Billeder på siden

been continued to his death, and even his resurrection has been mentioned, he is forgotten altogether.

De Wette (p. 81), who follows Glaesener, accounts for the origin of the doctrine of a Messiah ben Joseph, on the ground that the Jews desired thereby to indicate the fact, that the ten tribes would be gathered together out of all the countries of the earth by the Messiah, and introduced by him into the land of Canaan. But, even apart from the positive grounds, which may be adduced in favour of the explanation given by us, the improbability of this hypothesis is at once apparent. And, with the exception of two passages from the book Mikveh Israel, written by R. Manasseh ben Israel, which cannot be taken into account at all, both on account of its recent date (it appeared for the first time in 1650, Wolf Bibl. i., p. 783), and also because of the untraditional character of its contents, in not one of the passages quoted by Glaesener (p. 202, sqq.) and De Wette (p. 81), is the task assigned to the Messiah ben Joseph of gathering the Israelites together out of the different countries of the earth, and bringing them to the holy land. On the contrary, the Israelites themselves assemble together out of the different lands, and come to him after his resurrection. But what inducement could this hold out to the invention of such a doctrine, seeing that they might just as well have come together at the very first to the Messiah ben David, under whom, even according to the doctrine of the Jews, the most important gathering together would first take place (Vid. Glaesener, p. 69). We have already seen, that the death of the Messiah ben Joseph forms the central point of the whole doctrine. But if we adopt De Wette's explanation, it is impossible to see what reason there was for making him die at all. It is very evident that the reasons assigned by De Wette (p. 82) are not satisfactory, viz., that "only one Messiah could reign, and therefore it seemed advisable to remove the other out of the way." He completely overlooks the fact, that the Messiah ben Joseph is to be raised, along with the rest of the dead, by the Messiah ben David and Elias. If, then, the difficulty actually existed, which it does not, since it was quite possible to assign to the Messiah ben Joseph a subordinate position in the kingdom of the Messiah, it would not be removed by his death." The need of an atonement might furnish an

opportunity for inventing the account of his death." But we have already seen that the death of the Messiah ben Joseph was not supposed to possess an atoning efficacy; on the contrary, it was from the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah ben David that an atonement was expected." The sin of Jeroboam appeared to demand his death." This is proved by one single passage from the book Jalkut Chadash, which is of very recent date, and was not held in much respect by the Jews themselves (see Wolf Bibl. ii., p. 1308). That this was not the inducement in the case of the earlier Jews, is evident from the simple fact, that they did not regard the death of the Messiah ben Joseph as possessing any atoning virtue. Moreover, the guilt of Jeroboam is washed away along with all the rest by the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah ben David.

(2). The second hypothesis, invented for the purpose of reconciling the passages which treat of a suffering Messiah, and those which represent him as coming in glory, was the doctrine that, previous to his appearance upon earth, he atoned in Paradise for the sins of men by indescribable sufferings. This explanation is found in the book Sohar, and is very rarely met with elsewhere. (Compare the passages quoted by Eisenmenger ii., p. 320; Glaesener, p. 28, sqq.; Bertholdt, Christologia § 25; and De Wette, p. 65. See also the leading passages from the Sohar in vol. ii., p. 313). How could so romantic an idea have ever entered any one's mind, if the doctrine of a suffering and atoning Messiah had been borrowed from the Christians, who connect together the sufferings and glory of the Messiah in so perfectly natural a way?

(3). To the same end another opinion, which was quite as widely spread, was first adopted, namely, that the Messiah was already born, but that up to the time of his manifestation he would be engaged in atoning for the sins of the Israelitish nation, an opinion, the antiquity of which is evident from the fact, that it occurs in the dialogue with the Jew Trypho. The existence of two hypotheses, so different in their character as these, shews clearly enough how difficult it was, to know what to do with a suffering and atoning Messiah. That the latter of the two owes its origin solely to the difficulty caused by the doctrine of a suffering Messiah, is apparent from the fact, that the birth of the

Messiah, wherever it occurs, is associated with his sufferings and atonement. (Compare the passages in Glaesener, p. 22 sqq.; Corrodi i. p. 284 seq.; and De Wette, p. 66). It is true, De Wette asserts (p. 63) that the notion of the Messiah being already born, was founded upon certain calculations, which led to the conclusion that the Messiah must have come already. But of all the passages mentioned, the whole of which are taken from Glaesener, p. 15 sqq., who quotes them for a different purpose, there is not a single one at all conclusive, or even one which bears upon the subject. The question discussed in all these passages, is not why the Messiah must be already born, but why he has not yet appeared. The cause is traced to the want of penitence and good works on the part of the Israelites, and with this explanation every calculation that failed to be verified could be easily disposed of, and therefore there was no necessity to resort to the theory that the Messiah was already born, a loophole, moreover, which is nowhere to be met with. Our explanation of the origin of the hypothesis respecting the birth of the Messiah, is also confirmed by the period fixed upon for that event. It is affirmed with tolerable unanimity, that it occurred in connection with the conquest of the city, and in fact on the day when the temple was destroyed. (Consult the passages in Glaesener, p. 25). The destruction of the temple prevented the possibility of the sacrifices being continued, and, as the interruption of the means of reconciliation with God which had hitherto existed, was naturally the cause of great lamentation. In order to obtain a substitute, the birth of the Messiah, which it was thought necessary to assume, in order to gain time for his sufferings, was transferred to the very time when the former ceased, and it was then that his sufferings and atonement were supposed to commence.

The result, then, which we have obtained is this: the doctrine of a suffering and atoning Messiah existed among the Jews from the very earliest times, and was not the result of Christian influence, but derived from the Old Testament. So much, at least, may be granted, that this doctrine was more widely spread, and met with a more ready reception among the Jews subse quently to the time of Christ. This may possibly be accounted for, in part, on the ground that the prominenco given to the

doctrine of a suffering Messiah among the Christians, caused the attention of the Jews to be more particularly directed to this point in their own doctrines concerning the Messiah. But the true cause is certainly to be found in the fact, that, after the destruction of the temple had deprived the Jews of their apparent sufficiency, their attention was more closely directed to the Messiah. This is obvious from a passage which is quoted from the Sohar in Sommer's theol. p. 94, "while the Israelites were in the Holy Land, they got rid of all these diseases and punishments by means of holy works and sacrifices; but now (the Levitical worship having ceased) the Messiah must take them away from men," a passage from which De Wette, p. 66, rashly attempts to prove, that the doctrine of a suffering and atoning Messiah originated with the destruction of the temple. Does it follow, however, from the fact that in later times so much importance was attached to that which had disappeared, that the same importance must have been attached to it while it was still standing? The sacrificial worship, even while it lasted, could never satisfy the longings for redemption, which were felt by the more earnest minds; and we have already seen, that they were looking with eagerness for the higher satisfaction, which the Old Testament promises set before them.



The study of the Messianic prophecies was pursued with great interest from the very earliest times. The true principle, that Christ was the central point of the whole of the Old Testament, and especially of prophecy (Origen on Matt., vol. iii. of his works, p. 272), was falsely applied, and the attempt was frequently made to discover direct allusions to Him, where conten. and the usages of the language were both unfavourable, eith It by literal or historical interpretation. In adducing proofs frane the New Testament, the first glance was frequently though sufficient, and the fact was entirely overlooked, that the treatment of the Old Testament in the New is of a very refined and spiritual character. Very frequently the opinion was openly expressed, that it is better to look for Christ ten times where he is not to be found, than to omit to seek him once where he is to be found. In the case of passages which were correctly regarded as Messianic, commentators often allowed themselves to resort to forced interpretations, for the purpose of giving to the allusions to Christ a thoroughly individual character, or with a view to increase the number of arguments brought against the non-Messianic expositors. Moreover, justice was not done to the historical interpretation. The historical starting point of the Messianic announcements was not thoroughly investigated. In the time of the Fathers this was the prevalent mode of exposition. And even in the churches of the Reformation, in the Reformed no less than the Lutheran, it soon gained the upper hand, although Calvin had made the attempt to pave a new

« ForrigeFortsæt »