The Idea of the Messiah in the Theology of Thomas Hobbes

THE IDEAOF THEMESSIAH INTHE THEOLOGY OF THOMAS HOBBES

Robert P. Kraynak

Hobbes elaborates a conception of theMessiah in his political treatises that is unusual because it seems to combine Jewishand Christian elements. He asserts thatJesus is theMessiah in thesense ofbeing theearthlyking of theJewsaswell as theSon ofGod and king ofheaven.To clarifyHobbes's po sition and tohighlight itsstrangeness, it is comparedwith theviews ofMoses Maimonides and Blaise Pascal. Hobbes emergesfrom this comparison as a spokesmanfor a kind of "JewishChristianity," whose purpose isnot toreturn to theearly Jewishsects thatembracedJesusas a newMoses but tohumanize theMessiah and to redefineChristianityfor a new age of secular happiness. Hobbes therebyinaugurates a new kind ofbiblical criticismwhich theDeists of theenlightenment era developed and which continues today.

Who and what is theMessiah? This question has preoccupied Jews and Christians for centuries. For the Jews of theOld Testament, the idea of theMessiah was hardly a settled doctrine or fixed belief. For many itwas a vague promise of an ideal king, likeKing David, who would save the Jewish nation from itsenemies; while forothers it in cluded prophetic visions of a new age of peace and harmony inwhich thenatural order would be transformed. For Jews of laterperiods, the Messiah and messianism were connected with a variety ofphenomena, such as the political rebellion against Roman domination led by Bar Kokhba in the second century A.D., or thebizarre cultmovements of Sabbatai Zevi in the seventeenth century, orwith modern Zionism and the restoration of a Jewish homeland inPalestine.

The question ofwho and what is theMessiah was, of course, the central issue that separated (and still separates) Jews fromChristians. When Jesus Christ appeared, he claimed to fulfill the promise of the Old Testament about theMessiah but ina new and unheard ofway, as theSon ofGod who would be the savior and redeemer of allmankind. Christians would later dispute themeaning of themessianic age in various millennialist movements seeking to establish theKingdom of God and in controversies about theTrinity and the Second Coming. Su(ch controversies among and between Jews and Christians are

JewishPoliticalStudiesReview 4:2 (Fall1992)

Robert P. Kraynak

reminders that the Judaeo-Christian tradition has at itscore a notion of redemption that involves or requires the figure of amessiah. When the rational mind confronts these claims and controversies, itcannot failtobe astonished.Are these ideas simplybeyond reason, or can they be comprehended and explained rationally in some fash ion? The degree towhich messianic claims can be clearly articulated and rationally explained is an issue of utmost difficulty for theolo gians, philosophers, and scientists. A spectrum ofviews exists, ranging from those who see theMessiah in fairly rational terms? as an earthly king and warrior, amortal man whose actions are heroic but not supernatural ? to thosewho see theMessiah inmystical fashion ? as a divine being inhuman form, transcending mortality and acting in supernatural ways thathave notmerely human but cosmic signifi cance. The purpose of this chapter is todiscuss this spectrum of views, focusing primarily on thecurious and generally misunderstood view of ThomasHobbes (1588-1679)and clarifyinghis ideaof theMessiah by way of comparison with thegreat Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) and with one ofHobbes's contemporaries, thegreat math ematician and Christian theologian Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). The thesis presented here is thatHobbes's position isan unusual kind of "Jewish Christianity" ? a half-way house, as itwere, between theul tra-rationalist view ofMaimonides and themystical view ofPascal ? and thatHobbes adopted his position primarily forpolitical reasons.

Hobbes's Curious View of theMessiah

Hobbes jumps intothethickof thingswith his claims about the Messiah by asserting repeatedly in all of his political treatises that thewhole of theChristian faith can be reduced to one article, that "Jesus is theMessiah, that is, theChrist." Now, inone sense, what Hobbes says isnon-controversial forhis Christian audience. For, as he makes clear, what he has uttered is a tautology: the proposition that Jesus is theMessiah literallymeans thathe "is God's anointed; for thatis signifiedby theword Christ" (ElementsofLaw, II,6.6).On the simplest level, inotherwords, allHobbes isdoing is asserting that "messiah" and "christ" mean the same thing ? theanointed one or the Lord's anointed.

This assertion is true as itstands; and although Hobbes makes it seem obvious, theetymologies of thesewords deserve a bitmore atten tion than he gives to them.What he might have said is that in a va riety of places in theOld Testament, theHebrew word mashiah ? anointed? isused todescribepeoplewho are speciallydesignatedby God for important tasks of leadership: the "anointed priests" in Leviticus who perform ritual sacrifice and atonement; the kings

The Idea of theMessiah in theTheologyofThomasHobbes 117

anointed by Samuel, such as Saul and David, who were coronated or consecrated by pouring oil on theirheads and then called the "Lord's anointed"; and even Cyrus theGreat, King ofPersia, theonly non-Jew in theHebrew Bible referred to as mashiah forhis role in returning the Israelites fromexile and captivity inBabylon.1When theOld Testament was translated intoGreek by Jewish scholars (the Septuagint) and laterwhen theNew Testament was written inGreek by theEvangelists, the specific Hebrew word mashiah was transliter ated phonetically intoGreek as messias (and eventually intoLatin as messias and into English as messiah).2 In addition to transliterating, thewriters of theGospels found a word to translate theHebrew mashiah intoGreek ? namely, christos, which means "anointed" in Greek (from theverb chrio, topour or rubwith oil).3 So, when Hobbes asserts that Jesus is theMessiah, theChrist, he has simply uttered a tautologywhich few readers could findobjectionable (even ifthey were unaware of theprecise etymologies).

Nor would most readers object to the assertion that this statement is the central article of theChristian faith. After all, Christianity is the faith in Jesus Christ ? faith in Jesus as theChrist, theMessiah, theanointedone of theLord.Hobbes emphasizes thispointprecisely because itshould be non-controversial: it isa core doctrine which all Christian denominations can accept. Hobbes's intention is to end the doctrinal disputes among Christians by distinguishing necessary from unnecessary beliefs and reducing thebeliefs necessary for salvation to the simplest basis forachieving consensus ? thebelief inJesus'smessi ahship and a few direct inferences from this fact.Although Hobbes is aware that some may object to calling this theonly belief necessary for salvation (see De Cive, 18.6,n), there isnothing unusual in the central ityHobbes assigns to thebelief inJesus as theMessiah orChrist.

The difficulties arise when we inquire into the precise definition and mission thatHobbes assigns to Jesus theMessiah and Christ. For Hobbes seems to combine in theperson and mission of Jesus both the Jewish idea of theMessiah ? an earthly king of the Jews ? and the Christian nottbn of theMessiah ? the son ofGod and savior of all mankind. Let us examine several textual references from the three po liticaltreatisestosee indetail

thedifficultyofHobbes's position.

First, in the Elements of Law, Hobbes says the following (continuing the quote above): "that Jesus is theMessiah, that is, the Christ;which proposition isexplicated in sundrysorts,but still the same ineffect;as, thathe isGod's anointed; forthatissignifiedby the word Christ: thathe was the true and lawful king of Israel, the son of David, the Savior of theworld, the redeemer of Israel, the salvation ofGod, he that should come into theworld, the son ofGod" (II, 6.6). This statementis typicalofHobbes inexplaining the idea of Jesusas

Robert P. Kraynak

Messiah because it combines Jewish and Christian conceptions: it includes both titles forJesus,king of Israel and Son ofGod.

Not only does Hobbes attempt toblur thedistinction between the two titles or missions; he provides corroborating evidence in the Elements forboth views. Thus, in some places, Hobbes comes close to endorsing the shocking view that Jesus reallywas theking of the Jews as many claimed: "This was the title of his cross, Jesus ofNazareth, king of theJews; thiswas theoccasion of the crown of thorns...this was the title, by which our Savior...bade them say, The Lord hath need; and by this titlehe purged the templeof theprofanemarket kept there. Nor did the apostles themselves believe any more than that Jesuswas theMessiah, nor understand somuch; fortheyunderstood the Messiah tobe no more than a temporal king, tillafter our Savior's res urrection" (II, 6.7, Hobbes's emphasis). Here Hobbes blends together theviews of Jesus's detractors, with Jesus's own self-understanding of some of his dramatic actions (such as, expelling themoney-changers from the temple), and even with the views of the apostles up to the timeof the resurrection? thatJesuswas an earthly king of the Jews.

ButHobbes also includes passages in theElements emphasizing the more orthodox Christian view of Jesus as theSon ofGod and king of heaven. He quotes many passages from John's Gospel, such as 20:31, "'these things are written, that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, theSon ofGod'" (II, 6.7). He acknowledges themission of the apostles inspreading thedoctrine of the Incarnation ? the "mystery of Christ come in the flesh, that is to say, tounfold unto them at large the office of theMessiah" (II, 7.8). On balance, itappears that the Elements presents as many passages implying that Jesus is theking of the Jews or a ruler likeMoses as itpresents passages implying he is the Son ofGod who sought no temporal power. Hobbes simply leaves the issue unresolved, as in statements like, "Our Savior Christ, as he was the rightful king of the Jews inparticular, as well as the king of the kingdom ofHeaven, in the ordaining ofmagistrates, received that formofpolicy which was used byMoses" (II, 7.4). Inotherwords, Jesus isMoses incarnate aswell asGod incarnate.

Turning toDe Cive, we find a similar pattern, with perhaps a shade more emphasis on Jesus as temporal king and a diminution of Trinitarian doctrine about Jesus as co-equal Son of theFather. Here isa typical statement:

In the reign ofTiberius Caesar, Jesus our Savior, aGalilean, began topreach;...declaring to thepeople of the Jews, that the kingdom ofGod expected by themwas now come, and thathe himself was a king, that is to say, the Christ;...this man, hated of the Phari sees,...[and] accused of unlawful seeking for the kingdom, and

The Idea of theMessiah in theTheologyofThomasHobbes 119

crucified;was the trueChrist and kingpromised by God (17.3, Hobbes's emphasis).

Inaccordance with this emphasis on Christ as theexpected king of the Jews,Hobbes modifies Trinitarian doctrine ? theChristian doc trine thatGod isThree inOne, three co-equal persons in one being (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Hobbes states that "though Christ were equal tohis Father according tohis nature, yetwas inferior ac cording to the right of thekingdom. For thisoffice, to speak properly, was not that of a king, but of a viceroy; such asMoses's government was; for the kingdom was not his but his Father's" (17.4). This state ment seems tobe a diminution ofChrist's statuswithin theTrinity of three co-equal persons inGod. Christ isbrought down a notch, so to speak, and made comparable toMoses because Christ's kingdom was more earthly than heavenly.

The shockingcharacterof thisposition isdulled by the factthat Hobbes continues tocitenumerous New Testament passages according to which Jesus is theChrist, theSon ofGod (18.5, 18.6, 18.10). Yet, care fully placed between these citations are statements or insinuations to the contrary: that Jesus understood himself tobe thevery king of the Jews that his detractors and enemies said or claimed he was when theymocked and scorned and crucified him. For example, when sum marizing Matthew's Gospel in seemingly innocuous fashion, Hobbes says: "St.Matthew, chap, i.,beginning at his genealogy, shows that Jesuswas of the lineage ofDavid, born of a virgin: chap, ii., that he was adored by thewise men as king of the Jews;...that hewas saluted with the title of king, when he entered into Jerusalem: chaps, xxii xxv., thathe showed inparables what manner of kingdom his should be: chaps, xxvi., xxvii., thathe was taken and accused for this reason, because he said hewas a king; and that a titlewas written on his cross, 'this is Jesus the king of the Jews'" (18.6, emphasis added). What is shocking about his statement is thatHobbes cites the chapters of Matthew's Gospel where theaccusation that Jesus isking of the Jews is discussed; yet, innone of these chapters does Jesus say hewas a king. The claim iseither posed as a question by Pilate which Jesus refuses to answer, or itismade as a formofmockery by enemies and detractors.4 Yet, Hobbes takes the title seriously and incorporates itintohis inter pretation of Jesus's messiahship.

In the Leviathan, Hobbes asserts even more boldly the idea that Jesusis thekingof theJewsand, correspondingly,furtherdownplays Jesus's divine nature. Thus, indiscussing themarks which distinguish a true prophet from a false prophet, Hobbes states that "in theNew Testament therewas but one onlymark; and thatwas thepreaching of thisdoctrine, thatJesusis theChrist, that is, theking of the Jews, promised in theOld Testament" (ch. 36, p. 316, Hobbes's emphasis).

Robert P. Kraynak

And inhis chapter on the beliefs necessary for attaining salvation, Hobbes says: "The only article of faith,which the Scripture maketh simplynecessary tosalvation, is this,thatJESUS IS THE CHRIST. By thename ofChrist is understood theking,which God had before promisedby theprophetsof theOld Testament,tosend intotheworld, toreign (over theJews, and over such ofother nations as should believe in him)" (ch. 43, p. 428, Hobbes's capitalization). As justification, Hobbes cites Matthew's Gospel again, which he summarizes as fol lows:

The sum of St.Matthew's Gospel is this, that Jesuswas of the stock ofDavid, born of a Virgin; which are marks of the true Christ: that theMagi came toworship him as king of the ]ews;...that he preached by himselfand his apostles thathe was that king;... that he was taken, accused, and put to death, for saying he was king: that the cause ofhis condemnation written on thecross was, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.All which tend tono other end than this, thatmen should believe thatJesus is theChrist (ch. 43, p. 429, Hobbes's capitalization; my emphasis added).

These statements make sufficiently clear that Leviathan is the boldest ofHobbes's treatises in equating Jesuswith the king of the Jews.

Yet, this teaching is combined with a very complicated view of Jesus'smission as king of theJews.ForHobbes never denies thatJesus is also theSon ofGod; and he insists that"Christ's kingdom isnot of this world" (ch. 41, p. 353). So,we have theparadox that Jesus isboth the king of the Jews and theSon ofGod, who shall rule over a kingdom that is both earthly and not of thisworld, a kingdom that includes both Jews inparticular aswell as the "elect" of allmankind.

Hobbes attempts to resolve thisparadox with an interpretation of theBiblewhichmakes theunfoldingdrama of theKingdom ofGod? itsups and downs, as itwere ? thedominant theme (ch. 33, p. 283). According tothisinterpretation,thefirstKingdom ofGod existedfrom the time ofAbraham toMoses and continued through the Judges. This period, especially theMosaic rule,was thehigh-point of theOld Testament. For at that time, "God alone was king"; that is to say, no man claimed tobe a king but only amediator or viceroy forGod and a representative of thepeople (ch. 35, p. 299). Moses's rule and afterhim thatof thehigh-priests were themodels of a "sacerdotal kingdom" in which sovereignty was unified (ch. 40, pp. 343-344). Thereafter, itwas downhill fortheJews.Under theprophet Samuel, theJewsrejected God as king and made Saul, amere man, a king,which was an act of re bellion against God. Yet, all of the prophets, from Samuel to Isaiah, Ezekiel, andMicah spoke against kingship,believing that"theLord

The Idea of theMessiah in theTheologyofThomasHobbes 121

shall reign over them" (Micah, 4:7; quoted ch. 35, p. 300) ? which Hobbes takes tomean a restoration ofGod's kingship and the end of human kingship. The longing for theMessiah among the Jewswas pre cisely the longing for such a restoration. His taskwould be to restore theoriginalKingdom ofGod underMoses, which had been interrupted by Saul and thewhole line of kings afterhim and remained in abeyance even after the Babylonian Exile when kingship ceased and foreign domination ensued until the timeofChrist (ch.40, p. 351).

Here iswhere Hobbes's curious view of Jesus fits in.Jesuswas the Messiah orChrist because he came to restore theoriginal Kingdom of God thatexisted at the time ofMoses. Jesuswas thus theearthly King of the Jewspromised by theOld Testament prophets.Even though many of the Jews themselves rejected Jesus's claim, the apostles did not; and theybegan Christianitybyworshipping Jesusas theJewish king, until his resurrection (ch. 35, p. 300). Thus, Jesuswas accurately described as theking of theJewswhen crucified, butwas recognized as theSon ofGod afterhe rose from thedead. He will restore the Kingdom ofGod but not until his Second Coming, after thegeneral res urrection of thedead and the last judgement.

Hence, Jesus's kingdom is"not of thisworld" until the last judge ment, at which time Jesus will return to establish a literal, earthly kingdom, beginning in Jerusalem with the Jews but then extending to his elect among all nations. The "elect" or saved will then live on earth like angels, with "spiritual bodies" without eating, drinking, or copulating: this isHeaven-on-Earth, after the resurrection. By con trast, the "reprobate" or damned will be resurrected intheir "gross and corruptible bodies"; after a temporary period ofnormal physical exis tence (including eating and marrying), theywill die a "second death" and experience everlasting oblivion rather than eternal torment (ch. 38,pp. 329-337;ch.44,pp. 451-453).JesusChristwill ruleas king and judge forever over theearthly kingdom of theelect in their resurrected spiritual bodies, thus recreating on a higher plane the original king dom where "God alone isKing."5

This summary brings into focus theonly chapter inHobbes's work devoted exclusively to explaining themission and nature of Jesus Christ?

Chapter 41 of theLeviathanentitled,"Of theOffice ofOur Blessed Savior." Here, Hobbes asserts thatHoly Scripture presents "three parts of the office of theMessiah" ? first,that of redeemer of sins; second, of teacher; third, of king. The most striking feature throughout the chapter is thatHobbes makes no reference at all to Jesusas theSon ofGod and quicklypasses over thefirstpartof Jesus's office(redeemingsin)because Christhas paid "sufficientprice forthe sins of all mankind, [and] therewas no more required" (pp. 352-353, emphasis added). Hobbes's real emphasis ison Jesus as imitator and reincarnation, as itwere, ofMoses: Jesuswill "have all thepower that

Robert P. Kraynak

was inMoses"; Jesus teaches obedience to those who sit in "Moses's seat" until He comes again to sit inMoses's seat; when Jesus comes again as king, hewill be "viceregent ofGod theFather, asMoses was"; and even in creating the sacraments of baptism and eucharist "our Savior resembled Moses" (pp. 354-357). Indeed, Hobbes reinterprets theTrinity tomake Christ amere "representative" ofGod rather than his co-equal, so thatChrist and Moses, who also "representeth" God, aremade equals (p. 358).6 In short,Christ's kingship isnone other than therestoration ofMosaic rule inamore permanent and secure fashion.7

Ifwe inquire into the reasoning and motives that ledHobbes to this doctrine of theMessiah and to this interpretation of theKingdom of God, several explanations could be suggested. One is thatHobbes's in terpretation reflects fairly conventional Anglican thinking ? an "Anglican doctrine of salvation," in thewords of Johnson, that simpli fiesChristianityby reducing it to thesingle article thatJesus is the Christ.8 Another possible explanation is thatHobbes presents a ver sion of radical Protestant millenialism ? a doctrine in linewith mil lenialists ofHobbes's day who hoped foror sought to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, conceived in both biblical and modern Utopian terms.9A third is thatHobbes's whole doctrine isprimarily a political strategy, cleverly designed toneutralize the biblical notion of theKingdom ofGod as a pretext forrebellion, thereby strengthening thehands of sovereigns over priests, churchmen, and radical sectari ans.

The problem with proving any of these interpretations is that Hobbes says very little about how orwhere he derives his doctrine. There are no citations to any scholar or theologian indicating the sources ofHobbes's views; thereare even disclaimers ofdependence on others in statements such as, "this doctrine...will appear tomost men a novelty" (Leviathan, ch. 38, p. 329) and "this assertion...being some what new, it may possible be distasteful tomany divines" (De Cive, 18.6,n.). Nor is there a sustained interpretation of any part of theBible or a commentary on any biblical chapter as awhole which might al low us to see the rationale behind Hobbes's positions. Instead, he pre sents his doctrine one theme at a time, asserting his view and then pulling biblical quotes from their contexts to support his pre-deter mined position, thereby violating his own admonition against cutting Scripture into littlepieces or "atomes of Scripture, as dust before men's eyes."10 Nevertheless, a few clues support the suggestion thatHobbes arrived at his views on theMessiah forpolitical rather than theolog ical reasons.

The twomost important clues are statements by Hobbes that ex plicitlydraw out thepolitical implicationsofhis centralclaim: that Jesuswas theMessiah inboth a Jewishsense (theking of theJews promised by theprophetswho would restoretheoriginalKingdom of

God under Moses) and inaChristian sense (theSon ofGod who would not establish thiskingdom until his Second Coming). In awell-known passage inLeviathan, Hobbes makes clear the political significance of this doctrine:

The greatest and main abuse of Scripture...is thewresting of itto prove that the kingdom ofGod...is the present Church, ormulti tude ofChristian men now living, or that being dead, are to rise again at the last day: whereas thekingdom ofGod was first insti tuted by theministry ofMoses over the Jews only...and ceased afterward, in the election of Saul....Nevertheless, he [God] promised by his prophets to restore thishis government to them again...[and] he invited theGentiles...[and] promised also to send his Son into theworld...to prepare them by his doctrine, to receive him at his second coming.Which secondcomingnotyetbeing,the kingdom ofGod isnot yet come, and we are not now under any other kingsbypact,butourcivilsovereigns(ch.44, pp. 438-439),empha sis added).

The obvious implication of this passage, as Joel Schwartz has shown inhis insightful article, is thatHobbes's teaching about the two kingdoms ofGod ? the Jewish one under Moses and theChristian one under Christ at theSecond Coming ? isdesigned toproduce obedi ence by subjects to theirpresent civil sovereigns. For itpostpones indef initely the realization of theKingdom ofGod, removing itas a pretext forrevolutionary change and rebellion. And itpresents a vision of that kingdom, consisting of pacified men existing here on earth, that is essentially a "utopian solution to the political problems with which theLeviathan-state canmore or less successfully deal."11

In a second passage that is lesswell-known, Hobbes also points to his political motivation. Commenting on thebiblical line, "Thy king dom come," Hobbes says itmust refertoa kingdom on earth rather than inheaven ? specifically to "the restoration of thatKingdom ofGod by Christ, which by revolt of the Israelites had been interrupted in the election of Saul." To which Hobbes adds, sensing thathe has uttered a new and controversial statement: "There be so many other places that confirm this interpretation that itwere awonder there isno greater notice takenof it,but thatitgives toomuch lighttoChristiankingsto see theirrightof ecclesiasticalgovernment"(Leviathan,ch. 35, p. 301, emphasis added). In other words, Hobbes is saying that his rather unusual interpretation of theKingdom ofGod as an earthly kingdom restored at theSecond Coming isobvious tohim; but ithas never been noticedby other interpreters ? chieflypriestsand divineswho speak of a "heavenly kingdom" ? because ittakes away clerical power over those seeking entrance into the heavenly kingdom and thereby strengthens kings intheirrightof church government.

Robert P. Kraynak

Hobbes Compared toMaimonides and Pascal

Inorder to seemore clearly theunusual character ofHobbes's doc trine,itmight be helpful to compare it toother conceptions of the Messiah and themessianic age. Since Hobbes combines both Jewish and Christian elements inhis conception of theMessiah, we shall examine each element in itspure form? first,that of the great Jewish theolo gian, Maimonides, and then the view of the Christian theologian, Pascal. By virtue of these comparisons, the peculiar character of Hobbes's "Jewish Christianity,, comes to lightmore clearly.

Maimonides's view might be characterized as theminimalist or ultra-rationalist view. This is true not only in relation toChristian conceptions but also inrelation toJewish ones. For as one Jewish scholar notes, even within the Jewish tradition "the conception and personal ityof theMessiah are so heavily freighted with all sorts of bizarre hopes and beliefs, extravagant myths and fancies born largely of the desperate fateof theJewsthatitbecame increasinglydifficulttoknow what Judaism really teaches on the subject. Between themystic vi sionaries, who had almost deified theMessiah and ascribed to him supernatural powers, and the Jewish philosopher [Maimonides], who took amore rational view of his origin and activity, there is awide and bewildering gap."12

One obvious sign of the sobriety ofMaimonides's approach ishis extreme reluctance to discuss thematter. There are few direct refer ences to theMessiah inMaimonides's most famous work, The Guide for thePerplexed.13 In his other famous work, Mishneh Torah (literally meaning "repetition of theTorah" and often translated as The Code because itcodifies theTorah by providing a systematic summary of all the laws), Maimonides does offer an explicit, thematic discussion of theMessiah. But thisdiscussion occurs only at thevery end of a four teen volume treatise? the last five pages of a thousand page work. Here iswhat Maimonides says on this important subject.

In the firstplace, hemakes clear that,despite thebrevityofhis discussion, belief in thecomingof theMessiah isobligatory forall Jews: "He who does not...look forward to the coming of theMessiah deniesnotonly theteachingsof theProphetsbutalso thoseof theLaw and Moses, our teacher, for Scripture affirms the rehabilitation of Israel" (Code, vol. 14,p. 238). Moreover, Maimonides provides a clear and simpledescriptionofwhat theMessiah will do: "KingMessiah will arise and restore the kingdom ofDavid to its former state and original sovereignty. He will rebuild the sanctuary and gather the dispersed of Israel. All the ancient laws will be reinstituted inhis days; sacrificeswill again be offered;theSabbatical and Jubileeyears

The Idea of theMessiah in theTheologyofThomasHobbes 125

will again be observed inaccordance with thecommandments set forth in theLaw" (ibid.). Inno uncertain terms,Maimonides describes the Messiah as an earthly king of the Jews ? in fact,he repeatedly uses the phrase "King Messiah" as if itwere a single word. The King Messiah is simply a second David: for"the prophecy...bears upon the twoMessiahs: the first,namely, David, who saved Israel from the hand of their enemies; and the laterMessiah, a descendant ofDavid, who will achieve the final salvation of Israel" (ibid., p. 239).

As a kind of Zionist conqueror, who will gather in thedispersed Jews of theworld to the land of Israel and defeat all her enemies, the Messiah will be awarrior-king of heroic but strictly human propor tions.As Maimonides says, "do not think thatKing Messiah will have toperform signs and wonders, bring anything new intobeing, revive the dead, or do similar things. It isnot so." In fact, thehistorical example thatMaimonides himself raises is that of Ben Kozba (otherwise spelled, Bar Kokhba) ? the leader of the political rebellion against Roman domination in 132A.D. As Maimonides notes, many of the rab bis and sages of that time shared thebelief thathe was King Messiah. They were wrong, Maimonides says, because Ben Kozba was slain and his effort failed and perhaps, Maimonides hints, because he tried to change theLaw; but the rabbis were right inexpecting nothing super natural ormiraculous from theMessiah (ibid.,p. 240). As one scholar succinctly states, forMaimonides, "the Messiah is a successful Bar Kokhba...a general rather than a prophet" ormiracle-worker.14

In accordance with the strictlyhuman character of theMessiah is Maimonides's view of thenonmiraculous condition of themessianic age (although there is some ambiguity here). Maimonides's main empha sis ison normalcy: "Let no one think that in thedays of theMessiah any of the laws ofnature will be set aside, or any innovation be intro duced into creation. The world will follow itsnormal course." To sup port his view, Maimonides is required to interpret metaphorically the famous passages in Isaiah, chapter 11,describing a change in thenatu ral order where "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb." According to Maimonides, the lamb isa symbol of Israel and thepredators represent her enemies, implying that Israel will live securely among its former enemies who will be pacified and "will accept the true religion, and will neither plunder nor destroy, and together with Israel will earn a comfortable living in a legitimate way" (Code, 14, p. 240). Here, Maimonides rejects the literalmeaning of Isaiah and follows the line ofRabbi Samuel theBabylonian, of the third century A.D., whom he cites in thesewords, "'The sole difference between thepresent and the Messianic days is delivery from servitude to foreign powers' (B.T., Sanhedrin,91b)" (ibid.,p. 241).

The ambiguity that exists in this account iswhether the deliver ance of Israel from itsenemies produces an age of universal peace that

Robert P. Kraynak

requires some kind of change inhuman nature, ifnot innature as a whole. ForMaimonides also asserts in the last paragraph of theCode that "in that era therewill be neither famine nor war, neither jeal ousy nor strife.Blessings will be abundant, comforts within the reach of all. The one preoccupation of thewhole world will be toknow the Lord." Or, stated more precisely, themessianic age will be character ized by universal leisure touse for thehighest purpose ? study of the Torah. In thisway, "Israel will be free todevote itself to theLaw and itswisdom, with no one to oppress or disturb it,and thus beworthy of theworld to come" (ibid.,p. 242). Itmay be the case thatMaimonides considers thispreparation fortheworld tocome as nonmiraculous even though it iswholly unprecedented inhistory because themeans are natural ? pacification throughmilitary conquest and overcoming igno rance through enlightenment or study of theTorah.15

The greatest ambiguity, however, isMaimonides's view of the "world tocome," which hewas obliged to spell out ina separate trea tisebecause ofwidespread doubts about his belief in the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul. Maimonides asserts that these beliefs are obligatory because they are taught by Scripture, the Talmud, and the prayers composed by wise and inspired men (Selections, p. 402). The dilemma forMaimonides is understanding how bodily resurrection, which isphysical or corporeal and seemingly cannot last forever, could be combined with the immortal soul, which is spiritual or incorporeal and seemingly imperishable. His solution, itappears, is to treat the two (resurrection of the body and life in theworld-to-come) as a sequence. The resurrection of thebody will occur first,inaugurated by the coming of theMessiah; it will be a temporary phase, a condition that eventually decomposes or passes away. But the soul will endure forever afterward in theworld to-come, with the righteous enjoying eternal "bliss" and thewicked be ingcompletely "cut-off" fromGod ina condition ofnon-existence. Or, as Maimonides says inhis Treatise onResurrection, "the expression of our Sages allows free scope to the assumption that thebodies restored to lifewill eat, drink, and generate and die after a prolonged existence, as at the time of theMessiah, but that the lifewhich isnot destined toend is thatinwhich thespiritwill not be confinedtobodily tene ments. This truth isobvious to themind of every intelligent person, I mean that in theWorld-to-Come we must be incorporeal as angelic be ings."As faras understanding what kind ofbliss these angelic beings or pure souls might enjoy, themind cannot comprehend itin thisworld, except to say thatwhere "there are no bodies, there isneither eating nor drinking, nor anything thathuman beings need on earth." In sum, everything that "the prophets prophesied to Israel only refer tomate rial thingsthatIsraelwill enjoy in thedays ofKingMessiah when sovereignty will be restored to Israel. But as for thebliss in theworld

The Idea of theMessiah in theTheologyofThomasHobbes

to-come, nothing can be compared with or likened to it" (Selections, pp. 402, 406-408).

Maimonides's views on theMessiah, themessianic age, and the world-to-come provide some interesting comparisons with those of Hobbes. Maimonides, likemost Jews and unlike Hobbes and Christian believers, does not believe theMessiah has come yet, so Jewsmust live ina state of anxious waiting. Like Hobbes, however, Maimonides con ceives of theMessiah as an earthly king of the Jews,whose main task is restoration of the kingdom. But themodel forMaimonides is the Davidic kingship,notMosaic theocracy,althoughKingMessiah will institute the law ofMoses, including sacrificial laws. In other words, human kingship forMaimonides isnot the defective government or "fall from grace" that it is inHobbes's account.16 King Messiah for Maimonides will be a successful warrior whose victories will inaugu rate amessianic age in thisworld, rather than in the indefinite future when the last judgement occurs. The messianic agewill be peaceful but ascetic, largely devoted to study of the Torah. Unlike Hobbes, Maimonides conceives of theworld-to-come as an angelic existence ? not of spiritual bodies but a bodyless condition ? of indescribable bliss. Maimonides, inotherwords, ismore down-to-earth thanHobbes inhis conception of theMessiah's kingship; butmore other-worldly and in corporeal inhis conception of theafterlife and heavenly bliss. An important affinity of the two thinkers is the strong desire to tame and control messianic impulses. Maimonides, likeHobbes, has a political motive behind his doctrine: discrediting falsemessiahs and fanatics whose charisma and zeal captivate naive followers.17 Maimonides was certainly aware of thenumerous messianic pretenders of his age (around the twelfth century) in Jewish communities of Europe and theMuslim world ? in 1100, a certain IbnAreyh who, in fluenced by a dream, proclaimed himself Messiah and was flogged and expelled by Jewish community leaders; in the early 1100s, themes sianic movement led by David Alroy produced militant struggles against theeastern Muslim empire; in 1121, aman named Solomon of a "kohen" community claimed to be messiah, even though he was a Levite rather than froma Davidic line (an Aaronide Messiah); in 1127, a scholar named Moses Al-Dari fromMorocco made false predic tionsabout thecomingof theMessiah but reportedlywas admiredby Maimonides, apparently because he preached return to the land of Israel and died inEretz Israel; in 1172, aMessiah pretender appeared inYemen, who was severely condemned byMaimonides apparently be cause he was a kind of socialist revolutionary rather than a "Zionist."18

In sum, one may surmise that cases like these ledMaimonides to formulate his doctrine of theMessiah in themost restrictive terms? innarrow political, military, and ultimately empirical terms. Yet, it

Robert P. Krayriak

should also be emphasized that thegeneral aim of his theology is to rationalize Judaism along Aristotelian lines, inclining him toview the Messiah as an exceptional man ? a second David but not a second Moses and certainly not a supernatural being ? whose coming will not change theworld miraculously but bring the Jewish nation to the fore frontof theworld, inspiringall nations toworship God properly through the study of theTorah.

Pascal diverges fromboth Hobbes and Maimonides because he pre sents thewhole drama of the coming of theMessiah inScripture as an opposition or contrast ? between "carnal" Jewish conceptions and "spiritual" Christian conceptions. In this respect, Pascal is actually a very typical spokesman for theChristian tradition, even though he was a Catholic who was never considered entirely orthodox by the Church. ForAugustine and Aquinas among Catholics aswell as Luther, Calvin, and Hooker among Protestants have all viewed theMessiah like Pascal: as an idea originating in theOld Testament thatwas un derstood too literally by the Jews,who expected theMessiah tobe a political and military figure or a prophet, and thatwas fulfilled only by the coming of JesusChrist as theSon ofGod. What Pascal does, it seems tome, is to spell out this interpretation of theBible? both Old and New Testaments ? ingreater detail than anyone else, making ita centralpart ofhis Apologyfor theChristianReligion (which he left tous infragmentary form, latercalled the "pensees").

Moreover, Pascal, unlike the other theologians mentioned above, avoided the "scholastic" approach of trying to explain inmetaphysi cal terms the significance of Jesus as the second person of theTrinity; indeed, he avoids metaphysics altogether (except inemploying simple mathematical concepts like infinity).19He treats the problem of the Messiah in scriptural terms, explaining how theprophecies of theOld Testament are fulfilled in theNew, and inpsychological and cosmo logical terms, showing how thewretchedness and greatness ofman as well as the infinite smallness and infinite vastness of thenatural uni verse aremediated by Jesus theMessiah.

For Pascal, therefore, the strategy ofhis apology is topresent two proofs: first,the "misery ofman without God" or "the corruption of Nature"; and second, that "there isa Redeemer, proved by Scripture" (#6).These two propositions are obviously linked. For, as Pascal says, "the Christian religion consists inbelieving thatman has fallen from a state ofglory and communion with God into a state of gloom, peni tence, and estrangement fromGod, but that after this lifewe shall be restored by a promised Messiah" (#281). The second proposition is what concerns us here, fortheproof that there isa redeemer lies in the biblical idea of theMessiah.

Pascal's thesis isa radical one: theBible shows "that from the be ginning of theworld theMessiah has been awaited and worshipped

The Idea of theMessiah in theTheologyofThomasHobbes

continuously" (#390) or that "the Messiah has always been believed in" (#282). This claim ? which Pascal refers to as "perpetuity" and uses as a label foranumber ofpowerful thoughts on theBible? means thatevery age has had some person who prefigures or testifies to the Messiah:

In the firstage of theworld men were led intoall kinds ofmis deeds, and yet therewere holy men likeEnoch, Lamech, and others who patiently awaited theChrist promised since theworld began.

Noah saw men's wickedness at its height, and he had the merit to save theworld inhis person, throughhoping in the Messiah, whom he prefigured.

Abraham was surrounded by idolaters when God showed him themystery of theMessiah whom he hailed from afar. In the time of Isaac and Jacob, abomination spread over thewhole earth but these holy men lived in their faith, and Jacob on his deathbed, as he was blessing his children, cried out inrapture which made him interrupt his speech: "I await the savior whom thou hast promised, O Lord" [Genesis, 49:18].

The Egyptians were riddled with idolatry and magic, and even thepeople ofGod were carried away by their example. Yet Moses and others saw Him that theydid not see, and worshipped as they looked to theeternal giftshewas preparing forthem.

Next, theGreeks and Latins set up false gods. The poets in vented a hundred differenttheologies,thephilosophers splitup into a thousand different sects. And yet in the heart of Judaea there were always chosen men foretelling the coming of the Messiah who was known only to them.He came at last in the full ness of time.. .(#281,see also 282,390,451,456,487).

For Pascal, the perpetuity of the belief in the coming and the ar rival of theMessiah is the central idea of theBible.

But if theMessiah has always been believed in and Jesus is the Messiah, why has thisnot been recognized by everyone at all times? Pascal's answer is thatGod isa "hidden God" ? Deus absconditus ? who reveals aswell as conceals himself inorder tomake faitha testof thewill or heart rather than a conclusion of reason (#242, 427, 444). The Messiah was revealed in theOld Testament, but also concealed or disguised: "Whatdo theprophetssayabout JesusChrist?Thathewill plainlybeGod? No, but thathe isa trulyhiddenGod, thathewill not be recognized, thatpeople will not believe thatit ishe, thathe will be a stumbling block" (#228). As a result, the Jewswere destined to misunderstand his truenature: "They are clearly a people created ex pressly to serve aswitness to theMessiah. They hand down thebooks and love them and do not understand them... .The judgments ofGod are entrusted to them, but as a sealed book" (#495). This insight is the

Robert P. Kraynak

basis of Pascal's theory of biblical interpretation ? that there are both literal and figurativemeanings to the Bible which when properly understood break the "seal" of thebook and unlock the secret of die Messiah.

Although this theorymay sound complicated and esoteric, it isac tually quite simple. Itmeans that prophecies in theOld Testament about the coming of theMessiah have twomeanings, a literal one that is "carnal" and a figurative or symbolic one that is "spiritual." The whole case rests on thedemonstration of two levels ofmeaning: "For if we believe that they have only one meaning it is certain that the Messiah has not come, but iftheyhave twomeanings, itiscertain that he has come inJesusChrist" (#274).

Pascal explains the two levels ofmeaning as follows. On the one hand, "The Jewswere used togreat and glorious miracles, and so, hav inghad thegreat wonders of theRed Sea and the land ofCanaan as an epitomeof thegreat thingstobe done by theMessiah, theyexpected something more glorious [than] themiracles performed by Moses" (#264).What exactlydid theyexpect?What could outdo thespecial favors granted byGod in thepast and the feats ofMoses? Only a uni versal monarchy: "The Jews had grown old in these earthly thoughts: thatGod loved their fatherAbraham [and his generations]....[Later] when theywere languishing inEgypt he brought them out...[and] fed themmanna...[and] led them into a rich land...[and] gave them kings and a well-built temple...[so] thatfinally he was to send them the Messiah tomake themmasters over thewhole world and that he had foretoldthetimeofhis coming"(emphasis added).

Because of these extravagant worldly expectations, Pascal says, the Jewish people were in for a big surprise: "When theworld had grown old in these carnal errors, Jesus Christ came at the time ap pointed, but not in the expected blaze of glory and thus they did not think itwas he. After Christ's death St. Paul came to teach them that all these thingshad happened figuratively,thattheKingdom ofGod was not in the flesh but the spirit, that the enemies were not the Babyloniansbut theirpassions, thatGod did notdelight intemplesbut ina pure and humble heart, that the circumcision of thebody was use less, but that theremust be circumcision of theheart" (#270). In short, Pascal gives the traditional Christian interpretation of two contrast ing ideas of theMessiah: the triumphant earthly king vs. the suffer ing spiritual redeemer.

The twist Pascal gives to this idea is that the rejection of Jesus ac tually makes the Jews unimpeachable witnesses tohis Messiahship: "To inspire faith in theMessiah there had tobe previous prophecies and theyhad tobe handed down by people above suspicion, univer sally known as conscientious, loyal, and extraordinarily zealous....And so thispeople,disappointedby thepoorand ignominiouscomingof the

Messiah, became his cruellest enemies, with the result thatof all peo ple in theworld they can least be suspected of favor towards us/' In otherwords, thehostilityof theJewsisa mark of theirimpartiality aswitness. This is thegrand ironyof theBible forPascal: "Those who rejected and crucified Christ...are the same who hand down thebooks which bear witness tohim and say he will be rejected and a cause of scandal. Thus, they showed he was theMessiah by refusing him" (#502). The Bible, therefore, has tohave a figurative or symbolic or hiddenmeaning ifitistoreflectthenatureof theHidden God who re veals aswell as conceals His message of salvation.

Itwas then up to Jesus and theApostles tobreak the code and re veal hidden meaning. They saw that theBible "had toaddress a car nal people andmake [them]thedepositoryof a spiritualcovenant" (#502).They read figurativelytheOld Testament referencestophysi cal things and saw their spiritual meaning ? thatcircumcision isnot a physical sign but a circumcision of theheart, thatmanna is spiritual bread, that thePromised Land isnot physical territorybut heavenly, that enemies are not thenations butman's passions, that thekingship of theMessiah "will be spiritualand his kingdom of thespirit,that therewill be two comings, one inwretchedness tohumble theproud, the other in glory to exalt the humble, that Jesus isGod and man" (#260,#502).20The proper readingof theBible, then,leads tothecen tralmystery ofChristianity ? the Incarnation, theWord ofGod made flesh, thedivinity and humanity ofChrist, whose promised salvation isnot earthly but a spiritual redemption from sin and death.

Here is where the real differences between Hobbes and Maimonides, on theone side, and Pascal, on theother, can be seen. For Maimonides, the rationalist Jewish theologian, theMessiah is a tem poral king, a second David, who will inaugurate an age of peace and harmony on earth, which will be an indefinite transition stage to the world-to-come; theMessiah, therefore, has no role in the redemption of souls for heavenly bliss (if, in fact,Maimonides really believes there is such a redemption). For Hobbes, propounder of a curious Jewish-Christian doctrine of theMessiah, Jesus came to restore the Mosaic regime inamore permanent and secure fashion at the second coming ? an earthly empire of peaceful and satisfied men. For Pascal, theMessiah redeems human nature from sin and thewhole of nature from chaos: "Jesus Christ is the center towards which all things tend. Whoever knowshimknows thereasonforeverything"(#449).

Thus, the infiniteuniverse, which has no center or circumference, is given a center. Man, whose "wretchedness induces despair and pride induces presumption," isgiven amediator thatboth exalts and hum bles him (#352).The gaping void inthehuman heart inducedby the "eternal silence of the infinite spaces" and the sense of contingency ? ofnot "knowing why Ihave been put in thisplace rather than that,or

Robert P. Kraynak

why thebrief span of lifeallotted tome should be assigned one mo ment rather than another inall of eternity" ? can be filled. But that fulfillmentispurely spiritual:only theeternal lifeof the individual soul, saved by God's grace after a lifetime of trials and proper atone ment, provides true happiness. As for the second coming, Pascal ac knowledges itwill occur; but thewhole eschatology of themessianic age, lastjudgment,andKingdom ofGod issimplyomitted infavorof thepersonal encounter with the suffering and loneliness of Jesus (#919, "TheMystery of Jesus").

Conclusion

The ideaof theMessiah developed byHobbes has ledus down the path fromMaimonides toPascal because Hobbes's doctrine stands ina curious middle-ground between Judaism and Christianity. In this re gard, itreminds us of positions taken centuries before Hobbes, at the dawn of theChristian age, and a century afterHobbes, during theage of Enlightenment. From history, we learn that therewere religious sects in the early centuries A.D. whose beliefs could be called Jewish Christianity. One such group was theEbionites, who regarded Christ as "a revived Moses...[and] attempted tocombine what was character isticof Judaism with a faith in Jesus as theMessiah. Cerinthus, one of the leading Ebionite scholars, rejected the preexistence ofChrist and taught themillenial reign of theMessiah in Jerusalem. Similarly, Justinbelieved that the seat of theMessiah's kingdom would be a re stored Jerusalem, where all believers, together with the patriarchs and the prophets, would enjoy happiness for over one thousand years."21 This group could be seen as a precursor ofHobbes because of its emphasis on Jesus as theMessiah ina Jewish sense, as the leader of an earthly empire emanating from Jerusalem. Yet, theEbionites expected thiskingdom tobeginwithin theirlifetimeand,when itdid not, lost credibility.22 Hobbes cannot be linked with them because he accepts theindefinitepostponementof

theKingdom

ofGod.

A century afterHobbes, a figure from theGerman enlightenment, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, wrote a shortwork called "The Goal of Jesus and His Disciples" thatcould also be called a statement of Jewish Christianity. Influenced by the thinking of English Deism, Reimarus argued that Jesus believed himself to be theMessiah in the Jewish sense ? amortal man who would establish a kingship on earth for the deliverance of the Jews from their oppressors.23 But Reimarus also drew out the scandalous conclusion of thisview: that thedisciples of Jesus "fabricated" thewhole story of the resurrection and the second coming out of disappointment at Jesus's failure as a political

The Idea of theMessiah in theTheologyofThomasHobbes

revolutionary, creating theChristian myth of a "spiritual suffering savior of the whole human race/'24 Because his views were so shocking, Reimarus never published them during his lifetime; they created a great sensation afterhis death when Lessing published them in fragments without divulging the author's name. This, Strauss suggests, would have been Hobbes's fate ifHobbes had spelled out in completedetail the implicationsofhis position: thatthespiritualism ofChristianity ? thedivine nature of Jesus,his resurrection and other miracles, the immortality of the soul, theheavenly kingdom ? was a fabrication of followers who were seeking earthly empire.25 Hobbes and Reimarus, along with theDeists of the enlightenment era, thus prepare theway fora new, "this-worldly" version ofChristianity ? one whose doctrines and aims are fully compatible with the earthly goals of physical security,materialism, and skeptical reason.

Notes

1. "The noun mashiah ("anointed" or "anointed one") occurs 38 times in theHebrew Bible,where itapplies twice tothepatriarchs, six timestothe high priest, once toCyrus, and 29 times to theIsraelite king,primarily Saul and secondarily David or an unnamed Davidic monarch." William Scott Green, "Messiah in Judaism," in Judaismsand theirMessiahs at theTurn oftheChristian Era,p. 2.

2 See "Messiah," inEncyclopaedia Judaica,vol. 11,pp. 1407-1417.

3. Interestingly, theHebrew word mashiah actually appears intheGospels, intwoplaces ofJohn'sGospel: 1:41when Andrew "firstfoundhisbrother Simon, and said tohim, 'Wehave found theMessiah' (whichmeans the Christ)"; and inJohn4:25when Jesus isabout toreveal himself to the Samaritan woman at thewell and she says, "'I know thatMessiah is coming (hewho is called Christ).'" Presumably, the reason why the Hebrew word for"anointed" isused inthese twoplaces while theGreek christos isused inall other references toJesus intheGospels is thatwe have direct dialogue about theMessiah by people who are speaking Hebrew orAramaic or some language other thanGreek.

4. Matthew, 27:11, "And thegovernor [Pilate]asked him, 'Areyou theking of theJews?' Jesussaid,Tou have said so.'"And in27:29, "And kneeling before him they [the soldiers] mocked him, saying, 'Hail,King of the Jews!'"And 27:42.

5. Leo Strauss, "On theBasis ofHobbes's Political Philosophy," pp. 188-189; and JoelSchwartz, "Hobbes and theTwo Kingdoms ofGod," pp. 7-24.

6. Hobbes presents theTrinity as a doctrine ofhow God is"represented" rather thanofHis being or divine nature, as a political rather than a metaphysical doctrine, which would imply a rejection of traditional

134 Robert P. Kraynak

Trinitarianism. In fact,when one readsHobbes's account of thedoctrine, itseems likeadeliberate distortion:

The doctrine of theTrinity, as faras can be gathered directly from Scripture, is insubstance this: thatGod who isalways one and the same,was theperson represented byMoses; [aswell as] theperson represented byhis Son incarnate; and theperson represented by the apostles. As represented by theapostles, theHoly Spirit, bywhich theyspake, isGod; as represented byhis Son, thatwas God andman, theSon isthatGod; as represented byMoses and thehigh-priests, the Father, thatis,theFather ofourLord JesusChrist, isthatGod....[For] thosenames Father, Son, andHoly Spirit...are persons, that is, they have theirnames fromrepresenting" (ch.42,p. 361).

7. See thefulldevelopment of thisargument inSchwartz, "Hobbes and the Two Kingdoms ofGod/' pp. 18-23; also, Pocock, "Time,History, and Eschatology intheThought ofThomas Hobbes," p. 173.

8. See Paul J.Johnson,"Hobbes's Anglican Doctrine ofSalvation," pp. 102 128; and Henning Graf Reventlow, TheAuthority of theBible and the Rise of theModern World, "Thomas Hobbes: the Philosophical Presuppositions ofhisBiblicalCriticism," pp. 194-222.

9. See Pocock, "Time, History, and Eschatology," pp. 174-186; Eldon Eisenach, Two Worlds of Liberalism, pp. 51-54, 60, 66; Ernest Lee Tuveson, Millennium andUtopia, especially, pp. 75-99.

10. James Farr, "Atomes of Scripture: Hobbes and thePolitics of Biblical Interpretation," p. 172.

11. Schwartz, pp. 10,22-24.

12. Jacob Samuel Minkin, ed., TheWorld ofMoses Maimonides: Selections ofHis Writings, p. 398. Gershom Scholem confirms the view that Maimonides had a rationalist orminimalist idea of theMessiah, com pared to theapocalyptic or Utopian versions of other Jewish thinkers (Scholem, TheMessianic Idea inJudaism,pp. 25-33).

13. I can findonly twoexplicit references totheMessiah inTheGuide (11.36 and 45), both occurring inMaimonides's chapters on prophecy. In 11.36, Maimonides gives his famousdefinition ofprophecy (an "overflow over flowing" fromGod thatstimulates the"active intellect"which, in turn, moves orenergizes therational facultyand thentheimagination).At the end of thechapter,Maimonides says thatprophecy as such ceased dur ingtheExile because theimaginative facultywas toosad and depressed; but itwill be "restored tous initshabitual form,ashas been promised in thedays of theMessiah, may hebe revealedsoon." In 11.45,Maimonides describes theeleven degrees ofprophecy andmentions in thefirstand lowest degree ofprophecy inspired actions, such as thedeeds of the Judges and kings; included among the latter are "all the virtuous Messiahs of Israel." From these references one may infer that the Messiah will be a virtuous king,with low-grade prophetic powers re flected inhis inspired deeds (rather than indreams or visions like the higher-grade prophets or inhearing speeches like thehighest prophet, Moses).

14. Ralph Lerner, "Moses Maimonides/' inHistory ofPolitical Philosophy,p. 218.

15. This may also explain theapparent discrepancy between theMishneh Torah and theGuide ininterpretingthefamouspassage inIsaiah, ch. 11 about a futurereignofpeace and harmony. In theMishneh, aswe have seen,Maimonides interpretsitmetaphorically tomean Israel's pacifica tionof itsenemies. In theGuide (III.ll), itis interpreted literally:by a kind ofuniversal enlightenment about thetruerealityof thedeity, igno rancewill be overcome; and since ignorance isthecause ofevil and ha tred among men, war and strifewill cease. The Guide, then, ismore franklyUtopian than theMishneh and even points theway to thereal izationofuniversal peace by teaching thereader about thetruerealityof thediety (God's incorporeal nature andHis miraculous creation of the world fromnothing).

16. On thispoint? thathuman kingship beginning with Saul isa falling away fromGod's kingship ? Hobbes seems closer to thebiblical view thanMaimonides; foran insightfulinterpretationof thebiblical teaching on human kingship as a rejectionofGod's kingship seeMartin Buber's TheKingship ofGod,pp. 59-84, 99-107.

17. Scholem emphasizes Maimonides's deep suspicion of the anarchical element inmessianic movements and his deliberate strategy aimed at "liquidation of apocalypticism in JewishMessianism," TheMessianic Idea inJudaism,pp. 26-33.

18. See "Messianic Movements," in the Encyclopaedia Judaica,vol. 11,pp. 1422-1423.

19. Thus,we findnometaphysical analysis of theTrinity inthePensees and itsvexing problem ofexplaining rationallyboth theunityofbeing inGod andHis division intothree"persons" thatare allequally and fullydivine. Pascal's anti-scholasticism isemphatic: "And thatiswhy I shall not un dertake here toprove by reason fromnature either theexistence ofGod, or theTrinity,or the immortalityof thesoul...because such knowledge, without Christ, isuseless and sterile" (Pensees,#449).

20. Interestingly,Pascal feels thatsome Jewshave always recognized the spiritualmeaning beyond thecarnalmeaning ? themystics and even Maimonides (#274)and certainRabbis (#278).Hence, Pascal maintains, trueJews and trueChristians have always worshipped thesame God; only "carnal Jewsawaited a carnalMessiah, and grossChristians believe that theMessiah has dispensed them fromlovingGod. True Jews and trueChristians worship aMessiah who makes them loveGod" (#286 289).

21. Wilson D. Wallis, Messiahs: Christian and Pagan, p. 153.

22. Thus, theEbionites ? orNazarenes, as theyare sometimes called? were thefirstdisappointed millennarians who paid theprice ofextinction fortheirfalseexpectations. In a recent studyof theEbionites (which is both fascinatingand flawedbyexaggerated sympathy foran "underdog" sect),Hans-Joachim Schoeps notes in several places that "when the forceof theireschatological expectation was sapped by thedelay of the

136 Robert P. Kraynak

Parousia [orSecond Coming],...the Ebionites, because theydid not be come part of theCatholic Church, disappeared in thevariegated reli gions of theNear East" (Schoeps, JewishChristianity:Factional Disputes intheEarlyChurch,pp. 37,65,132).

23. It is interestingtonote thatseveral of theEnglish deistswho influenced Reimarus, such as Toland and Priestly, actually argued that"the early Jewishsects, theNazarenes and Ebionites,who stillobserved theMosaic law and believed inthehumanity ofChrist,were thegenuineChristians" (see Sir Leslie Stephens, History ofEnglish Thought in theEighteenth Century,vol. 1,p. 87,emphasis added).

24. Reimarus even says thatthedisciples stole thebody ofJesus inorder to fake the resurrection. Hermann Samuel Reimarus, The Goal ofJesus andHis Disciples, pp. 75-79,80-84,95-97, 104-107,115, 129-130;Reventlow, TheAuthority of theBible and theRise of theModern World, p. 412.

25. Leo Strauss, "On theBasis ofHobbes's Political Philosophy," p. 189.

Bibliography

Buber, Martin. Kingship ofGod. Trans, from theGerman ed. of 1956 by Richard Scheimann. (NewYork:Harper, 1967).

Eisenach, Eldon J.Two Worlds ofLiberalism: Religion and Politics inHobbes, Locke,andMill. (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1981).

Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16vols. (Jerusalem:Keter, 1971).

Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. Ed. and intro.Bernard Gert. (Garden City,N.Y., 1972).

Hobbes, Thomas. The Elements ofLaw inThe English Works of Thomas Hobbes ofMalmesbury, ed. SirWilliam Molesworth, 11 vols. (London: JohnBohn, 1839-1845,vol. IV).

Hobbes, Thomas. The leviathan. Ed. Michael Oakeshott and intro.Richard Peters. (NewYork:Collier, 1962).

Johnson, Paul J. "Hobbes's Anglican Doctrine of Salvation," in Thomas Hobbes inHis Time. Ed. Ralph Ross, Herbert W. Schneider, and Theodore Waldman. (Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1974), pp. 102-108.

Lerner, Ralph. "Moses Maimonides," inTheHistory ofPolitical Philosophy. Ed. Leo Strauss and JosephCropsey, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972),pp. 203-222.

Maimonides, Moses. The Code ofMaimonides (Mishneh Torah), 14 vols. Trans, vol. 14Abraham Hershman. (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1949).

Maimonides, Moses. The World ofMaimonides: Selections ofHis Writings. Ed. and intro.JacobSamuelMinkin. (NewYork: T.Yoseloff, 1957).

The Idea of theMessiah in theTheologyofThomasHobbes

Neusner, Jacob,William ScottGreen, and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. Judaisms and theirMessiahs at theTurn of theChristian Era. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Pascal, Blaise. Pensees. Trans, and intro. AJ. Krailsheimer. (Baltimore: Penguin, 1966).

Pocock, J.G.A. "Time,History, and Eschatology in theThought ofThomas Hobbes," inPolitics, Language, andTime. (New York: Atheneum, 1971), pp. 148-201.

Reimarus, Hermann Samuel. TheGoal ofJesusandHis Disciples. Intro, and trans.George Wesley Buchanan, fromGerman ed. of 1778. (Leiden, Netherlands: EJ. Brill, 1970).

Reventlow, Henning Graf. The Authority of theBible and theRise of the Modern World. Trans. John Bowden fromGerman ed. of 1980. (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1985).

Schoeps, Hans-Joachim. JewishChristianity: Factional Disputes in theEarly Church. Trans. Douglas R.A. Hare from German ed. of 1964. (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1969).

Scholem, Gershom. TheMessianic Idea in Judaism. (New York: Schocken, 1971).

Schwartz, Joel."Hobbes and theTwo Kingdoms ofGod," Polity,vol. 18,no. 1 (Fall 1985):7-24.

Stephen, SirLeslie. History ofEnglish Thought in theEighteenthCentury,vol. 1.Firstpublished in1876. (NewYork:Harcourt, 1962).

Strauss, Leo. "On theBasis ofHobbes's Political Philosophy," inWhat is Political Philosophy? (New York: FreePress, 1959),pp. 170-196.

Tuveson, Ernest Lee. Millennium and Utopia: A Study in theBackground of theIdea ofProgress. (Gloucester,Mass.: Peter Smith, 1972).

Wallis, Wilson D.Messiahs: Christian andPagan. (Boston: Gorham, 1918).