from Israel My Glory, Vol. 60, No. 1
Confirmation of Jesus' Messiahship, part 1
by Douglas Bookman
When Paul arrived at
Thessalonica on his second
missionary journey,
he spent three Sabbaths in the synagogue,
developing a two-point
sermon. The first point was pure
exegesis. According to the divinely
superintended notes of Dr. Luke,
the apostle Paul alleged from the
Scriptures “that [the] Christ must
needs have suffered, and risen again
from the dead” (Acts 17:3). (The
Greek includes the definite article.)
To this point, the name Jesus of
Nazareth had not entered the
sermon. The Greek word for
“Christ” was used here as a
generic title. It is the Greek
counterpart of the Hebrew term for “Messiah,” an
important title of the Deliverer for
whom Israel had been taught to
wait for so many centuries (Ps. 2:2;
Dan. 9:25–26). Paul’s argument
here was preliminary: He contended
that, according to the portrait
drawn centuries earlier by God in
the Scriptures, the Messiah—whoever
He was—must suffer and die
and rise again. Then, in his second
and culminating point, the apostle
argued from the drama that had
recently unfolded in Judea: “This
Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is
[the] Christ” (Acts 17:3).
Paul’s polemic strategy was simple
and basic. Long before Jesus of
Nazareth was born, God “spoke
. . . unto the fathers by the
prophets” (Heb. 1:1). A recurring
focus of that earlier revelation was
the Messiah-Deliverer who was to
come. Not only was He promised,
He also was described in significant
detail. The intent of that
prophetic portrait clearly was that
men might know Him when He
arrived. Thus, when Jesus came claiming to be Messiah, men were
able to test and confirm that claim
by comparing Him to the picture
the Hebrew Scriptures so carefully
etched of the promised Redeemer.
Many people today deny the
possibility of such a “theology of
fulfillment.” They insist that the
Old Testament is not sufficiently
clear or specific to support the
argument the apostle Paul made in
Thessalonica. To be sure, the New
Testament record proves otherwise.
Appeal was made to a “theology of
fulfillment” often and effectively—
by Paul (not only in Thessalonica
but also in Salamis, cf. Acts
13:32–33), by the resurrected Lord
on the road to Emmaus (Lk.
24:25–27), by Stephen in his
defense before a murderous throng
(Acts 6—7), and by Peter in
Caesarea (Acts 10:43), to cite but a
few. But a further point begs to be
made concerning not just the possibility
but the absolute necessity
of using specific, prophetic details
of the coming Messiah to argue the
validity of Jesus’ Messianic claims.
A Twofold
Dilemma
It is a little appreciated fact that
Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah of
Israel was exceptionally difficult to
believe for at least two reasons.
His Deity. The first (and more
legitimate) reason relates to the fact
that, throughout the first two and a
half years of His ministry, Jesus
made two startling claims concerning
Himself. He declared Himself
to be not only Israel’s Christ but
also Israel’s God, come in the flesh
(cf. Mt. 16:15–17; 26:63; Lk. 4:41; Jn.
6:69; 11:27; 20:31). Today’s world
has had two millennia to get used
to the concept of God becoming
man. But it is worthwhile to ponder
what it would have been like to have been confronted with that
claim by the man Jesus of
Nazareth. It is hard to appreciate
how incredibly difficult it must
have been to accept such an assertion,
especially for Jewish people.
His Death. The second reason
Jesus’ claim of Messianic identity
must have been difficult to accept
is that the portrait of Messiah
drawn in the Hebrew Scriptures
included a mystery. The apostle
Peter said the prophets themselves
pondered “what, or what manner
of time the Spirit of Christ who
was in them did signify [was indicating]
when he testified beforehand
the sufferings of Christ, and
the glory that should follow”
(1 Pet. 1:11). In other words, how
could Messiah, when He came,
both suffer and reign?
That mystery, of course, is no
longer a mystery because believers
today understand that Messiah
was to come twice: first to sufferand then, at a subsequent coming,
to reign. But the concept of two
comings, though not foreign to the
Old Testament, certainly is not
revealed clearly there, and for
good reason. Messiah’s Second
Coming was necessitated by the
fact that He was rejected at His
First Coming (Jn. 1:11).
That rejection did not take God
by surprise. Indeed, the prophets
anticipated it (Isa. 53:1; cf. Jn.
12:37–38). But Christ’s rejection—
and the consequent necessity of
two Messianic comings—could
not be revealed clearly, or the people
to whom Jesus came could
have convinced themselves that
they had a legitimate excuse for
rejecting and scorning Him. (Note,
for instance, Caiaphas’ attempt to
appeal to the prophesied suffering
of “one man” as an excuse for executing
Jesus [Jn. 11:49–50].)
The mystery Peter articulated
produced a dilemma with regard
to Jesus’ Messianic claims. Much
rabbinic discussion has focused on
exactly how to interpret these two
seemingly contradictory lines of
prophetic truth. But again, the
New Testament record is clear:
Whatever the rationale, the generation
to whom Jesus appeared had
jettisoned the notion of a suffering
Messiah and had fixed its hope
entirely and exclusively on a conquering
Warrior-Messiah who
would bring to a dramatic end the
“times of the Gentiles” (Lk. 21:24).
They “yearned for the promised
deliverer of the house of David,
who would free them from the
yoke of the hated foreign usurper,
would put an end to the impious
Roman rule, and would establish
His own reign of peace and justice
in its place.”
That this selectively diminished
Messianic ideal was embraced not
only by those who rejected Jesus but by His closest followers as well
is demonstrated by the apostles’
reaction when Jesus first spoke
explicitly about His imminent suffering
(Mt. 16:21–22). By insisting
that He was going to die, as well as
in many other particulars, “Jesus
was so unlike what all Jews expected
the Son of David to be that His
own disciples found it almost
impossible to connect the idea of
the Messiah with Him.” To a people
cherishing an exclusively political-
military hope, ever more
feverishly anxious to throw off the
yoke of Gentile dominion, Jesus
came and offered Himself as
Messiah. He led no army; He
posed no obvious threat to
the Roman Empire; and He
called His people not to rebellion
but to repentance. In short, His
claim to be Messiah was as disappointing
as His claim to be
God was unbelievable.
We'll continue next Monday with the remainder of the article.
 Douglas Bookman has taught at Bible colleges and seminaries
for 30 years. Today he is busy in a ministry of itinerant teaching and
preaching across America and abroad. He can be contacted through his Web
site: bookmanministries.com.
|