Continued: Chapter XXI-Messianic Speculations

There was strong opposition from certain quarters to all Messianic speculation. For instance, Rabbi Jonathan (2-3 C.) hurled anathemas against those who would indulge in computing the time of the end. "Perish all those who calculate the end, for men will say, since the predicted end is here and the Messiah has not come, he will never come." Again, Rabbi Simeon elaborated this same argument in the following quotation:

"The matter may be deduced a minore ad majorem. In the case of the Egyptian exile, the duration of which was definitely revealed, they nevertheless erred in their calculation and left sooner than they should and perished. How much more so in the case of our exile, concerning which it is written, 'For the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end'; must the calculators err. Hence it was said, 'Perish all those who calculate the end; rather let a man wait and believe, and the good is bound to come.'"

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba (3-4 C.) made the following statement: "When Jonathan ben Uzziel sought to make public a translation of the Hagiographa, a voice from heaven cried out, 'Desist!' What was the reason? Because it contains the date of the Messiah's advent." Rabbi Levi (3 C.) interpreted the Song of Solomon 2:7 as follows: "I adjure you, 0 daughters of Jerusalem, etc.," as proof that the public should not know the end lest that information be revealed to the Gentiles. Once more, Rabbi Jose (2 C.) declared: "He who calculates the end will have no portion in the world to come."

The four principal arguments advanced against Messianic speculation are summarized by Dr. Silver as follows:

"(I) Some denied the coming of the Messiah altogether, and thereby aimed at demolishing completely the whole structure of Messianic speculation; (2) others tried to accomplish the same purpose by maintaining that the Bible contains no Messianic references touching this last exile, and that there is no oral tradition for it; (3) others, while acknowledging the presence of such Messianic prophecies in the Bible, insisted that they are undecipherable and purposely 'hidden'; (4) and still others declared that Redemption is contingent entirely upon repentance, and that there can therefore be no set time for Redemption."

As an illustration of the first argument stated above, let us note what an Amora, Hillel, of the fourth century said: "The Jews have no Messiah to expect, for they have already consumed him in the days of Hezekiah."

The Tanna, Rabbi Nathan (2 C.), is a typical illustration of those using the second argument:

"The following verse goes to the heart of things; 'For the vision is yet for the appointed time, and it declareth of the end and doth not lie. Though it tarry, wait for it, because it will surely come. It will not delay.' (This means that we are to do) not like the Rabbis who interpreted 'until a time times and half a time' (as holding a Messianic date for the future), and not like R. Simlai who interpreted 'Thou hast fed them with the bread of tears and given them tears to drink in a large (three-fold, שליש ) measure,' nor like Akiba, who interpreted, 'Yet once, it is a little while, and I will 'shake the heavens and the earth.' But (we are to take these passages as referring to events now past), the first kingdom (Hasmonean) lasted seventy years; the second kingdom (Herod) fifty-two years, and the kingdom of Ben Kosiba two and a half years."

The third argument appears in an anonymous Baraita that lists seven things which are hidden from men. The sixth and seventh items are as follows: "When the kingdom of David will be restored and when the guilty kingdom (Rome) will be destroyed."

A Palestinian Amora, Rabbi Yohanan (3 C.), in commenting upon Isaiah 63:4: "For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come," declared the true meaning of the verse to be this: "To my heart alone have I revealed it (the hour of redemption), not even to my limbs." Another declaration by the same rabbi throws further light upon his position: "In the case of the men of the First Temple whose sin was open, the end of their exile was also revealed, but in the case of the men of the Second Temple whose sin was secret, the end of the exile was likewise left secret." A contemporary, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, set forth his view in the following quotation: "To my heart alone have I revealed it, not even to the ministering angels."

A representative of those who used the fourth line of reasoning was Rabbi Eleazer (1-2 C.), a pupil of Yohanan ben Zakkai. This famous rabbi declared: "If Israel will repent they will be redeemed; if not, they will not be redeemed." To him, Rabbi Joshua answered: "If Israel will repent, they will be redeemed; if not, God will raise over them a king whose decrees will be as severe as those of Haman. Then Israel will repent." To the latter, Rabbi Eleazer rejoined in the following words: "Only if Israel will repent will they be redeemed, as it is written, 'Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backsliding.'" In this same strain these two rabbis debated. The outcome of the argument was that Rabbi Eleazer was silent when Rabbi Joshua quoted from Daniel 12:7.

The controversy was prolonged into the next century, there being champions for both positions. Some, however, like Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (3 C.), tried to harmonize the opposing views. This rabbi explained Isaiah 60:22 in the light of his theory, as follows: "I, the Lord, will hasten it in its time," to mean that if the children of Israel are deserving, then Redemption will be hastened (אחישנה); if not, then it will come at the appointed time בעתה. Similarly, he explained the apparently contradictory verses, "And there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man" (the Messiah came swiftly like the clouds of heaven), and "behold thy king cometh unto thee . . . lowly and riding upon an ass" (the Messiah came slowly like a man riding upon an ass). If the children of Israel are found deserving, then the Messiah will come swiftly (with the clouds of heaven); if not, then slowly like a lowly man riding upon an ass. Another rabbi affirmed that "Were the children of Israel to observe fully two successive Sabbaths, they would immediately be redeemed."

Some of the rabbis tried to quell the effervescent expectation of the masses in such a manner as is illustrated in the following quotation:

"The Redemption of Israel is likened to a grain-harvest, a grape harvest, a field of spice and a woman in confinement. A field which is harvested before the proper time, even the straw from off of it is poor. A vineyard which is gathered in too early, even the vinegar made out of its grapes is poor. Spices gathered before they are full grown and dry will lack their true odor, and an aborted child dies."

Josephus informs us that at the time of the national crisis and immediately thereafter, false prophets arose who proclaimed the dawning of a new era. Some impostors appeared even before this decisive epoch. It was natural, therefore, that those who bid for Messianic honors should come forth at various times. In the fifth century a typical case occurred. We have the record of a false Messiah who appeared in Crete, bearing the name of Moses. He gained a great following among his brethren. Having appointed a date, he gathered his followers to the sea and promised them that it would open to them as the Red Sea had done for Moses and the children of Israel. This escapade proved abortive and brought disaster to those involved.

The interpretations we have studied in this chapter thus far may, according to their origin and nature, be thrown into the three following groups: (1) those based upon current chronology; (2) forced exposition of isolated passages; and (3) unwarranted analogies.

As we have already seen, the consensus of opinion in the second half of the first century of the common era was that those days would close the fifth millennium. According to current theology, the Messiah would come and the golden era of a 1000 years would begin. Upon what the theory was based is uncertain. It is true that Josephus does give us some chronological data, but it is far from conclusive.

That there was a general expectation of Messiah's appearance in the first century of the present dispensation is evident. Dr. Silver has proved this point conclusively. It is echoed in the apocalyptic writings of the times. The New Testament shows that there were those who were looking for "the redemption of Jerusalem" and "the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2). The statement of John the Baptist that the time was fulfilled and that the kingdom of heaven was at hand echoes the feeling of expectancy on the part of the masses. He made these utterances without any explanation. He assumed that the people understood the import of his language.

Why did the people living in the first half of the first century of this era have such hopes of Messiah's appearing in their day? There is but one reply: They knew from the prophecy of Daniel that the Redeemer would be cut off at the end of the 69th week of years; that they were approaching that time; and that He would be born, according to Isaiah 7:14, of a virgin in the city of Bethlehem of Judah (Micah 5:2) and grow to manhood before He could be cut off. These facts they learned from the Scriptures and they expected a literal fulfilment of God's promises. This general expectation on the part of the nation at that time is adequately and logically accounted for upon this hypothesis. All other explanations fail to meet the demands of the facts. The theory of the Creation calendar arose and doubtless was used to support the current expectation. But in the final analysis the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks formed the foundation for this hope. This view becomes quite evident in the light of this fact: Many leaders of Israel of that day believed that the Scriptures were the Word of God and studied them as such.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in interpreting the days of the Messiah referred to Psalm 95:10, "Forty years long was I grieved with that generation," as proof that they would continue for 40 years. An examination of this psalm shows that the writer was looking backward to the wilderness experiences of Israel and was not discussing the days of Messiah. Hence to take it from its connection and to apply it to the future is illogical. Another passage relied upon by this same sage for support of his theory was Deuteronomy 8:3: " 'And he afflicted thee and suffered thee to hunger and fed thee with manna' (40 years in the wilderness)." To detach this verse from its context and to apply it to the future is also illogical and erroneous. A third quotation advanced for the position advocated was Psalm 90:15: "Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us." Moses was the human mouthpiece through whom the Spirit of God spoke this petition. There is, it seems, more justification for interpreting this passage messianically than the others. Nevertheless, when the theme of the hymn is understood and the verse is taken in its connection it becomes evident that he was not speaking of the Messianic age. The thesis of the poem is the eternity of God and the transitoriness of man. In view of the promises made by the Lord to Israel through Moses it is unthinkable to conceive of his stating in this psalm that the Messianic era should last only 40 years. The parallel is, therefore, not between the length of the days of sufferings and of those of the expected joys of the future, but is rather a contrast between the sufferings and the anticipated bliss. Hence from this passage there is no intimation as to the length of the days of Messiah.

Dr. Silver has told us that the rabbis generally believed, on the basis of the Biblical creation week, that the world would continue 6000 years. In other words, the 6 days of reconstruction, not creation, typified the 6000 years of human history. This supposition, to their minds, was confirmed by the statement of Moses in Psalm 90:4:

For a thousand years in thy sight
Are but as yesterday when it is past,
And as a watch in the night.

Do the facts set forth in Psalm 90 justify such an interpretation? If taken in the light of the data found therein and the theme of the hymn, it is impossible for us to arrive at any such conclusion. As stated above, Moses was contrasting the eternity of God with the brevity of man's earthly existence. In view of this fact alone it is impossible for one to see any connection between the statement in the Psalm and the days of the Genesis record. If there is such a connection and these days foreshadowed the period of human history, the Lord has not made that fact clear. It is, therefore, precarious to base an argument on such an unwarranted assumption.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah set the date for the introduction of the great Messianic era by referring to Isaiah 23:15: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king." Arbitrarily, he imposed upon this prediction Messianic import. Nothing in the passage hints at the future. There were kings in ancient times who did reign that long. Some came to the throne in childhood and lived to a ripe old age. It must be remembered that the Lord, when He reduced the span of life, limited it to threescore and ten years (Psa. 90:10). Because of a lack of evidence in Isaiah 23, it is, therefore, impossible for one logically to apply this verse to the Messianic era.

Both Rabbi Jose the Galilean and Rabbi Ishmael set the date for the Messianic era in 130 C.E. The basis of their calculation was Psalm 72:5 and Psalm 80:5. Rabbi Jose forced an unnatural meaning upon the words, "generation, generations." He considered the span of a generation to be 20 years. Since "generation" is singular in the first instance and dual in the second, he said there would be 3 generations. Then arbitrarily he considered a generation 20 years long and three generations as 60 years. He, therefore, added 60 years to 70 C.E. (the time of the downfall of Jerusalem); hence he arrived at the year 130 C.E. for the beginning of the Messianic era. Let it be noted that the Holy Spirit had a definite message to give men when He spoke. God does not juggle with words, but uses them in their plain, ordinary, common-sense import. Their significance is to be gathered from the context. To force an unnatural meaning upon any word or phrase and to ignore the context are to insure arriving at a wrong conclusion. Rabbi Ishmael likewise forced a strained and unnatural meaning on Psalm 80:5; hence the Lord did not work according to his schedule, and people were bitterly disillusioned by the failure of the fulfilment of his speculation.

Many quotations could be brought forward and examined which were used by the ancient synagogue to prove the near approach of the Messiah and to establish the date of His appearance, but these suffice. That they were mistaken in forcing an unnatural and abnormal meaning on these passages is proved by the non-fulfilment of the expectation aroused by such interpretations.

When the nation had regained self-control and rallied from the bitter disappointment after the Bar Kochba revolt, a new interpretation was adopted: the Messianic hope was thrown out into the more distant future. Rabbi Dosa (2 C.) drew an analogy between the bondage in Egypt and Israel's dispersion among the nations after 70 C.E. He assumed that they would be of the same duration.

No Scriptural warrant was advanced to prove the proposition. Some texts were wrenched from their connection, and far-fetched inferences were cited to prove that such would be the case. I wish to say that there is not any evidence in the Scriptures to warrant an analogy between the two periods of suffering. Others, as has been noticed, drew a parallel between the 40 years of wilderness wanderings and the days of the sufferings of Messiah prior to the great dawn of the glorious kingdom era. This analogy was based upon pure assumption and imagination without any Scriptural warrant whatsoever.

Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (2, 3 C.) affirmed that the Messianic era would be in 435 C.E. The fundamental principle upon which his calculations are grounded is found in Isaiah 63:4, "For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come." This sage based his interpretation of the passage upon what is usually known as the year-day theory; i.e., one day in prophecy foreshadows a year in history. Since there are 365 days in the solar year, he concluded there would be 365 years after the fall of the nation in 70 C.E. unto the coming of Messiah. When the context of this passage is examined carefully, it is seen that Isaiah foresaw the coming of the Messiah from Edom and Bozrah to Jerusalem after his mortal combat with the enemies of Israel in the region from which he was advancing. Isaiah 63:1-6 contains, therefore, a dialogue between the prophet and the Messiah whom he sees in vision. In answer to the prophet's query the Messiah states that he has trodden the winepress of the wrath of God because the day of vengeance and the year of his redeemed had come. Only by pure imagination can one arrive at the conclusion that the word year in this connection is employed with a secret, fantastic, mystical signification. In view of this strained and abnormal interpretation, it becomes necessary for me again to call attention to the fact that the only safe rule of studying any language is to take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal significance unless there is positive evidence in the context which indicates otherwise. There is but one exception to this rule: Should the plain, ordinary meaning of one passage conflict with another unmistakable passage in some other portion of the Scriptures then, and only then, are we warranted in departing from the primary, literal meaning of the passage. The fundamental, ordinary meaning of the words in this quotation does not conflict with those of any other passage of Holy Writ; therefore, we must accept that meaning which accords with the context and discard the interpretation placed upon it by Rabbi Judah.

In order that the reader might see the seemingly invincible force and powerful logic of those taking this position, I wish to give the details of the line of reasoning. These expositors interpreted the vision of the image in Daniel 2 as symbolizing the four world empires: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. They correctly understood that the little stone cut out of the mountain without hands which breaks the image was symbolic of the Messiah in whom the kingdom is centered; hence they understood that, when the fourth kingdom, Rome, is destroyed by the appearance of Messiah, His kingdom is to be established immediately. This position is likewise confirmed by the beast vision of Chapter 7 of the same prophecy. The sages of Israel likewise interpreted the four beasts as signifying the same world empires; namely, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. According to Daniel 7, when the fourth beast is destroyed, the kingdom of God is given to the saints of the Most High, the Jewish saints.

As stated above, some interpreters believed confidently that the exile which began with the downfall of the nation in 70 C.E. would last exactly 400 years; hence, they expected Rome, which they termed Edom in cryptographic style, to be overthrown by 470 C.E. As the fifth century advanced there were indications that Rome in the West was succumbing and would finally yield to the sledge-hammer blows of the Germanic tribes which were constantly coming in waves against the empire. The nearer the time drew to the appointed date of 470, the greater were the excitement and expectation of King Messiah's appearance and the dawning of the golden era.

The logic of these expositors seemed to be absolutely correct; hence, the pious of the nation looked expectantly to the year 470 C.E. for the deliverance. A little investigation, however, will show the fallacy of the argument. As noted above, there is no positive proof that the Scriptures intimated that the present exile would last only 400 years. This position was an assumption without Scriptural warrant. That there would be four world-empires, as set forth in the second and seventh chapters of Daniel, is beyond dispute and that the fourth would be succeeded by a fifth; namely, the kingdom of the Messiah, which would be turned over to the Jewish saints, is likewise beyond question. The fallacy of the exposition of these commentators lay in a failure to recognize that the fourth kingdom would be a divided one, as is set forth by the legs of iron of the metallic image. These expositors unwittingly overlooked that fact. The Roman Empire was headed up in the two centers--Rome on the Tiber in the West, and Constantinople on the Bosporus in the East. To lose sight of the eastern section of the empire, which was symbolized by the right leg, and to focus attention entirely upon Rome on the Tiber, symbolized by the left, meant only to arrive at a false and incorrect conclusion. As set forth by the legs of iron, the kingdom, Rome, would be divided and both sections would continue throughout the centuries to a given time which was signified by the ten toes of iron and of miry clay. Speaking in terms of the anatomy of the image, I would say that Rome in 470 was still in the thigh stage. The Messianic kingdom was not, according to the image, to be established until Rome reached the foot-and-toe stage; hence, both the major and minor premises of these calculators contained fallacies. Under such conditions the conclusion is bound to be incorrect. To those who did not investigate the soundness of the premises, but rather accepted the hasty interpretation of these calculators, the crumbling of the Roman empire in the West was positive and absolute proof of the near-coming of Messiah; hence, they confidently expected His appearance about 470 C.E. In connection with this error may I call attention to the fact that there are many at the present day who are interpreting Scripture in the same loose, illogical manner, who are setting dates, and who see in certain events of the present time absolute and positive proof of the coming of Messiah? There is but one way to avoid such errors, which is to examine every promise in the light of its context and to take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the context indicate otherwise. A strained and abnormal interpretation of any passage is certain to lead one into error. Let us profit by the mistakes of these good and earnest men who, adopting false principles, were led into error.

Since time has disproved the interpretation made by analogies, they may safely be discarded as incorrect. Having examined some typical cases in the Talmudical period, we shall now pass on in the next section to that of the Mohammedan era.

In the preceding section I have briefly glanced at the principal exponents of Messianic speculation in Israel, the Scripture quotations cited as proof of their positions, the method which they employed in expounding the Scriptures, their opponents, the principles adopted by these exegetes, false messiahs, and the general results. Hence we simply saw a cross section of the speculative life of Israel and the results accruing therefrom during what is properly called the Talmudical period. In this section we shall glance very briefly at various aspects of Messianic speculations during this period. Roughly speaking, it covers four centuries, beginning with the seventh.

Mohammed with his hosts began his career of conquest, dashing forth from the Arabian Desert into the civilization of the empire. Within 100 years the standard of the crescent swept through North Africa, crossed the straits to the Iberian Peninsula, and advanced until it was checked on the famous battlefield of Tours exactly one century after the beginning of the campaign.

In east Europe the Mohammedan hosts raised their standard as far as the Danube. For a long time it looked as if the civilization of the European world was doomed to succumb to the mighty titanic strokes of the Mohammedan power. As a rule, the conquered peoples were given the choice of the Koran or the sword. These hard conditions were imposed on both Jew and Gentile alike with however, some exceptions. Under such trying circumstances it was natural that men's souls should be tested to the uttermost and that ways out of the situation should be sought.

Dr. Silver summarizes the effect upon the Jewish people of these unprecedented upheavals in the following words:

"But the remarkable stories of the Arabs and the crumbling of the Persian and the Byzantine Empires before their irresistible onslaught set aflame anew the Messianic hopes. The hope was generally entertained that the Arabs would accomplish what the Persians had failed to accomplish-the overthrow of Edom, entrenched in Rome and Byzantium. It was also fervently hoped that they would break the power of Persia, thereby delivering Jews from the religious intolerance of the Sassanian dynasty. Following these mighty upheavals it was hoped that the Son of David would appear."

Amid the stirring events and upheavals of the day naturally there arose speculators who endeavored to comfort the people by their calculations. Many apocalypses appeared with their guesses and speculation. One of the chief ones is Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. This is a Pseudepigraphic Palestinian writing of the eighth century which gives evidence of its having drawn upon earlier sources. At this period of Israel's history a new theory concerning the world empires was adopted. It is set forth in the following paragraph concerning Rabbi Eliezer:

"In chapter 28 the author interprets Abraham's vision of the 'covenant between the pieces' found in Gen. 15. God revealed to Abraham the events which would befall his descendants in the generations to come. Four empires would rule over them: Persia, Greece, Rome and Arab. This is suggested in Gen.15:9. 'And he said unto him: Take me a heifer of three years old (Rome), and a she-goat of three years old (Greece), and a ram of three years old (Persia), and an ox (Ishmael), and a young pigeon (Israel).' This is according to Akiba.

"According to another view five empires would rule over them: Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome and Arab. This is suggested in verse 12: 'And it came to pass that when the sun was going down a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and lo, a dread (Rome), even a great (Persia) darkness (Greece) fell (Babylon) upon him (Ishmael).' The son of David will flourish 'upon him' (Ishmael). In other words, the Messiah will appear after the ascendancy of Islam.

"A more specific date is then given. 'Rabbi Joshua said: Abraham took his sword and divided them, each one into two parts, as it is said: "and he took him all these and he divided them in the midst."' Were it not for the fact that he divided them, the world would not have been able to exist, but because he divided them he weakened their strength, and he brought each part against its corresponding part, as it is said, 'and he laid each half over against the other.' The author undoubtedly refers to the division of the Roman Empire, which took place after the death of Theodosius in 395 C.E. The Western Empire thus weakened came to an end in 476 C.E. 'And the young pigeon,' continues the writer, 'he left alive, as it is said, "but the bird he divided not"; hence thou mayst learn that there was not any other bird there except a young pigeon.' The young pigeon is, of course, Israel. 'The bird of prey came down upon them to scatter them and to destroy them. The bird of prey is naught else but David, the son of Jesse, who is compared to a speckled bird of prey, as it is said, "Is mine heritage unto me as a speckled bird of prey." When the sun was about to rise in the east, Abraham sat down and waved his scarf over them, so that the bird of prey could not prevail over them until the raven came (עד שבא הערב).' The writer here clearly refers to the hope for the coming of the Messiah entertained in the fifth century at the time of the fall of the Western Empire, and explains why the Messiah could not come then. The Messiah was not to appear until after the conquests of the Arabs. The Hebrew word for raven is עֹרֵב, which is a kindred sound to עֲרָב Arab. If the reading of the first edition is preferred, 'until evening (עֶרֶב) set in,' the conclusion is unchanged."

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah interpreted the four kingdoms as Persia, Greece, Rome and Arabia and declared: "From this incident thou mayst learn that the rule of the four kingdoms will last only one day, according to the day of the Holy One, blessed be he" (= 1000 years). What was the initial date of these 1000 years? Some designated 362 B.C.E. as the terminus a quo when the Temple, according to old Jewish chronology, was established, whereas others took the year 168 B.C.E. as the starting point. Those who accepted the former date expected the Messianic kingdom in the year 648 C.E., whereas those who understood the latter date expected the Messiah by 832 C.E.

Rabbi Eleazar ben 'Arak asserted: "Verily, it is so according to thy word, as it is said, 'He hath made me desolate and faint all the day' except for two-thirds of an hour (of God)." Since there are 24 hours in every day, two-thirds of an hour would approximate 28 years in this symbolic reckoning; therefore, this rabbi expected the Messianic age 28 years sooner--620 C.E.

Continued on the next page