irrespective of the manner in which He carried out His Messianic work. On the other

hand, it is equally noteworthy, that the purely national elements, which well nigh formed

the sum total of Rabbinic expectation, scarcely entered into the teaching of Jesus about

the Kingdom of God. And the more we realise, that Jesus so fundamentally separated

Himself from all the ideas of His time, the more evidential is it of the fact, that He was

not the Messiah of Jewish conception, but derived His mission from a source unknown

to, or at least ignored by, the leaders of His people.

3. But still, as the Rabbinic ideas were at least based on the Old Testament, we need not

wonder that they also embodied the chief features of the Messianic history. Accordingly,

a careful perusal of their Scripture quotations  11 shows, that the main postulates of the

New Testament concerning the Messiah are fully supported by Rabbinic state ments.

Thus, such doctrines as the pre -mundane existence of the Messiah; His elevation above

Moses, and even above the Angels; His representative character; His cruel sufferings and

derision; His violent death, and that for His people; His work on behalf o f the living and

of the dead; His redemption, and restoration of Israel; the opposition of the Gentiles; their

partial judgment and conversion; the prevalence of His Law; the universal blessings of

the latter days; and His Kingdom - can be clearly deduced from unquestioned passages in

ancient Rabbinic writings. Only, as we might expect, all is there indistinct, incoherent,

unexplained, and from a much lower standpoint. At best, it is the lower stage of yet

unfulfilled prophecy - the haze when the sun is abo ut to rise, not the blaze when it has

risen. Most painfully is this felt in connection with the one element on which the New

Testament most insists. There is, indeed, in Rabbinic writings frequent reference to the

sufferings, and even the death of the Mess iah, and these are brought into connection with

our sins - as how could it be otherwise in view of Isaiah liii. and other passages - and in

one most remarkable comment12 the Messiah is represented as willingly taking upon

Himself all these sufferings, on condition that all Israel - the living, the dead, and those

yet unborn - should be saved, and that, in consequence of His work, God and Israel

should be reconciled, and Satan cast into hell. But there is only the most indistinct

reference to the removal of sin by the Messiah, in the sense of vicarious sufferings.

In connection with what has been stated, one most important point must be kept in view.

So far as their opinions can be gathered from t heir writings, the great doctrines of

Original Sin, and of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient

Rabbis.13 Of course, it is not meant that they denied the consequences of sin, either as

concerned Adam himself, or his descendants; but the final result is far from that

seriousness which attaches to the Fall in the New Testament, where it is presented as the

basis of the need of a Redeemer, Who, as the Second Adam, restored what the first had

lost. The difference is so fundamental as to render further explanation necessary.  14