Difference between revisions of "Messiah"

<p> <b> [[Messiah]] </b> is the English word based on the Greek representation of the original [[Hebrew]] or Aramaic. The Gr. reproduction assumes the varied forms ?es?a?, ?ess?a?, and ?ese?a?, corresponding to the Hebrew ???????? and the [[Aramaic]] ?????????. The Heb. is the normal katŒl form, meaning ‘anointed,ì which is translation into Greek in the term which has become so familiar, ???st??, the agnomen of our Lord. The Heb. ???????? was a term applied pre-eminently to the king, who was designated to office by the ceremony of anointing (1Sa_9:16; 1Sa_10:1, 2Ki_9:2-3; 2Ki_9:6). [[Priests]] were consecrated to office in like manner (Lev_8:12; cf. Lev_4:3; cf. Lev_4:16). </p> <p> i. <i> [[Anointing]] of Kings </i> .—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 lion’s fat inspires a man with boldness, and makes the wild beasts flee in terror from him. Other illustrations may be found in Frazer’s <i> [[Golden]] [[Bough]] </i> 2 [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 Rammân-nirâri of Nuhašši 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 Rammân-nirâri’s grandfather and established him as king of Nuhašši.* [Note: Winckler, Thontafeln von Tell el-Amarna (vol. v. in Schrader’s KIB), Letter 37 (p. 98).] Frazer’s great work has rendered us familiar with the supernatural endowments of a king who was regarded as a <i> quasi </i> -deity.† [Note: Golden Bough2, i. 137–156; 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.] (&nbsp;Exodus 24:6 ff.), possessed a magical virtue.§ [Note: Thus shields were smeared with oil to render them or their owners immune (&nbsp;2 Samuel 1:21, cf. &nbsp;Isaiah 21:5. Saul’s shield was un-anointed, and so its owner perished).] </p> <p> 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 God’s representative or viceroy. Sometimes he declares himself the ‘son of the deity’ ( <i> e.g. </i> in the opening line of Ashurbanipal’s cylinder-inscription he calls himself <i> binutu Ashûr u Bêlit </i> , ‘offspring of [[Ashur]] and Beltis’; cf. the language of &nbsp;Psalms 2:7), or ‘favourite of the deity’ (cf. the name of the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] monarch <i> Naram-Sin </i> , ‘beloved of SIN. [Note: Sinaitic.] ’ [[Sargon]] calls himself in the opening of his Nimrûd insc. ‘the favourite of [[Anu]] and Bel’). Further parallels in the case of [[Nebuchadrezzar]] may be found in Schrader, <i> COT </i> [Note: OT [[Cuneiform]] [[Inscriptions]] and the OT.] ii. 105 ff. See also Tiele, <i> Bab. </i> [Note: Babylonian.] <i> —Assyr. </i> [Note: Assyrian.] <i> Gesch. </i> 491 ff. Tiglath-pileser i. (b.c. 1100) calls himself <i> iššakku </i> (PA-TE-SI) of the God Ashur (Prism-Insc. col. vii. 62. 63), <i> i.e. </i> Ashur’s plenipotentiary. That in this sacred function priestly office was involved may be readily inferred. Thus [[Ashurbanipal]] (like Sargon) calls himself not only the <i> šaknu </i> or vicegerent of Bêl, but also the <i> šangu </i> or priest of Ashur. Similarly the Homeric kings offer sacrifice on behalf of the people. As Robertson Smith remarks (‘Priest’ in <i> EBr </i> [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 (&nbsp;2 Samuel 6:17 ff., &nbsp;1 Kings 8:63) in accordance with the tradition of the age. </p> <p> ii. <i> Unique position of David in Hebrew thought </i> .—Among the Hebrew anointed kings or messiahs, <i> David </i> 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, Assyria’s nominee, to the dismembered kingdom, deeply impressed the prophet of Ephraim, who exclaims:— </p> <p> ‘They have appointed kings, but not from me ( <i> i.e. </i> Jahweh); </p> <p> Have made princes, but I knew them not’ (&nbsp;Hosea 8:4). </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Hosea 3:5. It is difficult to see why, if the idea ‘had its roots in Isaiah’s time’ and not in that out or which &nbsp;Ezekiel 34:23; &nbsp;Ezekiel 37:24 f. &nbsp;Ezekiel 45:8-9 and &nbsp;Jeremiah 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 (&nbsp;Isaiah 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> i.e. </i> be converted) to Jahweh, and Jerusalem would be preserved from the onslaughts of the [[Assyrian]] foe. The [[Immanuel]] prophecy, which contained the assurance of God’s 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 &nbsp;Isaiah 9:1-6 [English 2–7], which was probably composed soon after b.c. 701, in &nbsp;Isaiah 11:1-9, and, lastly, in &nbsp;Isaiah 32:1-3. In the first the Messiah is portrayed as a military conquering hero, ‘breaking in pieces the oppressor’s mace’; in the second, the sounds of discord cease, and He, sprung from Jesse’s stock, is the ruler of justice and peace in God’s ‘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.’ </p> <p> All these passages, as well as Is 2:2–4, 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 9:1–7 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 <i> Introd. to Isaiah </i> , pp. 44 ff., 57 ff., and 173–176; also by Hackmann, <i> Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaia </i> , pp. 126–156, and by Marti in his [[Commentary]] on the above passages: cf. also his <i> Gesch. der Isr. </i> [Note: Israelite.] <i> [[Religion]] </i> 4 [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 <i> Century Bible </i> , 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. </p> <p> 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. Men’s 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 &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5-8 (cf. &nbsp;Jeremiah 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 (&nbsp;Zechariah 3:8; &nbsp;Zechariah 6:12), in which Joshua and his comrades are addressed as tokens of the coming of Jahweh’s servant ‘the branch’ (&nbsp;Zechariah 3:8). In &nbsp;Zechariah 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. &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5-8 was not the genuine utterance of Jeremiah, but a post-exilic addition. &nbsp;Zechariah 3:8; &nbsp;Zechariah 6:12 are badly corrupted, and later editors have sought to eliminate the name of Zerubbabel from the original oracle, because Zechariah’s prophecies with respect to him were not fulfilled. </p> <p> Probably &nbsp;Micah 5:1-8, like &nbsp;Jeremiah 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 (&nbsp;Isaiah 9:3-4 [Heb.]). We may assign &nbsp;Nahum 2:2 to &nbsp;Nahum 3:19 to the same period.] With the passage in &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5-8 cf. also &nbsp;Jeremiah 30:9, &nbsp;Jeremiah 33:15 as well as &nbsp;Ezekiel 21:32; &nbsp;Ezekiel 34:23-31; &nbsp;Ezekiel 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 &nbsp;Jeremiah 33:14-24 is regarded by most critics as a later addition to the oracles of Jeremiah (see, <i> e.g. </i> , Giesebrecht’s Com., and Cornill in <i> SBOT </i> [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’ (&nbsp;Jeremiah 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. </p> <p> Its survival is probably due to <i> Ezekiel </i> , the priest-prophet, herald of restoration, of hope and of reconstructive effort. This prophet was an earnest student of Israel’s 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 &nbsp;Ezekiel 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 &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5-8, David represents a succession of Davidic descendants sitting on his throne. When we turn to Ezekiel’s ideal scheme of the restored [[Jewish]] theocracy (chs. 40–48), 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. &nbsp;Haggai 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 (14–20) of Zephaniah (obviously an addition belonging to the late-exilic or early post-exilic period) it is Jahweh who is Israel’s King in the midst of His people, their mighty [[Hero]] who wards off the nation’s foes (&nbsp;Haggai 2:15-19). </p> <p> When we turn to the <i> Deutero-Isaiah </i> (40–55), 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. God’s anointed king, who is not of Davidic descent at all, but the <i> [[Persian]] </i> Cyrus, is the chosen instrument for accomplishing the Divine purposes with respect to His servant Jacob (&nbsp;Isaiah 44:28; &nbsp;Isaiah 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. </p> <p> When we pass to the <i> Trito-Isaiah </i> (56–66), 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 (60–62) is the faintest note to be heard of a Messianic Jewish King. The prophecies of Malachi are equally silent. We have to wait for centuries—perhaps as late as the declining days of the Hasmonaeans—before the Davidic Messianic King definitely and clearly reappears. </p> <p> 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) &nbsp;Genesis 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) &nbsp;Genesis 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 שלה as a late Hebrew compound form with a relative, which can be accepted only after making violent assumptions.* [Note: LXX τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῶ, ‘that which is reserved for him.’ The LXX in some variants has ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὧ ἀπόκειται, ‘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 &nbsp;Ezekiel 21:32, where, however, we have a subject for the relative clause, viz. הַמִּשִׁפָּם.] Giesebrecht ingeniously proposed to read in place of שלה the form משְׁלֹה ‘his ruler.’ He rightly argues that to read שֶׁלּה as the LXX [[Septuagint]] presupposes, immediately followed by וְלוֹ, constitutes a very awkward and intolerable combination.† [Note: Beiträge 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 &nbsp;Ezekiel 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 Bennett’s ‘Genesis’ (Century Bible), ad loc.] (3) &nbsp;2 Samuel 7:4-17. Here &nbsp;2 Samuel 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 &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5-8; &nbsp;Jeremiah 30:9 arose.§ [Note: Budde’s Com. on the Books of Samuel (J. C. B. Mohr), p. 233; cf. also his Richter u. Samuel, pp. 244, 247.] (4) &nbsp;Numbers 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 Balaam’s 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 (&nbsp;2 Samuel 8:2) or to [[Omri]] (cf. insc. of Mesha, lines 4–8, and art. ‘Omri’ in Hastings’ <i> DB. </i> [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) &nbsp;Deuteronomy 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 &nbsp;Acts 3:22; &nbsp;Acts 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 God’s true prophet, like Moses, whom He will raise up in Israel from time to time (see Driver’s Com. in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] ). (6) Lastly, we have a series of Psalm passages. Psalms 2 (esp. &nbsp;Psalms 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 Judah’s emergence from a desperate crisis, once more revived. </p> <p> 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 Israel’s salvation and the establishment of a Divine and righteous rule would be effected. (1) The <i> righteous Messianic warrior-king </i> of Davidic descent. (2) The <i> prophetic sufferer </i> portrayed in Isaiah 40-55, and esp. in &nbsp;Isaiah 52:13 to &nbsp;Isaiah 53:12—a conception which may also underlie the obscure passage &nbsp;Zechariah 12:10-11. (3) The <i> prophetic ideal </i> , based mainly on &nbsp;Deuteronomy 18:15, which came to be identified with the heraldic prophet of ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord,’ the [[Elijah]] of &nbsp;Malachi 4:4 f. [Heb. 3:22 f.], or was identified with the Messiah Himself (&nbsp;Acts 3:22 f.). Cf. &nbsp;Mark 6:15; &nbsp;Mark 8:28, &nbsp;John 1:21; &nbsp;John 6:14; &nbsp;John 7:40, and Wendt’s <i> Teaching of Jesus </i> , i. p. 67 f. </p> <p> iii. <i> Transformation of the Messianic ideal through [[Apocalyptic]] </i> .—The kingdom of righteousness and the fear of the Lord, or what is expressed in the Biblical phrase the <i> [[Kingdom]] of God </i> , 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 Solomon’s 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. </p> <p> <b> 1 </b> . After the [[Exile]] and the return of the <i> Gôlah </i> (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’ (&nbsp;Psalms 77:8-9 [Heb.]); cf. Psalms 22, 37, etc. [[Trust]] in Jahweh still survived, and His faithful followers clung to the Tôrah (&nbsp;Psalms 19:8-12 [Heb.] and 119 <i> passim </i> ), 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 <i> that </i> 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 (עוֹלָםהַוָּה or αἰὼν οὗτος) and the age to come (עוֹלָםהַבָּא or αἰὼν μέλλων) 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’ (חָבֽלֵיהַמָּשִׁיחַ), 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. &nbsp;Mark 13:6-37, &nbsp;John 16:11; &nbsp;John 16:20-22. </p> <p> <b> 2 </b> . Another feature of equal importance, which begins to emerge in apocalyptic literature, left its impress on Messianic expectation, viz. the belief in the <i> resurrection of the dead </i> . The first clear intimations of this faith are to be found in &nbsp;Isaiah 26:19, &nbsp;Daniel 12:2. In the older apocrypha (Sirach, Judith, Tobit, 1 Mac.) it is absent. In the later (&nbsp;2 [[Maccabees]] 7:9; &nbsp;2 Maccabees 7:14; &nbsp;2 Maccabees 7:23; &nbsp;2 Maccabees 7:29; &nbsp;2 Maccabees 7:36; &nbsp;2 Maccabees 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 (&nbsp;Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-9; &nbsp;Wisdom of Solomon 4:7; &nbsp;Wisdom of Solomon 5:16; &nbsp;Wisdom of Solomon 6:20).* [Note: Schürer, 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 πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:45), in whom all His faithful followers are made alive (v. 22); cf. &nbsp;Romans 6:3-11. See Volz, <i> Jüd. Eschatologie </i> , pp. 237–248. </p> <p> <b> 3 </b> . The <i> pre-mundane existence of the Messiah </i> 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 &nbsp;Proverbs 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 Tôrah, 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 &nbsp;Isaiah 9:6 and &nbsp;Micah 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 Jüd. Eschatologie, p. 217), see [[Enoch]] 48:2–6, 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, Jüd. Eschatologie, p. 218.] We need not labour to set forth how profoundly it affects NT thought, especially [[Pauline]] and Johannine (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 8:9, &nbsp;Philippians 2:7; cf. &nbsp;2 Corinthians 4:4, &nbsp;Colossians 1:5, &nbsp;Hebrews 1:2; &nbsp;Hebrews 2:10, &nbsp;John 1:1-3). </p> <p> <b> 4 </b> . <i> Messianic titles. </i> </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) Among the most signiheant for students of the NT is that of ‘Restorer,’ which is probably involved in the epithet <i> Ta’eb </i> , which occurs in the apocalypse of the [[Samaritan]] liturgy for the Day of Atonement. In the day of <i> Ta’eb </i> 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 <i> Taxo </i> (Greek τάξων) 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 Christ’s birth, the Messiah is regarded as the coming restorer of the Paradise lost by Adam’s transgression. In &nbsp;Acts 3:21 the καιροὶ ἀποκαταστάσεως clearly reflect this tradition. This function of ‘restorer’ was evidently ascribed to the Messiah and not to God’s messenger Elias, referred to in &nbsp;Malachi 3:1-18 f. [Heb.] </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) Other significant epithets, as ‘Son of a woman,’ prob. in allusion to &nbsp;Isaiah 7:14, appear, if the text be sound, in the Book of Enoch ( <i> Similitudes </i> ) 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’ (&nbsp;Galatians 4:4). On the other hand, the designation ‘horned,’ or ‘two-horned’ ( <i> B </i> <i> e </i> <i> rçshîth Rabbâ </i> , 99), based apparently on &nbsp;Deuteronomy 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.: </p> <p> ( <i> c </i> ) <b> ‘Son of Man.’ </b> —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 &nbsp;Daniel 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 כִּ (in כְּבַראֱנָשׁ), 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’ (&nbsp;Genesis 1:26). That this human and humane world-empire was to be Jewish and not Gentile, is obvious to the reader of Daniel’s apocalypse. </p> <p> The ‘Son of Man’ has a yet more definite and distinguished rôle in the <i> Similitudes </i> of the Book of Enoch (chs. 37–71), 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 God’s 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 <i> Judge </i> . </p> <p> Accordingly, we conclude that while the term in Daniel is symbolical of the human rule of God’s people Israel, in Enoch it is the designation of a supernatural personality, who holds universal empire and wields the office of Judge. </p> <p> 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 Christ’s 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. </p> <p> Christ’s 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 ideas—the transcendent conception of apocalyptic and the Deutero-Isaianic ideal of Jahweh’s 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 Christ’s 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’ (ܒܱܪ ܢܳܫܳܐ) 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 &nbsp;John 8:58 (‘Before [[Abraham]] was, I am’) would fairly point in this direction. We certainly have no clear right to infer it from &nbsp;Mark 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: Bousset’s 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 Christ’s discourses, by comparing ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ in &nbsp;Matthew 5:10 with the parallel ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in &nbsp;Luke 6:22. But in the extremely severe limitation imposed by Bousset on Christ’s 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 Pilate’s question (&nbsp;Mark 14:62; cf. &nbsp;Matthew 26:64, &nbsp;Luke 22:69), He quotes the well-known Daniel passage (&nbsp;Daniel 7:13), declaring that men would see Him, the Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of power ( <i> i.e. </i> 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 (&nbsp;Mark 11:7-11), and, with the title of ‘King of the Jews’ placed on the cross by the Roman governor, He was crucified (&nbsp;Mark 15:26; cf. &nbsp;Mark 15:12; cf. &nbsp;Mark 15:18; cf. &nbsp;Mark 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 Christ’s 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 <i> Similitudes </i> of the Book of Enoch, that of universal judge.† [Note: &nbsp;Mark 13:26-27, &nbsp;Matthew 25:31-32, &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:10. See also Friedländer. Die religiösen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu, p. 325.] </p> <p> 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 Christ’s thought respecting Himself. It is nevertheless remarkable that the <i> locus classicus </i> of the NT writers who reflected on the mystery of the Messiah’s 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 &nbsp;Luke 22:37. That this prophecy, however, must have been in His mind, seems fairly clear from &nbsp;Mark 10:45; &nbsp;Mark 12:6-10; cf. &nbsp;John 13:12-17 and &nbsp;Luke 24:25-26. Accordingly, the title ‘Son of Man’ had a twofold significance. It is employed when Christ’s 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 (&nbsp;Mark 2:10). He is Lord over the [[Sabbath]] &nbsp;Matthew 12:8). He will appear clothed in power at the last day (&nbsp;Mark 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’ (&nbsp;Matthew 11:19, &nbsp;Luke 7:34); ‘the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head’ (&nbsp;Matthew 8:20, &nbsp;Luke 9:58); ‘is betrayed’ (&nbsp;Mark 14:21); ‘came not to be ministered unto but to minister’ (&nbsp;Mark 10:45); suffers and is condemned (&nbsp;Mark 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. &nbsp;Acts 3:18; &nbsp;Acts 8:32; &nbsp;Acts 17:3; &nbsp;Acts 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 (&nbsp;Romans 8:17). The Kenotic doctrine of &nbsp;Philippians 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’ (&nbsp;Hebrews 2:9-10). </p> <p> ( <i> d </i> ) <b> ‘Son of God’ </b> 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 God’s presence in His life, and the intimate bond that united Him to the Father (&nbsp;Matthew 11:27). In His native Aramaic, <i> Abbâ </i> 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 (&nbsp;Romans 8:15). That the relation claimed by Jesus was a special one, is indicated by His use of the expression ‘my Father in &nbsp;Matthew 11:27; &nbsp;Matthew 18:35; &nbsp;Matthew 20:23, whereas in &nbsp;Matthew 6:32; &nbsp;Matthew 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 (&nbsp;Mark 12:6), and also by the voice which spoke to Him from heaven at His baptism (&nbsp;Matthew 3:16-17, &nbsp;Mark 1:10-11, &nbsp;Luke 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 μονογενής 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 <i> Messiah, the Son of the living God </i> ’ (&nbsp;Matthew 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) &nbsp;Mark 8:29 gives Peter’s 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, Jüd. Eschatologie, p. 213, who regards Drummond’s conjecture as probable, that the phrase ‘Son’ of God may sometimes have arisen from the Gr. rendering ταῖς for ‘servant’ (עֶבֶד). See also N. Schmidt’s art. ‘Son of God’ in EBi, col. 4694.] This is the more remarkable when we remember &nbsp;Psalms 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. </p> <p> ( <i> e </i> ) <b> ‘Son of David’ </b> 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 referen </p>

<p> 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. </p> <p> The first, they say, is to proceed from the tribe of Ephraim, who is to fight against Gog, and to be slain by Annillus, &nbsp;Zechariah 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, &nbsp;Psalms 40:6-8; &nbsp;1 Samuel 15:22; &nbsp;Daniel 9:27; &nbsp;Jeremiah 31:31; &nbsp;Jeremiah 31:34; &nbsp;Hebrews 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; &nbsp;Genesis 3:16; &nbsp;Genesis 22:18; Is. 49:10; 53:1-13 </p> <p> 1. The time when he was to come is clearly marked out in prophecy: Is. 49: 10; &nbsp;Haggai 2:6-9; &nbsp;Daniel 9:24 . He actually came according to that time. </p> <p> 2. The place where Messiah should be born, and where he should principally impart his doctrine is determined; &nbsp;Micah 5:2; Is. 9: 2; and was literally fulfilled in Jesus. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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; &nbsp;Zechariah 9:9; this was really the case, &nbsp;Matthew 21:1-46 </p> <p> 6. It was predicted that he should suffer and die by the hands of wicked men; Is. 49: 7; 53: 9; &nbsp;Daniel 9:26 . Nothing could be a more striking fulfillment of prophecy than the treatment the Messiah met with in almost every particular circumstance. </p> <p> 7. It was foretold that he should rise from the dead; Is. 53: 11. &nbsp;Psalms 68:18; &nbsp;Psalms 16:10 , his resurrection is proved by indubitable evidence. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> See article CHRISTIANITY, [[Jesus]] CHRIST. </p> <p> There have been numerous false Messiahs which have arisen at different times. Of these the Savior predicted, &nbsp;Matthew 24:14 . Some have reckoned as many as twenty-four, of whom we shall here give an account. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 6. See MAHOMETANISM. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> [[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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p>

<p> 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 (&nbsp;Exodus 28:41; &nbsp;1 Kings 1:39; &nbsp;1 Kings 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’. </p> <p> '''Old Testament expectations''' </p> <p> The most common Old Testament usage of the title ‘anointed’ was in relation to the Israelite king, who was frequently called ‘the Lord’s anointed’ (&nbsp;1 Samuel 24:10; &nbsp;Psalms 18:50; &nbsp;Psalms 20:6). In the early days of Israel’s 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 (&nbsp;Genesis 49:9-12). </p> <p> Centuries later, God developed this plan by promising King David (who belonged to the tribe of Judah) a dynasty that would last for ever (&nbsp;2 Samuel 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. </p> <p> In promising David a dynasty, God promised that he would treat David’s son and successor as if he were his own son (&nbsp;2 Samuel 7:14). From that time on, Israelites regarded every king in the royal line of David as, in a sense, God’s son; for he was the one through whom God exercised his rule. The Messiah, David’s greatest son, was in a special sense God’s son (&nbsp;Psalms 2:6-7; &nbsp;Mark 10:47; &nbsp;Mark 12:35; &nbsp;Mark 14:61). </p> <p> 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). </p> <p> '''Messianic interpretations''' </p> <p> 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]] (&nbsp;Psalms 89:3-4; &nbsp;Isaiah 9:2-7; &nbsp;Isaiah 11:1-10; &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5; &nbsp;Ezekiel 34:23-24; &nbsp;Micah 5:2). This king, this Messiah, was Jesus Christ (&nbsp;Matthew 1:1; &nbsp;Matthew 9:27; &nbsp;Matthew 12:22-23; &nbsp;Matthew 21:9; &nbsp;Luke 1:32-33; &nbsp;Luke 1:69-71; &nbsp;Revelation 5:5). </p> <p> One of David’s 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 (&nbsp;Psalms 110:1; &nbsp;Matthew 22:41-45). </p> <p> Since the king of Psalms 110 was also a priest, Jesus was not only the messianic king but also the messianic priest (&nbsp;Psalms 110:4; &nbsp;Hebrews 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 (&nbsp;Zechariah 6:12-13). </p> <p> The Messiah was, in addition, to be a prophet, announcing God’s will to his people. As the Davidic kings in some way foreshadowed the king-messiah, so Israel’s prophets in some way foreshadowed the prophet-messiah. Again the ideal was fulfilled only in Jesus (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 18:15; &nbsp;Luke 24:19; &nbsp;John 6:14; &nbsp;John 7:40; &nbsp;Acts 3:22-23; &nbsp;Acts 7:37; &nbsp;Hebrews 1:1-2). </p> <p> '''Jesus and the Jews''' </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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). </p> <p> 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]] ). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;John 6:15; &nbsp;John 6:26; cf. &nbsp;Matthew 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 9:27-30; &nbsp;Matthew 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 (&nbsp;Mark 5:19; &nbsp;John 4:25-26). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 21:14-16). He even entered Jerusalem as Israel’s Messiah-king and accepted people’s homage (&nbsp;Matthew 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 (&nbsp;Mark 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 27:11; &nbsp;John 18:33-37; cf. &nbsp;Acts 17:7). </p> <p> '''The Messiah’s death and resurrection''' </p> <p> Even true believers of Jesus’ time still thought of the Messiah solely in relation to the establishment of God’s 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 11:2-3; &nbsp;Luke 24:21; &nbsp;Acts 1:6). Jesus pointed out that with his coming, God’s kingdom had come; the messianic age had begun. He was the Messiah, and his miracles of healing were proof of this (&nbsp;Isaiah 35:5-6; &nbsp;Isaiah 61:1; &nbsp;Matthew 11:4-5; &nbsp;Luke 4:18; &nbsp;Luke 18:35-43). </p> <p> What the disciples could not understand was that the Messiah should die. Like most Jews they knew of the Old Testament prophecies concerning God’s suffering servant (&nbsp;Isaiah 49:7; &nbsp;Isaiah 50:6; &nbsp;Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53; see [[Servant Of The Lord]] ), just as they knew of the prophecies concerning God’s 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 16:13-23; &nbsp;Matthew 17:12; &nbsp;Mark 10:45; &nbsp;Acts 4:27). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 17:5; &nbsp;Psalms 2:7; &nbsp;Isaiah 42:1; cf. also &nbsp;Matthew 3:17). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Galatians 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]] ). </p> <p> Jesus’ resurrection provided the solution to this apparent difficulty. Even the disciples did not understand when Jesus foretold his resurrection (&nbsp;Mark 8:29-33; &nbsp;Mark 9:31-32), but afterwards they looked back on the resurrection as God’s final great confirmation that Jesus was the Messiah (&nbsp;Luke 24:45-46; &nbsp;Acts 2:31-32; &nbsp;Acts 2:36). He was God’s anointed one (&nbsp;Acts 10:38; cf. &nbsp;Isaiah 61:1; &nbsp;Luke 4:18). </p> <p> '''Title and name''' </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Philippians 1:15-16; &nbsp;Philippians 1:18; &nbsp;Philippians 1:21). In general the Gospels and the early part of Acts use ‘Christ’ mainly as a title (‘Messiah’), and Paul’s letters use it mainly as a name. </p> <p> 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]] (&nbsp;Matthew 26:71; &nbsp;John 18:4-7; &nbsp;Acts 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 (&nbsp;Acts 11:26). (See also [[Jesus Christ]] .) </p>

<p> '''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. &nbsp;1 Samuel 2:10; &nbsp;1 Samuel 2:35; &nbsp;1 Samuel 12:3; &nbsp;1 Samuel 12:5; etc. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> The word is twice used in the New Testament of [[Jesus]] . &nbsp;John 1:41; &nbsp;John 4:25. Authorized Version, "Messias." </p> <p> The earliest gleam of the gospel is found in the account of the fall. &nbsp;Genesis 3:15. </p> <p> The blessings in store for the children of Shem are remarkable indicated in the words of Noah. &nbsp;Genesis 9:26. </p> <p> Next, follows the promise to Abraham. &nbsp;Genesis 12:2-3. </p> <p> A great step is made in &nbsp;Genesis 49:10. This is the first case in which the promises distinctly centre in one person. </p> <p> The next passage usually quoted is the prophecy of Balaam. &nbsp;Numbers 24:17-19. </p> <p> The prophecy of Moses, &nbsp;Deuteronomy 18:18, claims attention. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> In other places, he is seen in suffering and humiliation. Psalms 16; Psalms 22; Psalms 40. </p> <p> 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. &nbsp;Isaiah 2:66. </p> <p> The passage of &nbsp;Micah 5:2, (compare &nbsp;Matthew 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 &nbsp;Zechariah 12:1-14. The coming of the [[Forerunner]] and of '''The Anointed''' is clearly revealed in &nbsp;Malachi 3:1; &nbsp;John 4:5-6. </p> <p> 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. &nbsp;Matthew 20:20-21; &nbsp;Luke 24:21; &nbsp;Acts 1:6. Gleams of a purer faith appear in &nbsp;Luke 2:30; &nbsp;Luke 23:42; &nbsp;John 4:25. </p>

<p> [[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, &nbsp;1 Samuel 24:6; &nbsp;Lamentations 4:1-22 :' 20; &nbsp;Ezekiel 28:14; &nbsp;Psalms 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, &nbsp;Genesis 3:15, and about whom a long series of prophecies runs through the whole history of Israel from Abram, &nbsp;Genesis 12:3; &nbsp;Genesis 22:18; Jacob, &nbsp;Genesis 49:10; Balaam, &nbsp;Numbers 24:17; Moses, &nbsp;Deuteronomy 18:15; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 18:18; and Nathan, &nbsp;2 Samuel 7:16; through the psalmists and prophets, &nbsp;Psalms 2:1-12; &nbsp;Psalms 16:1-11; &nbsp;Psalms 22:1-31; &nbsp;Psalms 40:1-17; &nbsp;Psalms 45:1-17; &nbsp;Psalms 110:1-7; &nbsp;Isaiah 7:10-16; &nbsp;Isaiah 9:1-7; &nbsp;Isaiah 11:1-16; &nbsp;Isaiah 13:1-22; &nbsp;Isaiah 53:1-12; &nbsp;Isaiah 61:1-11; &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5-6; &nbsp;Micah 5:2; &nbsp;Malachi 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, &nbsp;Genesis 49:10; &nbsp;Isaiah 11:1, the place in which he should be born, &nbsp;Micah 5:2, the time of his appearance, &nbsp;Daniel 9:20; &nbsp;Daniel 9:25; &nbsp;Haggai 2:7; &nbsp;Malachi 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 &nbsp;Psalms 2:1-12; &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5-6; &nbsp;Zechariah 9:9, and that his triumph was to be accomplished by sufferings and death they did not understand. See Jesus Christ. </p>

<p> '''A. Nouns. ''' </p> <p> <em> Mâshı̂yach </em> (מָשִׁיחַ, Strong'S #4899), “anointed one; Messiah.” Of the 39 occurrences of <em> mâshı̂yach </em> , none occurs in the wisdom literature. They are scattered throughout the rest of biblical literary types and periods. </p> <p> First, <em> mâshı̂yach </em> refers to one who is anointed with oil, symbolizing the reception of the Holy Spirit, enabling him to do an assigned task. Kings (1 Sam. 24:6), high priests, and some prophets (1 Kings 19:16) were so anointed: “If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people …” (Lev. 4:3—the first biblical appearance). In the case of Cyrus, he was anointed with God’s Spirit only and commissioned an “anointed deliverer” of Israel (Isa. 45:1). The patriarchs, too, are called “anointed ones”: “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm” (Ps. 105:15). </p> <p> Second, the word is sometimes transliterated “Messiah.” After the promise to David (2 Sam. 7:13) <em> mâshı̂yach </em> refers immediately to the Davidic dynasty, but ultimately it points to the “Mes-siah,” Jesus the Christ: “The kings of the earth [take their stand], and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed …” (Ps. 2:2). In Dan. 9:25 the word is transliterated: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince.…” The New Testament also attests the word in this latter meaning (John 1:41). Most frequently in the New Testament the word is translated (“Christ”) rather than transliterated (“Messiah”). See also [[Anoint]]. </p> <p> <em> Mishchâh </em> (מָשְׁחָה, Strong'S #4888), “anointment.” This noun occurs 21 times and only in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It always follows the Hebrew word for oil. The first occurrence is Exod. 25:6: “Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense.” </p> <p> '''B. Verb. ''' </p> <p> <em> Mâshach </em> (מָשַׁח, Strong'S #4886), “to smear with oil or paint, anoint.” This verb, which appears 69 times in biblical Hebrew, has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic. The objects of this verb are people, sacrificial victims, and objects of worship. Aaron and his sons are the objects of this verb in Exod. 30:30: “And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” </p>

<p> ''''' mḗ ''''' - ''''' sı̄´a ''''' ( משׁיח , <i> ''''' māshı̄aḥ ''''' </i> ; Aramaic משׁיחא , <i> ''''' meshı̄ḥā' ''''' </i> ; Septuagint Χριστός , <i> ''''' Christós ''''' </i> , "anointed"; New Testament "Christ"): </p> <p> 1. Meaning and Use of the Term </p> <p> 2. The Messianic Hope </p> <p> I. The Messiah In The Old Testament </p> <p> 1. The Messianic King </p> <p> (1) Isaiah </p> <p> (2) Jeremiah and Ezekiel </p> <p> (3) Later Prophets </p> <p> 2. Prophetic and Priestly Relations </p> <p> 3. Servant of [[Yahweh]] </p> <p> 4. Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic </p> <p> II. The Messiah In The Pre-Christian Age </p> <p> 1. Post-prophetic Age </p> <p> 2. Maccabean Times </p> <p> 3. Apocalyptic Literature </p> <p> III. The Messiah In The New Testament </p> <p> 1. The Jewish [[Conception]] </p> <p> (1) The Messiah as King </p> <p> (2) His Prophetic Character </p> <p> (3) The Title "Son of God" </p> <p> 2. [[Attitude]] of Jesus to the Messiahship </p> <p> 3. The Christian Transformation </p> <p> 4. New [[Elements]] [[Added]] </p> <p> (1) Future [[Manifestation]] </p> <p> (2) Divine Personality </p> <p> (3) [[Heavenly]] [[Priesthood]] </p> <p> 5. Fulfillment in Jesus </p> <p> [[Literature]] </p> 1. Meaning and Use of the Term: <p> "Messias" (&nbsp;John 1:41; &nbsp;John 4:25 the King James Version) is a transcription of Μεσσίας , <i> '''''Messı́as''''' </i> , the Greek representation of the Aramaic. "Messiah" is thus a modification of the Greek form of the word, according to the Hebrew. </p> <p> 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" (&nbsp;Leviticus 4:3 , &nbsp;Leviticus 4:5 , &nbsp;Leviticus 4:16; &nbsp;Leviticus 6:22 (Hebrew 15)). Its substantive use is restricted to the king; he only is called "the Lord's anointed," e.g. Saul (&nbsp; 1 Samuel 24:6 , &nbsp;1 Samuel 24:10 (Hebrew 7, 11), etc.); David (&nbsp; 2 Samuel 19:21 (Hebrew 22); &nbsp; 2 Samuel 23:1 , "the anointed of the God of Jacob"); [[Zedekiah]] (&nbsp;Lamentations 4:20 ). Similarly in the Psalms the king is designated "mine," "thine," "his anointed." Thus also even Cyrus (&nbsp;Isaiah 45:1 ), as being chosen and commissioned by Yahweh to carry out His purpose with Israel. Some think the singular "mine anointed" in &nbsp;Habakkuk 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" (&nbsp; Psalm 105:15; &nbsp;1 Chronicles 16:22 ), as being Yahweh's chosen, consecrated servants, whose persons were inviolable. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Daniel 9:25 f ( <i> '''''māshı̄aḥ''''' </i> <i> '''''nāghı̄dh''''' </i> , "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. </p> 2. The Messianic Hope: <p> 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" (&nbsp;Exodus 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> I. The Messiah in the Old Testament. <p> <b> 1. The Messianic King: </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;2 Samuel 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. </p> (1) Isaiah. <p> Isaiah is the first of the prophets to refer to an extraordinary king of the future. Amos (&nbsp;Amos 9:11 ) foretold the time when the shattered fortunes of Judah would be restored, while Hosea (&nbsp;Hosea 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. </p> <p> The kings of Syria and Israel having entered into a league to dethrone Ahaz and supplant him by an obscure adventurer, &nbsp;Isaiah 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 <i> '''''‛almāh''''' </i> , "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 &nbsp;Isaiah 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" (&nbsp; Isaiah 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 (&nbsp; Isaiah 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 . </p> <p> A similar description of the Messianic king is given by Isaiah's younger contemporary Micah (&nbsp;Micah 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. </p> (2) Jeremiah and Ezekiel. <p> 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 (&nbsp;Jeremiah 23:5 f; compare &nbsp; Jeremiah 30:9 ). In Ezekiel he is alluded to as the coming one "whose right it is" (&nbsp;Ezekiel 21:27 ), and as Yahweh's "servant David" who shall be "prince" or "king" forever over a reunited people (&nbsp;Ezekiel 34:23 f; &nbsp; Ezekiel 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. </p> (3) Later Prophets. <p> 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 (&nbsp;Haggai 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]] (&nbsp;Zechariah 3:8 ). Still we have the unique prophecy of the author Of &nbsp;Zechariah 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. </p> <p> <b> 2. Prophetic and Priestly Relations: </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Deuteronomy 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 (&nbsp;Isaiah 11:2-5 ). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Jeremiah 30:9 , &nbsp;Jeremiah 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 (&nbsp;Jeremiah 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 (&nbsp; Zechariah 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 (&nbsp;Zechariah 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 &nbsp; Zechariah 6:11 , and read in &nbsp;Zechariah 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 &nbsp;Psalm 110:1-7 . </p> <p> <b> 3. Servant of Yahweh: </b> </p> <p> The bitter experiences of the nation during the exile originated a new conception, Messianic in the deepest sense, the Servant of Yahweh (&nbsp;Isaiah 40 - 66; chiefly &nbsp; Isaiah 41:8; &nbsp;Isaiah 42:1-7 , &nbsp;Isaiah 42:19 f; &nbsp; Isaiah 43:8 , &nbsp;Isaiah 43:10; &nbsp;Isaiah 44:1 f, 21; &nbsp; Isaiah 49:3-6; &nbsp;Isaiah 50:4-9; &nbsp;Isaiah 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. </p> <p> What really divides expositors is the interpretation of &nbsp;Isaiah 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Isaiah 53:11; compare &nbsp;Isaiah 42:1 ff; &nbsp; Isaiah 49:2; &nbsp;Isaiah 50:4 ); and as a reward for his sufferings he attains to a position of the highest royal splendor (&nbsp;Isaiah 52:15; &nbsp;Isaiah 53:12; compare &nbsp;Isaiah 49:7 ). See [[Servant Of Jehovah]] . </p> <p> <b> 4. Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic: </b> </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Daniel 7:13 f) one "like unto a son of man," <i> '''''kebhar''''' </i> <i> ''''''ĕnāsh''''' </i> (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. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Daniel 7:18 , &nbsp;Daniel 7:22 , &nbsp;Daniel 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. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Daniel 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 (&nbsp;Daniel 7:22 , &nbsp;Daniel 7:13 ). And it is in accordance with the interpretation given of the vision in &nbsp;Daniel 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. </p> <p> It may be noted that a new idea is suggested by this passage, the pre-existence of the Messiah before His manifestation. </p> II. The Messiah in the Pre-Christian Age. <p> <b> 1. Post-Prophetic Age: </b> </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> <b> 2. Maccabean Times: </b> </p> <p> 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" (&nbsp;1 Maccabees 14:41; compare 2:57), brought religious and national ideals into conflict. The "Pious" ( <i> ''''' ḥăṣı̄dhı̄m ''''' </i> ), 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. </p> <p> <b> 3. Apocalyptic Literature: </b> </p> <p> The national sentiment evoked by the Maccabees finds expression in the Apocalyptic literature of the century and a half before Christ. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Song of Solomon 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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]] . </p> III. The Messiah in the New Testament. <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 11:3 and parallel), while the people wondered whether John himself were the Christ (&nbsp; Luke 3:15 ). </p> <p> <b> 1. The Jewish Conception: </b> </p> (1) The Messiah as King. <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 21:9 and parallel); to the Pharisees also the Messiah was the son of David (&nbsp; Matthew 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 (&nbsp;John 7:27 , &nbsp;John 7:31 ). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Luke 2:25 , &nbsp;Luke 2:30 , &nbsp;Luke 2:38; compare &nbsp;Luke 1:68-79 ). </p> (2) His Prophetic Character. <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 14:2; &nbsp;Matthew 16:14 and parallel), but also that a preeminent prophet was looked for, distinct from the Messiah (&nbsp; John 1:21 , &nbsp;John 1:25; &nbsp;John 7:40 f). But the two conceptions of prophet and king seem to be identified in &nbsp; John 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 (&nbsp; John 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 (&nbsp;John 1:45 ). </p> (3) The Title "Son of God." <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 26:63 ). It was applied also in its official sense to Jesus by His disciples: John the Baptist (&nbsp;John 1:34 ), [[Nathaniel]] (&nbsp;John 1:49 ), Mary (&nbsp;John 11:27 ), Peter (&nbsp;Matthew 16:16 , though not in parallel). This Messianic use was based on &nbsp;Psalm 2:7; compare &nbsp;2 Samuel 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. </p> <p> <b> 2. Attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship: </b> </p> (1) His Claim. <p> 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. </p> (2) His [[Delay]] in Making It. <p> 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. </p> (3) "The Son of Man." <p> 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, <i> ''''' bar ''''' </i> <i> ''''' nāshā' ''''' </i> , 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 (&nbsp; Mark 8:38; &nbsp;Mark 13:26 and parallel; &nbsp; Mark 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 (&nbsp; Mark 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" (&nbsp;Matthew 20:28 and parallel) and going "as it is written of him" (&nbsp; Matthew 26:24 and parallel), as well as &nbsp; Luke 22:37 , indicate that He interpreted &nbsp;Isaiah 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. </p> <p> It may be added that our Lord's use of the phrase implies what the Gospels suggest (&nbsp;John 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]] . </p> <p> <b> 3. The Christian Transformation: </b> </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 16:22; &nbsp;Matthew 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 (&nbsp;Luke 18:34; &nbsp;Luke 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 (&nbsp;Luke 24:31; &nbsp;Acts 2:36 , &nbsp;Acts 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 (&nbsp; Acts 3:13 , &nbsp;Acts 3:18-21 , &nbsp;Acts 3:26; &nbsp;Acts 4:27 , &nbsp;Acts 4:30; &nbsp;Acts 8:35; &nbsp;Acts 10:36-43 ). </p> <p> <b> 4. New Elements Added: </b> </p> (1) Future Manifestation. <p> 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. </p> (2) Divine Personality. <p> [[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 (&nbsp;John 1:1; &nbsp;Romans 1:4 , &nbsp;Romans 1:7; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:3 , etc.). His pre-existence is affirmed (&nbsp;John 1:1; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 8:9 ); and when He comes again in his Messianic glory, He will exercise the Divine function of Universal Judge (&nbsp;Acts 10:42; &nbsp;Acts 17:30 f, etc.). </p> (3) Heavenly Priesthood. <p> 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" (&nbsp;Hebrews 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. </p> <p> <b> 5. Fulfillment in Jesus: </b> </p> <p> 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" (&nbsp;Revelation 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. </p> Literature. <p> Drummond, <i> The Jewish Messiah </i> ; Stanton, <i> The Jewish and the Christian Messiah </i> ; Riehm, <i> Messianic Prophecy </i> ; Delitzsch, <i> Messianic Prophecies </i> ; von Orelli, <i> Old Testament Prophecy </i> ; A. B. Davidson, <i> Old Testament Prophecy </i> ; Schultz, <i> Old Testament Theology </i> ; Schurer, <i> Hjp </i> , 504 II, volume II, section 29, "The Messianic Hope"; Westcott, <i> Introduction to the Study of the Gospels </i> , chapter ii, "The Jewish [[Doctrine]] of Messiah"; Edersheim, <i> The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah </i> , book II, chapter v, "What Messiah Did the Jews Expect?"; E. F. Scott, <i> The Kingdom and the Messiah </i> ; Fairweather, <i> The Background of the Gospels </i> ; articles in <i> Db </i> , <i> Hdb </i> , <i> Eb </i> , <i> Dcg </i> . For further list see Riehm and Schurer. See also Apocalyptic Literature . </p>