eriod when the expectation of a king of David’s ine does not seem to have flourished, religious hope was fixed upon the rise of a true prophet (1 Mac 14"; cf. 4 and 977). Among the Jews of the time of our Lord’s ministry the return of one of the famous prophets of old (Mk 857: and parallels, Mk 6"), or the coming of one who was defined as ‘the prophet’ (Jn 151-35 64), was awaited. But in all these passages, except Jn 6™*-, it is evident that ‘the prophet’ is distinct from the Messiah; and in that place, also, there is no need to suppose an identification of, or confusion between, the twa ideas. Nevertheless, some traits taken from the prophetic character seem to have found a place in the conception of the Messiah’s work and office. One, the working of miracles, has been referred to already. Again, the Messiah, according to the woman of Samaria, is to be the revealer of all truth that men need to know (Jn 4%). This view of the Messiah agrees with the special com- plexion of Messianic doctrine among the Samaritans at a later time.
(δ) The doctrine of a suffering Messiah.—There are passages in the OT which teach deep lessons as to the Divine purposes that are accomplished through the sufferings of the righteous, and fore- shadowings even of one pre-eminent vicarious sufferer. ἘΠΕ so far as we can trace the connexion of ideas in these passages and their contexts, there does not seem to have been any clear reference to the Messiah and his atoning work in the thought of the writers. The suggestion for their pro- phecies seems to have come either through indi- vidual experience, or (as notably in the latter half of Isaiah) from the belief that, through the afflic- tions which the better part of the Israelite nation was undergoing, its purification and restoration were being effected.
We desire, however, to know what the influence of these prophecies was upon Jewish Messianic belief. the true answer appears to be that for a long time they did not affect it at all, and that they never did so to any considerable degree. There is no trace of the idea that the Messiah would undergo suffering, in the extra-canonical pre-Christian literature which we have been re viewing. And the evidence supplied by the Gospels seems to show conclusively that no such belief existed among the Jews at the time of our Lord’s ministry. His own disciples were totally unprepared for His announcements on the subject. And yet, if such a belief was to be found any where, it might be expected to be among those who were attracted by the character and teaching of
MESSIAH
Jesus. There were differences in the spirit in which the Messiah and his times were thought of and desired. The mass of men thought chietly of victory over their enemies and the bringing in of great material prosperity, while the truly pious dwelt on the remission of sins(Lk1”). But there is no sign of this remission being connected with the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah except in the Bape words (Jn 139. 3); and plainly this inspired utterance cannot be taken as evidence of Jewish belief: those who heard it do not seem to have understood it at the time. Some have held that in our Lord’s time there had, through devo- tion to earthly ideals, been a decline, esp. in regard to the point under consideration, from a conception of the Messiah prevalent in an earlier age which had been more truly in accord with prophetic teach- ing (cf. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, τι. ii.). It would be strange if this fuller and higher doctrine had been so completely lost, as it must in that case have been. Moreover, as we have seen, this theory has no documentary support.
We pass to writings subsequent to the Christian era. The view of 4 Ezr that Messiah would die after a long and prosperous reign, at the end of this world, has evidently nothing to do with atoning suffering. Christian controversialists appear to have been equally mistaken in the meaning they have often attributed to the doctrine of two Messiahs—Ben-Joseph and Ben-David. The for- mer is the Messiah of the ten tribes, a warlike deliverer and king. He was, it is true, to die, but only in order to make way for the union of the whole nation under Messiah Ben-David.
In the Targum of Jonathan much of Is 52-53" [5 applied to the Messiah, but those verses which speak of the suterines of the Servant of Jehovah
8 And the
are referred to the Israelite nation.
general current of Jewish interpretation is to the
same effect. There are some traces in the Talmud of the belief that the Messiah would suffer with the sufferings of his people, and that he is the subject of the whole of this prophecy; but they are rare, and are not found in the earlier portions.
A good deal of stress has been laid on the fact that Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Sila represents his Jewish interlocutor as force to allow that the Scriptures foretell a Messiah des- tined to suffer (chs. 68. 89. 90). But this cannot rightly be pressed, since Justin may attribute this admission to his, perhaps partly imaginary, oppo- nent, as a literary device for setting forth his own argument. If accepted as evidence of Jewish opinion, it could only show that some Jews a little before A.D. 150 did not feel able to resist this inter- pretation of prophecy when it was urged upon them by Christians.