Messiah

Messiah

See Christ, Christology.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

MESSIAH

Signifies anointed, the title given by way of eminence to our Savior; meaning the same in Hebrew as Christ in Greek, and alludes to the authority he had to assume the characters of prophet, priest, and king, and that of Savior of the world. The ancient Jews had just notions of the Messiah, which came gradually to be corrupted, by expecting a temporal monarch and conqueror; and finding Jesus Christ to be poor, humble, and of an unpromising appearance, they rejected him. Most of the modern rabbis, according to Buxtorf, believe that the Messiah is come, but that he lies concealed because of the sins of the Jews. Others believe he is not yet come, fixing different times for his appearance, many of which are elapsed; and, being thus baffled, have pronounced an anathema against those who shall pretend to calculate the time of his coming. To reconcile the prophecies concerning the Messiah that seemed to be contradictory, some have had recourse to a twofold Messiah; one in a state of poverty and suffering, the other of splendor and glory.

The first, they say, is to proceed from the tribe of Ephraim, who is to fight against Gog, and to be slain by Annillus, Zec 12:10; the second is to be of the tribe of Judah and lineage of David, who is to conquer and kill Annillus; to bring the first Messiah to life again, to assemble all Israel, and rule over the whole world. That Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, and actually come in the flesh is evident, if we consider (as Mr. Fuller observes) that it is intimated that whenever he should come, the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Mosaic law were to be superseded by him, Psa 40:6-8; 1Sa 15:22; Dan 9:27; Jer 31:31; Jer 31:34; Heb 8:13. Now sacrifice and oblation have ceased. They virtually ceased when Jesus offered himself a sacrifice, and in a few years after, they actually ceased. A few of the ancient ceremonies are indeed adhered to, but as one of the Jewish writers acknowledges. “The sacrifices of the Holy Temple have ceased.” Let every Jew therefore, ask himself this question. Should Messiah the Prince come at some future period, how are the sacrifice and oblation to cease on his appearance, when they have already ceased near 1800 years. Again, it is suggested in the Scripture, that the great body of sacred prophecy should be accomplished in him; Gen 3:16; Gen 22:18; Is. 49:10; 53:1-13

1.The time when he was to come is clearly marked out in prophecy: Is. 49: 10; Hag 2:6-9; Dan 9:24. He actually came according to that time.

2.The place where Messiah should be born, and where he should principally impart his doctrine is determined; Mic 5:2; Is. 9: 2; and was literally fulfilled in Jesus.

3.The house or family from whom he should descend is clearly ascertained. So much is said of his descending from David, that we need not refer to particular proofs; and the rather as no Jew will deny it. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, whatever varieties there are between them, agree in tracing his pedigree to David. And though, in both it is traced in the name of Joseph, yet this appears to be only in conformity to the Jewish custom of tracing no pedigree in the name of a female. The father of Joseph, as mentioned by Luke, seems to have been his father by marriage only; so that it was, in reality, Mary’s pedigree that is traced by Luke, though under her husband’s name; and this being the natural line of descent, and that of Matthew the legal one, by which, as a king he would have inherited the crown, there is no inconsistency between them.

4.The kind of miracles that Messiah should perform is specified; Is. 35: 5, 6. He actually performed the miracles there predicted, his enemies themselves being judges.

5.It was prophesied that he should as a King be distinguished by his lowliness; entering into Jerusalem, not in a chariot of state, but in a much humbler style; Zec 9:9; this was really the case, Mat 21:1-46

6.It was predicted that he should suffer and die by the hands of wicked men; Is. 49: 7; 53: 9; Dan 9:26. Nothing could be a more striking fulfillment of prophecy than the treatment the Messiah met with in almost every particular circumstance.

7.It was foretold that he should rise from the dead; Is. 53: 11. Psa 68:18; Psa 16:10, his resurrection is proved by indubitable evidence.

8.It was foretold that the great body of the Jewish nation would not believe in him, and that he would set up his kingdom among the Gentiles; Is. 53: 1. 49: 4-6. 6: 9-12. Never was a prophecy more completely fulfilled than this, as facts evidently prove.

9.it is declared that when the Messiah should come, the will of God would be perfectly fulfilled by him, Isa 42: 1, 49. Is. 3-5. And what was his whole life but perfect conformity to him? He finished the work the Father gave him to do: never was there such a character seen among men. Well therefore may we say, Truly this was the Son of God.

See article CHRISTIANITY, JESUS CHRIST.

There have been numerous false Messiahs which have arisen at different times. Of these the Savior predicted, Mat 24:14. Some have reckoned as many as twenty-four, of whom we shall here give an account.

1.Caziba was the first of any note who made a noise in the world. Being dissatisfied with the state of things under Adrian, he set himself up at the head of the Jewish nation, and proclaimed himself their long expected Messiah. He was one of those banditti that infested Judea, and committed all kinds of violence against the Romans; and had become so powerful, that he was chosen king of the Jews, and by them acknowledged their Messiah. However, to facilitate the success of this bold enterprise, he changed his name from Caziba, which it was at first, to that of Barchocheba, alluding to the star foretold by Balaam; for he pretended to be the star sent from heaven to restore his nation to its ancient liberty and glory. He chose a forerunner, raised an army, was anointed king, coined money inscribed with his own name, and proclaimed himself Messiah and prince of the Jewish nation. Adrian raised an army, and sent it against him. He retired into a town called Bither, where he was besieged. Barchocheba was killed in the siege, the city was taken, and a dreadful havoc succeeded. The Jews themselves allow, that, during this short war against the Romans, in defense of this false Messiah, they lost five or six hundred thousand souls. This was in the former part of the second century.

2.In the reign of Theodosius the younger, in the year of our Lord 434, another impostor arose, called Moses Cretensis. He pretended to be a second Moses, sent to deliver the Jews who dwelt in Crete, and promised to divide the sea, and give them a safe passage through it. Their delusion proved so strong and universal, that they neglected their lands, houses, and all other concerns, and took only so much with them as they could conveniently carry. And on the day appointed, this false Moses, having led them to the top of a rock, men, women, and children, threw themselves headlong down into the sea, without the least hesitation or reluctance, till so great a number of them were drowned, as opened the eyes of the rest, and made them sensible of the cheat. They then began to look out for their pretended leader, but he disappeared, and escaped out of their hand.

3.In the reign of Justin, about 520, another impostor appeared, who called himself the son of Moses. His name was Dunaan. He entered into a city of Arabia Felix, and there he greatly oppressed the Christians; but he was taken prisoner, and put to death by Elesban, and AEthiopian general.

4.In the year 529 the Jews and Samaritans rebelled against the emperor Justinian, and set up one Julian for their king; and accounted him the Messiah. The emperor sent an army against them, killed great numbers of them, took their pretended Messiah prisoner, and immediately put him to death.

5.In the year 571 was born Mahomet, in Arabia. At first he professed himself to be the Messiah who was promised to the Jews. By this means he drew many of that unhappy people after him. In some sense, therefore, he may be considered in the number of false Messiahs.

6.See MAHOMETANISM.

7.About the year 721, in the time of Leo Isaurus, arose another false Messiah in Spain; his name was Serenus. He drew great numbers after him, to their no small loss and disappointment, but all his pretensions came to nothing.

8.The twelfth century was fruitful in false Messiahs: for about the year 1137, there appeared one in France, who was put to death, and many of those who followed him.

9.In the year 1138 the Persians were disturbed with a Jew, who called himself the Messiah. He collected together a vast army. But he, too, was put to death, and his followers treated with great inhumanity. 9. In the year 1157, a false Messiah stirred up the Jews at Corduba, in Spain. The wiser and better sort looked upon him as a madman, but the great body of the Jews in that nation believed in him. On this occasion almost all the Jews in Spain were destroyed.

10.In the year 1167, another false Messiah rose in the kingdom of Fez, which brought great trouble and persecution upon the Jews that were scattered through that country.

11.In the same year an Arabian set up there for the Messiah, and pretended to work miracles. When search was made for him, his followers fled, and he was brought before the Arabian king. Being questioned by him, he replied, that he was a prophet sent from God. The king then asked him what sign he could show to confirm his mission. Cut off my head, said he, and I will return to life again. The king took him at his word, promising to believe him if his prediction came to pass. The poor wretch, however, never returned to life again, and the cheat was sufficiently discovered. Those who had been deluded by him were grievously punished and the nation condemned to a very heavy fine.

12.Not long after this, a Jew who dwelt beyond Euphrates, called himself the Messiah, and drew vast multitudes of people after him. He gave this for a sign of it, that he had been leprous, and was cured in the course of one night. He, like the rest, perished in the attempt, and brought great persecution on his countrymen.

13.In the year 1174, a magician and false Christ arose in Persia, who was called David Almusser. He pretended that he could make himself invisible; but he was soon taken and put to death, and a heavy fine laid upon his brethren the Jews.

14.In the year 1176, another of these impostors arose in Moravia, who was called David Almusser. He pretended that he could make himself invisible; but he was soon taken and put to death and a heavy fine laid upon his brethren the Jews.

15.Int he year 1199, a famous cheat and rebel exerted himself in Persia, called David el David. He was a man of learning, a great magician, and pretended to be the Messiah. He raised an army against the king, but was taken and imprisoned; and, having made his escape, was afterwards seized again, and beheaded. Vast numbers of the Jews were butchered for taking part with this impostor.

16.We are told of another false Christ in this same century by Maimonides and Solomon: but they take no notice either of his name, country, or good or ill success. Here we may observe, that no less than ten false Christs arose in the twelfth century, and brought prodigious calamities and destruction upon the Jews in various quarters of the world.

17.In the year 1497, we find another false Christ, whose name was Ismael Sophus, who deluded the Jews in Spain. He also perished, and as many as believed in him were dispersed.

18.In the year 1500, Rabbi Lemlem, a German Jew of Austria, declared himself a forerunner of the Messiah, and pulled down his own oven, promising his brethren that they should bake their bread in the Holy Land next year.

19.In the year 1509, one whose name was Plefferkorn, a Jew of Cologne, pretended to be the Messiah. He afterwards affected, however, to turn Christian.

20.In the year 1534, Rabbi Salomo Malcho, giving out that he was the Messiah, was burnt to death by Charles the Fifth of Spain.

21.In the year 1615, a false Christ arose in the East Indies, and was greatly followed by the Portuguese Jews, who were scattered over that country.

22.In the year 1624, another in the Low Countries pretended to be the Messiah of the Family of David, and of the line of Nathan. He promised to destroy Rome, and to overthrow the kingdom of Antichrist, and the Turkish empire.

23.In the year 1666, appeared the false Messiah Sabatai Sevi, who made so great a noise, and gained such a number of proselytes. He was born at Aleppo, imposed on the Jews for a considerable time; but afterwards, with a view of saving his life, turned Mahometan, and was at last beheaded. As the history of this impostor is more entertaining than that of those we have already mentioned, I will give it at some length. The year 1666 was a year of great expectation, and some wonderful thing was looked for by many. This was a fit time for an impostor to set up; and, accordingly, lying reports were carried about. It was said, that great multitudes marched from unknown parts to the remote deserts of Arabia, and they were supposed to be the ten tribes of Israel, who had been dispersed for many ages; that a ship was arrived in the north part of Scotland with sails and cordage of silk: that the mariners spake nothing but Hebrew; that on the sails was this motto, The twelve tribes of Israel. Thus were credulous men possessed at that time.

Then it was that Sabatai Sevi appeared at Smyrna, and professed himself to be the Messias. He promised the Jews deliverance and a prosperous kingdom. This which he promised they firmly believed. The Jews now attended to no business, discoursed of nothing but their return, and believed Sabatai to be the Messias as firmly as we Christians believe any article of faith. A right reverend person, then in Turkey, meeting with a Jew of his acquaintance at Aleppo, he asked him what he thought of Sabatai. The Jew replied, that he believed him to be the Messias; and that he was so far of that belief, that, if he should prove an impostor, he would then turn Christian. It is fit we should be particular in this relation, because the history is so very surprising and remarkable; and we have the account of it from those who were in Turkey. Sabatai Sevi was the son of Moredecai Sevi, a mean Jew of Smyrna. Sabatai was very bookish, and arrived to great skill in the Hebrew learning. He was the author of a new doctrine, and for it was expelled the city. He went thence to Salonichi, of old called Thessalonica, where he married a very handsome woman, and was divorced from her. Then he travelled into the Morea, then to Tripoli, Gaza, and Jerusalem. By the way he picked up a third wife.

At Jerusalem he began to reform the Jews’ constitutions, and abolish one of their solemn fasts, and communicated his designs of professing himself tha Messias to one Nathan. He was pleased with it, and set up for his Elias, or forerunner, and took upon him to abolish all the Jewish fasts, as not beseeming, when the bridegroom was not come. Nathan prophesied that the Messias should appear before the Grand Seignior in less than two years, and take from him his crown, and lead him in chains. At Gaza, Sabatai preached repentance, together with a faith in himself, so effectually, that the people gave themselves up to their devotions and alms. The noise of this Messias began to fill all places. Sabatai now resolves for Smyrna, and then for Constantinople, Nathan writes to him from Damascus, and thus he begins his letter; “To the king, our king, lord of lords, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, who redeems our captivity, the man elevated to the height of all sublimity the Messias of the God of Jacob, the true Messias, the celestial Lion, Sabatai Sevi.” And now, throughout Turkey, the Jews were in great expectation of glorious times. They now were devout and penitent, that they might not obstruct the good which they hoped for. Some fasted so long that they were famished to death; others buried themselves in the earth till their limbs grew stiff; some would endure melting wax dropped on their flesh; some rolled in snow; others, in a cold season, would put themselves into cold water; and many buried themselves.

Business was laid aside; superfluities of household utensils were sold; the poor were provided for by immense contributions. Sabatai comes to Smyrna, where he was adored by the people, though the Chacham contradicted him, for which he was removed from his office. There he in writing styles himself the only and first-born Son of God, the Messias, the Saviour of Israel. And though he met with some opposition, yet he prevailed there at last to that degree, that some of his followers prophesied, and fell into strange ecstacies: four hundred men and women prophesied of his growing kingdom; and young infants, who could hardly speak, would plainly pronounce Sabatai, Messias, and Son of God. The people were for a time possessed, and voices heard from their bowels: some fell into trances, foamed at the mouth, recounted their future prosperity, their visions of the Lion of Judah, and the triumphs of Sabatai. All which, says the relator, were certainly true, being effects of diabolical delusions, as the Jews themselves have since confessed. Now the impostor swells and assumes. Whereas the Jews, in their synagogues, were wont to pray for the Grand Seignior, he orders those prayers to be forborne for the future, thinking it an indecent thing to pray for him who was shortly to be his captive; and, instead of praying for the Turkish emperor, he appoints prayers for himself. He also elected princes to govern the Jews in their march towards the Holy Land, and to minister justice to them when they should be possessed of it. These princes were men well known in the sity of Smyrna at that time. The people were now pressing to see some miracle to confirm their faith, and to convince the Gentiles.

Here the impostor was puzzled, though any juggling trick would have served their turn. But the credulous people supplied this defect. When Sabatai was before the Cadi (or justice of peace, ) some affirmed they saw a pillar of fire between him and the Cadi; and after some had affirmed it, others were ready to swear it, and did swear it also; and this was presently believed by the Jews of that city. He that did not now believe him to be the Messias was to be shunned as an excommunicated person. The inpostor now declares that he was called of God to see Constantinople, where he had much to do. He ships himself, to that end, in a Turkish saick, in January, 1666. He had a long and troublesome voyage; he had not power over the sea and winds. The Visier, upon the news, sends for him, and confines him in a loathsome prison. The Jews pay him their visits; and they of this city are as infatuated as those in Smyrna. They forbid traffic and refuse to pay their debts. Some of our English merchants not knowing how to recover their debts from the Jews, took this occasion to visit Sabatai, and make their complaints to him against his subjects; whereupon he wrote the following letter to the Jews. “To you of the nation of the Jews, who expect the appearance of the Messias, and the salvation of Israel, peace without end. Whereas we are informed that you are indebted to several of the English nation, it seemeth right unto us to order you to make satisfaction to these your just debts, which if you refuse to do, and not obey us herein, know you that then you are not to enter with us into our joys and dominions.” Sabatai remained a prisoner in Constantinople for the space of two months.

The Grand Visier, designing for Candia, thought it not safe to leave him in the city during the Grand Seignior’s absence and his own. He, therefore, removed him to the Dardanelli, a better air indeed, but yet out of the way, and consequently importing less danger to the city; which occasioned the Jews to conclude that the Turks could not, or durst not, take away his life; which had, they concluded, been the surest way to have removed all jealousy. The Jews flocked in great numbers to the castle where he was a prisoner; not only those that were near, but from Poland, Germany, Leghorn, Venice, and other places: they received Sabatai’s blessing, and promises of advancement. The Turks made use of this confluence; they raised the price of their lodgings and provisions, and put their price upon those who desired to see Sabatai for their admittance. This profit stopped their mouths, and no complaints were for this cause sent to Adrianople. Sabatai, in his confinement, appoints the manner of his own nativity. He commands the Jews to keep it on the ninth day of the month Ab, and to make it a day of great joy, to celebrate it with pleasing meats and drinks, with illuminations and music. He obligeth them to acknowledge the love of God, in giving them that day of consolation for the birth of their king Messias, Sabatai Servi, his servant and first-born Son in love. We may observe, by the way, the insolence of this impostor. This day was a solemn day of fasting among the Jews, formerly in memory of the burning of the temple by the Chaldees: several other sad things happened in this month, as the Jews observe; that then, and upon the same day, the second temple was destroyed; and that in this month it was decreed in the wilderness that the Israelites should not enter into Canaan, &c.

Sabatai was born on this day; and, therefore, the fast must be turned to a feast; whereas, in truth, it had been well for the Jews had he not been born at all; and much better for himself, as will appear from what follows. The Jews of that city paid Sabatai Sevi great respect. They decked their synagogues with S.S. in letters of gold, and made for him in the wall a crown: they attributed the same titles and prophecies to him which we apply to our Saviour. He was also, during this imprisonment, visited by pilgrims from all parts, that had heard his story. Among whom Nehemiah Cohen, from Poland, was one, a man of great learning in the Kabbala and eastern tongues; who desired a conference with Sabatai, and at the conference maintained, that according to the Scripture, there ought to be a two-fold Messias; one the son of Ephraim, a poor and despised teacher of the law; the other the son of David, to be a conqueror. Nehemiah was content to be the former, the son of Ephraim, and to leave the glory and dignity of the latter to Sabatai. Sabatai, for what appears, did not dislike this. But here lay the ground of the quarrel: Nehemiah taught that the son of Ephraim ought to be the forerunner of the son of David, and to usher him in; and Nehemiah accused Sabatai of too great forwardness in appearing as the son of David, before the son of Ephraim had led him the way. Sabatai could not brook this doctrine; for he might fear that the son of Ephraim, who was to lead the way, might pretend to be the son of David, and so leave him in the lurch; and, therefore, he excluded him from any part or share in this matter; which was the occasion of the ruin of Sabatai, and all his glorious designs.

Nehemiah, being disappointed, goes to Adrianople, and informs the great ministers of state against Sabatai, as a lewd and dangerous person to the government, and that it was necessary to take him out of the way. The Grand Seignior, being informed of this, sends for Sabatai, who, much dejected, appears before him. The Grand Seignior requires a miracle, and chooses one himself; and it was this: that Sabatai should be stripped naked, and set as a mark for his archers to shoot at; and, if the arrows did not pierce his flesh, he would own him to be the Messias. Sabatai had not faith enough to bear up under so great a trial. The Grand Seignior let him know that he would forthwith impale him, and that the stake was prepared for him, unless he would turn Turk. Upon which he consented to turn Mahometan, to the great confusion of the Jews. And yet some of the Jews were so vain as to affirm that it was not Sabatai himself, but his shadow, that professed the religion, and was seen in the habit of a Turk; so great was their obstinacy and infidelity, as if it were a thing impossible to convince these deluded and infatuated wretches. After all this, several of the Jews continued to use the forms, in their public worship prescribed by this Mahometan Messias, which obliged the principal Jews of Constantinople to send to the synagogue of Smyrna to forbid this practice. During these things, the Jews, instead of minding their trade and traffic, filled their letters with news of Sabatai their Messias, and his wonderful works.

They reported, that, when the Grand Seignior sent to take him, he caused all the messengers that were sent to die; and when other Janizaries were sent, they all fell dead by a word from his mouth; and being requested to do it, he caused them to revive again. They added, that, though the prison where Sabatai lay was barred and fastened with strong iron locks, yet he was seen to walk through the streets with a numerous train; that the shackles which were upon his neck and feet did not fall off, but were turned into gold, with which Sabatai gratified his followers. Upon the fame of these things the Jews of Italy sent legates to Smyrna, to enquire into the truth of these matters. When the legates arrived at Smyrna, they heard of the news that Sabatai was turned Turk, to their very great confusion; but, going to visit the brother of Sabatai, he endeavoured to persuade them that Sabatai was still the true Messias; that it was not Sabatai that went about in the habit of a Turk, but his angel, or spirit; that his body was taken into heaven, and should be sent down again when God should think it a fit season. He added, that Nathan, his forerunner, who had wrought many miracles, would soon be at Smyrna; that he would reveal hidden things to them, and confirm them. But this Elias was not suffered to come into Smyrna, and though the legates saw him elsewhere, they received no satisfaction at all. 24. The last falst Christ that had made any considerable number of converts was one Rabbi Mordecai, a Jew of Germany: he appeared in the year 1632. It was not long before he was found out to be an impostor, and was obliged to fly from Italy to Poland to save his life. What became of him afterwards does not seem to be recorded. This may be considered as true and exact an account of the false Christs that have arisen since the crucifixion of our blessed Saviour, as can well be given.

See Johannes a Lent’s Hist. of False Messiahs; Jortin’s Rem. on Eccl. Hist. vol. 3: p. 330; Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messias; Harris’s Sermons on the Messiah; The Eleventh Volume of the Modern Part of the Universal History; Simpson’s Key to the Prophecies, sec. 9; Maclaurin on the Prophecies relating to the Messiah; Fuller’s Jesus the true Messiah.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Messiah

the special title of the Saviour promised to the world through the Jewish race. We have space for the discussion of a few points only ofthis extensive theme, and we here treat especially those points not particularly discussed under other heads. SEE REDEEMER.

I. Official Import of the Name. The Hebrew word , Mashi’ach, is in every instance of its use (thirty-nine times) rendered in the Sept. by the suitable term , which becomes so illustrious in the N.T. as the official designation of the Holy Saviour. It is a verbal noun (see Simonis Arcanum Form. Hebr. Ling. p. 92 sq.), derived from , and has much the same meaning as the participle (2Sa 3:39, and occasionally in the Pentateuch), i.e. Anointed. The prevalent and all but universal (Isa 21:5 and Jer 22:14 being perhaps the sole exceptions) sense of the root points to the consecration of objects to sacred purposes by means of anointing-oil. Inanimate objects (such as the tabernacle, altar, laver, etc.) are included under the use of the verb; but the noun is applied only to animate objects. There is, however, some doubt as to 2Sa 1:21, -wb ere, according to some (Maurer, Gesenius, Furst; see also Corn. h Lapide, ad loc.), the phrase, not anointed with oil, is applied to the shield (comp. Isa 21:5). The majority of commentators refer it to Saul, as if he had not been anointed with oil. So the A. V., which seems to follow the Vulgate. This version, however (quasi non esset unctus oleo), is really as inexplicit as the original, admitting the application of anointed to either the king or his shield. This double sense is avoided by the Septuagint ( ), which assigns the anointing, as an epithet, to the shield. The Targum of Jonathan refers the to Saul, but drops the negative. To us the unvarying use of the word, as a human epithet, in all the other (thirty-eight) passages, two of them occurring in the very context of the disputed place (2Sa 1:14; 2Sa 1:16), settles the point in favor of our A. V., as if the king had fallen on the fatal field of Gilboa like one of the common soldiers, not as one who had been anointed with oil. SEE ANOINTING.

The official persons ( the Christs of the O.T. Perowle, Coherence of O.T. and N. T) who were consecrated with oil were priests (Exo 28:41; Lev 4:3; Lev 4:5; Lev 4:16; Num 35:3-5), kings (1Sa 9:16; 1Sa 16:3; 2Sa 12:7; 1Ki 1:34), and prophets (1Ki 19:16). The great Antitype, the Christ of the N.T., embraced and exhausted in himself these several offices, which, in fact, were shadows of his threefold functions as the Prophet, Priest, and King of his people. It is the preeminence which this combination of anointed offices gave him that seems to be pointed at in Psa 45:8, where the great Messiah is anointed above his fellows; above the Christs of old, whether of only one function, as the priest Aaron, or the prophet Elisha, or the king Saul; or of two functions, as Melchizedek the priest and king, or Moses the priest and prophet, or David the king and prophet. In our Saviour Christ is uniquely found the triple comprehension, the recapitulation in himself of the three offices (see Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 1:3, vol. i, p. 24, by Burton [Oxon. 1848]). But not only were the ancient offices typical, the material of consecration had also its antitype in the Holy Ghost (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Ilium. 10:99; Catech,. Neoo. p. 202, 203; Basil, contra Eunom. v; Chrysostom on Psalms 45; Theodoret, Epit. divin. Decret. xi, p. 279; Theophylact on Matthew 1; (Ecumenius on Romans i, etc.). The prophecy of Isa 11:1 The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, because Jehovah hath anointed me) was expressly claimed by Jesus for fulfilment in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luk 4:16-21) on his return to Galilee in the power of the Spirit (Luk 4:14), which he had plenarily received at his recent baptism (Luk 4:1), and by which he was subsequently led into the wilderness (Luk 4:1).

This anointing of our Lord to his Messianic functions is referred to in a general sense in such passages as Isa 11:2 and Act 10:38. But from the more specific statement of Peter (Act 2:36), it would appear that it was not before his resurrection and consequent ascension that Christ was fully inducted into his Messianic dignities. He was anointed to his prophetical office at his baptism; but thereby rather initiated to be, than actually made Christ and Lord. Unto these two offices of everlasting Priest and everlasting King he was not actually anointed, or fully consecrated, until his resurrection from the dead (dean Jackson, Works, 7:368). As often as the evangelists style him Christ before his resurrection from the dead, it is by way of anticipation (ibid. p. 296). On this point, indeed, the grammatical note of Gersdorf (Sprachchar. 1:39, 272), as quoted by Winer (Gramn. des N.T. sprachid. 3:18, p._107; Clark, p. 130), is interesting: The four evangelists almost always write [the expected Messiah, like ], while Paul and Peter employ , as the appellation had become more of a proper name. In the epistles of Paul and Peter, however, the word has the article when a governing noun precedes (for extremely elaborate tables, containing every combination of the sacred names of Christ in the N.T., the reader is referred to the last edition of bishop Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article, by H. J. Rose, BD., App. ii, p. 486-496). Twice only in the N.T. does the Hebrew form of it (Messias) occur, in Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25; and twice only in the O.T. have our translators retained the same form (Messiah), in Dan 9:25-26. In these passages, both in the Greek of the evangelist [, or (as Griesbach preferred to read) , more closely like the original] and in the Hebrew of the prophet [], there is an absence of the article-the word having, in fact, grown out of its appellative state, which so often occurs in the earlier books, into a proper name; thus resembling the course of the of the Christian Scriptures. SEE CHRIST.

II. The gradual Growth of the Messianic Revelation.

1. First or Patriarchal Period.

(1.) In the primeval promise (Gen 3:15) lies the germ of a universal blessing. The tempter came to the woman in the guise of a serpent, and the curse thus pronounced has a reference both to the serpent which was the instrument, and to the tempter that employed it; to the natural terror and enmity of man against the serpent, and to the conflict between mankind redeemed by Christ its Head, and Satan that deceived mankind. Many interpreters would understand by the seed of the woman the Messiah only; but it is easier to think with Calvin that mankind after they are gathered into one army by Jesus the Christ, the Head of the Church, are to achieve a victory over evil. The Messianic character of this prophecy has been much questioned by those who see. in the history of the fall nothing but a fable: to those who accept it as true, this passage is the primitive germ of thei Gospel. The seed of the woman, the vagueness and obscurity of which phrase was so suited to the period of the protevangelium, is cleared in the light of the NT. (see Gal 4:4, where the explains the original ). The deliverance intimated was no doubt understood by our first parents to be universal, like the injury sustained, and it is no absurdity to suppose that the promise was cherished afterwards by thoughtful Gentiles as well as believing Jews; but to the latter it was subsequently shaped into increasing precision by supplementary revelation’s, while to the former it never lost its formal vagueneess and obscurity. The O.T. gives us occasional gleams of the glorious primeval light as it struggled with the gross traditions of the heathen. The nearer to Israel the clearer the light; as in the cases of the Abimelechs (Gen 20:6; Gen 26:28), and Melchizedek (Gen 14:18), and Job (Job 19:25), and Balaam (Num 24:17), and the magi (Matthew 2), and the Samaritan woman (Joh 4:25; and see, on the Christology of the Samaritans, Westcott’s Introduction, p. 148, 149). But even at a distance from Israel the light still flickered to the last, as the unconscious prophecies of heathendom show, as archbishop Trench happily designates-though in a somewhat different sense-the yearnings of the Gentiles after a deliverer (Hulsean Lectures for 1846; see also bishop Horsley’s Dissert. on the Messianic Prophecies dispersed among the Heathen, in Sermons, ed. 1829, 2:263-318; and comp. Virgil’s well-known eclogue Pollio, and the expectations mentioned by Suetonius, Vit. Vespasian. 4:8,- and Tacitus, Hist. v. 9, 13, and the Sibylline oracles, discussed by Horsley [ut sup.], with a strong leaning to their authenticity). See below, 4:1 (3). But although the promise was absolutely indefinite to the first father of man (on which see bishop Horsley, Sermon xvi, p. 234, 235, comp. with Faber’s Prophetical Dissert. 7:4 and 5), additional light was given, after the deluge, to the second father of the human race.

(2.) To Noah was vouchsafed a special reservation of blessing for one of his sons in preference to the other two, and-as if words failed him-he exclaimed, Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem! (Gen 9:26). Not that at any time God meant to confine a monopoly of blessing to the individual selected as the special depositary thereof. In the present instance Japheth, in the next verse, is associated with his brother for at least some secondary advantage: God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. Instead of blessing Shem, as he had cursed Canaan, he carries up the blessing to the great fountain of the blessings that were to follow Shem.

(3.) The principle of limitation goes on. One of Shem’s descendants has three sons. Only one of these is selected as the peculiar treasurer of the divine favor. But not for himself alone was Abraham chosen. As in Shem’s instance, so here again Abraham was to be the centre of blessing to even a larger scope. More than once was he assured of this: In thy seed [ in thee, 12:3] shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen 22:18). The Messianic purport of this repeated promise cannot be doubted after Christ’s own statement (Joh 8:56) and Paul’s comment (Gal 3:16). The promise is still indefinite, but it tends to the undoing of the curse of Adam by a blessing to all the earth through the seed of Abraham, as death had come on the whole earth through Adam. When our Lord says Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad (Joh 8:56), we are to understand that this promise of a real blessing and restoration to come hereafter was understood in a spiritual sense, as a leading back to God, as a coming nearer to him, from whom the promise came; and he desired with hope and rejoicing (gestivit cum desiderio, Bengel) to behold the day of it.

(4.) In Abraham’s son-the father of twin sons we meet with another limitation; Jacob not only secures the traditional blessing to himself, but is inspired to concentrate it at his death on Judah, to the exclusion of the eleven other members of his family. Judah, thou art he whom thy brothers praise… The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come (Gen 49:8; Gen 49:10; see Perowne’s Essay, p. 26,188; Delitzsch, ad loc.; bishop Pearson, Creed, art. ii; Hengstenberg, Christol. 1:59, 60; Davison, On Prophecy, p. 106; Dollinger, Gentile and Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, translated by Darnell, 2:392. Onkelos and Raschi, it may be worth while to add, make Shiloh here to refer to the Messiah, as do D. Kimchi and Abendana). To us the Messianic interpretation of the passage seems to be called for by the principle of periodical limitation, which amounts to a law in the Christological Scriptures. We accept the conclusion, therefore, that the of this verse is the : , Prince of Peace, of Isa 9:5 [6]; and the , This man is peace, of Mic 5:4; and the

, the peace-speaker, of Zec 9:10.; and the , our peace, of Paul, Eph 2:14 in a word, our Messiah, Jesus Christ. This, then, is the first case in which the promises distinctly centre in one person; and he is to be the man of peace; he is to wield and retain the government, and the nations shall look up to him and obey him. SEE SHILOH.

2. Mosaic Period.

(1.) The next passage usually quoted is the prophecy of Balaam (Num 24:17-19). The star points indeed to the glory, as the sceptre denotes the power, of a king. Onkelos and Jonathan (pseudo) see here the Messiah. But it is doubtful whether the prophecy is not fulfilled in David (2Sa 8:2; 2Sa 8:14); and though David is himself a type of Christ, the direct Messianic application of this place is by no means certain.

(2.) The prophecy of Moses (Deu 18:18), I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him, claims attention. Does this refer to the Messiah? The reference to Moses in Joh 5:45-47 He wrote of me seems to point to this passage; for it is a cold and forced interpretation to refer it to the whole types and symbols of the Mosaic law. On the other hand, many critics would fain find here the divine institution of the whole prophetic order, which, if not here, does not occur at all. Hengstenberg thinks that it does promise that an order of prophets should be sent, but that the singular is used with direct reference to the greatest of the prophets, Christ himself, without whom the words would not have been fulfilled. The spirit of Christ spoke in the prophets, and Christ is in a sense the only prophet (1Pe 1:11). Jews in earlier times might have been excused for referring the words to this or that present prophet; but the Jews whom the Lord rebukes (John 5) were inexcusable; for, having the words before them, and the works of Christ as well, they should have known that no prophet had so fulfilled the words as he had.

(3.) The passages in the Pentateuch which relate to the Angel of the Lord have been thought by many to bear reference to the Messiah.

3. Period of David.-Here another advance is found in prophetic limitation. Jacob had only specified the tribe, now the particular family is indicated from which Messiah was to spring. From the great promise made to David (2Sa 7:11-16), and so frequently referred to afterwards (1Ki 11:34; 1Ki 11:38; Psa 89:30-37; Isa 55:3; Act 13:34), and described by the sweet psalmist of Israel himself as an everlasting covenant ordered in all things, and sure (2Sa 23:5), arose that concentrated expectation of the Messiah expressed by the popular phrase Son of David, of which we hear so much in the N.T. (comp. Mat 9:27; Mat 12:23; Mat 21:9; Mat 22:42; Mar 10:47-48; Mar 11:10; Luk 1:32; Luk 18:38-39; Joh 7:42; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16; with Jer 23:5).

In the promises of a kingdom to David and his house forever (2Sa 7:13), there is more than could be fulfilled save by the eternal kingdom in which that of David merged; and David’s last words dwell on this promise of an everlasting throne (2 Samuel 23). Passages in the Psalms are numerous which are applied to the Messiah in the N.T. such are Psalms 2, 16, 22, 40, 110. Other psalms quoted in the N.T. appear to refer to the actual history of another king; but only those who deny the existence of types and prophecy will consider this as an evidence against an ulterior allusion to Messiah; such psalms are 45, 68, 69, 72. The advance in clearness in this period is great. The name of Anointed, i.e. King, comes in, and the Messiah is to come of the lineage of David. He is described in his exaltation, with his great kingdom that shall be spiritual rather than temporal (Psalms 2, 21, 40, 110). In other places he is seen in suffering and humiliation (Psalms 22, 16, 40).

Having now confined the Messiah’s descent to the family of the illustrious king who was the man after God’s own heart, prophecy will await God’s own express identification of the individual (see it given in Mat 3:17; Mat 17:5; Mar 1:11; Mar 9:7; Luk 3:22; Luk 9:35; and referred to in 2Pe 1:17). But it will not idly wait. It has other particulars to announce, to give point and precision to a nation’s hopes.

4. Period of Prophetism. After the time of David the predictions of the Messiah ceased for a time, until those prophets arose whose works we possess in the canon of Scripture. They nowhere give us an exact and complete account of the nature of the Messiah; but different aspects of the truth are produced by the various needs of the people, and so they are led to speak of him now as a Conqueror, or a Judge, or a Redeemer from sin; it is from the study of the whole of them that we gain a clear and complete image of his person and kingdom. This third period lasts from the reign of Uzziah to the Babylonian captivity. The Messiah is a King and Ruler of David’s home, who shall come to reform and restore the Jewish nation and purify the Church, as in Isaiah 11, 40-66. The blessings of the restoration, however, will not be confined to Jews; the heathen are made to share them fully (Isaiah 2, 66). Whatever theories have been attempted about Isaiah 53, there can be no doubt that the most natural is the received interpretation that it refers to the suffering Redeemer; and so in the N.T. it is always considered to do. The passage of Mic 5:2 (comp. Mat 2:6) left no doubt in the mind of the Sanhedrim as to the birthplace of the Messiah. The lineage of David is again alluded to in Zec 12:10-14. The time of the second Temple is fixed by Hag 2:9 for Messiah’s coming; and the coming of the Forerunner and of the Anointed is clearly revealed in Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5-6.

All the more important events of the coming Redeemer’s life and death, and subsequent kingdom and exaltation, were foretold. Bethlehem was to be his birthplace (Mic 5:2; comp. with Mat 2:1-6); Galilee his country (Isa 9:1-2; comp. with Mat 4:14-16); a virgin his mother (Isa 7:14; comp. with Mat 1:23); he was to preach glad tidings to the meek and to bind up the broken-hearted (Isa 61:1; comp. with Luk 4:17-21); though her king, he was to come to the daughter of Zion, just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass (Zec 9:9; comp. with Joh 12:14-15); he was to be despised and rejected of men; was to be led like a lamb to the slaughter (Isa 53:3; Isa 53:7; comp. with Psa 22:6; Joh 1:11; Joh 18:40; Mar 14:61; Mar 15:5); his garments were to be parted, and lots cast upon his vesture (Psa 22:18; comp. with Joh 19:23-24); his hands and feet were to be pierced (Psa 22:16; comp. with Luk 23:33, and Joh 20:25); he was to have vinegar give in to him to drink (Psa 69:21; comp. with Mat 27:34; Mat 27:38); he was to pour out his soul unto death; was to be numbered with the transgressors; and his grave, though intended to be with wicked men (see this translation in Mason and Bernard’s Hebr. Gram. 2:305), was in reality destined to be with a rich man (Isa 53:9; comp. with Mat 27:57-58); his soul was not to be left in hell, nor his flesh to see corruption (Psa 16:10; comp. with Act 2:31; Act 13:34-36); he was to sit on the right hand of Jehovah till his foes were made his footstool (Psa 110:1; comp. with 1Pe 3:22; Heb 1:3; Mar 16:19, and 1Co 15:25) his kingdom was to spread until ultimately the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, should be given to the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:27; see Perowne, Coherence, p. 29, 30). Slight as is this sketch of the prophetic announcements with which God was pleased to sustain human hope amid human misery, as a light that shineth in a dark place (2Pe 1:19), shining more and more unto the perfect day (Pro 4:18), it is yet enough to suggest to us how great must have been the longing for their Deliverer which such persistent and progressive promises were likely to excite in the hearts of faithful men and women.

The expectation of a golden age that should return upon the earth was,, as we have seen, common in heathen nations (Hesiod, Works and Days, p. 109; Ovid, Met. 1:89; Virgil, Ecl. iv; and passages in Eusebius, Prcep. Ev. 1:7; 12:13). It was doubtless inspired by some light that had reached them from the Jewish revelation. This hope the Jews also shared, but with them it was associated with the coming of a particular person, the Messiah. It has been asserted that in him the Jews looked for an earthly king, and that the existence of the hope of a Messiah may thus be accounted for on natural grounds and without a divine revelation. But the prophecies refute this: they hold out not a King only, but a Prophet and a Priest, whose business it should be to set the people free from sin, and to teach them the ways of God, as in Psalms 22, 40, 110; Isaiah 2, 11, 53, In these and other places, too, the power of the coming One reaches beyond the Jews and embraces all the Gentiles, which is contrary to the exclusive notions of Judaism. A fair consideration of all the passages will convince us that the growth of the Messianic idea in the prophecies is owing to revelation from God. The witness of the N.T. to the O.T. prophecies can bear no other meaning; it is summed up in the above-cited words of Peter (2Pe 1:19-21; comp. the elaborate essay on this text in Knapp’s Opuscula, vol. i). Our Lord affirms that there are prophecies of the Messiah in the O.T., and that they are fulfilled in him (Mat 26:54; Mar 9:12; Luk 18:31-33; Luk 22:37; Luk 24:27; Joh 5:39; Joh 5:46). The apostles preach the same truth in Act 2:16; Act 2:25; Act 8:28-35; Act 10:43; Act 13:23; Act 13:32; Act 26:22-23; 1Pe 1:11, and in many passages of Paul. Even if internal evidence did not prove that the prophecies were much more than vague longings after better times, the N.T. proclaims everywhere that although the Gospel was the sun, and O.-T. prophecy the dim light of a candle, yet both were light, and both assisted those who heeded them to see aright; and that the prophets interpreted, not the private longings of their own hearts, but the will of God, in speaking as they did (see Knapp’s Essay for this explanation) of the coming kingdom.

5. The period after the close of the canon of the O.T. is known to us in a great measure from allusions in the N.T. to the expectation of the Jews. From such passages as Psa 2:2; Psa 2:6, 8; Jer 23:5-6; Zec 9:9, the Pharisees, and those of the Jews who expected the Messiah at all, looked for a temporal prince only. The apostles themselves were infected with this opinion till after the resurrection (Mat 20:20-21; Luk 24:21; Act 1:6). Gleams of a purer faith appear (Luk 2:30; Luk 23:42; Joh 4:25). On the other hand, there was a sceptical school which had discarded the expectation altogether. No mention of the Messiah appears in the Book of Wisdom, nor in the writings of Philo; and Josephus avoids the doctrine. Intercourse with heathens had made some Jews ashamed of their fathers’ faith.

It is quite consistent with the prospects which, as we have seen, the prophecies were calculated to raise, that we are informed by Luke of the existence of what seems to have been a considerable number of persons that looked for redemption in Israel (Luk 2:38). The demeanor of these believers was exhibited in a close and conscientious adherence to the law of Moses, which was, in its statutes and ordinances, at once the rule of pious life and the schoolmaster to guide men to their Messiah (Gal 3:24). As examples of these just and devout persons, the evangelist presents us with a few short but beautiful sketches in his first and second chapters. Besides the blessed Mary and faithful Joseph, there are Zacharias and Elisabeth, Simeon and Anna-pictures of holiness to be met with among men and women, married and unmarried, whose piety was strongly toned with this eminent feature, which is expressly attributed to one of them, waiting for the consolation of Israel (comp. Luk 1:6 with Luk 2:25, and Luk 2:37-38). Such hopes, stimulated by a profound and far-sighted faith, were exhibited at the birth and infancy of the Messiah Jesus by these expectant Jews; and they were not alone. Gentiles displayed a not less marvellous faith, when the wise men from the East did homage to the babe of Bethlehem, undeterred by the disguise of humiliation with which the Messiah’s glory was to the human eve obscured (Mat 2:2; Mat 2:11). But at his death, no less than at his birth, under a still darker veil of ignominy, similar acknowledgments of faith in his Messiahship were exhibited. Mark mentions it as one of the points in the character of Joseph of Arimathaea that he waited for the kingdom of God; and it would seem that this faith urged him to that holy boldness of using his influence with Pilate to rescue the body of Jesus, and commit it to an honorable tomb, as if he realized the truth of Isaiah’s great prophecy, and saw in the Crucified no less than the Messiah himself (Mar 15:43). To a like faith must be imputed the remarkable confession of the repentant thief upon the cross (Luk 23:42)a faith which brought even the Gentile centurion who superintended the execution of Jesus to the conviction that the expiring sufferer was not only innocent (Luk 23:47), but even the Son of God (Mat 27:54, and Mar 15:39). This conjunction of Gentile faith with that of Hebrews is most interesting, and, indeed, consistent with the progress of the promise. We have seen above how, in the earliest stages of the revelation Gentile interests were not overlooked. Abraham, who saw. the Messiah’s day (Joh 8:56), was repeatedly assured of the share which all nations were destined to have in the blessings of his death (Gen 12:3; Gen 22:18; Act 3:25). Nor was the breadth of the promise afterwards narrowed. Moses called the nations to rejoice with the chosen people (Deu 32:43). Isaiah proclaimed the Messiah expressly as the light of the Gentiles (Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6); Haggai foretold his coming as the desire of all nations (Hag 2:7); and when he came at last, holy Simeon inaugurated his life on earth under the title of a light-to lighten the Gentiles (Luk 2:32). When his Gospel was beginning to run its free course, the two missionaries for the heathen quoted this great prophetic note as the warrant of their ministry: I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth (Act 13:47). Plain, however, as was the general scope of the Messianic prophecies, there were features in it which the Jewish nation failed to perceive. Framing their ideal not so much from their Scriptures as from their desires, and impatient of a hated heathen yoke, they longed for an avenging Messiah who should inflict upon their oppressors retaliation for many wrongs. his wish colored all their national hopes; and it should be borne in mind by the student of the Gospels, on which it throws much light. Not only was the more religious class, such as Christ’s own apostles and pupils, affected by this thought of an external kingdom, even so late as his last journey to Jerusalem (Mar 10:37); but the undiscriminating crowds, who would have forcibly made him king (Joh 6:15) so strongly did his miracles attest his Messianic mission even in their view (Joh 6:14) and who afterwards followed him to the capital and shouted hosannas to his praise, most abruptly withdrew their popular favor from him and joined in his destruction, because he gave them no signs of an earthly empire or of political emancipation. Christ’s kingdom was not of this world a proposition which, although containing the very essence of Christianity, offended the Jewish people when Jesus presented himself as their veritable Messiah, and led to their rejection of him. Moreover, his lowly condition, sufferings, and death, have been a stumbling-block in the way of their recognition of him ever since. SEE SAVIOUR.

III. Jewish Views respecting the Messiah. Even in the first prediction of the woman’s seed bruising the serpent’s head, there is the idea of a painful struggle and of a victory, which leaves the mark of suffering upon the Conqueror (Smith’s Messianic Prophecies of Isaiah [1862], p. 164). This thought has tinged the sentiments of all orthodox believers since, although it has often been obscured by the brilliant fancy of ambition. SEE SON OF MAN.

1. Early Jewish Opinions.-The portrait of an afflicted and suffering Messiah is too minutely sketched by the Psalmist (Psalms 22, 42, 43, 69), by Isaiah (ch. 53), by Zechariah (ch. 11-13), and Daniel (Dan 9:24-27), to be ignored even by reluctant Jews; and strange is the embarrassment observable in Talmudic Judaism to obviate the advantage which accrues to Christianity from its tenure of this unpalatable doctrine. Long ago did Trypho, Justin Martyr’s Jew, own the force of the prophetic Scriptures, which delineated Messiah as a man of sorrows (Justin. Dial. 89). In later times. after the Talmud of Babylon (7th century) became influential, the doctrine of two Messiahs was held among the Jews. For several centuries it was their current belief that Messiah Ben-David was referred to in all the prophecies which spoke of glory and triumph, while on Messiah Ben- Joseph of Ephraim fell all the predicted woes and sufferings. By this expedient they both glorfied their traditional idea which exonerated their chief Messiah, of David’s illustrious race, from all humiliation, and likewise saved their nominal deference to the inspired prophets who had written of the sorrows of Messiah. (For a popular sketch of this opinion of two Messiahs, the reader is referred to Smith’s sermons On the Messianic Prophecies of Isaiah, p. 177-181; see also Buxtorf’s Lexicon Talmud. s.v. , p. 1126, 1127, and s.v. ; Eisenmenger’s nedecktes Judenthum, 2:720-750; Otho’s Lexicon Rabbin. Schittgen, Horae Hebrews et Rabbin. 2:1-778.) All the references to a suffering Messiah made by great writers, such as Rashi, Ibn-Esra, and D. Kimchi, are to Messiah Ben-Joseph; while of the more than seventy quotations cited by Buxtorf from the Targums, including Onkelos, not one refers to the Messiah as suffering.

This early Targumistic literature (as distinguished from the latter Rabbinical) dwells on the glories, triumphs, and power of a conquering Messiah. However absurd this distortion was, it was yet felt to be too great a homage to the plain interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures as given by Christian writers, who showed to the votaries of the Talmud that their earlier authors had applied to the Son of David the very passages which they were for referring to the Son of Joseph. From the tenth and eleventh centuries, therefore, other interpretations have been sought for. Maimonides omits the whole story of Messiah Ben-Joseph in his account of the Messiah; see Pococke, Append. on Malachi. The Messiah has been withdrawal together from the reach of all predicted sufferings. Such passages as Isaiah 53, have been and still are applied to some persecuted servant of God, Jeremiah especially, or to the aggregate Jewish nation. This anti-Messianic exegesis is prevalent among the Neologians of Germany and France, and their free-handling disciples of the English school (see Dr. Rowland Williams, Essays and Reviews, p. 71-75 [edit. 2]). Thus Jewish sentiment has either reverted to that low standard of mere worldly expectation which recognises no humiliation in Messiah, but only a career of unmixed triumph and glory, or else has collapsed in a disappointment and despair which forbid all speculation of a Messiah whatever (Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judezth. i,. 677). Jewish despair does not often resolve itself into Christian hope. Here and there affecting instances of the genuine change occur, such as the two mentioned by bishop Thirlwall (Reply to Dr. W.’s earnestly respectful letter, p. 78); in the second of which-that of Isaac da Costa-conversion arose from his thoughtful reflections on the present dispersion of the Jewish race for its sins. His acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah solved all enigmas to him, and enabled him to estimate the importance of such prophetic promises as are yet unfulfilled to Israel. But the normal state of Jewish Messianic opinion is that sickness of heart which comes from deferred hopes. This despair produces an abasement of faith and a lowering of religious tone, or else finds occasional relief in looking out after pretended Messiahs. Upwards of thirty cases of these have deluded the nation in its scattered state since the destruction of Jerusalem. SEE MESSIAHS, FALSE.

The havoc of life and reputation caused by these attempts has tended more than any thing else to the discouragement of Messianic hopes among the modern Jews. Foremost in the unhappy catalogue of these fanatics stands the formidable rebellion under Bar-Cocheba, in the 2d century. Rabbi Akiba, the second Moses, the great light of the day in Jewry, declared before the Sanhedrim that Bar- Cocheba was the Messiah. Rabbi Jochanan alone made opposition, and said, Grass, O Akiba, will grow out of thy jaws, and yet the Son of David not have come. We know not what was the fate of Bar-Cocheba (or Bar- Coseba, the son of lying, as his disappointed dupes at length called him), but the gray-headed Akiba was taken by the Romans and executed. More are said to have perished in this attempt than in the previous war of Titus. Embarrassing as all these failures are to the Jews, they only add one more to the many proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, who expressly foretold these delusions of false Christs (Mat 24:24; Mar 13:22), as one class of retributions which should avenge on Israel the guilt of his own rejection. Not only, however, from the lowliness and suffering of the Christian Messiah, but in a still greater degree from his exalted character, there arises a difficulty of faith to the Jewish objection. The divinity of nature which Jesus claimed is perhaps the greatest doctrinal obstacle to his reception among the Jews. See Gfrorer, Gesch. d. Urchristenthums (Stuttg. 1838); Solani, Croyances Messianiques (Strasb. 1864). SEE SON OF GOD.

2. Modern Jewish Views. The hope of a Messiah the bounteous benefactor and inaugurator of a glorious reign on earth, firmly establishing forever and ever the greatness of Abraham’s descendants-had prevailed even among the children of Israel, but it required the days of trial and tribulation, such as came in the days of the exile, to create a yearning for the appearance of the King, the Conqueror, the God of Israel. Within the Romans of a foreign ruler, and subject to his rule, the Messiah became an ever-present being to the thoughts and to the visions of the Jews; and yet when at last the Son of man came to his own, his own knew him not. But though they rejected him of whom Moses and the prophets wrote, the faith in a Restorer of Israel for many centuries continued to knit together the nation in their dispersed condition. Of late only a change has come over them, and the Jewish camp may be truly said to have divided into three distinct branches: (1) the extreme right, (2) the extreme left, and (3) the centre.

(1) The Jews belonging to the first class are those. who remain either (a) orthodox in their adherence to the liberal interpretation of the Bible and tradition, or (b) who, though accepting both Bible and tradition, favor. a liberal construction of the traditional usages. This class of Jews continue to look for a personal reign of Messiah, and their restoration to the land of their forefathers. Their number is daily decreasing, however, and the time promises to be soon when they shall be counted among the things that were.

(2) To the second class belong those Jews generally denominated Reformed. They would sweep away Talmudism and the ceremonial law, claiming a complete emancipation from religious thraldom as their indefeasible right. They question the propriety of interpreting the prophets as predicting a personal Messiah, and deny the possibility of a restoration of Israel as a nation of political entity. In 1840 they for the first time gave public expression to their belief in a meeting at Fraakfort, when they declared that a Messiah who is to lead back to Palestine is neither expected nor desired by the associated, and they acknowledge that alone to be their country to which they belong by birth or civil relation.’ In 1869 a meeting of the educated Jews of Germany was held in the city of Leipsic, at which eighty-four different Jewish congregations were represented. Twenty-four of the attendants were rabbis of high repute; the lay members men who had secured the highest places in the gift of the nation, among them the late Dr. First, then professor at the University of Leipsic, the learned Lazarus, of the University of Berlin, etc In 1840 the gathering had been composed of a handful of rationalistic Jews; in 1869 the meeting at Leipsic was attended by Israel’s ablest and most devoted adherents, Yet these men rejected the belief in Israel’s restoration, and passed the following resolution: Those portions of our prayers which refer to the re- establishment of the annual sacrifices at the Messianic period, or to the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, must be modified. Now widespread the opinion represented at this time owing may be best judged if such a conservative journal as the London Jewish Chronicle is led to comment that Although every Jew is bound to believe in a Messiah, the question whether that expression indicates a person or a time, and whether he or it has arrived or not, is, according to the Talmud, an open question..

(3) The main portion of modern Judaism consists of the moderate party, embracing those Jews who seek to develop a higher spirituality from the old form of Judaism. With them the ceremonial law is valuable only as a hedge to keep the people apart from other forms of religion till the times are fulfilled. Like Kimchi, Abrabanel, and other Jewish commentators, they apply the oracle in Isa 11:1-10 to the age of the Messiah, whose advent they place at the very time when the final gathering of the Jewish people is to be accomplished. The one, says the Revelation Prof. Marks (Jewish Messenger, January, 1872), His to be immediately consequent upon the other; or, rather, they are prophesied as synchronous events. Denying the accuracy of Christian interpretation, which refers the 11th chapter to the first, and the 12th chapter to the coming of Christ in the final day, they insist that the Hebrew Scriptures teach only one Messianic appearance, and that chapter 11 warrants no distinction in point of time between the clearly-defined occurrences which are to mark Messiah’s advent; and, continues Prof. Marks, so far from representing the complete regeneration of the moral world as the result of many centuries after the promised Messiah shall have appeared, the prophet of the text mentions the universal peace and harmony that shall prevail, as well as the ingathering of the dispersed of Judah and of Israel, as the especial events which are to characterize the inauguration of the Messianic age. The promised regenerator of mankind is to be known by the accomplishment of these his appointed tasks; and no one, according to the Jewish view of prophetic Scripture, is entitled to the name of the Messiah’ who does. not vindicate his claim to that high office by means of the fulfilment of the conditions which the word of inspiration has assigned to his coming.

As is well known, the Jews looked for a Messiah in the days of our Saviour. For centuries after the whole nation was incessantly on the watch: their prosperity seemed the harbinger of his coming; their darkest calamities, they believed, gathered them only to display, with the force of stronger contrast, the mercy of their God and the glory of their Redeemer. Calculation upon calculation failed, until at last, their courage threatening desertion, the rabbinical interdict was sent forth to repress the dangerous curiosity which, often baffled, would still penetrate the secrets of futurity. Cursed is he who calculates the time of the Messiah’s coming was the daily message to the faithful of the synagogue; and at last it was declared that No indication is given with regard to the particular epoch at which the prophecy of the 11th chapter (of Isaiah) is to be accomplished, but that the inspired messenger of God has furnished means of determining by the evidence of our senses the distinctive signs by which the advent of the Messiah is to be marked, viz.

(1) the arrival of the golden age (Isa 11:7-9);

(2) the rallying of the nations, unsought and uninvited, around the Messianic banner (Isa 11:10); and

(3) the second ingathering of the whole of the Jewish people, including the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, as well as those which composed the kingdom of Samaria, and are popularly spoken of as the lost tribes (Isa 11:11-12. Compare on this. point Lindo, The Conciliator of R. Manasseh ben-Israel [Lond. 1842, 2 vols. 8vo], 2:143). As Jews, we, they say, maintain that the promised Messiah has not yet appeared, and that the world has never witnessed such a moral picture as the prophets predict of the Messianic age. And yet they are obliged themselves to confess that Various opinions prevail [among them] with respect to what is to be precisely understood by the coming of the Messiah. Some hold that it implies the birth of a particular personage; others, that it describes the conjunction of certain events which are to act with extraordinary moral power on the world at large. But what it does especially behoove us to bear in mind is, first, that the prophets identify the Messianic advent with an age when brute force shall have come to an end, when warfare and strife shall have disappeared from the earth, and when love shall have become the sole governing principle of humanity; and, secondly, that this important work of the regeneration of mankind is to be brought about by the instrumentality of the Jewish people, if not by some remarkable individual born of that race.

Jesus the Christ they refuse to recognise as that remarkable individual, because, as one of their number has declared, we do not find in the present comparatively imperfect stage of human progress the realization of that blessed condition of mankind which the prophet Isaiah associates with the era when Messiah is to appear. And as our Hebrew Scriptures speak of one Messianic advent only, and not of two advents (even those in the synagogue who speak of a Messiah from the house of Joseph concurrently with one from the house of David make their advent synchronous); and as the inspired Book does not preach Messiah’s kingdom as a matter of faith, but distinctly identifies it with matters of fact which are to be made evident to the senses, we cling to the plain inference to be drawn from the text of the Bible, and we deny that Messiah has yet appeared, and upon the following grounds: First. Because of the three distinctive facts which the inspired seer of Judah inseparably connects with the advent of the Messiah, viz. the cessation of war and the uninterrupted reign of peace, the prevalence of a perfect concord of opinion on all matters bearing upon the worship of the one and only God, and the ingathering of the remnant of Judah and of the dispersed ten tribes of Israel-not one has, up to the present time, been accomplished. Second. We dissent from the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah announced by the prophets, because the Church which he founded, and which his successors developed, has offered, during a succession of centuries, a most singular contrast to what is described by the Hebrew Scriptures as the immediate consequence of Messiah’s advent, and of his glorious kingdom. The prophet Isaiah declares that when the Messiah appears, peace, love, and union will be permanently established; and every candid man must admit that the world has not yet realized the accomplishment of this prophecy. Again, in the days of Messiah, all men, as Scripture saith, are to serve God with one accord;’ and yet it is very certain that since the appearance of him whom our Christian brethren believe to be Messiah, mankind has been split into more hostile divisions on the grounds of religious belief, and more antagonistic sects have sprung up, than in any historic age before Christianity was preached. For the articles of confession, see the article. SEE JUDAISM, 4:1057, Colossians 1 (9 and 12), 1058, and especially those portions in Conservative and Reformed JUDAISM; also SEE RESTORATION OF THE JEWS.

IV. Proof of the Messiahship of Jesus. This discussion resolves itself into two questions. SEE JESUS CHRIST.

1. The promised Messiah has already come. To prove this assertion, we shall confine our remarks to three prophecies.

(1.) The first is the passage above commented on, occurring in Gen 49:8; Gen 49:10, where Jacob is giving his sons his parting benediction, etc. When he comes to Judah, he says: The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the obedience of the people be. It is evident that by Judah is here meant, not the person, but the tribe; for Judah died in Egypt, without any pre- eminence. By sceptre and lawgiver are obviously intended the legislative and ruling power, which did, in the course of time, commence in David, and which for centuries afterwards was continued in his descendants. Whatever variety the form of government-whether monarchical or aristocratical might have assumed, the law and polity were still the same. This prediction all the ancient Jews referred to the Messiah. Ben-Uzziel renders it, Until the time when the king Messiah shall come. The Targum of Onkelos speaks to the same effect, and that of Jerusalem paraphrases it thus: Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor doctors that teach the law from his children, until that the king Messiah do come, whose the kingdom is; and all nations of the earth shall be subject unto him. Now that the sceptre has departed from Judah, and, consequently, that the Messiah has come, we argue from the acknowledgments of some most learned Jews themselves. Kimchi thus comments on Hosea: These are- the days of our captivity, wherein we have neither king nor prince in Israel; but we are in the power of the Gentiles, and under their kings and princes. Again, Abarbanel, commenting on Isaiah 53, says that it is a great part of their misery in their captivity that they have neither kingdom nor rule, nor a sceptre of judgment! The precise time when all authority departed from Judah is disputed. Some date its departure from the time when Herod, an Idumnean, set aside the Maccabees and Sanhedrim. Thereupon the Jews are said to have shaved their heads, put on sackcloth, and cried, Woe to us, because the sceptre is departed from Judah, and a lawgiver from beneath his feet ! Others think that it was when Vespasian and Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple that the Jews lost the last vestige of authority. If, therefore, the sceptre has departed from Judah-and who can question it who looks at the broken-up, scattered, and lost state of that tribe for ages? the conclusion is clearly irresistible that the Messiah must have long since come! To avoid the force of this conclusion the Jews now say that the , she’bet, which we render sceptre, may be translated rod, and metaphorically signifies, in the above passage, affliction. That the word cannot bear this meaning here is evident, because, for a long while after the prophecy was uttered, especially in the reigns of David and Solomon, the tribe of Judah was in a most prosperous state. SEE SCEPTRE.

(2.) The next proof that the Messiah has long since come we. adduce from Dan 9:25-27. It is evident that the true Messiah is here spoken of. He is twice designated by the very name. If we consider what the work is which he is here said to accomplish, we shall have a full confirmation of this. Who but he could finish and take away transgression, make reconciliation for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up the vision and prophecy, confirm the covenants with many, and cause to cease the sacrifice and oblation? Indeed, there is a saying extant in the Talmud, as the tradition of former times, In Daniel is delivered to us the end of the Messiah, i.e. the term wherein he ought to come, as it is explained by Jarchi. Grotius (De Veritat. v) speaks of a Jew, R. Berachia, who lived fifty years before our Lord, and who declared that the time fixed by Daniel could not go beyond fifty years! If then it be the true Messiah who is described in the above prophecy, it remains for us to see how the time predicted for his coming has long since transpired. This is expressly said to be seventy weeks from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. That by seventy weeks are to be understood seventy sevens of years, a day being put for a year, and a week for seven years, making up 490 years, is allowed by Kimchi, Jarchi, rabbi Saadias, and other learned Jews, as well as by many Christian commentators. It is clear that these seventy weeks cannot consist of weeks of days, for all put together make but one year, four months, and odd days-a space of time too short to crowd so many various events into as are here specified; nor can any such time be assigned between the two captivities, wherein like events did happen (see Prideaux, Connect. lib. v, pt. -1). This period of time then must have long since elapsed, whether we date its commencement from the first decree of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1-2), the second of Darius Hystaspes (vi. 15), or that of Artaxerxes (viii. 1). See Grotius, De Veritat. v; Josephus, War, 7:12, 13. SEE SEVENTY WEEKS.

(3.) We can only barely allude to one remarkable prediction more, which fixes the time of the Messiah’s advent, viz. Hag 2:7-9 : I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory here spoken of must be in reference to the Messiah, or on some other account. It could not have been said that the second Temple exceeded in glory the former one; for in many particulars, according to the acknowledgment of the Jews themselves, it was far inferior, both as a building (Ezr 3:3; Ezr 3:12) and in respect of the symbols and tokens of God’s special favor being wanting (see Kimchi and R. Salomon on Hag 1:8). The promised glory, therefore, must refer to the coming and presence of him who was promised to the world before there was any nation of the Jews and who is aptly called the Desire of all nations. This view is amply confirmed by the prophet Malachi (Mal 3:1). Since, then, the very Temple into which the Saviour was to enter has for ages been destroyed, He must, if the integrity of this prophecy be preserved, have come. Nor is the force of this passage for our present purpose greatly diminished if we take the interpretation of many, that , desire, here, being fem., cannot directly refer to the Messiah personally; for in any case the prophecy refers to some glorification, at the time future, of the then existing Temple; and as that Temple has now utterly passed away, its fulfilment cannot be looked for under any Messiah yet to come. SEE DESIRE.

That there was, at the time of our Lord’s birth, a great expectation of the Messiah, both among Jews and Gentiles, may be seen from three celebrated historians, as well as from the sacred Scriptures. Tacitus (Hist. c. 13) says: Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literaris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judaea rerum potirentur. Again, Suetonius (in Vespas. 4) says: Percrebruerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judsei profecti rerum potirentur. Josephus, not being able to find any calculation by which to protract the general expectation of the Messiah, applies it in the following words to Vespasian (War, 7:31): That which chiefly excited the Jews to war was an ambiguous prophecy, which was also found in the sacred books, that at that time some one within their country should arise who would obtain the empire of the whole world. We are, moreover, informed again by Suetonius (Octav. 94), that, upon the conception of Augustus, it was generally thought that Nature was then in labor to bring forth a king who would rule the Romans. Some suppose that the words of Virgil (Eclog. iv) point at our Saviour, but they were intended by him to apply to the son of Pollio. We may just add that as there was a general expectation of the Messiah at this time, so there were many impostors who drew after them many followers (Josephus, Ant. 20:2, 6; War, 57:31). See also a full account of the false Christs who appeared by John h Lent, Schediasnz. c. 2; Maimonides, Ep. ad Judceos Marsilienses, Christ prophesies of such persons (Mat 24:24; Mat 24:29).

2. The limits of this article will admit of our only touching upon the proofs that Jesus of Nazareth, and none other, is the very Messiah that was to come.

(1.) What was predicted of the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus. Was the Messiah to be of the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15), and this woman a virgin? (Isa 7:14). So we are told (Gal 4:4; Mat 1:18; Mat 1:22-23) that Jesus was made of a woman, and born of a virgin. Was it predicted that he (Messiah) should be of the tribe of Judah, of the family of Jesse, and of the house of David ? (Mic 5:2; Gen 49:10; Isa 11:10; Jer 23:5). This was fulfilled in Jesus (Luk 1:27; Luk 1:69; Mat 1:1). SEE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.

(2.) If the Messiah was to be a prophet like unto Moses, so was Jesus also (Isaiah 18; Joh 6:14). If the Messiah was to appear in the second Temple, so did Jesus (Hag 2:7; Hag 2:9; Joh 18:20).

(3.) The Messiah was to work miracles (Isa 35:5-6; comp. Mat 11:4-5). SEE MIRACLE.

(4.) If the Messiah was to suffer and die (Isaiah 53), we find that Jesus died in the same manner, at the very time, and under the identical circumstances, which were predicted of him. The very man who betrayed him, the price for which he was sold, the indignities he was to receive in his last moments, the parting of his garments, and his last words, etc., were all foretold of the Messiah, and accomplished in Jesus!

(5.) Was the Messiah to rise from the dead ? So did Jesus. How stupendous and adorable is the providence of God, who, through so many apparent contingencies, brought such things to pass! See Kidder, Demonstration of the Messiah (Lond. 1726, fol.); Olearius, Jesus d. wahre Messias (Leips. 1714, 1737); MCaul, Messiahship of Jesus (Warburton Lect. 1852); Black, Messiahs and anti-Messiahs (Lond. 1853); Browne, Messiah as foretold and expected (Lond. 1862); Higginson, Hebrew Messianic Hope and Christian Reality (Lond. 1871). Comp. also Malcolm’s Theological Index, s.v.; Volbeding’s Index Progranammatum, p. 38 sq.; Hase’s Leben Jesu, p. 86; and Danz, Worterbuch, p. 855 sq. SEE CHRISTOLOGY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Messiah

(Heb. mashiah), in all the thirty-nine instances of its occurring in the Old Testament, is rendered by the LXX. “Christos.” It means anointed. Thus priests (Ex. 28:41; 40:15; Num. 3:3), prophets (1 Kings 19:16), and kings (1 Sam. 9:16; 16:3; 2 Sam. 12:7) were anointed with oil, and so consecrated to their respective offices. The great Messiah is anointed “above his fellows” (Ps. 45:7); i.e., he embraces in himself all the three offices. The Greek form “Messias” is only twice used in the New Testament, in John 1:41 and 4:25 (R.V., “Messiah”), and in the Old Testament the word Messiah, as the rendering of the Hebrew, occurs only twice (Dan 9:25, 26; R.V., “the anointed one”).

The first great promise (Gen. 3:15) contains in it the germ of all the prophecies recorded in the Old Testament regarding the coming of the Messiah and the great work he was to accomplish on earth. The prophecies became more definite and fuller as the ages rolled on; the light shone more and more unto the perfect day. Different periods of prophetic revelation have been pointed out, (1) the patriarchal; (2) the Mosaic; (3) the period of David; (4) the period of prophetism, i.e., of those prophets whose works form a part of the Old Testament canon. The expectations of the Jews were thus kept alive from generation to generation, till the “fulness of the times,” when Messiah came, “made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” In him all these ancient prophecies have their fulfilment. Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the great Deliverer who was to come. (Comp. Matt. 26:54; Mark 9:12; Luke 18:31; 22:37; John 5:39; Acts 2; 16:31; 26:22, 23.)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Messiah

(“anointed” (Hebrew) equates to “Christ (Greek)). (See CHRIST.) In KJV only in Dan 9:25-26 of Old Testament; Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25, of New Testament Having the immeasurable unction of the Holy Spirit as Prophet, Priest, and King at one and the same time. All others have but a measure, and that derived from Him (Joh 1:16; Joh 3:84). See the type (Exo 28:41; Exo 30:23-24; 1Sa 24:6); and the prophecies (Gen 3:15; Gen 9:26; Gen 12:2-3; Gen 12:22; compare Joh 8:56; Gen 49:10; Num 24:17-19; Deu 18:18 with Act 3:22-24; Joh 5:45-47; Psa 2:2; Psa 2:6 margin; Psa 2:7-12; Psa 2:16; Psa 2:22; Psa 2:40; Psa 45:7 compare 1Ki 1:39-40; Psalm 69; 72; 110).

His birthplace (Mic 5:2), His lineage (Isa 11:1), His time of coming (Dan 9:25-26), while the second temple stood (Hag 2:9), and His forerunner (Isa 40:3-5; Mal 3:1) are foretold. From Psalm 2; Jer 23:5-6; Zec 9:9, the Jews expected a triumphant king, but overlooked the prophecies of His sufferings first (Isaiah 53; Luk 24:21-26-27). A few looked for a more spiritual deliverance (Luk 2:30; Luk 2:38), and among them the despised Samaritans (Joh 4:25; Joh 4:42) and the thief on the cross (Luk 23:42). The rabbis got over the Messianic prophecies which prove Jesus to be Messiah by imagining a Messiah ben Joseph who should suffer, distinct from Messiah ben David who should reign; but the prophecies of the suffering and glory are so blended as to exclude the idea of any but one and the same Messiah (compare Isa 52:7; Isa 52:13-14; Isa 52:15; Isa 52:53).

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

MESSIAH

The word messiah is a Hebrew word meaning the anointed one. Israelites of Old Testament times anointed kings, priests, and sometimes prophets to their positions by the ceremony of anointing. In this ceremony a special anointing oil was poured over the head of the person as a sign that he now had the right, and the responsibility, to perform the duties that his position required (Exo 28:41; 1Ki 1:39; 1Ki 19:16; see ANOINTING). In the Greek speaking world of New Testament times the word christ, also meaning anointed, was used as a Greek translation of the Hebrew messiah.

Old Testament expectations

The most common Old Testament usage of the title anointed was in relation to the Israelite king, who was frequently called the Lords anointed (1Sa 24:10; Psa 18:50; Psa 20:6). In the early days of Israels existence, when it was little more than a large family, God signified that the leadership of the future Israelite nation would belong to the tribe of Judah. From this tribe would come a great leader who would rule the nations in a reign of peace, prosperity and enjoyment (Gen 49:9-12).

Centuries later, God developed this plan by promising King David (who belonged to the tribe of Judah) a dynasty that would last for ever (2Sa 7:16). The people of Israel therefore lived in the expectation of a time when all enemies would be destroyed and the ideal king would reign in a worldwide kingdom of peace and righteousness. This coming saviour-king they called the Messiah.

In promising David a dynasty, God promised that he would treat Davids son and successor as if he were his own son (2Sa 7:14). From that time on, Israelites regarded every king in the royal line of David as, in a sense, Gods son; for he was the one through whom God exercised his rule. The Messiah, Davids greatest son, was in a special sense Gods son (Psa 2:6-7; Mar 10:47; Mar 12:35; Mar 14:61).

Because of their expectation of a golden age, the Israelite people saw victories over enemies as foreshadowings of the victory of the Messiah and the establishment of his kingdom. They praised their kings in language that was too extravagant to be literally true of those kings. The language expressed the ideals that Israel looked for in its kings, but it could apply fully only to the perfect king, the Messiah (e.g. Psalms 2; Psalms 45; Psalms 72; Psalms 110).

Messianic interpretations

The idealism of the prophets was not fulfilled in any of the Davidic kings of the Old Testament, but this did not cause the people of Israel to lose hope. They constantly looked for the one who would be the great David of the future, the great descendant of David the son of Jesse (Psa 89:3-4; Isa 9:2-7; Isa 11:1-10; Jer 23:5; Eze 34:23-24; Mic 5:2). This king, this Messiah, was Jesus Christ (Mat 1:1; Mat 9:27; Mat 12:22-23; Mat 21:9; Luk 1:32-33; Luk 1:69-71; Rev 5:5).

One of Davids best known psalms, Psalms 110, was interpreted by Jews of Jesus time as applying to the Messiah, though they consistently refused to acknowledge the messiahship of Jesus. Jesus agreed that they were correct in applying this psalm to the Messiah, but he went a step further by applying it to himself (Psa 110:1; Mat 22:41-45).

Since the king of Psalms 110 was also a priest, Jesus was not only the messianic king but also the messianic priest (Psa 110:4; Heb 5:6; Hebrews 7; see PRIEST, sub-heading The high priesthood of Jesus). This joint rule of the priest-king Messiah had been foreshadowed in the book of the prophet Zechariah (Zec 6:12-13).

The Messiah was, in addition, to be a prophet, announcing Gods will to his people. As the Davidic kings in some way foreshadowed the king-messiah, so Israels prophets in some way foreshadowed the prophet-messiah. Again the ideal was fulfilled only in Jesus (Deu 18:15; Luk 24:19; Joh 6:14; Joh 7:40; Act 3:22-23; Act 7:37; Heb 1:1-2).

Jesus and the Jews

Although Jesus was the Messiah, he did not at the beginning of his ministry announce his messiahship openly. This was no doubt because the Jews of his time had a wrong understanding of the Messiah and his kingdom.

The Jews had little interest in the spiritual work of the Messiah. They were not looking for a spiritual leader who would deliver people from the enemy Satan and bring them under the rule and authority of God. They looked rather for a political leader who would deliver them from the power of Rome and bring in a new and independent Israelite kingdom, where there would be peace, contentment and prosperity. If Jesus had announced himself publicly as the Messiah before showing what his messiahship involved, he would have attracted a following of the wrong kind (see KINGDOM OF GOD; MIRACLES).

While not refusing the title Messiah, Jesus preferred to avoid it when speaking of himself. Instead he called himself the Son of man. This was a title that had little meaning to most people (they probably thought Jesus used it simply to mean I or me), but it had a special meaning to those who understood the true nature of Jesus messiahship (see SON OF MAN).

Just as Jesus opposed Satan who tempted him with the prospect of an earthly kingdom, so he opposed those who wanted him to be king because they thought he could bring them political and material benefits (Joh 6:15; Joh 6:26; cf. Mat 4:8-10). When other Jews, by contrast, recognized Jesus as the Messiah in the true sense of the word, Jesus told them not to broadcast the fact. He was familiar with the popular messianic ideas, and he did not want people to misunderstand the nature of his mission (Mat 9:27-30; Mat 16:13-20). He did not place the same restrictions on non-Jews, for non-Jews were not likely to use his messiahship for political purposes (Mar 5:19; Joh 4:25-26).

Later in his ministry, when he knew that his work was nearing completion and the time for his crucifixion was approaching, Jesus allowed people to speak openly of him as the Messiah (Mat 21:14-16). He even entered Jerusalem as Israels Messiah-king and accepted peoples homage (Mat 21:1-11). But when he admitted before the high priest Caiaphas that he was the Messiah, adding a statement that placed him on equality with God, he was accused of blasphemy and condemned to death (Mar 14:61-64). When asked by the governor Pilate if he was a king, Jesus agreed that he was, though not the sort of king Pilate had in mind (Mat 27:11; Joh 18:33-37; cf. Act 17:7).

The Messiahs death and resurrection

Even true believers of Jesus time still thought of the Messiah solely in relation to the establishment of Gods kingdom throughout the world at the end of the age. Because of this, many believers were puzzled when Jesus did not immediately set up a world-conquering kingdom (Mat 11:2-3; Luk 24:21; Act 1:6). Jesus pointed out that with his coming, Gods kingdom had come; the messianic age had begun. He was the Messiah, and his miracles of healing were proof of this (Isa 35:5-6; Isa 61:1; Mat 11:4-5; Luk 4:18; Luk 18:35-43).

What the disciples could not understand was that the Messiah should die. Like most Jews they knew of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Gods suffering servant (Isa 49:7; Isa 50:6; Isa 52:13-15; Isaiah 53; see SERVANT OF THE LORD), just as they knew of the prophecies concerning Gods Messiah, but they did not connect the two. Jesus showed that he was both the suffering servant and the Messiah. In fact, it was in response to his disciples confession of him as the Messiah that he told them he must die (Mat 16:13-23; Mat 17:12; Mar 10:45; Act 4:27).

Immediately after this, at the transfiguration, the Father confirmed that Jesus was both Davidic Messiah and suffering servant. He did this by an announcement that combined a statement from a messianic psalm with a statement from one of the servant songs of Isaiah (Mat 17:5; Psa 2:7; Isa 42:1; cf. also Mat 3:17).

The idea of a crucified Messiah was contrary to common Jewish beliefs. The Jews considered the Messiah as blessed by God above all others, whereas a crucified person was cursed by God (Gal 3:13). That is why the Christians belief in a crucified Jesus as the Saviour-Messiah was a stumbling block to the Jews (see STUMBLING BLOCK).

Jesus resurrection provided the solution to this apparent difficulty. Even the disciples did not understand when Jesus foretold his resurrection (Mar 8:29-33; Mar 9:31-32), but afterwards they looked back on the resurrection as Gods final great confirmation that Jesus was the Messiah (Luk 24:45-46; Act 2:31-32; Act 2:36). He was Gods anointed one (Act 10:38; cf. Isa 61:1; Luk 4:18).

Title and name

So firmly was the Messiah identified with Jesus after his resurrection, that the Greek word for Messiah (Christ) became a personal name for Jesus. The two names were often joined as Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, and frequently the name Christ was used without any direct reference to messiahship at all (Php 1:15-16; Php 1:18; Php 1:21). In general the Gospels and the early part of Acts use Christ mainly as a title (Messiah), and Pauls letters use it mainly as a name.

In the eyes of unbelieving Jews, Jesus was not the Messiah, and therefore they would not call him Jesus Christ. They called him Jesus of Nazareth, and his followers they called Nazarenes (Mat 26:71; Joh 18:4-7; Act 24:5). To unbelieving non-Jews, however, the Jewish notion of messiahship meant nothing. To them Christ was merely the name of a person, and the followers of this person they called Christians (Act 11:26). (See also JESUS CHRIST.)

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Messiah

i. Anointing of Kings.The custom of anointing the king, from which his designation as messiah arose, is connected with magical usages of hoary antiquity, based on the conception that the smearing or pouring of the unguent on the body endows the human subject with certain qualities. Thus the Arabs of Eastern Africa believe that an unguent of lions fat inspires a man with boldness, and makes the wild beasts flee in terror from him. Other illustrations may be found in Frazers Golden Bough2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , ii. 364 ff. The Tell el-Amarna inscriptions show that this custom of anointing the king with oil prevailed in Western Asia at least as far back as b.c. 1450. The passage to which we refer occurs in a letter from a certain Rammn-nirri of Nuhai in Northern Syria addressed to the king of Egypt, in which it is stated that a former king of Egypt [Thothmes iii.] had poured oil on the head of Rammn-nirris grandfather and established him as king of Nuhai.* [Note: Winckler, Thontafeln von Tell el-Amarna (vol. v. in Schraders KIB), Letter 37 (p. 98).] Frazers great work has rendered us familiar with the supernatural endowments of a king who was regarded as a quasi-deity. [Note: Golden Bough2, i. 137156; cf. also his Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship (1905).] That ancient Israel also believed that the royal dignity involved supernatural Divine powers, and that the oil poured upon the king conveyed these powers (like the laying on of hands), can hardly admit of doubt. The oil, like the sprinkled blood in a covenant-rite [Note: According to Westermarck, the blood shed possesses a magical power of conveying a curse (Magic and Social Relations in Sociological Papers, vol. ii. p. 160). In the case of a covenant the curse falls if the covenant be not fulfilled.] (Exo 24:6 ff.), possessed a magical virtue. [Note: Thus shields were smeared with oil to render them or their owners immune (2Sa 1:21, cf. Isa 21:5. Sauls shield was un-anointed, and so its owner perished).]

Like the priest, the king was regarded as a Divine intermediary, and assumed the supreme ritual functions of a priest in his own person. Among the ancient Semites, especially the Babylonians and Assyrians, the earthly ruler or king was considered to be the supreme Gods representative or viceroy. Sometimes he declares himself the son of the deity (e.g. in the opening line of Ashurbanipals cylinder-inscription he calls himself binutu Ashr u Blit, offspring of Ashur and Beltis; cf. the language of Psa 2:7), or favourite of the deity (cf. the name of the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] monarch Naram-Sin, beloved of SIN. [Note: Sinaitic.] Sargon calls himself in the opening of his Nimrd insc. the favourite of Anu and Bel). Further parallels in the case of Nebuchadrezzar may be found in Schrader, COT [Note: OT Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT.] ii. 105 ff. See also Tiele, Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Assyr. [Note: Assyrian.] Gesch. 491 ff. Tiglath-pileser i. (b.c. 1100) calls himself iakku (PA-TE-SI) of the God Ashur (Prism-Insc. col. vii. 62. 63), i.e. Ashurs plenipotentiary. That in this sacred function priestly office was involved may be readily inferred. Thus Ashurbanipal (like Sargon) calls himself not only the aknu or vicegerent of Bl, but also the angu or priest of Ashur. Similarly the Homeric kings offer sacrifice on behalf of the people. As Robertson Smith remarks (Priest in EBr [Note: Br Encyclopaedia Britannica.] 9 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ), the king in both Greece and Rome was the acting head of the State-religion. So also in ancient pre-exilian Israel, David and Solomon offered sacrifices (2Sa 6:17 ff., 1Ki 8:63) in accordance with the tradition of the age.

ii. Unique position of David in Hebrew thought.Among the Hebrew anointed kings or messiahs, David came in course of time to have a special significance. His importance was enhanced by the history of the three centuries that followed his reign. No Israelite or Jew living in the year b.c. 730 could have failed to note the striking contrast between the unbroken continuity of monarchs of the seed of David sitting on the throne of Jerusalem and the succession of brief dynasties and usurping kings who followed one another on the throne of Samaria. The swiftly passing series of short reigns terminated by violence which filled the space of 15 years in Northern Israel from the close of the dynasty of Jehu (which lasted nearly a century) to the accession of Hoshea, Assyrias nominee, to the dismembered kingdom, deeply impressed the prophet of Ephraim, who exclaims:

They have appointed kings, but not from me (i.e. Jahweh);

Have made princes, but I knew them not (Hos 8:4).

It is not surprising, amid the rapid changes of rulers and the disasters wrought by foreign invasion, that Hosea should have prophesied the discipline of exile for his faithless countrymen, and as its final issue that they should return and seek Jahweh their God and David their king.* [Note: There is not a shred of evidence to show that this clause is not genuine in Hos 3:5. It is difficult to see why, if the idea had its roots in Isaiahs time and not in that out or which Eze 34:23; Eze 37:24 f. Eze 45:8-9 and Jer 30:9 arose (Harper, ad loc.), we should follow Wellhausen in rejecting the clause. Nowack rejects the entire verse.] For amid all the vicissitudes of the last three centuries the seed of David had survived every peril. The sure mercies of David to which the Jews still clung, though with feeble hope, in the dark days of exile (Isa 55:3), began in the age of Isaiah to take root in the national imagination. Though Judah was destined to suffer terrible chastisements, yet as a result of the disciplinary trial a remnant would return (i.e. be converted) to Jahweh, and Jerusalem would be preserved from the onslaughts of the Assyrian foe. The Immanuel prophecy, which contained the assurance of Gods presence among His people, delivered to the doubting Ahaz and his unbelieving court during the dark days of b.c. 735, became the germ of a great series of Messianic passages which are found in Isa 9:1-6 [English 27], which was probably composed soon after b.c. 701, in Isa 11:1-9, and, lastly, in Isa 32:1-3. In the first the Messiah is portrayed as a military conquering hero, breaking in pieces the oppressors mace; in the second, the sounds of discord cease, and He, sprung from Jesses stock, is the ruler of justice and peace in Gods holy mountain of Zion, where even the powers of violence and injustice are turned into submission to a Divine authority. In the last He is again the King who shall reign in righteousness, a hiding-place from the wind, a covert from the tempest.

All these passages, as well as Is 2:24, are regarded by Duhm as Isaianic. On the other hand, Cheyne, Hackmann, and Marti hold that they are post-exilic,* [Note: Recently Prof. R. 11. Kennett has discussed Is 9:17 in JThSt (April 1906), and would assign it to the Maccabaean period. The epithets are referred to Simon the Maccabee.] but on what the present writer considers to be insufficient grounds. The subject is discussed by Cheyne in his Introd. to Isaiah, pp. 44 ff., 57 ff., and 173176; also by Hackmann, Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaia, pp. 126156, and by Marti in his Commentary on the above passages: cf. also his Gesch. der Isr. [Note: Israelite.] Religion4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , p. 191 footn., 255 ff. On the other side, see the Commentaries of Duhm and Dillmann-Kittel (1898) on these passages, and the Century Bible, Com. on Isaiah by the present writer. Kautzsch, in his elaborate art. Religion of Israel in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (Extra Vol. p. 696a), admits the reasonableness of the view here advocated.

After the gleams of hope awakened by Hezekiah and the deliverance of Jerusalem, and after the glowing anticipations of an ideal Messianic King clothed with Divine powers, to which Isaiah in the early years of the 7th cent. gave expression, there followed a time of reaction when these high hopes suffered temporary eclipse. Mens hearts became sick of waiting. The long reign of Manasseh, followed by the brief reign of Amon, was a period of religious as well as political decline. On the other hand, the reign of Josiah reawakened the hopes of the faithful adherents of Jahweh, and it is significant that Messianic expectation revives in the oracles of Jeremiah. In Jer 23:5-8 (cf. Jer 30:9) he foretells the coming days when a righteous branch or shoot shall be raised unto David, who shall reign prudently and execute judgment and justice. In his days Judah shall be saved and Israel dwell secure, and the name by which he shall be called is Jahweh is our righteousness This fragment probably belongs to the earlier utterances of Jeremiah, and upon it Zechariah in the opening years of the post-exilic period bases his well-known prophecies (Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12), in which Joshua and his comrades are addressed as tokens of the coming of Jahwehs servant the branch (Zec 3:8). In Zec 6:12 it is made clear that Zerubbabel of the seed of David is meant, who is destined to complete the building of the Temple. [Note: Duhm deals very arbitrarily with these passages. Jer 23:5-8 was not the genuine utterance of Jeremiah, but a post-exilic addition. Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12 are badly corrupted, and later editors have sought to eliminate the name of Zerubbabel from the original oracle, because Zechariahs prophecies with respect to him were not fulfilled.

Probably Mic 5:1-8, like Jer 23:5-8, may be assigned to the earlier years of the reign of Josiah, when the religious and political outlook of Judah appeared more hopeful, and the overthrow of Assyria seemed as probable as it did to Isaiah after b.c. 701 (Isa 9:3-4 [Heb.]). We may assign Nah 2:2 to Nah 3:19 to the same period.] With the passage in Jer 23:5-8 cf. also Jer 30:9, Jer 33:15 as well as Eze 21:32; Eze 34:23-31; Eze 37:24. In Jeremiah less stress is laid on the personal and material features, more emphasis placed on the ethical. Also it appears from several passages that Jeremiah thought rather of a succession of rulers of Davidic descent than of a single ruler. But in determining this question the utmost critical caution is required. Thus Jer 33:14-24 is regarded by most critics as a later addition to the oracles of Jeremiah (see, e.g., Giesebrechts Com., and Cornill in SBOT [Note: BOT Sacred Books of Old Test.] ). Certainly after the time of Jeremiah the personal features in Messianic prophecy became fainter. There shall not be cut off from David one that sits upon the throne of the house of Israel (Jer 33:17), points to a succession of rulers at a time when the hopes of Israel still clung to the sure mercies of David. But this utterance, as we have already seen, belongs to a later time than that of Jeremiah. Zephaniah and Obadiah make no reference to the Messianic King. When we consider their historic environment, this is not surprising. For royalty in Judah was rapidly declining in power and prestige. The last kings of Judah became mere puppets in the hands of foreign princes, who pulled the strings from the banks of the Nile or of the Euphrates. Under these circumstances the ideal of a Davidic ruler ceased to appeal as powerfully as it did a century earlier, and ultimately gave place to another. It is marvellous that it continued to survive after the rude shocks of a hundred years.

Its survival is probably due to Ezekiel, the priest-prophet, herald of restoration, of hope and of reconstructive effort. This prophet was an earnest student of Israels past, and read its records and its oracles. The influence not only of his great elder contemporary Jeremiah, but also of the earlier prophets Hosea and Isaiah, is unmistakable. The influence of the first and the last is clear in Eze 34:23-31 And I will set over them a shepherd, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; and I the Lord will be a God unto them, and my servant David a prince in their midst. Here, as in the case of Jer 23:5-8, David represents a succession of Davidic descendants sitting on his throne. When we turn to Ezekiels ideal scheme of the restored Jewish theocracy (chs. 4048), we find that the secular prince of Davidic lineage falls into the background, and his functions are subordinated to the ecclesiastical routine. The same fate in the early post-exilic period befalls the somewhat shadowy, if stately, figure of Zerubbabel in Zechariah 4, 6 (cf. Hag 2:22), who was soon destined to subside into the background in the presence of Joshua the high priest, the natural and legitimate head of the newly constituted Church-nation. In truth, the Messianic King rapidly becomes a vanished ideal of prophecy. In the closing verses (1420) of Zephaniah (obviously an addition belonging to the late-exilic or early post-exilic period) it is Jahweh who is Israels King in the midst of His people, their mighty Hero who wards off the nations foes (Hag 2:15-19).

When we turn to the Deutero-Isaiah (4055), we find that an entirely new ideal, to which reference has already been made, had displaced the earlier and older one created by Isaiah. In place of the national-Messianic King we have the national-prophetic ideal of the Suffering Servant of Jahweh, through whose humiliation and sorrow the sinning nation shall find peace. Gods anointed king, who is not of Davidic descent at all, but the Persian Cyrus, is the chosen instrument for accomplishing the Divine purposes with respect to His servant Jacob (Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1-4). We shall have to note how profoundly the Deutero-Isaianic portraiture of the Suffering Servant came in later times to modify the Hebrew ideal of the Messiah, and to constitute an entirely new conception which the Hebrew race only partially and very slowly assimilated, and whose leaven worked powerfully in the Messianic ideal of the Son of Man in the consciousness of Christ and His immediate followers.

When we pass to the Trito-Isaiah (5666), which probably arose in the years that immediately preceded the advent of Nehemiah, we find that the old ideal of the Davidic Messiah, which Ezekiel and Haggai attempted with poor success to revive, has altogether disappeared. Not even in the lyrical collection (6062) is the faintest note to be heard of a Messianic Jewish King. The prophecies of Malachi are equally silent. We have to wait for centuriesperhaps as late as the declining days of the Hasmonaeansbefore the Davidic Messianic King definitely and clearly reappears.

Before we pass to the Greek period (b.c. 300 and later), it is necessary to refer briefly to a series of OT passages of a Messianic or reputed Messianic character. (1) Gen 3:15 (belonging to the earlier Jahwistic document, J 1) can only by a strained interpretation be regarded as Messianic at all. The seed of the woman and the serpent (representing the power of evil) are to be engaged in prolonged conflict, in which both suffer injury. In this struggle it is not expressly stated which side will triumph (so Dillmann). (2) Gen 49:10 is exceedingly obscure. The rendering, as long as one comes to Shiloh (Hitzig, Tuch), is doubtful in point of Hebrew usage, and difficult to sustain historically. The Greek versions attribute to the phrase an obscure Messianic reference, but interpret as a late Hebrew compound form with a relative, which can be accepted only after making violent assumptions.* [Note: LXX , that which is reserved for him. The LXX in some variants has , till there comes he to whom it (? the sceptre) belongs, which is the rendering of the Targ. of Onkelos and also of Jerusalem. This most clumsy and almost impossible construction is apparently due to the influence of Eze 21:32, where, however, we have a subject for the relative clause, viz. .] Giesebrecht ingeniously proposed to read in place of the form his ruler. He rightly argues that to read as the LXX Septuagint presupposes, immediately followed by , constitutes a very awkward and intolerable combination. [Note: Beitrge zur Jesaiakritik, p. 29, footnote. It is difficult to understand the acquiescence of Gunkel in the construction pre-supposed in the alternative rendering of the LXX variant (cited in the previous footnote).] If we accept this emendation, the passage may be regarded as Messianic. But it is most probably an insertion moulded on Eze 21:32, for it stands in no immediate relation to the verses that precede or follow. [Note: See Driver in Expositor, July 1885; EBi, art. Shiloh; and Bennetts Genesis (Century Bible), ad loc.] (3) 2Sa 7:4-17. Here 2Sa 7:15-16 are the expression, placed in the mouth of the prophet Nathan, of the sentiment of reverence to the House of David, which took its rise in the latter part of the 8th century. Budde refers this speech of Nathan and the following prayer of David to a later period than the other more primitive sections of the historical narrative, and we may reasonably follow him in ascribing this passage to the 7th cent.not improbably the same period as that in which Jer 23:5-8; Jer 30:9 arose. [Note: Buddes Com. on the Books of Samuel (J. C. B. Mohr), p. 233; cf. also his Richter u. Samuel, pp. 244, 247.] (4) Num 24:17 A star hath marched (? gleamed) out of Jacob, and a sceptre hath arisen out of Israel, and hath broken in pieces the sides (temples) of Moab, and hath destroyed all the sons of Seth (?). The text is here difficult, and many points are uncertain. The entire series of Balaams oracles are brought together by the redactor of the J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] documents, and the reference of the lyric passage just cited may be either to David (2Sa 8:2) or to Omri (cf. insc. of Mesha, lines 48, and art. Omri in Hastings DB. [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] || [Note: | The Com. of Dr. Buchanan Gray (ICC) should be consulted.] Its Messianic interpretation by early Christian writers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus), as well as by Rabbi Akiba, who referred it to Bar Cochba in the days of Hadrian (cf. also the Targums of Onkelos and Jon.), need not detain us. (5) Deu 18:15 A prophet shall Jahweh thy God raise up unto thee from thy midst from thy brethren, like unto me. To him shall ye hearken. This passage is quoted in Act 3:22; Act 7:37 as having an individual Messianic reference. But the context (cf. the verses that immediately precede) clearly proves that the reference is general, and not individual. The Israelites are not to pay heed to the magician or soothsayer, but to Gods true prophet, like Moses, whom He will raise up in Israel from time to time (see Drivers Com. in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] ). (6) Lastly, we have a series of Psalm passages. Psalms 2 (esp. Psa 2:5 ff.). 72, 89, 110 may be taken as the most conspicuous examples of the revived Messianic expectation. They all belong to the Greek period. Psalms 2, like Psalms 1 (both without superscription), was evidently placed by the redactors at the head of the Psalm collection, and belongs to a late period. Psalms 2, like Psalms 110, originates from the Maccabaean days, when the old conception of the national deliverer from foreign enemies, which was created by Isaiah after Judahs emergence from a desperate crisis, once more revived.

Before we come to deal with the later phases of Messianic expectation, we would here note the historic evolution of three distinct lines of anticipation respecting the human agency whereby Israels salvation and the establishment of a Divine and righteous rule would be effected. (1) The righteous Messianic warrior-king of Davidic descent. (2) The prophetic sufferer portrayed in Isaiah 40-55, and esp. in Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12a conception which may also underlie the obscure passage Zec 12:10-11. (3) The prophetic ideal, based mainly on Deu 18:15, which came to be identified with the heraldic prophet of the great and terrible day of the Lord, the Elijah of Mal 4:4 f. [Heb. 3:22 f.], or was identified with the Messiah Himself (Act 3:22 f.). Cf. Mar 6:15; Mar 8:28, Joh 1:21; Joh 6:14; Joh 7:40, and Wendts Teaching of Jesus, i. p. 67 f.

iii. Transformation of the Messianic ideal through Apocalyptic.The kingdom of righteousness and the fear of the Lord, or what is expressed in the Biblical phrase the Kingdom of God, was not to be attained without a struggle against opposing forces political and moral, or without the instrumentality of a personal leader, sometimes an anointed king of Davidic descent, through whom the victory was to be won for Israel. For throughout we find that Israel, or a purified remnant, stands at the centre of the whole movement towards righteousness, and becomes more or less identified with it. Accordingly, the closest connexion subsisted between the national Messiah and that future state of blessedness, a restored theocracy, which became the steadfast expectation of the Jewish race since the destruction of Solomons temple in b.c. 587. At first it was believed that the desired consummation would not long be delayed. The existing generation and the earthly scene in which the prophet lived would behold the great day of the Lord and the advent of the salvation foretold. But ever since the days of Amos, and still more after the discipline of the Exile, the horizons of time and space expanded.

1. After the Exile and the return of the Glah (exiled Jews), the advent of the fulfilled hopes of a Divine kingdom of righteousness was still delayed, and the Messianic age seemed as far off as ever, even after Nehemiah and Ezra had worked at their task of reform. As time went on, the disappointed expectations of post-exilic Judaism bred among the spiritual leaders a spirit of hopelessness as to the political outlook, and this is echoed in their religious hymns: Does Jahweh cast off in abhorrence for ever; will he no more be gracious? Is there an end to his kindness for evermore (Psa 77:8-9 [Heb.]); cf. Psalms 22, 37, etc. Trust in Jahweh still survived, and His faithful followers clung to the Trah (Psa 19:8-12 [Heb.] and 119 passim), but Messianic expectation languished. The outlook of the present time was hopeless. But amid the enlarged horizons of time as well as space to which we have referred, the thoughts of some of the most spiritual minds in Judaism were directed to the transcendental and ultimate. In that world God would finally vindicate Himself and His ways to the expectant faith of Israel. A distinction began to be established between the present and the future age or aeon. The former is corrupt, and hopelessly delivered over to Satan and the powers of darkness. Victory will come in the latter. As we approach the time of Christ, the distinction between the present age ( or ) and the age to come ( or ) becomes sharply contrasted, and the transcendental features and colouring which invest the latter, and the final conflict with the heathen or demonic powers (Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38, 39, attributed by some recent critics to a later hand than Ezekiel) characterize the new and later phase of Messianic expectation. This final agony or conflict, called in later times the Messianic sufferings or pangs ( ), which was to usher in the new age, was no longer confined to earth. It was universal and cosmic. These apocalyptic features (which first meet us clearly in that latest addendum to the Isaianic oracles, Isaiah 24-27) now impress themselves on Messianic expectation, though by no means always; cf. Mar 13:6-37, Joh 16:11; Joh 16:20-22.

2. Another feature of equal importance, which begins to emerge in apocalyptic literature, left its impress on Messianic expectation, viz. the belief in the resurrection of the dead. The first clear intimations of this faith are to be found in Isa 26:19, Dan 12:2. In the older apocrypha (Sirach, Judith, Tobit, 1 Mac.) it is absent. In the later (2Ma 7:9; 2Ma 7:14; 2Ma 7:23; 2Ma 7:29; 2Ma 7:36; 2Ma 12:43-44) it is obviously present. In the Wisdom of Solomon it takes the form of a happy life after death for the just (Wis 3:1-9; Wis 4:7; Wis 5:16; Wis 6:20).* [Note: Schrer, GJV3 ii. 508.] It is hardly necessary to emphasize how profoundly this belief in the resurrection of the righteous (the most primitive form of the doctrine limited the resurrection to them) moulded the Christology of St. Paul. For to St. Paul, Christ is the Second Adam, endowed with the (1Co 15:45), in whom all His faithful followers are made alive (v. 22); cf. Rom 6:3-11. See Volz, Jd. Eschatologie, pp. 237248.

3. The pre-mundane existence of the Messiah was another mode of the larger transcendental mould of thought which apocalyptic reveals. Belief in the ante-natal existence of the Messiah was only part of a general tendency of Jewish speculation. The new Jerusalem, the Temple, and Paradise existed before the creation of the world (Apocalypse, Apocalyptic Bar 4:3, 59:4, Assumpt. Mosis 1:14, 17). The Midrash on Pro 8:9 even goes beyond this, and expressly mentions the Messiah among the seven things created before the creation of the world, viz. the Throne of Glory, Messiah the King, the Trah, ideal Israel, Repentance, and Gehenna.* [Note: Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. p. 175.] The pre-mundane existence of the Messiah is also certified in the Targ. [Note: Targum.] on Isa 9:6 and Mic 5:2. In these metaphysical conceptions, stimulated, as we may with considerable probability believe, through the Platonic doctrine of archetypal ideas which passed in the great stream of Hellenic influence over the Jewish Diaspora, we clearly discern what Charles aptly calls a Semitic philosophy of religion. [Note: Book of Enoch, Introd.1 p. 23, in his description of Apocalyptic generally. It is quite possible that we have a trace of it in that profoundly speculative Psalms , 139 (note vv. 15, 16). With reference to the pre-existence of the Messiah (not His name only, as Volz seems to assume in Jd. Eschatologie, p. 217), see Enoch 48:26, and cf. Charles notes (and 62:7). Name here connotes existence as in the Babyl. Creation tablet (lines 1, 2). On the other side, as against the Jewish belief in Messianic pre-existence, see Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 245.] By this doctrine of pre-mundane existence the things of God were lifted above the universal lot of change and decay, and brought into the realm of adamantine permanence. As Baldensperger acutely remarks, it became, in the minds of reflective and pious Jews, a guarantee against loss. [Note: Selbstbewusstsein Jesu2, p. 89; Volz, Jd. Eschatologie, p. 218.] We need not labour to set forth how profoundly it affects NT thought, especially Pauline and Johannine (2Co 8:9, Php 2:7; cf. 2Co 4:4, Col 1:5, Heb 1:2; Heb 2:10, Joh 1:1-3).

4. Messianic titles.

(a) Among the most signiheant for students of the NT is that of Restorer, which is probably involved in the epithet Taeb, which occurs in the apocalypse of the Samaritan liturgy for the Day of Atonement. In the day of Taeb it was believed that the sacred vessels of the Temple would reappear which had been concealed on Mount Gerizim, [Note: Bousset, Religion des Judentums2, pp. 258, 267, 274.] and it has been conjectured that this same idea of Restorer underlies the epithet Taxo (Greek ) in Assumpt. Mosis 9:1. In the literature of the time of Christ we frequently meet with this conception of the Messiah. Thus in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Test. Levi, 18), which may have originated about a century before Christs birth, the Messiah is regarded as the coming restorer of the Paradise lost by Adams transgression. In Act 3:21 the clearly reflect this tradition. This function of restorer was evidently ascribed to the Messiah and not to Gods messenger Elias, referred to in Mal 3:1-18 f. [Heb.]

(b) Other significant epithets, as Son of a woman, prob. in allusion to Isa 7:14, appear, if the text be sound, in the Book of Enoch (Similitudes) 62:5, 69:29.|| [Note: | Here, however, it should be noted, in both passages Charles adopts the reading Son of Man.] This is of interest when we compare the Pauline son of a woman (Gal 4:4). On the other hand, the designation horned, or two-horned (Bershth Rabb, 99), based apparently on Deu 33:17, belongs to Jewish literature subsequent to the 1st cent. and need not detain us here. Far more significant is the title which plays so large a part in the Synoptic Gospels, viz.:

(c) Son of Man.The employment of this phrase as a Messianic title dates from the Maccabaean period, and in this specific sense meets us for the first time in Dan 7:13. Its earlier occurrence in the OT requires no exposition here. At the time when the Book of Daniel was written, Jewish apocalyptic was directed to the conception of a great final Divine judgment at the close of the present age, whereby the coming age was to be ushered in. We no longer see the figure of a Messianic King of Davidic descent. His place is taken by a mysterious symbolic portraiture which, as Volz correctly argues,* [Note: Eschatologie, p. 10 f.] is not angelic. It stands contrasted with the four animal symbolical shapes previously described, and especially with the last beast with the ten horns, dreadful and exceedingly strong, which had great iron teeth that devoured and brake in pieces. In sharp distinction from these monstrous and bestial world-powers which are finally to be destroyed, we have a mysterious figure in human shape. [Note: On the element of mystery attaching to the use of the preposition (in ), see Volz, ib.] In v. 27 its significance is explained. It represents the people of the saints of the Most High. As H. J. Holtzmann correctly observes, it is intended to express a world-empire which is human and not brutal, which is ethical and noble and not immoral, which is like man, stamped with the likeness of God (Gen 1:26). That this human and humane world-empire was to be Jewish and not Gentile, is obvious to the reader of Daniels apocalypse.

The Son of Man has a yet more definite and distinguished rle in the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch (chs. 3771), written probably after b.c. 100. Here He is obviously a supernatural personality and not a symbolic figure, or indefinitely expressed as like a son of man. The Son of Man is not mere man. This is clearly shown in ch. 39, where a cloud and whirlwind carry Enoch away and set him down at the end of the heavens. There he sees the mansions of the holy, and among these latter the Elect One of righteousness and faith, which is another name for the Son of Man (v. 6). Moreover, He sits on Gods throne (51:3), which is also His own throne (69:27, 29), possesses universal dominion (62:6), and all judgment is committed to Him (69:27). Various alternative titles are given to Him, viz. the Righteous One (38:2, 3, 53:6), and the Elect One (39:6, 40:5, 45:3f). We note meanwhile that the Son of Man is also Judge.

Accordingly, we conclude that while the term in Daniel is symbolical of the human rule of Gods people Israel, in Enoch it is the designation of a supernatural personality, who holds universal empire and wields the office of Judge.

When we pass from this apocalyptic use of the title Son of Man to its employment in the Synoptic Gospels, we observe a great change. It was without question Christs favourite designation of Himself. It is noteworthy that in the Synoptics the term relatively occurs twice as often as it does in the Fourth Gospel. It occurs 30 times in Matthew , 14 times in Mark, and 25 times in Luke. In John it is found only 12 times.

Christs employment of the term is by no means uniform. Consequently we are in danger, as Bousset points out, of giving a one-sided interpretation to the expression, either by taking it predominantly in the eschatological sense of Daniel or the Book of Enoch, or as signifying ideal typical man (as Schleiermacher assumes).* [Note: Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatze zum Judenthum, p. 112 f.] Probably Charles is on the right path when he interprets the Synoptic use of the phrase as involving a combination of two contrasted ideasthe transcendent conception of apocalyptic and the Deutero-Isaianic ideal of Jahwehs Suffering Servant. [Note: Book of Enoch, Appendix B, p. 315 ff.; cf. also Bartlet, Expositor, Dec. 1892.] It is certainly possible that the latter was the prevailing conception in Christs personal consciousness rather than the former or eschatological use of the phrase; while the former was the interpretation of the title which dominated the thought of the Synoptic writers, and came to be impressed on the utterances of Jesus. This view seems to be sustained by the fact that in Aramaic the term Son of Man ( ) means simply man. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that Jesus could have employed so colourless and vague a designation of Himself; and Bousset is probably right in his contention, as against Wellhausen, that such a term, employed in Aramaic, could easily come to acquire a special eschatological significance. [Note: Religion des Judentums2, p. 305, footnote.] In all probability, Jesus on certain momentous occasions so used it. How far it was weighted with the significance that the phrase conveys in the Book of Enoch, when the expression was actually employed by Jesus, it is difficult to say. It is hardly necessary to believe that in the personal consciousness of Jesus the superadded notion of pre-mundane existence was attached to the term, though Joh 8:58 (Before Abraham was, I am) would fairly point in this direction. We certainly have no clear right to infer it from Mar 12:6. Moreover, there is some weight in the suggestion which a few scholars, including Bousset, have put forth, that the term Son of Man has been placed in the mouth of Jesus in many cases when He simply used the first personal pronoun. [Note: Boussets Jesus (Eng. ed.), p. 188. Bousset thinks that it was not till the closing months of His ministry that this title was assumed; in face of the threatening doom of final failure only briefly and sparingly did He adopt the name (p. 192f.). Some colour is given to this view, that the Synoptic writers have frequently supplied the phrase in Christs discourses, by comparing in Mat 5:10 with the parallel in Luk 6:22. But in the extremely severe limitation imposed by Bousset on Christs employment of the term we are unable to concur.] That He did, however, employ the phrase in an eschatological sense of Himself, and with a full consciousness of the sublime dignity which it conferred, cannot be denied. Thus, in answer to Pilates question (Mar 14:62; cf. Mat 26:64, Luk 22:69), He quotes the well-known Daniel passage (Dan 7:13), declaring that men would see Him, the Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of power (i.e. of God), and coming in the clouds of heaven. This utterance is certified by the three Synoptic Gospels; and all three agree in giving it a decisive influence in the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. This testimony, however, carries us one step further. It is hardly possible to dissociate in the consciousness of Jesus the assumption of this high eschatological dignity without including in it the judicial function. The Oriental king was also judge. As King or Messiah, Jesus had, with full consent from Himself, been already acclaimed (Mar 11:7-11), and, with the title of King of the Jews placed on the cross by the Roman governor, He was crucified (Mar 15:26; cf. Mar 15:12; cf. Mar 15:18; cf. Mar 15:32). Moreover, His preaching of the Kingdom of God was closely bound up with the conception of impending judgment. Just as He could not dispense with the ideas of the kingdom and the judgment, if He wished to make Himself intelligible to His countrymen, so He could not dispense with the Messianic idea if He wished to be intelligible to Himself (Bousset).* [Note: Jesus, p. 178. Bousset, however, refuses to include in Christs conception of the title Son of Man the idea of His own judgeship (p. 194).] It is easy to draw the necessary corollary. In the designation Son of Man applied by Jesus to Himself in an eschatological sense, there was involved the other conception which meets us in the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch, that of universal judge. [Note: Mar 13:26-27, Mat 25:31-32, 2Co 5:10. See also Friedlnder. Die religisen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu, p. 325.]

But the eschatological side is not the only, nor is it the most important, aspect of the conception of Son of Man in the mind of Jesus and the Synoptic writers. Far greater, viewed from the ethical standpoint, was the human aspect of the lowly Suffering Servant suggested by the Deutero-Isaiah. This certainly could never have been invented by the Synoptic writers. It is of the very essence of Christs thought respecting Himself. It is nevertheless remarkable that the locus classicus of the NT writers who reflected on the mystery of the Messiahs crucifixion, viz. Isaiah 53, was never, so far as we can gather from the Synoptic writers, quoted by Jesus Himself, with the doubtful exception of Luk 22:37. That this prophecy, however, must have been in His mind, seems fairly clear from Mar 10:45; Mar 12:6-10; cf. Joh 13:12-17 and Luk 24:25-26. Accordingly, the title Son of Man had a twofold significance. It is employed when Christs claims to power and authority are asserted, both now and in His future Kingdom and glory. The Son of Man has power to forgive sins (Mar 2:10). He is Lord over the Sabbath Mat 12:8). He will appear clothed in power at the last day (Mar 14:62). But the title is also used in immediate connexion with His human nature, lowliness, poverty, suffering, and death. The Son of Man came eating and drinking (Mat 11:19, Luk 7:34); the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head (Mat 8:20, Luk 9:58); is betrayed (Mar 14:21); came not to be ministered unto but to minister (Mar 10:45); suffers and is condemned (Mar 8:31). The paradox of this twofold antithetic significance is solved by the positive truth which underlies it. The peculiar and special function of dignity and privilege which belongs to the Son of Man rests on an ethical basis. He that has come to serve, suffer, and give His life a ransom for many, will pass through agony and death to His place of exaltation in the clouds of heaven (cf. Act 3:18; Act 8:32; Act 17:3; Act 26:23). Upon this basis St. Paul and his successors have built. We also are to suffer with Him, that we may share in His glory (Rom 8:17). The Kenotic doctrine of Php 2:6-7 is reared on this foundation of the teachings of Jesus respecting Himself as Son of Man, whereby we learn that He was made perfect through sufferings, and became the leader of our salvation (Heb 2:9-10).

(d) Son of God is a designation frequently applied to Jesus in the Gospels, and is applied by Jesus to Himself as the expression of His vivid consciousness of Gods presence in His life, and the intimate bond that united Him to the Father (Mat 11:27). In His native Aramaic, Abb was the mode of address in prayer that came most naturally to His lips, and became a tradition in the worship of the early Christian Church (Rom 8:15). That the relation claimed by Jesus was a special one, is indicated by His use of the expression my Father in Mat 11:27; Mat 18:35; Mat 20:23, whereas in Mat 6:32; Mat 10:29 God is spoken of to the audience before Jesus as your Father. More significant still is the designation of Himself as beloved Son in the parable of the Vineyard let out to Husbandmen (Mar 12:6), and also by the voice which spoke to Him from heaven at His baptism (Mat 3:16-17, Mar 1:10-11, Luk 3:21-22). Upon this unquestionable basis of language employed by Jesus respecting Himself, the frequent application of this designation Son of God to Christ in the Pauline Epistles, and of the same phrase with the epithet in the Johannine writings, was obviously founded. In the memorable scene at Caesarea Philippi, when Jesus questioned His disciples as to their belief respecting Himself, Peter, according to the Matthew tradition, replied, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Mat 16:16). This would seem to imply that the expression Son of God was a Messianic title. But in this connexion two things should be noted: (1) Mar 8:29 gives Peters reply in the briefer form Thou art the Messiah. (2) There is scarcely any evidence in later Jewish literature to indicate that the phrase Son of God was used as a Messianic title.* [Note: The passages where the term Son occurs in 2 Esdras (7:28, 13:32, 37, 52, 14:9) as well as in Enoch (105:2) are all extremely doubtful. The Aramaic original is lost; and it is held by many scholars, including Drummond, Spitta (Zur Gesch. und Lit. des Urchristentums, ii. 9), as well as Charles, that Christian hands have worked over these texts and have inserted the expression Son. See Volz, Jd. Eschatologie, p. 213, who regards Drummonds conjecture as probable, that the phrase Son of God may sometimes have arisen from the Gr. rendering for servant (). See also N. Schmidts art. Son of God in EBi, col. 4694.] This is the more remarkable when we remember Psa 2:7 Jahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee, and the old Semitic conceptions of divinity which attached to kingship, reflected in Assyrian inscriptions (see above, p. 171). Probably the stern monotheism of later post-exilic Judaism tended to suppress language which seemed to attribute Divinity to an earthly human personality.

(e) Son of David is the most characteristic, as it is the most traditional and historic, designation of the Jewish Messiah. It expresses the most representative type of Messianic expectation, if we understand by that term an anointed Jewish king who was to be the national deliverer. This conception, as we have already seen, had its roots in the days of Isaiah of Jerusalem, and revived in the age of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and even survived in attenuated form to the early days of post-exilic Judaism. But in later Jewish literature belonging to the Greek period we notice a remarkable absence of any allusion to a Messianic king of Davidic descent who at the end of the ages will erect his throne. That the expectation still survived, and at times found expression, especially as we approach the period of the Maccabaean struggle, seems fairly clear from such Psalms as 2, 72, 110. On the other hand, we find no reference to a Messianic deliverer of the seed of David in Joel, Isaiah 24-27, Sirach, Daniel, Enoch (chs. 136, the Vision of Weeks and the hortatory discourses), Book of Jubilees, Assumpt. Mosis, Sib. Or. 3:3691. The figure of the Messiah is absent also from Tobit, Judith , 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch. It is true that we do find mention of the Messiah, or allusion to Him, in the visions of animals in Enoch (chs. 8590), in Sib. Or. 3, in Philo (de Prm. et Pn. 16), and also in Apocalypse, Apocalyptic Bar 29:3, 30:1 and 2Es 7:28 f.; but the figure holds a secondary position, and is far more shadow than substance.

Bousset, in reviewing this literature (both pre-Christian and extending to a.d. 100), endeavours to solve the problem of this absence of Messianic expectation, [Note: Religion des Judentums2 im neutest. Zeitalter, p. 255 f.] The causes are twofold. First comes the patent fact to which reference has already been made in a previous page. The Jew had entered into a larger world, and his eschatology was therefore framed on these larger dimensions of time and space in which the final catastrophe was to be vast and world-wide. The world of the Jew was no longer Palestinian or even Western-Asiatic. It was the world ruled by the successors of Alexander, and the yet greater world ruled by the Caesars. Moreover, Greek culture had begun to enter deeply into the mind of Judaism. To the cultured Jew the figure of a Davidic-Messianic king seemed incongruous and provincial amid these larger political and intellectual horizons. Secondly, the establishment of the line of Maccabaean rulers left large circles of pious Jews well content. In the latter part of the rule of Jonathan, and during the days of Simon and Hyrcanus, the Jew might well have believed in the advent of a Messianic age. Now, the Maccabees were of priestly descent, and came, therefore, from the tribe of Levi. It is therefore not surprising that the seed of David of the tribe of Judah faded for awhile into comparative insignificance; cf. Charles note on Enoch 90:37.

But the old hopes bound up with the Messiah king of Davids line were by no means extinct, though they appeared sometimes to be dormant. There were Palestinian Jews as well as Jews of the Diaspora, and there were uncultured Jews both in the countryside and in the towns, influenced by old traditions and the expectations still kept alive by the Law and the Prophets read in the synagogue, as well as the literary Jews who pored over the Book of Wisdom or consoled themselves with the Visions of the Book of Enoch amid their blighted political hopes. Moreover, the spell of the Hasmonaean line of princes did not last for ever. The 1st century b.c. witnessed a great change as compared with the second. Life was no longer under Aristobulus I. and Alexander Jannaeus what it was in the great days of Judas, Simon, and John Hyrcanus. The Hasmonaean princes were regarded as usurpers, and the political aspirations of the race began to turn once more to the seed of David. The ordinary uncultured Jew did not trouble himself with apocalyptic dreams of new heavens and a new earth, and probably there were many cultivated Jews who had little taste for the Book of Enoch. These would read with far greater satisfaction the Psalter of Solomon, especially Psa 17:5 ff., with its references to the familiar words of Prophecy and Psalm:

Thou, Lord, didst choose David to be king over Israel, and didst swear unto him concerning his seed for ever, that his kingdom should not fail before thee [2Sa 7:13-16, Psa 89:4-5]. Then, through our sins, sinners* [Note: A reference to the Hasmonaean princes who usurped the high priesthood (so Ryle and James).] arose against us, attacked us, and thrust us out. Those to whom thou didst make no promise took away with violence (our honour [Note: The Greek has no object, and these words may probably be supplied.] ). They laid waste the throne of David with insolent shouting. But thou, O God, wilt cast them down and remove their seed from the earth, when one that is a foreigner [Note: Pompey is undoubtedly meant. See the interesting and full discussion in Ryle and James Com. on the Psalms of Solomon, Introd. p. xlii ff.] to our race arises against them. According to their sins wilt thou recompense them, O God (v. 23). Behold, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, at the time which thou, O God, knowest, that he may reign over Israel thy servant; and gird him with strength that he may break in pieces unjust rulers. Purge Jerusalem with wisdom and righteousness from the heathen that trample her down with destruction. May he thrust out the sinners from the inheritance, utterly destroy the pride of the sinners, and as potters vessels with an iron rod break in pieces all their substance [Psa 2:9].

The Psalter of Solomon, not inaptly called by Ryle and James the Psalms of the Pharisees, clearly reveals by its contents that it belongs to the period b.c. 7040. Its chief interest for us consists in the strong indications which it gives of the reviving Messianic hopes of Israel at this time under the Roman yoke. Palestine was ready to respond to any bold or able adventurer like Judas, Theudas, or Bar Cochba, the last of whom was supported even by the distinguished Rabbi Akiba. The Synoptic Gospels furnish clear evidence that the national expectations which where directed to a Davidic Messiah in the middle of the last cent. b.c. still prevailed in the days of Jesus. The very form of the Matthew and Luke traditions respecting our Lords birth exhibits an endeavour to conform to the prevalent expectation that the Messiah would be of Davidic descent. (1) The divergent pedigrees in the two Gospels trace the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, from David. (2) Both lay stress on Bethlehem as Christs birthplace, in conformity with the oracle in Mic 5:2.

Quite apart from the form of the Gospel narratives and the predisposition of the writers, the facts of the life of Jesus furnish conclusive evidence of this strong current of Messianic expectation.* [Note: Keim, Jesu von Nazara, i. 244, iii. 103.] We know that on repeated occasions, especially towards the close of His career, He was acclaimed as Son of David: Mat 9:27 (cf. Mar 10:47-48) Mar 12:23; Mar 15:22, Mar 11:10 (Mat 21:9; Mat 21:15). A survey of the facts, however, leads to the conclusion that Jerusalem in South Palestine was the centre of this national movement of Messianic anticipation, and that its pulses become weaker as we pass to the Jewish populations farther removed from this centre.

(f) We also find the title comforter ( mnahm) bestowed on the Messiah of Davidic lineage. In Joh 14:16; Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:7 is forensic in origin = advocate, hence comes to mean helper (see Weiss, ad loc.). It has therefore nothing to do with the above Messianic title. See Wnsche, Leiden des Messias, p. 112; Bousset, Relig. des Jud 1:2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] p. 261. We find a Menahem, son of Judas the Galilaean, appearing in Jerusalem as a messiah, and after a brief interval overthrown (Volz, Eschat. p. 210).

iv. Attitude of Jesus towards the Messiahship.This subject involves some delicate problems which do not admit of easy or immediate solution. Several questions present themselves, and the answers to these enable us to define approximately the attitude of Jesus towards the Messiahship. (1) What was the popular impression created by the Personality and ministry of Jesus? (2) In what form did Jesus regard Himself as Messiah, and how was this related to the popular impression or the current Messianic expectation? (3) At what time did the Messianic consciousness possess Jesus, and when was it proclaimed?

1. In reference to the first question, the following facts may be noted: (a) During the Galilaean period of His ministry Jesus was designated a prophet; and of this He was plainly conscious (Mar 6:4). Yet in popular estimation He was considered to be endowed with powers so remarkable that some supposed Him to be Elijah (Mar 6:15), the precursor of the Messiah (Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5), or one of the great prophets returned to life (Mar 8:28; perhaps Jeremiah or Isaiah, cf. 2Ma 2:5; 2Ma 15:14 f., 2Es 2:18). This seems to have been the general opinion respecting Jesus down to the close of His life (Luk 24:19 a prophet mighty in deed and word). (b) On the other hand, when Jesus passes into Judaea, He is confronted by the powerful current of Messianic expectation which looked for a king of Davids line (Mar 10:48; Mar 11:9-10). Probably an attempt to draw Him into this path of Messianic claim and revolt against Roman imperial authority underlies the question as to tribute-money (Mar 12:14).

2. As to the form of Christs own Messianic consciousness and its relation to the popular impression and the South Palestinian expectation, we note: (a) That the narrative of the Temptation (Mat 4:5 ff., Luk 4:5 ff.) points to the conclusion that early in His public ministry the path of a material or worldly Messiah-king was deliberately renounced (cf. Joh 6:15; Joh 18:36). (b) At an early period Jesus promulgated the fundamental principles of the Kingdom of God, and was fully conscious of His plenary authority to declare them even in opposition to the sacred Mosaic Trah which He announced Himself prepared to fulfil (Ye have heard how it hath been said but I say unto you). Yet though the expression kingdom of God (or heaven) is often on His lips, He does not name Himself as king. (c) He was evidently conscious of a higher vocation and dignity than the designation prophet involved. For (i.) He never called Himself prophet, though popularly acclaimed as such; (ii.) the prevailing designation of Himself which He adopted was, according to the Synoptics, Son of Man, which, we have already shown, implied a high eschatological function and dignity; (iii.) He also regarded Himself as Son of God (cf. Mar 1:10-11), though He restrained the announcement of the title (Mar 3:11-12). (d) He was wholly out of sympathy with the popular national and materialistic conceptions of Messiah-ship with which Southern Palestine at this time was rife. This we can clearly discern in His warning against false prophets and messiahs (Mar 13:22, Mat 24:11-24), who attempted by violent revolutionary means to force on the advent of the kingdom of God (Mat 11:12). From these data the conclusion may be derived, that Jesus from very early timeseven as early as the date of His baptism, according to the triple tradition of the Synopticswas conscious of His unique relation to God as His Father, and of His Messianic dignity and mission, but that He filled it with an ethical as well as apocalyptic content. It was for this reason that He hesitated to declare Himself as Messiah at the opening of His public ministry, knowing the perils of the material and unspiritual conceptions with which the national expectations of the Jews invested the name. The true representation of His Person and of His mission was to be found in the apocalyptic title Son of Man. He was thinking of the exalted cosmic spiritual dignity which attached to this title when, in answer to Pilates question, He acquiesced* [Note: The present writer, though with considerable hesitation, differs from Swetes comment upon the words in Mar 15:2 (Mat 27:11). For Pilate appears to have understood these words as an affirmation of his own suggestion (Mar 15:9); so also the Roman soldiers (Mar 15:18, cf. Mar 15:26). Cf. Luk 22:70 f. with Luk 23:3.] in the ambiguous honour King of the Jews (Mar 15:2). The name connoted to Him the same personal authority as He claimed in the previous reply to the high priest (Mar 14:62). So the Fourth Gospel interprets the enigmatic answer of Jesus to Pilate (Joh 18:36, cf. also Joh 19:21).

3. With reference to the time when the Messianic consciousness possessed Jesus, and when His Messiahship was proclaimed, few will dissent from Boussets dictum, that it is highly probable that the tradition is right in dating Jesus awakening to the Messianic consciousness from the moment of His baptism, that is, before the opening of His ministry. [Note: Jesus (Eng. ed.), p. 174.] As we have already indicated, there were, nevertheless, powerful motives which dictated the withholding of His claims from immediate public announcement. It is evident that the significant declaration which He drew from Simon near to Caesarea Philippi, that He was the Messiah, and more than prophet, marks the decisive point after which His Messianic title was generally proclaimed. Though He still imposed upon His followers great reserve (Mar 8:30), we find that shortly after this He is hailed by the blind Bartimaeus (Mar 10:48) and by His enthusiastic followers (Mar 11:9-10) as son of David,a title which He probably regarded with mixed feelings.

v. Varied Features in the Messianic Expectation current in the Time of Christ.

1. That the Messiah of Jewish traditional expectation would be endowed with the virtues of justice and understanding through the Spirit of God, was an obviously fundamental conception derived from the old Isaianic prophecy, Isa 9:7 [Hebrews 6] Isa 11:2 f., cf. Psalms 72. These ethical qualities are reproduced in varied forms in, e.g., Ps-Sol 17, Test. of the XII. Patr., Levi 18. In this last passage the Hasmonaean priest-princes seem to hover before the writers imagination. In this portraiture the Messiah is king and priest of the whole earth; the nations of the earth and the angels in heaven rejoice over him. All iniquity disappears under his sway. He again opens Paradise, and the devil (Beliar) is bound by him. It is not easy to be quite sure whether Christian elements have been interpolated here as elsewhere in the Test. of the XII. Patriarchs. Moreover, in the Sibyll. Oracles (3:3692) the Messiah is called a holy king of universal sway. In the Psalms of Solomon (17:36, 41, 42) the sinlessness of the Messiah is emphasized, and expressly referred to his endowment with the Holy Spirit (cf. Mat 3:16-17, Rom 1:4).

2. The element of mystery and marvel shrouds the appearance of the Messiah, cf. Apocalypse, Apocalyptic Bar 29:3 (text, however, somewhat doubtful; see Charles) 32:1, 2Es 7:28, Test, of the XII. Patr., Levi 18, Sib. Or. 3:652. According to Targ. [Note: Targum.] Jon. on Mic 4:8, the Messiah is already in the world, but is concealed owing to the sins of the people; see Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des Jdischen Volkes.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ii. 531 ff. With this tradition cf. Joh 7:27.

3. The Messiah is to be preceded by a messenger of God who is to purify Israel (Mal 3:1; Mal 3:3).This angel of the Covenant is identified by Malachi (or perhaps by an interpolator) with the returning Elijah (Mal 4:5 f. [Heb. 3:23 f.]). This passage, we know, exerted a far-reaching influence over later times; cf. Sir 48:10-11 and Mat 17:10-13 (Mar 9:11 f.).

4. The scattered tribes of Israel are to be gathered together to Jerusalem, and Jerusalem and its Temple rebuilt.Often we find that the apocalyptic features of a heavenly Jerusalem usurp the place of the terrestrial lineaments of the older forms of Messianic anticipation; cf. Rev 7:4 ff; Rev 21:10 ff. Here, again, the sources of these traits are found in the OT, i.e. in exilic and post-exilic literature: Eze 39:27 ff., Isa 11:11; Isa 11:16 (which tell of the gathering of the Diaspora from Assyria, Babylon, Egypt): cf. Isa 27:12-13; Isa 35:8 ff., Mic 7:12, Isa 60:4; Isa 60:9; Isa 66:20. In many cases these expectations may be called by the general term Messianic, but are without the presence of a Messiah. God brings about the blessed change, not by a gradual evolution of the earthly order, but by a mighty destruction of world-empires, in which Israels foes (pre-eminently Edom) are overthrown without the instrumentality of any human or superhuman intermediary. Perhaps the most characteristic passage is Isa 27:13 In that day the great trumpet shall be blown, and all who are being lost in Assyria, and are driven into Egypt, shall come and bow to Jahweh in the holy mount in Jerusalem. Similarly in the earlier Enoch 90:33 f., Ps-Sol 11, and Bar 4:36 to Bar 5:9, and even in Philo (de Exsecrationibus, 89, de Prm. et Pn.; see Schrer3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , ii. p. 515), where the ethical traits are not forgotten.

Moreover, the rebuilding of Jerusalem is the reflex of the Deutero-Isaianic utterances, and also of Ezekiel 40-44, 47, Sir 35:13 ff., Tob 13:15-17; Tob 14:5, Enoch 90:28. According to Ps-Sol 17:33, this restoration of Jerusalem is to be the work of the Messiah.

5. The Messiah as a martial personality is based on the portraiture of Isa 9:3-4; Isa 11:4, Psa 2:7-9, and this trait frequently recurs in the literature of the 1st cent. b.c. and later; cf. Sib. Or. 3:652, 2Es 12:31; 2Es 12:33 (where the Messiah is the lion which is to destroy the Roman empire), also Apocalypse, Apocalyptic Bar 70:9,* [Note: Bracketed, however, by Charles as an interpolation; it comes in abruptly and forestalls the reference to the Messiah in ch. 72.] and esp. Ps-Sol 17:2225. It is significant that this trait is absent from the NT except in Rev 19:11-21, in which the atmosphere is Judaic rather than Christian.

6. The conception of Messiah ben-Joseph or ben-Ephraim belongs to much later Jewish literature, and need not detain us. See Bousset, Rel. des Judentums2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , p. 264 f.

7. The ethical and universal traits of the Jewish Messiah and of Messianic expectation are, however, meagre and even conspicuous by their absence. The blight of materialism or national exclusiveness rests upon most of the later Jewish literature of Messianic hopes. We scarcely have a hint of the Messiah as the bearer of a new and higher revelation of Gods nature or will to mankind, or of His function as a redeemer from sin. The horizons are the horizons of the Jew. With the exception of Philo and the writer of Sib. Or. 3, who were evidently Hellenic in sympathy and culture, we have but little to remind us that the Jew felt any interest in other nationalities and their future. Jewish apocalyptic presents a singularly contracted world, though it be an entire universe. For that universe, when it is not limited to Palestine, is to be governed by Israel only. The visions of the Book of Enoch suffer from these painful limitations. The Similitudes in the description of the last struggle with the heathen restrict the scene to the Holy Land (Enoch 56). Similarly in the Psalms of Solomon the eschatology is limited in its scope to Palestine. Seldom do we meet with any hint or suggestion of the conversion of the Gentiles. Isa 49:6, with its glorious ideal of Israels mission as a light to the Gentiles, is almost wholly forgotten. The might of the Gentiles is to be broken, and world-empires are to be destroyed. The heathen nations are to be tributary vassals to the new Israelite power which Jahweh will erect, and of which the restored Jerusalem will be the centre. The Gentiles may make pilgrimages to the Holy Land, but only Israel may dwell there. See Bousset, op. cit. pp. 268270.

The features of the Suffering Servant portrayed in Isaiah 53 are almost totally absent in the version of the Targum of Jonathan, composed in the first two centuries of the Christian era, when the influence of the Maccabaean age still affected the Messianic conceptions of Judaism. The traits of Isaiah 53 and Isa 49:6 are quite foreign to the Messianic ideals of Judaism in the 1st cent. a.d. The cross of Jesus was to the Jews a stumbling-block (1Co 1:23); cf. Volz, op. cit. p. 237; Dalman, Der leidende und sterbenile Messias, p. 6 f.; Schrer3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , ii. 554 f.

vi. Jesus the true spiritual fulfilment of prophecy and Israels real Messiah.The volcanic uprising of the Jewish race under Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers against the efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress the national worship, exercised a profound influence upon the Hebrew nation and its ideals. For the future spiritual progress of Israel the results were permanently injurious. Religious ideas became warped by particularism, and the thoughts of the race diverted from the noble universalist conceptions of prophecy, especially of the Deutero-Isaiah, to the study of the Trah, as Israels national heritage, with its ever growing mass of legal requirements and ceremonial punctilios. Piety then became a rule of thumb, and an elaborated endeavour to secure merit took the place of the old prophetic ideals of righteousness. All this is summed up in the single word Pharisaism. Pharisaism was born of the strong national movement of which the heroic episodes of the Maccabaean struggle were the outward embodiment. Out of this movement emerged, on the one hand, a vehement reaction against Hellenic ideas and usages, and the exaltation of the Trah as Israels palladium; while, on the other, there emerged the Napoleonic legend of the Jewish race, which became the prolific source of messiahs whose abortive careers were quenched in blood, until the final heroic effort of Bar Cochba, hailed as the fulfilment of Balaams prophecy by Rabbi Akiba, was extinguished in the reign of Hadrian. But the noble spiritual ideals of Hebrew prophecyof Jeremiah and the Deutero-Isaiahcould not be entirely suppressed by Pharisaism. As Fried lnder in his recent stimulating work has pointed out,* [Note: Die religisen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu, pp. 237264.] the liberal movements which prevailed in the Jewish Diaspora which was surrounded and penetrated by Hellenic influence, prepared the way, especially through the writings of Philo, for the advent of Christ; and the same writer enables us to discern more clearly how the highest ethical ideals of the Hebrew Messiah were realized in Jesus. The husk of nationalism, which clung to Jewish apocalyptic and left no place in its Messianic conceptions for the redemption of the Gentile world, was remorselessly cast aside by Jesus: I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness (Mat 8:11-12). What the Messiah-prophet of Nazareth declared in His oracles, St. Paul, His greatest disciple, fulfilled. For Judaism had been diverted by Pharisaism from its true prophetic mission marked out for it in the dark days of its exile, but was enabled at last, by its greatest latter-day Prophet, the Divine Son of Man, and by His great Jewish disciple and Apostle to the Gentiles, to accomplish its real vocation in spite of itself; cf. Isa 42:19, 2Co 3:14.

Literature.This has been partially indicated in the course of this article. The article on Messiah in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible and in EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] and PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] should be consulted. A selection only of the most important works need be given here: Drummond, The Jewish Messiah; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , i. 160179, ii. 434 ff., 710741; Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, 1886; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, i. pp. 6084, 176181, ii. pp. 123339; Holtzmann, NT Theol. i. pp. 8185, 234304; Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu; Wellhausen, IJG [Note: JG Israelitische und Jdische Geschichte.] 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] (1895), pp. 198204; Charles, Book of Enoch (see esp. Introduction). The last named writers editions of the Apocalypse of Baruch and his art in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible and the EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] will also be found useful. Specially important is the section ( 29) entitled Die Messianische Hoffnung in Schrers GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des Jdischen Volkes.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ii. 497556; cf. also Bousset, Religion des Judentums im neutest. Zeitalter2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , pp. 245308; and Paul Volz, Jd. Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, pp. 213237, also pp. 5568; Dalman, Der leidende und sterbende Messias; Castelli, Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei; Neubauer and Driver, The Jewish Interpreters of Isaiah liii. For a more complete list the reader is referred to Schrer, op. cit. p. 496 ff.

Owen C. Whitehouse.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Messiah

MESSIAH.The one anointed (Gr. Christos), i.e. appointed and empowered by God through the impartation of His own spirit, to become the Saviour of His people. The conception of the Messiah is logically implicit in all the expectations of the Hebrew people that Jehovah would deliver Israel and turn it into a glorious empire to which all the heathen would be subjected. But it is not always explicit. The expectation of the coming Kingdom is more in evidence than the expectation of the coming King. But in the same proportion as the conception of the personal Messiah emerges from the general Messianic hope these elements appear within it: (1) the Deliverer; (2) the presence of Gods Spirit in His own personality as the source of His power; (3) His work as the salvation of Gods people, at first the Jewish nation, but ultimately all those who join themselves to Him.

1. The Messiah of the OT

In any historical study of the OT it is necessary to distinguish sharply between the Messianic interpretation given to certain passages by later writers, notably Christian and Rabbinic, and the expectation which, so far as it is recoverable, the writers of the OT actually possessed. A disregard of this distinction has been common from the point of view of theological statement, but is fatal to a proper understanding of that progress in the religious apprehension of God and the clarifying of religious expectations which constitutes so large a factor in the Biblical revelation of God. It is always easier to discover tendencies as one looks back over a historical course of events than as one looks forward into the future which these events determine. The proper method in the study of the Messianic hope is not to mass the sentences of the OT to which a Messianic interpretation is given by later Biblical or extra-Biblical writers, but to study them in their context both literary and historical. In such a tracing of the historical development it is necessary to recognize critical results as far as they are reasonably fixed, and thus avoid reading back into the original hopes of the Hebrews those interpretations and implications which were given to the early history by various redactors. These latter, however, constitute data for the understanding of the Messianic ideal in the age of the editors.

Unfortunately, in the present state of criticism it is not possible to arrange the material of the OT in strictly chronological order. This is particularly true in the case of that reflecting the Messianic hope. The following classification of OT references is, therefore, not to he taken as a chronological exposition of a developing hope so much as a grouping of material of similar character.

1. The national tendencies of Messianic prophecy.In the case of prophets like Elijah and Elisha the hope is hardly more distinct than a belief that the nation which worshipped Jehovah would he triumphant over its enemies. So far as the records of their teaching show, however, there was no expectation of any superhuman deliverer, or, in fact, any future contemplated other than one which presupposed a conquering Israel with an equally triumphant Jehovah. Eschatological conceptions were absent, and the new Kingdom was to be political in the truest sense. With the approach of the more tragic days of the fall of the Northern Kingdom, the threatened calamities served as a text for the foreboding of Amos. Hoseas prophecies of prosperity which would come to the nation when it turned from idols and alliances with heathen nations to the forgiving Jehovah may, as current criticism insists, belong to a later period than that usually accorded them; but in them we find little or nothing of the noble universalism to be seen in the promised victory of the seed of the woman over the serpent (Gen 3:14-15). It is rather a hope of national glory, such as appears in the promise made to Shem (Gen 9:27), to Abraham (Gen 12:8), to Jacob (Gen 27:27-29), and, in particular, to Judah (Gen 49:8-12). The basis of this great expectation is the faith in Jehovah as interpreted by the prophets, whether earlier or later. It was inconceivable to them that the true God should be other than ultimately triumphant; cf. the prophecy of Balaam (Num 24:17-19), Song of Moses (Deu 32:6-10), the expectation of the prophet (Deu 18:16-19). This nationalism is to be seen throughout the Messianic hope of the OT, although occasional exceptions are to be found, as in Gen 3:14-15, and in some passages of Ezekiel.

2. The Messianic hope of the great prophets.With Isaiah began a new development of the Messianic hope, primarily through the preaching of deliverance from the inevitable catastrophe of the Assyrian conquest. Out of the sorrows of the time, born largely, as Isaiah believed, from the sins of Jehovahs people, was to arise deliverance. This seems to be the central teaching of the great passage, Isa 7:10-17. Deliverance was to come before the expected child could choose between good and evil, but by the time he reached maturity the greater misery of Assyrian invasion should break forth. But in the name of the child, Immanuel, was the pledge that Jehovah would ever he with His people and would ultimately save them; not impossibly through the child himself, although nothing is said of Immanuels share in the accomplishment of the deliverance. Whether or not the reference in Isa 9:6-7 is to Immanuel, it is unquestionable that it is to the coming of a descendant of David, who should deliver Israel and reign with Jehovahs assistance for ever triumphantly. In that glorious time, which was to he inaugurated by the Messianic King, would be prosperity hitherto unknown (Isa 11:1-9). The eternity of his reign is undoubtedly to he interpreted dynastically rather than personally, but the king himself clearly is a person, and Jehovahs Spirit, which is to be within him, is just as plainly the source of his great success (cf. Isa 33:14-24). In a similar spirit Micah localizes the new Kingdom established through Divine guidance in Zion (Mic 4:1-5), and declares that the King is to come from Bethlehem, that is to say, shall be Davidic (Mic 5:2-5).

Primarily national as these expectations are, the keynote is the deliverance wrought by Jehovah through a particular royal person, in whose days righteousness and peace are to he supreme in the world because of the Hebrew empire. This picture of the royal king became one controlling element in the later Messianic hope.

In this literature, whatever its date may be, there appears also the new note of universal peace to be wrought by Jehovah. In large measure this peace was conceived of as due to the completeness of Jehovahs conquest of the nations in the interests of His people (cf. Isa 9:1-5). But beyond this there can also be seen the hope that the very nature of the reign of the new King would conduce to an end of war. In such a passage as Isa 11:1-10 there is struck the keynote of a nobler Messianic reign than that possible to the mere conqueror. The peace then promised was to come from a knowledge of Jehovah as well as from the glories of the Davidic ruler.

The reformation of Josiah finds an echo in the equally exultant expectation of Jeremiahthat Jehovah would surely place a descendant of David upon the throne, a righteous branch, and one who would deliver Israel (Jer 33:14-16). The glory of the restored kingdom was to he enhanced by a New Covenant to replace the broken covenant of Sinai. This covenant would be spiritual, and the relations which it would establish between Israel and Jehovah would be profoundly religious. Israel would be a servant of Jehovah, who would, on His part, forgive His peoples sins (Jer 31:31-34; cf. Jer 33:17-22). The restoration of Israel, which was thus to be accomplished by Jehovah, involved not only national honour, but also a new prosperity for the priesthood, and new immortality on the part of the individual and the nation. There is no reference, however, to a personal Messiah. Yet if such a passage as Deu 18:16-19 belongs to this period, it is evident that the hope included the expectation of some great person, who would he even more sublime than Moses himself.

3. The Messianic hope during the Exile.The great catastrophe which fell upon both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms forced the prophets to re-examine the relations of national misfortune to the persistent hope of the glorious Kingdom of Jehovah. It would seem as if at the outset the exiles had expected that they would soon return to Palestine, but this hope was opposed most vigorously by Ezekiel, and the fall of Jerusalem confirmed his teaching. From the despair that followed, the people were rescued by the appearance of Cyrus, who became the instrument of Jehovah in bringing about the return of the remnant to their own land. It was from these dark years that there appeared a new type of Messianic hope, national and economic, it is true, but also profoundly religious. Jehovah would care for His people as the shepherd cared for his sheep, and the land to which they would return would be renewed (Eze 34:11-31), while the nations would support Israel and fear Jehovah (Isa 49:22-23). Jehovah would make an everlasting covenant with His people (Isa 55:1-6), but the new nation would not he composed of all those who had been swept into exile and their descendants. It would rather be a righteous community, purified by suffering. Thus the hope rises to that recognition of the individual which Ezekiel was the first to emphasize strongly.

At this point we have to decide whether the suffering Servant of Jehovah is to be interpreted collectively as the purified and vicarious remnant of Israel; or as some individual who would stand for ever as a representative of Jehovah, and, through his sufferings, purify and recall Israel to that spiritual life which would he the guarantee of a glorious future; or as the suffering nation itself. The interpretation placed upon these Servant passages (Isa 43:1-13; Isa 49:5; Isa 61:1-3; Isa 52:13-15; Isa 53:1-12) in Rabbinic thought was ordinarily not personal, but national. It was a suffering Israel who was not only to be gloriously redeemed, but was also to bring the knowledge of Jehovah and salvation to the world at large. And this is becoming the current interpretation to-day. Yet the personification is so complete as to yield itself readily to the personal application to Jesus made by the early Church and subsequent Christian expositors. A vicarious element, which was to prove of lasting influence, is now introduced into Messianic expectation. The deliverance was to be through the sufferings of the Deliverer. See, further, Servant of the Lord.

4. Messianic Psalms.While it is not possible to date Psa 2:1-12 with any precision, its picture of the coming King who shall reign over all the world because of the power of Jehovah, is fundamentally political. The same is true of Psa 45:1-17; Psa 72:1-20. In these Psalms there are expressions which could subsequently be used very properly to express the expectation of a completed Messianic hope, but it would be unwise to read back into them a conscious expectation of a definite superhuman person. The hope at the time of the writing of these Psalms was national and political.

5. The attempt at a Messianic nation.With the return of the exiles from Babylon to Judah attempts were made to inaugurate an ideal commonwealth which should embody these anticipations. The one great pre-requisite of this new nation was to be the observance of the Law, which would insure the coming of the Spirit of Jehovah upon the new Israel (Joe 2:28-29, Hag 1:13, Zec 2:1-5, etc., Isa 60:1-22). The coronation of Zerubbabel seemed to Haggai and Zechariah the fulfilment of the promise that the prince would come from the house of David (Hag 2:23, Zec 3:8). But the new commonwealth was thoroughly inefficient, and the Messianic hope seems to have become dormant in the struggles of the weak State. The literary activity of the years between the re-building of the Temple and the Maccaban outbreak was, however, if current critical views be correct, full of idealistic elements. These expressed themselves in a re-working of the older codes and prophecies of the Hebrews, under the influence of the faith in the coming triumph Jehovah would give His people. The personal Deliverer is not described, but the deliverance was assured. This genuinely Messianic hope was not killed even by other tendencies to replace prophecy by the philosophy of experience. Through all these years it is certain that the fundamental elements of the Messianic hope remained fixed; namely, the ineradicable belief that Jehovah would (a) make of the Jewish nation a world empire; (b) establish the house of David; (c) punish the enemies of His chosen people, whether Gentiles or Jews; and (d) that this glorious future would be established by the expression of the Divine power in the resurrection, not of the individual from Sheol, but of the nation from its miseries. These elements were subsequently to develop into the dominant characteristics of the later Messianic hopethe Kingdom of God, the Davidic King, the Day of Judgment, and the Resurrection of the Righteous.

II. The Messiah of the Jewish literature

1. The rise of apocalypse.The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to crush out Judaism led to the appearance of a new type of religious literaturethe apocalypse. The origin of this literature is a matter of dispute. The influence of the Babylonian myth cycles is certainly apparent, but the apocalypses, as they stand, have no precise analogy in other literature of the period. For our present purpose, however, the importance of the apocalypse lies in the fact that it contributed to the development of a new Messianic conception. In the very nature of the case the misery of Syrian persecution forced the Pious not only to renewed faith in Jehovah, but also to a new sense of the need of prophecy. In the absence of the genuine prophet, the triumph of Israel and the inevitable destruction of Jehovahs foes were foretold by symbol. The pseudonymous literature, which thus arose in the course of time, however, came to be taken not simply as figures of speech, but as possessing an ill-defined literal character (see Apocalyptic Literature).

2. The Messiah of the later canonical books is not well defined. The apocalyptic sections of Daniel contain a pervasive Messianic element, and in the portrayal of this hope we find the first thoroughly elaborated apocalypse of Judaism. The international relations of Israel are traced, but the historical horizon is bounded by Antiochus Epiphanes. A most important element of the future as set forth by Daniel is to be seen in the triumph of the kingdom of the saints, whose symbol is a son of man, over the oppressing kingdoms of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Syria, symbolized by the four beasts. There is, however, no sharply distinct personal Messiah in these visions, and the expectation is primarily that of a genuinely political State established by Jehovah in Palestine. The day of Jehovah (see Day of the Lord) is, however, now elaborately developed into a world-judgment, and the lines of future apocalyptic Messianism are clearly drawn. But it is now to some extent expanded by the belief that the righteous, both Hebrews and others, would be raised from the dead to join in the Kingdom (Dan 12:1 ff.). In this union of the idea of the resurrection of the nation with that of the individual we find material which was ready to grow into the pictures of the later apocalypse.

3. In the Sibylline Oracles the figure of the Messiah again is not distinct, but there is a picture (III. 652, 794) of a glorious time when under a Divinely supported king (doubtless a member of the Hasmonan house) war was to cease and God was to bless the righteous and punish the wicked. The nations would then come under the law of Jehovah, and Jerusalem would be the capital of the world-wide empire to be established miraculously. The other literature of the inter-Biblical period is not so hopeful, although ben-Sira foresees an everlasting Jewish empire under a Davidic dynasty (Sir 32:18-19; Sir 33:1 f., Sir 37:25; Sir 47:11; Sir 50:24).

4. In the different strata of the Eth. Enoch literature the hope of a personal Messiah is presented in somewhat different degrees of distinctness. In the older sections (136) of the original groundwork (chs. 136, 72104), the hope, though apocalyptic, is national. Here, however, as in the later literature, attention is centred rather on the punishment of the wicked than on the development of the new Kingdom. Very note worthy is the fact that both the punishment of the wicked and the rewards of the righteous were to be eschatological. But eschatology, though involving the resurrection, is still somewhat nave. The righteous are to live 500 years, beget 1000 children, and die in peace (ch. 10). Still, the punishment of the wicked is to be in Sheol, which has been divided into four sections with varying conditions (ch. 22; see Sheol). It is obvious, however, that in this early Enoch literature the thought is poetic rather than precise, and in a way it marks the transition from the political religious hope of the prophets to the transcendental expectations of the later apocalypses.

In the dream visions (chs. 8390) there is a more elaborate symbolical account of the sufferings of the Hebrew people under various oppressors. The new age, however, is about to be introduced by the Day of Judgment, when wicked personswhether men, rulers, or angelsare to be cast into an abyss of fire. Then the New Jerusalem is to be established by God. The dead are to be raised, the Messiah is to appear, and all men are to he transformed into His likeness. These latter elements of the hope, however, are somewhat obscurely expressed. The Messiah seems to have no particular function either of judgment or of conquest. The new Kingdom is a direct gift of God.

In the later chapters of this early section (chs. 90104) the thought becomes more eschatological. The resurrection comes at the end of the Messianic reign, which is to be one of struggle, in which the wicked are to be subdued. The Messiah is thus more distinct, and is at least once called by God my Son.

In the other group of Enoch visions (chs. 3772) the transcendental has become to some extent literalized. The Messiah is now very prominent, being called son of man, elect, righteous one. He is pre-existent, and co-judge with God over both the living and the dead. The punishment of the enemies of Israel is still as prominent as the establishment of the new Kingdom, and the latter is described in terms which make it evident that the Jews could not conceive of any Kingdom of God apart from Palestine. There men and angels are to dwell together and rule over a world freed from sin.

5. In the Book of Jubilees the Messianic hope is all but lacking. Angelology and demonology are well developed, but apparently the author of the visions conceived of the Messianic age as about to dawn, even if it had not already begun. Members of that age were to live 1000 years, and were to be free from the influence of Satan. The Judgment was to close this period, but there was to be no resurrection of the body. There is no reference to a Messiah, but rather to the conquest of the world by a nation that kept Jehovahs law.

6. The best-drawn picture of the Messiah in the Pharisaic literature is that of the Psalms of Solomon. In the 17th and 18th of these the apocalyptic element is largely wanting, but there is nothing inconsistent with the view of apocalyptic Messianism. The Messiah, however, is given a position not accorded him elsewhere in pre-Christian Jewish literature. He is neither sufferer nor teacher, pre-existent nor miraculously born; he is a mighty king, vice-regent of God, strong through the Holy Spirit. He would conquer the world without weapons or armies, with the word of his mouth, i.e. miraculously. The capital would be at Jerusalem, which would be purged from all heathen, and his subjects would be righteous Jews, sons of God.

7. The literature of later Pharisaism became very strongly apocalyptic, but the figure of a personal Messiah is not always present. In the Assumption of Moses there is no personal Messiah mentioned, and God is said to be the sole punisher of the Gentiles. The sufferings of the faithful are treated as an incentive to faith in the Kingdom of God. The concrete king of the hostile kingdom should be overcome. The enemies of God were to be punished in Gehenna, and a glorious dispensation for united Israel was to dawn.

In Slavonic Enoch, likewise, there is no mention of the Messiah or of the resurrection, although the latter is doubtless involved in the doctrine of the millennium, which this book sets forth. It would appear that both in the Assumption of Moses and in Slavonic Enoch the central figure is God, the deliverer of His people and judge of His enemies, rather than the Messiah.

In the Apocalypse of Baruch and in Second Esdras, however, transcendentalism reaches its final form under the influence of the tragedy of the fall of Jerusalem. These two books are very probably the different forms of cycles of apocalyptic hopes that prevailed among the pious Jews. In one cycle a Messiah would slay those who had in any way injured the Jewish people, and make a Jerusalem already prepared in heaven his capital. In the other cycle there is no such glory in store for Israel, but there will be an end of corruptible things, and the establishment of a new world-age in which the dead shall be raised under the command of the Messiah. In Second Esdras the Christ is conceived of as pre-existent, raised from the sea in company with Enoch, Moses, and Elijah; and is addressed by God as my Son. He destroys the enemies of Israel without war, with fire that proceeds from his mouth. The ten tribes of Israel return with their brethren to live in the New Jerusalem which had come down from heaven. Then the Messiah and all mankind die, remaining dead for an entire week; after that come a general resurrection and judgment, and the fixing of the destinies of eternity. God, however, rather than the Messiah, is to be judge.

In these later apocalypses the Christ plays a large rle, but is manifestly to be subordinated to God.

III. The Messiah of popular expectation in NT times.Over against this Messiah of Pharisaic literature, so clearly increasingly superhuman in character, must be placed the Messianic hope of the people at large. It is difficult to discover this in detail, for the reason that it found its way into literature only as a hope that had been rejected by the writers. Yet it is possible in some passages of Josephus to trace its rise and its tragic outcome. The Messianic spirit is undoubtedly to be seen in the succession of so-called robbers that disturbed the reigns of Herod I. and his successors; as well as in the conspiracies under the ten men (Ant. XV. viii. 3, 4) and the Rabbis Judas and Matthias (Ant. XVII. vi. 2, 4). With the death of Herod, however, the Messianic movement among the masses gathered headway, particularly after the erection of Juda into a procuratorial province (a.d. 6). Judas of Gamala and a Pharisee named Zaduc organized a fourth sect coordinate with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, and incited the people to revolt, because of the census then established. There is no evidence, however, that this new sect, which is clearly that of the Zealots, had any distinct hope of a superhuman Messiah. According to Josephus (Ant. XVIII. i. 1, 6), they said God was to be their only ruler and lord. To this new party Josephus attributes in large degree the fall of the Jewish State. Messianic movements are also to be seen in the attempted revolt of the prophet Theudas, in robbers like Eleazar, in the Sicarii (or Assassins), and in the Egyptian, with whom St. Paul was momentarily identified by the chief captain (Act 21:33). Besides these were bands of fanatics like those mysterious men mentioned by Josephus (BJ II. i. 2, 3). All these movements co-operated to bring about the destruction of the Jewish State, for the revolt of 66 must be regarded as distinctly Messianica fact perceived by Josephus in the important passage BJ VI. v. 4, where it is said: What most stirred them up to war was the ambiguous oracle that was found also in their sacred writings [doubtless Daniel; cf. Ant. X. x. 4] that about that time one from their country should become ruler of the world.

It is greatly to be regretted that this Messianic hope of the people has not left larger traces of itself. It is, however, not difficult to see in it the more political and concrete hopes which the Pharisees expressed in terms of the apocalypse. The Zealots, like the Pharisees, expected the new Kingdom to be established by God or His representative the Messiah, but, unlike the Pharisees, they were not content to await the Divine action. They preferred rather to precipitate deliverance by political revolt. The fact that the Messiah is not prominent in such hopes does not imply that such a person was unexpected. A leader would certainly be involved in any revolt, but such a leader would not necessarily be superhuman. Yet it would be unsafe to say that the Messiah whom the people expected, any more than he whom the Pharisees awaited, would be without Divine appointment and inspiration. He might not be, strictly speaking, supernatural, but he would certainly be given the Divine Spirit and power to bring deliverance which, without the aid of God, would be clearly impossible. The chief difference between the Messianic hope of the Pharisees and that of the Zealots and people was probably the lack in the latter of the eschatological, transcendental element, such as the resurrection from the dead and the heavenly Jerusalem, which was so important in the hope of the Pharisees. How thoroughly social and political this folk-Messianism became is to be seen in the various abortive attempts to establish, during the revolt of 66, a peasant republic, as well as in the destruction of evidence of indebtedness and the massacre of the aristocrats. The Pharisaic expectation would never have led to violence, but rather involved the patient waiting of the faithful for the time set by Jehovah.

IV. The Messiah of the Samaritans.It would be exceedingly helpful, particularly for an understanding of Joh 4:1-42, if we knew the Samaritan Messianic hope with some precision. Unfortunately, there is no literature dating from the time of Christ which sets this forth. So far, however, as it can be recovered from later sources, and particularly from the present high priest of the Samaritans, it would seem that the expectation did not include the Davidic King of Judaism, but centred rather about the prophecy of Deu 18:15 of the prophet God was to raise up like unto Moses. This prophet, according to the Samaritan belief, was to be the Converter, who would bring moral and religious truth to light. At the same time, they believed that the Gentiles would be subjected to him, would believe in him and the holy Law, and in the sanctuary of Mt. Gerizim. There seems to have been no expectation of miraculous powers to be exercised by the prophet; but concerning this, as in fact about other particulars of the Samaritan hope, no statement can be made with absolute certainty.

V. The Messiah of Rabbinism.Subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, Pharisaism developed rapidly into its final stage of Rabbinism. The two tendencies which are so marked in Pharisaismone towards strict legalism, the other towards Messianicidealismwere then codified and systematically elaborated. The development of the Messianic expectation, however, was to some extent shaped by the need of combating the Messianic interpretations of Christianity. Traces of this influence are undoubtedly to be found in the Targum on Is 53, and in 2 Esdras, but they are also to appear in literature that was clearly subjected to Christian redaction. The Messiah was generally regarded as a descendant of David. He was to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its emperor of the kingdom of evil, and set up his own Kingdom. He was regarded also as pre-existent, not merely ideally, but actually. For a merely ideal pre-existence is not to be argued from the well-known saying including the seven things created before the world was made. The name here undoubtedly implies personality, and in some of the later Jewish writings this pre-existent state is somewhat minutely described. He is to be hidden until he appears, but the obvious inconsistencies of view were never fully systematized.

Doubtless because of the Messianic arguments of Christians, based upon such passages as Is 53, the Rabbis were forced to the recognition of the idea of the suffering Messiah. In this recognition, however, no change was made in the conception of the Messiah the son of David, but the belief came to involve a second Messiah the son of Joseph. His office and person are not described in detail, but later Rabbinic teaching held that he would appear before the coming of the Messiah the son of David, would gather faithful Jews to him, defeat his peoples enemies, and establish a great empire with its capital and temple at Jerusalem. Thereafter some one of the various transcendental enemies of Israel, like Gog and Magog, would defeat and slay him. Then the Messiah son of David would come and resurrect the Messiah son of Joseph, and establish the great and more permanent Messianic Kingdom. This conception of the Messiah son of Joseph, however, has never played a very large role in Rabbinic Messianism, and must be regarded in the light of a concession to Christian opponents rather than as a really formative influence. The older hope of the Messiah son of David is that dominant among orthodox Jews, who still await his coming, which is to follow the appearance of Elijah (Mal 3:1; Mal 4:6; Mal 4:6).

VI. The Messiah of the NT.As its very name indicates, Christianity centres about the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. The definition of that word as applied to Jesus is one about which there is some difference of opinion. Conceivably it might be (a) that of Pharisaic Messianism; (b) something altogether new; or, more probably, (c) the old conception modified by certain new elements.

In discovering what the Messianic conceptions of the NT are, it is necessary to avoid a dogmatic attitude of mind, and to come to the discussion from the historical-exegetical point of view. In such a method the point of departure is the presupposition that current beliefs and definitions were used by Jesus and His disciples wherever such thoughts and definitions are not distinctly changed or abrogated. A disregard of this primary principle in historical method has too frequently been the cause of false perspective and anachronistic conclusions as regards NT thought.

1. Jesus conception of Messiahship.That Jesus conceived of Himself as a Messiah seems to be beyond question, it the saying of Mar 14:61-62 is regarded as historical. But such a conclusion does not rest wholly upon a single saying. His words concerning His conquest of Satan (Mar 3:23-28) are altogether consonant with the conception of Himself as Christ; and His assent to the confession of the Apostles at Csarea Philippi is a practical acceptance of the title (Mar 8:27-30, which has been made more explicit in Mat 16:13-16, Luk 9:18-20). His answer to the inquiry of John the Baptist as to whether He were the Coming One (Mat 11:2-10, Luk 7:18 f.) can be interpreted only as affirmative. The question was genuinely Messianic, and the Scripture which He used (Isa 35:5-6) was given a Messianic interpretation by the Rabbis. To give it any other than a Messianic implication is to render the whole episode unintelligible. It is to be noticed further that this saying is not exposed to the difficulties which inhere in some of the apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus, or in the repeated Messianic designations of the Fourth Gospel.

It is easy by a process of subjective criticism to remove such sayings from the field of discussion, but such procedure is arbitrary in view of the facts already adduced. It is true that in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus does not at the beginning of the Galilan ministry go about the country announcing that He is the Christ, but neither does He undertake this sort of propaganda according to the Johannine source. And it should not be overlooked that in any case His words in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luk 4:16-30, Mat 13:54-58, Mar 6:1-6), which can best be interpreted as an exposition of His conception of His Messiahship, were uttered in the early part of His ministry. While some allowance may be made for the Johannine accounts of the early acceptance of Jesus as Christ, there is no reason why the ascription of the title to Him by the disciples might not have been made at the beginning of the ministry in the same futurist sense as is involved in the obvious Messianic definition implied in the questions of the sons of Zebedee in the Synoptic cycle (Mar 10:35-45). The fact that Jesus accepted such interpretations of His future makes it plain that He regarded Himself as Christ, at least in the sense that He was to dn Messianic work in the future.

This, however, brings us face to face with the question as to how far Jesus applied to Himself the eschatological Messianic hopes of His people, and how far He developed an original Messianic ideal. As yet no consensus of scholars has been reached on this very difficult point. Certain things, however, seem to be established. (a) Jesus was not regarded generally as the Christ, but rather as a prophet and miracle-worker. He certainly refused to commit Himself to the Messianic programme of the Zealots. He rejected the title Son of David (Mar 12:35), and refused to be made a king, or to use physical force in bringing in the Kingdom of God (Joh 6:15; cf. Mat 4:8-10, Luk 4:5-8, Mar 14:47; Mar 14:58). (b) Unless all reference by Jesus to the future in terms of eschatology is to be denied (a decision impossible for reasonable criticism), He certainly thought of Himself as returning in the near future to establish a Kingdom that was eschatological.

Although it is probable that the writers of the Gospels have imported eschatological references into the sayings of Jesus, it is impossible to remove them altogether. If, as is probable, Jesus conceived of the Kingdom as the gift of God, for whose coming men were to prepare, it is inevitable that His Messianic career would have been regarded as future as truly as the Kingdom itself (cf. Mat 6:10, Mar 9:1, Luk 12:32, Mat 25:1-46, Mar 14:51; Mar 14:62, Mar 13:1-37, 1Th 4:15-17, Mat 19:28, Luk 22:30).

(c) But although the coming of the Kingdom, with the attendant Judgment, was still in the future, Jesus cannot be said to have conceived of His mission wholly in terms of eschatology. He had broken with Pharisaism too completely to warrant our attributing to Him a priori complete subjection to any Pharisaic conception. If there is anything that stands out in the expression of Jesus self-consciousness, it is that His experience of God was superior to that of a prophet. While in the Synoptic Gospels He does not use explicitly the terms Christ or Son of God of Himself, His reticence in the use of terms is balanced by His conception of His own relation to the Kingdom of God. He was the Son of Man, i.e., in accordance with Dan 7:18, He was the type of the coming Kingdom. If, as is undoubtedly the case, He maintained reserve in His preaching in making explicit claims concerning Messiahship, such reserve is easily explained as a preventive against those misapprehensions with which people would have been sure to regard His work. The spirit of the Lord was upon Him to enable Him to do certain deeds which it was expected the Christ would perform. He was gathering disciples who, as His followers, were to share in the coming Kingdom. In a word, because of the Divine Spirit embodied in His own self-consciousness, He was already engaged in the work of saving Gods people. (d) The connecting link between the Messianic career of service and the Messianic career of glory was His death. No fair criticism can doubt that Jesus saw in these two supreme experiences elements of His work as Saviour. Only thus can we interpret His saying at the Last Supper and His repeated prophecies to His followers (Mar 14:24; Mar 8:31 to Mar 9:1; Mar 9:30-32, Mat 12:40, Luk 12:45-46). Thus He fulfilled in Himself the Messianic picture of the Suffering Servant of Is 53. (e) In conclusion, it appears that Jesus conception of Himself as Messiah was that He was the One in whom God Himself was revealing Himself as the Saviour of those who would accept Him as the Father. The teaching of Jesus from this point of view becomes something more than theoretical ethics and religion, and is seen to be an exposition of His own Messianic self-consciousness. Even in His humiliation and in His sufferings He was the Divinely empowered Saviour. If His faith in the ultimate triumph of that salvation took the form of the eschatology of His people, it does not thereby lose any of its significance. By His sufferings Gods righteous Servant did justify many, and by His death on the cross He did draw men to Him. With His resurrection began a new era in religious experience, which revealed the realities of those pictures of that transcendental age to come in which current Messianism clothed the glories of the Divine deliverance.

In short, Jesus modified the conception of the Messiah fundamentally: (1) by recognizing in His own experience vicarious suffering as a part of the Divine deliverance, but even more (2) by His insistence on the universal fatherliness of God, which transformed salvation from something ethnic and national into a salvation from sin and death of all those who accept Him as the Christ; i.e. who by faith reproduce in their lives that dynamic union with God, which was the source of the power which He Himself exhibited in His life and resurrection.

2. The conception of the Messiah among the Apostles.In general the Apostles may be said to have believed Jesus to be the Messiah in the sense that (a) in His earthly period of humiliation He was anointed with Gods Spirit; (b) that He had not done the strictly Messianic work during His earthly career; (c) that He had been declared the Christ by His resurrection; and (d) that, though now in authority in heaven, He would return to deliver His people, establish a Kingdom, and hold the world-judgment which was to be preceded by the resurrection of believers, if not of all men.

(1) In the primitive Church of Jerusalem expectation centred about the eschatological concept of judgment and deliverance. As appears from the speech of St. Peter at Pentecost (Act 2:14-42), as well as from other addresses from the early chapters of Acts, the disciples believed that the new age was about to dawn. They were living in the last days of the pre-Messianic age. The Christ had appeared, but had been killed, had ascended to heaven after His resurrection, thence He had sent the Holy Spirit to those who believed that He was the Christ, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Joe 2:28-32 (which, however, had not been thus interpreted by the Pharisees). The Resurrection had not made Him the Christ, but had decisively shown that He was the One whom God had made Lord and Christ (Act 2:36). In the primitive Church the Messianic deliverance was limited to the commonwealth of Israel. If the Gentiles were to share in the Messianic deliverance, they had need to be circumcised and join the Jewish community (Act 15:1).

Just how far disciples like St. Peter and St. John were committed to this strictly Jewish type of Messianic expectation it is difficult to say. It would, however, be unfair to hold that they represented the so-called party of the circumcision which combated St. Paul in his removal of all conditions of salvation beyond faith in Jesus as Christ. It should not be overlooked, moreover, that even in the primitive Jerusalem Church the death of Jesus was regarded as a part of the Messianic programme of deliverance, though there is no distinct theory of the Atonement formulated.

(2) St. Pauls conception of the Messiah, (i.) This is in marked advance upon that of the primitive Church. He was at one with the Jerusalem community in holding that the Kingdom had not yet come, and that Jesus would soon return from heaven to establish it. He built into his Messianic conception, however, a number of important elements, some of which were derived from Judaism. These elements were (a) the vicarious nature of the death of Christ; (b) the pre-existence of Jesus as Christ; (c) the doctrine of the second Adam, i.e. that Jesus in His resurrection was the type of the risen humanity, as Adam was the type of physical humanity; (d) the more or less complete identification of Jesus with the Spirit who came to the disciples, as distinct from having been sent by Jesus to the disciples.

(ii.) It is not difficult to see, therefore, why it was that St. Pauls chief interest did not lie in the career of the historical Jesus as a teacher and miracle-worker, but rather in the Divine, risen Christ who maintained spiritual relations with His followers. To have made the teaching of Jesus the centre of his thought would have been to replace the legalism of the Law by the legalism of a new authority. St. Paul was evidently acquainted with the teaching of Jesus, but his message was not that of a completed ethical philosophy, but a gospel of good news of a salvation possible to all mankind, through faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The Pauline gospel to the unconverted (see Act 13:16-41; Act 14:8-17; Act 17:1-3) started with the expectation of Messianic judgment, presented the crucified Jesus as declared the Christ by His resurrection, proved it by the use of OT prophecy, and closed with the exhortation to his hearers to become reconciled to God, who was ready to forgive and save them. In his thought salvation consisted in the possession, through the indwelling Holy Spirit of God, of the sort of life which the risen Jesus already possessed. Morality was the expression in conduct of. this regenerate life.

(iii.) The Pauline Christ is Divine, and His work is twofold. First, it is to be that of the Messiah of Jewish eschatology. The Apostle utilizes many of the elements of the Messianism of the Pharisees, e.g. the two ages, the world-judgment, the trumpet to raise the dead, the sorrows of the last days. But he also made a distinct addition to Messianic thought (a) by his emphasis upon the relation of the death of Jesus to the acquittal of the believer in the eschatological judgment, and (b) in his formulation of a doctrine of the resurrection by the use of the historical resurrection of Jesus. The argument in this latter case rests on two foundationstestimony and the implications of Christian experience. The Christian is to be saved from death, the wages of sin, after the manner of his risen Lord, who had borne death on his behalf. Thus the Pauline Christology is essentially soteriological. Its speculative elements are wholly contributory to the exposition of the certainty and the reasonableness of the coming deliverance. Clothed though it is in Jewish vocabularies and conceptions, the Pauline conception of Christ and His work has for its foci the historical Jesus and Christian experience. The concepts inherited from Judaism do not give rise to his belief in the resurrection, but his confidence in the historicity of that event gives rise to his Christology.Secondly, conceiving thus of Jesus as the supreme King of those whom He had delivered, the Pauline conceptions of His relations with the Church followed naturally. God was not to condemn those who had voluntarily undertaken to prepare for the Kingdom when it should appear. They were justified through their faith in Jesus as Christ. But could the King of that coming Kingdom be indifferent to those who were justified, had already received the Holy Spirit as a first instalment of the future blessing, and were daily awaiting His reappearance? The Christ was the Head of the Church in the last days, just as truly as, in the coming age, He would be King. His supremacy over the Church consisted not merely in that its original nucleus was composed of His disciples, but also in that He had instituted its simple rites, established the details of its organization by giving to its members varying gifts of the Spirit, oversees its affairs, and is present within it. In fact, so intimate is His relation with the Church, that Christians may be said to be in Him, and He is them.

From this union of the believer with his Lord (generally mediated in the Pauline thought by the presence of the Holy Spirit) comes the consummation of the salvation of the individual. Since He had triumphed over death, the believer in whom the Holy Spirit lived might also expect the gift of that spiritual body which was one element of the salvation wrought by Jesus in the case of the Individual.

(iv.) Yet St. Paul would not say that the Christ was to reign eternally. After He had completed His work of Messianic deliverance, had finally conquered sin and death, and had established His glorious age, He was to give up the Kingdom to the Father that God might be all and in all (1Co 15:24). Thus, while the Pauline soteriological thought is Christo-centric, his theology is Theo-centric. Jesus is Christ in the sense that through Him God accomplishes the salvation of His peoplewith St. Paul no longer the Jewish nation, but individuals who, because of their relations with the Deliverer, have been wrought into a unity on earth and await an even nobler unity in heaveo.

(3) In post-Pauline Apostolic thought the Messianic concept is still central, but in its development we notice two tendencies. (a) There is the tendency, already present in primitive and Pauline Christianity, to find confirmation of the Messianic dignity of Jesus in the OT prophecies. With their recollections of the historical career of Jesus, the Apostles saw in the OT Messianic meanings which had eluded the Pharisees. They did not, it is true, disregard those passages which set forth the royal dignity of the Christ, but they were far more concerned in arguing for the Messianic significance of those passages which foretold the victory of Gods Anointed over death and the vicarious nature of His sufferings. Thus such passages as Psa 110:1-7 and Is 53 were seen to supplement each other in teaching the consonance of the Messianic dignity with suffering.

As Christian thought developed, this tendency to find Messianic references in the OT set practically no limits to itself. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the essential features of the entire Hebrew cult are viewed as foreshadowings of the career and the glories of the Christ. In the prophetic fulfilments noticed by the writer of the First Gospel, the prophecy of the birth of a son to the virgin (Isa 7:14) and the recall of Israel from Egypt (Hos 11:1) are also seen to be prophecies of the experience of Jesus (Mat 1:23; Mat 2:15). The same was true of more incidental matters, such as His name and His description as the Nazarene (Mat 2:23), while the experience of Jonah was regarded as a type of His burial and resurrection (Mat 12:40). Particularly was it seen that His vicarious character was foretold. In the Book of Revelation the Messianic future of Jesus and His Kingdom was still further elaborated by the copious utilization of apocalyptic thought. In the Apostolic Fathers the use of the OT as the basis for Christological thought involved an arbitrary exegesis which extended far beyond the limits of proper methodology; and events in the life of Jesus were found predicted in sayings and events quite unused by the Apostles.

(b) The second tendency in post-Pauline Christological interpretation is to re-state the Messianic significance of Jesus in terms of current philosophy. The most pronounced illustration of this is to be seen in the Johannine literature. Here the Christ is identified with the Logos, and His entire career is viewed as an illustration of the great conflict between light and darkness, life and death, the powers of Satan and the powers of God. In the Epistle to the Hebrews a tendency is to be seen towards the metaphysical conception of Jesus as the Son of Goda tendency which was to find its outcome in the theological formulations of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

But in both these tendencies the fundamental conception of Messiahship is maintained. God is in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing, their trespasses to those who accept Him, and already engaged in the work of their salvation. The elemental conception of the Messiah thus passed over into Christian thought. It carried with it, it is true, the figures of that interpretation which was born of the development of the Hebrew and Jewish thought. But these figures are not the essential element of Christianity. That is rather the message which the prophets themselves had applied exclusively to Israel, viz. that God would save His people through some personality in whom His spirit was particularly resident to empower Him for the work of salvation. Thus in the history of Jesus and in Christian experience this Divine salvation is set forth, not as ab extra, but as the result of the in-working of God in human lives, to which He comes through the mediation of faith in Jesus, His supreme revelation. To formulate and vindicate the message of this salvation is to exhibit the content of the gospel.

Shailer Mathews.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Messiah

The Anointed. This term is peculiarly, and by way of eminency, applied to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mashah or Meshiah of the Father, full of grace and truth Hence, with pointed and personal distinction, God the Father is represented in the Scripture as saying: “I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people; I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him.” (Psa 89:19-20) And no less God the Holy Ghost, in his divine office and character, in the economy of human redemption, is represented as ordaining and anointing Christ, as Christ, to the great work of salvation; for both Christ and his church came under this ‘Cilia-act of God the Spirit. For as Christ could not have been Christ without the unction of the Holy Ghost, so neither could the church have been the church, the spouse of Christ, the Lamb’s wife, without sovereign agency. And it is very blessed to behold in the Scriptures of truth the testimony of JEHOVAH to this grand doctrine of Christ the Messiah, as the Christ of God. Hence we find Christ speaking as Glory-man Mediator.”Come (Isa 48:16-17) ye near unto me, hear ye this: I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was, thee am I; and now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me. Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. I am the Lord thy God, which teacheth thee, to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.” In all these views, therefore, of Christ as Christ, we discover the work of the Father and the Holy Ghost. For one of the names of the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament is, the Messiah, that is the Anointed, as well as in the New; and as it is expressly said concerning him in the New Testament, when he appeared in the substance of our flesh, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth: with the Holy Ghost, Act 10:38 – so evidently was he called the Messiah, and consequently answer that name was, and is, from everlasting, the anointed of God by the Holy Ghost, before he openly manifested himself under that character in our flesh. Such then was and is the glorious Messiah, the Christ of God; and such we accept and receive him to his body the church.

I might detain the reader were it not for enlarging this work beyond the limits I must observe, with offering several most interesting reflections, which arise out of this view of our now risen and exalted Messiah as the Messiah, the Christ of God; but for brevity’s sake, I shall only beg to offer this one observation, namely, how sweet and strengthening a testimony such views of Jesus give to the faith of the church, when receiving Christ as the anointed of the Father and the Holy Ghost, Recollect in that blessed portion, just now quoted what the Mediator saith as Mediator-“Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me.” Was there ever anything more full in point and in proof of this blessed doctrine concerning the Messiah? What could the Lord Jesus by the spirit of prophecy mean, but that he would have his church, when receiving him, read his credentials, and mark well his high warrant and authority. There should be no shyness, but his people should come near unto him; for this was not a new thing, a new doctrine, it was from the beginning, yea, before all worlds Jesus was spoken of, in his mediatorial character, as set up from everlasting; neither was it whispered in secret, but openly, in the first revelations, the man-nature of the seed of the woman, the anointed of the Father and the Holy Ghost, was all along declared, that it was, and that I am, saith Christ. Blessed view of Jesus this, and precious to the strengthening of the faith of God’s people. Methinks I would cherish it with all the warmth of affection; I would carry it about with me wherever l go: and beg that God the Holy Ghost would cause it to be my complete unceasing encouragement in all approaches to the throne of grace, and in all ordinances of worship. This is the warrant of a poor sinner’s hope and confidence. Christ, as Christ, as the anointed, as the Messiah, is the sure appointment and ordinance of heaven. In him we draw nigh by divine authority. Christ is not only suited to carry on all the purposes of our great High Priest, but acts in that blessed office by divine authority, and by the validity of an oath. “The Lord sware and will not repent, thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec.” (Psa 110:4) Hence, therefore, the Lord Jesus, in effect, speaks to every poor sinner as he did to the woman of Samaria-“If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is, and by what authority he saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.” (Joh 4:10) Such is the blessedness of receiving Christ, and living upon Christ, as the Christ, the Messiah, of God.

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Messiah

me-sa (, mashah; Aramaic , meshha’; Septuagint , Christos, anointed; New Testament Christ):

1.Meaning and Use of the Term

2.The Messianic Hope

I.THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

1.The Messianic King

(1)Isaiah

(2)Jeremiah and Ezekiel

(3)Later Prophets

2.Prophetic and Priestly Relations

3.Servant of Yahweh

4.Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic

II.THE MESSIAH IN THE PRE-CHRISTIAN AGE

1.Post-prophetic Age

2.Maccabean Times

3.Apocalyptic Literature

III.THE MESSIAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

1.The Jewish Conception

(1)The Messiah as King

(2)His Prophetic Character

(3)The Title Son of God

2.Attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship

3.The Christian Transformation

4.New Elements Added

(1)Future Manifestation

(2)Divine Personality

(3)Heavenly Priesthood

5.Fulfillment in Jesus

LITERATURE

1. Meaning and Use of the Term:

Messias (Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25 the King James Version) is a transcription of , Messas, the Greek representation of the Aramaic. Messiah is thus a modification of the Greek form of the word, according to the Hebrew.

The term is used in the Old Testament of kings and priests, who were consecrated to office by the ceremony of anointing. It is applied to the priest only as an adjective – the anointed priest (Lev 4:3, Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16; Lev 6:22 (Hebrew 15)). Its substantive use is restricted to the king; he only is called the Lord’s anointed, e.g. Saul (1Sa 24:6, 1Sa 24:10 (Hebrew 7, 11), etc.); David (2Sa 19:21 (Hebrew 22); 2Sa 23:1, the anointed of the God of Jacob); Zedekiah (Lam 4:20). Similarly in the Psalms the king is designated mine, thine, his anointed. Thus also even Cyrus (Isa 45:1), as being chosen and commissioned by Yahweh to carry out His purpose with Israel. Some think the singular mine anointed in Hab 3:13 denotes the whole people; but the Hebrew text is somewhat obscure, and the reference may be to the king. The plural of the substantive is used of the patriarchs, who are called mine anointed ones (Psa 105:15; 1Ch 16:22), as being Yahweh’s chosen, consecrated servants, whose persons were inviolable.

It is to be noted that Messiah as a special title is never applied in the Old Testament to the unique king of the future, unless perhaps in Dan 9:25 f (mashah naghdh, Messiah-Prince), a difficult passage, the interpretation of which is very uncertain. It was the later Jews of the post-prophetic period who, guided by a true instinct, first used the term in a technical sense.

2. The Messianic Hope:

The Messiah is the instrument by whom God’s kingdom is to be established in Israel and in the world. The hope of a personal deliverer is thus inseparable from the wider hope that runs through the Old Testament. The Jews were a nation who lived in the future. In this respect they stand alone among the peoples of antiquity. No nation ever cherished such strong expectations of a good time coming, or clung more tenaciously amid defeat and disaster to the certainty of final triumph over all enemies and of entrance upon a state of perfect peace and happiness. The basis of this larger hope is Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God (Exo 6:7). On the ground of this promise the prophets, while declaring God’s wrath against His people on account of their sin, looked beyond the Divine chastisements to the final era of perfect salvation and blessedness, which would be ushered in when the nation had returned to Yahweh.

The term Messianic is used in a double sense to describe the larger hope of a glorious future for the nation, as well as the narrower one of a personal Messiah who is to be the prominent figure in the perfected kingdom. It may be remarked that many writers, both prophetic and apocalyptic, who picture the final consummation, make no allusion whatever to a coming deliverer.

This article will treat of the personal Messianic hope as it is found in the Old Testament, in the pre-Christian age, and in the New Testament.

I. The Messiah in the Old Testament.

1. The Messianic King:

The chief element in the conception of the Messiah in the Old Testament is that of the king. Through him as head of the nation Yahweh could most readily work out His saving purposes. But the kingdom of Israel was a theocracy. In earlier times Moses, Joshua, and the judges, who were raised up by Yahweh to guide His people at different crises in their history, did not claim to exercise authority apart from their Divine commission. Nor was the relation of Yahweh to the nation as its real ruler in any way modified by the institution of the monarchy. It was by His Spirit that the king was qualified for the righteous government of the people, and by His power that he would become victorious over all enemies. The passage on which the idea of the Messianic king who would rule in righteousness and attain universal dominion was founded is Nathan’s oracle to David in 2Sa 7:11 ff. In contrast to Saul, from whom the kingdom had passed away, David would never want a descendant to sit on the throne of Israel. How strong an impression this promise of the perpetuity of his royal house had made on David is seen in his last words (2 Sam 23); and to this everlasting covenant, and sure, the spiritual minds in Israel reverted in all after ages.

(1) Isaiah.

Isaiah is the first of the prophets to refer to an extraordinary king of the future. Amos (Amo 9:11) foretold the time when the shattered fortunes of Judah would be restored, while Hosea (Hos 3:5) looked forward to the reunion of the two kingdoms under David’s line. But it is not till we reach the Assyrian age, when the personality of the king is brought into prominence against the great world-power, that we meet with any mention of a unique personal ruler who would bring special glory to David’s house.

The kings of Syria and Israel having entered into a league to dethrone Ahaz and supplant him by an obscure adventurer, Isa 7:10-17 announces to the king of Judah that while, by the help of Assyria, he would survive the attack of the confederate kings, Yahweh would, for his disobedience, bring devastation upon his own land through the instrumentality of his ally. But the prophet’s lofty vision, though limited as in the case of other seers to the horizon of his own time, reaches beyond Judah’s distress to Judah’s deliverance. To the spiritual mind of Isaiah the revelation is made of a true king, Immanuel, God-with-us, who would arise out of the house of David, now so unworthily represented by the profligate Ahaz. While the passage is one of the hardest to interpret in all the Old Testament, perhaps too much has been made by some scholars of the difficulty connected with the word almah, virgin. It is the mysterious personality of the child to which prominence is given in the prophecy. The significance of the name and the pledge of victory it implies, the reference to Immanuel as ruler of the land in Isa 8:8 (if the present rendering be correct), as well as the parallelism of the line of thought in the prophecy with that of Isa 9, would seem to point to the identity of Immanuel with the Prince of the four names, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6 the Revised Version margin). These Divine titles do not necessarily imply that in the mind of the prophet the Messianic king is God in the metaphysical sense – the essence of the Divine nature is not a dogmatic conception in the Old Testament – but only that Yahweh is present in Him in perfect wisdom and power, so that He exercises over His people forever a fatherly and peaceful rule. In confirmation of this interpretation reference may be made to the last of the great trilogy of Isaianic prophecies concerning the Messiah of the house of David (Isa 11:2), where the attributes with which He is endowed by the Spirit are those which qualify for the perfect discharge of royal functions in the kingdom of God. See IMMANUEL.

A similar description of the Messianic king is given by Isaiah’s younger contemporary Micah (Mic 5:2 ff), who emphasizes the humble origin of the extraordinary ruler of the future, who shall spring from the Davidic house, while his reference to her who is to bear him confirms the interpretation which regards the virgin in Isaiah as the mother of the Messiah.

(2) Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

After the time of Isaiah and Micah the throne of David lost much of its power and influence, and the figure of the ideal king is never again portrayed with the same definiteness and color. Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk make no reference to him at all. By the great prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, however, the hope of a Davidic ruler is kept before the people. While there are passages in both of these writers which refer to a succession of pious rulers, this fact should not dominate our interpretation of other utterances of theirs which seem to point to a particular individual. By Jeremiah the Messiah is called the righteous Branch who is to be raised unto David and be called Yahweh (is) our righteousness, that is, Yahweh as the one making righteous dwells in him (Jer 23:5 f; compare Jer 30:9). In Ezekiel he is alluded to as the coming one whose right it is (Eze 21:27), and as Yahweh’s servant David who shall be prince or king forever over a reunited people (Eze 34:23 f; Eze 37:24). It is difficult to resist the impression which the language of Ezekiel makes that it is the ideal Messianic ruler who is here predicted, notwithstanding the fact that afterward, in the prophet’s vision of the ideal theocracy, not only does the prince play a subordinate part, but provision is made in the constitution for a possible abuse of his authority.

(3) Later Prophets.

After Ezekiel’s time, during the remaining years of the exile, the hope of a preeminent king of David’s house naturally disappears. But it is resuscitated at the restoration when Zerubbabel, a prince of the house of David and the civil head of the restored community, is made by Yahweh of hosts His signet-ring, inseparable from Himself and the symbol of His authority (Hag 2:23). In the new theocracy, however the figure of the Messianic ruler falls into the background before that of the high priest, who is regarded as the sign of the coming Branch (Zec 3:8). Still we have the unique prophecy of the author Of Zec 9:9, who pictures the Messiah as coming not on a splendid charger like a warrior king, but upon the foal of an ass, righteous and victorious, yet lowly and peaceful, strong by the power of God to help and save. There is no mention of the Messianic king in Joel or Malachi; but references in the later, as in the earlier, Psalms to events in the lives of the kings or the history of the kingdom prove that the promise made to David was not forgotten, and point to one who would fulfill it in all its grandeur.

2. Prophetic and Priestly Relations:

The Messianic king is the central figure in the consummation of the kingdom. It is a royal son of David, not a prophet like unto Moses, or a priest of Aaron’s line, whose personal features are portrayed in the picture of the future. The promise in Deu 18:15-20, as the context shows, refers to a succession of true prophets as opposed to the diviners of heathen nations. Though Moses passed away there would always be a prophet raised up by Yahweh to reveal His will to the people, so that they would never need to have recourse to heathen soothsayers. Yet while the prophet is not an ideal figure, being already fully inspired by the Spirit, prophetic functions are to this extent associated with the kingship, that the Messiah is qualified by the Spirit for the discharge of the duties of His royal office and makes known the will of God by His righteous decisions (Isa 11:2-5).

It is more difficult to define the relationship of the priesthood to the kingship in the final era. They are brought into connection by Jeremiah (Jer 30:9, Jer 30:21) who represents the new David as possessing the priestly right of immediate access to Yahweh, while the Levitical priesthood, equally with the Davidic kingship, is assured of perpetuity on the ground of the covenant (Jer 33:18 ff). But after the restoration, when prominence is given to the high priest in the reconstitution of the kingdom, Joshua becomes the type of the coming Branch of the Davidic house (Zec 3:8), and, according to the usual interpretation, receives the crown – a symbol of the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the Messiah (Zec 6:11 ff). Many scholars, however, holding that the words and the counsel of peace shall be between them both can only refer to two persons, would substitute Zerubbabel for Joshua in Zec 6:11, and read in Zec 6:13, there shall be a priest upon his right hand (compare the Revised Version (British and American), Septuagint (Septuagint). The prophet’s meaning would then be that the Messianic high priest would sit beside the Messianic king in the perfected kingdom, both working together as Zerubbabel and Joshua were then doing. There is no doubt, however, that the Messiah is both king and priest in Psa 110:1-7.

3. Servant of Yahweh:

The bitter experiences of the nation during the exile originated a new conception, Messianic in the deepest sense, the Servant of Yahweh (Isa 40 – 66; chiefly Isa 41:8; Isa 42:1-7, Isa 42:19 f; Isa 43:8, Isa 43:10; Isa 44:1 f, 21; Isa 49:3-6; Isa 50:4-9; Isa 52:13 – 53). As to whom the prophet refers in his splendid delineation of this mysterious being, scholars are hopelessly divided. The personification theory – that the Servant represents the ideal Israel, Israel as God meant it to be, as fulfilling its true vocation in the salvation of the world – is held by those who plead for a consistent use of the phrase throughout the prophecy. They regard it as inconceivable that the same title should be applied by the same prophet to two distinct subjects. Others admit that the chief difficulty in the way of this theory is to conceive it, but they maintain that it best explains the use of the title in the chief passages where it occurs. The other theory is that there is an expansion and contraction of the idea in the mind of the prophet. In some passages the title is used to denote the whole nation; in others it is limited to the pious kernel; and at last the conception culminates in an individual, the ideal yet real Israelite of the future, who shall fulfill the mission in which the nation failed.

What really divides expositors is the interpretation of Isa 52:13 – 53. The question is not whether this passage was fulfilled in Jesus Christ – on this all Christian expositors are agreed – but whether the Servant is in the mind of the prophet merely the personification of the godly portion of the nation, or a person yet to come.

May not the unity argument be pressed too hard? If the Messiah came to be conceived of as a specific king while the original promise spoke of a dynasty, is it so inconceivable that the title Servant of Yahweh should be used in an individual as well as in a collective sense? It is worthy of note, too, that not only in some parts of this prophecy, but all through it, the individuality of the sufferer is made prominent; the collective idea entirely disappears. The contrast is not between a faithful portion and the general body of the people, but between the Servant and every single member of the nation. Moreover, whatever objections may be urged against the individual interpretation, this view best explains the doctrine of substitution that runs through the whole passage. Israel was Yahweh’s elect people, His messenger of salvation to the Gentiles, and its faithful remnant suffered for the sins of the mass; even Immanuel shared in the sorrows of His people. But here the Servant makes atonement for the sins of individual Israelites; by his death they are justified and by his stripes they are healed. To this great spiritual conception only the prophet of the exile attains.

It may be added that in the Suffering Servant, who offers the sacrifice of himself as an expiation for the sins of the people, prophetic activity and kingly honor are associated with the priestly function. After he has been raised from the dead he becomes the great spiritual teacher of the world – by his knowledge of God and salvation which he communicates to others he makes many righteous (Isa 53:11; compare Isa 42:1 ff; Isa 49:2; Isa 50:4); and as a reward for his sufferings he attains to a position of the highest royal splendor (Isa 52:15; Isa 53:12; compare Isa 49:7). See SERVANT OF JEHOVAH.

4. Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic:

In the Book of Daniel, written to encourage the Jewish people to steadfastness during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Messianic hope of the prophets assumes a new form. Here the apocalyptic idea of the Messiah appears for the first time in Jewish literature. The coming ruler is represented, not as a descendant of the house of David, but as a person in human form and of super-human character, through whom God is to establish His sovereignty upon the earth. In the prophet’s vision (Dan 7:13 f) one like unto a son of man, kebhar ‘enash (not, as in the King James Version, like the son of man), comes with the clouds of heaven, and is brought before the ancient of days, and receives an imperishable kingdom, that all peoples should serve him.

Scholars are by no means agreed in their interpretation of the prophecy. In support of the view that the one like unto a son of man is a symbol for the ideal Israel, appeal is made to the interpretation given of the vision in Dan 7:18, Dan 7:22, Dan 7:27, according to which dominion is given to the saints of the Most High. Further, as the four heathen kingdoms are represented by the brute creation, it would be natural for the higher power, which is to take their place, to be symbolized by the human form.

But strong reasons may be urged, on the other hand, for the personal Messianic interpretation of the passage. A distinction seems to be made between one like unto a son of man and the saints of the Most High in Dan 7:21, the saints being there represented as the object of persecution from the little horn. The scene of the judgment is earth, where the saints already are, and to which the ancient of days and the one like unto a son of man descend (Dan 7:22, Dan 7:13). And it is in accordance with the interpretation given of the vision in Dan 7:17, where reference is made to the four kings of the bestial kingdoms, that the kingdom of the saints, which is to be established in their place, should also be represented by a royal head.

It may be noted that a new idea is suggested by this passage, the pre-existence of the Messiah before His manifestation.

II. The Messiah in the Pre-Christian Age.

1. Post-Prophetic Age:

After prophetic inspiration ceased, there was little in the teaching of the scribes, or in the reconstitution of the kingdom under the rule of the high priests, to quicken the ancient hope of the nation. It would appear from the Apocrypha that while the elements of the general expectation were still cherished, the specific hope of a preeminent king of David’s line had grown very dim in the consciousness of the people. In Ecclesiasticus (47:11) mention is made of a covenant of kings and a throne of glory in Israel which the Lord gave unto David; yet even this allusion to the everlasting duration of the Davidic dynasty is more of the nature of a historical statement than the expression of a confident hope.

2. Maccabean Times:

In the earlier stages of the Maccabean uprising, when the struggle was for religious freedom, the people looked for help to God alone, and would probably have been content to acknowledge the political supremacy of Syria after liberty had been granted them in 162 BC to worship God according to their own law and ceremonial. But the successful effort of the Maccabean leaders in achieving political independence, while it satisfied the aspirations of the people generally until there should arise a faithful prophet (1 Macc 14:41; compare 2:57), brought religious and national ideals into conflict. The Pious (hasdhm), under the new name of Pharisees, now became more than ever devoted to the Law, and repudiated the claim of a Maccabean to be high priest and his subsequent assumption of the royal title, while the Maccabees with their political ambitions took the side of the aristocracy and alienated the people. The national spirit, however, had been stirred into fresh life. Nor did the hope thus quickened lose any of its vitality when, amid the strife of factions and the quarrels of the ruling family, Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 BC. The fall of the Hasmonean house, even more than its ascendancy, led the nation to set its hope more firmly on God and to look for a deliverer from the house of David.

3. Apocalyptic Literature:

The national sentiment evoked by the Maccabees finds expression in the Apocalyptic literature of the century and a half before Christ.

In the oldest parts of the Sibylline Oracles (3:652-56) there occurs a brief prediction of a king whom God shall send from the sun, who shall cause the whole earth to cease from wicked war, killing some and exacting faithful oaths from others. And this he will do, not according to his own counsel, but in obedience to the beneficent decrees of God. And in a later part of the same book (3:49) there is an allusion to a pure king who will wield the scepter over the whole earth forever. It may be the Messiah also who is represented in the earlier part of the Book of Enoch (90:37 f) as a glorified man under the symbol of a white bull with great horns, which is feared and worshipped by all the other animals (the rest of the religious community) and into whose likeness they are transformed.

But it is in the Psalms of Solomon, which were composed in the Pompeian period and reveal their Pharisaic origin by representing the Hasmoneans as a race of usurpers, that we have depicted in clear outline and glowing colors the portrait of the Davidic king (Ps Sol 17:18). The author looks for a personal Messiah who, as son of David and king of Israel, will purge Jerusalem of sinners, and gather together a holy people who will all be the sons of their God. He shall not conquer with earthly weapons, for the Lord Himself is his King; he shall smite the earth with the breath of his mouth; and the heathen of their own accord shall come to see his glory, bringing the wearied children of Israel as gifts. His throne shall be established in wisdom and justice, while he himself shall be pure from sin and made strong in the Holy Spirit.

It is evident that in these descriptions of the coming one we have something more than a mere revival of the ancient hope of a preeminent king of David’s house. The repeated disasters that overtook the Jews led to the transference of the national hope to a future world, and consequently to the transformation of the Messiah from a mere earthly king into a being with supernatural attributes. That this supernatural apocalyptic hope, which was at least coming to be cherished, exercised an influence on the national hope is seen in the Psalter of Solomon, where emphasis is laid on the striking individuality of this Davidic king, the moral grandeur of his person, and the Divine character of his rule.

We meet with the apocalyptic conception of the Messiah in the Similitudes of Enoch (chapters 37 – 71) and the later apocalypses. Reference may be made at this point to the Similitudes on account of their unique expression of Messianic doctrine, although their pre-Christian date, which Charles puts not later than 64 BC, is much disputed. The Messiah who is called the Anointed, the Elect one the Righteous one is represented, though in some sense man, as belonging to the heavenly world. His pre-existence is affirmed. He is the supernatural Son of Man, who will come forth from His concealment to sit as Judge of all on the throne of His glory, and dwell on a transformed earth with the righteous forever. See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE (JEWISH); ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

III. The Messiah in the New Testament.

To the prevalence of the Messianic hope among the Jews in the time of Christ the Gospel records bear ample testimony. We see from the question of the Baptist that the coming one was expected (Mat 11:3 and parallel), while the people wondered whether John himself were the Christ (Luk 3:15).

1. The Jewish Conception:

(1) The Messiah as King.

In the popular conception the Messiah was chiefly the royal son of David who would bring victory and prosperity to the Jewish nation and set up His throne in Jerusalem. In this capacity the multitude hailed Jesus on His entry into the capital (Mat 21:9 and parallel); to the Pharisees also the Messiah was the son of David (Mat 22:42). It would seem that apocalyptic elements mingled with the national expectation, for it was supposed that the Messiah would come forth suddenly from concealment and attest Himself by miracles (Joh 7:27, Joh 7:31).

But there were spiritual minds who interpreted the nation’s hope, not in any conventional sense, but according to their own devout aspirations. Looking for the consolation of Israel, the redemption of Jerusalem, they seized upon the spiritual features of the Messianic king and recognized in Jesus the promised Saviour who would deliver the nation from its sin (Luk 2:25, Luk 2:30, Luk 2:38; compare Luk 1:68-79).

(2) His Prophetic Character.

From the statements in the Gospels regarding the expectation of a prophet it is difficult to determine whether the prophetic function was regarded as belonging to the Messiah. We learn not only that one of the old prophets was expected to reappear (Mat 14:2; Mat 16:14 and parallel), but also that a preeminent prophet was looked for, distinct from the Messiah (Joh 1:21, Joh 1:25; Joh 7:40 f). But the two conceptions of prophet and king seem to be identified in Joh 6:14 f, where we are told that the multitude, after recognizing in Jesus the expected prophet, wished to take Him by force and make Him a king. It would appear that while the masses were looking forward to a temporal king, the expectations of some were molded by the image and promise of Moses. And to the woman of Samaria, as to her people, the Messiah was simply a prophet, who would bring the full light of Divine knowledge into the world (Joh 4:25). On the other hand, from Philip’s description of Jesus we would naturally infer that he saw in Him whom he had found the union of a prophet like unto Moses and the Messianic king of the prophetical books (Joh 1:45).

(3) The Title Son of God.

It cannot be doubted that the Son of God was used as a Messianic title by the Jews in the time of our Lord. The high priest in presence of the Sanhedrin recognized it as such (Mat 26:63). It was applied also in its official sense to Jesus by His disciples: John the Baptist (Joh 1:34), Nathaniel (Joh 1:49), Mary (Joh 11:27), Peter (Mat 16:16, though not in parallel). This Messianic use was based on Psa 2:7; compare 2Sa 7:14. The title as given to Jesus by Peter in his confession, the Son of the living God, is suggestive of something higher than a mere official dignity, although its full significance in the unique sense in which Jesus claimed it could scarcely have been apprehended by the disciples till after His resurrection.

2. Attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship:

(1) His Claim.

The claim of Jesus to be the Messiah is written on the face of the evangelic history. But while He accepted the title, He stripped it of its political and national significance and filled it with an ethical and universal content. The Jewish expectation of a great king who would restore the throne of David and free the nation from a foreign yoke was interpreted by Jesus as of one who would deliver God’s people from spiritual foes and found a universal kingdom of love and peace.

(2) His Delay in Making It.

To prepare the Jewish mind for His transformation of the national hope Jesus delayed putting forth His claim before the multitude till His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which, be it noted, He made in such a way as to justify His interpretation of the Messiah of the prophets, while He delayed emphasizing it to His disciples till the memorable scene at Caesarea Philippi when He drew forth Peter’s confession.

(3) The Son of Man.

But he sought chiefly to secure the acceptance of Himself in all His lowliness as the true Messianic king by His later use of His self-designation as the Son of Man. While Son of Man in Aramaic, bar nasha’, may mean simply man, an examination of the chief passages in which the title occurs shows that Jesus applied it to Himself in a unique sense. That He had the passage in Daniel in His mind is evident from the phrases He employs in describing His future coming (Mar 8:38; Mar 13:26 and parallel; Mar 14:62 and parallel). By this apocalyptic use of the title He put forward much more clearly His claim to be the Messiah of national expectation who would come in heavenly glory. But He used the title also to announce the tragic destiny that awaited Him (Mar 8:31). This He could do without any contradiction, as He regarded His death as the beginning of His Messianic reign. And those passages in which He refers to the Son of Man giving His life a ransom for many (Mat 20:28 and parallel) and going as it is written of him (Mat 26:24 and parallel), as well as Luk 22:37, indicate that He interpreted Isa 53:1-12 of Himself in His Messianic character. By His death He would complete His Messianic work and inaugurate the kingdom of God. Thus, by the help of the title Son of Man Jesus sought, toward the close of His ministry, to explain the seeming contradiction between His earthly life and the glory of His Messianic kingship.

It may be added that our Lord’s use of the phrase implies what the Gospels suggest (Joh 12:34), that the Son of Man, notwithstanding the references in Daniel and the Similitudes of Enoch (if the pre-Christian date be accepted), was not regarded by the Jews generally as a Messianic title. For He could not then have applied it, as He does, to Himself before Peter’s confession, while maintaining His reserve in regard to His claims to be the Messiah. Many scholars, however, hold that the Son of Man was already a Messianic title before our Lord employed it in His conversation with the disciples at Caesarea Philippi, and regard the earlier passages in which it occurs as inserted out of chronological order, or the presence of the title in them either as a late insertion, or as due to the ambiguity of the Aramaic. See SON OF MAN.

3. The Christian Transformation:

The thought of a suffering Messiah who would atone for sin was alien to the Jewish mind. This is evident from the conduct, not only of the opponents, but of the followers of Jesus (Mat 16:22; Mat 17:23). While His disciples believed Him to be the Messiah, they could not understand His allusions to His sufferings, and regarded His death as the extinction of all their hopes (Luk 18:34; Luk 24:21). But after His resurrection and ascension they were led, by the impression His personality and teaching had made upon them, to see how entirely they had misconceived His Messiahship and the nature and extent of His Messianic kingdom (Luk 24:31; Act 2:36, Act 2:38 f). They were confirmed, too, in their spiritual conceptions when they searched into the ancient prophecies in the light of the cross. In the mysterious form of the Suffering Servant they beheld the Messianic king on His way to His heavenly throne, conquering by the power of His atoning sacrifice and bestowing all spiritual blessings (Act 3:13, Act 3:18-21, Act 3:26; Act 4:27, Act 4:30; Act 8:35; Act 10:36-43).

4. New Elements Added:

(1) Future Manifestation.

New features were now added to the Messiah in accordance with Jesus’ own teaching. He had ascended to His Father and become the heavenly king. But all things were not yet put under Him. It was therefore seen that the full manifestation of His Messiahship was reserved for the future, that He would return in glory to fulfill His Messianic office and complete His Messianic reign.

(2) Divine Personality.

Higher views of His personality were now entertained. He is declared to be the Son of God, not in any official, but in a unique sense, as coequal with the Father (Joh 1:1; Rom 1:4, Rom 1:7; 1Co 1:3, etc.). His pre-existence is affirmed (Joh 1:1; 2Co 8:9); and when He comes again in his Messianic glory, He will exercise the Divine function of Universal Judge (Act 10:42; Act 17:30 f, etc.).

(3) Heavenly Priesthood.

The Christian conception of the Messianic king who had entered into His glory through suffering and death carried with it the doctrine of the Messianic priesthood. But it took some time for early Christian thought to advance from the new discovery of the combination of humiliation and glory in the Messiah to concentrate upon His heavenly life. While the preaching of the first Christians was directed to show from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ and necessarily involved the ascription to Him of many functions characteristic of the true priest, it was reserved for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews to set forth this aspect of His work with separate distinctness and to apply to Him the title of our great high priest (Heb 4:14). As the high priest on the Day of Atonement not only sprinkled the blood upon the altar, but offered the sacrifice, so it was now seen that by passing into the heavens and presenting to God the offering He had made of Himself on earth, Jesus had fulfilled the high-priestly office.

5. Fulfillment in Jesus:

Thus the ideal of the Hebrew prophets and poets is amply fulfilled in the person, teaching and work of Jesus of Nazareth. Apologists may often err in supporting the argument from prophecy by an extravagant symbolism and a false exegesis; but they are right in the contention that the essential elements in the Old Testament conception – the Messianic king who stands in a unique relation to Yahweh as His Son, and who will exercise universal dominion; the supreme prophet who will never be superseded; the priest forever – are gathered up and transformed by Jesus in a way the ancient seers never dreamed of. As the last and greatest prophet, the suffering Son of Man, and the sinless Saviour of the world, He meets humanity’s deepest longings for Divine knowledge, human sympathy, and spiritual deliverance; and as the unique Son of God, who came to reveal the Father, He rules over the hearts of men by the might of eternal love. No wonder that the New Testament writers, like Jesus Himself, saw references to the Messiah in Old Testament passages which would not be conceded by a historical interpretation. While recognizing the place of the old covenant in the history of salvation, they sought to discover in the light of the fulfillment in Jesus the meaning of the Old Testament which the Spirit of God intended to convey, the Divine, saving thoughts which constitute its essence. And to us, as to the early Christians, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10). To Him, hidden in the bosom of the ages, all the scattered rays of prophecy pointed; and from Him, in His revealed and risen splendor, shine forth upon the world the light and power of God’s love and truth. And through the history and experience of His people He is bringing to larger realization the glory and passion of Israel’s Messianic hope.

Literature.

Drummond, The Jewish Messiah; Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah; Riehm, Messianic Prophecy; Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies; von Orelli, Old Testament Prophecy; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy; Schultz, Old Testament Theology; Schurer, HJP, div II, volume II, section 29, The Messianic Hope; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, chapter ii, The Jewish Doctrine of Messiah; Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, book II, chapter v, What Messiah Did the Jews Expect?; E. F. Scott, The Kingdom and the Messiah; Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels; articles in DB, HDB, EB, DCG. For further list see Riehm and Schurer. See also APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Messiah

Messiah (anointed, which is also the signification of Christ). In order to have an accurate idea of the Scriptural application of the term, we must consider the custom of anointing which obtained among the Jews. That which was specifically set apart for God’s service was anointed, whether persons or things [ANOINTING]. Thus we read that Jacob poured oil upon the pillar (Gen 28:18; Gen 28:22). The tabernacle also and its utensils were anointed (Lev 8:10), being thereby appropriated to God’s service. But this ceremony had, moreover, relation to persons. Thus priests, as Aaron and his sons, were anointed, that they might minister unto God (Exo 40:13; Exo 40:15). Kings were anointed. Hence it is that a king is designated the Lord’s anointed. Saul and David were, according to the divine appointment, anointed by Samuel (1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 15:1; 1Sa 16:3; 1Sa 16:13). Zadok anointed Solomon, that there might be no dispute who should succeed David (1Ki 1:39). We cannot speak with confidence as to whether the prophets were actually anointed with the material oil. We have neither an express law nor practice to this effect on record. True it is that Elijah is commanded to anoint Elisha to be prophet in his room (1Ki 19:16); but no more may be meant by this expression than that he should constitute him his successor in the prophetic office; for all that he did, in executing his divine commission, was to cast his own garment upon Elisha (1Ki 19:19); upon which he arose and ministered unto him (1Ki 19:21). For kings and priests the precept and practice are unquestionable.

But the name Messiah is, par excellence, applied to the Redeemer of man in the Old Testament (Dan 9:25-26; Psa 2:2). The words of Hannah, the mother of Samuel, at the close of her divine song, are very remarkable (1Sa 2:10): ‘The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken in pieces; out of heaven shall He thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his Messiah.’ The Hebrews as yet had no king; hence the passage may be taken as a striking prophecy of the promised deliverer. In various parts of the New Testament is this epithet applied to Jesus. St. Peter (Act 10:36; Act 10:38) informs Cornelius the centurion that God had anointed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ, and our Lord himself acknowledges to the woman of Samaria that he is the expected Messiah (Joh 4:25). This term, however, as applied to Jesus, is less a name than the expression of his office.

Thus the Jews had in type, under the Mosaic dispensation, what we have in substance under the Christian system. The prophets, priests, and kings of the former economy were types of Him who sustains these offices as the head of his mystical body, the Church. As the priests and kings of old were set apart for their offices and dignities by a certain form prescribed in the law of Moses, so was the blessed Savior by a better anointing (of which the former was but a shadow), even by the Holy Ghost. Thus the apostle tells us that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power (Act 10:38). He was anointed:

First, at his conception: the angel tells Mary, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God’ (Luk 1:35).

Second, at his baptism at the river Jordan (Mat 3:13; Mar 1:9-12). St. Luke, moreover, records’ (Luk 4:17; Luk 4:21) that our Lord being at Nazareth, he had given unto Him the book of the prophet Isaiah; and on reading from Isa 61:1, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,’ etc., He said to His hearers, ‘This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.’

But as the Jews will not acknowledge the right of either Jesus or His apostles to apply the prophetic passages which point to the Messiah to Himself, it now remains for us to show

First, That the promised Messiah has already come.

Second, That Jesus of Nazareth is unquestionably He.

To prove the first assertion, we shall confine our remarks to three prophecies. The first occurs in Gen 49:8; Gen 49:10, where Jacob is giving his sons his parting benediction, etc. When he comes to Judah he says: ‘The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.’ It is evident that by Judah is here meant, not the person but the tribe; for Judah died in Egypt, without any pre-eminence. By scepter and lawgiver are obviously intended the legislative and ruling power, which did, in the course of time, commence in David, and which, for centuries afterwards, was continued in his descendants. Whatever variety the form of governmentwhether monarchical or aristocraticalmight have assumed, the law and polity were still the same. This prediction all the ancient Jews referred to the Messiah. Now, that the scepter has departed from Judah, and, consequently, that the Messiah has come, we argue from the acknowledgments of some most learned Jews themselves. The precise time when all authority departed from Judah is disputed. Some date its departure from the time when Herod, an Idumean, set aside the Maccabees and Sanhedrim. Others think that it was when Vespasian and Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, that the Jews lost the last vestige of authority. If, therefore, the scepter has departed from Judahand who can question it who looks at the broken-up, scattered, and lost state of that tribe for ages?the conclusion is clearly irresistible, that the Messiah must have long since come!

The next proof that the Messiah has long since come, may be adduced from Dan 9:25-27. It is evident that the true Messiah is here spoken of. He is twice designated by the very name. And if we consider what the work is which he is here said to accomplish, we shall have a full confirmation of this. Who but He could finish and take away transgression, make reconciliation for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up the vision and prophecy, confirm the covenants with many, and cause to cease the sacrifice and oblation? If then it be the true Messiah who is described in the above prophecy, it remains for us to see how the time predicted for His coming has long since transpired. This is expressly said to be seventy weeks from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. That by seventy weeks are to be understood seventy sevens of years, a day being put for a year, and a week for seven years, making up 490 years, is allowed by Kimchi, Jarchi, Rabbi Saadias, and other learned Jews, as well as by many Christian commentators. This period of time then must have long since elapsed, whether we date its commencement from the first decree of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1-2), the second of Darius Hystaspes (Ezr 6:15), or that of Artaxerxes (Ezr 7:11).

We can only barely allude to one remarkable prediction more, which fixes the time of the Messiah’s advent, viz., Hag 2:7-9 : ‘I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of Hosts.’ The glory here spoken of must be in reference to the Messiah, or on some other account. It could not have been said that the second Temple exceeded in glory the former one; for in many particulars, according to the acknowledgment of the Jews themselves, it was far inferior both as a building (Ezr 3:3; Ezr 3:12), and in respect of the symbols and tokens of God’s special favor being wanting. The promised glory, therefore, must refer to the coming and presence of Him who was promised to the world before there was any nation of the Jews: and who is aptly called the ‘Desire of all nations.’ This view is amply confirmed by the prophet Malachi (Mal 3:1). Since then the very Temple into which the Savior was to enter, has for ages been destroyed, He must, if the integrity of this prophecy be preserved, have come. That there was, at the time of our Lord’s birth, a great expectation of the Messiah, both among Jews and Gentiles, may be seen from Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, as well as from the sacred Scriptures. We may just add, that as there was a general expectation of the Messiah at this time, so there were many impostors who drew after them many followers (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8, 6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 13, 3). Christ prophesies of such persons (Mat 24:24; Mat 24:29).

The limits of this article will admit of our only touching upon the proofs that Jesus of Nazareth, and none other, is the very Messiah who was to come. What was predicted of the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus. Was the Messiah to be of the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15), and this woman a virgin? (Isa 7:14). So we are told (Gal 4:4; Mat 1:18; Mat 1:22-23) that Jesus was made of a woman, and born of a virgin. Was it predicted that He (Messiah) should be of the tribe of Judah, of the family of Jesse, and of the house of David? (Mic 5:2; Gen 49:10; Isa 11:10; Jer 23:5). This was fulfilled in Jesus (Luk 1:27; Luk 1:69; Mat 1:1) [GENEALOGY].

2. If the Messiah was to be a prophet like unto Moses, so was Jesus also (Deu 18:18; Joh 6:14). If the Messiah was to appear in the second Temple, so did Jesus (Hag 2:7; Hag 2:9; Joh 18:20).

3. Was Messiah to work miracles? (Isa 35:5-6; comp. Mat 11:4-5).

4. If the Messiah was to suffer and die (Isaiah 53), we find that Jesus died in the same manner, at the very time, and under the identical circumstances, which were predicted of Him. The very man who betrayed Him, the price for which He was sold, the indignities He was to receive in His last moments, the parting of His garments, and His last words, etc., were all foretold of the Messiah, and accomplished in Jesus.

5. Was the Messiah to rise from the dead? So did Jesus. How stupendous and adorable is the Providence of God, who, through so many apparent contingencies, brought such things to pass!

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Messiah

See Jesus, The Christ

Jesus, The Christ

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Messiah

Messiah (mes-si’ah). This is a Hebrew word signifying “anointed,” and corresponding exactly to the Greek Christos. As in ancient times not only the king, but also the priest and the prophet, was consecrated to his calling by being anointed, the word “Messiah” often occurs in the Old Testament in its literal sense, signifying one who has been anointed, 1Sa 24:6; Lam 4:1-22 :’ 20; Eze 28:14; Psa 105:15; hut generally it has a more specific application, signifying the One who was anointed, the supreme Deliverer who was promised from the beginning, Gen 3:15, and about whom a long series of prophecies runs through the whole history of Israel from Abram, Gen 12:3; Gen 22:18; Jacob, Gen 49:10; Balaam, Num 24:17; Moses, Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18; and Nathan, 2Sa 7:16; through the psalmists and prophets, Psa 2:1-12; Psa 16:1-11; Psa 22:1-31; Psa 40:1-17; Psa 45:1-17; Psa 110:1-7; Isa 7:10-16; Isa 9:1-7; Isa 11:1-16; Isa 13:1-22; Isa 53:1-12; Isa 61:1-11; Jer 23:5-6; Mic 5:2; Mal 3:1-4, to his immediate precursor, John the Baptist. The character of these prophecies is very definite. The lineage from which Messiah should descend was foretold, Gen 49:10; Isa 11:1, the place in which he should be born, Mic 5:2, the time of his appearance, Dan 9:20; Dan 9:25; Hag 2:7; Mal 3:1, etc. Nevertheless, in the vanity of their hearts, the Jews mistook the true meaning of these prophecies. They expected a triumphant worldly king, according to Psa 2:1-12; Jer 23:5-6; Zec 9:9, and that his triumph was to be accomplished by sufferings and death they did not understand. See Jesus Christ.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Messiah

Messi’ah. (anointed). This word, (Mashiach), in the Old Testament, answers to the word Christ, (Christos), in the New Testament, and is applicable in its first sense, to any one anointed with the holy oil. The kings of Israel were called anointed, from the mode of their consecration. 1Sa 2:10; 1Sa 2:35; 1Sa 12:3; 1Sa 12:5; etc.

This word also refers to the expected Prince of the Chosen People who was to complete God’s purposes for them, and to redeem them, and of whose coming, the prophets of the Old Covenant, in all time, spoke. He was the Messiah, The Anointed, that is, consecrated as the King and Prophet by God’s appointment.

The word is twice used in the New Testament of Jesus. Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25. Authorized Version, “Messias.”

The earliest gleam of the gospel is found in the account of the fall. Gen 3:15.

The blessings in store for the children of Shem are remarkable indicated in the words of Noah. Gen 9:26.

Next, follows the promise to Abraham. Gen 12:2-3.

A great step is made in Gen 49:10. This is the first case in which the promises distinctly centre in one person.

The next passage usually quoted is the prophecy of Balaam. Num 24:17-19.

The prophecy of Moses, Deu 18:18, claims attention.

Passages in the Psalms are numerous, which are applied to the Messiah in the New Testament; such as Psalms 2; Psalms 16; Psalms 22; Psalms 40; Psalms 110.

The advance in clearness in this period is great. The name of Anointed, that is, King, comes in, and the Messiah is to come of the Lineage of David. He is described in his exaltation, with his great kingdom that shall be spiritual rather than temporal. Psalms 2; Psalms 21; Psalms 40; Psalms 110.

In other places, he is seen in suffering and humiliation. Psalms 16; Psalms 22; Psalms 40.

Later on, the prophets show the Messiah as a king and ruler of David’s house, who should come to reform and restore the Jewish nation and purify the Church, as in Isaiah 11; Isaiah 40-66. The blessings of the restoration, however, will not be confined to Jews; the heathen are made to share them fully. Isa 2:66.

The passage of Mic 5:2, (compare Mat 2:6, left no doubt in the mind of the Sanhedrin, as to the birthplace of the Messiah. The lineage of David is again alluded to in Zec 12:1-14. The coming of the Forerunner and of The Anointed is clearly revealed in Mal 3:1; Joh 4:5-6.

The Pharisees, and those of the Jews who expected Messiah, at all looked for a temporal prince only. The apostles themselves were infected with this opinion till after the resurrection. Mat 20:20-21; Luk 24:21; Act 1:6. Gleams of a purer faith appear in Luk 2:30; Luk 23:42; Joh 4:25.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Messiah

The Greek word , from whence comes Christ and Christian, exactly answers to the Hebrew Messiah, which signifies him that hath received unction, a prophet, a king, or a priest. See JESUS CHRIST.

Our Lord warned his disciples that false messiahs should arise, Mat 24:24; and the event has verified the prediction. No less than twenty-four false Christs have arisen in different places and at different times: Caziba was the first of any note who made a noise in the world. Being dissatisfied with the state of things under Adrian, he set himself up as the head of the Jewish nation, and proclaimed himself their long expected messiah. He was one of those banditti that infested Judea, and committed all kinds of violence against the Romans; and had become so powerful that he was chosen king of the Jews, and by them acknowledged their messiah. However, to facilitate the success of this bold enterprise, he changed his name from Caziba, which it was at first, to that of Barchocheba, alluding to the star foretold by Balaam; for he pretended to be the star sent from heaven to restore his nation to its ancient liberty and glory. He chose a forerunner, raised an army, was anointed king, coined money inscribed with his own name, and proclaimed himself messiah and prince of the Jewish nation. Adrian raised an army, and sent it against him; he retired into a town called Bither, where he was besieged. Barchocheba was killed in the siege, the city was taken, and a dreadful havoc succeeded. The Jews themselves allow, that, during this short war against the Romans in defence of this false messiah, they lost five or six hundred thousand souls. This was in the former part of the second century. In the reign of Theodosius the younger, A.D. 434, another impostor arose, called Moses Cretensis. He pretended to be a second Moses, sent to deliver the Jews who dwelt in Crete, and promised to divide the sea, and give them a safe passage through it. Their delusion proved so strong and universal, that they neglected their lands, houses, and other concerns, and took only so much with them as they could conveniently carry. And on the day appointed, this false Moses, having led them to the top of a rock, men, women, and children threw themselves headlong down into the sea, without the least hesitation or reluctance, till so great a number of them were drowned as opened the eyes of the rest, and made them sensible of the cheat. They then began to look for their pretended leader; but he had disappeared, and escaped out of their hands. In the reign of Justin, about A.D. 520, another impostor appeared, who called himself the son of Moses. His name was Dunaan. He entered into a city of Arabia Felix, and there he greatly oppressed the Christians; but he was taken prisoner, and put to death by Elesban, an Ethiopian general. The Jews and Samaritans rebelled against the Emperor Justinian, A.D. 529, and set up one Julian for their king, and accounted him the messiah. The emperor sent an army against them, killed great numbers of them, took their pretended messiah prisoner, and immediately put him to death. In the time of Leo Isaurus, about A.D. 721, arose another false messiah in Spain; his name was Serenus. He drew great numbers after him, to their no small loss and disappointment; but all his pretensions came to nothing. The twelfth century was fruitful in messiahs. About A.D. 1137, there appeared one in France, who was put to death, and numbers of those who followed him. In A.D. 1138, the Persians were disturbed with a Jew, who called himself the messiah. He collected a vast army; but he too was put to death, and his followers treated with great inhumanity. A false messiah stirred up the Jews at Corduba in Spain, A.D. 1157. The wiser and better sort looked upon him as a madman, but the great body of the Jews in the nation believed in him. On this occasion nearly all the Jews in Spain were destroyed. Another false messiah arose in the kingdom of Fez, A.D. 1167, which brought great troubles and persecutions upon the Jews that were scattered throughout that country. In the same year, an Arabian professed to be the messiah, and pretended to work miracles. When search was made for him, his followers fled, and he was brought before the Arabian king. Being questioned by him, he replied, that he was a prophet sent from God. The king then asked him what sign he could show to confirm his mission. Cut off my head, said he, and I will return to life again. The king took him at his word, promising to believe him if his prediction was accomplished. The poor wretch, however, never came to life again, and the cheat was sufficiently discovered. Those who had been deluded by him were grievously punished, and the nation condemned to a very heavy fine. Not long after this, a Jew who dwelt beyond the Euphrates, called himself the messiah, and drew vast multitudes of people after him. He gave this for a sign of it, that he had been leprous, and had been cured in the course of one night. He, like the rest, perished, and brought great persecution on his countrymen. A magician and false christ arose in Persia, A.D. 1174, who seduced many of the common people, and brought the Jews into great tribulation. Another of these impostors arose, A.D. 1176, in Moravia, who was called David Almusser. He pretended he could make himself invisible; but he was soon taken and put to death, and a heavy fine laid upon the Jews. A famous cheat and rebel exerted himself in Persia, A.D. 1199, called David el David. He was a man of learning, a great magician, and pretended to be the messiah. He raised an army against the king, but was taken and imprisoned; and, having made his escape, was afterward retaken and beheaded. Vast numbers of the Jews were butchered for taking part with this impostor. Rabbi Lemlem, a German Jew of Austria, declared himself a forerunner of the messiah, A.D. 1500, and pulled down his own oven, promising, his brethren that they should bake their bread in the holy land next year. A false christ arose in the East Indies, A.D. 1615, and was greatly followed by the Portuguese Jews who are scattered over that country. Another in the Low Countries declared himself to be the messiah of the family of David, and of the line of Nathan, A.D. 1624. He promised to destroy Rome, and to overthrow the kingdom of antichrist, and the Turkish empire. In A.D. 1666, appeared the false messiah Sabatai Tzevi, who made a great noise, and gained a great number of proselytes. He was born at Aleppo, and imposed on the Jews for a considerable time; but afterward, with a view of saving his life, he turned Mohammedan, and was at last beheaded. The last false christ that made any considerable number of converts was one rabbi Mordecai, a Jew of Germany: he appeared, A.D. 1682. It was not long before he was found out to be an impostor, and was obliged to flee from Italy to Poland to save his life: what became of him afterward does not seem to be recorded.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary