Messiah

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

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observes) that it is intimated that whenever he should come, the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Mosaic law were to be superseded by him, Psa 40:6-8; 1Sa 15:22; Dan 9:27; Jer 31:31; Jer 31:34; Heb 8:13.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See article CHRISTIANITY, JESUS CHRIST.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.    See MAHOMETANISM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Anointed. This term is peculiarly, and by way of eminency, applied to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mashah or Meshiah of the Father, full of grace and truth. Hence, with pointed and personal distinction, God the Father is represented in the Scripture as saying: "I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people; I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him. (Ps. lx29. 19, 20.) And no less God the Holy Ghost, in his divine office and character, in the economy of humanredemption, is represented as ordaining and anointing Christ, as Christ, to the great work of salvation; for both Christ and his church came under this ’Cilia - act of God the Spirit. For as Christ could not have been Christ without the unction of the Holy Ghost, so neither could the church have been the church, the spouse of Christ, the Lamb’s wife, without sovereign agency. And it is very blessed to behold in the Scriptures of truth the testimony of JEHOVAH to this grand doctrine of Christ the Messiah, as the Christ of God.Hence we find Christ speaking as Glory - man Mediator. (Isa. xl8. 16, 17.) "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this: I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was, thee am I; and now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me. Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel). I am the Lord thy God, which teacheth thee, to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. In all these views, therefore, of Christ as Christ, we discover the work of the Father and the Holy Ghost. Forone of the names of the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament is, the Messiah, that is the Anointed, as well as in the New; and as it is expressly said concerning him in the New Testament, when he appeared in the substance of our flesh, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth: with the Holy Ghost, Acts x. 38.so evidently was he called the Messiah, and consequently answer that name was, and is, from everlasting, the anointed of God by the Holy Ghost, before he openly manifested himself under that character in our flesh. Suchthen was and is the glorious Messiah, the Christ of God; and such we accept and receive him to his body the church.

I might detain the reader were it not for enlarging this work beyond the limits I must observe, with offering several most interesting reflections, which arise out of this view of our now risen and exalted Messiah as the Messiah, the Christ of God; but for brevity’s sake, I shall only beg to offer this one observation, namely, how sweet and strengthening a testimony such views of Jesus give to the faith of the church, when receiving Christ as the anointed of the Father and the Holy Ghost, Recollect in that blessed portion, just nowquoted what the Mediator saith as Mediator - - "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me." Was there ever anything more full in point and in proof of this blessed doctrine concerning the Messiah? What could the Lord Jesus by the spirit of prophecy mean, but that he would have his church, when receiving him, read his credentials, and mark well his high warrant and authority. There should beno shyness, but his people should come near unto him; for this was not a new thing, a new doctrine, it was from the beginning, yea, before all worlds Jesus was spoken of, in his mediatorial character, as set up from everlasting; neither was it whispered in secret, but openly, in the first revelations, the man - nature of the seed of the woman, the anointed of the Father and the Holy Ghost, was all along declared, that it was, and that I am, saith Christ. Blessed view of Jesus this, and precious to the strengthening of the faith ofGod’s people. Methinks I would cherish it with all the warmth of affection; I would carry it about with me wherever l go: and beg that God the Holy Ghost would cause it to be my complete unceasing encouragement in all approaches to the throne of grace, and in all ordinances of worship. This is the warrant of a poor sinner’s hope and confidence. Christ, as Christ, as the anointed, as the Messiah, is the sure appointment and ordinance of heaven. In him we draw nigh by divine authority. Christ is not only suited to carry on allthe purposes of our great High Priest, but acts in that blessed office by divine authority, and by the validity of an oath. "The Lord sware and will not repent, thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec. (Ps. cx. 4.) Hence, therefore, the Lord Jesus, in effect, speaks to every poor sinner as he did to the woman of Samaria - - "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is, and by what authority he saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." (John 4: 10.)Such is the blessedness of receiving Christ, and living upon Christ, as the Christ, the Messiah, of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, That the promised Messiah has already come.

Second, That Jesus of Nazareth is unquestionably He.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Anointed One; the Christ the name for the promised deliverer of the Hebrews, assumed by Jesus, and given to Him by Christians

(Hebr., "Ha-Mashiaḥ"; Aramaic, "Meshiḥa" = "anointed one"):

By: Joseph Jacobs, Moses Buttenwieser

The Name. The name or title of the ideal king of the Messianic age; used also without the article as a proper name—"Mashiaḥ" (in the Babylonian Talmud and in the midrash literature), like Χριστός in the Gospels. The Grecized Μεσσιας of the New Testament (John i. 41, iv. 25) is a transliteration of the Aramaic form, Aramaic being the spoken language of Palestine in the time of Jesus. "The Messiah" (with the article and not in apposition with another word) is, however, not an Old Testament expression, but occurs for the first time in apocalyptic literature. Similarly, in all probability the use of the word "Mashiaḥ" to denote the Messianic king is not found earlier than the apocalyptic literature. In the Old Testament the earliest use of the word is with Yhwh (or with a pronominal suffix referring to Yhwh) as a title of the ruling sovereign Meshiaḥ Yhwh ("God's anointed one"; I Sam. ii. 10, 35; xii. 3, 5; xvi. 6; xxvi. 9, 11, 16, 23; II Sam. i. 14, 16; xix. 21; II Chron. vi. 42; Ps. xviii. 51 [A. V. 50]; xx. 7 [A. V. 6]; cxxxii. 17 [applying to David]; Lam. iv. 20). In post-exilic times, the high priest, filling the place formerly occupied by the king, is spoken of as "ha-Kohen ha-Mashiaḥ" (the anointed priest; Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vi. 5), also (Dan. ix. 25, 26) as "Mashiaḥ Nagid" (an anointed one, a ruler) and simply "Mashiaḥ" (an anointed one), referring to Onias III. As the anointing of the high priest consecrated him above all his brethren to God's service and gave him immediate access to God (comp. Lev. viii. 12, xxi. 10-12; Zech. iii. 7), so the anointing of the king made him Meshiaḥ Yhwh, placed him in a special relationship to God, and established him as the one chosen by God to represent His rulership in Israel and to bear witness to His glory before the nations (comp. II Sam. vii. 8-11, 14; Isa. lv. 4; Ps. lxxxix. 4, 21-29). As "God's anointed one" the king was sacrosanct and inviolable (comp. I Sam. xxvi. 9). Hence the later applications of the title "Meshiaḥ Yhwh" in the Old Testament.

In Isa. xlv. 1 Cyrus is called "God's anointed one," because God has called him and given him victory after victory for the distinct purpose of putting an end to the Babylonian kingdom and the worship of idols, of setting free exiled Israel, and thus introducing the new era of God's universal dominion. In Ps. cv. 15 the Patriarchs are called "God's anointed ones" because they are under the special protection of God and therefore inviolable. Finally, in Hab. iii. 13, Ps. xxviii. 8, lxxxiv. 10 (A. V.9), and possibly in lxxxix. 39, 52 (A. V. 38, 51), the title is applied to Israel, God's chosen people. See Anointing.

"Mashiaḥ" (anointed one of God) in Ps. ii. 2, which was formerly thought to have Messianic reference, is now taken as referring either to a Hasmonean king or to Israel. The latter interpretation is that prevailing in the Midrash (comp. Midr. Rabbah and Tanḥuma, Emor; Yalḳuṭ, Toledot, near end; Midr. Shoḥer Ṭob, ad loc.), though the Messianic interpretation occurs in the eschatological description (Pesiḳ. Zuṭarta, Balaḳ).

The Ideal in Isaiah.

But though the name is of later origin, the idea of a personal Messiah runs through the Old Testament. It is the natural outcome of the prophetic future hope. The first prophet to give a detailed picture of the future ideal king was Isaiah (ix. 1-6, xi. 1-10, xxxii. 1-5). Of late the authenticity of these passages, and also of those passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel which give expression to the hope in a Messiah, has been disputed by various Biblical scholars (comp. Hackmann, "Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaiah"; Volz, "Die Vorexilische Jahweprophetie und der Messias"; Marti, "Gesch. der Israelitischen Religion," pp. 190 et seq.; idem, "Das Buch Jesaia"; Cheyne, "Introduction to Isaiah," and edition and transl. of Isaiah in "S. B. O. T.").

The objections of these scholars, however, rest principally on the hypothesis that the idea of the Messiah is inseparably bound up with the desire for universal dominion, whereas, in reality, this feature is not a characteristic of the Messianic hope until a later stage of its development. The ideal king to whom Isaiah looks forward will be a scion of the stock of Jesse, on whom will rest the spirit of God as a spirit of wisdom, valor, and religion, and who will rule in the fear of God, his loins girt with righteousness and faithfulness (xi. 1-3a, 5). He will not engage in war or in the conquest of nations; the paraphernalia of war will be destroyed (ix. 4); his sole concern will be to establish justice among his people (ix. 6b; xi. 3b, 4). The fruit of his righteous government will be peace and order throughout the land. The lamb will not dread the wolf, nor will the leopard harm the kid (xi. 8); that is, as the following verse explains, tyranny and violence will no longer be practised on God's holy mountain, for the land will be full of the knowledge of God as the water covers the sea (comp. xxxii. 1, 2, 16). The people will not aspire to political greatness, but will lead a pastoral life (xxxii. 18, 20). Under such ideal conditions the country can not but prosper, nor need it fear attack from outside nations (ix. 6a, xxxii. 15). The newly risen scion of Jesse will stand forth as a beacon to other nations, and they will come to him for guidance and arbitration (xi. 10). He will rightly be called "Wonderful Counselor," "Godlike Hero," "Constant Father," "Prince of Peace" (ix. 5).

The "Immanuel" Passage.

This picture of the future fully accords with Isaiah's view, that the judgment will lead to a spiritual regeneration and bring about a state of moral and religious perfection; and it agrees also with the doctrine, which, in his bitter opposition to the alliances with Assyria and Egypt, he preached to his people—the doctrine, namely, that their sole concern should be God and their sole reliance be on Him, for thus, and thus only, might they endure (vii. 9; comp. also v. 4, viii. 13, xxx. 15). The prophets advocated a government which would be in conformity with God's will and be regulated by His laws of righteousness. In connection with Isaiah's Messianic hope it remains to be observed that the "Immanuel" passage, Isa. vii. 14, which is interpreted in Matt. i. 23 as referring to the birth of Jesus, has, as Robertson Smith ("The Prophets of Israel," pp. 271 et seq., 426 et seq.) and others have pointed out, no Messianic import whatever. The name has reference merely to events of the immediate present. He means to give a token by which the truth of his prophetic word may be tested, saying that any young woman giving birth to a son in the near future will call him "Immanuel" (= "God with us"), in remembrance of the withdrawal of the Syrian-Ephraimitic armies from the country (v. 16). "'Almah" does not mean "virgin" (as given in A. V. and other versions; the only word meaning this is "betulah"), but "a young woman sexually mature," whether married or unmarried; the article "ha-" of "ha-'almah" is the generic article.

In Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

The idea of a personal Messiah is not met with again until the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (the Messianic picture of Micah v. 1, 3-8, as is proved by the fact that in it Israel and the Messiah hold dominion over the nations, according to this view can not be a pre-exilic product of prophecy; in fact, it must have originated late in post-exilic times). Jeremiah's picture of the Messiah is not a detailed one; but, like his future hope in general, it agrees in all essentials with that of Isaiah. The Messiah will be "a righteous sprout of David," who will establish just judgment and wise government in the country, and whose name will be (= "God is our salvation"; xxiii. 5, 6; these two verses recur in almost the same form in xxxiii. 15, 16, but in the latter verse the name is applied to Jerusalem, an application which did not originate with Jeremiah. Ch. xxx. 9 et seq., 21 does not claim consideration here, as it is of later origin).

In Ezekiel, the Messiah is a purely passive figure, the only personal reference to him being in xvii. 23—"he will become a mighty cedar" (Hebr.). The regeneration of the people, like their restoration, is exclusively the work of God.

But in xxxiv. 23 et seq., xxxvii. 24 et seq., which passages date from exilic times, there is an entirely new feature—the prophecy that David will be the king of the future state. As after the decline of the Holy Roman Empire the saga arose of the return of the emperor-hero Barbarossa, so, after the fall of the nation, the Jews of the Exile dreamed of the coming of a second David, who would reestablish them as a glorious nation. So Ezekiel lays emphasis on the fact that the future Israel is to be a united nation as it was under David of old. The hope in the return of David is expressed also in the spurious passage mentioned above (Jer. xxx. 9) and in the gloss to Hos. iii. 5 ("and David their king"), and ismet with sporadically also in Neo-Hebraic apocalyptic literature (see below).

In post-exilic prophetic literature the hope in a Messiah is found only in the first two prophets of the post-exilic community, Haggai and Zechariah, and in Deutero-Zechariah, ch. ix., which, probably, dates from the time of the Seleucids. Haggai and Zechariah see in Zerubbabel the promised "sprout of David"; but they state merely that he will rebuild the Temple and attain great eminence as a ruler (Hag. ii. 23; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12).

Deutero-Zechariah's Messiah has much in common with Isaiah's. He is described (Zech. ix. 9, 10) as a righteous Prince of Peace, who will rise from the ranks of the pious and oppressed, who will ride into Jerusalem not in military splendor, but on an ass (comp. Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on an ass, and also Ibn Ḳuṭaibah's account of Salman, the governor of Medina at the time of the dissensions of the califs, who rode upon an ass in order to show his advocacy of peace). For, unlike worldly rulers, he will not maintain his dominion by the sword—he will destroy all the instruments of war (if, instead of , is read in accordance with the LXX. , 3d s. m.); but, by his jurisdiction, which will extend to the ends of the earth, he will establish peace among the nations. Thus Deutero-Zechariah's conception of the Messiah combines Isaiah's conception with the hope of world-dominion cherished by his own age.

Ideal of the Second Isaiah.

The personal Messiah does not figure at all in the future hope of Deutero-Isaiah, whose lofty universalism marks the final step in the development of the religious ideas of the Prophets. The salvation of mankind is the goal of history, and Israel's prerogative becomes but the privilege of suffering for the good of the whole world. God has called Israel for the realization of His purpose toward man. Israel, and not an individual, is "the servant of God" (Isa. xlii. 1-6, xlix. 1-6, l. 4-9, lii. 13-liii. 12), through whom the regeneration of mankind will be accomplished, who will spread the true religion among all nations, convert all men into willing servants of God, and lead all tongues to confess Him (xlv. 23). Naturally, not the actual Israel of the present is meant, but the ideal Israel of the future, risen to spiritual heights in consequence of his wonderful deliverance by God. For this high destiny Israel has been especially fitted by reason of the religious experience which God has stored up in him in the course of his history; and, by submitting, in accordance with God's will, to suffering and ignominy, he fulfils his mission and advances toward his final goal. In Isa. ii. 1-4 and Micah iv. 1-4 there is the same picture of the Messianic future as in Deutero-Isaiah—Jerusalem as the religious center of the world, whence salvation will radiate to all men—but contain the additional promise that universal peace will ensue in consequence thereof. In like manner the post-exilic prophets Trito-Isaiah, Malachi, and Joel, and the post-exilic Apocalypse of Isaiah, xxiv.-xxvii., have no personal Messiah. According to them, God Himself, without the instrumentality of a man, will redeem Israel from his present misery and bring about the new era of salvation. The conclusion, however, of Malachi (the authorship of which is doubtful) speaks of a messenger, Elijah, whom God will send to convert men and thus pave the way for His own coming.

In the Apocrypha.

As in the prophetic writings just enumerated, so in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament the figure of the Messiah has no prominence whatever. In I Maccabees there is a brief general reference to the promise given to David, that his throne would be reestablished (ii. 57), but Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, II Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Solomon contain no mention of the Davidic hope. The Hellenistic author of the Wisdom of Solomon is so thoroughly universalistic that the idea of a Messiah is precluded. His eschatological picture shows no nationalistic feature whatever.

Alexander as Messiah.

The natural deduction from the facts thus far outlined is that while from the time of the Prophets the belief in an ideal future determined the character and tendency of Jewish religious life and thought to such an extent that this belief may be called the special characteristic of the Jewish genius, still, in the periods thus far covered, the idea of a personal Messiah is far from having that general prominence which one would, at first, be inclined to assume. Further, it has been seen how Deutero-Isaiah heralded Cyrus as the favorite of God, the hero called by God to introduce the new era of universal bliss. In like manner, no doubt, as Kampers has shown in his "Alexander der Grosse und die Idee des Weltimperiums in Prophetie und Sage," the Jewish contemporaries of Alexander the Great, dazzled by his glorious achievements, hailed him as the divinely appointed deliverer, the inaugurator of the period of universal peace promised by the Prophets. Proof of this is: (1) The legend related in Josephus ("Ant." xi. 8) and in the Talmud (Yoma 67b) of the audience of the high priest Jaddua (in the Talmud it is Simon the Just) with Alexander the Great in Gaza. Alexander recognizes in the high priest the man who had appeared to him in a dream, urging him to the conquest of Asia and promising him that he himself would lead his army and deliver the Persian kingdom into his hands; he prostrates himself to worship God, whose name he sees inscribed on the plate of gold on the high priest's cidaris, accompanies the high priest to Jerusalem to sacrifice to God in His Temple, and is there shown the Book of Daniel, in which it is written that the Persian kingdom will be conquered by a Greek—a prophecy which Alexander applies to himself. (2) The various sagas which sprang up about Alexander, chiefly among the Jews in Alexandria, and out of which the Alexander romance of pseudo-Callisthenes grew, the only explanation of which is that Alexander had once been the central figure in their future hope. (3) The apocalyptic traditions about Alexander the Great in medieval apocalyptic literature and also in the midrashic literature—for example, the tradition (mentioned by Josephus) of Alexander imprisoning Gog and Magog behind the mountains of darkness in the far north. The version of this legend given by Jacob of Serug (521 C.E.) and in the Koran, sura 18 (comp.Kampers, l.c. pp. 73, 76 et seq.) leaves no doubt that it was purely of apocalyptic origin.

But while all these hopes centering in Alexander the Great bear witness to the liberality and broad-mindedness of the Jews of that time, they, on the other hand, corroborate the conclusion, expressed above, that the hope in the Messiah had, as yet, no definite form and can not have been commonly an article of faith. This is true, not only of the time of Alexander the Great, but even as late as the first period of apocalyptic literature, and is proved by the absence of a personal Messiah in the oldest apocalyptic writing, the Book of Daniel, as well as in the oldest part of the Book of Enoch ("The Apocalypse of the Ten Weeks") and in the Book of Jubilees, which also date from the Maccabean period, apart from the fact, pointed out above, that in the contemporaneous apocrypha there is but vague reference to the Messiah. The "one of the likeness of man" ("ke-bar enash") of Dan. vii. 13 (Hebr.), to whom the rulership in the divine world-monarchy will be entrusted, is, according to the author's own explanation (vii. 18, 22, 27), the nation of God's holy ones (i.e., the faithful Jews). These constitute the earthly representatives of God in the "civitas Dei," and in contrast to the other nations of the world, who are represented under the figures of animals, they are represented under the figure of a man in order to signify that in them the divine ideal of manhood has preserved itself most faithfully.

Rise of Popular Belief in a Personal Messiah.

Not until after the fall of the Maccabean dynasty, when the despotic government of Herod the Great and his family, and the increasing tyranny of the Roman empire had made their condition ever more unbearable, did the Jews seek refuge in the hope of a personal Messiah. They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule, and would establish His own reign of peace and justice in its place. In this way their hopes became gradually centered in the Messiah. As evidence that in the Roman period the Messianic hope had become universal among the Jews may be adduced: (1) Jesus' conviction that he was the Messiah, a conviction inspired in him by the current belief in a Messiah, as is shown by the fact that on his entry into Jerusalem the populace hailed him as such; (2) the testimony of Josephus ("B. J." vi. 5, § 4), Tacitus ("Hist." v. 13), and Suetonius (Vespasian, iv.) regarding the Messianic belief of the Jewish people at that time; (3) the fact that even in Philo's picture of the future, in spite of its moralistic tendency, the Messianic king has a place (comp. "De Præmiis et Pœnis," § 16). It may be noted in this connection that the "Prayer for the Coming of the Messiah," as the version of it given both in the Babylonian and in the Palestinian recensions of the Shemoneh 'Esreh shows (see Nos. 14 and 15 respectively), can not have become an integral part of the daily prayers later than the time immediately following the destruction of the Temple, for in that period the "Shemoneh 'Esreh" received its present form. Hillel's assertion (Sanh. 98b) that there would be no future Messiah for Israel since the latter had had its Messiah in the days of Hezekiah, can have no weight as a contrary argument, as Hillel lived in the reign of Herod the Great, at the beginning of the period which marks the development of the popular belief in the Messiah.

Development of Conception.

As the future hopes of the Jews became Messianic in character the figure of the Messiah assumed a central and permanent place in apocalyptic literature; and as apocalyptic literature in general, so the Messiah-concept in particular, embodies a multitude of bizarre fantasies which can not possibly be reconciled or woven into anything like a connected picture. There are many factors which contributed to this manifold and variegated imagery. Not only was all the Messianic and quasi-Messianic material of the Scriptures collected, and out of it, by means of subtle combinations, after the manner of the Midrash, a picture of the Messiah sedulously drawn, but everything poetical or figurative in the Prophets' descriptions of the future was taken in a literal sense and expounded and dogmatized accordingly. Many foreign elements, moreover, crept in at this time and became part of the general potpourri of imagery relating to the Messiah. This being the case, an exceedingly complex and difficult question arises—where, in the Messiah-pictures, and, indeed, in the pictures of the future in general, presented by apocalyptic literature, has one to deal with organic development from prophetic ideas, and where with foreign religious elements? At present it is not possible to form a final judgment in regard to the place of origin of these foreign ideas. The material from the Assyro-Babylonian religion and mythology which has been offered in recent years by Assyriologists shows what an involved question is presented in this one point, and that a series of preliminary and exhaustive studies is necessary before a final decision can be reached regarding it or the various questions bound up with it. The one thing safe to maintain in this connection is, perhaps, that, according to the time at which the heterogeneous character of the conceptions becomes noticeable in the literature, Alexandria must have had a prominent part in the fusion of the native and foreign elements, since that city had been from the time of Alexander the Great the seat of religious syncretism as well as the intellectual metropolis of the civilized world.

For the better understanding of the Messianic pictures in apocalyptic literature it is important to point out that, although frequently interlaced, two distinct sets of ideas may be traced—the one set concerned with this world, hence realistic and national; the other directed to the world to come, hence transcendent and universalistic. The Messiah presents a correspondingly double character. Side by side with the traditional idea of an earthly king of the house of David is the new conception of a heavenly preexistent Messiah, from which it follows that in regard to the question of the Messiah the older apocalyptic literature, as well as the younger rabbinical branch, falls naturally into two groups.

In the Older Apocalyptic Literature.

In the older apocalyptic literature the first book to be mentioned in which the Messiah figures as an earthly king is "The Vision of the Seventy Shepherds of the Book of Enoch" (ch. lxxxv.-xc.) of the time of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.). The Messiah appears under the figure of a white bull at the conclusion of the world-drama (xc. 37 et seq.) and commands the respect and fear of all the heathen, who eventually become converted to God. Yet he does not take any actual rôle. It is God Himself who wards off the last attack of the heathen against Israel, gives judgment, and establishes the world-dominion of Israel. Second in this group come those parts of the Sibylline Books whose date, as Geffken's recent critical analysis has established ("Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina," pp. 7-13), is about the year 83 B.C. The Messiah is pictured (verses 652-666) as a king sent by God from the rising of the sun, who will put an end to war all over the earth, inasmuch as he will destroy some peoples and make permanent treaties with the others; in all his actions he will be solicitous not to follow his own counsel, but to obey the commands of God. The writer then describes at length the attack by the heathen nations on the magnificent Temple of God and on the Holy Land, and the annihilation of the nations by God; the Last Judgment, with the ensuing conversion of the heathen to God; the establishment of God's eternal kingdom over all men and the reign of universal peace; but, strange to say, throughout the description there is no mention of the Messiah. In fact, in verses 781 et seq. the Israelites are spoken of as the prophets of God, the judges of mankind, and the just kings who will put an end to the sway of the sword upon earth.

In the Psalms of Solomon.

"The Vision of the Seventy Shepherds" and Sibyllines, iii. 652 et seq. say nothing whatever about the lineage of the earthly Messiah, but in the Psalms of Solomon (xvii.), which were called forth by the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey (63 B.C.), he is designated as the "son of David," who will appear at a time known only to God. These Psalms (l.c.) contain a more detailed description of his personality and of his reign than any other writing of that period. The Messiah will first crush the unjust rulers and rid Jerusalem of, and destroy, the impious heathen. Then he will gather the scattered ones of Israel, distribute them through the land according to their tribes, and found his own kingdom of peace and justice. No wicked person will be tolerated in his kindgom nor will foreigners be allowed to dwell there. He will subject the heathen nations to his rule, glorify the Lord before the whole world, and make Jerusalem pure and holy as of old, so that the nations will come from the ends of the earth to witness God's glory. The description which follows of his righteous reign shows the influence of Isa. xi. 1 et seq. Free from sin, strong in the divine fear, and filled with the spirit of God, of valor, and of justice, he will tend the flock of the Lord faithfully, hold the higher officers in check, and make sinners cease by the power of his word, so that injustice and tyranny will not be practised in the land. He will not rely upon horses and warriors, nor heap up gold and silver to wage war, nor keep armies. In God alone will he place his trust, and his strength will be in Him.

In the Apocalypse of Baruch (70-100 C.E.) the earthly Messiah will appear at the close of the fourth (i.e., the Roman) world-empire and destroy it. The last ruler of the empire will, after his hosts have been destroyed, be brought in chains before the Messiah on Mount Zion, and there, after the impiousness of his rule has been pointed out to him, he will be put to death by the Messiah's own hand. Of the other nations, those hostile to Israel will be put to the sword and the remainder subjected to the rule of the Messiah, who will establish himself on the throne of his kingdom, inaugurate the reign of morality and bliss, and hold dominion until the end of time, that is, until the consummation of the present world (xxix. 3, xxxix. 5-xl. 3, lxxii.-lxxiii. 4. Ch. xxx. 1 is to be taken, with Volz ["Jüdische Eschatologie," pp. 37, 203], as Christian interpolation).

In the Testaments of the Patriarchs.

The Testament of Levi (ch. viii. and xviii.) shows a unique conception of the Messiah. He is not, as in the Testament of Judah (see below) and according to the popular belief, a descendant of David, but a priestly king of the tribe of Levi. His character and activity are altogether spiritual. The pouring out of the spirit and knowledge of the Lord over all mankind and the cessation of sin and evil will be the fruit of his ideal priesthood, which will last for all eternity. He himself will open the doors of paradise, cast aside the sword threatening Adam, and give the saints to eat of the tree of life. He will chain up Belial and will give his children power to trample on the evil spirits. The picture of the Messiah in the Testament of Judah (ch. xxiv.), although far more brief, resembles, in its spiritual character and in its universalistic tendency, that in the Testament of Levi. The sole mission of the Messiah will be the regeneration of mankind, and his kingdom will be one of justice and salvation for the whole world. If, as Bousset sought to prove ("Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft," i. 193 et seq.), the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs date mainly from the time of the Maccabees, then the Messiahconception of the Testament of Levi is easily accounted for; the author expects that the future Savior will be a prince of the reigning priestly house of the Maccabees.

The Heavenly Messiah.

The oldest apocalypse in which the conception of a preexistent heavenly Messiah is met with is the Messiological section of the Book of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) of the first century B.C. The Messiah is called "the Son of Man," and is described as an angelic being, his countenance resembling a man's, and as occupying a seat in heaven beside the Ancient of Days (xlvi. 1), or, as it is expressed in ch. xxxix. 7, "under the wings of the Lord of spirits." In ch. xlviii. 3, 6, xlix. 2b it is stated that "His name was called before the Lord of spirits before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, and before the stars of heaven weremade"; that "He was chosen and hidden with God before the world was created, and will remain in His presence forevermore" (comp. also lxii. 6); and that "His glory will last from eternity unto eternity and his might from generation unto generation" (that "his name" in xlviii. 3 means really "son of man" is evident from verse 6; comp. the similar use of "Shem Yhwh" for "Yhwh" in Isa. xxx. 27). He is represented as the embodiment of justice and wisdom and as the medium of all God's revelations to men (xlvi. 3; xlix. 1, 2a, 3). At the end of time the Lord will reveal him to the world and will place him on the throne of His glory in order that he may judge all creatures in accordance with the end to which God had chosen him from the beginning. When he rises for the judgment all the world will fall down before him, and adore and extol him, and give praise to the Lord of spirits. The angels in heaven also, and the elect in the Garden of Life, will join in his praise and will glorify the Lord. "He will judge all hidden things, and no one will be able to make vain excuses to him"; he will judge also Azazel, with all his associates and all his hosts. The wicked ones of the earth, especially all kings and potentates, he will give over to damnation, but for the just and chosen ones he will prepare eternal bliss, and he will dwell in their midst for all eternity (xlv. 3, 4; xlvi. 4-6; xlviii. 4-10; xlix. 4; li. 3; lv. 4; lxi. 7-lxii. 14).

It is worthy of special note that in the appendix to the Messiological section of Enoch, the latter himself is the Son of Man = Messiah (lxxi. 14), and, as in the Slavonic Book of Enoch and the Hebrew Book of Enoch (see Jew. Encyc. i. 676, s.v. Apocalyptic Literature), as well as throughout rabbinical literature, Enoch is identical with Meṭaṭron = Μετάθρονος or Μετατύρανος (i.e., the highest, ministering spirit, who stands next to God and represents His rulership over the universe), so there is an important connecting-link between the conception of the Son of Man = Messiah, and the Logos, which appears repeatedly in Philo in place of the earthly future king (comp., e.g., his interpretation of "ẓemaḥ," Zech. vi. 12, in "De Confess." § 14; see Memra). The Fourth Book of Ezra (about 100 C.E.) presents both the pre-existent and the earthly Messiah. The latter is seen in ch. vii. 28, xi. 37-46, xii. 31-34, where the Messiah is represented as the Lion "who will spring from the seed of David," will destroy the fourth (i.e., the Roman) world-monarchy, will rule 400 years till the end of the Messianic interim, and then will die, together with all men. The former appears in the vision of the man rising from the sea (ch. xiii.). Here, as in the Messiological section, the Messiah is described as "one resembling a man" and is called "ille homo" or "ipse homo" (verses 3, 12). The statement is made also (under the influence of Dan. vii. 13) that he "flew with the clouds of heaven." Other points of contact with the Messiological Book are: the statement that "he is the one whom the Most High has reserved for many ages to deliver creation" (verse 26); the reference to his being hidden with God (verse 52)—"Even as no one can fathom nor learn what is in the depths of the sea, so none of the inhabitants of earth can see My son nor his escort [i.e., the host of angels who will accompany him when he appears upon earth], unless it be at the appointed hour"; and, finally, the obvious reference to his preexistence in heaven, where the promise is given to Ezra, "Thou wilt be taken from among men [to heaven] and wilt dwell with My son and with thy comrades until the end of time" (xiv. 9).

In Rabbinic Literature.

Whether the Messiah in Sibyllines v. 415-430, where he is called "a blessed man coming from heaven," is the preexistent or the earthly Messiah can not be determined. In the Assumptio Mosis, however (c. 4 B.C.), it may be concluded, on the ground of the identification of the Son of Man = Messiah with Enoch = Meṭaṭron in Enoch lxxi. 14, that it is the preexistent Messiah who is referred to (x. 2), for it is stated that, at the end of the last tribulation, when God's dominion will be established over all creation, "the hands of the angel who stands in the highest place will be filled, and he will immediately avenge them [Israel] on their enemies." As the author of the Fourth Book of Ezra (xiii.), as well as the author of the Messiological Book, evidently had Dan. vii. 13 in mind when he described the preexistent Messiah, it may be mentioned here that, while the Messianic interpretation of this passage prevails in the rabbinic literature (the oldest example is the Messianic tradition in Sanh. 98a, for which Joshua b. Levi is mentioned as authority), the Greek text of Dan. vii. 13 presents not only the Messianic interpretation of "Bar Nash," but unmistakably also, in καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆυ added after ὡς υἱὸς ἀνϑρώπου ἥρχετο, the conception of the preexistent Messiah. Moreover, contrary to the view held by many that all the passages concerning the Son of Man = Messiah in the Book of Enoch and IV Ezra are of Christian origin, it may be pointed out that the phrase "Bar Nash" (= "Son of Man") must have been a common name for an angel of the highest order among the Palestinian Jews of the first Christian centuries. Yer. Yoma v. relates that, when reference was made in the bet ha-midrash to Simon the Just's having, every year of the forty during which he was high priest, been accompanied into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement by an "aged one," veiled and garbed in linen (i.e., by a heavenly being; comp. the "labush ha-badim" in Ezek. ix. 1, 3 et al.), R. Abbahu objected: "Does not the prohibition, 'No man shall be present in the Tabernacle when the high priest enters the sanctuary,' extend to those of whom it is said, 'the appearance of their countenance was that of a man's countenance'?" (Lev. xvi. 17; Ezek. i. 10). Whereupon the rejoinder was made, "Who says that that being was Bar Nash? It was the All Holy Himself." It may be noted in passing that this haggadah is of importance for the Greek text of Dan. vii. 13 as well as for the identification of the Son of Man = Messiah with Enoch = Meṭaṭron.

In the rabbinical apocalyptic literature the conception of an earthly Messiah is the prevailing one, and from the end of the first century of the common era it is also the one officially accepted by Judaism. As proof of this may be given: (1) "The Prayer for the Coming of the Messiah," mentioned above, inwhich the Messiah is called "descendant of David." (2) The information given in the second century by Justin ("Dialogus cum Tryphone," ch. xlix.) and by the author of "Philosophumena" (ix. 30). Both writers state expressly that, contrary to the belief of the Christians, the Jews emphasize the human origin of the Messiah, and the author of "Philosophumena" adds that they expect him to be descended from David. (3) The liturgy of later times, which, like the Daily Prayer, calls him the descendant of David throughout. His mission is, in all essential respects, the same as in the apocalypses of the older period: he is to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its ruler and destroy his hosts, and set up his own kingdom of peace (comp. the descriptions of him in Jew. Encyc. i. 675, s.v. Apocalyptic Literature, Neo-Hebraic).

Heavenly Preexistence.

The conception of the preexistent Messiah is met with in Pesiḳ. R. xxxiii., xxxvi. (pp. 152b, 162, ed. Friedmann; comp. Yalḳ. i. 339). In accordance with the Messiological section of Enoch the former of these two passages says: "At the beginning of the creation of the world was born the King Messiah, who mounted into God's thoughts before the world was made"; and in the latter passage it is related that God contemplated the Messiah and his works before the creation of the world and concealed him under His throne; that Satan, having asked God who the Light was under His throne, was told it was the one who would bring him to shame in the future, and, being then allowed, at his request, to see the Messiah, he trembled and sank to the ground, crying out, "Truly this is the Messiah who will deliver me and all heathen kings over to hell." God calls the Messiah "Ephraim, my righteous Messiah."

The preexistent Messiah is presented also in the Haggadah (Pes. 54a; Ned. 39a; Yalḳ. i. 20; et al.), where the name of the Messiah is included among the seven things created before the world was made, and where he is called "Yinnon," reference being made to Ps. lxxii. 17 (which passage probably was in the mind of the author of the Messiological section of Enoch when writing xlviii. 3). That, contrary to the view of Weber ("Jüdische Theologie," 2d ed., p. 355) and others, it is actual preexistence which is meant here, and not predestination, is evident from the additional remark—"According to another view, only the Torah and the Throne of Glory were [actually] created; as to the other [five] things the intention was formed to create them" (Yalḳ., l.c.; in regard to "the name of the Messiah" compare the comment above to Enoch, xlviii. 3). Finally, the preexistence of the Messiah in paradise is minutely described in "The Revelation of R. Joshua b. Levi" (see Jew. Encyc. i. 680), in Midrash Konen (Jellinek, "B. H." ii. 29), and in "Seder Gan Eden" (ib. iii. 132 et seq., 195). In the first two, regardless of the apparent anomaly, the preexistent Messiah is called "Messiah ben David."

Earthly Preexistence.

The conception met with in the rabbinical literature of an earthly preexistence of the Messiah must be distinguished from that of his heavenly preexistence. It occurs in various forms, representing, probably, different stages of development. First, he is expected to lead a hidden life and then to step forth suddenly. (On this conception of the sudden, unexpected appearance of the Messiah comp. Matt. xxiv. 27, 43-44, where it is said that the Messiah will come like a thief in the night or like a flash of lightning.) This is the conception of him in Ex. R. i. and in Tan., Shemot, both of which say that as Moses, the first deliverer, was reared at the court of Pharaoh, so the future deliverer will grow up in the Roman capital; in agreement with this, in the Agadat ha-Mashiaḥ (Jellinek, l.c. iii. 142) it is said that the Messiah will suddenly be revealed to Israel in Rome. Then, again, the Messiah is represented as born, but not yet revealed. This conception appears as early as the second century in Justin Martyr's "Dialogus cum Tryphone" (ch. viii.), and in accordance with it is the passage Sanh. 98b, where R. Joshua ben Levi is quoted as saying that the Messiah is already born and is living in concealment at the gates of Rome. In Targ. Yer. to Micah iv. 8 the Messiah is on the earth, but because of the sins of the people he is still in hiding. Finally, the Messiah is thought of as born at a certain time in the past. This is the case in Yer. Ber. ii., which states that the Messiah was born at Bethlehem on the day the Temple was destroyed, and in the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel (see Jew. Encyc. i. 682), which declares he was born in the days of King David and is dwelling in Rome.

The notion, traceable to Ezek. xxxiv. 23 et al., that David himself is the Messiah, is another variation of the conception of earthly preexistence. It occurs in the apocalyptic fragment of the "Siddur" of R. Amram (see Jew. Encyc. i. 678, s.v. Apocalyptic Literature, 2) and in Yer. Ber. ii. The latter states that whether the King Messiah belongs to the living or to the dead, his name is David.

Messiah ben Joseph.

Finally, there must be mentioned a Messianic figure peculiar to the rabbinical apocalyptic literature—that of Messiah ben Joseph. The earliest mention of him is in Suk. 52a, b, where three statements occur in regard to him, for the first of which R. Dosa (c. 250) is given as authority. In the last of these statements only his name is mentioned, but the first two speak of the fate which he is to meet, namely, to fall in battle (as if alluding to a well-known tradition). Details about him are not found until much later, but he has an established place in the apocalypses of later centuries and in the midrash literature—in Saadia's description of the future ("Emunot we-De'ot," ch. viii.) and in that of Hai Gaon ("Ṭa'am Zeḳenim," p. 59). According to these, Messiah b. Joseph will appear prior to the coming of Messiah b. David; he will gather the children of Israel around him, march to Jerusalem, and there, after overcoming the hostile powers, reestablish the Temple-worship and set up his own dominion. Thereupon Armilus, according to one group of sources, or Gog and Magog, according to the other, will appear with their hosts before Jerusalem, wage war against Messiah b. Joseph, and slay him. His corpse, according to one group, will lie unburied in the streets of Jerusalem; according to theother, it will be hidden by the angels with the bodies of the Patriarchs, until Messiah b. David comes and resurrects him (comp. Jew. Encyc. i. 682, 684 [§§ 8 and 13]; comp. also Midr. Wayosha' and Agadat ha-Mashiaḥ in Jellinek, "B. H." i. 55 et seq., iii. 141 et seq.).

When and how this Messiah-conception originated is a question that has not yet been answered satisfactorily. It is not possible to consider Messiah b. Joseph the Messiah of the Ten Tribes. He is nowhere represented as such; though twice it is mentioned that a part of the Ten Tribes will be found among those who will gather about his standard. There is a possibility, however, as has been repeatedly maintained, that there is some connection between the Alexander saga and the Messiah b. Joseph tradition, for, in the Midrash, on the strength of Deut. xxxiii. 17, a pair of horns, with which he will "strike in all directions," is the emblem of Messiah b. Joseph (comp. Pirḳe R. El. xix.; Gen. R. lxxv.; Num. R. xiv.; et al.), just as in the apocalyptic Alexander tradition in the Koran (referred to above) the latter is called "The Double-Horned" ("Dhu al-Ḳarnain"). See also Eschatology; Jesus; Judaism.

Bibliography:

R. Smend, Alttestamentliche Religionsgesch.;

W. Nowack, Die Zukunftshoffnung Israels in der Assyrischen Zeit;

Hühn, Die Messianischen Weissagungen;

Fr. Giesebrecht, Der Knecht Jahwe's in Deutero-Jesaia;

Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., ii. 29;

W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, part 3, ch. ii.-v.; part 6, pp. 474 et seq.;

P. Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, §§ 34-35;

H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie, i. 68-85;

W. Baldensperger, Die Messianisch-Apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums;

F. Weber, Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud, etc., ch. xxii.-xxiii.;

G. H. Dalman, Der Leidende und der Sterbende Messias;

idem, Die Worte Jesu, pp. 191 et seq.;

Kampers, Alexander der Grosse und die Idee des Weltimperiums in Prophetie und Sage;

B. Beer, Welchen Aufschluss Geben die Jüdischen Quellen über den "Zweigehörnten" des Korans? in Z. D. M. G. ix. 791 et seq.

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

1. The Messiah of the OT—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. The Messiah of the Jewish literature

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

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

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

4. In the different strata of the Eth. Enoch literature the hope of a personal Messiah is presented in somewhat different degrees of distinctness. In the older sections (1–36) of the original groundwork (chs. 1–36, 72–104), the hope, though apocalyptic, is national. Here, however, as in the later literature, attention is centred rather on the punishment of the wicked than on the development of the new Kingdom. Very note worthy is the fact that both the punishment of the wicked and the rewards of the righteous were to be eschatological. But eschatology, though involving the resurrection, is still somewhat naïve. The righteous are to live 500 years, beget 1000 children, and die in peace (ch. 10). Still, the punishment of the wicked is to be in Sheol, which has been divided into four sections with varying conditions (ch. 22; see Sheol). It is obvious, however, that in this early Enoch literature the thought is poetic rather than precise, and in a way it marks the transition from the political religious hope of the prophets to the transcendental expectations of the later apocalypses.

In the dream visions (chs. 83–90) there is a more elaborate symbolical account of the sufferings of the Hebrew people under various oppressors. The new age, however, is about to be introduced by the Day of Judgment, when wicked persons—whether men, rulers, or angels—are to be cast into an abyss of fire. Then the New Jerusalem is to be established by God. The dead are to be raised, the Messiah is to appear, and all men are to he transformed into His likeness. These latter elements of the hope, however, are somewhat obscurely expressed. The Messiah seems to have no particular function either of judgment or of conquest. The new Kingdom is a direct gift of God.

In the later chapters of this early section (chs. 90–104) the thought becomes more eschatological. The resurrection comes at the end of the Messianic reign, which is to be one of struggle, in which the wicked are to be subdued. The Messiah is thus more distinct, and is at least once called by God ‘my Son.’

In the other group of Enoch visions (chs. 37–72) the transcendental has become to some extent literalized. The Messiah is now very prominent, being called ‘son of man,’ ‘elect,’ ‘righteous one.’ He is pre-existent, and co-judge with God over both the living and the dead. The punishment of the enemies of Israel is still as prominent as the establishment of the new Kingdom, and the latter is described in terms which make it evident that the Jews could not conceive of any Kingdom of God apart from Palestine. There men and angels are to dwell together and rule over a world freed from sin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shailer Mathews.

mḗ-sı̄´a (משׁיח, māshı̄^aḥ; Aramaic משׁיחא, m^eshı̄ḥā’; Septuagint Χριστός, Christós, “anointed”; New Testament “Christ”):

1.    Meaning and Use of the Term

2.    The Messianic Hope

I.    THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

1.    The Messianic King

(1)    Isaiah

(2)    Jeremiah and Ezekiel

(3)    Later Prophets

2.    Prophetic and Priestly Relations

3.    Servant of Yahweh

4.    Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic

II.    THE MESSIAH IN THE PRE-CHRISTIAN AGE

1.    Post-prophetic Age

2.    Maccabean Times

3.    Apocalyptic Literature

III.    THE MESSIAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

1.    The Jewish Conception

(1)    The Messiah as King

(2)    His Prophetic Character

(3)    The Title “Son of God”

2.    Attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship

3.    The Christian Transformation

4.    New Elements Added

(1)    Future Manifestation

(2)    Divine Personality

(3)    Heavenly Priesthood

5.    Fulfillment in Jesus

LITERATURE

1. Meaning and Use of the Term:

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

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

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

2. The Messianic Hope:

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

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

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

I. The Messiah in the Old Testament.

1. The Messianic King:

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

(1) Isaiah.

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

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

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

(2) Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

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

(3) Later Prophets.

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

2. Prophetic and Priestly Relations:

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

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

3. Servant of Yahweh:

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

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

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

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

4. Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic:

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

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

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

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

II. The Messiah in the Pre-Christian Age.

1. Post-Prophetic Age:

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

2. Maccabean Times:

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

3. Apocalyptic Literature:

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

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

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

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

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

III. The Messiah in the New Testament.

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

1. The Jewish Conception:

(1) The Messiah as King.

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

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

(2) His Prophetic Character.

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

(3) The Title “Son of God.”

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

2. Attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship:

(1) His Claim.

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

(2) His Delay in Making It.

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

(3) “The Son of Man.”

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

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

3. The Christian Transformation:

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

4. New Elements Added:

(1) Future Manifestation.

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

(2) Divine Personality.

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

(3) Heavenly Priesthood.

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

5. Fulfillment in Jesus:

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

Literature.

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

See Christ, Christology.

Anglicization of the Hebrew, "moshiach" (annointed). A man who will be chosen by G-d to put an end to all evil in the world, rebuild the Temple, bring the exiles back to Israel and usher in the world to come. It is better to use the Hebrew term "moshiach" when speaking of the Jewish messiah, because the Jewish concept is very different from the Christian one.

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

Old Testament expectations

The most common Old Testament usage of the title ‘anointed’ was in relation to the Israelite king, who was frequently called ‘the Lord’s anointed’ (1Sa 24:10; Psa 18:50; Psa 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 (Gen 49:9-12).

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

In promising David a dynasty, God promised that he would treat David’s son and successor as if he were his own son (2Sa 7:14). From that time on, Israelites regarded every king in the royal line of David as, in a sense, 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 (Psa 2:6-7; Mar 10:47; Mar 12:35; Mar 14:61).

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

Messianic interpretations

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

One of 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 (Psa 110:1; Mat 22:41-45).

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

The Messiah was, in addition, to be a prophet, announcing 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 (Deu 18:15; Luk 24:19; Joh 6:14; Joh 7:40; Act 3:22-23; Act 7:37; Heb 1:1-2).

Jesus and the Jews

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

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

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

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

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

The Messiah’s death and resurrection

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 (Mat 11:2-3; Luk 24:21; Act 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 (Isa 35:5-6; Isa 61:1; Mat 11:4-5; Luk 4:18; Luk 18:35-43).

What the disciples could not understand was that the Messiah should die. Like most Jews they knew of the Old Testament prophecies concerning God’s suffering servant (Isa 49:7; Isa 50:6; Isa 52:13-15; Isaiah 53; see SERVANT OF THE LORD), just as they knew of the prophecies concerning 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 (Mat 16:13-23; Mat 17:12; Mar 10:45; Act 4:27).

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

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

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

Title and name

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

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

The Hebrew word for God’s "anointed one" (Jesus Christ) who came to save the world by taking the punishment for our sins.

» See also: Christ

—New Believer’s Bible Glossary

Messiah is a Hebrew word. It means "anointed one." It is the equivalent of the N.T. word "Christ" which also means "anointed." Jesus, as the messiah, was anointed by God (Mat 3:16) to carry out His three-fold ministry of Prophet, Priest, and King. As the messiah He has delivered the Christian from the bonds of sin and given to him eternal life. In that sense, messiah means deliverer, for He has delivered us. The Messiah was promised in the O.T. in the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15).