4:1 For the heavens and the earth will listen to his messiah,
4:2 and all that is in them will not depart from the commandments of the holy ones.
4:3 Strengthen yourselves you seeking the Lord in his service
4:4 Will you not find the Lord in this, all those waiting in their hearts?
4:5 Because the Lord will attend to the covenant faithful and the righteous he will call by name.
4:6 And on the humble his spirit will rest and the faithful he will renew in his strength.
4:7 Because he will glorify the covenant faithful upon a throne of kingship forever,
4:8 freeing the imprisoned, opening [the eyes] of the blind, raising the bowed.
4:9 And forever I will cling with those [who] wait and in his covenant faithfulness.
4:10 and the fruit of good deeds to no man will be delayed.
4:11 And the glorious things which do not exist the Lord will do just as he said.
4:12 Because he will heal the slain, and the dead will be alive, and to the humble he will bring glad tidings
4:13 and the oppressed he will cause to be satisfied, and the exiled he will guide, and the hungry he will enrich.
Line 7 continues what was begun in Lines 1 and 2. In those two lines messiah is obeyed and the “holy ones” seem to share in his reign. In Line 7 the חסידים are enthroned. The language is quite strong, predicting a future day when they will be “glorified” by the Lord (יכבד, imperfect), which is explained as having a “throne of kingship” (כסא מלכות). That this reign is “forever” (עד) is an interesting statement as well. Does the author mean to indicate something like resurrection life or merely that the kingdom of God’s people will reign forever (i.e., the children of future generations will continue the rule)?
Line 8 has language that is similar to some Lukan language regarding the messiah, though God seems to be the primary mover. The imprisoned will be free (מתיר אסורים), the eyes of the blind opened (פוקח עורים), and bowed or cast down will be raised (זוקף כפופים).
Line 9 moves to the first person with the author saying that he will “cling with those who wait/hope” (אדבק במיחלים). As with the statement at the end of Line 7 that seemed to indicate an eternal hope of some sort, the author says he will do this “forever” (ולעלם). Now, עולם can mean “for a long time,” but it is hard to avoid the implications in the broader context, especially with mention of what may be resurrection in Line 12.
In Lines 5 and 7 the covenant faithful of the Lord are mentioned. In Line 9 the author establishes the Lord as faithful to the covenant saying he will cling to the Lord’s covenant faithfulness (ובחסדו).
Line 10 appears to present the idea of an eschatological award for good deeds. The author says that “the fruit of good deeds” (ופרי מעשה טוב) will not be denied/delayed to any man (לאיש לוא יתאחר). The hithpael here seems to be emphasizing the work of the Lord as a future event. The Lord himself will not delay the fruit.
Line 11 is about covenant fulfillment. Things that do not exist now (ונכבדות שלוא היו יעשה) will exist then “just as he said” (אדני כאשר דבר ).
Line 12 The “reason” that the things that are not existent will be existent is “because” (כי) the Lord will “heal the slain” (ירפא חללים , imperfect) and “the dead will alive” (ומתים יחיה, imperfect) and he will bring “good tidings/good news” to the humble (ענוים יבשר , imperfect). All of these statements are in the imperfect indicating future events. It is hard to avoid reading them as eschatological. Likewise, it is hard to avoid connecting this language to language used by Christians later. In fact, one can hear the echo of this fragment’s worldview in much Christian writings: a time of messiah, co-reigning with messiah, covenant faithfulness; the Lord releasing captives, raising the oppressed, opening the eyes of the blind, and bringing the dead to life; the spirit resting on God’s people. One could view the use of בשר as a precursor to language about the “gospel” as well. It refers to a message of good news.
Finally, Line 13 appears to continue this line of thought: oppressed are satisfied by the Lord (ודלים ישביע), the exiles given guidance (נתושים ינהל), and the hungry enriched (ורעבים יעשר).
Note: the symbol 〚 〛 means there is “empty space or damaged skin with no writing. When a bracket [ ] is present the content was reconstructed, so there is reason to be cautious in those instances.
A full PDF of Pt. 1 and 2 will be available on the Essays/Papers page. As before, feedback welcome.
In part 1 I mentioned that messiah and christ should not be used as a proper name.but as a appellation similar to the word king and president
Here is what Clark has to say about this word.
Jesus, who is called Christ – As the word Χριστος Christ, signifies the anointed or anointer, from χριω, to anoint, it answers exactly to the Hebrew משיח mashiach, which we pronounce Messiah or Messias; this word comes from the root משח mashac, signifying the same thing. As the same person is intended by both the Hebrew and Greek appellation, it should be regularly translated The Messiah, or The Christ; whichever is preferred, the demonstrative article should never be omitted.
Priests, prophets, and kings, among the Jews, were anointed in order to the legitimate exercise of their respective offices. Hence the word Χριστος Christ, or משיח Mashiach, became a name of dignity, and often signified the same as king. See Isaiah 45:1; Psalm 105:15; Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 6:20; 1 Samuel 2:10. The words משיח Mashiach and מלך melec, Χριστος and βασιλευς, Christ and king, are frequently interchanged. 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 2:2, Psalm 2:6; Luke 23:2; and see the Scholia of Rosenmuller on this place. The reason of this may be seen in the following note, which I extract from the comment on Exodus 29:7.
“It appears from Isaiah 61:1, that anointing with oil, in consecrating a person to any important office, whether civil or religious, was considered as an emblem of the communication of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. This ceremony was used on three occasions, viz. the installation of prophets, priests, and kings, into their respective offices. But why should such an anointing be deemed necessary? Because the common sense of men taught them that all good, whether spiritual or secular, must come from God, its origin and cause. Hence it was taken for granted,
Brian said “It is hard to avoid reading them as eschatological.”
But what is eschatological for the author, can be historical for us … (model logic – ‘it will rain tomorrow’ is not true at all points in time).
Robert – I agree “Christ” is Greek for ‘the anointed’ or ‘anointed one’. However, be flexible. Most don’t know the Messiah’s name wasn’t spelt with a ‘J’ and automatically treat ‘Christ’ not as a name, but a designation for God’s anointed – even if not aware they are doing so.
I am very flexible, I do not condemn anyone for their belief and do not feel that any doctrine that has been allowed by the Creator can offset Grace. I can fellowship with anyone on the subject of Grace. I am here for my own proof and reproof by discusssion with seekers. There is always something to learn. I really like the people here but feel that some have deemed me a leper already.There was a time when i would of too. My hope is someday people will realize that salvation is for all who dont deny it at judgement after being shown the Whole Truth.
There is 2 resurrections ,one by obedience and grace and one by only grace which people try to mix into one bowl therfore removing grace from both.
BTW I have not obtained the 1st but will continue revealing all false doctrine till I have enough truth to know whether or not I can even obtain it after 50 years of age
robert, I’ve been to many a site where I feel the leper. I can attest that this is a welcoming community. (Besides, if they can put up with me, putting up with you should be no problem).
Brian’s grace is Christlike.
I agree that “Messiah” is not a proper name. I hope that it didn’t read as if I was saying this.
If you agree with the translation of 4:1 then applying it to means only the Last Messiah then yes your reading is saying that but if you understand that the messiah in verse 1 is an office that is held and the holy ones in verse 2 held that office too then no. I cant see ignoring those before for the one that came last even though all before him were just shadows of the last.
I don’t think the text gives us enough data to suggest that the Lord’s messiah is one and the same in this text as the “holy ones” of line 2. This could be the meaning of the text if there is some sort of parallelism involved, but it is far from clear that this is the case. Even if one assumed that “messiah” refers to a particular individual (though I don’t think the literature of Qumran is uniform in this regard) this is different that using it as a “name,” e.g., one could affirm that Jesus of Nazareth fulfills the office without saying that Messiah is some sort of last name like “LePort” for me.
Well I dont see any separation which would be required .
The point i was making was that you implied that the Messiah was obeyed and the holy ones just shared in his reign when they all shared in the office of which they reigned over during different periods of time. How can someone be obeyed before they are created. Every King, High Priest and Prophet were anointed to be the Word and they were expected to be obeyed by the children of the living Elyon
Brian, is that your translation, and may I use it if I reference you?
I have looked at this every way and dont see a disconnection between verse 1 and 2 other then the verse breaks which was added .
4:1 For the heavens and the earth will listen to his messiah and all that is in them will not depart from the commandments of the holy ones.
I understand you studied how to do textual analysis but the person who wrote this didnt
Yes, it is my translation though I did consult Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, Revised Edition (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005), 531, and C.D. Elledge’s translation in this article: http://asorblog.org/?p=3244
I am not saying that there is a break in thought between Line 1 and 2. I am saying that it is not obvious that Line 2 is meant to repeat and rephrase Line 1 as much as it is meant to expound upon it.
Brian, Andrew and Patrick
Brian TY for the translation and everyones thoughts. we may not agree but it was profitable to me
One note of importance. In Charlesworth, Lichtenberger, and Oegema (eds), Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a chapter by M.G. Abegg and C.A. Evans titled “Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls” where they do cover all the lines mentioning a “messiah.” Interestingly enough, there are times when messiah is singular, as with 4Q521, but there are other references to “messiahs/anointed ones” in the plural. This leads me to think that if 4Q521 Line 1 was a parallelism of Line 2 where messiah is interchangeable with holy ones then Line 1 would have used a plural rather than a singular with a third person, masculine, singular suffix = “his messiah.”
I would agree but this seems to be refering to the office of the Messiah which would be singular. This verse is proably relating to Holy Davidic Kings which only one can rule at a time.
In some of the ancient Jewish writings(maybe DSS), they indicate Jerusalem had a 3 Messiah view at that time. So, this plural Messiah idea fits those writings, IMO.
Prophet Messiah would be “The prophet” of Deuteronomy 18:15. King Messiah would be a military genius warrior in David’s line, Priest Messiah had become an amalgamated “Elijah-Phineas” combo who was assigned the biblical role of Jesus, this one was to pay for sins, this one was to be first among the others and they took orders from him.
Reading John chapter 2, it sure looks like the interviewers and Baptist saw it that way as well.
They asked if Baptist was Elijah and he says, “NO”. Yet Jesus said “YES”. So, was he being asked about Elijah the prophet of Malachi’s prediction or Elijah-Phineas, the false , amalgamated expectation of the era?
Also, they ask are you “the prophet” and are you “the messiah”. Seems like a 3 tiered Messiah idea back then was around. These were the religious leaders of Jerusalem, not average Joe’s.
Also, note several followers later in John agree Jesus must be “the prophet”, they just don’t get to the point of “the messiah/son of God”. They don’t realize it’s all 3 offices in 1 anointed one, most don’t it seems.
I honestly think had Baptist said yes to any of them, they would have followed him( some folks in south Iraq worship Baptist today). He had caused quite a sensation, such that Josephus wrote extensively about Baptist.
4:7 Because he will glorify the covenant faithful upon a throne of kingship forever,
Here is probably what this writer had in mind . The Messiah in line 1 is the office of the King.. This is the highest anointing a human can achieve with the King of Israel said to be sitting at the right hand of the Elohim This means those of these Kings who are covenant faithful are sitting upon a throne that will never end. So understanding this to be about Holy Kings fulfilling the office of the Anointed kingship we can read the Messiah in line one to be the office of King of Israel, those listening in the heavens are heavenly beings that are beneath the right hand of the Elohim and those on earth are faithful people who have taken hold of the covenant by not departing from the commandments.
While Yahshua was the fulfilment of this office and currently sits at the right hand of the Elohim this writing is only confirming the Davidic Kingship Promise which this person has faith is an everlasting covenant and will be fulfilled by the promised one
2 Samuel 7
“‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me[b]; your throne will be established forever.’”
What Patrick says, is correct, though I’d say ancient Israelite instead. Though I”ve not seen it described as Patrick dies “Elijah-Phineas”, “Prophet” etc.
Some ancient scholars, especially within the Qumran community differentiated between the suffering servant Messiah (Davidic King [Isa 53]), the ‘Lion of the Tribe of Judah’ [Isa 2:4; 11:4], and still others a third eschatological Messiah [Isa 11:6], though this was the minority view.
We know now, that these were mere aspects of the same ONE Messiah. The suffering Messiah had come. The Messiah will come next as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah [Rev 14:14], i.e. the conquering King. All will see him as King and worship him as God [Phil 2:10]. This Kingly eschatological Messiah will be the very same as the one once crucified.
Comments are closed.