the opposition of Mr. Lindsey from a Humanitarian standpoint, and of Dr. Randolph from a Trinitarian one, neither writer arguing very successfully or philosophically. The Angels belonged to the mythology of the Hebrews who personified the powers of nature. Extraordinary operations, unusual phenomena, manifestations of God, were invested with personal attributes. They were angels or messengers of Jehovah, and are identified with Himself because they represent no distinctive being. Without independent existence, they are only the mode of His appearance, the invisible Deity unveiling Himself to mortal eyes. The word favours this hypothesis, because its form is indefinite. It means a sending, not one sent; i. e. it is properly an abstract noun. Almost all the appearances of angels in the Old Testament are to be explained in this manner. angel of Jehovah's presence is identical with Jehovah, because what is so termed is only the manifestation of His presence at a certain time and place, a personified mode of His operation. The Old Testament itself, in identifying the angel with the presence of Jehovah and with Jehovah himself confirms the correctness of this explanation. Nothing can be clearer than that the angel is neither a created being nor the Messiah, if the passages in Exodus xxiii. 20—23, and xxxiii. 14, 15, &c., be compared. The former shews that the angel is the pillar of cloud and fire which preceded the Israelites, or the active presence of Jehovah ; the latter, that the presence or face of Jehovah expresses the same idea in the language of a different writer. Hence Onkelos usually renders the presence of Jehovah by Shekinah, i.e. the visible manifestation of Deity. The topic has no proper connection with the Messiah's person as described in the Jewish writings. Even if Hengstenberg's view were correct that the angel is Jehovah's revealer, partaking of His Godhead and intimately connected with Him by oneness of nature, he is never identified with the Messiah; for Malachi iii. 1, which the critic quotes in favour of their sameness, is irrelevant. The messenger of the covenant is Elijah not Messiah, who is there distinguished from the Lord; and it is arbitrary to make the angel of Jehovah the same as the messenger of the covenant. If Malachi iii. 1, presents no ground for identifying the angel of Jehovah with Messiah, two other places adduced by Hengstenberg are irrelevant, viz. Hosea iii. 5, and Micah v. 2. The explanations of both already given dissipate their Messianic nature. Who would imagine, except Hengstenberg and his school, that "the goodness of the Lord" (in) is identical with "the glory of Jehovah," the Shekinah of God, which was concentrated in "the angel of Jehovah;" or who else could bring forth from the single word nisin in Micah v. 2, a God proceeding eternally from the invisible Jehovah and revealing him,-God the Messiah? Another passage supposed to countenance the identity of Messiah with the angel is this: "In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them." (Zechar. xii. 8.) The Messianic interpretation of these words regards the house of David as culminating in king Messiah, who is identified with the angel that led the people in ancient times. Thus both the divine and human natures of Messiah are implied. But the interpretation is distorted. What the passage really says is, that Jehovah will protect Jerusalem, putting such a spirit into the inhabitants that he who is weak shall become heroic like David; and the leaders of the house of David shall be changed as it were into superhuman beings or angels who conduct the host. One person is not selected as the representative of David's house, the Messiah; but the leaders of the people, who are compared to superhuman beings or angels in heroic courage. The Messiah is not identified with the angel of Jehovah. The Metatron has less relation to the Messianic doctrine than that of Jehovah's angel, though it is introduced by Hengstenberg as an element in his proof of Messiah's divinity. The Metatron in Jewish conception was one of the three highest angels, who was permitted to sit in the divine chamber and write down the virtues of the Israelites. His name is like that of his master, i.e. Shaddai. The distinction made between him and other angels is, that he sits with God in the inmost apartment, while the rest hear the divine command before the veil. Hence he is called Prince of the face (), i.e. who stands before God. Though R. Elias applied Exodus xxiii. 21 to him, the interpretation did not involve his divinity; for he was nothing more than the highest of all the angels, "a king of all kings," as he is styled in Berith Menucha, fol. 37. Schoettgen errs in affirming that his name was given to the Messiah, the passages he adduces being inappropriate. The doctrine of the Metatron was a later one. It did not even exist in the time of the Septuagint translators, though it has been so asserted on the ground of the Greek in Isaiah ix. 6, where the words are too uncertain to be cited in favour of any doctrinal proposition respecting Messiah. The translator renders (God) by angel; but that is done elsewhere in the LXX. To avoid anthropomorphism or its appearance, the translator resorts to paraphrase. A theological bias may have prompted him. It is doubtful whether the doctrine of a Metatron was developed out of Judaism itself The probability is that it came from Persia. The name occurs first in the book Sifri, belonging to the third century. It is also in the Talmud; in the later Targums, such as that of Jerusalem in its different recensions; attaining its full growth in the book of Sohar. The relation of the Metatron to the Shekinah is fluctuating; and the distinction between a higher and lower Metatron, the one of emanation, the other of creation, is only the fanciful conception of a few. In any case, the being so called was never higher than an angel or archangel, who was admitted into the counsels of God, and revealed them to men as he was directed. He may have been a kind of mediator, the revealer of Jehovah, the investiture of the Shekinah; but he was never thought of as properly divine. Instead of participating in God's essence, he was His instrument. While explaining the angel of Jehovah by Metatron, later Jews, far from making him Jehovah's fellow, God eternally proceeding from the unseen Creator, have believed that he was a created angel of exalted rank. The prevailing doctrine of the Jews respecting the Messiah is expressed by Trypho in Justin Martyr. "We all expect that the anointed one will be a man sprung from men, and that Elias will anoint him."+ His divinity and eternal pre-existence are pronounced foolishness by the same speaker. The oldest Targums have nothing different * Hora Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ, Vol. II. pp. 8, 16. Ibid. p. 233. from this no assertion of his superhuman dignity. That of Jonathan on Isaiah vii. 14, Micah v. 1, 2, is silent respecting his birth from a virgin. On Isaiah ix. 6, the words of it probably mean: "he takes the law upon him to keep it; and his name is called before him whose counsel is wonderful, the mighty God continuing for ever; Messiah, whose peace will come upon us fully in his days." According to the paraphrast, the appellation "mighty God" belongs to the subject naming, not to the person named. At the time of Christ, Jewish ideas of the Messiah presented a threefold form. There was first, the ordinary characteristic of the prophetic writings, according to which he was a king of David's line, the conqueror of the Gentiles and righteous ruler of all peoples. This is the view of the Talmud. The second was the Danielic form, in which Messiah was a superhuman being, heavenly as well as earthly. This appears in apocalyptic literature, not in the Talmud. Thirdly, the Mosaic form (founded upon, but not meant by, the words of the reputed writer Moses), according to which Messiah was the great prophet like unto Moses (Deut. xviii. 15). All who regarded the law as the sacred book par excellence and the exclusive source of divine doctrine, adopted this idea, among whom was Philo and probably most Alexandrians. We can scarcely suppose that a fourth modification of Messianic belief existed in the apostolic period, else we should add the mystical-Mosaic type by which Messiah was identified with the first man Adam, re-appearing as the restorer of Paradise. This occurs in some Jewish writings. There is also a faint echo of it in the Clementine Homilies belonging to the latter half of the second century.* The result of our examination of the post-biblical Jewish writings agrees with that of the biblical ones. The Messiah whom prophets looked for as the deliverer of the nation and poets described in ideal colours, the future restorer of the theocracy in its highest perfection and widest extent, was a king. Following out the hints given in the book of Daniel, some later Jews conceived that he was concealed with the Father, existing before his appearance to men, the Lord and Judge of all. Highest of the creatures of God, * See Homil. iii. 20; Epiphanius Adv. Hæres. xxx. p. 409, ed. Migne. he was the divine representative, enthroned in surpassing dignity. Sometimes, again, he was considered a great prophet, the instructor of the peoples; or the true Adam, re-appearing to bring back the paradisiacal state. It is impossible to discover a distinct vestige of the belief among the Jews that he was God or truly divine. None supposed that he was to be of the same or similar substance with the Father.* Why? Because it was contrary to their monotheism. And we are safe in asserting, that no modern Jew interprets the Old Testament in a sense involving the divinity of Messiah's person. Both learned critics and plain readers of the Bible belonging to the race of Abraham are agreed on the point. Far be it from us to say that they are influenced by theological prepossessions in this matter that their rejection of Jesus Christ and their aversion to Christianity lead them to take such view of their Messiah. With some it may be a motive; of scholars and critics it can hardly be predicated. As far as Jews are honest interpreters of their own records, they are the best judges of the question, and their voice is unanimous. Differences of belief they have in relation to the interpretation of Messianic passages, some thinking that the Old Testament has no personal Messiah, while others suppose that the ideal hopes and longings of seers for a great deliverer were destined not to be fulfilled; but all agree in this, that no prophet or writer dreamt of a person really divine as their Saviour. The Messiah was a created being, neither angel nor spirit nor God, having a nature essentially human. It has been supposed that the Word of Jehovah (p "), in the Targums or Jewish paraphrases of the Old Testament, is identical with the Messiah; and therefore the expression has been used for doctrinal purposes. But the alleged identity is baseless. The later Jews were indisposed to represent God as a direct agent in the external world, which led to the conception of a mediative element between the finite and infinite. This was His Word, the expression of His will. Accordingly, where the Old Testament speaks of Jehovah's operations, the Word is employed. The Word of Jehovah is nothing more than Jehovah Himself, His will going forth into action, His self-revealing agency. *opolovσios or ouoovoios, the former semi-Arian, the latter Athanasian, in the phraseology of Christian history. |