MESSIAH (Dan. x. 25, 26) and MESSIAS (John i. 41; iv. 2). The word answers to the Hebrew ha-mashiah, "the anointed." There can be no doubt that magical power was ascribed to the anointing oil; the king was thereby rendered sacrosanct (I Sam. xxiv. 6 sqq.; 2 Sam. i. 14 sqq.; iv. 9 sqq.), and was considered to be endowed with a special virtue. Thus, whoever cursed the king is stoned as though God Himself had been cursed (2 Sam. xix. 22). In ancient Egyptian cultus the priest, after he had solemnly saluted the gods, began the daily toilet of the god, which consists in sprinkling his image, clothing it with coloured cloths, and anointing it with oil (Erman, Die aegyptische Religion). In the magical texts of Babylonia a similar virtue was attached to oil: "bright oil, pure oil, resplendent oil that bestows magnifi cence on the gods . . . the oil for the conjuration (siptu) of Marduk" (Tallquist, Maklu series, tablet vii. col. 1, 31, sqq.; cf. Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie). We have evidence from the Tell el-Amarna tablets that the anoint ing of kings was known in Egypt and Syria c. 1400 B.C.
On the intimate relation which in primitive times subsisted between the sorcerer and the king, see PRIEST. "Classical evi dence points to the conclusion that in prehistoric ages . . . the various tribes or cities were ruled by kings who discharged priestly duties" (Frazer, Early History of Kingship). Thus the early kings of Assyria were priests of Assur (Asur), the tutelary deity of Assyria. Tiglath-Pileser I. (c. iloo B.c.) calls his predecessors Samsi-Adad and Ismi-Dagan, issakku (pa-te-si) of God Assur. Later kings, e.g., Shalmaneser II. and Assur-bani-pal call them selves by the more definite title of sangu of Assur. The Hebrew word with the article prefixed occurs in the Old Testament only in the phrase "the anointed priest" (Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16, vi. 22). But "Yahweh's anointed" is a common title of the king of Israel, applied in the Historical books to Saul and David, in Lam. iv. 20 to Zedekiah, and in Isa. xlv. i. extended to Cyrus.
The definite emergence of the Messianic hope in the strict sense can hardly be traced in the Old Testament with absolute certitude. Perhaps the clearest expression of such an idea is to
be found in Isaiah ix. 1-6 and xl. 1-9. Here it is to be noted that the former of these passages apparently gives up the con nection of the Messiah with the Davidic dynasty, though the latter reaffirms this.
It is important to notice that what may be called the Messi anic age is often represented in the prophets without any personal Messiah. So the great Judaean prophets of the eighth century connect the salvation of Israel with the rise of a Davidic King, full of Yahweh's spirit, in whom all the energies of Yahweh's transcendental kingship are as it were incarnate (Isa. x. 6 seq.; xi. 1 seq.; Micah v.). This conception, however, is not one of the constant elements of prophecy; other prophecies of Isaiah's look for the decisive interposition of Yahweh in the crisis of history, without a kingly deliverance. Jeremiah again speaks of the future David or righteous sprout of David's stem (xxiii. 5 seq.; xxx. 9) and Ezekiel uses similar language (xxxiv., xxxvii.) ; but that such passages do not necessarily mean more than that the Davidic dynasty shall be continued in the time of restoration under worthy princes seems clear from the way in which Ezekiel speaks of the prince in xli., xlvi. The beginning of the process can probably be traced within the canon itself, in the book of Joel and the last chapters of Zechariah; and if this be so, we see from Zech. ix. that the picture of the ideal king claimed a place in such construc tions. In popular expectation the national Messiah was to be a scion of the house of David. Born at Bethlehem (Mich. v. 2) and destined to redeem Israel from the power of its foreign oppressors.
Carefully to be distinguished from the above is the idea of the heavenly Messiah which meets us in certain Apocalyptic books. Though the "Son of Man" of Daniel vii. 14 does not appear to be a strictly Messianic figure, nevertheless it has exercised an important influence on Messianic doctrine. This is a very remark able development, and one that is of great importance for the proper understanding of New Testament doctrine.