Torah and New Testament Foundations-The False Messiah-Part 19

We are looking at the article “Ahriman” in the Jewish Encyclopedia and examining certain portions as it relates to our subject about a great delusion. The article continues, “Dualism is even more clearly marked in the Book of Daniel than it is in the Parsee Religion. For the divine and the secular kingdoms are unable to exist side by side. The use that is made in 1 Chr 21.1 of the figure of Satan as an explanation of a certain historical event is continued in such passages as the Book of Wisdom 2.24, where, in allusion to Gen 3, it is stated that ‘by the envy of the Devil death entered the world.’ In agreement therewith the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, too, becomes identified with Satan or the Devil, or is said to have been his tool (compare the Jewish portions of Rev 12.9, 20.2). Thus Satan (the Devil) is here employed as an explanation of the origin of evil in mankind. In conjunction with this, and as a development from 1 Chr 21.1, we have the version given in the Book of Jubilees of the story of Genesis; for there Satan (Mastema, as he is there named) has repeatedly, whenever it is necessary to remove any feature that might give offense to Jewish conceptions of that later time, to assume a part that in Genesis was assigned to God himself. At the same time he is given an ever increasing army of evil spirits to serve him, not exactly evil, spirits becomes transformed into a belief in a dominion of evil under the sway of its head, the Devil. Consequently, Satan (or the devil) obtained for the Jewish ideas almost the same significance as Ahriman for Persians. Indeed, in certain respects he developed greater power than his Persian counterpart, in as much as he succeeded in corrupting the immediate followers of God, whereas Ahriman, in his contest with Ahuramazda, did not achieve such success.”

In a Jewish context, it can readily be seen that Ahriman is a term for the False Messiah. You can see how they connect Ahriman with Revelation and Gen 3, and as we know, Genesis 3 is where our theme for the False Messiah and the delusion began. Going back to “Ahriman” in the Jewish Encyclopedia it says, “The Jews tried to preserve the monism that was their original view by explaining the rise of Dualism as due to a fall among the original good spirits. The author of the Book of Enoch attributed the question of the origin of evil to the conception of a fall of the angels who seduced the daughters of men becoming thus the authors of all earthly sins, and especially of the demons, who according to the same author, are descended from the giants which the daughters of men bore to the fallen angels.” We don’t believe that this is true, but this was a belief of some of the Jewish people, but certainly not all.

Continuing on with the article, “In accordance with another doctrine, the Devil was said to have been actively present in the serpent in the Garden of Eden while still another maintains that the principles of good and evil were opposed to each other from the very beginning. Just as the dominion of the evil spirits was, in the Parsee theory, to come to an end with the advent of Sosiosh, so is the Messiah, according to Jewish faith, to destroy the devil and his kingdom. Just as, again, Ahriman in the Persian belief, was to do mankind terrible injury shortly before his end, so too, in the Jewish view, great tribulations were to precede the Messiah’s coming. The Jews would seem to have expected an evil Messiah, an Anti-Christ, consequently, the teaching of the New Testament in this direction does not imply anything new. This Anti-Christ is, moreover, to be, on the hypothesis of several writers, nothing else than an incarnation of the Devil himself. In consequence of the hatred of the Jews towards Rome, even after it had accepted Christianity, this Anti-Christ was also called Armilus, a Jewish rendering of Romulus, thus in Pseudo-Methodius (compare with Bouset, “Antichrist”, p 33, 67).”

So, this brings us to another name associated with the False Messiah, Armilus. So, we need to go to the article “Armilus” in the Jewish Encyclopedia to pick up additional information. “In later Jewish eschatology and legend, a king who will arise at the end of time against the Messiah, and will be conquered by him after having brought much distress upon Israel. The origin of this Jewish Antichrist (as he can well be styled in view of his relation to the Messiah) is as much involved in doubt as the different phases of his development, and his relation to the Christian legend and doctrine.”

“Saadia (born 892; died 942) is the earliest trustworthy authority that speaks of Armilus. He mentions the following as a tradition of the ancients, hence of the eighth century at the latest: If the Jews do not prove themselves worthy of Messianic salvation, God will force them into repentance by terrible persecutions. In consequence of these persecutions, a scion of the tribe of Joseph will arise and wrest Jerusalem from the hands of the Edomites, that is, from the Christians; the Arabic text of Landauer, p. 239, has correctly “Jerusalem,” and not “Temple,” as in the Hebrew translation, which has it owing to an erroneous interpretation of the Arabic “al bait al mukaddas.” Thereupon the king, Armilus, will conquer and sack the Holy City, kill the inhabitants together with “the man (Messiah) of the tribe of Joseph,” and then begin a general campaign against the Jews, forcing them to flee into the desert, where they will suffer untold misery. When they have been purified by sorrow and pain, the Messiah will appear, wrest Jerusalem from Armilus, slay him, and thereby bring true salvation.”

“Armilus is for Saadia, or rather for Saadia’s sources, nothing more or less than the last powerful anti-Jewish king, the Gog of the prophets under another name (compare ‘Emunot we-De’ot,’ ed. Fischel, viii, 152-154; ed. Landauer, p.239-241). The same thing is said of Gog that Saadia says of Armilus in “Aggadot Mashiah” in Jellinek, ‘B.H.’ iii. 141; but the role ascribed there to the Messiah, son of Joseph shows that this midrash is not Saadia’s source.” This is how Armilus is seen in some of the Apocalyptic literature, however, Gog in the Scriptures is the leader of Magog, or the Russians, when they invade Israel during the Birth-pains. He is not Armilus, or the False Messiah, who will come out of Europe, the countries that made up the old Roman Empire. Different ideas will come to shape and given to Armilus in other midrashim dealing with the end of days. In Part 20, we will pick here in the article on “Armilus” and discuss Armilus and Satan and other legends about this eschatological character.

Posted in All Teachings, Articles, Idioms, Phrases and Concepts, Prophecy/Eschatology, The Festivals of the Lord, The Tanak, Tying into the New Testament

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*