If we examine the term "Mashiach", messiah, as used in the Torah and in the Mishna, it simply means someone who is anointed. The word refers to someone appointed to a specific high position and confirmed by having oil poured out over his head. In the Torah this ceremony is only applied to a priest. The first time it is used with reference to Aaron's appointment. "And you will pour oil on his head and you will anoint him." And then with regard both to Aaron and his sons. "And you will anoint Aaron and his sons." Later on the term is applied to "the serving priest" and this is the main use of the word in the Mishna and the Tosefta. Actually the process of dedicating by pouring oil was not confined to people. The altar was anointed, as indeed were various ceremonial objects. Nevertheless, the term came to be used to apply to several prominent appointments. There was the High Priest, himself, and then another priest who was appointed at times of war to go out into battle with the army. This way they protected, in a way, the main High Priest. This substitute priest was called the "anointed for war". Eventually the ceremony of anointing was adapted for use in designating the king.

The first reference to a king being anointed comes in the Book of Samuel when the prophet Samuel appoints Saul. And while Saul was still alive Samuel anointed David as his replacement. Indeed the phrase "the anointed of God" is used for the first time when David insists that Saul, though his enemy, should still be treated with respect. Solomon is anointed to succeed David by both the High Priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan. However, none of the successors to the throne of David were anointed. Rehoboam succeeded to his father's throne and then, of course, lost the ten northern tribes. But no other member of the family was anointed. This has led some to suggest that anointing was reserved exclusively for the Davidic line and then only when there was either a break in the dynasty or a challenge to succession. Yet, in the break away northern Kingdom, Elisha is commanded by God to anoint Yehu to succeed Ahab. And if one suggests that the title of "mashiach", the anointed, only applies to Jewish kings, the prophet Isaiah refers to Cyrus as God's anointed. At this stage, there is nothing unusual, nothing long term, nothing eschatological or miraculous about the concept of an anointed king.

But it is from Isaiah that we first get the notion of some miraculous or unusual better state in which the world will be a better place than it is now. "And in the future the mountain of the house of God will be established as the main mountain and it will be more important than all hills and all the nations will flow to it. And many nations will go saying, 'Let us go up to the mountain of God to the house of the God of Jacob and He will teach us his ways and will go in His paths because Torah will come from Zion and the word of God from Jerusalem. And He will act as judge between the nations and He will discipline them and they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. No nation will fight another nation and they will no longer learn to war." This is the magnificent vision of a state to which humanity should aspire and one which has become a crucial element in traditional Jewish ideology. Yet it is not initially connected, necessarily, with any specific leader.

Isaiah does go on to talk about the emergence of a leader who will bring this state about. "Therefore YHVH will give you a sign. A young woman will conceive and give birth to a son and will call him God is with us. He will eat butter and honey and through his own recognition he will reject evil and choose good."

Isaiah continues with his vision. "The people who are walking in darkness have seen great light. To those who live in darkness, bright light shall shine on them. You have made the nation greater and increased its joy. They rejoice before You like at harvest time or when they rejoice as they divide their spoil. Because You have smashed the burden he was carrying, the yoke on his shoulder, the staff that was used to oppress him, like the day of Midian. For everything crushed in the whirlwind, every garment rolled in blood has been burnt in consuming fire. For a son has been born for us, a boy has been given and authority will fall on his shoulders and he will be called 'wonderful, advisor, powerful god, eternal father, prince of peace'. He will spread authority and endless peace for the throne of David over his kingdom. To prepare it and support it with justice and charity for now and forever. The concern of YHVH of hosts will do this."

Isaiah goes on to reiterate that a new leadership will emerge for the House of David. "And a shoot will come out of the stock of Yishai and a growth will flourish from his roots. And the spirit of YHVH will rest on him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and greatness, a spirit of the knowledge of and the respect for YHVH. And his spirit will be one of respect for YHVH. He will not judge by (appearances) what his eyes see and he will not correct on the basis of what his ear hears (hearsay). He will judge the poor with justice and he will correct the humble of the earth straightforwardly. He will strike the earth with the staff of his mouth and with his lips he will put the wicked to death. Justice will be his clothing and honesty will cover his body. And the wolf will live with the sheep, and the leopard will lie with the kid, and a calf and a cub and a lamb together, and a small boy will lead them. And the cow and the bear will feed while their children shall play together, and the lion will eat straw like an ox. And a baby shall play by a snake's hole and by a scorpion's lair a child will (safely) place its hand. There will be no evil or corruption on my holy mountain for the earth will be full of knowledge of YHVH as water covers the sea."

We are familiar with these quotes because they have for thousands of years been used by Christian theologians to prove that Isaiah was predicting the advent of a Christian Messiah. Traditional Jewish commentators took Isaiah to be referring to King Hezekiah who brought about a great religious and social revival. Their arguments were supported by the fact that all prophets seemed to be concerned with the more immediate future for the Jewish people than events five hundred or more years ahead.

It is not until the post-exile prophet Malachi that we are given an expression of some wondrous state ahead that is to be ushered in by a mythical figure, someone who is already dead, but will return to change the world. However Malachi does not talk about a king, instead he says that God is sending the prophet Elijah. "Behold I am sending you Eliyahu the prophet before the coming of the day of YHVH, great and fearful. And he will return the hearts of fathers to their sons and sons to their fathers."

The only other prophetic idea that is often linked to the messianic idea is that of Gog and MaGog (or Gog from Gog). This one or two characters, it varies, appear in only one place in the bible, in the Book of Ezekiel. The context is a prophecy that this mighty king Gog will attack the Jewish people when they are resettled on their land. He was going to be defeated and buried in Israel and out of his defeat would come a period of peace and God's spiritual authority.

The expression that Ezekiel uses for this coming era and, indeed, so does Isaiah is "The End Of Days". But the Hebrew "Acharit HaYamim" does not necessarily mean the "eschatological" end of days but, rather, "after a period of time". So the actual text need not lead us to any specific conclusion. It is up to the Oral Tradition to convey what these ideas really meant in practice.

2

It is not surprising that, after the exile of 586 BCE and the loss of the independent monarchy, Jews would have longed for the return both of complete autonomy and of the reinstatement of their own monarchy. If they interpreted the Isaiah chapters as referring to a future leader they will certainly have expected such a leader to be temporal rather than ecclesiastical. They would have looked forward to independence under a strong king. Even the great triumphs of the Hasmoneans could not disguise the fact that the Jewish Second Commonwealth remained a client state and not a totally independent one. And, of course, the failures of the later Hasmoneans and their successors would also have reinforced the dream of a return to earlier leadership, particularly one identified with the spiritual tradition in the way King David, as author of the book of Psalms, was. By the time of the Mishna, the Jewish people were riven with internal dissension and subjected to tremendous pressures, hardships, and often destruction by the Romans. The dreams of rescue, of freedom, will have increased, and both from the evidence of the Dead Sea sects and from Christianity we can look back and feel how powerful this dream was.

Nevertheless, the Mishna still uses the word "Mashiach", messiah, predominantly to refer to a Priest. "Who is the Mashiach? He is only the priest who has been anointed with the Anointing Oil." There, the political leader is called "the Nasi" or "the King". It is later that the idea of the Mashiach gets applied to a spiritual leader. Around the turn of the millennium, and with different sects within Judaism proclaiming the arrival of a "Teacher Of Justice" or "Righteous Priest", lots of new ideas were creating different ideologies.

Amongst the Jews of the mainstream Rabbinic school there was disagreement, both about the nature of the idea and about whether it was something that humans could be proactively involved in or not. It was Rabbi Akiva in the second century who proclaimed Bar Cochba as the Messiah simply because he succeeded, temporarily, in throwing off Roman oppression. Clearly Akiva's concept was of a politically successful leader. Most of the other rabbis disagreed and instead of calling him Bar Cochba, the Son of a Star, they called him Bar Coziva, the Son of a Lie. "Bar Coziva ruled as king for two and a half years. He said to the rabbis, 'I am the Mashiach.'" And again, "The rabbis said to him, 'Akiva, grass will grow through your cheeks before the Son of David will come.'" The debate and disagreement run through the Talmud in a way in which widely divergent views seem to have been more readily accepted than they are nowadays.

3

Focusing on the political aspect, it is interesting that there are two messianic leaders in the Talmudic tradition, the Messiah the son of David and the Messiah the son of Joseph. "The Mashiach son of David is to be revealed to us quickly in our lifetime. God said to him, 'Ask Me anything and I will grant it.' When he saw that the Mashiach son of Yosef was killed he said, 'The only thing I ask is to be allowed to live.'"

Given the political nature of the concept, this is not really surprising. After the northern tribes split from Judah and Benjamin, the two Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Menashe, were left out of the Judah-Benjamin alliance. Individuals from northern tribes may have been left behind or chose to reside in the south, but both Menashe and Ephraim were part of the kingdom of the ten northern tribes. Menashe is actually called the tribe of Joseph. But Menashe was also one of the tribes many of whose members stayed on the eastern side of the Jordan when Joshua crossed over. Menashe, and therefore Joseph, came to be associated with the ten northern tribes who adopted the name of Joseph as a sort of unifying code name. The myth is that the ten northern tribes conquered by the Assyrians in 720 BCE disappeared. In fact Assyria itself was conquered by Babylon. Whereas Assyrian policy was to scatter its victims, Babylonia encouraged Jews to stay together and develop their own identity. The probability is that many if not most of the Ten Tribes joined in with other exiled Jews while retaining some of their northern traditions. Naturally they would not have wanted to cede sovereignty to the southern tribes. So the idea of a messiah of the north was retained. By the time of the Talmud, we see that, although the idea was retained, the supremacy of the Davidic line was generally accepted.

Apart from this disagreement, there were plenty of others. One body of opinion held the view that the Isaiah predictions had been fulfilled and that there would be no new messiah at all. "Rabbi Hillel said, 'There will not be a Mashiach for Israel because it was used up (eaten) at the time of Hezekia.' Rabbi Yosef said, 'May Rabbi Hillel's Master forgive him. When did Hezekia live? During the First Temple. Whereas Zecharia lived during the Second and he said, 'Rejoice, daughter of Zion, lift yourself up, daughter of Jerusalem, because your king is coming, righteous and pure, poor, riding on a donkey or on a mule (Zech. 9).'"

And there were those who agreed that Isaiah and Ezekiel were referring to characters who lived nearer their day. However, in practice things worked out differently. "God originally intended that Hezekiah would be the Mashiach and that Sennacharib would be Gog and Magog."

4

But there were two much more fundamental differences. One body of opinion held that the great deliverance, which the messiah would bring about, would come when things got so bad that only Divine intervention could rescue. "In the lead-up to the Messiah, rudeness will increase and prices will rise. The vine will produce plenty but wine will be expensive and the monarchy will become apostate and no one will give direction. The place of meeting will become a place of prostitution. The Gallil will be destroyed. The borders will be destroyed and the residents of the borderlands will have to go round (begging) from city to city and no one will take pity. The wise and the scribes will become corrupted and those who fear sin will be rejected. Truth will become rare. Lads will embarrass their elders and elders will rise before small ones. A son will defile his father and a daughter will rebel against her mother and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's own household will become his enemy. The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog. A son will not be embarrassed before his father. Who will we have to rely on? Only our Father in Heaven." Or, as another example of this position, "The son of David will not come until all government has become apostate."

Others took the view that humanity, itself, could itself bring about this better state by behaving in a positive way. "If Israel were to keep one Shabbat, the son of David would come immediately." And, "Rabbi Chiya said, 'If all Israel were to repent one day, the son of David would come immediately.'" Naturally there is also the position that wants to keep both options open. "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'The Son of David will only come in a generation that is completely guiltless or completely guilty.'" And, again with a nod in the direction of the Joseph tradition (Ephraim being one of the sons of Joseph), adding a reference to a new character in the role of Gog, "If (the generation) is not worthy then Mashiach the Son of Efraim will come. But if they are worthy, the son of David will come. A wicked king will arise, called Amarillus. Bald with small eyes, leprous on his forehead and his right ear closed." A third variation suggests that the concept is a spiritual one and dependent on the relationship between God's link with humanity through the soul and the time it would take for souls to fulfill their destiny and exert a positive influence on humanity. "The son of David will not come until all the souls in the bodies have been used up."

The variety of traditions led some rabbis to sanction different views. "What is his name? The house of Rabbi Shila says, "Shiloh". The house of Rabbi Yanai said, "Yanun is his name." The house of Rabbi Chanina said, "Chanina". And some say his name is Menachem Ben Hezekiah." Notice how each rabbi finds a name that is reminiscent of his own. It is almost as though they are saying that a person's view of the messiah is colored by his own experience. On the other hand, Rav Huna tries to reconcile them all and suggest they are simply different names for the same idea. "Rav Huna said, 'He has seven names: Mashiach, Yenun, Tsidkeynu, Tsemach, David, Shiloh, Eliyahu.'"

Nevertheless, many were concerned with trying to predict a specific date for deliverance. "The House of Elihu taught, 'This world is (will last for) six thousand years: two thousand of chaos, two thousand of Torah, two thousand days of Messiah.'" Which led Rabbi Yochanan to lay a curse on those who tried to predict the arrival of a, or the, messiah. "Rabbi Yochanan said, "Let the bones rot of those who try to calculate the 'end'. Because people say that since the 'end' came and he (the Messiah) did not come, this means he will not come at all. But wait for him as it says, 'Happy are those who wait for him.'" A position that certainly resonates today.

5

The main issue that divided the rabbis seems to have been the nature of the messianic period. There was the issue of exactly who the Messiah would be, the issue of when he would come and under what circumstances, and the question of what sort of world the messiah would usher in. There are many Rabbinic statements about changes in the world order. Some of them have been quoted in the previous chapter about "the Future". These positions are represented by Rabbi Chiya. "Rabbi Chiya the son of Aba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, 'Whatever the prophets prophesied (about supernatural events) was for the Messianic days, but as far as the World to Come is concerned, 'No eye has seen it apart from You God; something God has made for those who wait for Him.''" And he disagrees with Shmuel who said that the only difference between this world and the Messianic days is (that there will be no more) political oppression.' And this position of Shmuel's is the one that Maimonides selects as the basis of his conclusion that "The Days of the Messiah is this world and the world will continue to function normally, only the kingship will return to Israel. The early rabbis have already said that the only difference between this world and the Messianic days will be government oppression."

What conclusions can we draw from all this? First of all, a clear distinction emerges between the different Rabbinic concepts and Christian Messianism. Some saw the great prophecies as having already been fulfilled. But of those who did not, all expected to see a dramatic change in this world at the arrival of the messiah. They expected to see both political peace and a period of universal spirituality. This was why some rabbis at least were prepared to consider Bar Cochba a candidate for the title of Messiah, but were never likely to have been much impressed by the Nazarene. There is no record in Jewish texts of the concept of a Second Coming, unless one wants to interpret the first coming as that of the Messiah the son of Joseph and the second was that of the Messiah the son of David. It is perhaps significant that the Gospels have Jesus' father called Joseph. Perhaps this was in order to incorporate or impress those supporters of the Northern Messiah. The mainstream of Jewish thought has consistently held to the dream that the son of David will one day arrive and usher in a great period of human interaction and spirituality.

The question remains exactly what it is that we are required to adhere to. Can the idea of waiting for the Messiah be the same as the idea of waiting for God to intervene and improve life? All the different variations and nuances of rabbinic opinion are concerned more with the general state of human affairs than they are with the details. They all look towards a better world with greater spirituality, justice, fairness, and tolerance than the present one. This is, of course, why all past candidates for the title of Messiah, of any background, have failed to gain acceptance--because nothing changed tangibly and the Messiah is a very tangible idea in Judaism. It is not relevant to see this dream of a better world as requiring a specific political system, monarchy as opposed to democracy, for example. The emphasis on King David is at least as important symbolically and nostalgically as it is historically.

The arguments are essentially over whether this better state of human affairs will come about as a result of Divine intervention or as a result of human endeavor. Traditionally the Orthodox world has tended to prefer the interventionist position, largely because of its emphasis on faith and the patient acceptance of the role of God in history without knowing how or when it would come about. This explains the aversion amongst some groups to Zionism on the grounds that human are arrogating to themselves the role of God in history. The usual source for those who object to humans intervening in the return to Zion is the Gemara that says that Israel's exile was part of a special arrangement made by God and subject only to His intervention. On the other hand, there is no reason why individuals should not see the Hand of God working in many different ways.

It is also understandable that when political events put terrible pressure and suffering upon the Jews they would have been more likely to hope and pray for Divine delivery and salvation. Hence the expression "ikveta deMishicha", "the footsteps of the Messiah", used in the Mishna to describe the difficult period that signals the change for the better. Similarly, the expression "chevlei Mashiach", "the birth pangs of the Messiah", indicate the difficulty of the process.

On the other hand, at times of peace and progress and material well-being, people would be more inclined to hope that humanity, itself, could help bring this dramatic change about. The real issue is a combination of optimism and realism, that the Divine order is committed to a better world. Since Noah's flood, God has, in effect, given us the responsibility of improving ourselves and our world. This, together with the belief that God can and does intervene in human affairs, constitute important concepts in the Jewish spiritual world order. They emphasize both faith in God and an optimism about the future, as well as a spur to human betterment.

Once again there is a difference between absolutely denying something and, on the other hand, keeping an open mind. The attitude of the rabbis is strongly set against absolute deniers while allowing great freedom to explore and interpret. The clearest illustration of this is the variety of different concepts that different Jews have about the details of Messianism and who might be the messiah, to this very day. Just as Maimonides tells us that it is impossible to give positive attributes to God, so, in this context, it is easier to say what is not part of, or included in, the Jewish tradition than to come up with a single formulation of a concept with which everyone will agree. One can agree that a distillation of the ideas expressed produces an essential spirit of optimism, of dynamism directed towards improving society, combined with the acceptance of Divine intervention to create a powerful element in the Jewish psyche.

Go to Next Chapter: Are we rewarded and punished for what we do?

Go to Previous Chapter: Will our bodies be resurrected?

Go to Table of Contents