If Jesus is really the Messiah, why isn’t there peace on earth?
If Jesus is really the Messiah, why isn’t there peace on earth?
If Jesus is really the Messiah, why isn’t there peace on earth?
According to the biblical timetable, things are right on schedule, and Jesus has been doing everything the Messiah was expected to do up to this point. The problem is that you have an incomplete understanding of the biblical picture of the Messiah. According to the prophet Malachi, the Messiah would bring purification and purging before he brought peace. He would execute judgment before he established justice.
Many would not be able to endure the consequences of his coming. This is written in our Hebrew Bible! For many of our people, his coming would be bad news not good news. Our Scriptures also teach that the Messiah was to be a priestly King, like David. As a royal Priest, he came to make atonement for sins and offer forgiveness and reconciliation to Israel and the nations.
As King, his dominion expands every day, as he rules over those who embrace him as Messiah. Soon he will return and establish his kingdom on the earth, destroying the wicked and bringing worldwide peace. So, what you expected to be the first act of the play will actually be the final act.
If there is one standard objection to the messiahship of Jesus, it is this one, and on the surface, it appears to be logical: “The Messiah will bring peace to the earth; Jesus did not bring peace to the earth; therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah.” Could anything be more plain?
Of course, I could answer this objection with a question: “Why should there be peace on the earth if we rejected the Messiah, the bringer of peace?” (We will, in fact, return to that issue later; see below, 2.6.) But there is actually a serious flaw to the very premise of the objection: The reasoning is circular. It states what it wants to prove. In other words, it presupposes that the Messiah will usher in an age of peace (“That is part of the very concept of the Messiah”), and because Jesus did not literally do this on the earth, he is disqualified from being a legitimate Messianic candidate. What is really being said is this: “According to our description of the Messiah, it cannot be Jesus.”
But who says your description is right? That is the crux of the problem. In point of fact, the Hebrew Scriptures give us a much wider description of the Messiah and the Messianic age, and it is only Jesus who fits the bill. Thus, from a biblical perspective, it is not true to say the sole purpose of the Messiah was to bring about peace on earth.
That is only part of the biblical portrait. In fact, nowhere in our Scriptures does it explicitly say, “When the Messiah comes there will be peace on earth.” Rather, it speaks of an era of peace at the end of the age (see Isaiah 2:1–4, without any mention of a Messianic figure there), tying this in with the reign of a descendant of David, a greater David (see, e.g., Isaiah 11), and it is this glorious Davidic King whom we call Messiah.
Jewish tradition, however, has forgotten that this Davidic Messiah will be like David, both priestly and royal, while there are other significant biblical prophecies that speak of the Messiah’s sufferings and his atoning death on our behalf (see below, as well as the relevant discussion in vol. 3 dealing with Messianic prophecies). The bottom line is this: The Messiah first came to make peace between God and man, bringing the hope of reconciliation and forgiveness to the world. The ultimate effects of his first coming will lead to his return and an era of complete peace on earth.
Before considering some important verses from our Hebrew Bible, I want to share with you a fascinating Talmudic tradition along with an even more fascinating interpretation of that tradition from the writings of the Vilna Gaon, the greatest Rabbinic scholar of the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries. The Talmud says: “The world will exist six thousand years. Two thousand years of desolation [meaning from Adam to Abraham]; two thousand years of Torah [meaning from Abraham to somewhere around the beginning of the Common Era]; and two thousand years of the Messianic era [roughly the last two thousand years]; but because our iniquities were many, all this has been lost” (i.e., the Messiah did not come at the expected time; b. Sanhedrin 97a—b). According to this well-known Jewish tradition, the Messiah was supposed to come about two thousand years ago! As explained by Rashi, “After the 2000 years of Torah, it was God’s decree that the Messiah would come and the wicked kingdom would come to an end and the subjugation of Israel would be destroyed.” Instead, because Israel’s sins were many, “the Messiah has not come to this very day”—now two thousand years later. Interesting, isn’t it?
Let’s take a closer look at the actual dates involved. Most traditional Jews follow Rashi’s dating, putting the expected time of the Messiah’s arrival at roughly 240 c.e. However, Rashi based his figures on a significant chronological error in the Talmudic tradition, probably the most famous error of its kind in Rabbinic literature. It is a miscalculation of almost two hundred years! You see, when the Scriptures were not explicit in dating times and events, the rabbis had to rely on other sources and traditions to figure out how long certain periods were, sometimes getting these historical periods wrong. 1 In the case in point, they believed that the Second Temple stood for only 420 years, whereas it stood for approximately 600 years. Adjusting Rashi’s calculations by roughly 180 years, therefore, we find ourselves in the very century in which Yeshua came to our people. He was the one who came in the century in which the Messiah was expected—before the destruction of the Second Temple!—and this according to a Rabbinic tradition. 2
Now, the Vilna Gaon examined one of the more obscure stories of the Talmud in which a famous sage, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah, was confronted by the elders of Athens. These Greek intellectuals, living at the beginning of the second century c.e., asked Rabbi Yehoshua, “Where is the midpoint of the world?” In reply, he raised his finger and said, “Here!” When asked to prove his point, he asked for ropes and measure (b. Bechoroth 8b). What does this mean?
According to the Gaon, the Athenian elders were aware of the Talmudic tradition we just cited from Sanhedrin 97a—b and were arguing with Rabbi Yehoshua that
the present should be the midpoint between the two productive eras of the world, the eras of Torah and Mashiach. But obviously he has not come, for you Jews have certainly not been redeemed. We have crushed you and turned you into a nation of ruin, disaster, and despair. The “midpoint of the world” has manifestly passed by and the Era of Mashiach has not begun. Why, then, do you persist in hoping for his arrival? Why should he come in the future if he did not come at his appointed hour? Is it not clear that the time for his arrival has passed you by forever? 3
The problem, according to the Vilna Gaon, was that the Athenian elders were unaware of another Talmudic tradition that stated, “The son of David [i.e., the Messiah] will not come until all the government has turned to heresy” (b. Sanhedrin 97a), interpreted to mean that there would be a worldwide turning away from God before the Messiah would establish his kingdom. And so, the Gaon explains,
When the Elders asked, “Where is the midpoint of the world?” Rabbi Yehoshua raised his finger and said, “Here!” He was saying that although the Jews had not merited Mashiach’s coming by their deeds, nevertheless the Era of Mashiach had indeed arrived at its appointed time. At “the midpoint of the world” God began turning the wheels of history to insure the ultimate arrival of the scion of David. (p. 149)
In other words, God began a process of giving the human race over to its spiritual darkness and sin so as to eventually bring it to a place where “mankind will realize that the only way to convert himself back into a true human, a God-like being filled with wisdom, love, kindness, and an exalted spirit, is by the acceptance of God’s dominion. And when God demonstrates all this and man recognizes it, Mashiach will finally come” (p. 150).
And when did this process begin? It was “with the advent of the last third of human history: the Era of Mashiach may not be apparent, but it is ‘here.’ ” 4 Yes, even though the Messiah himself has not come, the Messianic era began right on schedule, only not in the way most were expecting.
What about Rabbi Yehoshua’s request for ropes and measure? The Gaon interprets this with reference to 2 Samuel 8:2, where King David measured out Moabite captives with lengths of rope, putting two-thirds of them to death while only sparing the last third (and see Zech. 13:8–9, also cited in the discussion). He explains that,
The ropes of King David are the measure of human history. The two-thirds of world history which did not choose to recognize God’s dominion refused to choose life. But the last third will be directed towards eternal life by a Providence which will lead the Jews step by step to the recognition of God.
What is the basis of your assertion, asked the Elders, that “here,” in the last third of human history, God’s mercy is at work and we are in the Era of Mashiach? Answered Rabbi Yehoshua: Remember the ropes of King David and you will learn the ways by which God directs His world. They teach us that God will never abandon his world, that ultimately the good for which God created it will be realized. 5
Note again those words “we are in the Era of Mashiach,” spoken more than eighteen hundred years ago. Yes, according to the Vilna Gaon’s interpretation of this Talmudic account, the Messianic era began more than eighteen hundred years ago. When you make the adjustment for his error in chronology (as pointed out above with regard to Rashi’s calculations), he is telling us in effect that the Messianic age began at the time of Jesus.
I remind you, of course, that the Vilna Gaon did not believe in Jesus any more than he believed Muhammad was the first Pope (note also that in all probability the Gaon did not have an accurate picture of who Yeshua was and what he did). It is striking, however, that this great Jewish scholar recognized that the Messianic era actually began at its appointed time and that this era was first a time of transition. Shades of “Christianity”! The biggest differences between the Gaon’s position and Christianity’s position are these: (1) The Gaon saw the present, transition age as one of universal, increasing darkness and apostasy. We see it as an age of ever increasing awareness of the Messiah in the midst of great darkness and apostasy. (2) He believed the Messianic era began without the coming of the Messiah. We believe it began with his coming.
Is it possible the Messiah did come two thousand years ago, but “because our iniquities were many” we did not recognize him? Isn’t this a more logical position than that posited by the Vilna Gaon? In fact, we will see in a moment that this position is not only more logical but is actually more biblical, since according to the Hebrew Bible, the Messiah was to arrive before the Second Temple was destroyed—in other words, more than nineteen hundred years ago.
Interestingly, the respected Jewish scholar Abba Hillel Silver pointed out that there was great expectation among our people that the Messiah would come “about the second quarter of the first century c.e., because the Millennium was at hand.” 6 Thus, according to Silver, “When Jesus came into Galilee, ‘spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of God and saying the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand’ [Mark 1:14–15], he was voicing the opinion universally held that the year 5000 in the Creation calendar, which is to usher in the sixth millennium—the age of the Kingdom of God—was at hand.” 7 When the Temple was destroyed in 70 c.e., however, and when the Messianic hopes surrounding the false messiah Simeon Bar Kochba were dashed to pieces in 135 c.e., many of the Talmudic rabbis needed to figure out why the Messiah hadn’t come at the appointed time, ultimately revising their chronology.
What was the solution to which these rabbis came? Silver summarizes the Rabbinic response as follows: “The Messianic age has actually begun with the destruction of the Temple [i.e., in 70 c.e.], but before its final denouement 365 or 400 years or more may elapse.” 8 Silver argues that the only way for these early rabbis to reconcile their Messianic expectations with their view that he did not come as expected was to postulate that the Messianic era actually did begin on time—according to this chronology in the year 70 c.e.—but it could be several more centuries before its conclusion. Shades of the Vilna Gaon’s interpretation!
Once more, it is not the Messianic Jewish position that is faulty but rather the Rabbinic position that is lacking. Messianic Jews say the Messiah came right on schedule and one of the signs that our people failed to acknowledge his coming was that the Temple—the central place of prayer and sacrifice for our nation—was destroyed forty years after he offered himself as the final sacrifice for sins. The Rabbinic view would be that the Messiah did not come on schedule and that the destruction of the Temple—leaving our people without an official, national means of atonement—signified the beginning of a Messianic era without a Messiah (the traditional Jewish Messiah still hasn’t come) and without a replacement for the Temple system. 9
Here are some related Talmudic traditions worth considering about the time and nature of the Messiah’s coming.
The Talmud states, “If they [i.e., the people of Israel] are worthy [the Messiah] will come ‘with the clouds of heaven’ [Dan. 7:13]; if they are not worthy, ‘lowly and riding upon a donkey’ [Zech. 9:9]” (b. Sanhedrin 98a). 10 Just days before he died, Yeshua entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey, with the crowds hailing him as King Messiah. But then the people turned on him. Is it possible that he came “lowly and riding on a donkey” because we were not worthy of his coming, and in the future, when we recognize him as Messiah, he will return in the clouds of heaven? 11
According to b. Yoma 39b, God did not accept the sacrifices that were offered on the Day of Atonement for the last forty years before the destruction of the [Second] Temple (this was known to the people by means of a series of special signs, all of which turned up negative for those forty years; see b. Yoma 39a). The Temple was destroyed in 70 c.e., so from 30 to 70 c.e., a period of forty years, the annual atonement sacrifices were not accepted. What great event happened in the year 30? Jesus was rejected and nailed to a cross! Is it possible that God no longer accepted the atonement sacrifices because the Messiah had offered himself as the perfect, final sacrifice?
Here is one more Rabbinic text to think about: “Why was the Second Temple destroyed, seeing that the people were engaged in Torah, [keeping] commandments, and [performing] charitable deeds? Because at that time there was hatred without a cause” (b. Yoma 9b). Jesus himself said that Israel’s leaders had hated him without a cause (John 15:18–25). Is it possible that this was the great sin that led to the destruction of the temple, hating the Messiah without a cause? And it was from the very year of his death, 30 c.e., that the atonement sacrifices ceased to be accepted.
Of course, we must remember that in the Talmud, these statements are cited only as several opinions among many, and none of them are absolutely binding or final. Yet these traditions had their origins somewhere, and it is not hard to see that they preserve an important belief: The Messiah was expected to come twenty centuries ago, but something terrible happened. Every Jewish person, therefore, must ask the question: If we have been waiting for thousands of years and still our expected Messiah has not come, is it possible we have been waiting for the wrong Messiah? Is it possible that twenty centuries ago the real Messiah did appear and we did not recognize him? Is it possible that without even knowing it, the Talmud has left us hints that point us in this very direction?
“Well, all that’s fine and good,” you might say. “And it’s certainly something to think about. But you keep stressing that what really matters is what the Hebrew Scriptures say, not what the Jewish traditions say. Is there clear evidence in our Bible that the Messiah came two thousand years ago?” Absolutely! Let’s take a look.
We’ll begin by putting three powerful pieces of evidence together. The conclusion is inescapable, especially in light of the Rabbinic traditions that preserve the memory that the Messiah was expected in the days of the Temple.
First, we’ll look at Haggai 2:6–9. These verses were recorded in the days of the building of the Second Temple, somewhere in the last third of the sixth century b.c.e.:
This is what the Lord Almighty says: “In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,” says the Lord Almighty. “The silver is mine and the gold is mine,” declares the Lord Almighty. “The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,” says the Lord Almighty. “And in this place I will grant peace,” declares the Lord Almighty.
The rabbis wrestled with these verses, asking, “In what way was the glory of the Second Temple greater than the glory of the First Temple?” You see, even though Persian kings helped fund the initial rebuilding of this Temple, and even though Herod elaborately beautified it about five hundred years later, fulfilling God’s words that the silver and gold were his, some rabbis realized that the “glory” of the Temple meant more than a splendid building. This is especially clear when we think of the biblical account of the dedication of the First Temple, a dedication marked by the glory of the Lord:
The priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the temple of God… . When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. The priests could not enter the temple of the Lord because the glory of the Lord filled it. When all the Israelites saw the fire coming down and the glory of the Lord above the temple, they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord, saying, “He is good; his love endures forever.”
2 Chronicles 5:14; 7:1–3; cf. also Exodus 40:34–35, where an almost identical scene took place and the Lord filled the tabernacle with his glory—meaning his manifest presence
Where was this glory at the dedication of the Second Temple? It was nowhere to be seen! In fact, the rabbis noted that there were at least five important items missing from the Second Temple that were present in the First Temple: the ark with the mercy seat and cherubim; the (divine) fire (see immediately above, 2 Chron. 7:1); the Shekhinah; the Holy Spirit; and the Urim and Thummim (b. Yoma 21b). It must be asked, therefore, in what way the glory of the Second Temple was greater than the glory of the First Temple. The standard answers given by the leading Rabbinic commentators are: (1) the Second Temple stood for a longer period of time than did the First Temple, or (2) the Second Temple, as beautified by Herod, was a more splendid building. 12 Neither of these answers, however, is satisfactory in light of the awesome presence of the glory of God that marked the dedication of the First Temple.
In addition to this, the Lord declared in Haggai 2:9 that in the Second Temple he would grant peace. However, while there were several peaceful eras during the days of that Temple, its overall history was marked by war and turmoil, much more so than the First Temple. 13 How then was this Temple to be specially marked by “peace,” and, more important, how was its glory to surpass the glory of the First Temple? To answer these questions, we turn to the next piece of prophetic evidence, coming from the Book of Malachi, written somewhere around 400 b.c.e. (i.e., less than 150 years after the rebuilding of the Second Temple). Here we have a more explicit statement: There was to be a divine visitation at the Second Temple—and for many of our people it would be bad news, not good news, a time of judgment rather than joy.
As rendered in the New Jewish Publication Society Version, Malachi 3:1–5 states:
Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me, and the Lord whom you seek shall come to His Temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can hold out when he appears? For he is like a smelter’s fire and like fuller’s lye. He shall act like a smelter and purger of silver; and he shall purify the descendants of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they shall present offerings in righteousness. Then the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of yore and in the years of old. But [first] I will step forward to contend against you, and I will act as a relentless accuser against those who have no fear of Me: Who practice sorcery, who commit adultery, who swear falsely, who cheat laborers of their hire, and who subvert [the cause of] the widow, orphan, and stranger, said the Lord of Hosts.
We see from this passage that the Lord (in Hebrew, haʾadon, always used with reference to God in the Hebrew Bible when it has the definite article), 14 preceded by his messenger, would visit the Second Temple, purifying some of his people and bringing judgment on others. That is to say, there would be a divine visitation of great import that would occur in the days of the Second Temple. How are these verses to be understood?
According to the famous medieval Jewish commentaries of Radak (David Kimchi) and Metsudat David, “the Lord” refers to none other than “King Messiah.” However, neither of these commentators took sufficient note of the fact that the Messiah was to come to the Temple that stood in Malachi’s day (and note also that it is called “his Temple”—pointing clearly to the divine nature of the “Lord” spoken of here). I ask you, did this happen? If it did, then the Messiah must have come before the Temple was destroyed in 70 c.e.; if not, God’s Word has failed. 15
After reviewing the prophecy we just read from Haggai 2, we can now put two big pieces of the puzzle together: The glory of the Second Temple would be greater than the glory of the First Temple because the Lord himself—in the person of the Messiah 16—would visit the Second Temple! And in this place he would grant peace because the Messiah, called “the Prince of Peace,” would come there in person and open the way for peace and reconciliation between God and man. 17
“But,” you object, “I thought you said the Messiah did not come primarily to bring peace during his so-called ‘first coming.’ Now you seem to be saying that he was some kind of a peacemaker.”
That’s a good observation! Actually, although the Messiah’s main purpose two thousand years ago was not to establish peace on the earth (see also objection 2.6, below), since he knew that he would be rejected as King at that time, he is still rightly called the Prince of Peace in the Scriptures. How so? First, he offers peace to all who will embrace him and turn from sin; second, he makes peace between hostile sinners and a holy God; and third, he brings peace to his people who follow him. It is his sacrificial death on the cross that will ultimately lead to worldwide peace when he returns to establish the kingdom of God on earth. 18 It is clear, then, that we have a perfectly good explanation of the meaning of Haggai’s prophecy (namely, that in the days of the Second Temple God would grant peace), since the Messiah himself visited there and offered peace to all who would hear his voice. For those who say that the Messiah did not come to the Second Temple, where then was the shalom, the promised peace? 19
Now we turn to our third piece of evidence, found in Daniel 9:24–27, one of the most widely discussed prophecies in the Tanakh. 20 While scholars disagree as to when this chapter was actually composed, everyone understands the historical background presupposed by the text. In other words, the Bible wants us to place Daniel 9 at the end of the period of the Babylonian exile, somewhere in the 530s b.c.e. Daniel had been asking the Lord when the exile would end, having understood from the words of Jeremiah that the captivity in Babylon would last for seventy years (see Jer. 25:11–12; 29:10). According to Daniel’s understanding, the seventy years were almost over, signaling the time of Judah’s restoration. So he gave himself to prayer and fasting, repenting before the Lord for his people’s many sins, and asking God to fulfill his promise and bring to an end Judah’s exile.
Surprisingly, the answer that came from the angel of the Lord dealt with a period far beyond the period of 70 years. In fact, it spoke of a period of 490 years, literally 70 sevens (or 70 weeks, meaning weeks of years, as opposed to weeks of days, an understanding that is almost universal among both Jewish and Christian commentators). But this is where the agreement ends, and the questions and differences of interpretation are myriad. For example: When does this period of 490 years begin? How should the years be divided? What events will transpire in the last week of years? How many anointed ones (Hebrew, mashiachs) does the text describe?
Actually, for our present discussion, it is not important to have definitive answers for all these questions because the biblical text makes one thing perfectly clear: Final atonement for Israel’s sins had to be made before the Second Temple was destroyed. (Remember that Daniel’s prophecy was received shortly before the rebuilding of the Temple and describes the future destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e.) Let’s read Daniel 9:24–27 in the New Jewish Publication Society Version:
Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city until the measure of transgression is filled and that of sin complete, until iniquity is expiated, and eternal righteousness ushered in; and prophetic vision ratified, and the Holy of Holies anointed. You must know and understand: From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the [time of the] anointed leader is seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress. And after those sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will disappear and vanish. 21 The army of a leader who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary, but its end will come through a flood. Desolation is decreed until the end of war. During one week he will make a firm covenant with many. For half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering. At the corner [of the altar] will be an appalling abomination until the decreed destruction will be poured down upon the appalling thing.
You might say, “Some of these verses are difficult to understand.” Maybe so. But what is not difficult to understand is that a period of extraordinary significance in our people’s history was about to unfold in which the Temple and the city of Jerusalem would be rebuilt and during which, among other things, iniquity would be expiated and eternal righteousness ushered in—all before the destruction of the Temple and the city. There it is again! God’s solution for sin would be set in place before the year 70 c.e.
To review: The Hebrew Scriptures teach that while the Second Temple was standing, there would be a divine visitation to that Temple of great import, bringing purification and judgment. Sin would be atoned for and everlasting righteousness ushered in, and the events associated with this Second Temple would be so great that its glory would surpass that of the glorious First Temple. If the Messiah, the Son of God, did not come and visit the Temple, if he did not pay for our sins and establish a new way of righteousness, if he did not bring the glory of God to the house of God, if his coming did not purify and purge the Jewish people in his generation, then how were these prophecies fulfilled? What divine visitation did take place if not for the coming of the Messiah? When else did God visit the Second Temple in a “personal” way?
The answers to all of the above are simple: Either the Messiah came almost two thousand years ago or the biblical prophets were false prophets—in which case we can throw the Bible out and go join some other religion (or abandon religion completely). Thankfully, we don’t need to lose confidence in the Scriptures for one second: The Messiah came, died, and rose from the dead right on schedule and in strict conformity to the biblical prophecies (see vol. 3 for more on this), doing all he was scheduled to do during his first visit to earth. The problem is not with him but with us, and in that light, we must consider a grim prophecy delivered by the prophet Hosea more than twenty-seven hundred years ago:
The Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol. Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the Lord and to his blessings in the last days.
Hosea 3:4–5
This is the period in which we have been living since the coming of the Messiah twenty centuries ago: Most of our people have been without God and the Davidic Messiah, without king or prince or sacrifice; but we are now returning to the Lord and his Messiah, and he is being found by us.
“That’s really interesting,” you say, “but is there any other evidence in the Bible that there would be some kind of large gap in God’s dealing with his people? You seem to be arguing that there is a long interval between the Messiah’s initial coming into the world and his return.”
Exactly. And there is further biblical evidence to support this. In fact, it is found in the calendar God gave to our people.
In biblical days, the New Year began with the month of Nissan (see Exod. 12:1–3; 13:4—5; b. Rosh Hashanah 2a—b), and the first major holy day was the Passover, followed by Firstfruits (the first day after the very next Sabbath), followed fifty days later by Shavu‘ot (the Feast of Weeks), meaning that there is a cluster of activity at the beginning of the calendar year. When does the next holy day occur? Five months later! At that time there is an even more intense cluster of religious activity: first, Rosh Hashanah, the traditional New Year, falling on the first day of the seventh month; second, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, occurring ten days later; third, and finally, Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles), occurring just four days after Yom Kippur. So, there are no holy days for five long months, and then, quite suddenly, three major spiritual events in just fourteen days.
What’s the connection between the calendar and the Messiah? Simply this. These holy days, which have been so important to the life cycle of our people through the generations, are filled with prophetic meaning and significance, only some of which have been recognized by the rabbis. This is because it is only through the Messiah that we can fully understand the meaning of these special days. 22 Let me explain.
When Jesus began his public ministry, he was recognized as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The reference was to the annual ceremony of the slaying of the Passover lamb, looking back to the time when our forefathers were delivered from Egypt and commemorated every year in the Passover Seder. Even irreligious Jews have heard the story of the ten plagues that God sent on the Egyptians, culminating with the death of every firstborn male in the land, a horrible plague from which the Israelites were spared. How were our forefathers protected from the angel of death when he went through the land? It was through the blood of the Passover lamb.
The Lord instructed his people to slaughter an unblemished lamb, one for each family. Then they were to take the lamb’s blood and smear it on the door frames of their homes, and when God saw the blood, he would pass over them:
When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down. Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. When you enter the land that the Lord will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. And when your children ask you, “What does this ceremony mean to you?” then tell them, “It is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.” Then the people bowed down and worshiped.
Exodus 12:23–27
Passover derives its name from the fact that the Lord passed over our people in Egypt when he saw the blood of the lamb on the doorframes of their homes. Yes, it was the blood of that sacrificial lamb that saved them from death. When was it that the Messiah laid down his life as a sacrificial lamb to save us from sin and death? At the time of the Passover! While our people were preparing their lambs for slaughter throughout the land, God was preparing his Lamb for slaughter.
But this is only the beginning. Three days later, on the first day after the Sabbath, Jesus the Messiah rose from the dead. What day was this on the Jewish calendar? It was the day of the Festival of Firstfruits, as described in Leviticus 23:10–11, “When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest … the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath” (referring to the Sabbath during Passover). 23 This is what Paul, the great Jewish teacher, wrote about as he reflected back on these wonderful events roughly twenty-five years after the Messiah’s resurrection:
But [Messiah] has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep [i.e., died]. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in [Messiah] all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: [Messiah], the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
1 Corinthians 15:20–23
Israel’s calendar began with the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, followed by the celebration of the firstfruits of the harvest. The Messiah fulfilled both of these, laying down his life for us and then being the first to rise from the dead—a token of the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. What was next on the biblical calendar? It was the Feast of Weeks, fifty days after Passover, a time when, according to Jewish tradition, our people received the law on Mount Sinai. 24 Significantly, it was on the first day of this feast, exactly fifty days after Yeshua’s resurrection, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on his followers, fulfilling the prophecy of Joel (see Joel 2:28–32 [3:1–4]). 25 This is more than coincidental!
It gets even more interesting from here. As mentioned above, this cluster of religious and spiritual activity on our calendar is followed by almost six months of silence—no special festivals or holy days other than the weekly Sabbaths and the monthly New Moons. Then the cluster of activity begins again—the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), and the Feast of Tabernacles, all filled with prophetic meaning.
Several New Testament authors, mirroring the words of Jesus himself, wrote that the Messiah would return with the blast of the trumpet (i.e., the shofar or ram’s horn; see Matt. 24:30–31; 1 Cor. 15:51–52; 1 Thess. 4:16; Rev. 11:15), the piercing wake-up call that will be heard around the world. Interestingly, Moses Maimonides wrote that the shofar blast on Rosh Hashanah signified, so to say,
Wake up from your sleep, you sleepers! Arise from your slumber, you slumberers! Examine your deeds! Return to God! Remember your creator! Those of you who forget the truth in the futilities of the times and spend all year in vanity and emptiness, look into your soul, improve your ways and your deeds. Let each of you abandon his evil ways and his immoral thoughts. 26
So it will be when the Messiah returns! In fact, many biblical interpreters believe that the prophet Zechariah described this event, speaking of a day when our people would look to the Lord’s Messiah and mourn, recognizing him for who he really was—the one pierced for their sins—and then deeply repenting for having rejected him for so long:
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, and all the rest of the clans and their wives.
Zechariah 12:10–14 27
What will happen after this time of mourning and repentance? Atonement will come to our people, as it is written in Zechariah 13:1, the very next verse in that book: “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.”
This, then, will be the sequence: First, the sounding of the trumpet and the Messiah’s return, then, the Day of Atonement—spoken of in consecutive verses in the same prophetic book. Then, as if the picture needed to be made any more clear, the very next chapter in Zechariah states that Yahweh himself will come to Jerusalem and fight for his people, destroying the nations that have attacked the city (Zech. 14:1–5), after which the survivors of these nations will come up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord—in fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles (Zech. 14:16). 28 Our very calendar lays it all out!
This is the order: Passover (speaking of the Messiah’s death and our deliverance through him); Firstfruits (Yeshua is the first to rise from the dead); and Shavu‘ot or Pentecost (the Holy Spirit is poured out on the Messiah’s followers). All this took place in conjunction with Yeshua’s first coming, corresponding to the beginning of the biblical calendar. Now, after a gap of almost two thousand years—corresponding to the five-month gap between holy days on Israel’s calendar—we are about to enter into the final phase of holy days and celebration: Trumpets (the Messiah’s return with the blast of the shofar); Yom Kippur (national atonement coming to our people as we recognize the Messiah and repent); and Tabernacles (all peoples coming to Jerusalem to worship the Lord). What a wonderful, scriptural picture!
What’s more, Israel’s calendar revolved around the cycle of harvest, so that even during the intervening months, when no special days or celebrations were held, things were moving toward the time of ingathering, represented by Tabernacles. That’s exactly where we stand today: During these intervening years between the first coming of the Messiah and his return, everything is moving toward the final ingathering of souls—both Jewish and Gentile—into the kingdom of God.
The tragedy is that as a nation we missed the time of the Messiah’s visitation, failing to realize that he would come to give himself as a righteous martyr, an atoning sacrifice for our sins, before exerting his rule over us, functioning not only as a king but also as a priest. 29 We failed to see that he came first to make expiation for our sins. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures have much to say about the priestly role of the Messiah, although traditional Judaism has virtually eliminated any vestige of this concept from its laws, lore, and liturgy.
This becomes even more interesting when we realize that the Jews who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls were looking for two Messianic figures, called the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. 30 In addition to this, the important first-century c.e. document called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in particular the Testaments of Levi and Judah, also had much to say about this priestly Messiah, speaking of him in highly exalted terms. 31 These concepts were undoubtedly derived from the Hebrew Bible itself. In fact, a good case can be made for the argument that Rabbinic Judaism excised the concept of a priestly Messiah in reaction to Yeshua’s priestly Messianic work. 32 This is so important!
“What’s the big deal?” you ask. “I really don’t see it. So what if the Messiah was to be a priestly King. The bottom line is that the Messiah did not bring peace to the earth and establish God’s kingdom.”
That’s where you’re missing the point! When our own Hebrew Bible states that the Messiah was to be a priestly King, it means that he had to deal with our sins once and for all as well as establish peace on the earth. First, he had to rule in our hearts and bring us into right relationship with God; when he returns he will establish God’s reign over all the world. This is the very point stressed in the passage we just examined in Daniel 9: God would deal decisively with sin before the Second Temple was destroyed, and he would do this through his Messiah. Isn’t this the logical order? First, the root of the problem—human sin—must be addressed. Then, after people repent of their sins and receive forgiveness from the Lord, his kingdom can be established.
What then is the biblical background to this concept of a priestly Messiah? According to Psalm 110:4, the Lord made an emphatic oath that the Davidic king in Jerusalem was to be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of that city: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek’ ” (Ps. 110:4; see also Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7). According to one interpretation, this divine oath was spoken to David by an inspired court poet, in which case David himself was declared to be a priest-king. According to another interpretation, the whole psalm was spoken by David about the Messiah. Thus, the opening words, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’ ” (Ps. 110:1), are understood to be those of David, declaring God’s promise to the Messiah, David’s lord. 33 And it is the royal Messiah who is designated a priest forever like Melchizedek, the first priest-king mentioned in the Scriptures.
In either case, it is interesting to note that David did perform priestly functions such as offering sacrifices (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 24:25), a divine service that only priests could perform, 34 while according to 2 Samuel 8:18, David’s sons were priests (kohanim, always translated as “priests” throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible). 35 Thus, David, the biblical prototype of the Messiah, 36 was to be a priestly king. In keeping with this, the Messiah is explicitly typified by a priest ruling on a throne in the Book of Zechariah.
According to a prophetic vision recorded in Zechariah 3:8, the Lord said, “Hearken well, O High Priest Joshua, you and your fellow priests sitting before you! For those men are a sign that I am going to bring My servant the Branch” (njpsv). And who is the Branch? He is none other than the Davidic Messiah, as widely recognized by biblical commentators. 37 Thus the New Jewish Publication Society Version simply explains in a footnote, “I.e., the future king of David’s line. See 6:12; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; cf. Isa. 11:1.” So, the High Priest and his fellow priests are a sign that the Branch—the Davidic Messiah—is coming.
In the very next chapter of the book, the prophet sees another interesting vision and asks the angel, “ ‘And what … are those two olive trees, one on the right and one on the left of the lampstand? … What are the two tops of the olive trees that feed their gold through those two golden tubes?’ He asked me, ‘Don’t you know what they are?’ And I replied, ‘No, my lord’ ” (Zech. 4:11–13 njpsv).
What did these double symbols stand for? “Then he explained, ‘They are the two anointed dignitaries who attend the Lord of all the earth’ ” (4:14), again explained by the njpsv to mean, “I.e., the high priest and the king (cf. 3:8–9 with note); lit. ‘sons of oil.’ ” 38 Once again these two key figures are joined together.
But the clincher is found in Zechariah 6:11–13, where the prophet is commanded to
take silver and gold and make crowns. Place [one] on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak, and say to him, “Thus said the Lord of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the Lord. He shall build the Temple of the Lord and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them” (njpsv).
I don’t know about you, but these words strike me as absolutely amazing. Once again, it is the High Priest, crowned as king, who serves as a symbol of a man called the Branch—the nickname of the Messiah. I’ll say it again: The Messiah was to be a priestly King, and as a priestly King he came to atone for our sins. Thus, the prophet Isaiah tells us that this Servant of the Lord would suffer for our sins (see Isa. 53:4–6), be stricken for our transgressions (53:8), be offered as a guilt offering (53:10) and bear our iniquities (53:11). God says, “Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (53:12). 39 How wonderful our Messiah is! He is not only our glorious King but our great High Priest. 40
This much is certain: Since the Messiah had to come almost two thousand years ago—according to the testimony of our own Scriptures—if Jesus is not the Messiah, we will never have a Messiah. It is either Yeshua or no one. Tragically, for two thousand years now, most of us Jews have chosen the latter option, although we have pinned our hopes on many false messiahs along the way, from Bar Kochba to Shabbetai Zvi to the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Isn’t it time we realize what almost one billion Gentiles, along with countless tens of thousands of Jews around the world, have already recognized? Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and the nations, and it is high time we reverently receive him as such, for the good of our people and the glory of our God. In the words of a famous letter written to first-century Jewish followers of Jesus, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so [Messiah] was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (Heb. 9:27–28).
Many of our people missed him the first time around. Let’s be sure we’re waiting for him when he returns!
Yeshua the Messiah did what he had to do according to our Scriptures, coming right on schedule and offering himself for our sins. Therefore, we can be sure he will return and do everything else prophesied of him. In fact, whereas traditional Judaism is still waiting for the Messiah to come and make the first and last installments in the plan of redemption in one fell swoop, the real Messiah already came twenty centuries ago and made the down payment for our souls, giving us total confidence that he will come back to finish the work, claim his redeemed people for himself, and settle the score with the wicked and the godless of the world.
Whose position is more secure? One position says, “Although he was supposed to come almost two thousand years ago, our sins prevented him from coming. But we’re still waiting for him!” The other position says, “He was supposed to come almost two thousand years ago, he did come almost two thousand years ago, and he paid for our sins and rose from the dead—just as it was written of him. We have no doubt he’ll be back at the scheduled time, just as soon as everyone in the world has had an opportunity to believe in him, repent, and receive forgiveness for their sins.” Which position do you embrace? 41
As you’ll see in the next answer, there’s something significant about the times in which we are living, times that could well usher in the Messiah’s second coming to earth. The clock is ticking and the transition age is almost over! While we might think we have been waiting for the Messiah for two thousand years, he has actually been waiting for us! Don’t wait for him another moment. The hour is late and the time of his return is drawing nearer by the day.
1 For an in-depth study of the issues involved, with ample bibliography, see Mitchell First, Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology (Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1997; note that First is a graduate of Yeshiva University); cf. also Judah M. Rosenthal, “Seder Olam,” Encyclopedia Judaica 14:1091–93. For the Hebrew text with translation and commentary, cf. Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, Seder Olam: The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology (Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1998).
2 It should be pointed out that ancient Near Eastern and biblical scholars often begin their dating of the patriarchal period (i.e., beginning with Abraham) to roughly 2000 b.c.e., although there is no definite consensus. Cf., e.g., Mordecai Cogan, “Chronology,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:1005, who notes that, “Many scholars would place the Patriarchs in the MB [Middle Bronze] I period (2000–1800 b.c.e.), a conjecture based on the putative similarities between their seminomadic lifestyle as described in Genesis and the Amorite movements known from archaeology and the Mari documents.” In contrast, only “a few” scholars “place them in the LB [Late Bronze] Age (1550–1200 b.c.e.)…” (ibid.). Of course, as Cogan observed (ibid., 1:1004), “No absolute dates for the patriarchal age are available since the events related in Genesis and Exodus cannot be synchronized with extrabiblical chronology.”
3 This is the expanded rendering of the Hebrew text by Aharon Feldman in The Juggler and the King: The Jew and the Conquest of Evil. An Elaboration of the Vilna Gaon’s Insights into the Hidden Wisdom of the Sages (Jerusalem/New York: Feldheim, 1991), 146.
4 Ibid., 149–50.
5 Ibid., 151–52.
6 Abba Hillel Silver, A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 7.
7 Ibid., 6, his emphasis.
8 Ibid., 19.
9 For more on the issue of sacrifice and atonement, see vol. 2, 3.8–3.17.
10 See also the commentary to Daniel 7:13–14 attributed to Saadiah Gaon, in which these verses are once again interpreted messianically, and see Rashi to the verses cited in Daniel and Zechariah.
11 For more on the glorious return of the Messiah, see Brown, Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, 165–73, and cf. vol. 2, 3.24; vol. 3, 5.15. Interestingly, the Lubavitcher Rebbe taught that both descriptions of the Messiah’s coming could be fulfilled and that it was not necessarily a matter of either/or. See From Exile and Redemption, vol. 2, Chassidic Teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Schneerson and the Preceding Rebbeim of Chabad on the Future Redemption and the Coming of Mashiach (Brooklyn: Kehot, 1996), 6: “The Talmudic sages [b. Sanhedrin 98a] speak of two possible ways in which Mashiach can come: (a) ʿm ʿnny smyʾ—‘with the clouds of heaven’ [Dan. 7:13]; (b) ‘ny wrwkb hmwr—as ‘a poor man riding on a donkey’ [Zech. 9:9]. It may be suggested that these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Rather, Mashiach will be both powerfully exalted (‘on the clouds of heaven’) and humbly self-effacing (‘a poor man riding on a donkey’).” Of course, the problem with Rabbi Schneerson’s interpretation is that it fails to do justice to the language of Daniel 7:13, which speaks of one coming with the clouds of heaven, also describing this individual as gloriously and universally exalted, receiving the adoration of the entire world.
12 While it is true that the immediate context in Haggai 2 speaks of physical splendor and earthly wealth, using the Hebrew word kabod (glory) in this sense, several factors militate against a purely physical explanation: (1) As stressed above, the term kabod when tied in with the temple or tabernacle (in particular in light of 2 Chronicles and Exodus 40 in which it occurs with the verb male’, “fill”) cannot be limited to physical appearance alone. Just note some of these other verses in which the Hebrew Bible speaks of filling something with glory, all with reference to the manifest presence of God: 1 Kings 8:11; Ezek. 10:4; 43:5; 44:4, and see especially Exod. 29:42–43: “For the generations to come this burnt offering is to be made regularly at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the Lord. There I will meet you and speak to you; there also I will meet with the Israelites, and the place will be consecrated by my glory.” The obvious question is, How much “glory” could there be in a beautiful, even splendid building devoid of the Shekhinah, the “down-to-earth” presence of God? See also Isa. 6:3–4; Hab. 2:14. (2) The fact that some sages (from the Talmud on) suggested that the greater glory was to be understood in terms of duration (hardly a compelling interpretation, to say the least) indicates that in their view, the contextual meaning of kabod of Haggai 2 did not clearly refer to physical splendor. (3) Even some refutationists, such as Isaac Troki in his classic work Hizzuk Emunah: Faith Strengthened (New York: Sefer Hermon, 1970), 169–73, rejected the standard Rabbinic interpretations, arguing instead that the references to “this House” in Haggai 2 actually referred to the Third Temple! Of course, such arguments become completely unnecessary when it is realized that the Messiah, bearing and revealing the glory of God and prophetically called “the Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6 [5]), came to the Second Temple, right on schedule. See also immediately below, n. 13.
13 Isaac Troki also refutes this notion, stating, “For during the existence of the second temple no peace reigned in the land; but according to Daniel, ‘the street and the entrenchment were to be built amidst the troubles of the times.’ Much less can it be said that the glory of the temple was reserved for the days of Herod, for from his house contention never departed, and after his death sufferings never ceased with the Jews, until their final overthrow” (Faith Strengthened, 170). His further arguments against traditional Jewish interpretations of Haggai 2:9 are also worth quoting: “Nor can we admit that the glory of the second temple consisted in its longer duration—a point discussed in the Talmud (Baba Bathra), for the Scripture makes no mention of the glory being attributable to the length of the time during which the temple was constructed or lasted. And even if the duration of the second temple had exceeded by double the time of the first temple, the word glory could not have been assigned to this distinction” (ibid.). For Troki (ibid., 169–70), the “non-fulfillment” of the promise of peace in Haggai 2:9 sets aside the possibility that the greater glory referred to in this verse is merely one of material splendor. Interestingly, Abraham Ibn Ezra raises the possibility that the promise of Haggai 2:9 is conditional: “If they will be completely righteous, as Zechariah said, and if they will diligently hearken and obey.” This interpretation certainly says a lot, since it basically admits that the standard Rabbinic views are not correct and that, therefore, the prophecy was never fulfilled. The alternative, of course, is obvious: Yeshua fulfilled the prophecies! See also immediately above, n. 12.
14 Outside of Malachi 3:1, the phrase is always hâʾadon yhwh; see Exod. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 10:17; Isa. 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33; 19:4. For the usage in Malachi 3:1, cf. Andrew E. Hill, Malachi (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 268.
15 It is ludicrous to argue that the coming of the Lord to his Temple did not refer to the Second Temple but rather to a Temple that is yet to be built, now twenty-four hundred years after Malachi’s words. There was, quite obviously, no way that the prophet himself would have conceived of such a thought, and the entire context of the Book of Malachi makes it clear that there was to be a time of divine judgment and visitation for the people who worshiped and served at the Second Temple. In fact, it is surprising that it even took four hundred years for this word to be fulfilled, since the coming of the messenger of the covenant was said to be imminent (cf. the njpsv’s “he is already coming”). It is also worth pointing out that Radak believed that this messenger who prepares the way of the Lord was either the Messiah or Elijah (in the former case, meaning that both figures are one and the same), whereas Metsudat David states only that it is Elijah (but in v. 1, Radak felt that it was a heavenly messenger, as in Exod. 23:25). According to Ibn Ezra, the messenger of v. 1a might refer to Messiah Ben Joseph, but the ʾadon in v. 1b did not refer to Yahweh but to the aforementioned messenger of the covenant. For the New Testament application of these verses and concepts, cf. especially Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2–3; and cf. Matt. 3:10–12 with Mal. 3:1–4. According to Moses Maimonides, the words “he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver” describe the work of the Messiah; see his Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 12:3.
16 For those who find references to the divine nature of the Messiah to be crass or “un-Jewish,” I would point out that either the Messiah was a divine man who brought the presence of God to earth two thousand years ago and who will return with divine glory in the near future, or else Yahweh himself had to literally visit the Second Temple (according to Malachi 3) and will have to literally return and stand on the Mount of Olives in the future (according to Zechariah 14). In light of our forthcoming discussion (see vol. 2, 3.1–3.4, 3.22), only the former option (viz., the divine nature of the Messiah) is possible. See also John J. Collins, “Jewish Monotheism and Christian Theology,” in Aspects of Monotheism: How God Is One, ed. Hershel Shanks and Jack Meinhart (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1997), 81–105.
17 For further discussion of Isaiah 9, cf. vol. 2, 3.22 and vol. 3, 4.9; for more on the Messiah bringing peace, cf. below, 2.6.
18 Luke, a devoted Gentile follower of Yeshua (who some think may have been a Jewish convert), tells us that Zechariah, the father of John the Immerser and a Levite himself, prophesied that the Messiah would “guide our feet into the path of peace” (Luke 1:79), while the angels announcing his birth proclaimed to the startled shepherds, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests” (Luke 2:14); for discussion of this phrase in the light of linguistic usage in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “ ‘Peace upon Earth among Men of His Good Will’ (Luke 2:14),” reprinted in idem, Essays on the Semitic Background to the New Testament (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974), 101–4. Also, as we will see shortly, when Jesus came to Jerusalem shortly before his death, he cried out, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes” (Luke 19:42). In other words, we rejected his offer of peace! See also Luke 4:18–19, where Jesus explained his mission with reference to Isaiah 61:1–3, but he ended the quote from Isaiah part way through the last verse, saying that he had come “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” and stopping before the words “and the day of vengeance of our God.” In other words, his primary mission was to offer grace not bring judgment.
19 Interestingly, the njpsv version renders here with “grant prosperity,” understanding Hebrew shalom in a broader sense.
20 For further discussion of this passage, see vol. 3, 4.23–4.26.
21 Other renderings of this important phrase include, “the [or, an] anointed one will be cut off and have nothing”; or, “the [or, an] anointed one will be cut off, but not for himself.” Note further that “anointed one” could also be rendered “Messiah.”
22 For Rabbinic literature on the significance of the holy days, cf., e.g., S. Y. Agnon, ed., Days of Awe: A Treasury of Jewish Wisdom for Reflection, Repentance, and Renewal on the High Holy Days (New York: Schocken, 1995); Abraham P. Bloch, The Biblical and Historical Background of the Jewish Holy Days (New York: Ktav, 1978); Avraham Yaakov Finkel, The Essence of the Holy Days (Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1993); Moshe A. Braun, The Jewish Holy Days: Their Spiritual Significance (Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1996); Phillip Goodman, The Rosh Hashanah Anthology (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994); idem, The Yom Kippur Anthology (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994); idem, The Sukkot and Simhat Torah Anthology (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1973); idem and Amy Goodman, The Passover Anthology (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994); see also the Messianic Jewish sources listed in the bibliographical supplement in Brown, Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, 234; cf. further the non-technical studies of Barney Kasdan, God’s Appointed Time: A Practical Guide for Understanding and Celebrating the Biblical Holidays (Baltimore: Lederer, 1993); and Edward Chumney, The Seven Festivals of the Messiah (Shippensburg, Pa.: Treasure House, 1994).
23 For discussion of the counting of days from First Fruits to Shavu‘ot, see above, 1.5, n. 12.
24 See b. Shabbat 86b.
25 Note also that, immediately after receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter stood up and spoke to a large crowd of fellow Jews who had just assembled, proclaiming to them the death and resurrection of the Messiah. As a result, three thousand more Jews put their faith in Jesus that very day and received eternal life through their repentance. Interestingly, shortly after the Lord gave our people the law on Mount Sinai, many of the people were guilty of idolatry, resulting in the death of three thousand Israelites. See Exod. 32:1–28; Acts 2:1–41.
26 Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah (Laws of Repentance) 3:4, as vibrantly translated by Finkel, The Essence of the Holy Days, 25.
27 For further discussion of this passage, see vol. 3, 4.36.
28 For the significance of the Feast of Tabernacles as an endtime Messianic event, as well as a foreshadowing of the final ingathering of the nations of the world into the kingdom of God, cf. Mitch and Zhava Glaser, The Fall Feasts of Israel (Chicago: Moody, 1987), along with the works referred to above, n. 22. Note also that the ancient rabbis stressed the universal importance of Tabernacles, believing that the seventy bulls sacrificed over the seven days of the feast (see Num. 29:12–38) represented the seventy nations of the world and Israel’s intercession on their behalf; cf. Numbers Rabbah 21; b. Sukkah 55b; and Zech. 14:16–19.
29 For the deeply spiritual Jewish teaching that the death of the righteous atones, see vol. 2, 3.15.
30 For refutation of the idea that the authors of the scrolls expected only one Messiah of Aaron and Israel, see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995); note also L. H. Schiffman, “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 116–29. It is also noteworthy that in several other Qumran texts, there is reference to a Davidic Messiah and a priest (see Collins, Scepter and the Star, 74–101); note further b. Sukkah 52b, interpreting Zech. 1:20 with reference to the two Messiahs, Elijah, and the righteous High Priest.
31 See conveniently Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit: Wayne State Univ., 1979), 191–92, for important excerpts. For full editions of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, see James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 775–828 (ed. and trans. by H. C. Kee, who dates the fundamental writing of the Testaments to around 100b.c.e.); H. F. D. Sparks, ed., M. de Jonge, trans., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 505–600.
32 For the sole reference in Rabbinic literature to a priestly figure in conjunction with the Messiah, cf. Avot d’Rabbi Nathan 34:6 (the two sons of oil are Aaron and the Messiah, but it is the Messiah who is more beloved [habib], based on Ps. 110:4); cf. also the reference to b. Sukkah 52b, above, n. 30.
33 Cf., e.g., Midrash Psalms 2:9; 18:29.
34 It is important to remember that King Saul, David’s predecessor, got into big trouble by offering a sacrifice without priestly authorization (see 1 Sam. 13:14), while a later, godly king like Uzziah was stricken by God for daring to infringe on priestly ministry (in his case, burning incense in the Temple; see 2 Chron. 26:16–26).
35 The noun occurs 440 times in the singular and 310 times in the plural and always means “priest”—without exception; the Rabbinic commentators to 2 Samuel 8:17 struggle with the obvious meaning, which is confirmed by the fact that kohanîm also occurs in the previous verse (2 Sam. 8:16), and the meaning there is indisputably “priests.” It is impossible to think that the same word is used two very different ways in the space of two verses in the same context, especially when it is never used in any sense except “priest” throughout the Bible. That the Spirit of God was hinting at something important in this verse is confirmed when we realize that the later parallel passage to 2 Samuel 8 (viz., 1 Chronicles 18) states that David’s sons were “chief officials” (v. 17; ri’shonim). Thus, the special, intentional statement made in 2 Samuel 8:17 is clear: David’s role as a priestly king is seen in the fact that some of his sons were also called priests.
36 This is universally recognized by traditional Jewish and Christian scholars; for key biblical references in which the Messianic king is actually called “David,” cf. Jer. 30:8–9; Ezek. 34:20–24; 37:24–28; Hosea 3:5. Note also verses such as Isa. 9:5–6 [6–7]; 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 30:20–26.
37 Targum Jonathan actually substitutes “Messiah” for “Branch”; see further the discussion in Ibn Ezra and Radak, in which the text is first applied to Zerubbabel (so also Rashi), and then, typologically, to the Messiah; note also that the figure most commonly called “my servant” in the Hebrew Bible is David (see immediately above, n. 36, for some of the references). For related discussion, see vol. 3, 4.12 (to Isa. 52:13).
38 Cf. the reference to Avot d’Rabbi Nathan 34:6, above, n. 32, in which these two “sons of oil” are interpreted to be Aaron and the Messiah.
39 We will comment on this important chapter at greater length later in our discussion of Messianic prophecy; see vol. 3, 4.10–4.22.
40 For more on this, see vol. 3, 4.1. It should also be remembered that during the days of the Second Temple, specifically during the Hasmonean Dynasty, the ruling king over the Jewish people was actually the high priest, and from the time of Simon (143/2–135/4 b.c.e.), the titles of high priest and prince were considered hereditary, passed on to John Hyrcanus I and II and then to Aristobulus (for the entire period in question, see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [175 B.C.—A.D. 135], rev. Eng. ed. by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973–1987], 1:137–242).
41 During a debate with Rabbi Dr. David Blumofe in 1993, I was challenged with a quote alleged to have come from the brilliant thirteenth-century rabbi known as Ramban (Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, also called Nachmanides), and that quote is relevant here. I was told that during his heralded debate with a Jewish Catholic named Pablo Christiani (Friar Paul), Ramban exclaimed, “Woe to the world if the Messiah has come,” meaning, “If this is how the world looks after the Messiah has already come, woe to the world.” Actually, as we have seen—and as I replied in the debate—a more accurate quote from the standpoint of the Hebrew Scriptures would have been, “Woe to the world if the Messiah has not come,” since, if he didn’t come when expected, we have no reason to believe that he will ever come. And would Ramban have thought for a moment that more than six hundred years after his debate the traditional Jewish Messiah still would not have arrived? Certainly not. In fact, in the debate he made it clear that he expected the Messiah to come in the next ninety-five years. See Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel, ed. and trans., Ramban (Nachmanides): The Disputation at Barcelona (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1983), 26; cf. further the works cited below, n. 269). Interestingly, when I actually checked the text of the Ramban-Pablo Christiani debate, I was surprised to see that the alleged quote was not found there.
Brown, M. L. (2000). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 1: General and historical objections. (69). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
