Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Sharon, Moshe, Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Interaction and Conflict, Johannesburg: SNAP Print, 1989, p.105-155. CHAPTER FOUR THE MESSIANIC IDEA By Messianism, we mean that part of religious thought which deals with the concept of the “End of Days.” This is the time when God will establish the ideal world order. Unlike the existing world, which has a time limit and a fixed duration, the ideal world order will come at the end of time, will not be subject to the notion of time, and as such will be both final and eternal. In all the three religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the ideal world order is God’s order, and its timing and exact nature will be decided by Him. Yet in all the three religions God implements the ideal order through a divinely elected person. This person is the Messiah. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam use the same term to designate the Messiah, naturally with a slight variation in the pronunciation of the original Hebrew term. In Hebrew the term is mashīyaḥ, in Arabic masīḥ and the European languages have “Messiah” or a very similar word, according to the particular phonetics of each language. Christianity and Islam have also other names for the Messiah, which shall presently be discussed. However, beyond the usage of a similar name, it is the nature and function of the Messiah about which the three religions are in complete disagreement with each other. Messianism is an admission of failure. The Messianic idea is born when a religion concedes that it did not achieve its goals in the existing reality; and so as not to leave the believers hopeless and helpless, it envisages a world to come where, and when unachieved goals will finally be attained in their perfect form. The exact character of this world-to-come depends on the nature of each particular religion and on its historical development. Judaism originally had no Messianic ideology whatsoever. As a system of law restricted to one people, Judaism was interested in the implementation of this law and in its practice in this world. The most sublime idea of Judaism is that Israel should be a holy people: “You should be holy because I, the Lord your God, am Holy” (Lev. 19:2). According to Judaism, holiness can only be achieved through practice and the strict adherence to God’s ordinances, law, and statutes. Only living people in this world can keep God’s commandments and strive for holiness. The God of Israel needs his servants, the people of Israel, to glorify Him in His world. He is neither interested in the dead nor in a world to come but in the current reality. The Psalmist makes this point abundantly clear: God must be praised by the works of His hands: the forces of nature as well as the living creatures, human beings included: Praise ye Him all His angels; Praise ye Him all His hosts; Praise ye Him sun and moon; Praise Him, all ye stars of light; Praise Him ye heavens of heavens and ye waters that are above the heavens ..... Praise the Lord from the earth..... Fire and hail; Snow and vapor, Stormy wind fulfilling His word; Mountains and all hills; fruitful trees and all cedars; Beasts and all cattle; creeping things and flying fowl; Kings of the earth, and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth; Both young men and maidens; Old men and children. Let them praise the name of the Lord; for His name alone is excellent; His glory is above the earth and heaven; He also exalteth the horn of His people, The praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto Him. Praise ye the Lord (Psalm 148). It is evident that the reality of this world is God’s Kingdom; this is the ideal place where he can and should be worshipped. “While I live I praise the Lord. I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being” (Psalm 146:2). And then in the clearest terms possible the Psalmist declares: “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. But we will bless the Lord from this time forth and forever more” (Psalm 115:17-18). In Biblical thought, God’s Kingdom in this world is portrayed in close connection with Israel - God’s subjects and servants. The Kingdom or kingship of the Lord can find expression only because living Israel, in the full historical, material, and concrete sense of the word has made God her supreme King and Lord. “Thou hast enthroned the Lord this day to be thy God... And the Lord hath enthroned thee to be his peculiar people” (Deuteronomy 26:17-18) (This translation differs from the King James Version because of one key Hebrew word “he˒emarta” translated as “avowed” but which actually means to enthrone, to make a ruler, to regard as a lord. ) In this statement the stress is on the word “this day.” In the Talmud, God’s emphasis on the reciprocity between His choice of Israel to be His own holy people and Israel's choice of God to be their only God is connected with this world. God is made there to say to Israel: “You have made Me unto a distinct unit in the world and I shall make you unto a distinct unit in the world as well.” (Bab. Talmud, Berakhot, 6a). The Biblical idea of reward and punishment is also connected with this world. The worst punishment for the individual is death and nothing beyond that (cf., Ezekiel 18). It is precisely because the Bible does not know about anything beyond reward and punishment in this world, that its major moral dilemma centres on the question: Why are the wicked successful while the righteous suffer? And the Psalmist asks: “Lord how long shall the wicked How long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they utter and speak hard things, And all the workers of iniquity boast themselves... They slay the widow and the stranger, And murder the fatherless. Yet they say the Lord shall not see...” (Psalms 94:3-7) The whole book of Job deals with the question of God’s justice in this world. Had the notion of the world-to-come already existed in Biblical thought, such a problem would have been superfluous. Both Christianity and Islam were never really bothered with the question of the current success of the wicked and the misery of the righteous. In both these religions, God’s final reckoning was still to come on the final Day of Judgment, when divine justice would finally be administered. But for the biblical man this notion of judgment in the obscure future did not really exist. If divine justice cannot be seen, then this divine justice should be questioned as Job does bitterly: “As God liveth, who hath taken away my right, and the Almighty who hath vexed my soul”. (Job 27:2) For Job, like the Psalmist, cannot understand “Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea are mighty in power?” (Job 21:7) It is therefore not surprising to read the pessimistic view of Ecclesiastes: “What profit hath a man of all his labour Which he taketh under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:3) “That which is crooked can not be made straight; and that which is lacking cannot be numbered (Ibid. 1:15)”. Nature was created to exist, and in the same way that there is a repetition in the movement of the forces of nature; the rising and setting of the sun, the blowing of the wind and flowing of rivers, so also is there the movement of the generations of man. “One generation passeth away and another generation cometh”. And if you come to think of the possibility of the end of time, the end of this earth and its replacement by “a new earth and a new heaven,” Ecclesiastes makes it clear that “the earth abideth forever.” (Ibid. 1:4-5). The idea that human life begins and ends only within the framework of this world, and that life finally terminates in death after which there is nothing, is a recurring element in the Bible and Ecclesiastes elucidates this idea as follows: “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts. Even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth so dieth the other; yea they have all breath, so that a man hath no preeminence above the beast, for all is vanity” (Ibid. 3:19). Ecclesiastes was not an atheist – such an idea as the non-existence of God hardly occurred to man in ancient times. One is demanded to fear God in heaven and to remember that God is the source of everything which is done “under the sun…” Ecclesiastes “beheld all the works of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun, because though man labor to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further, though a wise man thinks to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it” (Ibid. 8:17). The emphasis here, and in other Biblical passages, is on the remoteness of God, and on man having to cope with whatever there is “under the sun.” It is “under the sun” that one is promised reward and punishment, and these are described in material terms: riches, health, peace, abundance: “And it shall come to pass, if thou shall hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth; and all these blessings shall come on thee and overtake thee if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the city and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy ground and the fruit of thy cattle... Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.(Deut. 28:1-6) And vice versa: punishment, sickness, poverty, death, destruction, war and exile. “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God... that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city and cursed shalt thou be in the field... Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out… etc.( The whole list of curses, much longer than the blessings. Ibid. 28:15-68). To summarize: In the Hebrew Bible there is little mention of the World to Come, the Day of Judgment and the End of Days. Israel's prophets describe, however, a future world of peace, harmony, and reconciliation, which does not necessarily entail a universal upheaval. Even the words of Malachi about “the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Malachi, 3:23 = KJ 4:5) should not be understood out of context of the certainty of the changing of the world into a better one. The closest ideas of what might represent the End of Days appear in Daniel's visions (Daniel 7) which represent the Exilic or post-Exilic period. In the Biblical world of concrete reality, Messianic thought is also concrete and well defined and has to do with the main subject of the Bible, the people of Israel. The story of the creation forms the framework for the part played by the covenantal people in history. History, law, prophetic messages, poetry, and wisdom in the Bible originate from, and concentrate on Israel. The law was given to be kept by the people of God and whatever befell them throughout history was the direct outcome of their following or rejecting this law. The worst of all punishment for not behaving as a holy nation was the loss of kingdom and sovereignty, followed by exile and dispersion. It follows that the Messianic idea in Judaism is also connected with Israel. It is as tangible as Israel's history. For the Jews, the Messiah is a real person with a specific function. He is a member of a definite family – the offspring of the House of David. His functions are mainly national and political, though governed by the highest moral ideals. The Jewish Messiah guided and helped by God, will gather the exiles, build again Israel’s sovereignty in the Land of Israel, and establish the divine rule of Justice in Israel forever. There is nothing supernatural about this Messiah even if His achievements could only be accomplished with God’s help. It is also evident that, although he has a universal function, this function is not his main one. He is a human leader of a defined origin; he comes from Israel, for Israel, and for Israel alone. The prophetic view of this Messiah of Israel and of his times is, that once his major goal was achieved, a new world would emerge – an ideal world of peace, justice and happiness. However, two points should be clarified: the first is that this world of justice and peace is not a new world but the existing world, elevated to an ideal level; and the second is that on the universal level, the establishment of the ideal order is not the function of Israel’s Messiah, but the responsibility of God himself. Isaiah, (and Micah) makes this point very clear in what is probably one of the most famous prophecies about what may be called the Messianic Age. (The expression which Isaiah uses is “the last days.”): “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord” (Isaiah 2:2-5). No human tongue could have created with such controlled eloquence and depth of beauty, a more profound truth, a brighter hope and a more confident faith in the future. Yet, this hopeful future for the world lies in the hands of the Creator alone. I mentioned above that the messianic idea was born out of failure. Israel lost her land and independence, her centre of worship and her base of normal national life. The prophets attributed Israel’s misfortune to the moral failure of the nation’s past, but they also made it clear that Israel can only assume its position in the scheme of divine history through political and national redemption. This Messianic idea of a pure national character has remained with Judaism to this very day, although through the ages it was supplemented by some universal elements, which originated in the post-Biblical period, relating to the resurrection and divine Judgment at the End of Days. The political nature of Jewish Messianism is best represented in the words of Isaiah, who calls the Persian King, Cyrus (Koresh), “the Messiah of the Lord” because he was responsible for the re-establishment of Israel’s nationhood after the first exile to Babylon, and indirectly for the building of the second Temple. “Thus saith the Lord to His Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held to subdue nations before him... I will go before thee... and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that you mayest know that I, the Lord, who call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake and Israel my elect, I have called thee by thy name; I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me” (Isaiah 45:1-4). In the last verse of the previous chapter, Isaiah in God’s words says: “(The Lord) who saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built and to the temple, Thy foundations shall be laid” (Ibid. 44:28). The use of the term “God’s shepherd” for Cyrus as well the title “Messiah” are natural for the prophet. He interprets the national redemption of Israel at Cyrus’s initiative as an expression of the divine plan and the divine will, of which Cyrus, who does not know the God of Israel, is the instrument. The King James version of the Bible does not use in this case the term “Messiah” for the Hebrew mashiyaḥ, but correctly translates it into the English “anointed,” which is the exact and original Hebrew meaning of the word. The word mashiyaḥ which received a mystical nature in its later development in Judaism and especially in Christianity, originally meant a person or even a vessel or structure, anointed with holy ointment (mishḥat qodesh). The anointed object was thus rendered holy and consecrated for the divine service. The idea behind the anointment is that the anointed person (and object) was at the same time elected by God and dedicated to him. Thus, when Aaron and his sons were selected as priests, Moses was ordered; “And thou shall anoint them and consecrate them, and sanctify them and they may minister unto me in the priest’s office (my italics, MS) (Ex. 28:41). “And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him to sanctify him” (Lev. 8:12). Along these lines, the priests are “the anointed priests” and when Moses set up the tabernacle he “anointed it and sanctified it, and all the instruments thereof, both the altar and all the vessels thereof, and he had anointed them and sanctified them” (Num. 7:1). The king of Israel was also anointed and consecrated for his office. The anointment of the king gave his office a sacred legitimacy and for this reason he was called “the anointed king.” This is also the term by which the Jewish Messiah is known – ha-melekh ha-mashiyaḥ – the anointed King – “the King the Messiah.” In the tradition concerning King Saul, Samuel is ordered “and thou shalt annoint him to be captain over my people, Israel...” (1 Sam. 9:16); and thereafter “Then Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it upon his head and kissed him and said, is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?” (1 Sam. 10:1). However, the real anointed king of Israel and symbol of Israel's kingship for all time, was David, the son of Jesse. His anointment consecrated him and his house as the divinely elected leaders of Israel and thus, David’s kingdom is regarded as eternal. Judaism believed, during the course of history, that the rule of David had terminated but that this termination was temporary. At the end, “…there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of his roots” (Isaiah 11:1), who will be the anointed king, the Messiah of Israel. Because Judaism and Christianity grew from the same stem, they could never envisage the Messiah in anything but Davidic terms. Although Christianity was founded on the idea of the sonship of Jesus and of his divine nature, it could not disregard the obligation to stress the Messiah’s lineage from the House of David. Therefore, Jesus, the earthly Messiah, possesses a genealogy which makes him the offspring of David and as such qualifies him to be “King of the Jews” and the anointed one of the house of David (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-32). In Jesus’ activities among his Jewish brethren, his Messianic message complied with the basic Jewish concept of the Messiah’s identity. This is why it was so simple for the compilers of the Gospels to interpret a large number of the prophetic verses appearing in the Old Testament as applying to Jesus. It is the Hebrew term, mashiyaḥ, Messiah, the anointed one, in its Jewish context, that became the name, symbol, and the main designation of Jesus in all languages. However, the European languages adopted the Greek translation Christos (Χριστὸς. Latin Christus) which literally means “anointed.” We shall come back to the Christian Messianic ideology later; the reference to the subject at this point was only made in connection with the identity of the Messiah in Judaism. Talmudic and post Talmudic literature refers to the future Messiah and the redeemer of Israel simply as the “son of David” (ben david) and it was by this straightforward designation that he came to be accepted by the people of Israel through the ages. A popular song, sung during or after the Sabbath meal has the verse: “The son of David Thy servant Will come and deliver us Our breath of life he is The anointed one of the Lord.” The Jewish idea of the existence of a divinely chosen family destined to rule the people of God forever, also entered into Islam. But, unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam naturally stressed the divine election of Muḥammad’s and not David’s family. Islam was born independently of Judaism and of Christianity, and although influenced by them, it is distinct in every respect because of its fully independent Arab character. The idea of a divinely chosen family, destined to rule over the community of the believers by the grace of God, was happily incorporated into Islam, especially into Shī˓ite Islam. However, the identity of the David’s family could not comply with the Arab origin of Islam. The Prophet Muḥammad recognized David as a prophet to whom the Zabūr (probably a term denoting the Psalms) was revealed (Qur˒ān 4 :163; 17:55), and also as a ruler to whom God gave the wisdom to judge justly (Ibid 38:26). He also had a notion of the Messianic function attributed to the of David’s prominent family. However, the Messianic idea in the Qur˒ān together with the term ‘messiah’ – masīḥ in Arabic – are reserved solely for Jesus and understandably so, for this is the term by which Jesus was known by the Hebrew, Aramaeic and Arabic speakers in the east (mashiyaḥ, mshīḥah, masīḥ). The Messianic ideology is far less pronounced in everyday Judaism than it is in Christianity. In Judaism the Messianic theme is an existing undercurrent, but in Christianity it is a living credo, expressed by the usage of the originally Greek term christos (Christ) for Jesus and for the faith itself. We must bear in mind another factor in this context, which may have influenced the Islamic concept of David’s family. After conquering Babylonia (Iraq), the Muslims came into contact with an actual descendant of the House of David, who was known as the Head of the Diaspora (Aramaic: resh galūtha). The Muslims were extremely impressed by the reverence in which the Jews held the Head of the Diaspora. The Shī˓ah, the Islamic party which insisted that the rule in Islam could only be held by certain members of Muḥammad’s family, must have been influenced by the fact that the family of another prophet, David, was ruling over the Jewish community. Whether further influenced by the Jewish Messianic function of the “son of David,” or not, the Shī˓ah developed its Messianic idea essentially along the same lines. The Messiah, the godly guided one (not the anointed!) – the mahdī – is a descendent of Muḥammad, from the offspring of his son-in-law and first cousin ˓Alī. In some variations, Sunnite Islam shares the same Messianic idea with Shī˓īte Islam. The major difference between the two is that whereas the mainstream in the Shī˓ah identifies the mahdī-Messiah with a certain real and definite person, the Sunnite tradition says only that he will be from the family of Muḥammad, he will have Muḥammad’s name and his father will also be called by the name of Muḥammad’s father. Sunnite Messianism thus seems to oscillate between two ideas, one which regards Jesus as the future Messiah, and the other which attributes this function to a member of the Prophet's family, being the chosen family, similar to the Davidic family. We have already seen that the Jewish Messianic idea is primarily concerned with the political redemption of Israel. The function of the son of David will be to renew the kingdom of David. Yet, already in the Bible, Israel’s redemption has universal implications which were best described by Isaiah, when he connected the reestablishment of Israel on its land, with the universal knowledge of the God of Israel. Isaiah actually describes Messianic times, when the most sublime ideal will be attained – universal peace. Peace among nations, peace among men, peace in nature when the wolf will dwell with the lamb and the leopard with the kid, and the “lion shall eat straw like the ox.” There will be no evil and no injustice because the world will be filled with “the knowledge of God as the water cover the sea”. (Isaiah 11:110). This idea of universal peace and justice, however, was understood in Judaism as dependent on the main function of the Messiah, the rebuilding of Israel's nationhood. For this reason, when Maimonides defined Israel's Messianic concept he tended to minimize its universal implications. True to his systematic and logical thinking Maimonides wrote: The King the Messiah will appear and will bring back the kingdom of David as it was in the past and as this rule was at the beginning. He will build the Temple and will gather the scattered people of Israel; and all the laws will be reinstituted in his time, just as they were at the beginning... And whosoever does not believe in him or does not anticipate his coming denies not only the rest of the prophets but also denies the whole Torah and Moses our master... And you should not think that the King-Messiah must make wonders and miracles or create new things in the world or resurrect the dead or similar matters. It is not so... And it should not be thought that during the time of the Messiah the usual conduct of the world will change, or that something new will be added to the existing creation. But the world will continue to behave in the usual way. And that which is said in Isaiah that the wolf will dwell with the lamb and the leopard will lie down with the kid is only a parable and a riddle. The meaning of it is that the people of Israel will live securely with the wicked of the heathen people who are likened to a wolf and a leopard... And that all of them will return to the religion of truth, and they will not commit anymore either robbery or destruction... and so also other things which are mentioned in relation to the Messiah, they are only parables... The sages said “There is nothing which differentiates the present world from the times of Messiah but the oppression of (Israel by other) nations... And there are sages who say that before the advent of the Messiah, Elijah will come, but all these things and similar ones, nobody will know how they are going to be until they actually happen. Because the issues involved are obscure in the prophets’ works; and the sages have no certified tradition concerning them... The sages and the prophets, when they express their eagerness for the Messianic times, do not do so because they want to rule over the world or because they want to suppress the heathens, and not because they wish to be exalted over the other nations, and not because they want to eat and drink and enjoy themselves; but because they want to be free for the Torah and its wisdom...” (Maimonides (Rambam) Mishne Torah, Shofṭīm, hilkhot melakhīm, ch. 11-12). The national, practical nature of Jewish Messianism has had great relevance in Jewish history. The longer the expulsion lasted from the ancient land, the longer and wider the Diaspora stretched, the deeper and more important the belief in the KingMessiah became in Jewish thought and belief. The more their general conditions seemed hopeless, and the possibility of their achieving nationhood and sovereignty remote, the more the Jews clung to the certainty of the eventual coming of the King Redeemer who would, with God’s help, accomplish their national aspirations to the last detail. If one looks for one single reason for the continued existence of the Jewish people under the most unfavorable conditions throughout history, there can hardly be a question that it was this unique Messianic hope. It is, therefore, understandable that when Maimonides listed the thirteen Articles of Faith for Judaism, he included the belief in the certainty of the advent of the Messiah as one of these Articles of Faith. Every morning throughout the ages every Jew has said: “I believe, with complete faith, in the coming of the Messiah, and, though he tarry, I will wait daily for his coming”. (Hertz, Daily Prayer Book p. 255) This daily waiting for the Messiah gave the Jews unusual strength of endurance and vitality. But from time to time, especially in periods of great suffering, persecution and slaughter, when it seemed that the cup of sorrow was already full to its brim, adventurers and dreamers would appear on the scene claiming Messianic power and leading the poor and desperate people to yet another depth of disappointment and despair. Mystics would indulge in calculating the date for the Messianic appearance, sowing false hope, and augmenting the suffering. The false “Messiah” who caused the greatest upheaval in the Jewish world and whose activity resulted in the worst disillusionment in modern times was Shabtai Tzvi (1626-1678). Between 1656 and 1666, he was active as a “messiah” among the Jews of the Ottoman Empire, arousing tremendous hope among the Jews all over Europe as well. He called himself the anointed king and signed his letters to the various Jewish communities as the Messiah, causing hundreds of people to dispose of their possessions in anticipation of being gathered to the land of their Forefathers through the miraculous working of the Messiah. After arousing such unusual hopes he ended his career in failure and humiliation. “Given the choice by the Turkish authorities between martyrdom and conversion, the Messiah chose in 1666 conversion to Islam, and ended his days as minor functionary in the sultan's palace... The Shabtai Tzvi affair had a destructive impact on the Jewish communities on the Ottoman Empire” as well as in Europe. However, remnants of his followers continued existing for some time, keeping alive a Messianic ideology connected with his name. (See B. Lewis, The Jews of Islam, 146-147). Every failure of this kind, strengthened in Judaism the power of the established rabbinical leadership, with the understanding that in God’s good time when the Messiah appears there will be no question as to his identity or to his true power. The practical, national, and political functions of the Messiah developed in the strictly pious Jewish circles an ideology of complete political quietism. If the redemption of Israel can be achieved only when the Messiah comes, then any Jewish political or military action, aiming at the re-establishment of the Jewish independence and national sovereignty, should be regarded as interference with God’s plans, even a rebellion against Him. This is why in our own days there are quite large sections in Orthodox Jewry who regard Zionist political activity and the establishment of the State of Israel as a revolt against God. Moreover, in their opinion the establishment of a man-made, modern, secular state in which the laws of the Torah are not strictly kept, only prevents the true Messianic redemption from occurring, as if modern Israel stands as a stumbling block between the Jewish people and the true Messianic age. Although Maimonides describes the Messianic times as being utterly normal and interprets the prophetic vision of the ideal world as an allegory, Jewish tradition in the post Biblical period has gone into much detail in describing the conditions and the circumstances surrounding the appearance of the “son of David.” It was envisaged that the Messiah’s coming would happen either in a generation of sin or in a generation of righteousness. (Bab. Talmud, Sanhedrin, 98a). The usual view is that the advent of the Messiah will be preceded by times of moral deterioration, suffering, and bloodshed. The generation in which the son of David comes: young men will humiliate their elders and the elders will give respect to young men; daughters will rebel against their mothers and daughters-in-law- will rebel against mothers-in-law: and even the leaders of the generation will be shameless... Rabbi Isaac says: “The son of David will come only after the whole world has become completely blasphemous.” “The son of David will come,” another tradition says, “only when money will not be available, and everybody will despair of redemption.” “In the generation of the advent of the son of David, scholars will be few in number, and those who remain will experience unhappiness, and calamities will follow one another; before the first one ends a new one will come to pass.”(Ibid. 97a). The necessity for the deterioration of the world before the coming of Messiah became an accepted feature of Messianic times, not only in Judaism but also in Christianity and Islam. Since Messianic expectation has been an easy escape from a miserable present, misery and moral degradation acquired a value of their own in Messianic thought and became a necessary antecedent to the advent of the Messiah. Judaism calls pre-Messianic times ḥevle mashiyaḥ, Messiah’s pangs, or ḥevle ge˒ulla - pangs of redemption (Ibid. 98b). Probably Judaism developed out of this belief the idea of the appearance of two Messiahs, one the Messiah son of Joseph (ben Yosef) and the other son of David. The dualism of Israel’s history represented in the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah, explains the need to have two Messiahs corresponding to the two kingdoms. The Jewish Messianic idea originating finally in the tradition of Judah turned the first Messiah, the “son of Joseph” into the unsuccessful Messiah who would be killed in the great war of Gog and Magog, after which, the Messiah, son of David, would come with the final redemption. In Christianity and in Islam, as we shall presently see, the pre-Messianic tribulations are connected with the rule of the anti-Christ, the embodiment of evil ruling over a world which had deteriorated to the lowest degree of evil and misery. The anti-Christ is called in the Islamic tradition al-masīḥ ad-dajjāl, meaning “the false Messiah” or the “impostor Messiah”, who would eventually be killed by Jesus at the gates of Lydda (according to one tradition). All these tradition have one element in common, that of the necessity of evil before the final victory of eternal good. What is the connection between the Messianic times and the End of Days? As we have already seen, the idea of the End of Days, or the Day of Judgment has no clear pre-exilic Biblical origin. In post-exilic and post-Biblical literature, however, the notion of the resurrection on the final Day of Judgment was developed into an article of faith in Judaism. When Maimonides wrote the 13 articles of faith for Judaism, he defined the thirteenth article as follows: “I believe with perfect faith that there will be a revival of the dead at the time when it shall please the Creator, blessed be his Name and exalted be his fame for ever and ever.” (Hertz, op. cit. p.255) The notion of the resurrection or the quickening of the dead (Heb. teḥiyyat hammetim) in Judaism as well as in Islam (Ar. ba˓th) is connected with that of the Day of Judgment, “Because the man cannot receive the requital of his deeds while he is still in a state of death, the time of resurrection must be the time for the judgment (Heb. y m haddīn)” (Geiger, Judaism and Islam, 53-54). In the Talmud, resurrection is a highly important principle, and the Talmudic scholars made a heroic effort of homiletic exegesis to prove that the notion of resurrection exists in the Torah (Bab. Talmud, 92b). They had no difficulty in finding proof for it in the Book of Daniel where post-exilic mysticism reached an exceptionally high level of development. Daniel's vision of the end of time attracted both Jewish and Christian “reckoners of the End of Days,” eschatologists, (mehashshve qizzim), who tried to interpret his cryptic language in order to calculate the time of the Messiah (or the second coming of Christ). The passage in Daniel, in which the resurrection and the final divine reckoning are connected with each other, is of essential importance for the sages of the Talmud: “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2) “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the End of Days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.” (Ibid. 12:13; Bab. Talmud Sanhedrin, 92a). The advent of Messiah, however, is not necessarily concurrent, in Judaism, with the Day of Judgment or the resurrection. The Messiah comes to a specific living generation. The Talmudic tradition makes this point very clear when, by way of a homiletic interpretation of three verses (Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 7:13-14), it states that the Messiah’s method of appearance depends on the generation which will exist in his time. If the people of Israel are worthy, the Messiah will come riding on the clouds of heavens (in accordance with Daniel's vision) and if they are unworthy, he will come riding on a donkey (according to Zechariah's vision Bab. Talmud, Ibid, 98a). It seems that the function of the Messiah is not only to bring redemption to Israel, but also to prepare them, and probably also the rest of the world, for the World to Come (˓olām habbā) (Ibid. 99a) which apparently follows the Day of Judgment. To sum up: in Judaism, the Messiah is human, he is the anointed king, a descendant of David, chosen and guided by God, whose main function is to gather the exiles of Israel and re-establish David’s kingdom on the firm basis of God’s laws. He will not perform any miracles, but God will change the world in his time and turn it into a world of peace and justice. The Messiah will come at a time of turbulence, moral degradation, and degeneration, and will prepare the nation of Israel and the world for the World to Come and God’s final judgment. Unlike Judaism and Islam, messianism in Christianity is not just one component of the religion, it is the religion itself. Christianity revolves around Christ, it is named after Christ, and its whole theology is centred on his life and death, his resurrection and reappearance. Although strictly speaking Messianic thought in Christianity can be limited to the reappearance of Christ, it is impossible to understand the notion of the reappearance without his Messianic message during his lifetime. Because although Christianity identifies Christ with God in the mystery of the Holy Trinity, it is impossible not to perceive that Christ in the Gospels, in the Acts of the Apostles and in the mystery of the Revelations, has a distinct personality which could easily lead less sophisticated minds to regard him completely separate from the Father. For on earth, Jesus addressed himself to his Father in heaven, most probably, in the usual Jewish metaphoric way. From this point of view, his Jewish listeners could see nothing unusual in the fact that he referred to God as his father. Throughout the ages the Jews refer to God in many prayers as the “Our Father in heaven, or Our Father our King.” Jesus himself says in the Beatitudes (according the Matthew): “Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9) And in another place he is reported to have said: that in order “that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in heaven” you shall love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. (Ibid. 5:44-45 and also Luke 6:35). There is no question that in these words Jesus only echoes terminology used by his fellow Jews. The special feature of Jesus’ activity among the Jews was the fact that he presented himself as the Messiah, the son of God. But even claim such as this would not have been considered strange to his contemporaries and definitely should not have been regarded as blasphemous. According to Matthew, the High Priest asked Jesus if he was “the Messiah (Christ), son of God” and Jesus answered “Thou hast said” which for the speakers of Hebrew or Aramaic in those days would mean “Yes.” Luke reports that he gave the Sanhedrin more or less the same answer when he was asked a similar question (Luke 22:70). In Mark’s tradition it is reported that the Sanhedrin asked Jesus “Art thou the Messiah (Christ), the son of the Blessed? and Jesus said: I am” (Mark 14:61-62). Mark being the oldest of all the three Synoptic Gospels, most probably gives the more accurate version. At any rate, the usage of “Son of God” or “Son of the Blessed” (probably, the translation of the Hebrew expression “The Holy Blessed be He”), would not have been understood that Jesus meant that he was the Son of God in some physical sense. His expression in the Jewish context would be that he regarded himself to be the Messiah, the anointed, the son whom God elected in order to bestow on him His spirit and love. These notions were very compatible with the way in which the Messiah was envisaged by the Jews at the time of Jesus, before it, and after his death. Did Isaiah not speak about God’s servant, of whom God says: “Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth, I have put My Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth Justice unto the nations” (Isaiah 42:1) And even more explicitly, when the Psalmist speaks about “God and his Messiah,” God seems to say to the latter: “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.” (Psalms 2:7) The usage of this language by Jesus, as Judge H. Cohen proved, could not have been regarded in any way as a blasphemy. And if Jesus was questioned either by the Sanhedrin or the High Priest, and answered in the way he is reported to have answered, then he could not be condemned for blasphemy. Moreover, when Jesus used the term “Son of Man” who will appear sitting “on the right hand of power” or God’s power (“and coming in the clouds of heaven”) (Matthew 26:64), he was in fact quoting Daniel 7:13, and most probably in the original Aramaic. In his book The Trial and Death of Jesus of Nazareth, Judge H. Cohen examined the Christian tradition about the various stages of Jesus’ trial in great detail. He shows that the story of the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus to death on the grounds of an accusation of blasphemy is absolutely impossible, because there was no blasphemy in any of the things Jesus claimed or said. The Jewish law is very clear about what blasphemy or false prophethood is, and Jesus broke no law in both cases. He never cursed God, spelling out the Divine Name as the law demands in such a case. Likewise, he never incited his fellow Jews to become idolaters. Since Jesus did not commit any of these crimes, the Sanhedrin could not have sentenced him to death, or to any other punishment. The fact that he called himself a Messiah and that the multitudes, who were suffering under the Roman yoke in those days, followed him as the King-Messiah or the King of the Jews was not a problem for the Sanhedrin. On the other hand, Jesus constituted a problem for the Romans. They could understand his activity only as preparation for a rebellion, and his claim to be the “King of the Jews”, as a clear insult to the Emperor. This can be proved from the fact the Romans wrote on his cross, above his head, the Latin inscription: Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum (acronym INRI, “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews”). It was in full accordance with Roman law which demanded that the crime, for which a criminal was convicted and sentenced to death and hanged or crucified, should be written over the gallows or cross (titulus) (Cohen, Trial, p. 106, note 91). Since there was no crime according to the Jewish law in Jesus calling himself Messiah, identifying himself with the Messianic vision of the prophets and even calling himself the son of God, it is clear that he was neither tried, nor condemned, nor sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin. What did the Sanhedrin and the high priest want from Jesus on the night before Passover, when the Sanhedrin was not allowed to sit in judgment in a trial involving the death penalty? Is it possible, as Judge Cohen shows with unusual depth of legal scholarship, that, knowing that Jesus was about to be brought in front of Pontius Pilate the next morning and charged with attempted rebellion, the Sanhedrin, wanted to save him? This may explain the urgency of the Sanhedrin convening on the busy night before Passover, not in the usual hall of assembly (lishkat haggazit) but in the house of the High Priest. This may also explain the frustration of the High Priest and the rest of the sages when Jesus would not cooperate with them to deny his Messianic claim and to let them try and save him from Pontius Pilate, who was one of the most vicious and bloodthirsty of all Roman governors. Far from being the compassionate judge described in the Gospels, he was portrayed by Philo as “a man with a hard character, who did not feel for others. Cruel, corrupt and ruthless, he used to rob, torture and execute without trial” (Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 55-56). To save a fellow Jew from the hands of a cruel oppressor is regarded as a great deed of righteousness; “You shall not be idle when the blood of your fellow man is in danger,” is an extremely important moral law in Judaism, and the Sanhedrin knew very well what was awaiting Jesus. Neither they, nor anybody else minded Jesus’ strange ways, nor his Messianic ideology. In this regard he was not alone. Times of suffering and external pressure are usually rife with dreamers and Messiahs, people who wish to end human suffering and national humiliation miraculously. The Judean desert, the valley of the Jordan and the caves along the Dead Sea must have been well acquainted with these characters. The fact that Jesus was outspoken might have been annoying, but no more that that. The Sanhedrin was unable to save Jesus and his Messianic activity ended with his crucifixion. If Jesus really tried to explain to Pilate the meaning of his “Kingdom” as John assures us, it seems that Pilate was not convinced by Jesus’ arguments that “I am a king. To this end I was born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witness unto the truth” nor by his saying: “My kingdom is not of this world.” As far as Pilate was concerned, Jesus confessed to his crime of demanding kingship to himself. Unlike in Jewish law, according to which a person cannot be condemned on the basis of his own confession alone, according to Roman law a criminal’s confession is sufficient for conviction (Cohen, op. cit., 111). Jesus’ Messianic activity failed and out of this failure, as we saw in the case of Judaism, the Christian Messianic idea was born. Unlike Judaism whose messianism, as we have already seen, is practical and national, Christian messianism is spiritual and universal. Since Jesus was unsuccessful the first time, the fulfillment of his task is postponed until his second coming. Again, unlike in Judaism, where the coming of the Messiah will not take place at the End of Days neither is it connected with the Day of Judgment, in Christianity, Jesus’ second coming will result in the creation of a new world and as such is part of the End of Days and the final judgment. Under the impression of Daniel’s vision of the End of Days (Daniel 9), Christ's Second Advent is described as being preceded by times of terrible tribulation, suffering, and misery. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus says to his disciples, according to Luke: But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass... Then he said unto them, Nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. And great earthquakes shall be in different places and famines and pestilences and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. (Luke 21:9-11 cf. Matthew 24:4-14; Mark 13:5-13) In the description of the tribulation which precedes the coming of the Messiah, Judaism and Christianity share the same ideas, because they share in this case the same source – the visions of Daniel. A very important sign before the second advent of Christ will be the appearance of many false and deceitful Messiahs. This general idea which Luke’s tradition affirms in speaking of the warning which Jesus addressed to his disciples “Take heed that ye be not deceived” (Luke 21:8), was turned, in Christian messianism, into a very important feature of the Messianic Times. The Second Advent of Christ became almost dependent on the appearance of the Imposter, the Anti-Christ, whose function was to corrupt the world and bring it to the lowest degree of misery, suffering, and moral degradation. The greater the fall is, the surer is the redemption. The Anti-Christ, or the Beast as it is described in Revelation, 13 (identified as the “little horn” of Daniel, 7:24-26) is the instrument of Satan, the “man of sin,” the earth’s most awful tyrant. Christian eschatology, which regards the existence of this abomination to be essential for the final salvation, envisages his end in the great universal battle of Armageddon. There, Christ in his majestic and glorious descent to earth will destroy the Beast’s armies. Once this is achieved, Judgment begins; first that of the Gentiles who will be judged according to their treatment of Christ’s brethren, the Jewish people (Matthew 25:31-36), then follows the judgment of Israel and the millennial reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20:4-6), followed by the Satanic revolt, which ends with Satan’s judgment. Only after this will the time of the final judgment of the wicked arrive, with the destruction of the present earth and heavens by fire, and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth. This is the time when a “new Jerusalem” will be “coming down from God out of heaven prepared as a bride adorned for husband.” (Revelation 21:1-2) It is not difficult to see that the Christian eschatological theory may be divided into two parts, the one leading to the millennial rule of Christ and the second to the eternal “Day of God.” In both parts the main elements are repeated. The millennial rule of Christ is preceded by the universal war against the armies of the “evil one,” the satanic representative, “The Beast,” and the final rule of God is preceded by the revolt of Satan himself. The millennial rule of Christ is preceded by the judgment of the Gentiles and of Israel, and the eternal rule of God is preceded by the final judgment of the wicked. The thousand years of Christ's dominion may be compared to God’s eternal dominion because both represent the ideal world. The main difference between the two stages is that whereas the first, leading to the millennial rule of Christ, represents elements which are less final, in the second all the elements of the vision are final. The rebel in the second stage is Satan himself and the war against him is a cosmic war whereas in the first stage the evil power is only Satan’s representative and the war against the latter is an earthly war. The judgment in the first stage is not final and deals only with Israel and the Gentiles, but the last judgment is final and concerns the wicked in general; it involves the resurrection of the dead to stand for this final judgment. In the first stage Christ rules for a fixed duration, for as long as it may be, over the present world, whereas in the second stage God reigns forever over a new world. The most important feature in this eschatological vision is the part played by Christ. Here again, as during his earthly life, Christ’s activity is independent. As Christ, and not as God, he fights the war at Armageddon, and as Christ he judges, and as Christ he rules for a whole millennium, and as Christ he clears the scene for the final rule of God. The Father and Son mystery of two in one seems to fade away in the crucial parts of Christ’s activity. The Messianic side of Jesus’ figure is so strong that his independent role in past and future history seems to overpower the idea of his divine unity. Incidentally, it is not surprising that during the first 500 formative years of the Church, the emphasis on Jesus’ messianic rather than his divine nature was quite common, especially among Christians in the east, who referred to Mary not as the “Mother of God (theotokos), as the official credo demanded but as the “Mother of Christ” (Christotokos). The Messianic ideology in Christianity may be summed up as follows. During his life Jesus played the part of the Messiah in the Jewish context, and as such, was described by the Gospels as the son of David, anointed son of God and the King of the Jews. His failure and violent death led to the development of the idea of his second coming to accomplish that which he had not succeeded in achieving during his life. And since his earthly life was of a fixed duration, so also would his future messianic function be of fixed duration. And just as during his earthly life he prepared for the Kingdom of Heaven, so also in his future messianic function he will precede the final Kingdom of Heaven. ***When Islam appeared on the scene, Jewish and Christian eschatology’s were already well developed and firmly established. Islam’s eschatology and Messianism reflect both of them. Similar to Judaism and Christianity, the IslamicMessianic idea was born out of failure and despair. The failure in Islam is related to two issues. The first is the failure to impose God’s divine (Islamic) law on the whole world, and the second is the failure to preserve the unity of the Islamic community and its religious-political coherence. The second issue, the failure to preserve Islamic unity, was nearer home and more tangible and as such, of greater significance in the Islamic Messianic theories. The combination of the influence of the Jewish and Christian environment and the independent development of the Islamic polity resulted in uniform Messianic and eschatological theories. To begin with, Islam was born with the idea of the Day of Judgment prominent in Muḥammad’s prophecy. Muḥammad began his prophetic message with the description of the imminent Day of Judgment. The term which he used for this Day was yawm ad-dīn a term which he must have borrowed from the Hebrew (yom haddīn) without even having to translate it. Muḥammad described the Day of Judgment in most alarming language, stressing its impending nature and the unquestionable certainty of its immediate occurrence. The urgency of his message was delivered in short verses which were charged with pathos and emotion and in which he described the crumbling of the world prior to the Judgment: “The striking,” he cried, “What is the striking? And what has let thee know What is the striking? On the day when people shall be like moths scattered And the mountains shall be like carded wool.” (Qur˒ān 101:1-4). Muḥammad proclaimed that on that day, every man will be judged according to his deeds, and will either be rewarded or punished. In the early stages of his prophecy, Muḥammad presented reward and punishment in the simplest terms possible, as we have pointed out in the previous chapter. It is only later that he will have to deal with the problem of the nature of human freedom in relation to God’s unlimited greatness. Although, at the beginning of his prophetic activity, Muḥammad gave the impression that the Day of Judgment was near and impending, he was soon obliged to make it clear that final judgment and the ultimate reward and punishment will be sometime in the future in God’s own good time and subject to His will. Muḥammad stressed the finality of God’s judgment in his vivid portrayal of the nature of the divine reward and punishment: eternal hell will be the abode of the wicked forever and everlasting paradise will be the dwelling place of the righteous for eternity. The wicked and the unbelievers are one and the same when it comes to God’s punishment just as the believers (namely Muslims) and righteous are identical when it comes to God’s reward. In the case of the unbelievers, eternal hell is certain, as surely as paradise is secure for the righteous and believers. Verily those who have disbelieved of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and the polytheists are in the fire of Gehenna to abide therein – they are the worst of Creation. Verily, those who have believed and wrought the works of righteousness are the best of Creation. Their recompense is with their Lord, Gardens of Eden through which the rivers flow, in which to abide forever.” (Ibid. 98:6-8). In the later period of Muḥammad’s career, the same idea appears in its final form with more profound moral depth: Nay those who pile up evil and whose sin encompasses them will be inmates of the Fire therein to abide. But those who have believed and wrought the works of righteousness will be the inmates of the Garden therein to abide.” (Ibid. 2:81-82 = Bell, 2:75-76). The terms used by the prophet for Paradise and Hell are identical with the Hebrew terms, and are directly derived from the Jewish tradition. Geiger has already pointed out more than a hundred and sixty years ago, that in the Bible, the Garden of Eden, (in Arabic: jannāt ˓adan. Ibid. 98:8 = Bell 98:7), was originally a name of a place, a real garden of trees where the first man and the first woman lived a life of bliss. “It is only natural that this earthly region of the Golden Age should by degrees have come to be regarded as Paradise, in that the word itself no longer stands for the name of a place but is applied to a state of bliss; though the Jews still held to Eden as a locality also.” (Geiger, 33). This idea of a physical place of ideal pleasure is stressed in the Qur’ān and is clearly and vividly described. The place were the believers and righteous will be rewarded is “the garden of the pleasure” (jannāt an-na˓īm e.g. Q, 10:9; 22:56). For these are Gardens of Eden with the rivers flowing beneath them in which they (those who have believed and had done the works of righteousness) will be adorned with bracelets of gold and wear green garments of satin and brocade, reclining therein on the couches, a good reward and a good place to lie in.” (Q, 18:30-31) In addition, this Garden has a further pleasure for the men believers: In them are (damsels) of restrained glance, whom deflowered before them has neither man nor jinn … As if they were jacinth and coral...Wideeyed restrained in tents...Reclining upon cushions green, and carpet beautiful… (Full description: Q, 55:46-78). These maidens of paradise are described as the “purified wives” of the righteous (Q, 2:25). Later Islamic literature tells us that two names are written on their breasts, one of the names of Allah and the name of their husband. “When the believer enters paradise, he is welcomed by one of these beings; a large number of them are at his disposal; he cohabits with each of them as often as he fasted days in Ramaḍān and as often as he has performed good works besides. Yet they remain always virgins (Q, 56:36). They are equal in age with their husbands (Interpretation on Q, 38:52; 56:37) namely 33 years” (Shorter Enc of Islam, p. 141, s.v. “ḤŪR”). Although the word ‘Eden’ which was used to describe paradise, passed from Hebrew to Arabic together with the meaning of pleasure and bliss, the detailed, colourful descriptions of the joy of Eden seem to be original. The Christian name “paradise” (from the Greek paradeisos) seldom occurs in the Qur˒ān (e.g. jannāt alfirdaws, Q, 18:107. The word itself was also known to the Jews in the double meaning of a Garden and Paradise (Bab. Talmud, Ḥagīgah, 14b). In the Qur˒ān, the Arabic word for Hell is jahannam. This word was also borrowed from the Hebrew gehinnom. Similar to Eden, Geihinnom in Hebrew is the name of an actual place. It is the name of the valley to the south of Jerusalem in which the idol-worshipping of the Molekh used to take place during the first temple period. The worship of the Molekh consisted of “passing the sons and daughters through the fire” (2 Kings, 23:10). The horror of this idol-worshipping in the “valley of the son of Hinnom” which Jeremiah describes as the place of human sacrifices “burning of their sons and daughters in the fire” (Jeremiah 7:31), led to the usage of the name of this valley to designate Hell. The post-Biblical literature uses this name – Gehinnom – exclusively for Hell, and it passed from the Hebrew into Christianity in the form of Gehenna. The concept of Hell is not well defined in Islam. In one place in the Qur’ān (89:22-23), Hell “is brought” at God’s command by the angels. It seems as if Hell in this case is some kind of a monster ready to devour the wicked. This is the description of the famous 12th century theologian and mystic, al-Gazzālī. He says that upon hearing that God wishes to punish the guilty, the angels go to fetch hell, which allows itself to be led by them. “It walks on four legs each of which is bound by 70,000 rings; on each of them are 70,000 demons each of which is strong enough to rend mountains to pieces.” (Shorter Enc. of Islam, p 81 s.v. “DJAHANNAM”). In the Qur˒ān however, this concept of hell as an animal is not dominant. Muḥammad had a very generalized idea of a place that has seven gates (Q, 15:44); and that Those who have disbelieved will be driven to Gehenna in troops until when they come to it, its gates will be opened and its keepers will say to them: ‘Did not there come to you messengers from among yourselves reciting to you the signs of your Lord and warning you of meeting this day of yours?’... (Q, 39:71). Although the Qur˒ān repeats the idea that both Paradise and Hell are eternal, there is no consistency in the idea of eternal Hell. In one place we are told that the damned shall be cast into the fire “Therein to abide as long as the heavens and the earth remain, except as thy Lord pleaseth” (Q, 11:107). Beyond these fine distinctions, the Qur˒ān makes it clear that as much pleasure there is in store for the righteous in Eden, so there is suffering and torture for the wicked in the fire of Gehenna. These concepts of paradise and hell form an integral part of Muḥammad’s notion of the Day of Judgment. Like Judaism and Christianity in his time, Muḥammad conceived the idea of the judgment of men in their restored physical forms (Q, 10:4). For this reason the Day of Judgment was also seen as the day of resurrection, as well, or in the language of the Qur˒ān, Yawm al-qiyāmah “The day of standing or rising” (Q, 2:85) and yawm al ba˒th - “The day of awakening.” (Q, 30:56). Naturally, the ideas of the Last Day and the divine judgment form an integral part of Islam's eschatology and Messianic thought. Messianic times, with which we shall presently deal, are also the times of the End of Days. The final judgment is only a prelude to the establishment of the ideal Islamic world. Curiously enough, when it comes to the description of the location in which the judgment takes place, the original source of the name of hell comes to mind. As we shall soon see, the main Islamic tradition places the Judgment in Jerusalem and the place into which the wicked fall on their way to Hell is the valley therein. The Messianic notion in Islam developed in two distinctly different directions. The one developed along Christian lines and the other evolved as original ArabIslamic with some Jewish influence. The Islamic eschatology and messianism is further complicated by the major division of Islam into sunnī (incorrectly referred to as “orthodox”) Islam and Shī˓īte Islam, not to mention many subdivisions and offshoots. As far as sunnī Islam is concerned, the Messiah at the End of Days is Jesus, the Son of Mary, who will reappear as the mahdī, God guided Redeemer. Islam’s attitude to Jesus is a combination of Islam's rejections of anything resembling polytheistic association with God and Jesus' special position in the Qur˒ān. He is a prophet and the recipient of the divine revelation and a human, born as a result of a miraculous divine intervention. Jesus is referred to in the Qur˒ān and in Islamic literature as al-masīḥ, “the Messiah.” The word most probably entered into Arabic from Syriac (or Ethiopic), through the mediation of Christian Arabs. Jesus is described as al-masīḥ alone; or as al-mashīh ibn maryam (the Messiah, son of Mary); or in full as al-Masiḥ ‘Īsā ibn Maryam - the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary. The Qur˒ānic name for Jesus is “˓Īsā” which is a rather strange rendition bringing to mind Esau rather than Jeshūa˓ (the Hebrew name of Jesus). It seems that the name ˓Īsā was chosen as a pun on Mūsā (Moses). The use of rhyming in the names of other Biblical personalities is quite common in the Qur˒ān. Thus we find the pair of Hārūn and Qārūn for Aaron and Korah(?), Qābīl and Hābīl for Cain and Abel, Jālūt and Ṭālūt for Goliath and Saul (!) and Hārūt and Mārūt for the names of two angels (Q, 2:102). According to the Qur˒ān, Mary was a virgin who conceived Jesus and gave birth to him as a result of a creative act of God. God created Jesus by directly casting his Word (kalimah) into Mary. This word of Allah is the word “Be” (kun), which causes creation. The Qur’ān says: “Jesus in Allah’s eyes is in the same position as Adam; He created him of dust then said to him “Be” and he is.” (Ibid. 2:59) Jesus is also called “a Spirit from Allah,” for as in Adam’s creation, it was the direct spirit of God that gave Jesus life. According to Islam, the direct divine intervention in Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Jesus’ virgin birth does not mean that Jesus has any divine qualities. Allah decided to create Jesus as a human being in His own way, but this fact does not alter Jesus’ human nature. Right from its very inception, Islam rejected any association of Jesus with God. The Islamic view is that Jesus was the son of Mary, a human born of a human and chosen to be a prophet of Allah and to receive from Him the “Injīl” (the Arabic word for the Gospel, Evangel). Jesus was also a Muslim whose revelation and message was the true word of God and was similar to that of Moses before him and Muḥammad after him. Muḥammad regarded as blasphemy the Christian worship of Jesus as God. Appealing to the Christians on this subject the Qur˒ān says: O People of the Book do not go beyond bounds in your religion, and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is only the messenger of Allah, and His Word which he cast upon Mary, and a spirit from Him; so believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say: ‘Three’ refrain (it will be) better for you: Allah is only One God; glory be to Him (far from) His having a son... The Messiah will not disdain to be a servant of Allah, nor will the angels who stand in His presence.” (Ibid. 4:171-172). Jesus’ special status in relation to God is emphasized by the fact that he was aided by the Holy Spirit, which the later commentators of the Qur˒ān explain was the angel Gabriel. There can be no doubt that the Qur˒ānic term rūḥ (spirit) is the Arabic equivalent of the Christian term “Holy Spirit” which is the direct translation of the Hebrew rūwaḥ ha-qodesh: “... and we gave Jesus, son of Mary, the Evidence and aided him by the Holy Spirit...” (Q,. 2:87) On the question of Jesus’ death the Qur˒ān is very clear. Jesus was neither murdered nor crucified. Allah could not permit such a violent death for His messengers. A messenger of Allah, is protected by Allah, Jesus’ crucifixion is impossible for this reason. There was somebody who bore a resemblance to Christ and that person was crucified but it was not Christ himself. And for their saying: ‘We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah’ though they did not certainly kill him and did not crucify him, but he was counterfeited for them... Nay, Allah raised him to Himself. (Ibid. 4:157) It is clear that although the crucifixion was rejected, the ascension was accepted, not only in spirit but also in the earthly body. Later Islamic tradition describes Jesus as flying around the divine Throne like one of the angels. The Christian concept of the ascension, namely the ascension after death, was clearly expressed in the Qur˒ān where Jesus says: “And peace be upon me the day of my birth, and the day of my death and the day of my being raised alive” (Q, 19:33) Here the term used is not ascension (raf˓ ṣu˓ūd) but rather the proper word for resurrection (ba˓th). The Qur˒ānic review of Jesus may be summarized as follows: Jesus was born as human being, died as human being but was resurrected and ascended in his resurrected body to God. However, in other places, when Jesus’ ascension is mentioned without his death or resurrection, Allah merely says to him: “O Jesus, I am going to bring thy term to an end and raise thee to Myself and purify thee from those who have disbelieved...” (Q,. 3:55). The second coming of Jesus is only mentioned once in the Qur˒ān, in a place where both the reading and the meaning of the text are very doubtful (Q,. 43:61). However, this did not prevent Jesus from assuming a central Messianic role in Islam. Tradition tells us that at the End of Days, he will appear; spear in hand, on the mountains to the east of the Sea of Galilee. At that time the false Messiah, ad-dajjāl, will be ruling the earth and Jesus will meet him at the gates of the city of Lydda and kill him. Having killed the dajjāl Jesus will proceed to Jerusalem at the time of the Morning Prayer and will pray among the rest of the Muslims according to the Islamic law. Thereafter, he will break all the crosses and lay the synagogues and churches in ruins. According to one tradition, by that time all the Jews and the Christians (the “People of the Book”) will believe in him and become part of the great Islamic community. A time of security and happiness for man will follow and Jesus will live for 40 years and then he will die and be buried in Madīnah. It is obvious that elements of the Christian eschatological tradition easily found their way into the Islamic one - especially the role of Jesus in subduing the antiChrist and the fixed duration of Jesus’ rule after his second appearance. In this particular Islamic tradition, the millennium in Christianity was turned into forty years. Owing to the lack of an authoritative Qur˒ānic teaching, the question of Jesus’ functions at the End of Days was left to the imagination of the traditionalists. The question was further complicated as a result of the development of the tradition concerning the other Messianic figure in Islam, the Mahdī. The Mahdī or the divinely guided leader of Islam and the world at the End of Days, is for all purposes an original Islamic figure. In the abundance of traditions which deal with the Mahdī the circumstances of his appearance and his role at the End of Days, it is impossible to differentiate between Jesus and the Mahdī for they appear and act alike. A tradition that put the saying “there is no Mahdī save for Jesus the son of Mary” into the Prophet's mouth, was created for this reason. Taking this confusion into consideration, it is important to discuss the idea of the Mahdī in the context of Islamic Messianism. As observed above, the idea of the Muslim Mahdī was born out of frustration and despair, in a manner similar to that of Judaism and Christianity. Setbacks came after the great religious, military, and political successes of Islam. Every type of setback became a theological problem because Islam regarded success as the proof of its truth. The setbacks which Islam suffered were not only in the military fields but mainly in its internal structure. Ideally, Islam was regarded as a unifying force: One god, one Prophet, one Holy Book, One holy language, and one community (ummah) led by one leader. But the reality was bitterly different. Political and social strife tore Islam apart even before it was really established as a grand state religion. The Muslims, who all prayed in the same direction, turned against each other with sword in hand. The Islamic community lost its unity and succumbed to the fitnah, a word which conveys all the burdens of internal strife and the renting apart of the Muslim community. It was not difficult to see that disunity meant weakness, and that weakness meant the fading away of any hope of making Islam into the sole religion of the world. The cracks in the Islamic structure grew wider as time passed, and the hope for the reunification of Islam and its world rule had to be postponed to the End of Days. Then the Mahdī will appear. According to some traditions, he will bear resemblance to Muḥammad and will even be called Muḥammad, and his father will have the same name as that of Muḥammad’s father. The Mahdī will, therefore, be called Muḥammad the son of ‘Abdallah. The Mahdī’s function (or if the Mahdī is Jesus, it is Jesus’ function) is “to fill the world with justice, as it is now full of tyranny.” Under him, Islam will achieve its goal and will become the only true religion of the world. This notion of the Mahdī contains the view that the Mahdī is an actual human being whose exact identity will be known once he appears. Generally speaking, even Sunnite Islam agrees that the Mahdī will come from the Prophet's clan or family. Here we are on ground which can easily be Jewish, for as we have already pointed out, the prophet’s family was portrayed as a heavenly chosen family which is destined to rule Islam and save it. This is not dissimilar to the family of David, who was chosen to save and to rule Israel. In essence, the Mahdī idea in Islam embodies a very strong political element. An end to internal strife in Islam will come when the Mahdī comes. Just as the Messiah, the Son of David, will gather the children of Israel and rule over them in an excellent world, so will the Mahdī of the Prophet’s family assemble the community of Islam, repair its cracks and rule over it and the world. The universal role of the Mahdī is of great significance in view of Islam’s universal aspirations. He will appear at the End of Time when Islam will deteriorate to its lowest state ever. The Qur˒ān will be forgotten and places of worship will be deserted. Man’s falling away from religion will reach such a point that the end will come, whereupon the Mahdī will appear as the final true “renewer” (mujaddid) of Islam. The eschatological idea of Islamic renewal is connected with the Islamic view of human history. This is pictured in the form of a turning wheel. The highest point on the wheel depicts the ideal generation in which Muḥammad lived and taught. This was the time in which Islam was in its original, fresh, and purest form. After Muḥammad’s death, the wheel of time began to turn. The highest point on the wheel now moved downwards and Islam began to sink lower and lower, and it was bound to reach the lowest point from which there is no way out but through the great upheaval of the End of Days. Since the End of Days was to be preceded by unusual disasters, calamities and suffering, Islam sought to postpone the coming of the End of Days for as long as possible. Islam did this by envisaging the idea of “renewal” (tajdīd). This meant that instead of reaching the End of Days, Islam could begin a new circle of life, by renewing itself and by causing the wheel of Time to revolve to the same position in which it was at the age of the Prophet. However, since Islam cannot achieve such a revolution on its own, a “renewer” is always needed. This is a person who is divinely guided, able to revitalize Islam and again make it central in men’s life and thus lift it up from its state of degeneration. In so doing, the movement towards the End of Time and the Day of Judgment stops, and a new circle in the life of Islam begins. The Muslim traditionalists worked out the length of each cycle of deterioration and renewal and fixed it at one century. The beginning of each Islamic century became the time of Messianic expectations, and the time in which various mahdīs and mujaddids (“renewers”) made their appearance, claiming to have been divinely guided and sent to renew the Muslim’s religion and to save them from the horrors of the Hour. This perpetual movement of decadence and renewal gave the Messianic notion in Islam a perpetual nature: every one hundred years, the “Guided One” should be expected to make his appearance until, according to the divine plan; the final “renewer” will eventually appear to renew Islam once and for all. The perpetual Messianism was especially developed by shī˓ite Islam. The shī˓ah in Islam was born out of political strife in the Islamic community over the question of who should lead Islam after the death of Muḥammad. The Shī˓ah (literally “the party” of ˓Alī, Muḥammad’s cousin and son-in-law) demanded the leadership of Islam for ˓Alī, whom it regarded as being the Prophet’s heir and the recipient of some (if not all) of the Prophet’s esoteric wisdom. The mainstream of the Shī˓ah regarded ˓Alī as the first imām, the first true leader of the Islamic community after Muḥammad. After him, the imamate (the genuine Islamic leadership according to the Shī˓ah), passed to his direct descendants who were accepted as imāms one generation after the other, trasmitting their “rights” and esoteric knowledge (˓ilm), from father to son over a period of over two hundred years. The twelfth imām, who is supposed to have “disappeared,” is the expected “Mahdī” of the Shī˓ah. He will make his comeback (raj˓ah) to assume the true leadership of Islam. Since the twelfth imām never died, it means that unlike the sunnīs, who await a Mahdī who can either be Jesus or some unknown personality or both, the shī˓ites believe in the eternal existence of the “hidden imām,” whose constant instructions are transmitted to the believers through the intermediary of the shī˓ite religious scholars, the mujtahids. When the time eventually comes, this hidden and expected Mahdī will make his appearance to usher the End of Days and to finally establish his rule and the ideal Islamic order. Other shī˓ite sects, each according to the circumstances of its own birth and development, have other candidates from the descendants of ˓Alī for the role of the “expected Mahdī.” The Messianic theory in Islam is far more complex than the one in Judaism and Christianity, probably because it had to make place for both the Jewish national type of Messianism and the Christian universalism. If one adds the original Arab influence, it is not difficult to see why Islamic Messianism has no one clearly defined nature.