The Messiah in Judaic belief

[dandesmommie]

This one is for our Jewish bretheren. We as Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God/ second part of the Trinity and the promised Messiah. The Jewish belief is that the Messiah has not yet come. When He comes, does Judaism state wether He will be of a Divine nature of some form, or just a special human (decendant of the house of David). Thank you.

 

[meltzerboy]

This one is for our Jewish bretheren. We as Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God/ second part of the Trinity and the promised Messiah. The Jewish belief is that the Messiah has not yet come. When He comes, does Judaism state wether He will be of a Divine nature of some form, or just a special human (decendant of the house of David). Thank you.

As you stated on my thread, great minds must think alike. You’re asking the inverse of my question. The answer is quite simple from the modern-day Orthodox Jewish perspective: the Messiah is meant not to be divine in any way but instead an (extra)ordinary human being who fulfills certain tasks. More precisely, the Hebrew Bible, especially the Torah, gives little indication at all about the characteristics of the Messiah, apart from the Oral Law and the writing of Maimonides. The Books of the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible may give us a little more about the nature of the Messiah, but generally these verses are interpreted quite differently by Christian and Hebrew scholars. Perhaps the Septuagint, as opposed to the Masoretic text, is somewhat clearer and may have given rise to the two-Messiah theory, and by inference the Christian belief in the Second Coming of Jesus.

 

[jonathan_hili]

This one is for our Jewish bretheren. We as Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God/ second part of the Trinity and the promised Messiah. The Jewish belief is that the Messiah has not yet come. When He comes, does Judaism state wether He will be of a Divine nature of some form, or just a special human (decendant of the house of David). Thank you.

Just as a note, even in the first century, the characteristics of the Messiah were varied and different groups held quite distinct beliefs about what the Messiah would be like and who he would be.

 

[Kaninchen]

Just as a note, even in the first century, the characteristics of the Messiah were varied and different groups held quite distinct beliefs about what the Messiah would be like and who he would be.

Just as, today, there are Catholics who are pro-choice, for women priests, for contraception . . .

So, what groups? How many of them? Just what were their beliefs? How many members did they have?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Just as, today, there are Catholics who are pro-choice, for women priests, for contraception . . .

So, what groups? How many of them? Just what were their beliefs? How many members did they have?

I’ll have to do some research now because I can’t remember in great detail off the top of my head:

• The Davidic Messiah was believed to be primarily political, a kingly Messiah and descendant of David from the tribe of Judah. He would defeat Israel’s enemies (in those days, the Romans) and rule with a rod of iron over the nations, purging Israel and signalling the ends times. Sometimes this figure is associated with God Himself (as Messiah) The apocryphal Psalms Of Solomon give us detail about this figure, as do 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. Who believed this picture of Messiah? Lots of Jews in Jesus’ day - this was the dominant expectation, and it seems what the disciples expected of Jesus.
• The priestly or Messiah like Elijah was held by groups such as those at Qumran (perhaps Essenes?). He would purify the Temple and bridge the human and divine. As a priest he would establish right worship at the Temple and end sin in Israel. But he also served a kingly and ruler function. See, for instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls (especially the “Damascus Document”), Jubilees, and The Testaments Of The Twelve Patriarchs.

These are the two main conceptions of Messiah but there were other emphases, for instance, some believers emphasised the supernatural or divine nature of Messiah (which they seemed to read from the Torah), others the suffering aspect (see Isaiah), and so on.

It was a relatively fluid concept (with some exceptions) and probably explains why there were so many feasible claimants to the position. It also helps explain why - the fulfill the role of Messiah - Jesus needs to return and rule.

As I said, this is very brief, and I’ll need to research some more as it’s been a while since I look at this stuff.

 

[MartinJordan]

I’ll have to do some research now because I can’t remember in great detail off the top of my head:

• The Davidic Messiah was believed to be primarily political, a kingly Messiah and descendant of David from the tribe of Judah. He would defeat Israel’s enemies (in those days, the Romans) and rule with a rod of iron over the nations, purging Israel and signalling the ends times. Sometimes this figure is associated with God Himself (as Messiah) The apocryphal Psalms Of Solomon give us detail about this figure, as do 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. Who believed this picture of Messiah? Lots of Jews in Jesus’ day - this was the dominant expectation, and it seems what the disciples expected of Jesus.
• The priestly or Messiah like Elijah was held by groups such as those at Qumran (perhaps Essenes?). He would purify the Temple and bridge the human and divine. As a priest he would establish right worship at the Temple and end sin in Israel. But he also served a kingly and ruler function. See, for instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls (especially the “Damascus Document”), Jubilees, and The Testaments Of The Twelve Patriarchs.

These are the two main conceptions of Messiah but there were other emphases, for instance, some believers emphasised the supernatural or divine nature of Messiah (which they seemed to read from the Torah), others the suffering aspect (see Isaiah), and so on.

It was a relatively fluid concept (with some exceptions) and probably explains why there were so many feasible claimants to the position. It also helps explain why - the fulfill the role of Messiah - Jesus needs to return and rule.

As I said, this is very brief, and I’ll need to research some more as it’s been a while since I look at this stuff.

Not a bad summary at all. Good job

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

Just as, today, there are Catholics who are pro-choice, for women priests, for contraception . . .

Hi Kaninchen. Im very interested in your thought process. What are you saying here exactly?

MJ

 

[patrick457]

Just as, today, there are Catholics who are pro-choice, for women priests, for contraception . . .

So, what groups? How many of them? Just what were their beliefs? How many members did they have?

To add to what Jonathan said (he’s able to express in one post what would take me dozens of posts ):

When we say ‘messianism’, we have two particular elements: the certainty that in the unforseeable future a happier world would come about, and that this will not come about merely through human means, but through the mediation of a figure appointed by God for that task.

It seems that the origins of later Jewish messianism lie with the so-called ‘royal messianism’, wherein a royal descendant of David is visualized to usher in a new golden age. (cf. 2 Samuel 7:16) The nucleus of royal messianism would seem to be Isaiah 11:1-5, where Isaiah states that a happier time will come and that the advent of that time is linked to a descendant of David possessing particular gifts. In this passage, we have the two fundamental elements of messianism, a better future world and the human instrument, in this case a descendant of the house of David. In this case we must speak, therefore, of Davidic messianism. In its original form messianism was both royal and Davidic.

This pattern of Davidic messianism continues with Jeremiah in the 7th century BC (23:5-6), who prophesied of a ‘Branch’ who will rule over both Israel and Judah and “execute justice and righteousness in the land.” It is with Ezekiel (ca. late 6th century BC) that we begin to see a reinterpretation of the idea: the royal element is still present, but the Davidic element is not, Ezekiel having thought that the Davidic dynasty had now come to an end. Instead, the historical David now becomes a figure of the ideal king who will save Israel: whereas heretofore the idea was that the ‘messiah’ will be a monarch of the Davidic line, now the messiah figure is seen to be a new, ideal David himself, not necessarily related to the historical one (34:23; 27:24-26).

At first, it seemed that this ‘messianic’ hope was being fulfilled in the persons of Zerubbabel and Joshua son of Jozadak, who led a huge caravan of exiles from Babylon back home to Jerusalem in the 530s-20s BC. It is thought that Ezekiel had in mind for Israel to be governed by two heads: the ‘prince’ and the priest, and we can see the returning exiles abiding by this idea. Zerubbabel, furthermore, belonged to the house of David, being the grandson of Jehoiachin, penultimate king of Judah, which helped the connection to gain further weight.

And the angel who talked with me came again and woke me, like a man who is awakened out of his sleep. And he said to me, “What do you see?” I said, “I see, and behold, a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl on the top of it, and seven lamps on it, with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on the top of it. And there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.” And I said to the angel who talked with me, “What are these, my lord?” Then the angel who talked with me answered and said to me, “Do you not know what these are?” I said, “No, my lord.” Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. Who are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain. And he shall bring forward the top stone amid shouts of ‘Grace, grace to it!’”
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel.
“These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth.” Then I said to him, “What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?” And a second time I answered and said to him, “What are these two branches of the olive trees, which are beside the two golden pipes from which the golden oil is poured out?” He said to me, “Do you not know what these are?” I said, “No, my lord.” Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

(Zechariah 4)

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

While according to this argument Zerubbabel seems to have first predominated at the early phase in the minds of the people (Zechariah 3:8 “Behold, I will bring my servant the Branch (ṣemaḥ);” cf. Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15), for some reason he drops out of the scene by the time of the dedication of the second Temple in 515 BC. In fact, the political situation in general seems to have stifled any royal ‘messianic’ expectations: Judah (as Yehud) was an autonomous province, but a province under a foreign empire nonetheless.

While the returnees seem to have attempted to restore in Yehud the First Temple threefold leadership template of ‘king’ (under the person of Zerubbabel and possibly Sheshbazzar), high priest (Joshua, descended from the priestly line), and prophets (like Haggai and Zechariah), by the 450s BC only the high priest remained, joined by the scribe-sage (as Ezra and Nehemiah were). It seemed that the prophetic hope for a (renewed) Davidic dynasty did not eventuate, and thus, expectations in the early 5th to the late 2nd century BC were largely lacking overtly ‘messianic’ content. There was still the expectation of a better world and the restoration of Jerusalem to its former glory, but in a reversal of traditional messianism’s values, emphasis is now on human activity: we can see this attitude reflected in the book of Judith (9:8-13).

Joshua ben Sira (aka Jesus son of Sirach), writing in the 2nd century BC, did not include any hint of an individual messianic figure or anything resembling this in his book, though there are impressive references to the divine upholding of the Davidic dynasty (Sirach 47) and the Aaronic priesthood (Sirach 45), as well as to a general hope of deliverance (Sirach 35:18-19; 36:1-7). For Ben Sira, these hopes of ‘messianic’ expectations by the hand of man have already been clearly realized (Sirach 49:11-12). If anything resembling traditional ‘messianism’ still existed at this time it should sought among the Samaritans in the north, even though they did not believe in an ‘anointed one’ (a concept peculiar to Jews) but to a prophet (dubbed in later ages as the Taheb). ‘Messianic’ expectations would only achieve a strong and sudden renaissance among the Jews thanks to the events which would unfold afterwards.

The sociopolitical climate of the final centuries before Christ - the advent of the Seleucids and the subsequent rise and fall of the Hasmonean dynasty - contributed to the sudden rebirth and further development of Jewish messianism, going hand-in-hand with the rise of resistance thought among Jews at this time. These events provided a catalyst for a radical reinterpretation of the scriptural tradition that eventually evolved into full-fledged Jewish messianism. Whereas we have little evidence that Jews during Persian and Ptolemaic rule attempted any sort of revolt against their overlords (for one, it was thought that any revolt would be unlikely to succeed anyway to the small size and limited resources of Yehud), the Maccabean revolt stirred up a strong feeling of resistance and assertion of Jewish identity in the face of assimilation. The exhibition of hopes for national redemption and spasmodic resistance to foreign rule were inspired by renewed interpretation of Israel’s sacred traditions.

The uncertainty and turmoil of the times encouraged the raising of human hopes up to the heavens. Whereas there was already an idea of a presence of God among men through the mediation of a more or less hypostatized Wisdom (cf. Proverbs 1:20-32; 8:1-9:6), some now expected God Himself to come down, since it seemed that only He could guarantee the fulfillment of the so-called messianic hopes. We can see this idea formulated in the book of Jubilees (1.26-29):

“And do thou write down for thyself all these words which I declare unto thee on this mountain, the first and the last, which shall come to pass in all the divisions of the days in the law and in the testimony and in the weeks and the jubilees unto eternity, until I descend and dwell with them throughout eternity.” …] And the angel of the presence who went before the camp of Israel took the tables of the divisions of the years – from the time of the creation – of the law and of the testimony of the weeks, of the jubilees, according to the individual years, according to all the number of the jubilees [according to the individual years], from the day of the [new] creation when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed and all their creation according to the powers of the heaven, and according to all the creation of the earth, until the sanctuary of the Lord shall be made in Jerusalem on Mount Zion, and all the luminaries be renewed for healing and for peace and for blessing for all the elect of Israel, and that thus it may be from that day and unto all the days of the earth.

 

[Kaninchen]

Hi Kaninchen. Im very interested in your thought process. What are you saying here exactly?

MJ

Oh, I’m just responding to a traditional CAF ‘getting Jesus in through the back door’ strategy.

Of course the Jewish concept of Messiah has a complex history, especially in the most difficult times for the Jewish People when a Saviour (in a physical sense) would have been more than welcome and the Roman Occupation was about as difficult as things could get.

It’s conventional here to suggest that, in the context of the times, there were different ‘versions’ of Messiah expected by different groups with what might be described as a hanging implication that there might well have been lots and lots of Jews waiting for a Messiah who was not going to save them from the Romans but from Hell (Christian version) and that Jews who didn’t accept Jesus have hidden all these people from our history.

So, rather than ruminations on the concept of Messiah, historically, I’m just asking for clarity.

 

[patrick457]

In many ways this idea of ‘God amongst men’ is an example of a ‘messianic’ expectation (used in a broad sense here BTW) without any actual messiah - there does not appear to be an intermediary between divine intervention and human salvation. This conception, however, stems from a different spiritual attitude than that of the messianism without the messiah found in the preceding centuries. The earlier belief had been that justice would have come to the earth as a gift of God, characterizing the world to come, but that world was still a distinctly human one. In the new conception God’s intervention is imagined as being so complete that He himself will come and live among humans. In other words, because the task is thought to be too great for any mortal, the role of the messiah can only be carried out by God himself; He and He alone can be His own mediator.

This idea, however had never caught on, since the general emphasis in eschatological thought still lay on history than on the cosmos: God will guide history up until the end of days, when all mankind will be handed over to the authority of an anointed one, who will rule in God’s name. (cf. the Book of Dream-Visions section of 1 Enoch, written ca. 163 BC.) It, at best, remained in an embryonic stage, more of an extreme possibility rather than a fully elaborated theory.

In the meantime, ‘messianic’ characteristics are also being ascribed to superhuman figures from Jewish tradition. Take for example, Enoch and Elijah, two men who are said to not have died because they were taken up to heaven (cf. Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11). Malachi (3:23-24) already predicts Elijah returning on the earth one day to bring peace to Israel and invite people to repentance before the Great Day of the Lord, in order to prevent God from striking Israel. While he will not establish the kingdom of Israel, he will have a part in its salvation even without being a king or a priest. His role is something more, and, with regards to salvation, his role is of a ‘messianic’ nature.

As for Enoch, a strand of Jewish thinking assigned a very large role to him. This is particularly evident in 1 Enoch, an amalgam of different works written in the time period between 300 BC to the 1st century AD. Enoch is the revealer of the Book of the Watchers (the oldest part of the work, dating from the 4th-3rd century BC) and the Book of Astronomy (3rd century BC or earlier), along with many other later works. With the exception of the Book of Parables (1st century BC-1st century AD), where he is identified with the Son of Man (1 Enoch 71.14), who is in turn called the messiah (1 Enoch 48.10; 52.4), most of all Enoch is presented as one who reveals hidden truths. These truths hold a saving value, though in this early phase it is difficult to see in Enoch a true messiah. He was a superhuman, revealing figure. His role was that of intermediary, but not of salvation, at least not directly.

Already in the Book of the Watchers, Enoch occupies a position even higher than the angels; he acts as mediator between them (even the fallen angels) and God (1 Enoch 12-13); he is even the first living person to visit the underworld and see the souls of the dead therein (1 Enoch 22).

… Okay, we’re taking a break here so as not to bore everyone.

 

[MartinJordan]

Oh, I’m just responding to a traditional CAF ‘getting Jesus in through the back door’ strategy.

Of course the Jewish concept of Messiah has a complex history, especially in the most difficult times for the Jewish People when a Saviour (in a physical sense) would have been more than welcome and the Roman Occupation was about as difficult as things could get.

It’s conventional here to suggest that, in the context of the times, there were different ‘versions’ of Messiah expected by different groups with what might be described as a hanging implication that there might well have been lots and lots of Jews waiting for a Messiah who was not going to save them from the Romans but from Hell (Christian version) and that Jews who didn’t accept Jesus have hidden all these people from our history.

So, rather than ruminations on the concept of Messiah, historically, I’m just asking for clarity.

I get the 2nd part

But not the first. Too peculiar for my slow brain maybe

But let me give my thought process. Catholics are free to disagree with Church teachings. However, all those you mention has basically no compromise. Non are acceptable to the Church. But neither points have anything to do with accepting the Messiah via “back door”. seems way too sinister

MJ

 

[jonathan_hili]

Oh, I’m just responding to a traditional CAF ‘getting Jesus in through the back door’ strategy.

Of course the Jewish concept of Messiah has a complex history, especially in the most difficult times for the Jewish People when a Saviour (in a physical sense) would have been more than welcome and the Roman Occupation was about as difficult as things could get.

It’s conventional here to suggest that, in the context of the times, there were different ‘versions’ of Messiah expected by different groups with what might be described as a hanging implication that there might well have been lots and lots of Jews waiting for a Messiah who was not going to save them from the Romans but from Hell (Christian version) and that Jews who didn’t accept Jesus have hidden all these people from our history.

So, rather than ruminations on the concept of Messiah, historically, I’m just asking for clarity.

Hi Kaninchen,

I’m not sure there were any Jews who expected a Messiah like Jesus! And you need to be a little careful: Jesus did not come to save us “from Hell” but to make us children of God. His Messiahship is not totally clear yet and how it will play out in eternity (at least, from our standpoint). In fact, no Jews expected a Messiah who would offer them true life with God in the beatific vision, nor one that would suffer for them to the extent of dying on the cross. A dead Messiah ain’t no Messiah. I think that’s probably the main reason why Jesus was so mum about his being the Messiah - he didn’t want people the wrong idea. It’s also one of the main reasons why Jews throughout history haven’t accepted Jesus as Messiah: he didn’t have glorious military or spiritual victories (from what they can see), he didn’t usher in God’s reign of peace and rest, etc.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Whoops! Sorry Kaninchen, I didn’t even realise you were Jewish!

And here am I tell you about Jews!!!

 

[mercytruth]

The pre-existence of the Messiah is a Jewish concept. Something which most Jews and Christians of today would rather not consider:

**Preexistence of the Messiah:

This includes his existence before Creation; the existence of his name; his existence after the creation of the world. Two Biblical passages favor the view of the preexistence of the Messiah: Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), speaking of the Bethlehemite ruler, says that his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”; Dan. vii. 13 speaks of “one like the Son of man,” who “came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days.” In the Messianic similitudes of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) the three preexistences are spoken of: “The Messiah was chosen of God before the creation of the world, and he shall be before Him to eternity” (xlviii. 6). Before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, or ever the stars of heaven were formed his name was uttered in the presence of the Lord of Spirits (= God; xlviii. 3). Apart from these passages, there are only general statements that the Messiah was hidden and preserved by God (lxii. 6-7, xlvi. 1-3), without any declaration as to when he began to be. His preexistence is affirmed also in II Esdras (about 90 C.E.), according to which he has been preserved and hidden by God “a great season”; nor shall mankind see him save at the hour of his appointed day (xii. 32; xiii. 26, 52; xiv. 9), although no mention is made of the antemundane existence either of his person or of his name (comp. Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxix. 3).

Thus also the Rabbis. Of the seven things fashioned before the creation of the world, the last was the name of the Messiah (comp. Ps. lxxii. 17; Pes. 54a; Tan., Naso, ed. Buber, No. 19; and parallels); and the Targum regards the preexistence of the Messiah’s name as implied in Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), Zech. iv. 7, and Ps. lxxii. 17.

The “Spirit of God” which “moved upon the face of the waters” (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1; comp. Pesiḳ. R. 152b, which reads as follows, alluding to Isa. xi. 2: “The Messiah was born [created] when the world was made, although his existence had been contemplated before the Creation”). Referring to Ps. xxxvi. 10 and Gen. i. 4, Pesiḳta Rabba declares (161b): “God beheld the Messiah and his deeds before the Creation, but He hid him and his generation under His throne of glory.” Seeing him, Satan said, “That is the Messiah who will dethrone me.” God said to the Messiah, “Ephraim, anointed of My righteousness, thou hast taken upon thee the sufferings of the six days of Creation” (162a; comp. Yalḳ., Isa. 499). The preexistence of the Messiah in heaven and his high station there are often mentioned. Akiba interprets Dan. vii. 9 as referring to two heavenly thrones—the one occupied by God and the other by the Messiah (Ḥag. 14a; comp. Enoch, lv. 4, lxix. 29), with whom God converses (Pes. 118b; Suk. 52a).

Abode in Heaven.

The “four carpenters” mentioned in Zech. ii. 3(A. V. i. 20) are the Messiah ben David, the Messiah ben Joseph, Elijah, and Melchizedek (Suk. 52a). The Messiah will not come on the Sabbath-day, which is observed in heaven as well as on earth ('Er. 43a); and because of the transgressions of Zion he is hidden (Targ. Micah iv. 8), remaining so in heaven until the end (“B. H.” ii. 55), where he sits in the fifth of the seven chambers (ib. ii. 49, top). With him are some who have not tasted death—Enoch, Moses, and Elijah (II Esd. vi. 26, xiii. 52), and it is he who comes with the clouds of heaven (ib. xii. 3, based on Dan. vii. 3). Like heaven itself, he is made of fire (ib. xiii. 27-28; comp. Pesiḳ. R. 162a, based on Isa. l. 11), and he is accordingly regarded as a star (Targ. Num. xxiv. 17). The frequent expression, “The son of David shall only come” (Sanh. 38a et passim), presupposes his abode in heaven, and the statement that the world exists only to delight him (and David and Moses) implies his preexistence (Sanh. 96b); but he will not appear until all the souls have left the treasury (“guf”; 'Ab. Zarah 5a; comp. Weber, p. 350). His names, Son of the Stars (Ta’an. iv. 7-8 and parallels), Son of the Clouds (Sanh. 96b; comp. “B. H.” iv. 20, 4, vi. 70, 5, following Tan., Toledot, 14, and I Chron. iii. 24), “He who dwelleth in the clouds” (Targ. I Chron. l.c.), “the Eternal” (following Jer. xxiii. 6 and Lam. R. i. ]), “Light” (Dan. ii. 22, Lam. R. i., and Gen. R. i. 6), and “Tinnon” (Ps. lxxii. 17: “before the sun was created his name was”; Sanh. 98c and parallels), imply his origin and preexistence in heaven. He therefore stands higher than the ministering angels (Yalḳ. ii. 476), and he lives throughout eternity (Midr. Teh. ii.; Yalḳ. l.c.).**

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12339-preexistence

 

[patrick457]

The pre-existence of the Messiah is a Jewish concept. Something which most Jews and Christians of today would rather not consider:

**Preexistence of the Messiah:

This includes his existence before Creation; the existence of his name; his existence after the creation of the world. Two Biblical passages favor the view of the preexistence of the Messiah: Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), speaking of the Bethlehemite ruler, says that his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”; Dan. vii. 13 speaks of “one like the Son of man,” who “came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days.” In the Messianic similitudes of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) the three preexistences are spoken of: “The Messiah was chosen of God before the creation of the world, and he shall be before Him to eternity” (xlviii. 6). Before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, or ever the stars of heaven were formed his name was uttered in the presence of the Lord of Spirits (= God; xlviii. 3). Apart from these passages, there are only general statements that the Messiah was hidden and preserved by God (lxii. 6-7, xlvi. 1-3), without any declaration as to when he began to be. His preexistence is affirmed also in II Esdras (about 90 C.E.), according to which he has been preserved and hidden by God “a great season”; nor shall mankind see him save at the hour of his appointed day (xii. 32; xiii. 26, 52; xiv. 9), although no mention is made of the antemundane existence either of his person or of his name (comp. Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxix. 3).

Thus also the Rabbis. Of the seven things fashioned before the creation of the world, the last was the name of the Messiah (comp. Ps. lxxii. 17; Pes. 54a; Tan., Naso, ed. Buber, No. 19; and parallels); and the Targum regards the preexistence of the Messiah’s name as implied in Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), Zech. iv. 7, and Ps. lxxii. 17.

The “Spirit of God” which “moved upon the face of the waters” (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1; comp. Pesiḳ. R. 152b, which reads as follows, alluding to Isa. xi. 2: “The Messiah was born [created] when the world was made, although his existence had been contemplated before the Creation”). Referring to Ps. xxxvi. 10 and Gen. i. 4, Pesiḳta Rabba declares (161b): “God beheld the Messiah and his deeds before the Creation, but He hid him and his generation under His throne of glory.” Seeing him, Satan said, “That is the Messiah who will dethrone me.” God said to the Messiah, “Ephraim, anointed of My righteousness, thou hast taken upon thee the sufferings of the six days of Creation” (162a; comp. Yalḳ., Isa. 499). The preexistence of the Messiah in heaven and his high station there are often mentioned. Akiba interprets Dan. vii. 9 as referring to two heavenly thrones—the one occupied by God and the other by the Messiah (Ḥag. 14a; comp. Enoch, lv. 4, lxix. 29), with whom God converses (Pes. 118b; Suk. 52a).

Abode in Heaven.

The “four carpenters” mentioned in Zech. ii. 3(A. V. i. 20) are the Messiah ben David, the Messiah ben Joseph, Elijah, and Melchizedek (Suk. 52a). The Messiah will not come on the Sabbath-day, which is observed in heaven as well as on earth ('Er. 43a); and because of the transgressions of Zion he is hidden (Targ. Micah iv. 8), remaining so in heaven until the end (“B. H.” ii. 55), where he sits in the fifth of the seven chambers (ib. ii. 49, top). With him are some who have not tasted death—Enoch, Moses, and Elijah (II Esd. vi. 26, xiii. 52), and it is he who comes with the clouds of heaven (ib. xii. 3, based on Dan. vii. 3). Like heaven itself, he is made of fire (ib. xiii. 27-28; comp. Pesiḳ. R. 162a, based on Isa. l. 11), and he is accordingly regarded as a star (Targ. Num. xxiv. 17). The frequent expression, “The son of David shall only come” (Sanh. 38a et passim), presupposes his abode in heaven, and the statement that the world exists only to delight him (and David and Moses) implies his preexistence (Sanh. 96b); but he will not appear until all the souls have left the treasury (“guf”; 'Ab. Zarah 5a; comp. Weber, p. 350). His names, Son of the Stars (Ta’an. iv. 7-8 and parallels), Son of the Clouds (Sanh. 96b; comp. “B. H.” iv. 20, 4, vi. 70, 5, following Tan., Toledot, 14, and I Chron. iii. 24), “He who dwelleth in the clouds” (Targ. I Chron. l.c.), “the Eternal” (following Jer. xxiii. 6 and Lam. R. i. ]), “Light” (Dan. ii. 22, Lam. R. i., and Gen. R. i. 6), and “Tinnon” (Ps. lxxii. 17: “before the sun was created his name was”; Sanh. 98c and parallels), imply his origin and preexistence in heaven. He therefore stands higher than the ministering angels (Yalḳ. ii. 476), and he lives throughout eternity (Midr. Teh. ii.; Yalḳ. l.c.).**

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12339-preexistence

I should point out that much of the citations here come from rabbinic sources. Which is good, but they usually represent a later development (the idea of a “Messiah ben Joseph” aka “Messiah ben Ephraim” is an example), so applying them in the context of Second Temple period Judaism/s isn’t advisable.

 

[mercytruth]

I should point out that much of the citations here come from rabbinic sources. Which is good, but they usually represent a later development (the idea of a “Messiah ben Joseph” aka “Messiah ben Ephraim” is an example), so applying them in the context of Second Temple period Judaism/s isn’t advisable.

Yes, except for the scripture references from the prophets Zechariah, Micah and Daniel, we have no other sources, except for one very important source that is from the second temple period and predates the birth of Jesus Christ.

It is the references to the Messiah in the book of Enoch as mentioned in the aforementioned citation:

**In the Messianic similitudes of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) the three preexistences are spoken of: “The Messiah was chosen of God before the creation of the world, and he shall be before Him to eternity” (xlviii. 6). Before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, or ever the stars of heaven were formed his name was uttered in the presence of the Lord of Spirits (= God; xlviii. 3). Apart from these passages, there are only general statements that the Messiah was hidden and preserved by God (lxii. 6-7, xlvi. 1-3), without any declaration as to when he began to be. **

God’s peace

 

[patrick457]

Yes, except for the scripture references from the prophets Zechariah, Micah and Daniel, we have no other sources, except for one very important source that is from the second temple period and predates the birth of Jesus Christ.

It is the references to the Messiah in the book of Enoch as mentioned in the aforementioned citation:

**In the Messianic similitudes of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) the three preexistences are spoken of: “The Messiah was chosen of God before the creation of the world, and he shall be before Him to eternity” (xlviii. 6). Before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, or ever the stars of heaven were formed his name was uttered in the presence of the Lord of Spirits (= God; xlviii. 3). Apart from these passages, there are only general statements that the Messiah was hidden and preserved by God (lxii. 6-7, xlvi. 1-3), without any declaration as to when he began to be. **

God’s peace

Yes. The Jewish ‘heavenly Son of Man’ messianism exhibited by the Book of Parables/Similitudes in 1 Enoch is often regarded as laying the foundation in pre-Christian Judaism for the Son of Man Christology of the New Testament. Now the fact that fragments of the Book of Parables are never found among the fragments of 1 Enoch discovered in Qumran led some scholars to think that perhaps, the Book of Parables was a late composition written by a Christian, however, the arguments for pre-Christian or non-Christian Jewish composition of the Parables have been recognized as having greater force.

This brings us to the “two powers in heaven” issue. At least some Jews in the late Second Temple period had no problem with the idea of a heavenly messiah, an exalted patriarch (say, Enoch or Moses) or a principal angel sitting or standing at the right hand of God or sitting on God’s throne itself, thereby being exalted over all creation (including the angels), while still being subordinate to God. We can find this enthronement language implied in 1 Enoch (51.3; 61.8; 62.5; 69.29), and more explicitly depicted in the Hebrew 3 Enoch (where Enoch, transformed into the angel Metatron and is accorded a throne similar to God’s, is acclaimed as “the little Yhwh”), and the Exagōgē of Ezekiel the Dramatist (67-89, where Moses is the one taken up to heaven and enthroned in God’s own throne). It can also be detected in the statement attributed to the 2nd-century Rabbi Akiva in the Talmud (Hagigah 14a and Sanhedrin 38):

One [throne] was for Himself and one for David. Even as it has been taught: One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba’s view. R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Shechinah? Rather, one [throne] for justice, and the other for mercy. Did he accept [this answer] from him or not? Come and hear! For it has been taught: One is for justice and the other for charity; this is R. Akiba’s view. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah to him: Akiba, what hast thou to do with Aggada? Confine thyself to [the study of] Nega’im and Ohaloth. But one was a throne, the other a footstool: a throne for a seat and a footstool in support of His feet.

The rabbis, perhaps in response to Christian claims about Jesus, but more plausibly in response to claims about Enoch, Moses or the Messiah, eventually condemned the idea as heretical (since of course there could be no equality with God). In the present text of 3 Enoch, we have Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah (Akiva’s contemporary) being taken up to heaven in a mystical ascent and seeing Metatron seated on his throne surrounded by angels, leading Elisha to proclaim that “There are indeed two powers in heaven.” The text continues that as a result of this blasphemous declaration, Elisha was damned and Metatron was removed from his throne and made to stand up. (The same story could be found in the Talmud, Hagigah 15a.) I think the Christian idea of Jesus as the son of man sitting on the right hand of God fits in this Enochic tradition.

 

[Kaninchen]

Whoops! Sorry Kaninchen, I didn’t even realise you were Jewish!

And here am I tell you about Jews!!!

Oh, I’ve been around so long, I expect I could be considered CAF furniture by now and sometimes I’m a bit cryptic, as if I imagine everybody’s been around a long time as well.

 

[mercytruth]

Yes. The Jewish ‘heavenly Son of Man’ messianism exhibited by the Book of Parables/Similitudes in 1 Enoch is often regarded as laying the foundation in pre-Christian Judaism for the Son of Man Christology of the New Testament. Now the fact that fragments of the Book of Parables are never found among the fragments of 1 Enoch discovered in Qumran led some scholars to think that perhaps, the Book of Parables was a late composition written by a Christian, however, the arguments for pre-Christian or non-Christian Jewish composition of the Parables have been recognized as having greater force.

This brings us to the “two powers in heaven” issue. At least some Jews in the late Second Temple period had no problem with the idea of a heavenly messiah, an exalted patriarch (say, Enoch or Moses) or a principal angel sitting or standing at the right hand of God or sitting on God’s throne itself, thereby being exalted over all creation (including the angels), while still being subordinate to God - in effect, a sort of divinity. We can find this enthronement language implied in 1 Enoch (51.3; 61.8; 62.5; 69.29), and more explicitly depicted in the Hebrew 3 Enoch (where Enoch, transformed into the angel Metatron and is accorded a throne similar to God’s, is acclaimed as “the little Yhwh”), and the Exagōgē of Ezekiel the Dramatist (67-89, where Moses is the one taken up to heaven and enthroned in God’s own throne). It can also be detected in the statement attributed to the 2nd-century Rabbi Akiva in the Talmud (Hagigah 14a and Sanhedrin 38):

One [throne] was for Himself and one for David. Even as it has been taught: One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba’s view. R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Shechinah? Rather, one [throne] for justice, and the other for mercy. Did he accept [this answer] from him or not? Come and hear! For it has been taught: One is for justice and the other for charity; this is R. Akiba’s view. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah to him: Akiba, what hast thou to do with Aggada? Confine thyself to [the study of] Nega’im and Ohaloth. But one was a throne, the other a footstool: a throne for a seat and a footstool in support of His feet.

The rabbis, perhaps in response to Christian claims about Jesus, but more plausibly in response to claims about Enoch, Moses or the Messiah, eventually condemned the idea as heretical. In the present text of 3 Enoch, we have Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah (Akiva’s contemporary) being taken up to heaven in a mystical ascent and seeing Metatron seated on his throne surrounded by angels, leading Elisha to proclaim that “There are indeed two powers in heaven.” The text continues that as a result of this blasphemous declaration, Elisha was proclaimed as a heretic and Metatron was removed from his throne and made to stand up.

The whole concept of dual thrones may have been conceptualized within sacred scripture from Pharoah and Joseph as a co-regent, from the latter Kings and their sons as co-regents, and from Nebuchadezzar and Daniel as a co-regent.

The concept of justice and mercy being dual attributes of ha-Shem rather than dual beings may have also been a question within Judaism.

"Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed"