How Synoptic Messiahship Influences Gospel Reading

Synoptic Gospels Essay 2021

The Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke document three similar accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, and Messiahship – the latter being the issue of interest in this discussion. The Messiah that was expected by most first century Jews was not the Messiah that Jesus proved to be, and both he and the Gospel authors go to great lengths to show why this was necessarily the case. The authors encourage readers to understand the Gospels as a sermon and record of the origin of a new era for God’s people, and by extension, an account of the centrality of Jesus, who began this new era. To achieve this impression, Mark and Matthew (particularly Matthew) carefully utilise messianic titles, prophetic literature, and historical patterns to present Jesus as the true Messiah. The Messiah is an Old Testament concept, so it should come as no surprise that the Old Testament is often referred to in the Synoptics. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark will be of primary concern here, though it may be noted that much of what is found in these two letters can be found in Luke’s Gospel also.

When analysing a theme in a text, one instinctually appeals to context for clues about its meaning and significance. As such, it is appropriate to first determine exactly what a Messiah was for the Jews. Messiah literally means “Anointed One.” In koine Greek, this title is written as Χριστος (“Christ”). The idea of anointing and being anointed are well established in Old Testament usage, and the title “Anointed One” could refer to a king, priest, or prophet.[1] To be anointed meant that one was chosen by God for a purpose. The Messiah is a key figure in Judaism, and is prophesied about as early as Genesis 3, referring to a descendent who will come and crush the Serpents head, destroying evil for good. What distinguishes the Messiah from other “messiahs” is that he is a figure of salvation and the fulfilment of a number of God’s promises to His people. His role is that of king, priest, and prophet. Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, there are many instances of divine revelation and prophecy about this coming Messiah, who will deliver God’s people and establish the Kingdom of God, restoring the relationship between God and mankind. It is difficult to overstate the centrality of the Messiah – he was to be the hero in Israel’s salvation story. Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah were far from unanimous, varying from the Messiah as a nationalistic Zealot to a teacher of the law. However, by the time of Jesus, the prominent expectation was that the Messiah would be a political figure – that is, he would be a military king, from the line of David, who would liberate Israel from Roman rule.[2]

The Gospel authors deliberately emphasise that this was not the kind of Messiah that Jesus came to be. Jesus the Messiah was not a political figure, and the Gospels were not intended to be political in nature. When a person reads of the “Kingdom of God,” which was the duty of the Messiah to proclaim, this should not be misunderstood as an earthly political kingdom. Matthew and Mark stress the largely apolitical nature of the Messiah, and the Gospel story, via a careful and selective use of messianic titles. ‘Messiah’ was a title laden with political connotations which Jesus had no part of, so it comes as no surprise that he is shown to be reluctant to adopt this title. Jesus does not refer to himself as Messiah, as first century messianic expectations could cause his mission to be misinterpreted. When the title was attributed to him, Jesus did not deny that he was Messiah, however, on numerous occasions, Jesus is recorded as having told others not to spread the news that he was Messiah. This messianic secret occurs most notably in the Gospel of Mark. For example, in Mark 1:40-45, Jesus heals a leper and tells him not to say anything to anyone. Again, in Mark 8:27-30, Jesus asks the disciples “Who do people say that I am?” to which Peter replies “You are the Christ.” Jesus tells them to tell no one. Note that Jesus does not reject this title, but merely rejects its political connotations – the importance of the Messiah to the Gospel story is maintained, while the political aspect is resisted.

It might reasonably be argued that Jesus distances himself from political implications again in Matthew 22:41-46 (Mk. 12:35-37). Jesus, referring to Psalm 110:1, asks the Pharisees how the Messiah could be both the son of David and his Lord. In first-century Middle East, fathers were as lords to their sons, not the other way around. If David calls his descendent his Lord (Adoni), then the Messiah must be more than a mere son, and as such, the title “Son of David” is inadequate. Like “Messiah,” “Son of David” had political connotations and Jesus did not refer to himself using this title. Particularly in the Synoptics, the title Jesus adopted was the “Son of Man.” [3] This phrase often simply referred to a human being, however, in the messianic context, it invokes Daniel’s vision. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man is a heavenly figure and representative of God’s people, and he is given an everlasting dominion.[4] The title emphasised both the humanity and sovereignty of the Messiah. It should be noted that the “Son of Man,” though acknowledged as messianic, was not in current use as a messianic title, and as such, Jesus was free to construct his own conception of Messiahship without importing ideas inherent in other titles. Jesus intended to usher in a new understanding of Messiahship. Jesus’ careful use of titles says something important about his messianic ministry – he wanted his audience to understand who he truly was. Looking to convey this, the Synoptics use precise, descriptive language to encourage their audiences to reflect upon these truths.

Establishing Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is a key concern for the Gospels, particularly for Matthew, which was intended for a Jewish audience. As Matthew portrays it, everything Jesus did and said was to fulfil his mission as Messiah. In light of this, one can conclude that the Gospels cannot be read independently of the Hebrew scriptures – they are a continuation of the story that comes before. This connection becomes all the more apparent in Matthew, as the author draws upon Old Testament prophecies and patterns in order to defend his opening claim that Jesus is the Christ. This defence begins immediately with the genealogy (Mt. 1:1-17), highlighting Jesus as a descendent of Abraham and David, as was prophesied of the Messiah (Gn. 22:18; Je. 23:5) and underlining his royal status as the “Son of David.” The first of Matthew’s direct quotations of the Hebrew scriptures occurs later in the same chapter, following the formula, “All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet…” (Mt. 1:22-23). This formula is used on ten separate occasions (Mt. 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9), and on many more occasions does Matthew cite or allude to the Old Testament without this formula, highlighting Matthew’s theme of promise and fulfilment through Christ. In some instances, Matthew refers to historical events rather than clear messianic prophetic literature. For example, in the same way that the Israelites were delivered from Egypt, Matthew writes that Jesus too came from Egypt (Mt. 2:14-15). Matthew seems to make the case that all of Scripture points toward the Messiah. Not only do the Gospels continue the Old Testament story, but they also fulfil it.

To describe the Messiah and his mission, Matthew deliberately depicts Jesus as a second Moses[5] – Jesus comes out of Egypt (Mt. 2:14-15), he stays in the wilderness 40 days (Mt. 4:1-2), and, from a mountain, he gives the law to the people (Mt. 5-7). Like Moses, Jesus’ mission is to deliver his people from slavery (though of a different kind). At Horeb, Moses mediates a covenant between God and Israel, starting a new phase in their history, with new laws to obey. All prophets after Moses prepared the way for the next phase, which would be realised with the Messiah, who would reformulate the Mosaic model and mediate a new covenant between God and His people. This is exactly what the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus accomplished. The missions of Moses and Jesus are alike, and there is a sense in which the Gospels record the exodus story of mankind. How this event occurred, however, is where we find a divide between the expectation and actuality of the Messiah. Instead of a Davidic king conqueror, come to free Israel from Roman rule, Jesus was the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 who would redeem his people through his death. In chapters 26-27, on Jesus’ trial and crucifixion, Matthew cites and alludes to more than twenty major Old Testament prophecies concerning the suffering of the Messiah. It is made apparent that the Messiah had come to defeat an enemy much greater than Rome – that of sin and death itself. The mission of the Messiah was of a far more eternal and spiritual nature than was the expectation of many first century Jews. This, of course, reflects upon the Gospels as a whole, as texts with a spiritual element. Such an understanding of the Gospels is something that many readers can attest to, having felt changed and deeply touched by the Gospel story. This spiritual aspect means that to read the Gospels as a mere moral guide does them a disservice. Jesus was not just a philosopher, but the Messiah – on many occasions in the Synoptics did he urge people to follow him (e.g., Mt. 4:19), not just his teachings.

Expanding upon this, it is good to note also that the Gospels make a point of establishing the Messiah as Immanuel – that is, God with us. Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, God plays a central role. Had Jesus not been portrayed as divine, God’s presence in the text would have been lessened dramatically, and so too the spiritual element. The Gospel’s resist such discontinuity by using the title “Son of God,” which was tied to the concept of Messiah. In the Old Testament, the title often referred to being chosen, and in an adoptive sense, Israel and the king could be called “Sons of God.” However, in Matthew 1, it is instead the case that a man (Joseph) adopts Jesus, not God. In the Synoptics, Jesus does not refer to himself as the “Son of God,” but, like “Messiah,” he does not reject the title when it is attributed to him (eg, Mt. 16:16). Jesus refers to “my father” and “your father,” but never “our father,” thereby indicating that his relationship to God is of a different kind. Additionally, the divine aspect of Daniel’s “Son of Man,” who is worshipped alongside God, may be a way in which Jesus refers to his divine sonship. It seems, however, that the Synoptics use these titles (Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God) largely interchangeably, though each highlights a different aspect of the mission and nature of Jesus. That the Messiah be divine means that he has the authority and knowledge to be able to usher in a new era and law for God’s people. Additionally, a divine Messiah is sinless and able to accomplish his mission as the Suffering Servant – dying so that death is defeated. A mere man could not have been the spiritual Messiah of the Gospels. If Jesus were not who he claimed to be, then he was either a lunatic or a liar – the validity of the Gospels and the Christian faith come into question. He could be reduced to a mere curiosity – we are made to wonder how the son of a mere carpenter could perform miracles and proclaim profound teachings. However, if he is who he claimed to be, then Jesus fulfils the Old Testament and can offer salvation to all people. The importance of Messiahship is exactly why Matthew goes to great lengths to prove that Jesus is the Christ.

Without the concept of Messiah, it seems that the Gospels would be unrecognisable. That Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, taught the law, died, and rose again, all fit perfectly into the Synoptic conception of the messianic mission. Matthew and Mark utilise Old Testament titles, messianic prophecies, and historical patterns to challenge the first century Jewish view of Messiahship. In light of their treatment of the concept, the Gospels can be understood as a spiritual and God-centred account (as opposed to a political text or mere moral guide) of Jesus’ divine messianic mission, written deliberately to be understood and reflected upon in relation to the Hebrew scriptures, which it both continues and fulfils. It records the fulfilment of what came before, and a glimpse of what is to come, describing the origins of a new era for God’s people.

[1] Or heavenly figure (Dn. 7, 9). [2] This expectation arose after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, and only strengthened with later conquests. [3] This title alludes to Adam (“man”). [4] Jesus refers to this in Matthew 26:64. [5] Messiah was an Adam, Moses, and David figure.

France, R. T. “Messiah.” In The Illustrated Bible Dictionary: Goliath-Papyri Part Two. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1980.

Kasper, Walter. “Jesus’ Claim.” In Jesus the Christ. Wellwood: Burns & Oats Limited, 1976.

Levine, Amy-Jill and Marc Zvi Brettler, editors. The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Marshall I. H. “Jesus Christ, Titles of.” In The Illustrated Bible Dictionary: Goliath-Papyri Part Two. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1980.

McDowell, Josh. “How True Are Christ’s Claims?” In Beyond Belief to Convictions. Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2006.

Novakovic, Lidija. “Jesus as the Davidic Messiah in Matthew.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 19, no. 1 (1997): 148-191.

Porter, Stanley E. “Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew.” In The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007.

Reid, Barbara E. The Gospel According to Matthew. Vol 1, Liturgical Press, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unda/detail.action?docID=4773743.