by Sigmund Mowinckle, He That Cometh.

14. The Varying Forms of the Conception of the Messiah

Finally, it may again be emphasized that the difference between this national conception of the Messiah in later Judaism and that held earlier arises not merely from new elements, but just as much from a change of emphasis. The heightened opposition to everything foreign, and particularly to Rome, which had so abruptly ended the Maccabean dream of freedom, and the steadily increasing dominance exercised by the scribes and the rabbis in matters religious and spiritual, caused other elements in the conception of the Messiah (such as the martial or the transcendental) to receive more prominence. But it must be remembered that all the other features in the older conception of the Messiah are also present, even if they are more in the background. They formed part of the revelation in Scripture; and, as we have seen (pp. 266f., 283), the scribes found the Messiah in a number of passages, which originally did not refer to him, but to the king, or to other figures.

The new element in the conception consists first and foremost of those figures which are derived from the Son of Man, and which have been attributed to the Messiah, without any thought of system or logical consistency, in spite of the fact that in a number of important points they not only differ from the traditional con-ception of the Messiah, but are often even in fundamental dis-harmony with it.

As has been said, it is an advantage to present the two concep-tions separately, in order to gain a clear and comprehensive view of them. But lest the distinction should be exaggerated and they should appear to be two independent figures, it is appropriate to mention at this point the most important features which were commonly attributed to the Messiah, but had in fact been borrowed from the Son of Man. First, then, it was the association with the Son of Man which was primarily responsible for the idea of the Messiah as an eternal being (see above, pp. 323ff.).

As the Messiah became a unique and eternal individual, came to have decisive significance for salvation, and not merely for the exercise of government in the kingdom of the redeemed, it was natural that Jewish theological speculation should also think of him as pre-existent.1 It is easy, in the light of Old Testament presuppositions, to account for this idea. That any expres- sion or vehicle of God’s will for the world, His saving counsel and purpose, was present in His mind, or His ‘Word’, from the begin- ning, is a natural way of saying that it is not fortuitous, but the due unfolding and expression of God’s own being.2 This attribution of pre-existence indicates religious importance of the highest order. Rabbinic theology speaks of the Law, of God’s throne of glory, of Israel, and of other important objects of faith, as things which had been created by God, and were already present with Him, before the creation of the world.3 The same is also true of the Messiah. It is said that his name was present with God in heaven beforehand, that it was created before the world, and that it is eternal.4

But the reference here is not to genuine pre-existence in the strict and literal sense. This is clear from the fact that Israel is included among these pre-existent entities. This does not mean that either the nation Israel or its ancestor existed long ago in heaven, but that the community Israel, the people of God, had been from all eternity in the mind of God, as a factor in His purpose, as an ‘idea’ in the platonic sense. It is an ideal pre-existence that is meant. This is also true of references to the pre-existence of the Messiah. It is his ‘name’, not the Messiah himself, that is said to have been present with God before creation. In Pesikta Rabbati 152b it is said that ‘from the beginning of the creation of the world the King Messiah was born, for he came up in the thought (of God) before the world was created’. This means that from all eternity it was the will of God that the Messiah should come into existence, and should do his work in the world to fulfil God’s eternal saving purpose. Orthodox Judaism’s thought about the pre-existence of the Messiah remained at this stage.5

In the Christian period we also find in Judaism the thought that every human soul, including the Messiah, existed beforehand in heaven.6 It is a real pre-existence that is meant; but it is not some- thing which distinguishes the Messiah from all other men.

But in accordance with a tendency of thought and speech in that age (and, in a measure, in all religion), the abstract conception of an ideal pre-existence, comes to be understood concretely. Popular thought does not distinguish between idea and reality, between ideal and real pre-existence.7 The thought appears in mythical form, and depicts in concrete terms the manner of the Messiah’s pre-existence in heaven. In the late writing Abodat hak-kodesh, the seer beholds the Messiah and Elijah in heaven, and hears them speaking of the time when the Messiah’s appearance will be at hand.8 And we have referred above (p. 330) to the conception in Pesikta Rabbati. It is the influence of the Son of Man which lies behind this, as we shall see below.

It is undoubtedly the influence of the Son of Man which leads to the interpretation in a Messianic sense of one like a son of man’ in Dan. 7:13, and of the expression ben ‘ādām elsewhere in the Old Testament.9 This also led, in the rabbinic literature, to the inclusion in the conception of the Messiah of certain other alien elements; but this was sporadic and had no organic connexion with the rabbinic view as a whole. First and foremost, there is the view occasionally expressed by the rabbis, that the Messiah will be revealed in the clouds of heaven.10 The name Anani, which occurs in the fifth and last generation after Zerubbabel in the Davidic genealogy (1 Chron. 3:24), is interpreted as ‘Cloud man’ (‘ānān = cloud) and taken to refer to the Messiah.11 But this does not mean that the rabbis regarded the Messiah as a heavely king; he was, and continued to be, a natural descendant of David.12 The reference is to a wonderful manifestation to the people, by means of a miracle wrought by God, like the revelation of the Messiah on the roof of the temple. This is indicated by the words of the Targum, ‘This means King Messiah, who will be revealed’, and by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s combina- tion of Zech. 9:9 (‘Behold, your king comes to you; . . . humble (‘anî) and riding on an ass’) with Dan. 7:13 (‘Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a man’) in the following way: ‘If they (Israel) are worthy, (he will come) with the clouds of heaven; if they are not worthy, (he will come) poor (insignifi- cant), and riding on an ass’. For a people who are worthy, the Lord will perform the miracle of causing the Messiah to be revealed in radiant majesty; but to an unworthy people, the Messiah will come in humble fashion;13 and, we may add, by such a people he will not be recognized until he has begun to perform the Messianic works (p. 303), which will free them from affliction, and make them worthy by rigorous purification.

The idea of the Son of Man and the Messianic interpretation of Dan. vii are also the source of the statement that the Messiah shares in the judgement of the world. Judgement, of course, is in God’s own hands, and belongs to the coming aeon, which, according to rabbinic thought, follows the Messianic age.14 This notion appears in rabbinic speculation about the plural ‘thrones’ in Dan. vii: the one is for the descendant of David, the Messiah (see above, p. 313). But as a rule the rabbis reject the thought that the Messiah (or the Son of Man) shares in the judgement.15 It comes out more clearly in apocalyptic, where the Son of Man is sometimes called the Messiah, and judges the nations (see pp. 312f.; and cf. below, pp. 393ff.). The Messiah’s action in destroying the heathen is probably also the result of influence from the idea of the Son of Man (see above, p. 313).

As the national, Davidic Messiah is not thought of as coming from heaven, so it is not normal Jewish doctrine that he will return thither. This accords with the fact that where the national aspect of eschatology is prominent, the kingdom of the Messiah is always a kingdom which will be established here on earth. It is here that the Messiah will reign.

Here too, however, ideas of another type leave their mark. We occasionally find it said that the Messiah will restore paradise, which was lost by Adam’s fall.

And he shall open the gates of paradise,

And shall remove the threatening sword against Adam.

And he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life,

And the spirit of holiness shall be on them.16

Here it is the thought of the Son of Man in his role as king of paradise which has influenced the idea of the Messiah. It may also be detected in 2 Esdras 13:2, 39ff., where the Messiah brings home the ten tribes (see below, p. 381f.).

This idea about the Messiah and paradise has a certain connection with the view, which occurs once in the rabbinic literature, that at the resurrection the Messiah will awake Adam first,17 or with the statement made in a medieval Jewish document that it is the Messiah who will awake the dead.18 This is certainly the result of influence from the idea of the Son of Man (see below, pp. 399ff.). Elsewhere the rabbis say that in the days of the Messiah God will abolish death,19 or that the resurrection will take place then.20

---

Footnotes

1. See Weber, Jud. Theol., p. 353; Schürer, Geschichte II, pp. 616f.
2. Cf. Exod. 25:9ff.; 26:30; 27:8; Num. 8:4; the tent of revelation is made in accordance with a pre-existing pattern in heaven; see Schürer, Geschichte II, p. 618 n. 22.
3. See Strack-Billerbeck II, pp. 334ff., where the rabbinic sources are quoted; cf. Weber, Jud. Theol., p. 198.
4. Genesis Rabbah, 1:4; 2:4; Leviticus Rabbah,14:1; Targum of Jonathan on Zech. 9:7; Midrash Mishle 67c. See Weber, op. cit., p. 355; Dalman, Der leidende und sterbende Messias, p. 247; Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, p. 66; Schürer, Geschichte II, pp. 617f.; Bowman in E.T. lix, 1947/8, p. 288.
5. See Dalman, op. cit., pp. 245ff. It is hardly possible to read anything more into Resh Lakish’s explanation of Gen. 1:2; “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” is the spirit of the King Messiah’. Schürer, op. cit., p. 618, is probably wrong in thinking that this more abstract, idealistic idea (as contrasted with an older, more realistic idea in apocalyptic) is the result of a reaction against Christianity. There was always a difference between apocalyptic and rabbinic thought.
6. Strack-Billerbeck II, pp. 340ff.
7. Moore’s view is almost the same (Judaism II, p. 344). For Jewish thought, real, personal pre-existence is not a problem, but a quite natural idea.
8. See Weber, Jüd. Theol. 2, pp. 355f.
9. See Moore, Judaism II, pp. 334f.; Bowman in E. T. lix, 1947/8, pp. 284ff.; and cf., e.g., the Targum on Ps. 80:15.
10. Sanhedrin 98a; Jer. Taanit 63d; cf. Sib. V, 414. See Moore, loc. cit.
11. Sanhedrin 96b; Tanhuma Toledot 20. See Moore, op. cit., II, p. 336.
12. Moore, op. cit., II, pp. 347ff.
13. Cf. Lagrange, Le Messianisme chez les juifs, pp. 227f.
14. See Moore, Judaism II, p. 339; and above, p. 277.
15. Bab. Sanhedrin 38b, 98a; Jer. Taanit 65b; Midrash Tehillim, Ps. 21:7. See Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 224ff.
16. T. Levi xviii, 1of. See Murmelstein in W.Z.K.M., xxxv, 1928, p. 254.
17. Strack-Billerbeck III, p. 10.
18. Strack-Billerbeck I, p. 524; see above, p. 319 and n. 3.
19. Exodus Rabbah, xxx, 3; see Murmelstein, ibid.
20. See Moore, Judaism II, p. 379.