The Messianic Question

By. C. I. Scofield.

It is unnecessary to say that "Messiah" and "Christ" are exactly equivalent terms; that they mean, in themselves, no more than anointed. This word, though, has come to have a special application to that personage upon whom the counsels of God as unfolded in the Scriptures converge. Really the Messianic question, when we come to look at it closely, resolves itself into several questions.

First of all, is it correct to say that there is any Messianic question? In other words, do the Scriptures contain a doctrine of the Messiah? There are some persons (not by any means destitute of learning) who deny that rightly understood, the Old Testament contains any Messianic doctrine. They claim that it has been altogether read into these Scriptures, first, by rabbis of olden time, the scribes and rulers, and then taken up, amplified, and made central in evangelical theology by Christian exegetes. So there is, as you see, really a question as to whether there is a Messianic question.

I do not regard this contention as very important for the reason, if for no other, that it is not raised by any considerable number of persons. A little group of Jewish scholars and a little group of Gentile scholars very "advanced" as they call themselves do raise the question, but the great body of Jewish, as of Christian exegetes, maintain that there is a doctrine of the Messiah. Of course, they disagree on the one point of the identity of Messiah; the Jews denying the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christian exegetes affirming it.

If we answer this question in the affirmative, and say that there is a doctrine of the Messiah, we, of course, come to another question: Who and what is Messiah? In other words, what marks of identity are attached to this personage in the Scriptures so that the world may be perfectly sure it is not deceived by an impostor; so that it will not be open to any one not the Messiah, to maintain a claim to the character, and thus falsely secure to himself the rights that properly belong to the true Messiah.

Of course, if there is any prophetic testimony concerning such a coming one, the object of that testimony must be two-fold: First, to furnish these very marks of identity of which I speak; and secondly, to prepare the Jews and through them the world, to receive this personage when he should come. These two things are evident: God would not send into the world one having such rights as we shall find to belong to Messiah, without in some efficient way providing for his authentication. To illustrate, I understand there is somewhere a young man who claims to be, not merely the Messiah of the Old Testament, but the actual historic Christ of the New Testament, and he has gathered a number of deluded people who believe in him, and upon whose credulity he is living. Now how do we know that he is an impostor? Because he does not answer to the prophetic portrait of Messiah.

We come, then, to our second question: How may we know the Messiah? What kind of person will he be? Of what country? Of what ancestry? What works will he do?

Thirdly, we come to the question of fundamental interest to us, as Christians, and surely, of no less interest to the candid Jew: Was Jesus the Messiah? A vast number of people (and no inconsiderable number of Jews) have, through all the ages, believed, with the

Scriptures in their hands, that Jesus was the Messiah; and, surely, our Jewish friends who do not so receive Him, will admit that it is a question of supreme national and personal import to them whether he be indeed that personage.

Now it is evident that an inquiry as to the second of these questions will indirectly answer the first. If we can find in Scripture certain marks of identity put upon and about a certain Coming One, that answers the question as to whether there is a doctrine of the Messiah. We shall not, of course, find the prophetic portrait there unless there is coming or already come, the original from whom the portrait was painted. If there is no doctrine of the Messiah in Scripture, we shall fail to find the portrait. If, on the other hand, we do find the portrait, then we must say that there is a Messianic doctrine, whoever the Messiah may turn out to be.

It is also evident that the answer to the second question as to the marks of identity and of the conditions which must be fulfilled by the Messiah when He comes, will guide, and must guide us, in the answer to the third question: Is Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah? If He is the Messiah, we shall know Him to be so because He answers exactly to every one of the Scriptural marks of identity given by the prophets. That must be the test. If, in even one of them—as many and as minute as they are—we find that Jesus fails, then we must say however great the cost may be to our hearts and thoughts and opinions that he is not the Messiah. If, on the other hand ; he fills out in every detail the prophetic picture of Messiah, without one exception, then, it seems to me that, by the same reasoning, and by the same logical necessity, we are forced to say that Jesus is the Messiah.

I. This is a Biblical question; it is not a question to be settled by appeal to theologians or rabbis. For it is perfectly evident that a Jewish scholar, for instance, might marshal as many and as eminent authorities from among his own intellectual and thoughtful people against the Messiaship of Jesus, as a Christian could bring to its support. That would be simply a clash of human and therefore fallible opinion. The question is not to be determined by a show of hands. We must go back to the Old Testament and see for ourselves what doctrine of Messiah is there unfolded, and then test the claims of Jesus by that doctrine.

Like all other parts of God's revelation we shall find it to proceed from the simple to the complex—from outline to detail. It is the divine method of revelation to begin with some outline truth, and then gradually, with stroke upon stroke of the brush, to put in the details until we have the fulness. "First the blade; then the ear; then the full corn in the ear" is the divine rule. We do not get the oak first, but the acorn, and afterward the oak.

Just so it is with all Scripture. We shall find it true of this Messianic doctrine. It will begin with a germ-truth and proceed with increasing detail from simplicity to complexity. Let me turn now to Genesis iii:14, 15:

"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt (thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Here lies in germ all redemptive and Messianic truth. The woman's seed is to inflict upon Satan, finally, a fatal wound, but in so doing, is to suffer. It does not tell us much, and we will not read into it a word from subsequent revelation, but it does set us looking for a descendant of that woman who shall be victorious over Satan.

Let us turn now to Genesis xii:1-3:

"Now the Lord had said unto Abram: Get theo out of thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy fathers house, unto a land that I will shew thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

Now let us not treat these words unfairly. They are luminous in the light of what is to follow, but, certainly are not in themselves a promise that of the descendants of Abraham there should arise a Messiah. I want you only to notice here that a blessing is promised to this man Abraham for all the families of the earth. That is all, but hold that much firmly in mind. I will read now from Genesis xv:l-4.

"After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed; and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir."

Again in the xviii chapter, 18th verse:

"Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him."

Again, be sure to keep within the limits of the text. This is no promise of a personal Messiah; so far we have only a nation in which all nations are to be blessed. Let me, however, anticipate enough to say that I am going to connect by an indisputable chain of evidence, the Messiah with this promise.

Of course, I am assuming that the Genesis story is familiar to every one of you. You know that Abram had a son born in his house named Ishmael. At this time he was the only son, and Abram besought God to fulfill in Ishmael the promises which I have quoted, and this is God's answer:

"And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him" (Gen. xvii:19).

Here, you see, the principle of selection, of limitation, enters. And, of course, you see the bearing of it upon the identification of Messiah. Suppose an Ishmaelite comes to me and says: "I am the Messiah," I am ready to say, "No, whoever the Messiah may be, you are not the Messiah, you are a descendant of Ishmael, and not of Isaac. The Messiah must come through Isaac.'' In this way, as we shall see, God narrows the possibilities of deception until they are wholly excluded. Ishmael and all his descendants are excluded. The Messiah must come through Isaac. Let us now turn to Gen. xxviii:13, 14:

"And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south; and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed."

We have here, as you know, the scene at Bethel, where God entered into covenant with Jacob, the son of Isaac. And here again the principle of exclusion is seen. There had been another son, Esau, remember that; and that the Abrahamic promise passes over Esau to Jacob. No descendant of Esau may claim the Messianic title.

And now we are to see eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel excluded:

"Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise; thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion's whelp; from the prey, my son, thou are gone up: he stoopeth down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen. xlix:8-10).

You see how immensely the slender line of promise here gains in definiteness. Out of twelve tribes, one tribe is chosen, the tribe of Judah. From henceforth we look expectantly to Judah only. It is not enough that the claimant of the Messiahship shall be an Israelite merely; he must establish a Judaic descent.

Here, for the first time, we have the word "sceptre" indicating kingly power. We also have the word "Shiloh." The old Rabbis all agree that this is the description of Messiah as the Prince of Peace. The word Shiloh implies that. Notice another significant thing here. "To him shall the gathering of the people be." A Messiah mark. The people are to gather to him as a center.

In Numbers xxiii, xxiv we have the successive prophetic visions of Balaam. I will read but one of them:

"I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly. Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion" (Num. xxiv: 17-19).

Here we have "sceptre" again. When God has added a detail He never leaves it behind any more; it is always carried on. You are to note, too, that in these passages, we get, not only the idea of dominion, of rule, but also the idea of personality —"I shall see him, but not now."

Let me anticipate an objection right here. Does not this mean the whole people of Israel? Does not the Messianic doctrine really concern a people, rather than a person, and is it not true that the promises which we Christians are apt to make personal, are after all, rather indefinite? That question is raised by some. But notice the words: "There shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel." And to this we may add another statement contemporary with it:

"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" (Deuteronomy xviii:15).

This passage, from the lips of Moses, adds one of the official titles of Messiah. The Sceptred One out of Israel is to be a Prophet also.

Now we come to another limitation of the promise. It is the promise made to David concerning Solomon:

"And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever." (2 Sam. vii: 14, 16).

Let us see how David understood this covenant. We have his last words in the xxiii chapter of 2 Samuel, verses 1 to 5:

"Now these be the last words of David. David, the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet Psalmist of Israel said: The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me: He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain. Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure."

Here are the last words of David, the sweet Psalmist of Israel; his life stained with many sins, yet a man who loved God supremely. As he lay there dying, his last thoughts turned to that promise which God made concerning his seed.

Let us see now how the prophets interpreted that promise:

"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots; and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him; the spirit of wisdom and understanding; the spirit of counsel and might; the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord" (Isaiah xi:l, 2).

Well, but some one says, this might have referred to any descendant of David. It might have referred to the line of King Josiah, for instance, who was of the Davidic line. Let us see. I will read the tenth verse:

"And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious."

"In that day." What day? A day which has not yet dawned. Hear verse two:

"And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Path-ros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

When Isaiah wrote these words, the people had not gone into Assyria, and this prophecy has never been fulfilled down to this day.

Let us now turn to the prophecy of Jeremiah. Of course, I pass over chapter after chapter in Isaiah which might be quoted. I want you to notice the word "Branch" as a mark of identification.

"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth" (Jeremiah xxiii:5). "For thus saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the priests, the Levites, want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, If ye can break my covenant of the day and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David, my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne" (Jeremiah xxxiii: 17-21).

Here again is a narrowing of the whole Messianic outlook. We began with a promise that might have been fulfilled in any man born of woman; it was narrowed first into the man, Abram; then Ishmael and his posterity were excluded and Isaac chosen; then Esau and his descendants were excluded and Jacob chosen; then out of the twelve sons of Jacob Judah was chosen, and now, out of all Judah, David and his line. Whoever the Messiah is, he must come from the kingly house of David, and therefore must be of Judah—a Jew. Do you not see how the marks of identity are accumulating? It would not do even for a Jew to say "I am the Messiah/' unless he could establish his Davidic descent.

II. It seems to me that we are getting a very positive sort of Messianic doctrine, and very definite sort of Messianic doctrine as well.

And so far it has been perfectly simple and quite within the limits of the natural. But now we come to something in this line of descent which is miraculous. Turn back with me to the prophecy of Isaiah. I will read the 13th and 14th verses of the vii chapter.

"And he said, Hear ye now, 0 house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

You know the meaning of that word—"God with us." I want you to observe that these words are addressed to the house of David. You know we speak sometimes of this or that part of Scripture as difficult to understand. Students have come to me with the ix chapter of Romans to say that they could not understand it; and people say that the passage I have just read is a difficult passage. The fact is, that the difficulty is not in understanding it, but in believing it. It is all plain enough. There could not be a simpler statement put into words. God promised to give the house of David a sign by which it might know the long promised One when He should appear. The sign would be that, in that house and family, a virgin should conceive and bear a son; therefore, of course, super-naturally and miraculously conceived. The explanation of so strange an event is in the name—Immanuel.

Remember, I am reading now from the prophecy of Isaiah—Jewish scripture—and not from the New Testament, The immaculate conception and Deity of Messiah is, therefore, an Old Testament doctrine. The New Testament merely confirms it.

And that doctrine, equally with all others, is to be received by faith. God makes the revelation clear enough; then it is to be believed. We know what it is—not always how it is. And how should it be otherwise? "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." And that is an absolutely necessary corollary to the postulate of a God. If His thoughts were no higher than my thoughts, He would be precisely of my dimensions, and I would not worship Him, neither would I give any heed to His book.

I will now turn to Isaiah ix:6, 7:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

This is the same Davidic personage, marked by his peculiar kingly right, for the passage proceeds:

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth, even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this."

Let me recapitulate for a moment:

(1) Messiah must be of the seed of Eve; that is to say, he must be human, a man. An angel cannot be Messiah. One of the Cherubim or Seraphim cannot be Messiah. Whatsoever else Messiah is, he is human.

(2) He must be the seed of Abraham; a Hebrew, not a Gentile.

(3) He must be of the line of Isaac and Jacob; not an Ishmaelite, nor an Edomite.

(4) He must be of the tribe of Judah—a Jew.

(5) He must be of the royal family of David, among the families of Judah. Even in Judah only David's family can produce him.

(6) He must be miraculously born of a virgin mother.

(7) He must be "Immanuel"—God with us; the mighty God, the everlasting Father.

But how can the mighty God, the everlasting Father, be also a man?

Where do these ideas ever come together again? In one of the four Gospels of the New Testament. There we find this statement. Understand me, I do not say an explanation, but a statement. God is not greatly concerned to explain Himself to us. This is the statement: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John i:l, 14). .

And I submit that the statement is adequate and satisfying. If the mighty God chose to become "flesh," and to tabernacle among us it was, most evidently, within His power to do it.

III. Is there nothing in addition to this? Nothing, for instance, as to the time when Messiah should appear? It is evident that the time of the birth of Messiah is, if revealed a very important mark of identification. I think if we look at the prophecy of Daniel, we shall find there a very clear revelation as to the time Messiah should appear. Daniel ix:21-23.

"Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins."

Remember Israel was now under punishment from God—not cast off, but punished by captivity for national sins.

"And to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy."

That is, to finally bring in the time, of which I shall speak when the subject of the millennium is before us, when a restored Israel, in full fellowship with the God of their fathers, shall be the channel of His blessings to the earth.

"Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and three score and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."

Now observe, between the time when Daniel was seeing visions and the prophesying in Babylon, and the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 A. D., the whole thing is limited. The coming of Messiah, and the cutting off of Messiah, must take place before the sweeping destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. Whatever this seventy weeks means, it is a period (except the last week) that must fall between Daniel's time and the year A. D. 70, for since the year 70, there has been no sanctuary in Jerusalem. There the temple was destroyed in that year, and has never been rebuilt. Here then, is another vastly important condition. The Messiah must not only possess the unique personality which we have been considering, but He must appear between the time when Daniel prophesied, say B. C. 538, and the time when Jerusalem was destroyed, A. D. 70. So much for the time-limit.

And now we come to another condition which Messiah must meet. The prophet Micah foretells the very place of his nativity:

But thou, Bethlehem-Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Micah. v;2).

Here we have the Divine again. These words are plain and simple enough. Who is this ruler who is to come out of Bethlehem? It is He whose goings forth have been from everlasting.

Bear in mind now, that, to the seven marks of identity in our recapitulation of a few minutes ago, we must now add that Messiah must appear between B. C. 538, and A. D. 70, and that He must have Bethlehem-Ephratah for His birthplace. So far all is clear.

IV. But the very passage from Danie. which furnished us with the time-limit suggested also a difficulty. Up to that point we had been reading about a sceptred one, a mighty king of David's line who was also the mighty God. But Daniel tells us distinctly that after a certain time "shall Messiah be cut off."

That raises a difficulty. What is this about a Divine King who is reigning victoriously over everything, being cut off, "but not for himself?" Now this difficulty is not to be explained away, for if we turn to Isaiah and the Psalms, we shall find a great deal of the same sort. See, for example, Isaiah lii:13:

Behold my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men."

But is it Messiah of whom Isaiah is talking? Compare Zechariah iii :8:

"Hear now, 0 Joshua the high priest, thou and thy fellows that sit before thee; for they are men wondered at; for behold I will bring forth my servant, The Branch."

What do we find David's son called throughout the prophets? Just these two names, "Branch" and "my servant." This certainly seems mysterious; here is Jehovah's Servant who is going to be extolled, exalted and very high, and yet his visage is to be more marred than any man. And the difficulty apparently gets more difficult as we go on. To return to Isaiah, read the liii. chapter 1-9.

Then we have the xxii Psalm, which most commentators—Christian and some Jewish —agree is Messianic, with its despairing cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!" and its tragic burden of pierced hands and feet. Here we have then, on the one hand, a glorious king, in Himself Deity, so that He has all power, whose very name is Immanuel—"God with us;" yet, on the other hand, with His visage more marred than any man, His bones out of joint, dying with thirst, while His vesture is parted and lots cast for it. How can Messiah be a mighty king, and yet be such an abject sufferer? How can he be the great Davidic monarch restoring again the glory of Solomon's house, and also a sacrifice bearing the sins and iniquities of Israel and all the people? How can it be? Clearly, destinies so strongly contrasted could not be accomplished simultaneously. There is only one answer possible. There is but one word which can link the glorious reigning with the suffering and the death and that word is "resurrection." Suppose that, in the divine purpose, the mighty drama is to be in two acts? Suppose the suffering Messiah and the glorious Messiah to be one, divided by death, reunited by resurrection? Suppose Messiah came, and was "cut off" as Daniel predicted, and suppose that His life came again; then all the other and glorious side of the picture is still possible, is it not? If He did not come before A. D. 70 He can never come, and the prophets are false witnesses. If He came and died, and went into the grave and remained there, then God promised Israel and David something that He cannot perform; but if He came forth out of the grave, the earthly glory is all possible yet.

Well, you say, but is not the doctrine of the resurrection a New Testament doctrine? Is it not something that Christians invented to bridge this very difficulty, and make it possible to reconcile the prediction of Messiah's earthly greatness, with the predictions of His humiliation and death? No, indeed; resurrection is an Old Testament doctrine, as we shall presently see.

As matter of belief you Christians—the great mass of you—practically reject the voluminous testimony of the prophets concerning the earthly glory and power of the Messiah "upon the throne of David" (Isa. ix: 7); while you Jews—the great mass of you —will not receive the abundant testimony of your own prophets as to Messiah's humiliation and death. Against both of you there is levelled the reproach of Jesus: "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." The truth is that resurrection is the bridge from Messiah's death to Messiah's glory, and that the Second Advent supplements and completes the first.

Now I want you to notice with me just two or three Old Testament passages upon the question of resurrection. Take, for instance, Job xix:25:

"For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."

Job lived before the law, before the Pentateuch was written. Did not Job believe in resurrection? There was his body which was going to be food for worms, yet, said he, "In my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another."

In the xvii. Psalm and 15th verse, we have David's faith in the resurrection:

"As for me," says David, "I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness."

The resurrection is not a new doctrine; it is as old as Job, and was David's hope. Now let us turn to the xvi Psalm and see a promise concerning the Messiah. Many of the old rabbis, as well as commentators, interpret the xvi Psalm of Messiah. I will read the eighth verse:

"I have set the Lord always before me: because* He is at my right hand I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in sheol; neither wilt thou suffer thine Roly One to see corruption."

Here is not only the doctrine of the resurrection, but a definite promise that Messiah should be raised from the dead.

In Daniel xii:2, the matter becomes, if possible, more definite still:

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Daniel went to the grave with the promise that he should stand in his lot at the end of the days. Resurrection then is the word that bridges the whole difficulty, which reconciles the apparent contradiction of so many Scriptures. In other words, Messiah comes; Messiah accomplishes all that is predicted of Him concerning suffering, humiliation and death; He rises from the grave, and comes again to set up the kingdom, and to complete the fulfillment of prophecy.

V. But, it may fairly be asked, is not this doctrine of a second advent of Messiah to restore the Davidic monarchy and make good the multitudinous unfulfilled promises to Israel a mere invention to bolster the Messianic claims of Jesus? In other words, is it clearly taught in Scripture?

Every Jew familiar with the words of the Prophets is aware that whatever else Messiah does He must restore Israel or leave the great mass of prediction concerning Him unfulfilled.

I turn to the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and begin at the sixth verse:

"When they, therefore, were come together, they asked of Him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

Observe, the question was not at all as to whether He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel, but simply and only as to when He would do it.

Remember, before you begin to say "how carnal, how material, how unspiritual are these men! Will they never understand Jesus," that, indwelt by the Holy Spirit (John xx:22), with understandings opened to understand the Scriptures (Luke xxiv:45) they had been sitting forty days at the feet of the risen Lord while He taught them concerning kingdom truth (Acts i:3). I think they had some advantages over our commentators in the matter of prophetic study. Evidently they felt their understanding of kingdom truth to be complete except at one point—the time of the restoration. Here is Jesus' answer:

"And he said unto them, it is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power."

Suppose one agent after another, fully authorized to speak for me, had promised in my behalf that at some time I would perform a certain action, and that, finally interrogated in person as to the time when I would perform that action I should say: "I decline to speak upon that point" would it not be a monstrous perversion to say that I thereby discredited my agents, and that my words must be understood as announcing that I intended never to perform the act?

In the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles it is distinctly stated that after gathering out of the Gentiles a people for His name, He will return. Sixteenth verse:

"After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up; that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

Such is the Messianic doctrine.

And now we come to our final question, Was Jesus that Messiah?

No one questions that Jesus was of the family of David. In all the record of His life, where He was brought into sharpest controversy with those who rejected utterly His Messianic claims, the objection never was made that He was not of the line of David. No one ever denied that He was a descendant of Abraham, or of the tribe of Judah, or born in Bethlehem of Judea. Don't you see that the sure and simple way to settle forever the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, if He were indeed an imposter, was in the power of those who were rigidly examining those claims? A disproof of his Davidic descent, or a disproof of his birth at Bethlehem, and every disciple would have left him at once.

Then again: Immediately — certainly within fifty days—after Jesus' death was accomplished, men went through Jerusalem and Judea preaching that he was risen from the dead. There, again, was an opportunity to end His cult by simply disproving the fact. Indeed, it never could have survived the disproof of even one of the eleven points of identification.

At the present time no man can either establish or disprove a claim to Davidic ancestry. For that reason alone, Messiah must have come before the genealogical registers were destroyed. In Christ's day the genealogical registers were open to all, and a Jewish man could prove his descent, but at present he cannot do so, therefore, the Messiah cannot appear for the first time now. Either the whole Messianic prophecy falls to the ground, or the Messiah has already appeared. The historic facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth are notorious, simple, undisputed. See how the lines of proof, of identity, converge upon Jesus, and upon no one else.

1. He is a descendant of Eve—a Man.

2. He is the seed of Abraham, nay, the very seed.

3. He derives His Abrahamic ancestry through Jacob, not Esau; Isaac, not Ishmael.

4. He is of the Tribe of Judah.

5. He is David's Son, and heir of the Davidic covenant.

6. He was miraculously conceived in the womb of a virgin.

7. He proved His Deity by works beyond the power of man; by superhuman holiness; by the resurrection from the dead, and by His influence upon the world,

8. He appeared at precisely the right time according to Daniel's prophecy.

9. He was born, against all human probability, in Bethlehem-Ephratah.

10. He fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah concerning His vicarious sacrifice.

11. He died in precisely the manner foretold in Psalm xxii. His hands and feet were pierced, and His executioners cast lots upon His raiment.

It is evident, (1) that no one could bring these signs upon himself; (2) that they are too numerous, specific and minute to leave an accidental fulfillment among the possibilities; (3) that, therefore, the being in whom they all centre is the Messiah; and (4) that, since they all centre upon Jesus, it follows that He is Messiah.

And now, a closing word to you, my Jewish readers. Some of you are looking for Messiah. Well, He is coming. That is the "blessed hope" of Jew, and Christian. Believe this, hold it fast, whatever betides. But I implore you by everything you hold dear, believe also that He has come. The humiliation, the sacrificial death is accomplished; the glory is coming. Between now and that time when Messiah shall come in glory, how unspeakably solemn and important is the question of our personal relation to Him. My friends—Jew and Gentile alike—"there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved." The thought of a sinner ever reaching God's presence apart from sacrifice, is foreign to the whole of Scripture. What sacrifice can we offer? The temple is gone, the priesthood is gone, is there no sacrifice for us? Yes, there is; there is the sacrifice of Messiah. I claim it and need no other. Having believed in that sacrifice, and received Him as the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed—I await, in perfect peace, the time when He shall gloriously return to receive me to Himself, and to reign on the earth. I may die before that time comes; even so I shall go to Him by virtue of that sacrifice, trusting in His shed blood.

How is it with you? God has given you this chain of evidence, has affixed to that one person, among all the sons of men and sons of God, the marks of Messiah, will you now turn away from Him? Receive Him now. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not, but as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God." Will you not say, and with heartfelt conviction: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."