Divine reply is a repetition of Zechar. i. 3, yet, when Israel reiterates the words, 'Turn Thou us unto Thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned,' supporting them by Ps lxxxv. 4, the argument proves unanswerable.
Other conditions of Israel's deliverance are, indeed, mentioned. But we can scarcely regard the Synagogue as seriously making the coming of Messiah dependent on their realisation. Among the most touching of these is a beautiful passage (almost reminding us of Heb. xi.), in which Israel's future deliverance is described as the reward of faith, [e Tanch. on Ex. xv. 1, ed.
Warsh. p. 86 b] Similarly beautiful is the thought, [f On Jer.' xxxi. 9] that, when God redeems Israel, it will be amidst their weeping, [g Tanch. on Gen. xiv. 2, ed. Warsh.] But neither can this be regarded as the condition of Messiah's coming; nor yet such generalities as the observance of the Law, or of some special commandments. The very variety of suggestions [h Sanh. 97 b 98 a] [1 The reader will find these discussions summarised at the close of Apendix IX.] shows, how utterly unable the Synagogue felt to indicate any condition to be fulfilled by Israel. Such vague statements, as that the salvation of Israel depended on the merits of the patriarchs, or on that of one of them, cannot help us to a solution; and the long discussion in the Talmud [a Sanh. 98 a and b] leaves no doubt, that the final and most sober opinion was, that the time of Messiah's coming depended not on repentance, nor any other condition, but on the mercy of God, when the time fixed had arrived. But even so, we are again thrown into doubt by the statement, that it might be either hastened or retarded by Israel's bearing! [1 See, on the whole subject, also Debar. R. 2.]
In these circumstances, any attempt at determining the date of Messiah's coming would be even more hypothetical than such calculations generally are. [2 We put aside, as universally repudiated, the opinion expressed by one Rabbi, that Israel's Messianic era was past, the promises having been fulfilled in King Hezekiah (Sanh. 98 b; 99 a).] Guesses on the subject could only be grounded on imaginary symbolisms. Of such we have examples in the Talmud. [3 See, in Appendix IX. the extracts from Sanh.] Thus, some fixed the date at 4000 years after the Creation, curiously enough, about the era of Christ, though Israel's sin had blotted out the whole past from the reckoning; others at 4291 from the Creation; [b Sanh. 97b] others again expected it at the beginning, or end, of the eighty-fifth Jubilee, with this proviso, that it it would not take place earlier; and so on, through equally groundless conjectures. A comparatively late work speaks of five monarchies, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and Ishmael. During the last of these God would hear the cry of Israel, [c Pirqe de R. Ehes. 32] and the Messiah come, after a terrible war between Rome and Ishmael (the West and the East), [d u. s. 30] But as the rule of these monarchies was to last altogether one day (= 1000 years), less two-thirds of an hour (1 hour = 83 1/2 years); [e Comp. Pirqe de R. El. 48] it would follow, that their domination would last 9444/9 years. [4 Pirqe de R. El. 28. The reasoning by which this duration of the monarchies is derived from Lament, i. 13 and Zech. xiv. 7, is a very curious specimen of Rabbinic argumentation.] Again, according to Jewish tradition, the rule of Babylon had lasted 70, that of Medo-Persia 34, and that of Greece 180 years, leaving 6604/9 years for Rome and Ishmael. Thus the date for the expected Advent of the Messiah would have been about 661 after the destruction of Jerusalem, or about the year 729 of the Christian era. [5 Comp. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. p. 277.]
In the category of guesses we must also place such vague statements, as that the Messiah would come, when all were righteous, or all wicked; or else nine months after the empire of Rome had extended over the whole world; [a Sanh. 98 b 1] or when all the souls, predestined to inhabit bodies, had been on earth, [b Ab. Z. 5 a, Ber. R. 24] But as, after years of unrelieved sufferings, the Synagogue had to acknowledge that, one by one, all the terms had passed, and as despair settled on the heart of Israel, it came to be generally thought, that the time of Messiah's Advent could not be known beforehand, [c Targum Pseudo-Jon on Gen. xlix. 1] and that speculation on the subject was dangerous, sinful, even damnable. The time of the end had, indeed, been revealed to two sons of Adam, Jacob and David; but neither of them had been allowed to make it known, [d Midrash on Ps. xxxi. ed. Warsh. p. 41 a, lines 18 to 15 from bottom] In view of this, it can scarcely be regarded as more than a symbolical, though significant guess, when the future redemption of
Israel is expected on the Paschal Day, the 15th of Nisan. [e Pesikta, ed. Buber, 47 b. 48 a, Sopher. xxi. Hal. 2. Shir. haShir. R. ii. 8. ed. Warsh. vol. iii. p. 15 a] [2 Solitary opinions, however, place the future redemption in the month Tishri (Tanch. on Ex. xii. 37, ed. Warsh. p. 81 b, line 2 from bottom).
6. We now approach this most difficult and delicate question: What was the expectation of the ancient Synagogue, as regarded the Nature, Person, and qualifications of the Messiah? In answering it, not at present from the Old Testament, but from the views expressed in Rabinic literature, and, so far as we can gather from the Gospel-narratives, from those cherished by the contemporaries of Christ, two inferences seem evident. First, the idea of a Divine Personality, and of the union of the two Natures in the Messiah, seems to have been foreign to the Jewish auditory of Jesus of Nazareth, and even at first to His disciples. Secondly, they appear to have regarded the Messiah as far above the ordinary human, royal, prophetic, and even Angelic type, to such extent, that the boundary-line separating it from Divine Personality is of the narrowest, so that, when the conviction of the reality of the Messianic manifestation in Jesus burst on their minds, this boundary-line was easily, almost naturally, overstepped, and those who would have shrunk from framing their belief in such dogmatic form, readily owned and worshipped Him as the Son of God. Nor need we wonder at this, even taking the highest view of Old Testament prophecy. For here also the principle applies, which underlies one of St. Paul's most wide-reaching utterance: 'We prophesy in part' [3 See the telling remarks of Oehler in Herzog's Real-Encykul., vol. ix. p. 417. We would add, that there is always a 'hereafter' of further development in the history of the individual believer, as in that of the Church, growing brighter and brighter, with increased spiritual communication and knowledge, till at last the perfect light is reached.] In the nature of it, all prophecy presents but disjecta, membra, and it almost seems, as if we had to take our stand in the prophet's valley of vision (Ezek. xxxvii.), waiting till, at the bidding of the Lord, the scattered bones should be joined into a body, to which the breath of the Spirit would give life.
These two inferences, derived from the Gospel-narratives, are in exact accordance with the whole line of ancient Jewish teaching. Beginning with the LXX. rendering of Genesis xlix. 10, and especially of Numbers xxiv. 7, 17, we gather, that the Kingdom of the Messiah [1 No reasonable doubt can be left on the mind, that the LXX. translators have here the Messiah in view.] was higher than any that is earthly, and destined to subdue them all. But the rendering of Psalm lxxii. 5, 7; Psalm ex. 3; and especially of Isaiah ix., carries us much farther. They convey the idea, that the existence of this Messiah was regarded as premundane (before the moon, [a Ps. lxxii.] before the morning-star [b Ps. ex.]), and eternal, [c Ps. lxxii.] and His Person and dignity as superior to that of men and Angels: 'the Angel of the Great Council,' [d Is. ix. 6(2).] probably 'the Angel of the Face',a view fully confirmed by the rendering of the Targum. [3 Three, if not four, different renderings of the Targum on Is. ix. 6 are possible. But the minimum conveyed to my mind implies the premundane existence, the eternal continuance, and the superhuman dignity of the Messiah. (See also the Targum on Micah v. 2.)] The silence of the Apocrypha about the Person of the Messiah is so strange, as to be scarcely explained bythe consideration, that those books were composed when the need of a Messiah for the deliverance of Israel was not painfully felt. [4 This is the view of Grimm, and more fully carried out by Oehler. The argument of Hengstenberg, that the mention of such a Messiah was restrained from fear of the heathen, does not deserve serious refutation.] All the more striking are the allusions in the Pseudepigraphic Writings, although these also do not carry us beyond our two inferences. Thus, the third book of the Sibylline Oracles
which, with few exceptions, [5 These exceptions are, according to Friedlieb (Die Sibyllin. Weissag.) vv. 1-45, vv. 47-96 (dating from 40-31 before Christ), and vv. 818-828. On the subject generally, see our previous remarks in Book 1.] dates from more than a century and a half before Christ, presents a picture of Messianic times, [e vv. 652 -807.] generally admitted to have formed the basis of Virgil's description of the Golden Age, and of similar heathen expectations. In these Oracles, 170 years before Christ, the Messiah is 'the King sent from heaven' who would 'judge every man in blood and splendour of fire.' [f vv. 285, 286.] Similarly, the vision of Messianic times opens with a reference to 'the King Whom God will send from the sun. [g v. 652.] [6 Mr. Drummond defends (at pp. d 274, 275) Holtxmann's view, taht the expression applies to Simon the Maccabee, although on p. 291 he argues on the opposite supposition that the text refers to the Messiah. It is difficult to understand, how on reading the whole passage the hypothesis of Holtzmann could be entertained. While referring to the 3rd Book of the Sib. Or., another point of considerable interest deserves notice. According to the theory which places the authorship of Daniel in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, or say about 165 B.C., the 'fourth kingdom' of Daniel must be the Grecian. But, on the other hand, such certainly was not the view entertained by Apocalypts of the year 165, since the 3d Book of the Sib. Or., which dates from precisely that period, not only takes notice of the rising power of Rome, but anticipates the destruction of the Grecian Empire by Rome, which in turn is to be vanquished by Israel (w. 175-195; 520-544; 638- 807). This most important fact would require to be accounted for by the opponents of the authenticity of Daniel.]
