At times of great upheaval, "Mashiach Fever" always breaks out. With the expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula of the late fifteenth century, with it's forced conversion and public burnings, Mashiach was expected imminently, to punish the wicked and redeem the exiles. Philosophy had no answers, while Kabbalah did., This was a cosmic drama, which was being acted out on the human plane. Philosophy essentially dies out at that time, and Kabbalah reigned supreme for the next two centuries. But two new elements emerged in Kabbalah. One was the apocalyptic; the world was in birth pangs, with a very different world about to be born. "Prophets" sprang up everywhere, with predictions of immediate suffering, but eventual hope and vindication. Another concept springs up at this point. The idea that there is not one Messiah, but several. Perhaps even a process. Isaiah 9:6, taken literally and in context, indicates a Messianic role for King Hezekiah.In the Talmud, there is one view that he WAS the Mashiach, and we wait in vain for another. That view was rejected. But others said that indeed Hezekiah was slated to be Mashiach, but his own flaws made him lose that status. The sixteenth century saw the birth and acceptance of the idea that there is a potential Mashiach in every generation. Each performs a part of the "rectification", until the ultimate Mashiach will come and complete the task. A very delicate subject arises at this point. That is the issue of the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53. In context, the chapter refers not to an individual, but to the suffering of Israel among the Nations. Christianity, however, applied this role to Jesus, since he had not fulfilled any of the tasks of the Mashiach. The idea that he woulod do this at a "Second Coming" left open the question of what HAD he done. The idea was born that he needed to fulfill the role of the Suffering Servant, or that the Messianic Kingdom was an inner kingdom (Luke 17:21). These ideas are, from the Jewish perspective, very far from either the literal or symbolic sense of Scripture. Nevertheless, there are some Talmudic passages and Midrashim that connected the Mashiach in some way with Isaiah 53. There is an idea that Mashiach is currently alive, and is a beggar, either in Jerusalem of Rome, suffering from leprosy. Late Midrashim even offer a view of an apocalyptic Messiah, full of pain, dying in battle. Some connected this idea not with the Mashiach son of David, but rather Mashiach son of Joseph. However, the latter concept is only mentioned a few times in the Talmud, and is very vague. It is totally absent in the Talmud's main discussion of Mashiach, which I brought in part 2 of this series. Most later authorities, such a Maimonides, don't even mention such a possibility. In the sixteenth century, the view arose of a Suffering Servant warrior, who would fight the battles of G-d, and would then become the Mashiach ben David, IF he succeeds. If not, he will die in battle and we will go back to waiting. 
At this juncture, a remarkable figure emerges in the form of Shlomo Molcho (1500-1532). He was born Diogo Pires in Portugal, to anusim (marrano) parents. He felt the call of G-d, circumcised himself (!), and set out preaching the the return of the Anusim to Judaism, as well as the imminent coming of the Messiah. It is a hotly debated topic among historians if he considered himself to be the Messiah, or merely a "forerunner". He shocked the Christian world by accurately predicting a devastating flood in Rome, as well as a terrible earthquake in Lisbon. Turned over to the Inquisition, he managed to win favor from Pope Clement VII. Subsequently, he attempted to convince the Pope that he should convert to Judaism. This did not make him popular with the Inquisition. He was again arrested, and burned at the stake in Mantua, after refusing an offer to return to Christianity and live. Some of the greatest rabbis of the time had received him. and considered that a great privilege. (In the twentieth century, the Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke of him in glowing terms.) He wrote extensively about Job, considering Job's suffering as being the paradigm for the suffering of Israel, and ultimately of the Mashiach. Was this a result of his times, or perhaps influenced by his Christian upbringing? This is still being debated. His writings made clear that he had no positive feelings about Christianity or Jesus, but, ironically, had several major tenets of that religion, presented in a Jewish context. Under his influence, the Suffering Servant Messiah idea became somewhat mainstream, even finding expression in the teachings of the great Kabbalist, Rabbi Hayyim Vital. I am amazed that most present day rabbis haven't even heard of him. One possible reason is that a little over a century later, his ideas would be twisted, resulting in one of the greatest heresies ever to arise, and bringing about what is, in my opinion, the greatest tragedy ever to come upon us. That will be the next part of our story.