Since ancient times, readers of the Old Testament have noticed a variety of perspectives in the prophecies pointing toward the Messiah. Most Jews and early Christians identified two major strands in the Messianic prophecies.
On the one hand, there were texts that pointed toward a royal Messiah: a conquering king who would bring justice to the people and extend Israel’s rule to the ends of the earth. On the other hand, there were texts that suggested the Messiah would be a suffering servant, humiliated and rejected. The mistake that many made was in not understanding that all these texts were referring to the same person-to different aspects of His work at different times.
These texts were puzzling in advance of the Messiah’s coming. On the one hand, the royal messianic texts usually contained no hint of suffering or humiliation. On the other hand, the Suffering Servant texts usually described the Messiah as having little power or worldly authority. One way that the Jews of Jesus’ day resolved this problem was to see the Suffering Servant as a symbol of the whole nation and its sufferings in the course of exile and occupation. By removing these texts from the messianic equation, many Jews expected the royal or conquering Messiah. This King, like David, would throw off the occupiers and restore Israel’s place among the nations.
Of course, a major problem with removing the Suffering Servant texts from the equation is that there are, indeed, significant Old Testament texts that blend the two major characteristics of the Messiah. They describe the same person. What is less clear at first glance is whether those characteristics occur at the same time or one after the other.
In ancient times, the Jews were confused about the first coming of the Messiah. Today, we find much confusion about the Second Coming, as well. What should this tell us about the need for truly seeking to understand Bible truth? Why can false doctrine be so problematic?