THE Hebrew prophet Isaiah spoke of a future time when “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid . . . and the lion shall eat straw like the ox,” a time when persons “shall not hurt nor destroy.”​—Isaiah 11:6-9.a

But how would such peaceful conditions be attained? Interestingly, Isaiah associated such conditions with a future ruler whom he called “a shoot out of the stock of Jesse [the father of ancient King David of Israel].” This descendant of King David would be an ideal ruler, a man who would not judge matters by any mere external appearance or by hearsay, but who would judge with righteousness, establishing justice and peace. What is more, this future ruler would not be just a ruler for the Jews but, rather, someone to whom all nations could look for guidance. Indeed, as Isaiah foretold, “Unto him shall the nations seek.”​—Isaiah 11:1-10; compare Isaiah 9:5, 6.

While in the years that followed Isaiah’s prophecy the Jewish nation came to refer to this awaited ruler as the Messiah, or anointed one, the identity of the Messiah has long been an issue.

What Was Objectionable About Jesus?

BY THE first century of the Common Era the Jewish people found themselves under the tyranny of the pagan Roman Empire. For the first time, feelings ran high that God would now raise up a deliverer for his people, the promised Messiah. As the modern Jewish historian Abba Hillel Silver pointed out: “The first century . . . especially the generation before the destruction [of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.], witnessed a remarkable outburst of Messianic emotionalism.”

The first-century historian Flavius Josephus also reported this phenomenon, saying the following about a group of men who arose at this time: “Deceivers and impostors, under the pretence of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they . . . led [the multitude] out into the desert under the belief that God would there give them tokens of deliverance.”

While many of those in the first century who claimed to be the Messiah succeeded in attracting a large following, only Jesus of Nazareth has any popularity today. And yet back in the first century the Jewish nation could not accept him as the promised Messiah. Hence, important questions are: Why did relatively few Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah? What did the majority find objectionable?

According to Rabbi Hyman G. Enelow, “The ideas associated in the Jewish mind with the Messiah . . . were left unrealized by Jesus.” So, simply stated, Jesus was not largely accepted because he did not fulfill the popular expectations. As we have already seen, the prophet Isaiah described the Messiah as a future king who would establish everlasting peace, justice and righteousness. Scriptural prophecies such as this helped to shape the expectations of the Jews. Since the Messiah was to be king over Israel, whatever Gentile government held dominion over Israel at the time of his appearance could be expected to relinquish its sovereignty.

Eventually, however, it came to be commonly believed that the Messiah would actually lead the Jews in the overthrow of that Gentile government. In the words of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, “The Jews of the Roman period believed [the Messiah] would be raised up by God to break the yoke of the heathen and to reign over a restored kingdom of Israel.”

Traces of this commonly held view are found in writings of the period. For example, speaking of the Jews who revolted against Rome in 66 C.E., Josephus wrote: “What more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world.”

This is also confirmed by the type of individuals who enjoyed popular support in their Messianic claims. Historically, those who claimed to be the Messiah in that era were, with the exception of Jesus of Nazareth, political revolutionaries. The Book of Jewish Knowledge states: “The extraordinary thing about these first-century claimants for Messianic distinction was that each served as a rallying point for Jewish revolt against Roman rule. Unlike Jesus, . . . the other ‘messiahs’ of that period were, without exception, militant firebrands and patriots.” This pattern was simply a reflection of the prevailing popular expectation.

It is apparent, therefore, that the Jews of the first century did not have the later concept of a suffering or dying Messiah. In fact, Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner concluded: “The whole idea of a Messiah who should be put to death was one which, in Jesus’ time, was impossible of comprehension . . . to the Jews.” Even those few Jews who believed Jesus to be the Messiah did not expect that he would suffer or be put to death.​—Matthew 16:21, 22.

Hence, whoever might have been attracted by Jesus’ teachings would certainly have been disturbed by the fact that Jesus did not overthrow the Roman government and rule as king over Israel but was, instead, executed by that Roman government. As Klausner explained, “The crucified Jesus was a disappointment to most of those who followed him in life.” No wonder the early Christian missionary Paul of Tarsus spoke of “Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling”!​—1 Corinthians 1:23.

Would the Messiah Suffer and Die?

AS WE have already seen, the Jews of the first century were expecting a leader who would overthrow the Roman government, establish a Jewish kingdom over Israel and bring in an era of peace and blessings from God. Since Jesus of Nazareth never accomplished this, the Jewish nation would not accept him as the Messiah.

Yet many Jews who had been attracted to Jesus’ teachings continued to believe that he was the Messiah, even after his death. Why were they able to do this? If the Hebrew Scriptures indicated that the Messiah would bring in an era of great blessings through a kingdom over Israel, how could these Jews continue to believe in someone who failed to accomplish this, but who, instead, suffered and was put to death?

As their writings indicate, soon after Jesus’ death his Jewish disciples reached the conclusion that some important Hebrew Scripture prophecies had been overlooked, passages that indicated that the Messiah would do a preliminary work before he ruled as king over Israel. What work is that? And where do the Hebrew Scriptures speak of the Messiah’s doing this preliminary work?

Daniel’s Messianic Prophecy

While the Hebrew Scriptures often use the Hebrew word for Messiah, or anointed one, to refer to kings and priests of ancient Israel, qualifying adjectives are always found in the Hebrew text where these lesser anointed ones are referred to. However, there is one scripture where the Hebrew word for Messiah appears without a qualifying adjective, indicating that it here refers to the Messiah. Note what this scriptures says:

“Seventy (year-) weeks have been appointed over you people and over your holy city, to restrain the apostasy and to make an end of sin, and to atone for the error, and to bring everlasting salvation [“everlasting righteousness,”] . . . And you may know and understand: From the going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [“the Messiah,” Patai], the Prince, there are seven (year-) weeks; also sixty-two (year-) weeks, so market place and moat will be rebuilt and that in the pressure of the times. And after the sixty-two (year-) weeks an Anointed One [“the Messiah,” Patai] will be destroyed [“cut off,” JP].”​—Daniel 9:24-26, Zunz’ translation.

Interestingly, while the Scriptures here speak of the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, this is not attributed to the Messiah’s rule. To the contrary, it is associated with the Messiah’s being cut off in death!

Additionally, we are told that these events are connected with “an end of sin.” This is indeed remarkable, for the Hebrew Scriptures tell us that we all have an inborn tendency to do wrong, or sin. For example, at Genesis 8:21 God is quoted as saying: “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” We are also told: “No man is so righteous upon earth, that he should do always good, and never sin.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20, Leeser) Yet, in spite of this inclination we all have that we cannot completely overcome, the Messiah’s appearance and death actually brings “an end of sin”! No wonder this is spoken of in connection with ‘the bringing in of everlasting righteousness’!

Furthermore, Daniel 9 says that the Messiah’s appearance and death would “atone for the error.” In the Hebrew Scriptures “atonement” refers to the covering over of sins through the offering of animal sacrifices. (Exodus 29:36) But, curiously, Daniel 9 speaks of atonement, not in connection with the death of any animal, but, rather, in connection with the death of the Messiah!

A “Trespass-Offering” for Others

It is noteworthy that while Daniel 9:24-26 alludes to substitutionary atonement, there is another passage in the Hebrew Scriptures that explicitly describes atonement by substitutionary suffering and death. This prophecy specifically speaks of someone’s suffering and dying, and thereby providing atonement for the sins of others. In fact, the scripture actually speaks of his soul as becoming a guilt offering for the sins of others! Notice what Isaiah 52:13–53:12 (Le) tells us about this servant of God:

“He was despised and shunned by men; a man of pains, and acquainted with disease; and as one who hid his face from us he was despised, and we esteemed him not. But only our diseases did he bear himself, and our pains he carried . . . Yet he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement for our peace was upon him; and through his bruises was healing granted to us. . . . The Lord let befall him the guilt of us all. . . . Who could tell, that he was cut away out of the land of life, that for the transgressions of my people the plague was laid on him? . . . When now his soul hath brought the trespass-offering [“offer itself in restitution,” JP] then shall he see his seed, live many days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Freed from the trouble of his soul he shall see the good and be satisfied: through his knowledge shall my righteous servant bring the many to righteousness, while he will bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the many, and with the strong shall he divide the spoil; because he poured out his soul unto death . . . while he bore the sin of many, and for the transgressors he let evil befall him.”

Note that Isaiah spoke of the bringing in of righteousness by means of a person who is “bruised for our iniquities” as a “trespass-offering,” and who thereby bears “the guilt of us all.” Since Daniel 9:24-26 indicated that the Messiah would provide such atonement, Isaiah 52:13–53:12 must refer to the work of the Messiah also.

A Paradox Explained

But if the Messiah is to suffer and die to atone for the sins of others, how can he rule as king, as Isaiah had also prophesied? Isaiah himself alluded to this apparent paradox when he said of the Messiah: “When now his soul hath brought the trespass-offering, then shall he . . . live many days,” and “with the strong shall he divide the spoil; because he poured out his soul unto death.” How could such an apparent paradox actually occur? How is it possible for a person to “live many days” after having “poured out his soul unto death”?

As another servant of God once asked, “If a man die, may he live again?” (Job 14:14) The Hebrew Scriptures answer with a resounding Yes! Not only are there recorded instances when God’s prophets brought dead persons back to life, but we are also told of the time when “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.”​—Daniel 12:2; compare 1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:32-37; 13:20, 21.

So for God’s Word to be fulfilled, the Messiah must also be brought back to life or be resurrected. Only then would he be able to rule as king and bring further blessings to mankind. The words of David could thus fittingly be applied to him: “Thou wilt not abandon my soul to the grave.”​—Psalm 16:10, Le.

Such Scriptural prophecies were eventually so understood by the first-century Jewish disciples of Jesus. Hence, Jesus’ suffering and death were no longer viewed as precluding his being the Messiah. In fact, such events came to be viewed as corroborative evidence that Jesus was the Messiah!

Why So Difficult to Accept?

However, the majority of the Jewish nation back then found it difficult to accept this concept of a suffering and dying Messiah. No doubt this was due to other popular beliefs of the time. For example, many Jews believed it was possible for them completely to overcome their inborn inclination to evil through their efforts to keep the Mosaic Law, the Torah. Such persons hoped to “make an end of sins” on their own, and consequently saw no need for a Messiah to die and thereby atone for their sins.

Another popular teaching was that the Jews would be declared righteous by God simply because of being descendants of Abraham. Here again, if righteousness is automatically ascribed to the Jews, there is no need for a Messiah to “bring the many to righteousness.” Yes, as Klausner said, “The whole idea of a Messiah who should be put to death was one which, in Jesus’ time, was impossible of comprehension . . . to the Jews.”

For perhaps 100 years after Jesus’ death the Jewish people refused to believe in a Messiah who would be put to death. And then something happened to change that. What was this?

What Happened to Jewish Expectations?

THE collection of ancient Jewish writings known as the Babylonian Talmud contains the following comment regarding the Messiah, dating from the early second century:

“‘And the land shall mourn’ (Zech. 12:12). What is the reason of this mourning? . . . R[abbi] Dosa says: ‘[They will mourn] over the Messiah who will be slain.’”

Curiously, this passage speaks of the Messiah as being slain; yet we have seen that such a concept was incomprehensible to the Jews of the first century. What accounted for the change in viewpoint?

The idea of a dying Messiah appears to have gained popularity during the second century of our Common Era, particularly since the death of Simeon Bar Kokhba. Bar Kokhba was a warrior, a political revolutionary. He was widely acclaimed as the Messiah. Even Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, who has been called “the most influential of all Rabbinic Sages,” hailed Bar Kokhba as the Messiah.

Eventually Bar Kokhba led a Jewish rebellion against the Roman government. After an initial victory against the legions of Rome, Bar Kokhba fought off the returning Roman armies for three years in a struggle that claimed over a half million Jewish lives. However, the rebellion was squashed in 135 C.E. and Bar Kokhba was killed.

The generation that wholeheartedly endorsed Bar Kokhba now found itself in a strange situation. The death of Bar Kokhba brought into question not only the Messianic hope but also the honor of Rabbi Akiba. Dr. Joseph Heinemann of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem explains the impact of Bar Kokhba’s death on his contemporaries:

“This generation must have attempted, by hook or by crook, to achieve the impossible: to uphold Bar Kokhba’s messianity in spite of his failure. This paradoxical position could find no more suitable expression than in the highly ambivalent legend of the militant Messiah who is doomed to fall in battle, and yet remains a genuine redeemer.”

But how could the Jews reconcile this idea of a dying Messiah with the fact that the Messiah was to rule as king? As Raphael Patai notes:

“The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two: one of them, called Messiah ben Joseph [or, son of Joseph], was to raise the armies of Israel against their enemies, and, after many victories and miracles, would fall victim. . . . The other, Messiah ben David [or, son of David], will come after him . . . and will lead Israel to the ultimate victory, the triumph, and the Messianic era of bliss.”

This motif of a dying Messiah continued to develop in the years following Bar Kokhba’s death and eventually came to be applied to a yet future Messiah who would die in battle. Elucidating this, Patai explains: “One suspects that what one must understand is that . . . [the Messiah] as the Son of Joseph, will die on the threshold of the End of Days, but then will come back to life as the Son of David and complete the mission he began in his earlier incarnation.”

How strangely parallel this is to the beliefs of the first-century Christians! Both groups were claiming belief in a Messiah who would die and be resurrected before the foretold era of peace!

New Objections Arise

In the early centuries of our Common Era, the pagan Roman Empire converted to Roman Catholicism, and anti-Semitism now became popular among those professing to follow Jesus. In the years that followed, Jews witnessed such atrocities as the Crusades and the Inquisition, acts that clearly violated God’s command to “love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Leviticus 19:18) Furthermore, those who professed to follow Jesus acquired un-Christian beliefs, such as the worship of a triune God. Yet Moses had taught, “THE LORD IS ONE.” (Deuteronomy 6:4) So while the original objection to Jesus as a dying Messiah could no longer be viewed as valid, a new objection arose, an objection to the unscriptural conduct and beliefs of those professing to follow Jesus. Hence, Judaism continued to reject Christianity.

The Messiah​—Real or Ideal?

The Messianic hope in Israel continued down through the centuries. For example, when the medieval rabbi Maimonides formulated his Thirteen Articles of Faith, he included the following: “I believe . . . with complete faith that the Messiah will come, and although he may tarry, yet each day I will wait for his coming.”

Yet, in more modern times, the entire idea of a personal Messiah has passed into oblivion among many Jews. For example, a century ago Joseph Perl wrote: “The truly educated Jews by no means picture the Messiah as a real personality.”

Such Jews view the Messiah, not as a real individual, but as an ideal and thus prefer to speak of a messianic age rather than the Messiah. However, without a personal Messiah there could be no messianic age.

But when would this Messiah come? What do the Hebrew Scriptures say?

The Messiah’s Appearance​—When?

THE Babylonian Talmud preserves an interesting legend involving Jonathan ben Uzziel, the translator of the Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew prophets known as the Targums. According to this legend, Jonathan wished to translate the Hagiographa, the final portion of the Hebrew Scriptures, into Aramaic. However, a “heavenly voice” told Jonathan to desist because that portion of the Scriptures contained the date for the Messiah’s appearance.

Interestingly, a prophecy of Daniel (the book of Daniel is a part of the Hagiographa) that we have already seen as specifically referring to the Messiah does contain chronological information regarding his appearance. Consider once again what we are told at Daniel 9:24-27 (Zunz):

“Seventy (year-) weeks have been appointed over you people and over your holy city, to restrain the apostasy and to make an end of sin, and to atone for the error, and to bring everlasting salvation. . . . And you may know and understand: From the going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the Prince, there are seven (year-) weeks; also sixty-two (year-) weeks, so market place and moat will be rebuilt, and that in the pressure of the times. And after the sixty-two (year-) weeks an Anointed One will be destroyed. . . . And he will conclude a strong covenant with many, for one (year-) week, and at the half of the (year-) week he will cancel sacrifice and oblation.”

Notice that this period of time is said to be “seventy (year-) weeks.” The Hebrew expression used here literally means “seventy weeks,” or “seventy heptads.” However, it has generally been understood by Jewish scholars that each week is not seven days long but, rather, seven years long. Accordingly, Rabbi Leopold Zunz rendered the Hebrew as “seventy (year-) weeks” in the translation noted above. (See also Moffatt’s translation rendering, “weeks of years.”) Thus, the entire period of “seventy weeks” runs 490 years.

When does this 490-year period start? According to the prophecy, the starting point is “the going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.” Was such a decree ever made?

Although Daniel lived to learn of a decree by King Cyrus of Persia in 538/7 B.C.E. to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, it was almost a century later before a decree was given to rebuild Jerusalem itself. Nehemiah 2:1-8 records how King Artaxerxes Longimanus gave such a decree in the 20th year of his reign. And when was that? The most reliable historical sources tell us that Artaxerxes began his rule in 474 B.C.E., which places his 20th year and his decree in 455 B.C.E.a Hence, this 490-year period began in 455 B.C.E.

When exactly during those 490 years was the Messiah to appear? Notice that the 70 weeks are broken into three periods, namely, of 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and one week. In addition, the prophecy says that the Messiah would appear after both the 7-week and the 62-week periods passed, or after 69 “weeks of years,” or 483 years. We can therefore conclude that the Messiah was prophesied to appear 483 years after 455 B.C.E., or in 29 C.E.

Furthermore, the prophecy indicates that the Messiah would be destroyed or would die after the 62-week period (which followed the 7-week period), and, hence, during the final period of one week’s duration. This final period of seven years was to run from 29 C.E. to 36 C.E. But when during this final week would he die? We are told that “at the half of the (year-) week” the Messiah would “cancel sacrifice and oblation.” As the prophecy had also indicated that the Messiah’s death would provide true atonement for sin, once the Messiah died, any animal sacrifices at the temple would be meaningless. So the prophecy evidently foretold that the Messiah would die “at the half of the (year-) week,” or in 33 C.E.

Did the Messiah actually appear in 29 C.E. and die in 33 C.E.? As we have already seen, the Jews of that first century were eagerly expecting the Messiah at that time. (Luke 3:15) But of all the Messianic claimants of the first century, only one appeared on the world scene in 29 C.E. and died in 33 C.E., and that was Jesus of Nazareth!​—Compare Luke 3:1, 2.