Robert Hart, one of our contributing editors, sends me this reply to my latest:
Not that Jim's analysis needs it, but I would like to add something along the lines of Christian apologetics. One point that emerges from the New Testament is that many of the people of the time were not expecting the Suffering Servant, but instead the quick appearance of God's kingdom. Nonetheless, the realization of Messiah coming not once but twice, became clear after Pentecost. Before that the disciples asked the Risen Lord if the kingdom would immediately appear (Acts 1:6). The two comings fits a large schematic Biblical pattern.
The first person called "messiah" or "christ" in the Bible was Aaron the brother of Moses, and by implication his sons the priests. This is in Leviticus 4:3, which refers to h’kohan h’meshiach, which could be translated "the priest, the messiah" (or "the priest, the chirst"). It follows Exodus 29:29 which speaks of the priest being anointed, using the verb form of the Hebrew meshiach (l’mashcah). Every priest was a messiah, and so was every king. Perhaps it would disturb some readers of the English versions to have David speak of Saul as "the Lord's messiah" instead of "the Lord’s anointed." But, it would be quite correct.
Following the Old Testament pattern, the two comings of the Messiah are as priest (to offer the sacrifice of Himself upon the altar of the cross), and then to come as king on the Last Day. So, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the One who dies for the sins of "the many" ("when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin..."-Isa. 53:10a) and then rises from the dead ("...He shall prolong His days"- Isa. 53:10c), is also the Son of Man seen by Daniel as coming on the clouds of heaven. For Messiah to fit the pattern of Hebrew scripture, He must first be the priest and then be the king.
Recent Comments