III. Systematic Statement

III. SYSTEMATIC STATEMENT
We supplement this historical survey by giving also in the following pages a systematic statement of Messianic doctrinal theology on the foundation of the Shema, as resulting from the Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Esdras. For the eschatological expectation is most fully developed in these two Apocalypses.
1. The last tribulation and perplexity.[1843] Almost everywhere when the last things are referred to, the thought recurs with different variations, that the appearance of redemption must be preceded by a period of special trouble and affliction. It was indeed in itself an obvious thought, that the path to happiness should pass through tribulation. This was also expressly predicted in the Old Testament (Hosea 13:13; Daniel 12:1, and elsewhere); and thus was formed in Rabbinical theology, the doctrine of the חֶבְלֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ, the travail of the Messiah, which must precede His birth, i.e. His appearing (the expression according to Hosea 13:13; comp. Matthew 24:8 : πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων; Mark 13:9 : ἀρχαὶ ὠδίνων ταῦτα). The threatening troubles will be announced by omens of all kinds. The sun and moon will be darkened, swords appear in heaven, trains of horse and foot march through the clouds (Orac. Sibyll. 3:795-807; comp. 2Ma_5:2-3. Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3. Tacit. Hist. v. 13). Everything in nature falls into commotion and confusion. The sun appears by night, the moon by day. Blood trickles from wood, the stone gives forth a voice, and salt is found in fresh water (4 Ezra 5:1-13). Places that have been sown will appear as unsown, full barns be found empty, and the springs of the wells be stopped (4 Ezra 6:18-22). Among men all the restraints of order will be dissolved, sin and ungodliness rule upon earth. And men will fight against each other as if stricken with madness, the friend against the friend, the son against the father, the daughter against the mother. Nation will rise against nation, and to war shall be added earthquakes, fire, and famine, whereby men shall be carried off (Book of Jubilees in Ewald’s Jahrb. vol. iii. p. 23 sq. Apocal. Baruch 70:2-8; 4 Ezra 6:24, 9:1-12, 13:29-31; Mishna, Sota ix. 15).[1844] Comp. also Matthew 24:7-12; Matthew 24:21; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:23; 1 Corinthians 7:26; 2 Timothy 3:1.
[1843] Comp. Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae, ii. 509 sqq., 550 sqq. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 45-54. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 225 f., 300-304. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 436 f. (2nd ed. ix. 666). Renan, L’Antichrist. Hamburger, Real-Enc., art “Messianische Leidenszeit” (pp. 735-738).
[1844] Mishna, Sota ix. 15, according to Jost’s translation, is as follows: “As traces of the approach of Messiah are to be regarded, that arrogance increases, ambition shoots up, that the vine yields fruit and yet wine is dear. The government turns to heresy. There is no instruction. The place of assembly (the synagogue) is devoted to lewdness. Galilee is destroyed, Gablan laid waste. The inhabitants of a district go from city to city, without finding compassion. The wisdom of the learned is hated, the godly despised, truth is absent. Boys insult old men, old men stand in the presence of children. The son depreciates the father, the daughter rebels against the mother, the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law. A man’s enemies are his house-fellows” (comp. Micah 7:6; Matthew 10:35-36; Luke 12:53). The whole passage however does not belong to the genuine text of the Mishna. It is wanting, e.g. in the Editio princeps, Naples 1492. Being in the Jerusalem Talmud, it was certainly introduced thence into the Mishna.
2. Elijah as the forerunner.[1845] The return of the prophet Elijah to prepare the way of the Messiah was expected on the ground of Mal. 3:23, 24. This view is already taken for granted in the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Sir_48:10-11). It is, as is well known, frequently alluded to in the New Testament (see especially Matthew 17:10; Mark 9:11; also Matthew 11:14; Matthew 16:14; Mark 6:15; Mark 8:28; Luke 9:8; Luke 9:19; John 1:21). It was even transferred to the Christian circle of ideas.[1846] According to Mal. 3:24, the object of his mission is chiefly considered to be, to make peace upon earth and in general to substitute order for disorder (Matthew 17:11 : ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα; Mark 9:12 : ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα). The chief passage in the Mishna is as follows:[1847] “R. Joshua said: I received the tradition from R. Johanan ben Sakkai, who received it from his teacher as a tradition in a direct line from Moses at Mount Sinai, that Elias would not come to pronounce clean or unclean, to reject or admit families in general, but only to reject those who had entered by violence, and to admit those who had been rejected by violence. There was, beyond Jordan, a family of the name of Beth Zerefa, which a certain Ben Zion had excluded by violence. There was there another family (of impure blood), whom this Ben Zion had admitted by violence. Therefore he comes to pronounce such clean or unclean, to reject or to admit them. R. Jehudah says: only to admit, but not to reject. R. Simon says: his mission is merely to arrange disputes. The learned say neither to reject nor admit, but his coming is merely with the object of making peace in the world. For it is said: ‘I send you, Elijah the prophet, to turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers’ (Malachi 3:4).” To the duty of the institutors of peace and order belongs also the decision of disputed cases. Therefore it is said in the Mishna, that money and property whose owners are disputed, or anything found whose owner is unknown, must wait “till Elijah comes.”[1848] The view that he will anoint the Messiah,[1849] and raise the dead,[1850] is also found in single instances. Besides Elijah, the prophet like Moses, who is promised Deuteronomy 18:15 (John 1:21; John 6:14; John 7:40), was expected by many, while by others this passage was applied to the Messiah Himself. Allusions are also found in the New Testament to other prophets as forerunners of the Messiah, as e.g. Jeremiah (Matthew 16:14). In Christian authorities a return of Enoch is also spken of (Ev. Nicodemi, c. 25, and the patristic exegetes on Revelation 11:3).[1851]
[1845] Comp. Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae, ii. 533 sqq. Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. on Matthew 17:10. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 58-68. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 227-229. Alexandre, Oracula Sibyllina (1st ed.), ii. 513-516. S. K., Der Prophet Elia in der Legende (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1863, pp. 241-255, 281-296). “Elias who was to come” (Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, new series, vol. x. 1867, pp. 371-376). Renan, L’Antichrist. Castelli, Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei, pp. 196-201. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläst. Theologie, pp. 337-339.
[1846] Commodian. Carmen apologet. v. 826 sq. Orac. Sibyll. 2:187-190 (of Christian origin):—
[1847] Edujoth viii. 7.
[1848] Baba mezia iii. 4, 5, i. 8, ii. 8. Comp. also Shekalim ii. 5, fin.
[1849] Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 8: Χριστὸς δὲ εἰ καὶ γεγένηται καὶ ἔστι που, ἄγνωστός ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα, μέχρις ἂν ἐλθὼν Ἠλίας χρίσῃ αὐτὸν καὶ φανερὸν πᾶσι ποιήσῃ. Ibid. c. 49: Καὶ γὰρ πάντες ἡμεῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων προσδοκῶμεν γενήσεσθαι καὶ τὸν Ἠλίαν χρίσαι αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα. Comp. also John 1:31.
[1850] Sota ix. 15 (quite at the end): “The resurrection of the dead comes through the prophet Elijah. The expectation is founded on the fact, that Elijah figures in the Old Testament as a raiser of the dead.”
[1851] Comp. Philo, Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. pp. 756-768, and the commentaries on John 11:3.
Καὶ τόθʼ ὁ Θεσβίτης γε, ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ ἅρμα τιταίνων
Οὐράνιον, γαίῃ δʼ ἐπιβάς, τότε σήματα τρισσὰ
Κόσμῳ ὅλῳ δείξει τε ἀπολλυμένου βιότοιο
3. The appearing of the Messiah. After these preparations the Messiah will appear. For it is by no means the case, that pre-Christian Judaism did not expect the Messiah till after the judgment, and that it was under the influence of Christianity, that the notion of the Messiah Himself sitting in judgment upon His enemies was first found. For not only in Baruch and Ezra, not only in the figurative addresses of the Book of Enoch and in the Targums (where perhaps Christian influence might be admitted), but also in the oldest Sibyll (3:652-656), in the Psalter of Solomon (17:24, 26, 27, 31, 38, 39, 41), and in Philo (De praemiis et poenis, § 16), and thus in decidedly pre-Christian documents, does Messiah appear for the overthrow of the ungodly powers. And the opposite view, that He will not appear till after the judgment, is found only in a solitary instance, viz. in the groundwork of the Book of Enoch (90:16-38). Hence His appearing must undoubtedly be spoken of in this place.
First with regard to his name as the appointed King of Israel and the anointed of God, he is most frequently called the Anointed, the Messiah (Enoch 48:10, 52:4; Apocal. Baruch 29:3, 30:1, 39:7, 40:1, 70:9, 72:2; Ezra 7:28, 29, where the Latin translation is interpolated; Ezra 12:32: Unctus); Greek, Χριστὸς κυρίου (Psalt. Solom. 17:36, 18:6, 8); Hebr. הַמָּשִׁיחַ (Mishna, Berachoth i. 5); Aramaic, מְשִׁיחָא (Mishna, Sota ix. 15); or מַלְכָּא מְשִׁיחָא (both frequently in the Targums). The designation—the Son of man—which arose from appropriating directly to the Messiah, the image in Daniel of one coming in the clouds of heaven in the form of a man, but which, according to the context in Daniel, signifies the church and kingdom of God, is peculiar to the figurative addresses of the Book of Enoch (46:1-4, 48:2, 62:7, 9, 14, 63:11, 69:26, 27, 70:1). Inasmuch as the Messiah is the chosen instrument of God, and the love of God rests upon Him, He is called the Elect (Enoch 45:3, 4, 49:2, 51:3, 5, 52:6, 9, 53:6, 55:4, 61:8, 62:1), or like the theocratic king in the Old Testament, the Son of God (Enoch 105:2; 4 Ezra 7:28, 29, 13:32, 37, 52, 14:9). In Enoch the title Son of the Woman once occurs, perhaps as a Christian interpolation, Enoch 62:5. It was universally acknowledged, on the ground of Old Testament prophecy,[1852] that He would proceed from the race of David (Psalt. Solom. 17:5, 23; Matthew 22:42; Mark 12:35; Luke 20:41; John 7:42; 4 Ezra 12:32;[1853] Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15). Hence, Son of David is a usual title of the Messiah (frequently in the New Testament υἱὸς Δαυίδ; in Targum Jonathan on Hosea 3:5, בַּר דָּיִד; in the Shemoneh Esreh, 15th Berachah, צֶמַח דָּוִד). As Davidic He was also to be born in Bethlehem, the town of David (Micah 5:1 with the Targum; Matthew 2:5; John 7:41-42).
[1852] Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 11:10; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 30:9; Jeremiah 33:15; Jeremiah 33:17; Jeremiah 33:22; Ezekiel 34:23 f., 37:24 f.; Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11; Micah 5:1; Zechariah 12:8.
[1853] The words, qui orietur ex semine David, are indeed wanting in the Latin translation, but are to be regarded as original according to the unanimous testimony of the Oriental versions.
Whether pre-Christian Judaism regarded the Messiah as simply human, or as a being of a higher order, and especially whether it attributed to him pre-existence, cannot, with the uncertainty about the dates of authorities, be positively decided.[1854] The original Messianic hope did not expect an individual Messiah at all, but theocratic kings of the house of David.[1855] Subsequently the hope was consolidated and raised more and more into the expectation of a personal Messiah as a ruler endowed by God with special gifts and powers. In the time of Christ this form had at all events long been the prevailing one. But this naturally implies that the picture would more and more acquire superhuman features. The more exceptional the position awarded to the Messiah, the more does He Himself step forth from ordinary human limits. In the freedom with which the religious circle of ideas moved, this was effected in a very different fashion. In general however the Messiah was thought of as a human king and ruler, but as one endowed by God with special gifts and powers. This is especially evident in the Solomonian Psalter. He here appears as altogether a human king (17:23, 47), but a righteous one (17:35), free from sin and holy (17:41, 46), endowed by the Holy Ghost with power, wisdom and righteousness (17:42). It is the same view, only briefly expressed, which designates him as ἁγνὸς ἄναξ (Orac. Sibyll. 3:49). Elsewhere, on the other hand, even pre-existence is ascribed to him, and his whole appearing raised more to the superhuman. So especially in the figurative addresses in the Book of Enoch.[1856] It must not indeed be reckoned in this respect, that he is, as already mentioned, called the Son of God. For the official predicate tells us nothing at all of His nature; nor does His designation in Enoch as the Son of man of itself tell us anything. The whole view of His person is however in both the above-named works one essential super-natural. In the figurative addresses in the Book of Enoch, it is said of Him: He was (before his manifestation on earth) hidden and kept with God (46:1, 2, 62:7). His name was named before the Lord of spirits, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars were made (48:3).[1857] He was chosen and was hidden with God before the world was created, and will be with Him to eternity (48:6). His countenance is as the appearance of a man, and full of grace, like one of the holy angels (46:1). It is he, who has righteousness, with whom righteousness dwells, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is concealed, because the Lord of spirits has chosen him, and his lot before the Lord of spirits has surpassed everything through uprightness for ever (46:3). His glory is from eternity to eternity, and his power from generation to generation. In him dwells the spirit of wisdom, and the spirit of Him who gives knowledge, and the spirit of instruction and strength, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness. And he will judge the hidden things, and no one will be able to hold vain discourse before him, for he is chosen before the Lord of spirits according to his good pleasure (49:2-4). In essential agreement with this are the expressions of the fourth Book of Ezra. Compare especially 12:32: Hic est Unctus, quem reservavit Altissimus in finem; and 13:24: Ipse est, quem conservat Altissimus multis temporibus. As his pre-existence is here expressly taught, so is it presupposed when it is promised to Ezra, that after his admission into heaven he will return with the Messiah (tu enim recipieris ab hominibus, et converteris residuum cum filio meo et cum similibus tuis, usquequo finiantur tempora). And quite in accordance with Enoch is his pre-existence designated as a state of concealment with God (13:52): Sicut non potest hoc vel scrutinare vel scire quis, quid sit in profundo maris, sic non poterit quisque super terram videre filium meum, vel eos qui cum eo sunt, nisi in tempore diei. It has been in many respects attempted, but hardly with justice, to refer this entire series of thought to Christian influences. It is indeed perfectly comprehensible from Old Testament premises. Such expressions as Micah 5:2, that the origins of Messiah are from of old, from the days of eternity (מִקֶּרֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם), might easily be understood in the sense of a pre-existence from eternity. Besides, the passage Daniel 7:13-14 need only be understood of the person of the Messiah and taken literally, and the doctrine of the pre-existence is already stated. For it is self-evident, that he who comes down from heaven, was before in heaven. This view was favoured by the fact that the whole course of the development tended towards the notion, that everything truly valuable previously existed in heaven.[1858] On the other hand, many traces show that post-Christian Judaism, far from elevating the person of the Messiah, under Christian influence to the supernatural, strongly emphasized the human side in opposition to Christianity. We need only recall the saying in Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone, c. 49: πάντες ἡμεῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων προσδοκῶμεν γενήσεσθαι. And akin with this is a Talmudic passage Jer. Taanith ii. 1 (given by Oehler, ix. 437, 2nd ed. 667): “R. Abbahu said: If a man says to thee—I am God, he lies; I am the Son of man, he will at last repent it; I ascend to heaven, if he said it he will not prove it.” Thus it was just the humanity upon which post-Christian Judaism strongly insisted. And so much the less cause have we to refer the view of the pre-existence to Christian influence.
[1854] For later Judaism, comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 86-147. De Wette, Biblische Dogmatik, pp. 169-171. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 292-300. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 437 sq. (2nd ed. ix. 666 sq.). Castelli. Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei, pp. 202-215. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläst. Theologie, p. 339 ff. Hamburger, Real-Enc., art. “Messias,” pp. 738-765.
[1855] The promise of a king of David’s house “for ever” means, in the first place, only that the dynasty should not die out. Thus e.g. the Maccabean Simon was chosen by the people as ruler and high priest “for ever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 1Ma_14:41), i.e. the government and high-priesthood were declared hereditary in his family.
[1856] Comp. Hellwag, Theol. Jahrb. 1848, pp. 151-160.
[1857] Comp. Targum Jonathan on Zechariah 4:7 : The Messiah whose name was named before eternity.
[1858] See above, p. 134, and Harnack on Hermas, Vis. ii. 4. 1 (according to Hermas the Christian Church was pre-existent). In the Old Testament a heavenly model of the tabernacle and its vessels is already assumed (Exodus 25:9; Exodus 25:40; Exodus 26:30; Exodus 27:8; Numbers 8:4).
Concerning the time of Messiah’s appearing the later Rabbis made all manner of ingenious computations.[1859] The view that the present world would last six thousand years, corresponding to the six days of creation, because one day is with God as a thousand years, seems to have been pretty widely disseminated.[1860] But the date of the advent of Messiah seems under this presupposition to have been very variously computed, according as his days were identified with the future עוֹלם or still reckoned in the present עוֹלָם (comp. below, No. 9). According to the former and older view, the Messianic period would begin after the lapse of the sixth thousand (so Barnabas, Irenaeus and others). On the latter supposition (that the days of the Messiah belonged to the present עוֹלָם), the present course of the world was divided into three periods: 2000 years without law, 2000 years under the law, and 2000 years of the Messianic period. According to this computation the time appointed for the Messiah’s advent had already arrived, but he could not yet appear because of the transgressions of the people.[1861] This latter was, at least in rigidly legal circles, the general view: the Messiah cannot come until the people repent and perfectly fulfil the law. “If all Israel would together repent for a whole day, the redemption by Messiah would ensue.” If Israel would only keep two Sabbaths properly, we should be immediately redeemed.[1862]
[1859] Sanhedrin 96b-97a, fully given in Delitzsch’s Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer, pp. 762-764, and in Castelli, Il Messia, p. 297 sqq. Comp. Weber, System, p. 334 sq.
[1860] Barnabas, c. 15; Irenaeus, v. 28. 3, and Hilgenfeld’s and Harnack’s notes to Barnabas, c. 15.
[1861] See Delitzsch and Weber as above (Sanhedrin 97a; Aboda sara 9a).
[1862] See Weber, System, p. 333 sq.
The manner of Messiah’s advent is represented as sudden all at once he is there and appears as a victorious ruler. As on the other hand it is assumed, that he is born as a child in Bethlehem, the two views are combined by the admission, that he will at first live in concealment and then suddenly come forth from concealment.[1863] Therefore the Jews say in John 7:27 : ὁ Χριστὸς ὅταν ἔρχηται, οὐδεὶς γινώσκει πόθεν ἐστίν. And in Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone it is just on this account that the possibility, that Messiah may have already been born, is left open to the representative of the Jewish view.[1864] It is related in the Jerusalem Talmud, that the Messiah was born on the day the temple was destroyed, but some time after carried away from his mother by a tempest.[1865] In the Targum on Micah 4:8 also, it is assumed that he is already present, but still concealed, and that because of the sins of the people. In later writers is found the view that he would proceed from Rome.[1866] The belief that he would at his advent authenticate himself by miracles was universal (Matthew 11:4 sqq.; Luke 7:22 sqq.; John 7:31).
[1863] Comp. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on John 7:27. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 223-225. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 438 (2nd ed. ix. 668). Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, p. 293 sq. Weber, System, p. 342 sqq.
[1864] Dial. c. Tryph. c. 8: Χριστὸς δὲ εἰ καὶ γεγένηται καὶ ἔστι που, ἀγνωστός ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα. Ibid. c. 110: εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐληλυθέναι λέγουσιν, οὐ γινώσκεται ὅς ἐστιν, ἀλλʼ ὅταν ἐμφανὴς καὶ ἔνδοξος γένηται, τότε γνωσθήσεται ὅς ἐστι, φασί.
[1865] See the whole passage in Lightfoot’s Horae on Matthew 2:1. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, p. 279 sq.
[1866] Targum Jerushalmi on Ex. 13:42 and Bab. Sanhedrin 98a. The latter passage is given in Delitzsch’s Commentar zum Hebrderbrief, p. 117, and in Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias (1870), p. 57 sq.
4. Last attack of the hostile powers.[1867] After the appearing of the Messiah, the heathen powers will assemble against him for a last attack. This expectation too was suggested by Old Testament passages, especially by Daniel 11. It is very plainly expressed Orac. Sibyll. 3:663 sqq. and 4 Ezra 13:33 sqq., also in Enoch 90:16, only that here it is not an attack against Messiah, but against the people of God. It is frequently held, that this last attack takes place under the leadership of a chief adversary of the Messiah, of an “Antichrist” (the name is in the N. T. in the Johannean Epistles, 1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7; the thing in Apoc. Baruch c. 40; 2 Thessalonians 2; Revelation 13).[1868] In later Rabbinic authorities the enigmatical name Armilus (ארמילוס) occurs for this chief adversary of the people of Israel.[1869] The reappearance of Gog and Magog is also expected on the ground of Ezekiel 38-39, but as a rule not till after the close of the Messianic kingdom, as a last manifestation of the ungodly powers (Revelation 20:8-9).[1870]
[1867] See Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, pp. 296-308. For the O. T. Herm. Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie (2nd ed. 1878), p. 696.
[1868] Comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 69-74. Gesenius, art. “Antichrist,” in Ersch and Gruber’s Enc. sec. i. vol. iv. (1820) p. 292 sq. Hausrath in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 137 sq. Kähler in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. i. 446 sqq. For the history of the Christian doctrine, the chief work is Malvenda, De Antichristo, Romae 1604.
[1869] Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 221-224, s.v. ארמילוס. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum (1700), ii. 704-715. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 72 sq. (art. “Armilus”). Castelli, Il Messia, p. 239 sqq. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 282, also pp. 130, 140.
[1870] Comp. Orac. Sibyll. 3:319 sqq., 512 sqq. Mishna, Edujoth ii. 10. The commentaries on Revelation 20:8-9. The articles on Gog and Magog in the Bible Dictionaries (Schenkel, Winer, Riehm) and in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. v. 263-265. Uhlemann on Gog and Magog (Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1862, pp. 265-286). Renan, L’Antichrist. Weber, System, p. 396 sqq.
5. Destruction of the Hostile Powers.[1871] The destruction of the hostile powers takes place according to Old Testament prediction by means of a great judgment, inflicted by God Himself upon His adversaries.[1872] This view is most faithfully adhered to in the Assumptio Mosis, the tenth chapter of which in many respects recalls Joel chaps, 3 and 4 Closely akin to it is the statement in the groundwork of the Book of Enoch, inasmuch as here too God Himself destroys the power of the heathen nations (90:18, 19) and then sits in judgment, at which judgment however only the fallen and disobedient angels and the apostate Israelites (the blinded sheep) are condemned (90:20-27), while the heathen nations submit to the people of God (90:30). The Messiah, who is altogether absent in the Assumptio Mosis, here first appears after the judgment (90:37). It is common to both, that it is God Himself who sits in judgment. The ordinary notion however was, that the Messiah would destroy the hostile powers. Already in the oldest Sibyllist (3:652 sqq.) he appears “to put an end to all war upon earth, killing some and fulfilling the promises given to others.” In Philo (De praem. et poen. § 16) it is said of him, that he “takes the field and makes war and will subdue great and populous nations.” Still more clearly does he appear in the Psalterium Salomonis as the conqueror of the heathen adversaries of God’s people, and it is here specially noteworthy, that he overthrows his enemies by the mere word of his mouth (ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ, according to Isaiah 11:4). In entire agreement with these older types is the destruction of the heathen world-powers represented in the Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra as the first act of the Messiah, when he appears (Apoc. Baruch 39:7-40:2, 70:9, 72:2-6; 4 Ezra 12:32, 33, 13:27, 28, 35-38). The only difference is, that, according to the fourth Book of Ezra, this destruction results from a sentence of God’s anointed (13:28: non tenebat frameam neque vas bellicosum; 13:28: perdet eos sine labore per legem), while in the Apocalypse of Baruch although forensic forms are spoken of, yet weapons of war are also mentioned (the former 40:1, 2, the latter 72:6). Still more decidedly than in the fourth Book of Ezra, is the judgment of the Messiah upon an ungodly world described as purely forensic in the figurative addresses in the Book of Enoch. One might indeed feel tempted to ascribe to this book also the view of a war of extermination, since it is said of the Son of man, chap. 46:4-6, that he stirs up the kings and the mighty ones from their beds, loosens the bridles of the powerful and breaks the teeth of sinners; that he thrusts kings from their thrones and out of their kingdoms, and (52:4-9) that nothing on earth is able to resist his power. “There will be no iron for war, nor coat of mail; brass will be of no avail, and tin will be of no avail and will be of no esteem, and lead will not be desired.” But in other places it is repeatedly said, that the elect, the Son of man, will sit upon the throne of His glory to judge men and angels (45:3, 55:4, 69:27, 61:8, 9). In the chief passage also, chap. 62., the judgment is described in purely forensic forms. The Lord of spirits sits upon the throne of his glory (62:2), and the Son of the woman, the Son of man, sits upon the throne of his glory (62:5 sqq.). And the kings and mighty ones of the earth are struck when they see him with fear and terror, and extol and praise and supplicate him, and entreat mercy from him (62:4-9). But the Lord of spirits will reject them, so that they will speedily flee before his face, and their faces be filled with shame. And the avenging angels will receive them, to exercise retribution upon them, for having ill-treated his children and his elect (62:10, 11). Finally, we again find in the Targums the view, that the Messiah overcomes his enemies in battle, as a mighty hero. So in Jonathan on Isaiah 10:27 : “The nations are crushed by the Messiah;” and especially in Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerushalmi on Genesis 49:11 : “How beautiful is King Messiah, who will proceed from the house of Judah. He girds his loins and enters the field and sets the battle in array against his foes and kills kings.” We just see from all this, that the general idea of a destruction of the anti-godly powers by the Messiah is fashioned very variously as to its particulars.[1873] Not till after the destruction of the ungodly can the Messianic age appear, For “as long as there are sinners in the world, so long does the wrath of God endure, but as they disappear from the world the divine wrath also vanishes.”[1874]
[1871] Comp. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 232-234.
[1872] See in general, Knobel, Der Prophetismus der Hebräer, i. 325 sq.
[1873] In a passage of the Babylonian Talmud (Sukka 52a) and frequently afterwards, the destruction of the hostile powers is represented not as the task of the Messiah proper, but as that of a subordinate Messiah, of “Messiah the son of Joseph” (משיה בן יוסף). He is also called “Messiah the son of of Ephraim,” and is therefore the Messiah of the ten tribes, and has only the comparatively subordinate task of fighting against the ungodly powers, in which fight he will fall, while the Messiah, the son of David, will set up the kingdom of glory. Compare on this very recent view, Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 75-81. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 258 sqq. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 440 (2nd ed. ix. 669 sq.). Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, pp. 109-121. Castelli, Il Messia, pp. 224-236, 342 sqq. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, p. 356 sqq. Weber, System, p. 346 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 767-770 (art. “Messias Sohn Joseph”).
[1874] Mishna, Sanhedrin x. 6, fin.
6. Renovation of Jerusalem.[1875] Since the Messianic kingdom is to be set up in the Holy Land (comp. e.g. 4 Ezra 9:9), Jerusalem itself must first of all be renovated. This was however expected in diverse manners. In the simplest it was regarded only as a purification of the holy city, especially “from the heathen, who now tread it under foot” (Psalt. Salom. 17:25, 33). After the destruction of Jerusalem it took the form of a rebuilding and indeed of a rebuilding “to an eternal building” (Shemoneh Esreh, 14th Berachah). With this is however found the view, that already in the pre-Messianic time a far more glorious Jerusalem than the earthly exists with God in heaven, and that this will, at the commencement of the Messianic age, descend to earth. The Old Testament foundation for this hope is especially Ezekiel 40-48, also Isaiah 54:11 sqq., Isa 60; Haggai 2:7-9; Zechariah 2:6-13; the new Jerusalem described in these passages being conceived of as now already existing in heaven. This ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ (Galatians 4:26), Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος (Hebrews 12:22) καινὴ Ἱερουσαλήμ (Revelation 3:12; Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10) is also, as is well known, often spoken of in the New Testament; comp. also Test. Dan. c. 5: ἡ νέα Ἱερουσαλήμ. According to the Apocalypse of Baruch, this heavenly Jerusalem was originally in Paradise before Adam sinned. But when he transgressed the command of God, it was taken from him, as was also Paradise, and preserved in heaven. It was afterwards shown in a vision of the night to Abraham, and also to Moses upon Mount Sinai (Apoc. Bar 4:2-6). Ezra too saw it in a vision (4 Ezra 10:44-44). This new and glorious Jerusalem is then to appear on earth in the place of the old one, which it will far surpass in pomp and beauty, Enoch 53:6, 90:28, 29; 4 Ezra 7:26. Comp. also Apoc. Baruch 32:4.
[1875] Comp. Schoettgen, De Hierosolyma coelesti (Horae Hebraicae, i. 1205-1248). Meuschen, Nov. Test, ex Talmude illustratum, p. 199 sq. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Galatians 4:26. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, ii. 839 sqq. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 217-221. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 245 sqq., 308. Weber, System, p. 356 sqq.
7. Gathering of the Dispersed.[1876] That the dispersed of Israel would share in the Messianic kingdom, and for this purpose return to Palestine, was so self-evident, that this hope would have been cherished even without the definite predictions of the Old Testament. The Psalterium Salomonis (Psalms 11) poetically describes how the dispersed of Israel will assemble from the west and east, from the north and from the Isles, and come to Jerusalem. The Greek Book of Baruch expresses a partly verbal agreement with the Psalt. Sal. (4:36, 37, 5:5-9). Philo sees the dispersed under the leadership of a divine appearance coming from all quarters to Jerusalem (De exsecrationibus, § 8-9). The prediction too of Isaiah, that the heathen nations shall themselves bring the dispersed as an offering to the temple (Isaiah 49:22; Isaiah 60:4; Isaiah 60:9; Isaiah 66:20) reappears in the Psalt. Salom. (17:34), while the gathering is at the same time described as the work of the Messiah (Psalt. Salom. 17:28. Jonathan on Jeremiah 33:13). According to the fourth Book of Ezra, the ten tribes departed into a hitherto uninhabited country called Azareth (so the Latin version) or Arzaph (finis mundi, so the Syrian), that they might there observe their laws.[1877] Thence will they return at the commencement of the Messianic period, and the Most High will dry up the sources of the Euphrates, that they may pass over (4 Ezra 13:39-47). With this universal hope of the gathering of the dispersed, it is striking, that the return of the ten tribes is altogether doubted by individuals like R. Akiba.[1878] From the daily prayer however of the Shemoneh Esreh: “Lift up a banner to gather our dispersed and assemble us from the four ends of the earth,” it is seen that such doubts were confined to individuals.
[1876] Comp. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 235-238. The sequence is: (1) the renovation of Jerusalem; (2) the gathering of the Dispersed, according to the Sohar in Gfrörer, ii. 217, above.
[1877] Azareth = ארץ אחרת, terra alia (4 Ezra 13:40); the Hebrew expression in Deuteronomy 29:27, which passage is in the Mishna referred to the ten tribes (see the next note). This undoubtedly correct explanation was first given by Schiller-Szinessy (Journal of Philology, vol. iii. 1870), and afterwards by Bensly, The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra (1875), p. 28, note.
[1878] Sanhedrin x. 3, fin.; “The ten tribes never more return, for it is said of them (Deuteronomy 29:27): He will cast them into another land as this day. Hence as this day passes away and does not return, so shall they pass away and not return. So R. Akiba. But R. Elieser says: As the day grows darker and then light again, so will it some day be light again with the ten tribes, with whom it is now dark.”
8. The kingdom of glory in Palestine. The Messianic kingdom will indeed have the Messianic King at its head, but its supreme ruler is God Himself (comp. e.g. Orac. Sibyll. 3:704-706, 717, 756-759; Psalt. Salom. 17:1, 38, 51; Shemoneh Esreh, 11th Berachah. Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 1). With the setting up of this kingdom, the idea of God’s kingship over Israel becomes full reality and truth. God is indeed already the King of Israel. He does not however exercise His kingship to its full extent, but on the contrary temporarily exposes His people to the heathen world-powers, to chastise them for their sins. In the glorious future kingdom He again takes the government into His own hand. Hence it is called in contrast to the heathen kingdoms, the kingdom of God (βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, in the New Testament, especially in Mark and Luke. Sibyll. 3:47, 48: βασιλεία μεγίστη ἀθανάτου βασιλῆος. Comp. Psalt. Salom. 17:4; Assumptio Mosis 10:1, 3). Of similar meaning is the expression occurring in Matthew, βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, “kingdom of heaven.”[1879] For “heaven” here is, according to a very current Jewish expression, a metonymy for God. It is the kingdom, which is governed not by earthly powers, but by heaven.[1880]
[1879] Comp. on this expression, Schoettgen, De regno coelorum (Horae Hebraicae, i. 1147-1152). Lightfoot, Horae on Matthew 3:2. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew 3:2. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 187-192. De Wette, Biblische Dogmatik, pp. 175-177. Tholuck, Bergpredigt, p. 66 sq. Fritzsche, Evangelium Matthaei, p. 109 sqq. (where still more literature is given). Kuinoel on Matthew 3:2. The Commentaries in general on Matthew 3:2. Wichelhaus, Commentar zu der Leidensgeschichte (1855), p. 284 sqq. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, ii. 33 sqq. Schürer, Der Begriff des Himmelreiches aus jüdischen Quellen erläutert (Jahrb. für prot. Theol. 1876, pp. 166-187). Cremer, Bibl.-theol. Wörterb. s.v. βασιλεία. Also Theol. Litztg. 1883, p. 581.
[1880] I have shown in the article quoted (Jahrb. für prot. Theol. 1876, p. 166 sqq.) how current this metonymy was in Judaism in the time of Christ. The formula מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִּם in particular frequently occurs, certainly not as a rule with the meaning of “kingdom of heaven,” but as abstractum “the kingship, the government of heaven,” i.e. the rule of God (e.g. Mishna, Berachoth ii. 2, 5). But just here there can be no doubt that שמים stands metonymically for “God.” So much the stranger is it, to dispute the correctness of this meaning, where βασιλεία stands as concretum (with the signification “kingdom”); for the genitive τῶν οὐρανῶν remains the same, whether βασιλεία means “the kingship,” or “the kingdom.” If accidentally the expression מלכות שמים, not meaning “the kingdom of heaven,” should occur in Rabbinic literature, this would be sufficiently explained by the fact that the Rabbis seldom speak of the “kingdom of God” at all. They say instead “the days of Messiah” or “the עולם to come,” or the like. It seems however, that the expression does nevertheless occur with the meaning in question, so especially Pesikta (ed. Buber) p. 51a: הגיע זמנה של מלכות, הגיע זמנה של מלכות הרשעה שתעקר מן העולם שמים שתגלה, “The time of tlie ungodly Malkuth is come, that it should be rooted out of the world; the time of the Malkuth of heaven is come, that it should be revealed.” The same passage also in Midrash rabba on the Song of Solomon (in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. מלכות). Comp. also Weber, System, p. 349. Cremer, Biblisch-theol. Wörterb. s.v. βασιλεία (3rd ed. p. 162).
The Holy Land forms the central point of this kingdom. Hence “to inherit the land” is equivalent to having part in the Messianic kingdom.[1881] But it is not confined to the limits of Palestine; on the contrary, it is as a rule conceived of as in some way or other comprising the whole world.[1882] Already, in the Old Testament, it was predicted that the Gentiles too should acknowledge the God of Israel as the supreme Judge (Isaiah 2:2 sqq.; Micah 4:1 sqq., Micah 7:16 sq.), be converted to Him (Isaiah 42:1-6; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 51:4-5; Jeremiah 3:17; Jeremiah 16:19 sq.; Zephaniah 2:11; Zephaniah 3:9; Zechariah 8:20 sqq.), and be consequently admitted into the theocracy (Isaiah 55:5; Isaiah 56:1 sqq.; Jeremiah 12:14; Zech. 2:15), so that Jahveh is King over the whole earth (Zechariah 14:9) and the Messiah a banner for all nations (Isaiah 11:10). Most decidedly is power over all the kingdoms of the world promised in the Book of Daniel to the saints of the Most High (Daniel 2:14; Daniel 7:14; Daniel 7:27). This hope was also stedfastly adhered to by later Judaism, though in a different manner. According to the Sibyllines the heathen, when they see the quiet and peace of God’s people, will of themselves come to reason, and praise and celebrate the only true God, send gifts to His temple and walk after His laws (Orac. Sibyll. 3:698-726). Then will God set up a kingdom over all men, in which the prophets of God are judges and righteous kings (3:766-783). According to Philo the pious and virtuous receive the rule over the world, because they possess the three qualities, which especially make men competent to be rulers, viz. σεμνότης, δεινότης and εὐεργεσία. And other men submit to them through αἰδώς or φόβος or εὔνοια (De praem. et poen. § 16). Elsewhere the rule of the saints appears more as one founded on power. The heathen do homage to the Messiah, because they perceive that God has given him power (Enoch 90:30, 37. Figurative addressee, xlviii, 5, liii. 1; Psalt. Salom. 17:32-35; Sibyll. 3:49: ἁγνὸς ἄναξ πάσης γῆς σκῆπτρα κρατήσων. Apoc. Baruch 72:5. Targum on Zechariah 4:7 : The Messiah will rule over all kingdoms). This notion conies forward in the most one-sided form in the Assumptio Mosis, whose author desires nothing more ardently, than that Israel should tread upon the neck of the eagle (10:8: tunc felix eris tu Istrahel, et ascendes supra cervices et alas aquilae). According to the Book of Jubilees (Ewald’s Jahrb. vol. iii. p. 42) it was already promised to Jacob, that kings should go forth from him, who should rule, wherever the children of men had trodden. “And I will give unto thy seed the whole earth, which is under heaven, and they shall rule at their pleasure over all nations, and afterwards they shall draw to themselves the whole earth and inherit it for ever” (comp. also Romans 4:13, and its expositors, especially Wetzstein).
[1881] Kiddushin i. 10. Comp. Matthew 5:5 (ed. Tischendorf, v. 4).
[1882] See Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 219 sq., 238-242. Weber, System, p. 364 sqq.
The Messianic period is moreover described, and that mostly on the ground of Old Testament passages, as one of joy and gladness.[1883] All war, strife, discord and quarrels shall cease, and peace, righteousness, love and faithfulness prevail upon earth (Orac. Sibyll. 3:371-380, 751-760. Philo, De praem. et poen. § 16; Apoc. Baruch 73:4, 5). The wild beasts also will lose their enmity to man and serve him (Sibyll. 3:620-623, 743-750; Apoc. Baruch 29:5-8). Wealth and prosperity will prevail among men (Philo, De praem. et poen. § 17-18). The age of man will increase to near upon a thousand years, and yet men will neither be old nor weary of life, but like children and youths (“Jubilees” in Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 24). All will rejoice in bodily health and strength. Women will bring forth without pain, and the reaper will not weary at his work (Philo, De praem. et poen. § 20. Apoc. Baruch 73:2, 3, 7, 74:1).[1884]
[1883] Comp. Knobel, Prophetismus der Hebräer, i. 321 sqq. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 242-252. Hamburger, Real-Enc. p. 770 sqq. (art. “Messiaszeit”).
[1884] Sometimes this future glory is also represented under the figure of a feast (סְעוּדָה), which God prepares for the righteous. See Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, ii. 872-889. Corrodi, Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus, i. 329 sqq. Bertholdt, De Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 196-199. Hamburger, Real-Enc. p. 1312 sqq. (art “Zukunftemahl”). Comp. Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:29.
These external blessings are not however the only ones. On the contrary, they result from the fact, that the Messianic Church is a holy nation, which God has sanctified, and which the Messiah governs in righteousness. He suffers no unrighteousness to remain in its midst, and there is not a man in it who knows wickedness. There is no unrighteousness among His people, for they are all holy (Psalt. Salom. 17:28, 29, 36, 48, 49, 18:9, 10). Life in the Messianic kingdom is a continual λατρεύειν θεῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (Luke 1:74-75). And the rule of Messiah over the heathen world is by no means conceived of as resting only on power, but frequently in such wise, that he is a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 51:4; Enoch 48:4; Luke 2:32. Comp. especially the already mentioned passages of the Sibyllines, 3:710-726). An Israelite being unable to conceive of a λατρεύειν θεῷ otherwise than in the form of the temple worship and the observance of the law, it is in truth self-evident, that these are not to cease in the Messianic kingdom. In fact this is at least the prevailing view.[1885] Hence after the destruction of the temple the daily prayer of the Israelite is for the restoration of the sacrificial ritual (עֲבוֹדָה).[1886]
[1885] For farther particulars, see Weber, System, p. 359 sqq. Castelli, Il Messia, p. 277 sqq.
[1886] Shemnneh Esreh, 17th Berachah (see above, p. 87). Comp. also the Passover liturgy, Pesachim x. 6.
In this glorious future kingdom not only the dispersed members of the nation, but also all deceased Israelites are to participate. They will come forth from their graves to enjoy, with those of their fellow-countrymen who are then living, the happiness of Messiah’s kingdom.[1887]
[1887] Stähelin (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1874, p. 199 sqq.) does not seem to me right in keeping the Messianic hope and the hope of a resurrection as far apart as possible, nay in supposing that there was originally no connection between them. In Daniel 12:2 and Psalt. Salom. 3:16 this connection is umnistakeable. For if in both passages it is said that the just shall rise “to eternal life,” this life can, according to the sphere of thought in both books, mean only life in the Messianic kingdom. The two books know nothing of any other ζωή. Comp. also Enoch 51:1-5. The course of development too seems to me just the reverse of that, which Stähelin lays down. The hope of a resurrection and the Messianic hope were not originally independent of, and subsequently combined with, each other. But, on the contrary, from the hope of sharing in the Messianic kingdom, first arose the hope of a bodily resurrection, and afterwards life during Messiah’s reign and ζωὴ αἰώνιος were separated the one from the other.
The eschatological expectations of many terminate with this hope of a kingdom of glory in Palestine, seeing its duration is conceived of as everlasting. As Old Testament prophecy had promised to the people of Israel that they should dwell in the land for ever (Jeremiah 24:6; Ezekiel 37:25; Joel 4:20), that David’s throne should never be vacant (Jeremiah 33:17; Jeremiah 33:22), and David should always be the king of Israel (Ezekiel 37:25), and as, especially in the Book of Daniel, the kingdom of the saints of the Most High is designated an everlasting one (מַלְכוּת עָלַם, Daniel 7:27), so also is eternal duration frequently ascribed to the Messianic kingdom by later writers (Sibyll. 3:766; Psalt. Salom. 17:4; Sibyll. 3:49-50; Enoch 62:14). Hence too the Jews say in. John 12:34 : Ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, showing that this view was also current in later Jewish theology.[1888] Subsequently however the glory of the Messianic kingdom was regarded as not ultimate and supreme, but a still higher and heavenly happiness Was expected after it, and hence a duration bounded by time,[1889] the measure of which is fully discussed in the Talmud,[1890] was ascribed to the reign of the Messiah. The Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra, among the more ancient monuments, hold this view the most decidedly. It is indeed said of the Messiah in the former, c. 73:1, that He sits in aeternum super throno regni sui. But what is meant by this is seen from another passage, c. 40:3: Et erit principatus ejus stans in saeculum, donec finiatur mundus corruptionis. Hence the rule of Messiah lasts only as long as this transitory world. Similarly it is said in the fourth Book of Ezra (12:34), that He will redeem and revive the people of God quoadusque veniat finis, dies judicii. Still farther detail is given in the chief passage, 7:28, 29: Jocundabuntur, qui relicti sunt, annis quadragentis. Et erit post annos hos, et morietur filius meus Christus et omnes qui spiramentum habent homines.[1891] The duration of Messiah’s kingdom is by others, and also in the above-named passage of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 99a), computed at 400 years. From it we also learn that this computation rests upon Genesis 15:13 (the bondage in Egypt lasted 400 years) compared with Psalms 90:15 : “Make us glad according to the days wherein Thou hast afflicted us and the years wherein we have seen evil.” Thus the time of happiness is to last as long as the time of affliction. A different calculation is presupposed in the Revelation, the duration being stated at 1000 years, according to the saying in the Psalm, that one day is with God as a thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6). This computation also is mentioned in the Talmud.[1892] We see then, that wherever only a temporal duration is ascribed to the kingdom of the Messiah, a renovation of the world and the last judgment are expected at the end of this period.
[1888] Comp. Bertholdt, Christolgia Judaeorum, p. 155 sq.
[1889] Comp. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 252-256. Renan, L’Antichrist. Weber, System, p. 355 sq. Drummond, pp. 312-318.
[1890] Sanhedrin 99a, in Gfrörer, ii. 252 sqq. More fully (Sanhedrin 96b-99a) in Castelli, p. 297 sqq.
[1891] The Latin and Arabic translations have the number 400, the Syrian 30. In the Ethiopic and Armenian the number is altogether wanting.
[1892] Sanhedrin 97a. Comp. Gfrörer, ii. 254. Castelli, p. 300. Drummond, p. 317. Delitzach. Commentar zum Hebräerbrief, p. 763.
9. Renovation of the world.[1893] The hope of a renovation of heaven and earth is chiefly based on Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22 (comp. also Matthew 19:28; Revelation 21:1; 2 Peter 3:13). Accordingly a distinction is made between a present and a future world, הָעוֹלָם הַזֵּה and הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא,[1894] in the New Testament frequently: ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος and ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων or ὁ ἐρχόμενος (e.g. Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). But a difference of view arose, inasmuch as some made the new world appear with the beginning of Messiah’s reign, while others placed it after its conclusion. The former is found e.g. in the figurative discourses of the Book of Enoch (c. 45:4, 5), “And at that day I will let my elect dwell among you and will change the heaven and make it an eternal blessing and light. And I will transform the earth and make it a blessing, and cause my elect to dwell in it” (comp. also 91:16). The latter in the fourth Book of Ezra, according to which, after the conclusion of the Messianic period, a deathlike silence of seven days takes place upon earth, which is followed by the dawn of the new and the setting of the old world (7:30, 31). According to these different views the Messianic period is either identified with the future or reckoned as belonging to the present world. The former, e.g. in the Targum of Jonathan on 1 Kings 4:33 : “The future world of the Messiah” (עַלְמָא דְאָתֵי דְמְשִׁיחָא), and Mishna, Berachoth i. 5, where the present world (הָעוֹלָם הַוֶּה) and the days of the Messiah (יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ) are opposed to each other, and therefore the latter identified with הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. In the fourth Book of Ezra, on the contrary, the days of the Messiah are reckoned to the present world, and the future world does not begin till the last judgment, which follows the close of the Messianic period (see especially 7:42, 43, with which indeed 6:9 is not easily reconcilable). The book Sifre also distinguishes between “the days of the Messiah” and “the future world.”[1895] The older and original view is in any case, that which identifies the days of Messiah with the future עוֹלָם. For the “future course of the world” is in the first place nothing else than the future happy Messianic period (so too in the New Testament). It was not till a higher, a heavenly happiness was hoped for after the close of the Messianic kingdom, that the Messianic period was reckoned as belonging to the present Olam, and the renovation of the world not expected to take place till that period had ended. In later Jewish theology this view became the prevailing one (for particulars, see the literature named note [1896] Sometimes a position between this world and the world to come is assigned to the Messianic period. This is already found in the Apocalypse of Baruch, 74:2, 3: Tempus illud (the Messianic time) finis est illius quod corrumpitur, et initium illius quod non corrumpitur. … Ideo longe est a malis, et prope iis quae non moriuntur.
[1893] Comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, p. 213 sq. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 272-275. The Rabbinic terminus technicus therefore is חִדּוּשׁ הָעוֹלָם, Buxtorf, Lex. col. 711. Comp. Matthew 19:28 : παλιγγενεσία.
[1894] Mishna, Berachoth i. 5; Peah i. 1; Kiddushin iv. 14; Baba mezia ii. 11; Sanhedrin x. 1-4; Aboth ii. 7, iv. 1, 16, 17, v. 19; Apocal. Baruch 44:15, 48:50, 73:5; 4 Ezra 6:9, 7:12, 13, 42, 43, 8:1. Comp. Rhenferdius, De saeculo futuro (Menschen, Nov. Test, ex Talmude illustratum, 1736, pp. 1116-1171). Witeius, De saeculo hoc et futuro (Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1171-1183). Schoettgen, De saeculo hoc et futuro (Horae Hebraicae, i 1153-1158). Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on Matthew 12:32. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew 12:32. Koppe, Nov. Test. vol. vi., epist. ad Ephes. Exc. i. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 38-43. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 212-217. Bleek, Hebräerbrief, ii. 1, 20 sqq. Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefes, i. 204 sqq. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 434 sq. (2nd ed. ix. 664 sq.). Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1866, p. 124. Weber, System, p. 354 sq.
[1895] See Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1866, p. 124.
[1896] Mishna, Berachoth i. 5; Peah i. 1; Kiddushin iv. 14; Baba mezia ii. 11; Sanhedrin x. 1-4; Aboth ii. 7, iv. 1, 16, 17, v. 19; Apocal. Baruch 44:15, 48:50, 73:5; 4 Ezra 6:9, 7:12, 13, 42, 43, 8:1. Comp. Rhenferdius, De saeculo futuro (Menschen, Nov. Test, ex Talmude illustratum, 1736, pp. 1116-1171). Witeius, De saeculo hoc et futuro (Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1171-1183). Schoettgen, De saeculo hoc et futuro (Horae Hebraicae, i 1153-1158). Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on Matthew 12:32. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew 12:32. Koppe, Nov. Test. vol. vi., epist. ad Ephes. Exc. i. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 38-43. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 212-217. Bleek, Hebräerbrief, ii. 1, 20 sqq. Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefes, i. 204 sqq. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 434 sq. (2nd ed. ix. 664 sq.). Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1866, p. 124. Weber, System, p. 354 sq.
10. The general resurrection.[1897] A general resurrection of the dead is to take place before the last judgment. So great a variety of views with respect to this point, however, prevails in Jewish theology, that it would lead us too far to enter into details.[1898] Only the chief points can here be alluded to. The belief in a resurrection or reanimation of the dead (תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים),[1899] which is clearly and decidedly expressed for the first time in the Book of Daniel (12:2), was during our period already firmly established (comp. e.g. 2Ma_7:9; 2Ma_7:14; 2Ma_7:23; 2Ma_7:36; 2Ma_12:43-44; Enoch 51:1; Psalt. Salom. 3:16, 14:2 sqq.; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 3; Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14; Apoc. Baruch 30:1-5, 50:1, 51:6; 4 Ezra 7:32; Testam. XII. Patriarch. Judae, 25.; Benjamin 10.; Shemoneh Esreh, 2 Berachah; Mishna, Sanhedrin x. 1; Aboth iv. 22; comp. also Berachoth v. 2; Sota ix. 15, fin.). At least this applies with respect to all circles influenced by Pharisaism, and these formed by far the majority. Only the Sadducees denied the resurrection,[1900] while the Alexandrian theology placed in its stead the immortality of the soul.[1901] A separation between the just and unjust in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection was a rule accepted, a preliminary state of happiness or torment being allotted to departed souls (see especially Enoch 12 and in 4 Ezra the section rejected in the usual Latin text, c. 6:49-76, according to the computation of the Ethiopic translation, ed. Fritzsche, pp. 607-611).[1902] The same expectation lies at the root of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:22). In the Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra, receptacles (promptuaria), into which the souls of the righteous are received after death, are frequently spoken of (Apoc. Baruch 30:2; 4 Ezra 4:35, 41, 7:32; in the rejected section, c. 6:54, 68, 74, 76, in Bensly, vv. 80, 95, 101). In many passages of the New Testament the hope comes forward, that immediately after death the removal to the state of supreme and heavenly happiness will take place (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Php_1:23; Acts 7:59; Revelation 6:9 sqq., Revelation 7:9 sqq.), and this is not without analogy in the Jewish view, since here also the same is expected, at least for eminent men of God (not only for Enoch and Elijah, but e.g. also for Ezra and such as him, 4 Ezra 14:9: tu enim recipieris ab hominibus et converteris residuum cum filio meo et cum similibus tuis usquequo finiantur tempora).[1903] Established and generally accepted views on this point were not however formed.[1904] The Apocalypse of Baruch gives detailed disclosures on the resurrection body (50:1-51:6. Comp. also 4 Ezra 6:71 in the rejected section; in Bensly, ver. 97). One main difference in the doctrine of the resurrection consists in the expectation of a resurrection of the righteous only, for the purpose of participating in the Messianic kingdom, or of a general resurrection (of the righteous and the ungodly) to judgment; and that at one time before the commencement of Messiah’s reign, at another after its conclusion. The oldest form is certainly that first named (comp. note [1905] It is found e.g. in Psalt. Salom. 3:16, 14:2 sqq., but is also mentioned by Josephus as an average Pharisaic opinion (Antt. xviii. 1. 3; Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14). The expectation of a general resurrection to judgment, is the extension of this older resurrection hope. So Daniel, Enoch. Apoc. Baruch , 4 Ezra, Testam. XII. Patriarch., and the Mishna in the above-cited places.[1906] Here again the distinction arises, as to whether the resurrection and judgment are expected before the commencement, or after the close of the Messianic period. The former view represented Daniel 12:2, and Enoch 51., is certainly the more ancient, for originally the object of the judgment was to inaugurate the Messianic period. Not till the Messianic blessedness ceased to be regarded as ultimate and supreme, was the judgment also, as the decision on man’s final destiny, transferred to the close of the Messianic age. So especially Apoc. Baruch , 4 Ezra. In the New Testament Apocalypse the expectation of a resurrection of the just before the appearance of the Messianic kingdom is combined with that of a general resurrection after its close. The awakening itself takes place by the sounding of the trump of God (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Corinthians 1 These. 4:16. Comp. Matthew 24:31; 4 Ezra 6:23).[1907]
[1897] The order is, according to 4 Ezra 7:31-34: (1) The renovation of the world; (2) The general resurrection; (3) The last judgment. So also Gfrörer, ii. 272, 275, 285.
[1898] Comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 176-181, 203-206. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 275-285, 308 sqq. Herzfeld, Gesch. dex Volkes Jisrael, iii. 307-310, 328-333, 349-351, 504-506. Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina, p. 338 sqq. Rothe, Dogmatik, ii. 2, pp. 68-71, 298-308. Oehler, Theologie des A. T. ii. 241 sqq. Herm. Schultz, Alt-testamentl. Theologie, 2nd ed. pp. 713 sqq., 807 sqq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 98 sqq. (art. “Belebung der Todten”). Stähelin, Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol. 1874, p. 199 sqq. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, p. 360 sqq. Weber, System, p. 371 sqq. Gröbler, Die Ansichten über Unsterbiblichkeit und Auferstehung in der jüdischen Literatur der beiden letzten Jahrh. v. Chr. (Stud. und Krit. 1879, pp. 651-700).
[1899] This expression, e.g. Berachoth v. 2; Sota ix. 15, fin.; Sanhedrin x. 1.
[1900] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 4. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14.
[1901] Wisd. iii. 1 sqq., iv. 7, v. 16. With respect to Philo, comp. Gfrörer, Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie, i. 403 sqq. According to Josephus the Essence also did not teach a resurrection, but the immortality of the soul, see Antt. xviii. 1. 5; Bell. Jud. ii. 8.11. Comp. also the Book of Jubilees in Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 24.
[1902] In Benaly, The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra (1875), pp. 63-71, vv. 75-101.
[1903]a Comp. also Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Luke 23 p. 322 sqq.
[1904] Comp. also on the intermediate state Weber, System, p. 322 sqq.
[1905] Stähelin (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1874, p. 199 sqq.) does not seem to me right in keeping the Messianic hope and the hope of a resurrection as far apart as possible, nay in supposing that there was originally no connection between them. In Daniel 12:2 and Psalt. Salom. 3:16 this connection is umnistakeable. For if in both passages it is said that the just shall rise “to eternal life,” this life can, according to the sphere of thought in both books, mean only life in the Messianic kingdom. The two books know nothing of any other ζωή. Comp. also Enoch 51:1-5. The course of development too seems to me just the reverse of that, which Stähelin lays down. The hope of a resurrection and the Messianic hope were not originally independent of, and subsequently combined with, each other. But, on the contrary, from the hope of sharing in the Messianic kingdom, first arose the hope of a bodily resurrection, and afterwards life during Messiah’s reign and ζωὴ αἰώνιος were separated the one from the other.
[1906] In the Mishna, comp. especially Aboth iv. 22: “They who are born are destined to die; the dead to be awakened; the awakened to stand before the judgment-seat, that one may learn, teach, and be convinced that He is the Almighty,” etc. In Sanhedrin x. 3 also the resurrection is assumed to be general, since it is said only exceptionally of certain prominent sinners, who have already in their lifetime received their judgment, that they will not rise to judgment.
[1907] See also Weber, System, p. 352 sq. Stähelin, Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol. 1874, pp. 198, 220, and the commentaries on 1 Corinthians 15:52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
11. The Last Judgment. Eternal Salvation and Condemnation.[1908] A last judgment at the close of the Messianic period can only be spoken of, when limited duration is ascribed to the Messianic kingdom. Hence among the older authorities it is only the Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra which need here be considered, In the rest the judgment coincides with the destruction of the hostile powers, which takes place before the commencement of Messiah’s reign (see above, No. 5). In the Apocalypse of Baruch, the judgment is but briefly alluded to (50:4). The fourth Book of Ezra (4 Ezra 7:33-35 and the rejected section, c. 4 Ezra 6:17, in Bensly, pp. 55-58) gives more detail. We here learn that it is God Himself who sits in judgment. Nor can there be any doubt from these two books, that on the day of judgment sentence will be passed not only on the people of Israel, but on the whole race of mankind (Baruch 51:4, 5; Ezra 6:2, in Bensly, p. 55 sq.). It holds good as a general principle, that all Israelites are to share in the world to come (Sanhedrin x. 1: כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לְעוֹלָם הַבָּא). It is self-evident however, that all the sinners of Israel (who are carefully catalogued in the Mishna, Sanhedrin x. 1-4) are excluded. Since sentence is to be passed upon each individual exactly in proportion to his works, the deeds of men are, during their lifetime, written in heavenly books (Enoch 48:7, 8, 54:7, also 89-90. Book of Jubilees in Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 38, and elsewhere. Test. XII, Patr. Aser 7. Mishna, Aboth ii. 1. Luke 10:20; Php_4:3; Revelation 3:5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 20:15. Hermas, Vis. i. 3. 2),[1909] and sentence is passed according to the contents of these books. The ungodly are cast into the fire of Gehenna (Baruch 44:15; 51:1, 2, 4, 6; Ezra 6:1-3, 59, in Bensly, pp. 55 sq., 64).[1910] This condemnation is as a rule regarded as everlasting.[1911] But the view is also met with of a temporal duration to the punishments of hell, giving them only the signification of a purgatory.[1912] The righteous and godly are received into Paradise, and dwell in the high places of that world, and see the glory of God and of His holy angels. Their countenance will shine like the sun, and they will live for ever (Daniel 12:3; Baruch 51:3; 51:7; 4 Ezra 6:1-3, 68-72, in Bensly, pp. 55 sq., 69 sq. Comp. also Assumptio Mosis 10:9, 10).[1913]
[1908] Comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 206-211, 221-226. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 285 sqq., 311 sqq. Weber, System, p. 371 sqq.
[1909] Comp. on these heavenly books, especially Harnack’s note on Hennas, Vis. i. 3. 2; also Fabricius, Cod. psendepigr. i. 551-562. Dillmann, Das Buch Enoch, p. 245. Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 83. Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina, pp. 385, 499.
[1910] The Hebrew גֵּיהִנּוֹם, Kiddushin iv. 14; Edujoth ii. 10; Aboth i. 5, v. 19, 20. Frequently in the Targums and Talmud. In the New Testament γέεννα, Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:29; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 18:9; Matthew 23:15; Matthew 23:33; Mark 9:43; Mark 9:45; Mark 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6. Comp. also Enoch, ch. 27. and 108:4 sqq. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenth. ii. 322-369. Liglitfoot, Horae on Matthew 5:22. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew 5:22. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., col. 395 sq. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. i. 135 sq. Id. Neuhebr. Wörterb. i. 323. Tholuck and Acbelis in their expositions of the Sermon on the Mount on Matthew 5:22. The Lexicons of the New Testament, s.v. γέεννα. Dillmann, Das Buch Enoch, p. 131 sq. Weber, System, p. 326 sqq. Elsewhere Hades and its darkness are designated as the future lot of the wicked, e.g. Psalt. Salom. 14:6, 15:11, 16:2.
[1911] Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 3:12; Matthew 25:46; Luke 3:17. Test. XII. Patr. Sebulon 10. Aser 7. Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14: ἀϊδίῳ τιμωρίᾳ; Antt. xviii. 1. 3: εἱργμὸν ἀΐδιον (both passages are given in their connection, vol. i. pp. 381 and 383). Comp. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 289.
[1912] Edujoth ii. 10: “R. Akiba said, The execution of judgment upon Gog and Magog lasts twelve months, and the time of the condemnation of the ungodly lasts twelve months.” In this however regard is had only to sinners who are Israelites.
[1913] In Rabbinic Hebrew Paradise is generally called נַּן עֵדֶן (so e.g. Aboth v. 20), or also פרדס, but the latter not so often (in the Mishna this word is used only of a park in the natural sense, Sanhedrin x. 6; Chullin xii. 1; Arachin iii. 2). In the Test. XII. Patr. both occur (Ἐδέμ Test. Daniel 5, παράδεισος Test. Levi 18). In the New Testament παράδεισος, Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7. Much material in Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenth. ii. 295-322. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. 818-820 (on Luke 23:43). Comp. also Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. on Luke 23:43; Schöttgen on 2 Corinthians 12:4 and Revelation 2:7. The interpreters of these New Testament passages in general. Joh. Schulthess, Das Paradies, das irdische und überirdische, historische, mythische und mystische (Zürich 1816), p. 345 sqq. Arnold, art. “Paradies,” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encykl., sec. iii. vol. xi. (1838), p. 304 sqq., especially 310 sqq. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. p. 748 sqq. Klöpper, Commentar zum zweiten Korintherbrief, p. 506 sqq. Weber, System, p. 330 sqq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 892-897 (art. “Paradies”).
12. Appendix. The suffering Messiah.[1914] So far we have had no occasion to speak of the sufferings, or of any atoning death of the Messiah. For the prediction in the fourth Book of Ezra, that the Messiah should die after reigning 400 years (4 Ezra 7:28, 29), has evidently nothing in common with the idea of an atoning death. But the question, whether Judaism in the age of Christ expected a suffering Messiah, and indeed a Messiah suffering and dying as an atonement for the sins of men, must not be left undiscussed. According to what has been said, the question seems answered, as indeed it has been by many (especially after the most thorough investigation by De Wette), in the negative. Others, on the contrary, as e.g. Wünsche, think it may be as decidedly answered in the affirmative. Certainly the sufferings of the Messiah are repeatedly spoken of in the Talmud. From the word וַהֲרִיחוֹ, Isaiah 11:3, it is inferred that God loaded the Messiah with commands and sorrows like mill-stones (במצות ויסורין כרחים).[1915] In another passage Messiah is described as sitting at the gates of Rome and binding and unbinding His wounds.[1916] More important is it, that in Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone it is repeatedly admitted, nay asserted as self-evident by the representative of the Jewish standpoint, that the Messiah mast suffer. “When we name to them (relates Justin, c. 68) the passages of Scripture, which clearly prove that the Messiah must suffer, and is to be worshipped, and is God, they admit unwillingly indeed, that the Messiah is there spoken of; but nevertheless they venture to maintain, that this (Jesus) is not the Messiah. On the contrary, they believe that He will first come and suffer and rule and be a God worthy of adoration.” Still more decidedly does Trypho express himself in another passage, c. 89: Παθητὸν μὲν τὸν Χριστὸν ὅτι αἱ γραφαὶ κηρύσσουσι, φανερόν ἐστιν· εἰ δὲ διὰ τοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ κεκατηραμένου πάθους, βουλόμεθα μαθεῖν, εἰ ἔχεις καὶ περὶ τούτου ἀποδεῖξαι. Here indeed only sufferings in general, and not atoning sufferings, are spoken of, and the idea of death by crucifixion is decidedly rejected. But passages are also found, in which, in conformity with Isaiah 53:4 sqq., a suffering for the sake of the human race is spoken of. Thus among other names that of Chulja (חוליא the sick, or according to another reading חִיוָּרָא, the leper) is at one time attributed to the Messiah, and this is justified by an appeal to Isaiah 53:4 : “Surely He has borne our sicknesses and taken upon Himself our sorrows; but we esteemed Him one stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”[1917] According to the book Sifre, R. Joses the Galilean says: “King Messiah has been humbled and made contemptible on account of the rebellious, as it is said, He was wounded for our transgressions, etc. (Isaiah 53:5). How much more will He make satisfaction therefore for all generations, as it is written, ‘And the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6).’ ”[1918] The latter passage already shows, that in the second century after Christ Isaiah 53:4 sqq. was in many circles explained of the Messiah.[1919] This is confirmed by the saying of Trypho, in Justin’s Dial. c. Tryph. c. 90: Παθεῖν μὲν γὰρ καὶ ὡς πρόβατον ἀχθήσεσθαι οἴδαμεν· εἰ δὲ καὶ σταυρωθῆναι κ.τ.λ. Thus the Jewish opponent of Justin admitted that Isaiah 53:7 is to be referred to the Messiah. Consequently it cannot be disputed, that in the second century after Christ the idea of a suffering Messiah, and indeed of a Messiah suffering as an atonement for human sin, was, at least in certain circles, a familiar one. In this respect a thought, which in itself was quite current in Rabbinic Judaism, was applied to the Messiah, viz. the thought that the perfectly righteous man not only fulfils all the commandments, but also atones by sufferings for sins that may have been committed, and that the overplus suffering of the righteous man is of service to others.[1920] But however much the idea of a suffering Messiah is from these premises conceivable on the soil of Judaism, just as little did it become the prevailing view of Judaism. The, so to speak official, Targum Jonathan allows indeed the reference of Isaiah 53 to the Messiah to remain on the whole, but denies the application to him of just those verses, which treat of the sufferings of the servant of God.[1921] In not one of the numerous works discussed by us have we found even the slightest allusion to an atoning suffering of Messiah. That the Jews were far from entertaining such an idea, is abundantly proved by the conduct of both the disciples and opponents of Jesus (Matthew 16:22; Luke 18:34; Luke 24:21; John 12:34). Accordingly it may well be said, that it was on the whole one quite foreign to Judaism in general.
[1914] Comp. De Wette, De morte Jesu Christi expiatoria (Opusc. c. pp. 1-148). Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 265-272. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 440 sq. (2nd ed. ix. 670 sq.). Wünsche, יִסּוּרֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ oder Die Leiden des Messias, Leipzig 1870. Delitzsch, Sehet welch’ ein Mensch! (Leipzig 1872), pp. 13, 30 sq. Castelli, Il Messia, pp. 216-224, 329 sqq., 335 sqq. Weber, System, pp. 343-347. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 765-767 (art. “Messiasleiden”). De Wette as above, pp. 6-9, gives a list of the older literature.
[1915] Sanhedrin 93b, given in Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, p. 56 sq.
[1916] Sanhedrin 98a, in Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, p. 117. Wünsche, p. 57 sq.
[1917] Sanhedrin 98b, in Gfrörer, ii. 266. Wünsche, p. 62 sq.
[1918] S. Wünsche, p. 65 sq. Delitzsch, Paulus’ Brief an die Römer (1870), p. 82 sq. Stellen aus späteren Midraschim und anderen Werken jüdischer Theologen bei Wünsche, pp. 66-108
[1919] R. Joses the Galilean was a contemporary of R. Akiba, and therefore lived in the first half of the second century after Christ (see vol. i. p. 378). R. Tarphon, who is probably identical with Justin’s Trypho, was also a contemporary of both (see vol. i. p. 377). If then Trypho is ready to make those concessions, he thereby only represented views held in the circles of his Palestinian colleagues.
[1920] See Weber, System, pp. 313-316.
[1921] For particulars, see Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 441 (2nd ed. ix. 670 sq.). Weber, System, p. 344 sq. On the history of the interpretation of Isaiah 53 by the Jews, comp. also Origenes, c. Celsum, i. 55; and especially Driver and Neubauer, The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters, 2 vols. (1) Texts; (2) Translations. Oxford and London 1876-77 (Theol. Litztg. 1877, p. 567 sq.).