Old Testament and the Second coming of Christ

[Suttonsue]

The OT frequently mentions the coming of the Messiah but where does it mention that the Messiah will come twice? I know there is a mention in Daniel about the Son of God descending on a cloud at the end times but not that this is the second coming.

 

[TR23]

There actually is a Jewish tradition that developed out of reading the scriptures which said there would be two messiahs - One which would suffer as a redemptive act, and the other that would reign over all as king.
This came about because when reading the messianic references in the scriptures they found it difficult to reconcile how one man could embody these two seemingly seperate characteristics.
They called them Messiah Son of Joseph (the suffering and redemptive servant) and Messiah Son of David (The conquering and delivering king)

We of course know today what they couldn't fully imagine: That christ is one messiah who comes twice in two different roles.

 

[ebia]

The OT frequently mentions the coming of the Messiah but where does it mention that the Messiah will come twice? I know there is a mention in Daniel about the Son of God descending on a cloud at the end times but not that this is the second coming.

eh? How do you mean?

One think that often happens in the biblical story is that an eschatalogical expectation gets split into something that happens 'now', in time and something that is still expected to be completed at the end of the age. Jesus and resurrection is the ultimate example of that. It's not so much that there is not an expected ultimate coming, as that there is not an expected coming before then. The Messiah was not expected to die and go away, but to usher in the new age then and there.

As for Daniel 7's "coming on the cloud...", if one actually reads Daniel without imposing what one expects to see, one ought to notice that the Son of Man is coming not to earth but to the throne-room of God. It's not, in the direct instance, about his first or second coming, but about his ascension and enthronement.

 

[juvenissun]

The OT frequently mentions the coming of the Messiah but where does it mention that the Messiah will come twice? I know there is a mention in Daniel about the Son of God descending on a cloud at the end times but not that this is the second coming.

Is this the one you like me to see?

Why would Messiah want to come twice? Would once be enough?

More over, Who is Messiah? Why would He want to come to the earth at all?

How would Messiah save the Jews? Would Jews still be on the earth after being saved? What would Messiah do to the other 99.9% of human population?

I do have many questions to Judaism.

 

[Dave Ingram]

Psalm 22 is a good chapter to get a glimpse of prophecy concerning Jesus' first coming. The book of Isaiah provides numerous glimpses into what life and the world will be like after Jesus' return. Isaiah 53 is particularly insightful, showing Jesus as both the conquering king and the suffering servant.

Generally, Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah are in one of two camps: the sacrificial lamb and the conquering king. I do not know exactly where in the Old Testament you can find specific reference to two separate comings, but the division of the prophecies necessitates two separate comings; Jesus already came as the sacrificial lamb, all that is left is for him to fulfill the conquering king role.

 

[papaJP]

All the Hebrew Scriptures discuss the first coming except Daniel which is discussing the second coming. The Christian Scriptures are all talking about the second coming. The book of Revelation gives a picture of this second coming.

 

[wayseer]

The OT frequently mentions the coming of the Messiah but where does it mention that the Messiah will come twice? I know there is a mention in Daniel about the Son of God descending on a cloud at the end times but not that this is the second coming.

The OT does not mention the coming of Christ.

Any such reading is a misreading of scripture by Christians anxious to prove what does not otherwise exist.

Certainly certain texts may be read as if they are some sort of prophecy but that is a conscious choice to read the texts in that way. In other words, it is easy reading backwards into history.

A close look at Matthew and Mark where OT texts are supposedly quoted demonstrate how wrong such quotes really are. Even when Luke has Jesus speaking in Chapter 4 Jesus gets it wrong when purportedly quoting from Isaiah.

The problem with Christianity is that it does not read scripture with any real precision and as a result the OT becomes a playground for fantasy hunters.

 

[juvenissun]

The OT does not mention the coming of Christ.

Any such reading is a misreading of scripture by Christians anxious to prove what does not otherwise exist.

Certainly certain texts may be read as if they are some sort of prophecy but that is a conscious choice to read the texts in that way. In other words, it is easy reading backwards into history.

A close look at Matthew and Mark where OT texts are supposedly quoted demonstrate how wrong such quotes really are. Even when Luke has Jesus speaking in Chapter 4 Jesus gets it wrong when purportedly quoting from Isaiah.

The problem with Christianity is that it does not read scripture with any real precision and as a result the OT becomes a playground for fantasy hunters.

So, who can read it with enough precision?

 

[Johnnz]

So, who can read it with enough precision?

There are plenty of competent teaching material available on line and books.

John
NZ

 

[wayseer]

So, who can read it with enough precision?

Exactly. So some humility might be called for when making grandiose claims about scripture.

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly. So some humility might be called for when making grandiose claims about scripture.

Such as ... ?

Also, when one makes a claim of anything, how to include humility into it? (if he does, then it won't be much of a "claim" anymore. Right?)

I can make a claim, and I might be wrong. But it has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[wayseer]

Such as ... ?

Also, when one makes a claim of anything, how to include humility into it? (if he does, then it won't be much of a "claim" anymore. Right?)

I can make a claim, and I might be wrong. But it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Stop taking quotes out of context to then slotting them into your own agenda.

I was commenting on one particular aspect, if you go back and read my post, which has nothing to do with you ambit claim.

 

[TR23]

The OT does not mention the coming of Christ.

Do you not realize that all the messianic readings and traditions christians have were inherited from the jews of the time, and that jews today still believe in the coming of the messiah based on the scriptures of the OT?

The idea of a messiah is not a christian invention. In fact the entire OT is littered with symbolism and prophecy that points to the first and second coming of christ. The OT starts to make sense to a christian when you look at god's dealings with israel as laying the foundation for the coming messiah. Everything ultimately revolves around and reflects that.

Many christians make the mistake of trying to divorce the NT from the OT, thinking the OT irrelevant and probably not even talking about the same god, but that is only because they lack an understanding of the OT's deep connections to the NT and the hebraic culture in which they were produced.

 

[wayseer]

Do you not realize that all the messianic readings and traditions christians have were inherited from the jews of the time, and that jews today still believe in the coming of the messiah based on the scriptures of the OT?

The idea of a messiah is not a christian invention. In fact the entire OT is littered with symbolism and prophecy that points to the first and second coming of christ. The OT starts to make sense to a christian when you look at god's dealings with israel as laying the foundation for the coming messiah. Everything ultimately revolves around and reflects that.

Many christians make the mistake of trying to divorce the NT from the OT, thinking the OT irrelevant and probably not even talking about the same god, but that is only because they lack an understanding of the OT's deep connections to the NT and the hebraic culture in which they were produced.

The 'Jews' is a collective that defies definition - you simply cannot generalize as you have done.

Certainly some Jews are looking forward to a messiah (small 'm') who would make life nice and comfortable for them. Others see no existence other than living a good life. Most others did not really care but go along with the ethnic mix.

There is no indication in the OT that the messiah would be a capital 'M' Messiah and certainly not one that would get executed on a cross. It was only AFTER Jesus death that he became recognised as the Messiah.

Paul makes one single solitary reference to the messiah in Romans 9:5 but this reference has more to so with the OT understanding of messiah.

The 'idea' that Jesus was God's 'anointed' was a later Christian invention which then lead the authors of the Gospel on a merry chase through the biblical texts to establish connections - even to the point of constructing a few of their own along the way.

So the 'idea' that Jesus, the one called the Christ, is found in the OT is not supported other than by Christians who wish to find such 'support'.

 

[ebia]

Wayseer: I think you're oversimplifying the other way. Yes there were a whole range of different messianic expectations, but the idea of some kind of definitive fulfillment of David's successor was widespread among some groups and its highly likely that Jesus was identified as such by some of his followers before his death. I'm not sure trying to talk in terms of "a messiah" verses "The Messiah" is helpful. You are, of course, right to challenge many of the associations we put on the term as being anachronistic before the resurrection, and right to say that crucifixion is the ultimate proof that one is not the messiah.

Given that Paul is writing in Greek, to ignore all his references to Christ and say he only talks about Messiah once seems very strange.

So the 'idea' that Jesus, the one called the Christ, is found in the OT is not supported other than by Christians who wish to find such 'support'.

That depends, I guess, on how one things Scripture should function. If one limits its meaning that that which the original authors intended, then yes. But it has always been used in other ways - is used in other ways within itself. So limiting it in that way could be argued to be bringing one's own cultural set of assumptions about how a text must function to the text.

 

[wayseer]

Wayseer: I think you're oversimplifying the other way. Yes there were a whole range of different messianic expectations, but the idea of some kind of definitive fulfillment of David's successor was widespread among some groups and its highly likely that Jesus was identified as such by some of his followers before his death. I'm not sure trying to talk in terms of "a messiah" verses "The Messiah" is helpful. You are, of course, right to challenge many of the associations we put on the term as being anachronistic before the resurrection, and right to say that crucifixion is the ultimate proof that one is not the messiah.

Given that Paul is writing in Greek, to ignore all his references to Christ and say he only talks about Messiah once seems very strange.


That depends, I guess, on how one things Scripture should function. If one limits its meaning that that which the original authors intended, then yes. But it has always been used in other ways - is used in other ways within itself. So limiting it in that way could be argued to be bringing one's own cultural set of assumptions about how a text must function to the text.

Points noted.

But Paul only mentions the word 'messiah' once. Pauls' use of the word christos, given its imperial association, is in line with his theology which is couched in the terms of the Emperor cult.

Christos come from the Gk chilias = thousand, a military word which means one who commands a thousand.

The word christos does not appear in the OT. The word messias does appear and has as its stem mestoo which means 'fill' or 'full'. (wish CF had a Greek and Hebrew text tool).

Certainly by the time the Gospels writers started work the word christos came to mean something else and to be associated with the Hebrew meaning of messiah. However, the language of Christianity is couched in the same words as the language of Rome and the Emperor who brings the 'good news' of peace and is the 'saviour' of the Empire and 'son of god' to boot. There were two competing basaileia, (empires) the one of God and the one of Caesar.

All that finished (fulfilled) by 325.

 

[TR23]

There is no indication in the OT that the messiah would be a capital 'M' Messiah and certainly not one that would get executed on a cross.

There is every indication in the scripture that he would suffer in a redemptive fashion, which is where the tradition of Messiah Ben Jospeh being seperate from Messiah Ben David came from. They found it hard when reading the scriptures to reconcile the dual characters of christ as both sacrifice and king without theorizing that perhaps there would be two seperate messiahs (but we know today it is the same messiah come twice).

It was only AFTER Jesus death that he became recognised as the Messiah.

He was recognized as the messiah in his time by his followers.

The 'idea' that Jesus was God's 'anointed' was a later Christian invention which then lead the authors of the Gospel on a merry chase through the biblical texts to establish connections - even to the point of constructing a few of their own along the way.

If you're saying that you don't believe in the new tesatment as inspired and authentic then it wouldn't do much good to debate the prophetic connections between the old and new.

However, the connections are so deep and intricately layered that once you study it you'll come around to a greater faith in the divine inspiration of the book, because you'll realize that such connections could not be the product of a few men's imagination.
When taken in it's entirety and compared with the OT, it is such a well developed tapestry that you cannot reasonably expect a handful of fishermen and tax collectors to have created it out of thin air.

I suspect you dismiss it as only a handful of poor slapdash connections because you don't yet understand the full depth of the connections.

 

[wayseer]

There is every indication in the scripture that he would suffer in a redemptive fashion, which is where the tradition of Messiah Ben Jospeh being seperate from Messiah Ben David came from. They found it hard when reading the scriptures to reconcile the dual characters of christ as both sacrifice and king without theorizing that perhaps there would be two seperate messiahs (but we know today it is the same messiah come twice).

Perhaps - but I suggest we like reading our own interpretation back into the biblical texts.

He was recognized as the messiah in his time by his followers.

We only know that from the gospels which were written well after Jesus' death.

Paul has only one reference to messiah.

If you're saying that you don't believe in the new tesatment as inspired and authentic then it wouldn't do much good to debate the prophetic connections between the old and new.

'Belief' is an over rated topic.

However, the connections are so deep and intricately layered that once you study it you'll come around to a greater faith in the divine inspiration of the book, because you'll realize that such connections could not be the product of a few men's imagination.

My faith was not awoken by reading the OT.

When taken in it's entirety and compared with the OT, it is such a well developed tapestry that you cannot reasonably expect a handful of fishermen and tax collectors to have created it out of thin air.

Nope - they were more than ably assisted by the Gospel authors.

I suspect you dismiss it as only a handful of poor slapdash connections because you don't yet understand the full depth of the connections.

I understand where you are coming from. What I am suggesting is that you place too much emphasis on such connections and therefore see things that are not that apparent.

With all the various texts it does not take long to string a few together to make any connection one wishes - for good or for ill. The thing is you have to demonstrate that within the ordinary understanding of such texts other things followed. Personally, I think Matthew did a really good 'snow job' on us all that he has a lot to answer for, should I corner him somewhere.

 

[ebia]

Points noted.

But Paul only mentions the word 'messiah' once. Pauls' use of the word christos, given its imperial association, is in line with his theology which is couched in the terms of the Emperor cult.

Christos come from the Gk chilias = thousand, a military word which means one who commands a thousand.

The word christos does not appear in the OT. The word messias does appear and has as its stem mestoo which means 'fill' or 'full'. (wish CF had a Greek and Hebrew text tool).

Certainly by the time the Gospels writers started work the word christos came to mean something else and to be associated with the Hebrew meaning of messiah. However, the language of Christianity is couched in the same words as the language of Rome and the Emperor who brings the 'good news' of peace and is the 'saviour' of the Empire and 'son of god' to boot. There were two competing basaileia, (empires) the one of God and the one of Caesar.

All that finished (fulfilled) by 325.

The language Paul uses draws together both O.T. Jewish language and challenges the emperor cult at the same time - it is only precisely because it does the former that its effective in doing the later.

In particular christos (derived from "to oil, or apply fat, to something" is how the LXX - Paul's scriptures in Greek - translates Annointed/Messiah.

Likewise gospel in Isaiah, and so forth. It is only because those words have Jewish (translated into Greek) as well as Greco/roman overtones that Paul is able to do what he does. To deny their Jewish significance is to pull the teeth on what Paul is saying to the roman world with them as well.

To suggest that Paul has no interest in how this word is used in the bible translation he works from but only in what connotations it might have in the pagan world is absurd.

 

[wayseer]

The language Paul uses draws together both O.T. Jewish language and challenges the emperor cult at the same time - it is only precisely because it does the former that its effective in doing the later.

In particular christos (derived from "to oil, or apply fat, to something" is how the LXX - Paul's scriptures in Greek - translates Annointed/Messiah.

Likewise gospel in Isaiah, and so forth. It is only because those words have Jewish (translated into Greek) as well as Greco/roman overtones that Paul is able to do what he does. To deny their Jewish significance is to pull the teeth on what Paul is saying to the roman world with them as well.

I have no real issue with your synopsis but please remember I was responding to another post posing another issue and I was address that issue.

To suggest that Paul has no interest in how this word is used in the bible translation he works from but only in what connotations it might have in the pagan world is absurd.

Where did I suggest as much?