aim to strike you on the head and kill you;and when the sons of the

woman will forsake the precepts of the Torah and will not keep the commandments, you will aim to

bite them in their heel and harm them. However there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman,

but for you, O serpent, there will be no remedy. Still, behold, they will appease one another in the

final end of days, in the days of the King Messiah."

Targum Neofiti: "And I will put enmities between you and the woman, and between your sons and

her sons. And it will happen: when her sons keep the Law and put into practice the commandments,

they will aim at you and smite you on the head and kill you; but when they forsake the

commandments of the Law, you will aim at and wound him on his heel and make him ill. For her

son, however, there will be a remedy, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. They will make

peace in the future in the day of King Messiah."

Pius IX:Ineffabilis Deus, 1854:"The Fathers and ecclesiastical writers... in commenting on the

words, ' I will put enmity between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed' have taught

that by this utterance there was clearly and openly foretold [praemonstratum] the merciful

Redeemer of the human race... and that His Most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was designated

[designatam], and at the same time, that the enmity of both against the devil was remarkablyexpressed. Wherefore, just as Christ the Mediator of God and man, having assumed human nature,

destroying the handwriting of the decree that was against us, in triumph affixed it to the cross, so

the most holy Virgin, joined with him in a most close and indissoluble bond, together with Him and

through Him exercising eternal enmity against the poisonous serpent, and most fully triumphing

over him, crushed his head with her immaculate foot."

Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950: "We must remember especially that since the 2nd

century, the Virgin Mary has been presented by the holy Fathers as the New Eve, who, although

subject to the New Adam, was most closely associated with Him in that struggle against the infernal

enemy which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, was to result in that most complete victory over

sin and death, which are always tied together in the writings of the Apostles of the Gentiles.

Wherefore, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this

victory, so also that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son, had to be

concluded with the glorification of her virginal body... ."


7/134

Pius XII, Fulgens corona, 1953: "... the foundation of this doctrine [Immaculate Conception ] is

seen in the very Sacred Scripture in which God... after the wretched fall of Adam, addressed the...

serpent in these words, which not a few of the Holy Fathers and Doctors and most approved

interpreters refer to the Virgin Mother of God: 'I will put enmity... . ' But if at any time, the Blessed

Virgin Mary, defiled in her conception with the hereditary stain of sin, had been devoid of divine

grace, then at least, even though for a very brief moment of time, there would not have been that

eternal enmity between her and the serpent -- of which early tradition makes mention up to the

solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception - but instead there would have been a certain

subjection."

Vatican II, Lumen gentium 55: "These primeval documents, as they are read in the Church,

and are understood in the light of later and full revelation, gradually bring more clearly to light the

figure of the woman, the Mother of the Redeemer. She, in this light, is already prophetically

foreshadowed in the promise, given to our first parents who had fallen into sin, of victory over the

serpent (cf. Gen 3, 15)... ."

Vatican II, Dei verbum 3: "After their fall, by promising redemption, he lifted them into hope of

salvation (cf. Gen 3, 15)... ."

John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater24: "It is significant that as he speaks to his mother from the

Cross, he calls her 'woman'... . Moreover he had addressed her by the same term at Cana too... .

this expression goes to the very heart of the mystery of Mary and indicates the unique place whichshe occupies in the whole economy of salvation... . . How can one doubt that... she who was...

brought into the mystery of Christ in order to be his Mother and thus the Holy Mother of God,

through the Church remains in that mystery as 'the woman' spoken of by the book of Genesis

(3:15) at the begining and by the Apocalypse (12:1) at the end of the history of salvation." And in

Mulieris dignitatem, 1988: 11: "At the same time it [Genesis 3:15] contains the first foretelling of

victory over evil, over sin... . . It is significant that the foretelling of the Redeemer contained in

these words refers to 'the woman'... . From this vantage point the two female figures Eve and Mary

are joined under the name of woman... ." [We note the multiple fulfillment].

COMMENTS:1. Three out of four of the Targums (ancient Aramaic versions, plus interpretations, of

the OT) show us that Genesis 3. 15 is in some way messianic, even though their interpretation is

clouded by allegory. Yet they do speak of a victory, even though the same Hebrew verb shufis used

twice, for striking at head, and at heel.


8/134

Some reject the evidence of Targums, saying we do not know the date of their composition. We

reply (as to date of the messianic prophecy comments): 1) These interpretations were written by

ancient Jews without hindsight, i.e., without seeing them fulfilled in Christ, for they hated Him. 2)

Jacob Neusner, a great Jewish scholar, of today, from Brown University, in Messiah in Context

reviewed every Jewish document from after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonian Talmud inclusive

(completed 500- 600 AD). Up to, but not including that Talmud, he found no interest in the Messiah.

In the Talmud, interest returns, but the only major point they mention is that he was to be from the

line of David. Now it is hardly conceivable that the Targum interpretations, so numerous, on so

many points, could have been written in a period when there was no interest in the Messiah. (On

the Targums, see also:Samson Levey, The Messiah. An Aramaic Interpretation. ) Some scholars,

e.g., R. Le Deaut (in: The Message of the New Testament and the Aramaic Bible (Targum), Rome,

Biblical Institute Press, 1982, pp. 4-5, put the beginning of the Targums in the occasion when Ezra

read from the book, and translated, giving the sense: Nehemiah 8. 8.

2. Pius IX for the most part does not speak in his own name, he merely cites approved authors. But

Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus speaks without reservation about the struggle being foretold in

the Protoevangelium, and he even uses the fact that this "struggle" was in "common" to Jesus and

Mary as a part of the theological reasoning by which he finds the Assumption in the sources of

revelation. Further, in Fulgens corona he says Genesis 3:15 is the foundation of the doctrine of the

Immaculate Conception: therefore, it must be contained in that text in some way. Vatican II uses

cf. before Gen. 3. 15, at the request of about a dozen Bishops. Cf. Charles M. Miller,"As it is

Written". The use of Old Testament References in the Documents of Vatican Council II, (Marianist

Center, St. Louis, 1973, pp. 49-60). But even so, that reserve seems to apply only to the

understanding of the human author -we do not know how much he foresaw. But it does say that the

Church now, with the help of later and full revelation, does see the figure of the woman gradually

coming to light. Here Vatican II seems to use the notion that the chief Author, the Holy Spirit, could

intend more than the human author saw. It is really obvious that He could do so. (This is true even

though in Dei verbum 12 where the Council had an opening to say explicitly that there could be

such a fuller sense, yet it did not say so. On this cf. H. Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Documents

of Vatican II, Herder & Herder, 1969, III, p. 220). Still further, John Paul II, without any reservation

speaks of the Protoevangelium many times as referring to Mary - sample quotes given above. We

note that in Mulieris dignitatem he speaks of the text as referring to both Eve and Mary. This is

quite plausible, a case of multiple fulfillment of prophecy. On this latter pattern, cf. W. Most, Free

From All Error, chapter 5.


9/134

The conclusion from all these sources is that it is quite clear that at least as understood in the light

of later revelation, Gen 3. 15 is Marian/Messianic.

Genesis 49. 10: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his

feet, until Shiloh comes, and his shall be the obedience of the peoples."

Targum Neofiti: "Kings shall not be lacking from the house of Judah... until the time at which King

Messiah will come."

Targum Onkelos (which sees messianism only here and in Numbers 24, 17-24, (Balaam) agrees, as

do Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragmentary Targum. Samson Levey, in The Messiah: An Aramaic

Interpretation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1974, p. 8: "Other rabbinic sources, both

Midrashic and Talmudic , also take this passage as Messianic."

Genesis Rabbah 98. 8: "Until Shiloh comes: he to whom kingship belongs."

Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b: "What is His [Messiah's] name? The school of R. Shila said, 'Shiloh, ' as

it is written, until Shiloh comes."

Lamentations Rabbah 1. 16. 51: "The school of R. Shila said: The Messiah's name is 'Shiloh' as it

is stated, Until Shiloh come (Gen xxlix. 10), where the word is spelt Shlh." Levey adds in note 23

(p. 149) "A play on the similarity of the name, thus rendering honor to their teacher. The Talmud

continues that the school of R. Jannai claimed the messiah's name was Jinnon, and the school of R.

Hananiah said it was Hananiah, each quoting an appropriate proof-text." (A similar claim is in

Moore,Judaism, II. pp. 348-49). COMMENT: The school of Shila does have a solid base in the

Hebrew text itself, and in the Targumic and Rabbinic view. Cf. Moses Aberbach and Bernard

Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos on Genesis 49, (Scholars Press, Missoula, 1976, p. 14).

Jacob Neusner, Messiah in Context, (Fortress, Phila. 1984): "It is difficult to imagine how Gen 49:10

could have been read as other than a messianic prediction."

COMMENTS: 1) There may be echoes of Gen 49. 10 in Ez 21. 17: "It will not be restored until he

comes to whom it rightly belongs. To him I will give it. :" and also Jer 33. 14:"Behold the days are

coming - Oracle of Yahweh - and I will perform the good word which I spoke to the house of Israel

and the house of Judah."


10/134

2) Modern scholars object that the Hebrew text is corrupt because Shiloh is feminine, while the

verb is Masculine. REPLY: Shiloh stands for a man, so there is agreement by sense. Further, there

are some parallels in the OT: Jer 49. 16 where a feminine noun, tiplaset(your horror) has a

masculine verb. Also: Ez 1. 5-10 where the noun hayoth is feminine, yet the suffixes in the next

verses referring to the living creatures shift between masculine and feminine. Cf. also Anchor Bible,

Daniel, p. 269. This sort of shift was common in Mishnaic Hebrew.

3) History: The Jews did have some sort of ruler from the tribe of Judah until Rome imposed Herod

on them as Tetrarch in 41 B.C. Soon, in 37 B.C. he became King. Herod was Jewish by religion - the

Jews had forced their religion on Idumea, but lived up to it poorly, and, most importantly, by birth

he was not of the tribe of Judah. He was half Idumean, half Arab. The fulfillment would have been

more glorious had they not been so unfaithful so often. Neusner reports (p. 12): "No one who

knows the Gospels will be surprised to learn of the intense, vivid, prevailing expectation that the

Messiah was coming soon."

Numbers 24. 15-17: "The oracle of Balaam, son of Beor, the oracle of the man whose eye is open,

the oracle of him who hears the words of God... who sees the vision of the Almighty... . I see him,

but not now; I behold him, but not nearby. A star shall come out from Jacob, and a scepter will

come up out of Israel. It will crush the forehead of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth."

Targum Onkelos: "A king shall come from Jacob, and will be anointed the Messiah out of Israel."

COMMENTS: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is very similar. The Fragmentary Targum says:"A king shall

arise from the house of Jacob, and a redeemer and ruler from the house of Israel." Targum Onkelos

is very sparing in messianic interpretations - only this passage plus Gen 3. 15. This is not strange,

for Targum Onkelos was the only Targum officially approved by the later rabbis, those of the

Talmudic period, before c. 650 AD. By that time the opposition of the Jews to the Christian uses of

the Targums to favor Christ had hardened. Hence the approval of only the Targum that saw little

messianic interpretations. In fact, that Targum seems to have been extensively reworked in the

Jewish schools of Babylonia around the 5th century AD. This fits well with the results of Neusner's

survey, mentioned above, which found no interest in the Messiah in Jewish writings from the fall of

Jerusalem up to about 500 A.D. Then interest reappears, but the only one of the classic prophecies

it dealt with was the prediction that he would be of the line of David.

The Fragmentary Targum says that a king will arise, but does not use the word Messiah. However in

context it seems to be the Messiah.


11/134

Isaiah 9. 6: RSV: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon

his shoulder, and his name will be called 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty-God, Everlasting Father,

Prince of Peace,"

Targum Jonathan: "A child is born to us, a son is given to us, and his name has been called from

of old Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, Messiah in whose day peace shall

increase for us."

COMMENT: 1. The sense of the Targum is disputed. We have rendered it substantially as does J. F.

Stenning (The Targum of Isaiah, Oxford, 1949. ) However Samson Levey (The Messiah. An Aramaic

Interpretation, (Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1974) turns the sentence structure around so as

to read: "his name has been called Messiah... . by the Mighty God." The difference hinges on the

Aramaic words min qedem which can mean either "by" or "from of old". As to the words "Mighty

God" which the New American Bible renders God-hero --that version is not defensible, for the

Hebrew El gibborin the Old Testament always means only Mighty God, never God-hero. Levey

makes a similar change in sentence structure for the Hebrew: "the Mighty God... has called his

name 'Prince of Peace'." That translation raises the question of which terms belong to whom.

2. Naturally, the ancient Jews, with their emphasis on monotheism, would have difficulty calling the

Messiah God. Yet there are some other OT passages that could indicate divinity of the Messiah.

Psalm 80. 15-18: God is asked to visit this vine "and the stock which your right hand has

planted... . Let your hand be upon the man of your right hand, upon the son of man whom you have

strengthened for yourself." Levey here comments: "It would appear that the Targum takes the

Messiah to be the son of God, which is much too anthropomorphic and Christological to be

acceptable in Jewish exegesis." He notes that neither the earlier nor the later rabbis took up this

interpretation by the Targum. Rather, he says that some of the later rabbis "carefully steer clear of

any messianic interpretation " by the Targum here. (In passing: we note that here the Messiah is

called Son of Man!)

Psalm 45. 7-8: "Your throne, O God, is ever and ever... . God your God has anointed you with the

oil of rejoicing." Even though some think the Psalm was occasioned by a royal marriage, the Targum

saw it as messianic. Levey even remarks that the Hebrew word for king melech in verses 2, 6, 12,

15, and 16 is understood as God.


12/134

Ezekiel 34. 11: God Himself said: "For thus says the Lord God: Behold I, I will search out my

sheep and seek them out." We notice the repeated "I", which seems to stress the thought that God

Himself would come. But in verse 23 of the same chapter: "I will set one shepherd over them, my

servant David." The Targum Jonathan does treat the psalm as messianic. Of course this is far from

clear, but there could be an implication that the Messiah, called here "my servant David" would be

God Himself.

Jeremiah 23. 3: God said: " and I myself shall gather the remnant of the my sheep from all the

lands to which I have driven them." But in verse 5:"I will raise up for David a righteous branch."

That word "branch" is often taken by the Targums to indicate the Messiah. Hence Targum Jonathan

on verse 5 does use "a righteous Messiah" instead of "branch". Then, surprisingly, in verse 6: "And

this is the name which He shall call him: the Lord is our righteousness." In the later Midrash,

Lamentations Rabbah 1. 51 we read :"What is the name of the King Messiah? R. Abba b. Kahana

said: 'His name is 'the Lord'". In the Hebrew text of that passage, the word for Lord is Yahweh! It is

astounding to find a later rabbi doing such a thing. (cf. Levey, op. cit, p. 70).

Jeremiah 30. 11: "For I am with you - oracle of Yahweh - to save you." The Targum clearly calls

this passage messianic. Levey notices this, and comments: "in v. 11 the apparent

anthropomorphism of God being with Israel, in the physical sense is softened by the use of the word

Memra" - a puzzling word in the Targums, which seems in general to refer to the complex interplay

between God's constancy and the fickleness of His people - but a times, it seems to mean God

Himself. (On Memra cf. Bruce Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, Glazier, 1987, p. lvi).

Isaiah 7. 14: "Behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name

Immanuel."

The Targum does not identify this passage as messianic. However, Jacob Neusner, (Messiah in

Contextp. 173( quotes the great Hillel, one of the chief teachers at the time of Christ, as saying

that Hezekiah, son of Achaz (to whom Isaiah spoke) had been the Messiah. So he considered the

text messianic. But then Neusner adds (p. 190): "Since Christian critics of Judaism claimed that the

prophetic promises... had all been kept in the times of ancient Israel, so that Israel now awaited

nothing at all, it was important to reject the claim that Hezekiah had been the Messiah)". Thus the

Talmud, cited by Neusner, p. 173, quotes Rabbi Joseph as denying that Hezekiah had been the

Messiah. St. Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 77 has Trypho the Jew saw the Jews believe

Hezekiah was the Messiah.


13/134

Further, both Is 7. 14 and 9. 5-6 are part of the section on Immanuel, which runs from 6. 1 to 12.

6. Hence it is generally accepted that the child in 7. 14 is the same as the child in 9. 5-6. This

means, of course, that since 9. 5-6 is messianic, so is 7. 14. It was onlythe the actions of the Jews

against Christians that caused them to stop saying 7. 14 was messianic.

Who, then, is the child of 7. 14? Some of the characteristics of 9. 5-6 are too grand for Hezekiah.

Further the use of the definite article before almah in 7. 14 seems to point to someone special, not

just to the wife of Achaz. On the other hand, a sign to come seven centuries later would hardly be a

sign for Achaz. We conclude: this is a case of multiple fulfillment of prophecy: it refers to both

Hezekiah and Christ.

Still further, the Septuagint usesparthenos to render Hebrew almah (which means a young woman,

of the right age for marriage, who at least should be a virgin. Betulah is the more precise word for

virgin). R. Laurentin (The Truth of Christmas Beyond the Myths, Petersham, 1986, p. 412, claims

the Septuagint sometimes usesparthenos loosely. But this is not true. Actually, there are only two

places in the OT where the Septuagint translates almah by parthenos. One is in Genesis 24. 43,

where the context shows the girl is a virgin. The other is Is 7. 14. There are several other places

where almah is at least likely to be a virgin. But the Septuagint is so careful that it uses instead of

parthenos, a more general word, neanis in those cases. Laurentin in the English version appeals

also to Genesis 34. 3 (in the French he had appealed to 34. 4, which does not have the word

parthenos at all). But the case is at least unclear, since 34. 3 is likely to be an instance of concentric

ring narration, common in Hebrew. And as we have just said, in all clear instances the Septuagint is

very precise in its use ofparthenos, at times more precise than the Hebrew (as shown by the

context).

Isaiah 11. 1-3 RSV: "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall

grow out of his roots. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and

understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. And

his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord."

Targum Jonathan: A king will come from the sons of Jesse, and the Messiah will be anointed from

his children's children."

COMMENTS: Some scholars, disinclined to see a real prophecy, want to make this refer to the great

reduction in size of the Kingdom of Judah at the time of Isaiah and Achaz - the king then controlled

absolutely only Jerusalem (Cf. John H. Hayes and Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, the Eight Century


14/134

Prophet, Abingdon, Nashville, 1987, pp. 212-13. They point out that the word which RSV renders

"stump" is Hebrew geza, a rare word, found only three times in the OT, in this passage and in Job

14, 7 and Isaiah 40. 24. In the latter it means a newly planted tree; in Job it means a felled tree.

The Targum renders it by "sons", as we saw. But the Targum also definitely makes it refer to the

Messiah, and historically, the line of David had lacked power for about 600 years by that time (from

586 BC to the time of Christ). So, following the Targum interpretation, we see this passage as a real

prophecy that the line of David would be reduced to a stump, even a fallen stump, but then in spite

of that, a branch would come out from it. This is most dramatic, since Isaiah was speaking during

the reign of Ahaz: 732-16.

Several times the Gospels speak of Jesus as being moved or led by the Spirit, e.g., in Mt 4:1 He

was led into the desert by the Spirit. In Lk 10. 21, He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit. In Lk 4. 18: "The

Spirit of the Lord is upon me," (referring to Is 61. 1-2. Similarly, in Mt 12. 18 the Evangelist says

that His cures were to fulfil Is 42. 1-4). In view of His divinity, how is it that He would need or want

the action of the Holy Spirit? The answer is that He had a complete and perfect humanity, and

although His divinity could supply for anything, yet the Father, in His love of good order, willed that

His humanity be full and fully provided for as such. This is in accord with the principle of St.

Thomas, Summa I. 19. 5. c in which it is said that God wills that one thing be in place to serve as a

title for the second thing, even though that title does not really move Him.

Isaiah. First Three Servant Songs:

First: 42. 1-7 RSV: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights. I

have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry or lift up his

voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he

will not quench. He will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not fail or be discouraged until he has

established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law. Thus says the Lord... I have

given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to

bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness."

Second: 49. 1-7: "Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The Lord called

me from the womb... . . He made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid

me; he made me a polished arrow, and in his quiver he hid me away. And he said to me, 'You are

my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified'. But I said, 'I have labored in vain, I have spent my

strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my

God:" And now the Lord says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bringJacob back


15/134

to him, and that Israelmight be gathered to him... he says: "It is too light a thing that you should

be my servant to raise up the tribes ofJacob, and to restore the preserved ofIsrael. I will give you

as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. Thus says the Lord...

to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nations, the servant of rulers: 'Kings shall see and arise;

princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of

Israel, who has chosen you."

Third: 50. 4-11: "The Lord God has given me the tongue of those who are taught, that I may know

how to sustain with a word him that is weary. Morning by morning he wakens, he wakens my ear,

to hear as those who are taught. The Lord God has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious, I

turned not backward. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the

beard; I hid not my face from shame and spitting. For the Lord God helps me; therefore I have not

been confounded; therefore I have set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to

shame."

COMMENTS ON FIRST THREE SERVANT SONGS: The Targum Jonathan identifies the first of

these as Messianic: "Behold my servant, the Messiah." The Targum also identified the fourth as

Messianic-- as we shall see below. It does not mark the second and third as messianic.

The New Testament does not identify the second and third as messianic either. But it does so for

the first: In Mt 12. 17-21, after Jesus has worked many cures, and ordered them not to make it

known, the Gospel comments: "This fulfilled what was spoken by the Prophet Isaiah, 'Behold myservant... . '" The NT also indicates that the fourth song was messianic: Mt 8. 17; Lk 22. 37; Acts 8.

32-33; Romans 15. 21.

There are also other NT passages in which the Servant maybe in mind, especially the Servant of

chapter 53: e.g., the words of institution of the Eucharist; and Phil. 2. 6-11 "He took the form of a

slave")

There is no agreement among scholars on the identify of the Servant , in spite of the help of the

Targums. Some think the Servant is Israel - but, especially in 49. 1-7, the Servant has a mission to

Israel ( cf. the boldface to words above in that text). Some would identify the Servant with various

individual figures, e.g., Zerubbabel or Jehoiachin, representing the dynasty of David, or Moses, or

Jeremiah. It could even be that the identity is not the same in all four songs. We add that it is

generally accepted that in the OT an individual may stand for, and practically be identified with a


16/134

group: hence the possible alternation on the individual and Israel in 49. The identity of the Servant

and Israel could be paralleled by the relation of Jesus and the Church.

Fourth: Isaiah 52. 13 - 53. 12: The Hebrew OT here predicts a meek, suffering Servant. The

Targum changes it to an arrogant conqueror. Here are some comparisons:

Hebrew v. 3:"He was despised and rejected by men."

Targum: "Then the glory of all kingdoms will be despised and cease."

Hebrew v. 5: "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities."

Targum: "He will [re]build the sanctuary, polluted because of our sins, [and] handed over because

of our iniquities."

Hebrew v. 7: He was "like a lamb being led to the slaughter".

Targum: "He will hand over the mighty ones of the peoples, like a lamb to the slaughter."

COMMENT: Good Jewish scholars today admit that the Targum distorts the Hebrew. (Cf. H. J.

Schoeps, Paul, Westminster, 1961, p. 129, and Jacob Neusner, Messiah in Context, p. 190, and

Samson Levey, op. cit. p. 152, note 10) One reason was that a suffering and dying Messiah was

unacceptable. The belief was widespread that the Messiah would live forever. Hence at times they

even spoke of two Messiahs. In the Talmud, Sukkah 52a we read of a suffering and slain Messiah

son of Joseph (in comment on Zechariah 12. 10). He was to be the precursors of Messiah son of

David, the herald of the true Messianic Age. In addition, the Targum picture seems to reflect hopes

for Bar Kokhba, leader of the final Jewish revolt against Rome, who was thought to be Messiah. (Cf.

Levey, pp. 66-67.)

Zechariah 12, 10: "They shall look upon me, whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for

him as one mourns for his only son."

COMMENT: Most commentators are so disturbed by the shift from "me" to "him" that they emend

the text. Thus RSV changes "me" to "him" St. John's Gospel in 19. 37 explicitly takes it to refer to

Jesus: "And another Scripture says: They will look on him whom their have pierced." Similarly,

Apocalypse 1. 7 understands the line to refer to Christ: "Behold he is coming with the clouds, and

every eye will see him, everyone who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will wail on


17/134

account of him." In Mt. 26. 31 Jesus quotes Zech 12. 7 to refer to himself: "I will strike the

shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed." On the cross, Jesus quoted Psalm 22,"My

God, why have you forsaken me" not to express a belief the Father had left him (though the Father

did will His death), but to show that that Psalm spoke of Him. In verse 17: "They have pierced my

hands and my feet".

The problem is that "me" seems to be spoken by God Himself", while the "him" seems another

person. David Baron, The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah, Kriegel, Grand Rapids, 1971, pp.

438-48 contends that the "me" does express Christ, as divine while the "him" indicates the

difference of persons within God.

So these added texts from Zechariah, Apocalypse, and Psalm 22 do help to clarify the prophecy of

the suffering Servant in Isaiah 53.

Zechariah 6. 12-13 RSV: "Thus says the Lord of Hosts: 'Behold, the man whose name is the

Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. It is he who

shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his

throne."

COMMENTS: The Targum says "Behold the man whose name is the Messiah." Numbers Rabbah 18.

12 says that from the tribe of Judah came Solomon who built the first temple, and then Zerubbabel

who built the second temple. But "king Messiah will rebuild the Temple."

Haggai 2. 9: "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former."

COMMENTS: The Targum does not mark this test as messianic. But yet the historical fact was that

the glory of the second temple was much inferior to that of Solomon's temple. So St. Augustine is

right in saying (City of God 18. 45) that the glory of the later temple was greater because of the

presence of the divine Messiah in it. We might compare Malachi 3. 1: "Behold, I send my

messenger, and he will prepare the way before my face, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly

come to his temple, the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight." R. H. Fuller ( in The

Foundations of New Testament Christology, Chas. Scribner's Sons, N. Y. 1965, p. 48) comments: "

In this passage... Elijah appears as the forerunner not of the Messiah but of Yahweh himself." Of

course, Jesus Himself was and is God. He came to His temple, and thus the glory was greater than

that of the first temple. (Jesus Himself quoted this text - with the modification usual since the rabbis

had combined it with Ex 23. 20 - to refer to Himself, with John the Baptist, whom in multiple


18/134

fulfillment, He also called Elijah, as His forerunner. On this multiple fulfillment, cf. Wm. Most, Free

From All Error, Libertyville, IL 1985, 1990, chapter 5, and on Jesus' use of the text cf. idem, The

Consciousness of Christ, Front Royal, 1980, p 85).

Isaiah 61. 1-2 RSV: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me, to

bring good tidings to the afflicted; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty

to the captives, and the opening of the prisons to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the

Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn."

COMMENTS: The Targum does not mark this text as Messianic. But in Lk 4. 17-21 Jesus Himself

read the text in the synagogue at Nazareth and added:"Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in

your hearing."

Micah 5. 1. : "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are little to be among the clans of Judah, from

you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from the

days of eternity."

Targum Jonathan: "whose name was spoken from days of old, from the days of eternity."

COMMENTS: As we saw earlier, Samson Levey comments that the last part of verse 1 as in the

Hebrew text "would tend to support the doctrine of a pre-existent Messiah." See also further data

on rabbinic positions in section II above.

Psalm 72: This entire Psalm is taken messianically in the Targum. Especially in verse 1 the Targum

prays: "Give the King Messiah the laws of your justice." And verse 17 says "his name was prepared

even before the sun came to be." The dominant rabbinic opinion, in addition to the Targum, is that

this Psalm is messianic.

St. Augustine makes a keen observation (City of God17. 8). He notes that 2 Samuel 7. 8 -16 which

is related in thought, reports Nathan's prophecy to David. In particular he observes in 7. 12: "When

your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you,

who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom." But, notes Augustine, this

verse speaks of a king to arise afterthe death of David - but Solomon began to reign before his

death. So it must refer to another, to the Messiah, Christ.

Hosea 3. 4-5 RSV: "For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince, without

sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek


19/134

the Lord their God, and David their king; and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his

goodness in the latter days."

COMMENTS: Since the text speaks of the latter days, and tells of a period when Israel will have no

sacrifices, this must refer to the end time. The Targum makes it messianic saying that the children

of Israel will repent, and "they will obey the Messiah, the son of David their king and he will cause

them to worship the Lord."

Hosea 14. 4-8 RSV: "I will heal their faithlessness; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned

from them. I will be as the dew to Israel; he shall blossom as the lily... . theyshall return and dwell

beneath his shadow, they shall flourish as a garden, they shall blossom as the vine, their fragrance

shall be like the wine of Lebanon."

COMMENTS: The Targum identifies this text as messianic, saying in verse 7: "They will be gathered

in from their Scattering, they shall live in the shade of their Messiah, and the dead shall live."

We notice the shifting back and forth from theyto he. It is probable that the he is the Messiah. RSV

in puzzlement says in v. 7 "They shall return and dwell beneath myshadow," while admitting in a

note that the Hebrew has his.

In all, this text surely refers to the end times - cf. the end of the Scattering, and the resurrection of

the dead - and is related to the conversion of the Jews to Christ, foretold by St. Paul in Romans 11.

25 - 26. It is interesting to compare with Romans 11. 25-16 also the words of Jesus in Luke

21:24:"Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are

fulfilled."the italicized words may well means the same as the words of Romans 11:25-26: "... a

hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in."

The thought seems much the same in Daniel 12:7 (NRSV). Daniel had asked when all these things

would happen. The angel said:"When the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an

end, all these things would be accomplished."

1 Cor. 15. 4: "He was buried, and according to the Scriptures, rose on the third day."

A direct text predicting His resurrection on third day might be Hosea 6. 2: "After two days he will

revive us; and on the third day he will raise us up". In the original setting, the prophet is urging the

people to return to God, and He will save them. The liturgy applies this to the resurrection of Jesus.

Is it mere accommodation or multiple fulfillment of prophecy? Probably the latter.


20/134

However, in Isaiah 53:10-11 we do have a prediction of His resurrection, without mention of the

third day. That day we can supply from the excellent work of Fr. De Margerie.

An outstanding article by Bertrand de Margerie, S. J. "Le troisime jour, selon les Ecritures, Il est

ressucit" in Recherches des Sciences Religieuses (Strasbourg, 66, 1986, pp. 158-88) shows that

the third day was widely used in Scripture for the day of rescue. It was the day of the rescue of

Isaac from being sacrificed (Gen 22. 4ff) and of the deliverance given by Joseph to his brothers

(Gen 42. 17ff). The Hebrews were to go three days into the desert to sacrifice (Ex 5. 3-4). It was

the day of the revelation of the law at Sinai (Ex 19. 16). It was the day the spies saved by Rahab

were delivered (Jos 2. 22). David had sinned by ordering a census, but chose a punishment of

pestilence to end on the third day (2 Sam 24. 13ff). It was the day on which Hezekiah would go up

to he temple again, after being delivered from death (Is 38. 1-5). It was the day on which Esther

found favor with the king and saved her people (Esther 5. 1). It was the day of return from the exile

at the time of Ezra (Esdr 8. 32) It was the day of deliverance of Jonah from the whale (Jon 2, 1).

Jesus Himself predicted His resurrection on the third day (Mt. 16. 21; 20. 19; 27. 63). Interestingly,

in Babylonia, in the Descent of Ishtar, the third day was the day of the reawakening of the fertility

gods: ANET 55. (Cf. Is 53:10; Ps 16:10).

Conclusion from the prophecies: The Targums, as we see, found a host of prophecies about the

Messiah. Our Lady is involved directly in many of these, and indirectly in others, inasmuch as she is

always sharing the lot of Jesus. She would have understood these things readily, for when the

Archangel told her that her Son would reign over the house of Jacob forever, that clearly meant the

Messiah. For a very common belief at the time held that the Messiah would do that, and no one

else. Seeing that He would be the Messiah would at once open up the prophecies to her. The

Targums, written without seeing them fulfilled in Christ, and written before the period when interest

in the Messiah disappeared (the period from after the fall of Jerusalem, until the completion of the

Babylonian Talmud: cf. Jacob Neusner's study Messiah in Context, and p. 5 above for data on the

Targums in general. Now if the Jews, whom the OT so often calls stiff-necked could understand this

much, she who was full of grace must have all the more easily seen the truth, even if she never

heard a Targum. But she must have heard them in the synagogues. It is likely that there was a

period of oral transmission before they were written down, but in either way she would have heard

them. As to the question of taking Hebrew almah to mean virgin, as the Septuagint did - she would

have no problem, for she was seeing it fulfilled in herself.


21/134

"IV. The Covenants"

Covenants are a very basic pattern in the OT. And our redemption is, under one aspect, a new

covenant. Therefore we need to examine covenants. We need to go back to the great covenant of

Sinai. There God spoke to the people through Moses (Ex. 19. 5): "If you really hearken to my voice

and keep my covenant, you will be my special possession, dearer to me than all other peoples."

Since the work of G. Mendenhall (Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh, 1955. Cf.

Biblical Archaeologist17, 1954, 49-76) many think the Sinai covenant followed the pattern of

ancient suzerainty treaties, best known through those of the Hittites from the second millennium

B.C. In this pattern there are the following elements: (1) Preamble, which identifies the overlord

and his genealogy and titles; (2) Historical prologue, giving chiefly the benefits given by the

overlord; (3) Stipulations imposed on the vassal; (4) Provision for depositof the treaty in the

temple and for public reading at intervals; (5) The gods who are witnesses; (6) Curses and

blessings for fulfillment/nonfulfillment; (7) Vassal's oath of obedience; (8) Solemn ceremony of the

oath; (9) Procedure against a rebellious vassal.

Not all think the Sinai covenant really followed this form - the elements mentioned are found only

scattered in Exodus 19-24, not all in one place. Only in the later renewal mediated by Joshua (Josh

24) do we find many elements together. Cf. for a somewhat different view from that of the

majority, D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant(Analecta Biblica 21A, Rome, 1978).

Most scholars seem to prefer to call the Sinai covenant unilateral, i.e., God as overlord imposes

obligations, has no obligation to carry out his own promises. But this is impossible. God cannot say:

If you do this, I will do that, as He did in Ex 19. 5 and then ignore what He said. He is faithful and

cannot go back on His word. Even though technically He cannot owe anything to any creature, yet,

since He cannot violate His own word, the effect is the same. For a study with evidence that Sinai

was bilateral, cf. Wm. Most, "A Biblical Theology of Redemption in a Covenant Framework," in Cath.

Biblical Quarterly, Jan. 1967, pp. 1-19.

We notice two major features here: 1) It brings into being a People of God, 2) they get favor on

condition of obedience. The OT reports sadly how often they failed, going after idols. God warned

them, and at last He would send in a foreign power to oppress them to bring them to their senses.

When they would repent, He would rescue them.


22/134

The chief foreign powers to oppress them were the people of Amalek, the Philistines, the Assyrians,

and the New Babylonians. Tiglath-Pileser III (745-27) invaded the territory of Naphtali, took its

fortified cities, and sent the Hebrew population into Assyria (cf. 2Kgs. 15. 29)> He also deported

the Transjordanian tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh ( 1 Chr. 5. 6 & 26. Cf. Is 9. 1).

Shalmaneser V of Assyria (727-22) captured Samaria in 722 (2 Kgs. 17. 3-6), and either he or his

successor Sargon II ( 722-05) deported most of the remaining Israelites (2 Kgs. 17. 6 cf. 2 Chr. 30.

1 & 10-11). The purpose of these deportations was to break their national spirit. It worked, these

northern tribes never returned even when Persia gave permission to return.

But finally came the great crash, when Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon came down in two waves, 597

and 587 (some prefer 596 and 586). He ruined the Temple and city, and took most of the people

into captivity to break their national spirit. There was a third deportation in 581 after the murder of

Gedeliah whom Nebuchadnezzar had appointed governor over Judah. When Cyrus of Persia, after

conquering Babylonia, in 539 allowed the Jews to return, only two tribes, Judah and Benjamin did

return. The rest were absorbed into Babylonia and never came back.

It was during this period that God spoke again through Jeremiah 31. 31ff: "I will make a new

covenant. It will not be like the covenant I made with your fathers, for they broke my covenant, and

I had to show myself their master. But this is the covenant: I will write my law on their hearts; I will

be their God and they will be my people."

We notice there will be a difference, for the old was broken, the new will not be broken. But the twoessentials we saw at Sinai are still there: a People of God, to get favor on condition of obedience. As

we shall see later, the essential obedience would be that of Jesus (cf. Rom 5. 19 and LG 3). Did

Jeremiah see that would be the case? We do not know. But the chief author of Scripture, the Holy

Spirit, can intend more than the human author sees. Still less likely is it that Jeremiah saw that the

obedience of our Lady would play a role here: cf. LG 56 & 61.

Before moving ahead, we should notice that if we ask why God gave good things under the

covenant, the reply would come on two levels: 1) On the most basic level, no creature could by its

own power generate a claim on God. Hence His giving is pure unmerited, unmeritable generosity. 2)

On the secondary level, i.e., given that fact that He had freely entered into and bound Himself by

covenant, we could speak of Him as repaying the people. In this sense St. Paul in Rom 2. 6 could

say that God will repay each one according to his works - in spite of his insistence that justification

is gratuitous. This same distinction, as we shall see later, will apply in the new covenant.


23/134

Jeremiah as we saw, spoke of a new covenant, and of the old as broken. St. Paul in Romans 11

makes a comparison of two olive trees: the tame olive tree is the original People of God. Many

branches were broken off, by their infidelity. Into their place were engrafted branches from the wild

olive tree, the gentiles. Thus the gentiles become part of the original People of God. Further, Paul

says (11. 29) that the call of God to Israel to be His people is without repentance, is not withdrawn,

and that at the end a remnant will be converted to Christ.

There is no conflict between the two concepts, of a new, or of an old extended covenant. The

Kingdom of the Messiah had been foretold centuries ago, and was the fulfillment of the promises

made before. Yet it was a new covenant in this respect, that there was a new obedience, and a new

head, Christ.

"V. Can We Trust the Gospels?"

Perrin's Objection: Norman Perrin, famous Professor at the University of Chicago, (in

Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, Harper and Row, N. Y. 1967, p. 26) claimed: "No ancient texts

reflect the attitudes characteristic of the modern western world." and also (p. 16): "Over and over

again, pericopes which have been hitherto accepted as historical reminiscences have been shown

[by Form Criticism] to be something quite different... . the gospel materials themselves have forced

us to change our mind... . We have been particularly influenced by a consideration of Mark 9:1 and

its parallels." We can see from Perrin, and many others like him, that we have a problem to solve.

Let us begin by dealing with the evidence that forcedPerrin to give up on the Gospels. Then we will

ask if it is true that no ancient texts show the attitudes like those of the modern world.

Mark 9. 1 has this: "There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the

Kingdom of God come with power." Mt 16. 28 is the same except that they will see "the Son of Man

coming in his kingdom." In Lk 9. 27 they will merely see "the Kingdom of God."

Perrin thinks that Matthew and Mark expect the end of the world soon, while Luke has settled down

"to face... the long haul of history."

We begin by noticing that all three Synoptics put this saying just before the Transfiguration - a

remarkable thing, for they do not nearly always agree on chronological order. So it could refer to

that, and Perrin is not really "forced" to give up on the Gospels.


24/134

But there is something much better. The words "Kingdom of God" vary in meaning in different texts.

Often enough however they mean the Church in this world and/or the next. For example, after the

parable of the wicked tenants, which the Gospel notes that the enemies of Jesus understood, Jesus

adds (Mt 21. 43): "The kingdom... will be taken away from you and given to a nation that will yield

a rich harvest." It cannot mean God's "reign" will be taken away - He reigns everywhere, all are

subject. It means the favored status of the People of God. Yes, God's callstill will hold for them - to

return to being His people. But they are going to be on the outside, as St. Paul laments in Romans 9

- 11. Again, in the parable of the net (Mt 13. 47-50) the kingdom means the present Church. It

adds that at the end, the wicked will be thrown out of the Church or Kingdom. If it meant reign -

there would be no wicked persons included, for they reject the reign of God. The picture is similar

with the parable of the wise and foolish virgins in Mt 25. 1 - 13, and in the parable of the weeds in

the wheat in Mt 13. 24-30, and in the parable of the mustard seed in Mt 13. 31. In the first edition

ofJerome Biblical Commentary, (II, p. 783) David Stanley thinks Mk 9. 1 refers to the coming of

the kingdom, the Church, with power, that is, with miracles, after Pentecost. (For the Greek word

forpoweris dynamis, which in the plural means displays of power, i.e., miracles.) John L. McKenzie

(p. 16) writes: "The reign of God in Mt is clearly identified with the community of the disciples."

So there is no problem, Perrin is not forced: the text in Mk can readily mean they will not die until

they see the Church being established after Pentecost with power, with miracles. Matthew mentions

that the Son of Man will visit His Church. This is the concept of the Hebrewpaqad, caring for it, and

need not mean at the end: He is providing for His Church in all times. And of course Luke's version,

that they will see the Kingdom, is no problem at all.

Form Criticism: Because of the objection from Perrin on the basis of Form Criticism, we should

review it briefly. Form criticism starts with the premise that the Gospels evolved in three stages: (1)

The actions and words of Jesus, of course, adapted to His audience; (2) The way the Apostles and

the first generation preached these things, again, with adaptation of wording to the current

audience (so that they might not use the same words as Jesus, but would carefully keep the sense);

(3) Some individuals within the Church, under inspiration, wrote down some part of that original

preaching: this became the Gospels. Therefore: The Gospels are simply part of the basic ongoing

teaching of the Church, written down under inspiration. In that sense, the Church has something

more basic than even the Gospels.

These claims are obviously true. Next, Form Criticism would like to try to determine at which of the

three stages our present text took its present form, in the hope this will shed some light. The

general idea is good. And from it we see that a given passage may be made up of several once


25/134

independent units, for the original tradition may have had, separately, accounts of individual things

Jesus did or said. But the problem is: How to determine where the boundaries of the units lie?

The critics turn to two means: First, what is the literary genre or pattern of each unit. That will help

to mark off the borders. Second, what is the Sitz-im-Leben, or original life situation of each

passage. For different situations may call for different patterns of writing.

Here is a concrete example of Form Critical work. Reginald H. Fuller (in: The Foundations of New

Testament Christology, Chas. Scribner's Sons, NY, 1965, p. 109) thinks there are four units in Mk 8.

29-33, in which Jesus, at Caesarea Philippi, after asking what people in general were saying about

Him, then asked the Apostles: (1) Who do you say that I am? Peter replies that He is the Messiah,

the son of God; (2) Jesus tells them to keep quiet about it; (3) He then predicts His own death and

resurrection (to correct their false notions about the Messiah), and Peter objects to His death; (4)

"Get behind me, satan". Fuller thought that units 2 and 3 were invented by the Church: Jesus had

not really taught that He was the Messiah, but the Church later, being embarrassed, invented

scenes in which the question came up, but He told people to keep quiet about it. As to the

predictions of His death and resurrection, the Church invented those too, for when He really died

and rose, the Apostles acted as if they had never heard any such thing.

If in this way the critics could eliminate units 2 and 3 (they cannot), then they say we could read

the truth minus the fakery: Jesus asks the Apostles who they say He is. "You are the Christ, the Son

of the Living God." Jesus angrily rejects it: "Get behind me, satan."

We can easily refute the attempts to eliminate units 2 and 3: for details, see Wm. Most, The

Consciousness of Christ, (Front Royal, Va. 1980, pp. 202-06). We add that the same Fuller today

has given up on Form Criticism, and says it is "bankrupt" (in "St. Luke's Journal of Theology, 23,

1980, p. 96). Even R. Brown admits (in: R. Brown and J. Meir,Antioch and Rome, Paulist, 1983, pp.

199-200) that we do not really know for certain Mark's purpose in writing, nor can we be sure in

distinguishing what comes from Mark's editing, and what comes from earlier tradition. (Redaction

Criticism studies the editorial work of each Evangelist, while Form Criticism studies the first two of

the three stages mentioned above).

Besides the troubles just mentioned, the critics inject massive subjectivity by claiming that the

primitive community - they are apt to pass by the Apostles without much if any mention - was

"creative." That is, it just faked things. Thus R. Bultmann, who first applied Form Criticism to the

New Testament, said (History of the Synoptic Tradition, tr. John Marsh, Harper & Row, NY, 1963, p.


26/134

40. n. 2: "The Controversy Dialogues as we have them are... creations of the Church." Briefly, it

would be something like this: Group A is arguing with Group B. Group A has no text from Jesus to

support their claim, so they make one up. Group B does the same. Again, the same Bultmann said

(ibid. p. 47),"Naturally enough, our judgment will not be made in terms of objective criteria, but will

depend on taste and discrimination." No wonder many Form Critics now declare the method

bankrupt. Really, it can be useful, but at first so many did not see its limitations, and acted as if

they had "assured results of science" as they called them. They built one insecure thing on top of

another, like a house of cards. Now some, not all, are waking up, and throwing out the baby with

the bath.

John P. Meier, inA Marginal Jew(Doubleday, 1991) repeatedly charges creativity, yet never gives a

shred of evidence that such things happened, though he is most meticulous in demanding evidence

for so many other things. He seeingly thinks the Christians were not interested in the truth even

though that was vital for their own eternal fate.

They also used much the criterion of "Double dissimilarity or irreductibilty." That is, if an idea is

dissimilar to the emphases of both ancient Judaism and early Christianity, we may think it comes

from Jesus Himself."

Form Critical Claims of Joseph Fitzmyer: In his Christological Catechism (Paulist, 1982, p. 128,

italics his) we read: "... the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admitted that what is contained

in the Gospels as we have them today is not the record of the words and deeds of Jesus in the firststage of the tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only

the form compiled and edited by the evangelists... . neither the Church... nor theologians... have

ever taught that the necessary formal effect of inspiration is historicity. The consequence of

inspiration is inerrancy in affirmation, i.e., immunity from error in what is affirmed or taught in the

sacred writings for the sake of our salvation (see Dei verbum 11)".

COMMENTS: 1. The part in italics is not strictly wrong, but very misleading. It can give the

impression that we are not really sure what Jesus did or taught. What the Biblical Commission

actually said is this (my translation from the Latin as found in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 25, July

1964, pp. 299-304. Their English translation is on pp. 305-12): "For the fact that the Evangelists

report the words or deeds of the Lord in different order does not affect at all the truth of the

narrative, for they keep the sense while reporting His statements, not to the letter, but in different

ways." We had said the same in describing the three stages above.


27/134

2. The rest of the quotation form Fitzmyer seems to reflect an error rather common today, of

claiming that Vatican II (DV 11) allows us to think there are errors in Scripture in science, history

and even religion - only things needed for salvation are inerrant. This is not at all true, as we can

see, for example, from the fact that the Council itself added a footnote on this very passage,

referring us to several earlier Magisterium texts which insist there is no error of any kind in

Scripture. For further data on this, and on the Instruction of 1964 in general, cf. Wm. G. Most, Free

From All Error, Libertyville, Il, 1985, 1990, chapters 7, 20, 21, and 22. The 1964 Instruction, while

admitting that Form Criticism is legitimate and at times helpful, warns: "Certain followers of this

method, led astray by the prejudices of rationalism, reject the existence of a supernatural order and

the intervention of a personal God in the world as taught by revelation properly so called, and the

possibility and actual existence of miracles and prophecies. Others start with a false notion of faith,

as if faith does not care about historical truth or is even incompatible with it. Others deny, as it

were in advance, the historical value and character of the documents of revelation. Others, finally,

think little of the authority of the Apostles as witnesses of Christ, and of their role and influence on

the primitive community, while they extol the creative power of this community. All these things are

not only opposed to Catholic doctrine but also lack a scientific foundation, and are foreign to the

right principles of historical method."

NB. What we have been saying about Form Criticism is only preliminary. The really basic way to

establish the historicity of the Gospels is to come next.

Literary Genre in general: Genre means a pattern of writing. For example, if we today read a

modern historical novel about the Civil war, we expect a mixture of history and fiction. The main

line of the story will be history, and the background descriptions will fit. But there will be fill-ins,

such as word for word discussions between important characters of the period. We do not, because

of the fictional elements, charge the writer with ignorance or deception. No, that is the way such a

novel is supposed to be written, and understood. There are as it were rules by which we read it. The

key word is assert or claim. The writer claims and asserts that the main line is historical, but he

does not assert that the fill-ins are historical.

There are many other genres in English, mostly inherited from Greece and Rome with rather little

change. So long as we read things in that great culture stream, our natural adjustments, made

since we are natives of this culture, do well for us. But if we move into a very different culture, such

as ancient Semitic, then we may not take things for granted. Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Divino

afflante Spiritu, of 1943, told us we must study to find what genres were in use in the ancient Near

East, and use this knowledge to help understand Scripture.


28/134

We are beginning our search with the Gospels, but at the start, we will not look on them as sacred

or inspired - that is to be established only later on. We will look at them as ancient documents, and

then put them through the kinds of checking we use on other ancient documents. First of all we

need to know the genre of the Gospels.

There is much help from studying what the ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were doing or

aimed to do when they wrote history. As we shall see, N. Perrin shows no knowledge of the

statements of the ancient historians - only that way could he claim that no ancient texts show an

attitude like modern things.

Ancient Historians on History:

Herodotus, Preface 1: "These are the researches (historiai) of Herodotus of Halicarnassus... in the

hope of... preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done." 7. 152: "... my duty is

to report all that is said, but I am not obliged to believe it all alike - a remark which may be

understood to apply to my whole History."

Thucydides 1. 22: ". . I have not ventured to speak from any chance information... I have

described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from others from whom I made the most

careful and specific inquiry." 5. 26:" I took great pains to make out the exact truth."

Polybius 3. 59: [the historian is obliged] "... to give his own first allegiance to the truth... and to

report to us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As a result, accurate historical research into

the subjects just mentioned was not so much difficult as it was impossible in times past... . But in

modern times, the empire of Alexander in Asia and the supremacy of Rome in other places have

opened up almost the entire world to sea or land travel... ." 1. 1: "The knowledge of past events is

the supreme corrective of human nature."

Diodorus: 1. 1-5: "I have devoted 30 years to the task, during which I have incurred considerable

hardships and danger in making extensive travels... . I have been able to obtain accurate

information of all the events of the Roman dominion from the national records which have been

preserved from an early date... . I have not tried to get a definite chronology of events before the

Trojan War, since no trustworthy table of dates for this time has come to my hands." 1. 1: "It is a

blessing to be given a chance to improve ourselves by taking a warning from the mistakes of

others."


29/134

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1. 1-8: "Part of my information has been obtained orally from the

chief Roman educated men with whom I have come into personal contact, and part from studying

the historical works which have the highest reputation among the Romans themselves... ."

Flavius Josephus:Jewish War1. 1-16: "In describing the performances of both sides I will keep a

strict objectivity. Reply to Apion 1. 1-59: "My own record of the war as a whole and of the incidental

details is correct, for I was a firsthand witness of all the events."

Livy 7. 6. 6: [On the problem of how the Lacus Curtius got its name}."I would make every effort to

find out the truth if there were a path that would lead me to it; as things are, one must hold to

tradition when antiquity makes certainty impossible." Preface 6: "Events before the city was

founded... are more in the nature of fables than of reliable historical evidence. It is not my intention

to bother either to approve or to refute them."

Tacitus,Annals 1. 1 "I intend to hand down a few of the last events about Augustus, and then the

principate of Tiberius and other things, without anger or partisanship. I am far from having reason

for those."

COMMENTS: 1. We can see the purpose in mind: these writers want to record what really

happened, the truth. They also, as is clear from the comments cited, especially those from Polybius

and Diodorus, that they also want to teach lessons. Modern writers favor both, with less stress on

explicitly teaching lessons. In other words, both ancient and modern writers of history want facts

plus interpretations.

2. Ancient writers also liked to include speeches at suitable points. Thucydides in 1. 22 said of this:"

As to the speeches which were made either before or during the [Peloponnesian] war, it was hard

for me, and for others who reported them to me, to recollect the exact words. I have therefore put

into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he

would be likely to express them, while at the same time I tried, as nearly as I could, to give the

general sense of what was actually said."In other words, Thucydides would be careful to get the

sense, but not the words, when he could get the reports on the sense. If he could not get even the

sense, he would write comments he thought suitable for the occasion.

3. Such were the ideals, the notion of the genre, held by ancient Greek and Roman historians. How

well then were able to live up to the ideal is a different matter. They did not always have the means

to get at the facts, as we see some of them admitting. Modern historians however would give a high


30/134

rating for factuality to several of these, chiefly Thucydides, Polybius and Tacitus. (As to the

comment of Tacitus that he wanted to write without anger or partisanship, some accuse him of bias

against some figures, e.g., Tiberius. But even so, the same commentators admit his accuracy in the

facts he reports - the problem is in comments on the facts.

Genre of the Gospels: 1. We have seen what ideals the writers of the ancient world pursued in

writing history: facts plus interpretations. We would expect the Gospel writers in general to try also

for facts, plus interpretations for the sake of faith. For two reasons, they would try harder: 1) They

believed their eternal fate depended on the facts about Jesus. 2)Jewish writers held the same

ideals as the Greeks and Romans, as we see from the remarks of Josephus cited above. But in

addition, The Jews had a better conception of history than did the Greeks and Romans, in that these

latter commonly held that everything moves in great cycles. Thus in an important study, Mircea

Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, (tr. W. R. Trask, Princeton, 1954, pp. 104, 143) we read:

"The Hebrews were the first to discover the meaning of history as the epiphany [manifestation] of

God, and this concept, as we should expect, was taken up and amplified by Christianity... . For

Christianity, time is real because it has a meaning - the Redemption... . The development of history

is thus governed and oriented by a unique fact, a fact which stands entirely alone."

2. Luke's Gospel in particular shows great care. In the opening lines he says he consulted written

accounts and eyewitnesses. My study, "Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?" inJournal for Study of

the New Testament, July, 1982, pp. 30-41 studied Luke's use of a special Semitism, the apodotic

kaiand found that he certainly did not imitate the Septuagint, as is often said, but instead he

translated slavishly from sources in two kinds of Hebrew. (A summary of the article is found in

Catholic Apologetics Today, Chapter 9).

The Problem of Historicism: Before going further, we must face the challenge of Historicism.

Unfortunately, not all use this word in the same sense today. We mean it in the sense a history

professor would have in mind, that is, the belief that every person and every event is so close to

unique that we have little in common with the past, and so cannot be sure of understanding it. This

of course undermines all historical writing, and, obviously, undermines the possibility of getting

facts from the Gospels.

Historicism developed as a reaction to the excesses of such writers as Bossuet, who in his Discours

sur l'histoire universelle (1681) said that everything in history is a contrivance of the higher wisdom

of God. Some men of the so -called "Enlightenment", while rejecting the influence of God, still

thought that history should be a science parallel to the experimental sciences, that is, it should


31/134

include hypotheses and laws. By knowing these, people could practically control their own fate.

Some prominent proponents were Etienne Condillac (1715-80), John S. Mill (1806-73) and Auguste

Comte (1798-1857).

G. Vico in his Scienza Nuova (3d ed. 1744) prepared the way for Historicism. He said that to really

know something, one must have made it. Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803) in his Ideen zur

Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheitheld similar views, and said each society has its own

unique lifestyle, which subtly but inescapably determines the mentalities of those born in it.

Not strangely, some saw the application of these ideas even to th

William Most - Outline of Christology

Documents

Transcript of William Most - Outline of Christology