It will be our aim in this art. (i.) to trace the origin and growth of the Messianic beliefs of the Jews, and then more briefly (ii.) to mark the character and extent of the change which these beliefs underwent in the Christian Church, and its results as to the interpretation of OT prophecy.
i. JEWISH MESSIANIC BELIEF.—1. Outlines 9) its history.—(a) We shall be mainly concerned wit the expectation of a personal deliverer. But it is impossible to place this in a right light, if we do not view it in connexion with the belief, as a whole, which the Jews had in the future blessings assured tothem. From the conviction that they were the chosen people of Jehovah, and that He would be faithful to His covenant made with them, there arose in times of common distress and of exile the
MESSIAH ee eee
confidence taught by the prophets, and which sustained the most pious and best part of the nation, that their national life, after it had been purified by the punishment of sinners and the discipline of the godly, would be restored, that they would obtain complete victory over their enemies, and that God would bestow upon them such glory and peace and well-being as would surpass all that had been realized in the happiest preceding times, and would satisfy perfectly all the longings of their hearts. These hopes existed before the expectation of a unique person who was to come—the Messiah—had been formed. This is exemplified by the Book of Zephaniah, the whole of which is occupied with a vision of the great day of the Lord’s vengeance on the sinners in Israel and destruction of the surrounding nations, and the subsequent happiness of Zion, while yet the figure of atresia oes not appear at all. Again, there were periods in which, or portions of the Jewish world where, the expecta- tion of a coming King seems to have fallen into abeyance, though the more comprehensive hope for Israel and Zion was still vigorous. This is ex- emplified by the Apocrypha and the writings of Philo. Nevertheless, these different forms of expectation had their roots in beliefs which were closely connected. This whole body of expectation may therefore not unfitly be, as it often is, called ‘Messianic.’ The importance of those ori analy simple anticipations, to which we have referred, will further appear when it is observed that out of them, and out of the imagery in which they were expressed, grew in time the elaborate and mysterious doctrines concerning the millennium, the final judgment, the world to come, and other last things (cf. EscHATOLOGY in vol. i.).
(6) We come now more definitely to the history of the idea of the Messiah. God had not only made a special covenant with Israel, but with David and his descendants as its royal house (28 7817, Ps 89°-*7), To the days of David and Solomon, especially, after-generations looked back as fur- nishing a pledge for the future. It is the renewed glory of the house of David, and the reunion of all the tribes under it, that Amos, for instance (94), and Hosea (3°) foretell, not the coming of the Messiah. Again, it is on the restoration of a suc- cession of kings, not on one pre-eminent king, of David’s line, that Jeremiah dwells (17° 224 33%: 17), In some prophecies, however (Is 7!418 9° 7 11, Mie 4. 5), attention is concentrated upon a single descendant of David; and the language used respecting him, taken by itself, would seem clearly to imply the conception of the Messiah, strictly so called. Any remaining doubt whether it did so is suggested by the absence of confirmatory lan- guage, and even the contrary representations, in other nearly contemporary, or later, prophets. Unquestionably, however, the image of the king who, in accordance with God’s covenant with David, stood in a peculiar relation to Jehovah (‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’), who reigned by His appointment, in His name, and by His power, who would do all God’s will, whose rule should be one of absolute righteousness, who would compel all men to honour the God of Israel and bestow on His people perfect peace and happiness for ever, contained the essential charac- teristics of the idea of the Messiah, as that name came to be commonly understood among Jews. At most it was only necessary besides that the conception should be firmly apprehended, that it should be fixed in language, and become clearly recognizable.
(c) We proceed to examine the early evidence of the expectation of the Messiah as a unique per- sonality, and in particular of the use of the title
MESSIAH
‘the Messiah’ (‘the Christ’) aa the distinctive name for such a one,
In order to understand the significance of the application of the name Messiah in the special manner which has become so familiar, we must glance at the use of the word in OT. The cere- mony of anointing was used in making priests and ΠΣ ἴδ, as well as kings, and nyo (ΤΟ Χ Χ χριστός), ‘anointed,’ is a few times applied to the first of these as an adjective (Lv 4° 16 6", 2 Mac 1”). But as a substantive, ‘the Lord’s anointed,’ ‘Mine anointed,’ ‘Thine anointed,’ it is used only of kings. A possible exception to this is the use of the plural to designate the Jewish people as a whole (ἢ), at Ps 105° (1 Ch 16%), Hab 3%, although even in these pemeecs the reference may be to the king. It is employed of the king, in contrast with the priest, even at 1S 2%. The title is repeatedly given to Saul (1S 12° ete.); but it acquired a far fuller meaning when used of David and his descendants, by reason of God’s covenant with him (Ps 2? 18 ete.). Its transfer- ence to Cyrus (Is 451) does but illustrate its primary force. See, further, art. ANOINTING.