THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
The rabbis usually placed the coming of the
Messiah in the age then present. The " days of the
Messiah " was an indefinite period,
3. Early which, however, was to form the transi- Rabbinic tion to that state of perfect retribution
Ideals, which begins with the resurrection of the dead (cf. Luke xx. 34-35, xviii. 30; Matt. xii. 32). Sometimes the age of the Messiah was placed in the future. After the temporally limited Messianic kingdom, the destruction of this world and the creation of a new world were to follow. In the future world there is neither eating nor drinking nor procreation. Messianic times would be preceded by a great humiliation of the Jews and a war of all kingdoms against each other, which would mark the birth-pangs of the Messiah. All manner of plagues, the sword, hunger, pestilence, earthquakes, are to occur. Israel will find rescue from these tribulations by holding fast to the Torah and by works of mercy. But the Jewish nation will have been reduced to extremities. Nevertheless, the belief is not lacking that the Messiah would find a people worthily prepared. As a rule, the preparation of the nation for the coming of the Messiah was expected through Elias, whose reappearance was awaited by the scribes (Ecclus. xlviii. 1-10, on the basis of
4. The Mai. iii. 1 sqq.; cf. Matt. xvii. 10-11, Functions xi. 14). This is indeed usually un-
of Elias. derstood in a purely material sense;
however, Malachi did not exclude a spiritual purification and unity. According to rabbinic teaching, Elias was to purify the law from spurious intrusions, and restore clauses wrongly excluded, to decide questions under debate, bring about the final atonement for Israel, and even cause the resurrection of the dead (cf. C. Schfittgen, Horce Ebraicce, pp. 533 sqq., Leipsic, 1733-42; J. Lightfoot, Horce Hebraicce, ii. 384, 609, 965, Leipsic, 1679). Other great prophets, as Moses and Jeremiah, were expected to arise from the dead at the beginning of the Messianic epoch and aid the Messiah in his work.
The duration of the Messianic kingdom was expected to be limited (cf. Baba Sanhedrin, 97 sqq.: "It is a tradition of the school of Elias that the world will last 6,000 years: 2,000 tohu, 2,000 torah,
2,000 days of the Messiah; but, be-
5. Duration cause of our sins, which are many, a
of Messi- part of this time has elapsed "). In
anic Rule, another view the duration of the world
is placed at eighty-five jubilee periods, in the last of which the son of David comes, " whether at the beginning or at the end of it, no one knows." Others, on the contrary, reject any chronological calculation regarding the coming of the Messiah. When calculation is made, the duration of the days of the Messiah rests upon many different methods and reaches divergent results. Some reckon it at forty years (cf. Ps. xcv. 10); others, again, conjecture seventy years (Isa. xxiii. 15); R. Akiba, forty years, from the forty years in the wilderness; in Sifre, 134a, the Messianic period is extended to three generations (cf. Ps. Ixxii. 5, where, however, the duration is not given). Still others discover 100, 365, 1,000, 2,000, or even 7,000
y<
The person of the Messiah, the son of David, is
usually conceived as human, and this is more and
more sharply insisted on in contradistinction to
Christianity. The strongest statement
6. The of this kind is that in Justin Martyr, Person Trypho, xlix., ANF, i. 219: " We all of the expect that Christ will be a man." The
Messiah, passage Taanith, ii. 1, is also sharply polemical: R. Abbahu spoke: " If a man say to you, ' I am God ' — he lies; ' I am the Son of Man ' — he will repent it at the end; ' I shall ascend to heaven ' — he will not prove it." In general, the mysterious quality of the prophetic utterances is reduced to the standard of common humanity. The names of the Messiah in Isa. ix. 6 are for the most part attributed to God, even though this requires arbitrary exegesis. Hence the Messiah comes like others of the race of David. The assertion that the Targums sometimes identify the Messiah with the memra de Yahweh (" word of Yahweh ") is incorrect. On the contrary, this divine word is expressly distinguished from the Messiah, as in Targum Jonathan to Isa. ix. 6-7, where the concluding sentence is rendered: " through the memra of Yahweh will this be performed." It is, however, quite true that a kind of preexistence of the Messiah in heaven was taught. Thus his name was pronounced by God even before the creation (Bereshith rabba, chap, i.), though this signifies merely that he was from the beginning an object of the divine plans of salvation. A more real preexistence is implied in the Book of Enoch and the related apocalyptic writings, and even in some Midrashim appears the doctrine that the Messiah is a superior being who existed before all time. Still, such passages as Bereshith rabba to Gen. i. 2 do not prove that the Messiah was regarded as a divine being in the metaphysical sense.
The Messiah was to appear suddenly (Baba Sanhedrin 97: " Three things come unexpectedly: the Messiah, a thing that is found, and a
7. The scorpion "), though the exact time is Messiah's a subject of dispute. A period of con- Activities, cealment on earth, however, precedes
his appearance (Justin Martyr, Trypho, viii.). Christ when he comes is unknown, does not even know himself (as Messiah) until the prophet Elias comes, anoints him, and reveals everything (Trypho, ex.). In the mean time, he perfects himself in the knowledge of God and of the Law, instructed by God as were Abraham, Job, and Hezekiah (Bammidbar rabba, xiv.), and submits to discipline in good works. According to Sanhedrin, 98a, he sits in Rome at the gate, surrounded by the wretched and the sick, whose wounds he binds, waiting for that " to-day " (Ps. xcv. 7) when the conversion of his people will allow him to come to them. By this recognition of a state of lowliness and disesteem an effort was made to do some slight justice to the picture of the suffering Messiah in Isa. Iii., liii., recognized as Messianic by the Targum, although with a weakening of the vicarious expiatory sufferings and death there portrayed. Later, this suffering figure, if it were at all accepted, was referred to another and subordinate Messiah (see below). Regarding the form in which the son of