# 6

The End of History—Messiah Conspiracy

# 5

Why Was Jesus Rejected by the Jewish People?

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me.”1

Jesus’ comment to the Jewish religious leaders, 2000 years ago

“...‘What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ ”2 The chief priests (Caiaphas and Annas) and

Pharisees in a convened council, 2000 years ago

“Woe is me for the house of Boethus! Woe is me for their club! Woe is me for the house of Hanin [Annas]! Woe is me for their whisperings! Woe is me for the house of Kantheras! Woe is me for their pen! Woe is me for the house of Ishmael [ben Phiabi]! Woe is me for their fist! For they are the high priests; Their sons are the treasurers; Their sons-in-law are temple-officers; And their servants beat the people with cudgels!”3 The Talmud, Pesahim 57a

“If the house of Kantheras is identical with the house of Caiaphas (cf. Schwartz 1990), then the last ‘woe’ is intended against Joseph Caiaphas and his family. The ‘house of Hanin,’ which means the mighty family of Annas, is accused of calumnies, and one could easily include among these calumnies the persecution of Jesus....The New Testament indicates that those who were active in delivering Jesus to Pilate were members of the high-priestly aristocracy....the leading figures in this fateful action were Annas and his clan together with Joseph Caiaphas, probably his son-in-law.”4 Israeli Professor David Flusser, Ph.D., of Jerusalem, 1992

“For centuries, professional and amateur archaeologists have been obsessed with digging up Israel, and with good reason. No place on earth has more alluring ancient treasures waiting to be discovered than does little Israel. For believers, virtually every turn of the spade provides further documentation of the inerrancy of Scripture.”5 Editor Elwood McQuaid, 1994

In 1990, Caiaphas, the high priest mentioned above, was “dug up” in Israel. This archaelogically validated his existence to the dismay of liberal “higher” critics throughout the world. It was Caiaphas who initiated, pioneered and led the way to a solidified Jewish rejection of Jesus, chiefly for political gain. Read on...!

Philip Moore, 1996


Why was the picture of the suffering Messiah swept aside in light of the many prophecies which came true in the life of Jesus? Jesus often reminded the religious leaders that these prophecies were indeed being fulfilled in His life! He said: “ ‘You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life....Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?’ ” (John 5:39-40, 45-47 NASB).
After His resurrection, Jesus said to them: “ ‘...These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled’....‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations,
beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things’ (Luke 24:44-48 NASB).


Our explanation of why He was rejected in the first century lies with the Jewish priests, on whom the common people relied for religious understanding. There is overwhelming evidence that the high priests at the time of Jesus had become so completely corrupt and involved in the political intrigues of the Roman rulers, that no matter how many Messianic proofs were laid out on the table, no honesty would be forthcoming, as far as they were concerned!
To illustrate our assertion, we quote from an extremely
interesting book entitled, The Trial of Jesus, From a Lawyers Standpoint, by New York attorney Walter M. Chandler. Chandler, being as modest as possible, says: “We trust that these expressions will not offend our dear Israelitish readers, for they are based on the statements of eminent and zealous Jewish writers....Josephus the historian. Although endeavoring to conceal as much as possible the shameful acts committed by the priests composing this council, yet he was unable, in a moment of disgust, to refrain from stigmatizing them. ‘About this time,’ he says, ‘there arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem, each of which assembled a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations, and became leaders to them. And when they struggled together they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to
reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it....Here is the explanation, to the shame of the Jewish assembly:
“For nearly a century a detestable abuse prevailed, which consisted in the arbitrary nomination and deposition of the high priest. The high priesthood, which for fifteen centuries had been preserved in the same family, being hereditary according to the divine command,
3 had at the time of Christ’s advent become an object of commercial speculation. Herod commenced these arbitrary changes,4 and after Judea became one of the Roman conquests the election of the high priest took place almost every year at Jerusalem, the procurators appointing and deposing them in the same manner as the praetorians later on made and unmade emperors.5 The Talmud speaks sorrowfully of this venality and the yearly changes of the high priest.
“This sacred office was given to the one that offered the most money for it, and mothers were particularly anxious that their sons should be nominated to this dignity
6....M. Derembourg, a modern Jewish savant, has remarked: ‘A few priestly, aristocratic, powerful, and vain families, who cared for neither the dignity nor the interests of the altar, quarreled with each other respecting appointments, influence, and wealth.’7 6


We also note, in our explanation of why Jesus was rejected, that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were descended from a group of righteous men who returned from the Jewish captivity in Babylon several
hundred years before. However, they had degenerated
7 into interpreting God’s law by the letter strictness of their self righteous traditions to such an extent that they had obscured its true meaning; the true intention of the law was to show people that they were sinful and needed atonement. Many Pharisees felt that they were not out of character with God’s law because they labored under the false perception that they were keeping it.
Jesus emphasized the law’s true heart meaning (Matt. 5:21-22). He maintained that if anyone claims to keep the law with perfection they must also do it in their hearts
8something impossible for a human being to do perfectly throughout their life! Jesus claimed this was a
test to show us that we cannot be perfect, and that one man—the Messiah—would come and keep the law faultlessly. Thereafter,
anyone who believed in Him would be considered worthy of keeping it and assured forgiveness, even in their areas of weakness. “If we
believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself ” (II Tim. 2:13 KJV).


The New Testament book of Romans says: “...by the works of the Law no flesh [man] will be justified in His [God’s] sight” (Rom. 3:20 NASB; [ ] mine). In the Old Testament, King David exhorts: “Hear my prayer, O Lord, give ear to my supplications: in thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy righteousness....enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps. 143:1-2 KJV).
Hal Lindsey, a famous prophetic theologian, correctly notes: “The law was given to show mankind why it needed a ‘suffering Messiah’ who alone could make man acceptable[
9] to God. Any person who hasn’t come to see that his most basic problem is an inner spiritual one prefers a political deliverer to a spiritual one. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand the basic attitude which rationalized away the prophetic portrait of the suffering Messiah.”10


Jesus demonstrated the fact that He had fulfilled the prophecies of the suffering servant (such as Isa. 53; 49:5-7; and Ps. 22), and claimed He would also fulfill the kingly prophecies (Dan. 7:13-14) at a later date (Mark 14:62). The pro-Roman Sanhedrin11 (Jewish Supreme Court), made up of a large number of Pharisees, chose to reject their Messiah. They were looking for the kingly fulfillments in their time; pride and misinterpretation prevented them from accepting the suffering one first. Jesus would have indeed become the king and national deliverer to them and the world, had His message been heeded (see Matt. 23:39; and the parables of Jesus in Matt. 21-22; and Luke 19:41-44).12


The common people (the general Jewish populace) rejected Him because most did not read or take the prophecies of the Messiah literally.
13 Rather, they relied on the opinion of the religious leadership within the majority of the Sanhedrin, which at that time, had become pro-Roman.
According to the Talmud and other commentaries, both ancient and modern, the reason for this pro-Roman stand of the court was that the priests and many elders of that time thought in strictly secular terms. They reasoned that the best way to secure the welfare of the nation and their own wealth and position, would be to collaborate closely with the Roman authorities!

After all, the priests and several Pharisees commented on the miracles of Jesus: “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:48 NASB).
At this point, we should remind ourselves that if Israel as a nation had accepted Jesus then, there would have been no need for the institution of the Church, and the Jewish kingdom would have begun. Jesus said the kingdom was at hand (Matt. 3:2; 4:23) and if He had been accepted, He would have instituted this kingdom.
All the parallel prophecies concerning His Second Advent began after His rejection. What would have happened had He been received? He would have reached the pagan Gentile world by giving them the opportunity to accept the God of Israel through the Messianic Jewish Kingdom, instead of using the Church. He will do this at His Second Coming (Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 20). However, His rejection has put approximately 2000 years between His First and Second Advents to Earth, as predicted in Hosea 5:15 and Matthew 23:39. These two pictures painted by the Jewish Bible could easily have occurred at the same time, had those to whom He came (present at His First Advent), received Him.


In recent years there are some in “Christian circles” (liberals) who reject the idea that Jesus was offering the Messianic Kingdom to Israel, and that He would have set it up if received by His people. New Testament verses like Matthew 3:2 and 4:23 could not be more clear on this subject. However, many of the greatest evangelical scholars of our time, who truly believe the Bible, point out that if Jesus had been received at His First Coming, the two predicted Old Testament pictures of Messiah, one of a “suffering servant” and the other of a “reigning king,” would have merged. Indeed, Jesus would have set up His kingdom of peace at that First Coming.
Hal Lindsey, foremost fundamentalist Christian author of a dozen best-selling books, pointed out this truth in his book, There’s A New World Coming, when he said: “For anyone who cared to investigate, there was no lack of evidence to show that Jesus was indeed the long-awaited Messiah. Had the people received Him, He would have fulfilled the kingly prophecies in their day in addition to the ones regarding the suffering Messiah. But when the Jewish nation as a whole rejected Christ, the fulfillment of His kingship was postponed until the final culmination of world history. This is the subject of the Book of Revelation.”


Many Jews became believers as they witnessed the fulfillment of the prophecies in the holy writings of the Old Testament. We will look at a few of the incredible prophetic evidences of the resurrection later when we cover Psalms 16, 21 and 22 (in our chapter 5, “Which Prophecies Did Jesus Fulfill?”).
Many wonder how these prophecies of the Messiah’s death and resurrection would have been fulfilled had He been accepted. The answer is simple; the Romans would have executed Him, on their own, as a usurper
16 of Roman authority. The only reason they were lenient toward Jesus’ claims of Messiahship was because, for selfish reasons, the corrupt priests denied His Messianic credentials. As a result, the Romans overlooked His Messianic credibility to the very end.


When the Jewish religious leaders told Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar,” Pilate’s entire political career was put in jeopardy. He knew they would leak word to Caesar in Rome, which in turn would destroy his “presidential” future.17 Evidence of this is clearly revealed by the apostle John in the New Testament. “As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews [mobs that the priests had previously arranged to be at the scene] cried out, saying, ‘If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar’....Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, ‘Behold, your King!’ They therefore cried out, ‘Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar.’ So he then delivered Him to them to be crucified” (John 19:12, 14-16 NASB).


As you can imagine, if word had traveled back to Rome that the Roman governor, Pilate of Judea, allowed a Jew to openly proclaim himself king—a treasonable offense by Roman law—Pilate would have been finished. Thus when the priests and their hand-picked mob told Pilate they “had no king but Caesar,” they were in a sense, blackmailing him into executing Jesus. A better understanding of this can be obtained from the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John, which we will quote shortly.

A nineteen hundred and fifty-three-year-old inscription reading “Joseph, son of Caiaphas”, with a clear first-century pattern of rosettes carved on the side of an ossuary excavated in 1990, in Jerusalem.

A recent New York Times article entitled, “Tomb in Jerusalem May Be That of Priest Who Doomed Jesus,” displayed pictures of a stone ossuary (repository box for bones) which contained bones of a sixty-year-old man from the first century. The ossuary bore an inscription, in Semitic language, which read “Joseph, son of Caiaphas.” Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, wrote: “ ‘Joseph...was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood.’ ”18
The article confirmed that a first century (43 AD) bronze coin was found in one of the ossuaries. The site was accidentally opened in 1990 by workers who were widening a road at the Peace Forest in Jerusalem. Ronny Reich, of the Israel Antiquities Authority, referred to the writing on the box as that of working class people/cemetery workers. There were several boxes located in the tomb, yet one “stood out in splendor....decorated with a rare, intricate pattern of rosettes.” This was the ossuary bearing the high priest’s name. Zvi Greenhut, Jerusalem’s chief archaeologist, began excavating the tomb only hours after it was discovered. We note this recent archaelogical discovery to illustrate just how real the people in the New Testament were. They existed and still exist, though they may be only bones (that is, until the resurrection).19 Consequently, this disproves the claims of those liberal scholars who in the past, denied that Pilate was real because he was only mentioned in the New Testament, until the stone bearing his name was found in Tiberius in 1961!

The photo of Caiaphas’ ossuary above, with his sixty-year-old bones entombed, and those on page 78 are shown courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Reproduction of New York Times20 article on
the archaeological discovery of Caiaphas’ bones.


In the British newspaper The Sunday Times (March 31, 1996), in a news review article “The Tomb That Dare Not Speak Its Name”, it was remarked by Tal Ham (who is Israel’s foremost expert on early Christian and Jewish history) in relation to a recent tomb excavation, “The chance that this is the ossuary of the son of Simon of Cyrene, who carried Jesus’s cross, is very likely.” A following paragraph read “Clearly archaeology is making discoveries that show the New Testament to be accurate ... about certain individuals.”

This recently discovered stone bearing Pilate’s name and title of governor was an embarrassment to those who denied his existence because he was “only mentioned in the New Testament.”


The New Testament records a conversation between two chief priests about Jesus: “Therefore the chief priests and Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, ‘What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.’ Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him” (John 11:47-53 NASB; bold mine).


From this we understand that the priests thought they were saving their nation, and their own selfish and wrongful rulership of it, by deciding that Jesus must die. In reality, Jesus was the only one who could have saved the nation! Had He been accepted, He would have risen up and overthrown the Roman Empire and its emperor, as predicted (Dan. 2:34-35, 45; Isa. 11:4).
As a result of the way things actually happened, Jesus will accomplish this task at His Second Coming, when the empire is revived in its ten-nation form with the Antichrist as its new and future emperor. There is a difference between Daniel 7:23, which describes ancient Rome, and Daniel 7:24-25, which tells of a yet-to-be-built future ten-nation revived Rome (for details, see our chapter 22, “Rome Resurrected”).


Jesus was crying as He rode the donkey through the gates of Jerusalem, as predicted in Zechariah 9:9. His eyes were filled with tears (Luke 19:41) because He realized, as predicted by Daniel some six hundred years before, that His people, the Jews, would not allow Him to save them from the terrible onslaughts predicted in the Scripture. Read what Luke recorded in the New Testament concerning Israel and Rome: “...and when he [Jesus] approached, He saw the city and wept for it, saying, ‘If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you when your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation’ ” (Luke 19:41-44 NASB; [ ] mine).


Many have asked,22 “If Jesus was the Messiah, why did He not overthrow the Romans and bring peace?” We think it is important to respect and appreciate the fact that the Messiah did not push His Messianic government on His people at a time when they were not ready to receive it! He was waiting for a national, royal and religious acceptance. This is why He did not set up the kingdom. The religious hierarchy that the people relied upon for spiritual guidance told them not to accept Him. Remember the words of Jesus to the Pharisees: “...woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Matt. 23:13 KJV).


If you read the previously quoted Scripture again (John 11:47-53) you will discover...

1 John 5:46 NASB.

2 John 11:47-48 NASB.

3 F.F. Bruce, New Testament History. New York: Doubleday & Co., © 1969, pp. 67-68.

4 ‘Atiqot, Vol. XXI. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, © 1992, p. 83.

5 Israel My Glory, Vol. 51, No. 5, Oct./Nov., 1994, p. 21. Bold mine.

6 Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus, From a Lawyer’s Standpoint, Illustrated Edition, Vol. II. Norcross, Georgia: The Harrison Company Publishers, © 1976, pp. 145, 142, used by permission. Bold mine. Mr. Chandler’s documentary footnotes 3-7, preserved above, include the following sources: “3 Josephus, ‘Ant.,’ Book XX. Chap. X. 1; XV. III. 1.”; “4 Josephus, ‘Ant.,’ Book XV. Chap. III. 1.”; “5 Josephus, ‘Ant.,’ Book XVIII. Chap. II. 3; Book XX. Chap. IX. 1, 4.”; “6 See ‘Talmud,’ ‘Yoma,’ or ‘the Day of Atonement,’ fol. 35, recto; also Derembourg, work above quoted, p. 230, note 2.”; “7 ‘Essai sur l’histoire et la geographie de la Palestine,’ p. 232.” Ibid.

7 The New Scofield Reference Bible informs us: “...‘Pharisees’ [comes] from a Hebrew word meaning separate. After the ministry of the postexilic prophets ceased, godly men called Chasidim (saints) arose who sought to keep alive reverence for the law among the descendants of the Jews who returned from the Babylonian captivity. This movement degenerated into the Pharisaism of our Lord’s day—a letter-strictness which overlaid the law with traditional interpretations held to have been communicated by the Lord to Moses as oral explanations of equal authority with the law itself (cp. Mt.15:2-3; Mk.7:8-13; Gal.1:14). The Pharisees were strictly a sect. A member was a chaber (i.e. ‘knit together,’ Jud.20:11) and was obligated to remain true to the principles of Pharisaism. They were moral, zealous, and self-denying, but self-righteous (Lk.18:9) and destitute of the sense of sin and need (Lk.7:39). They were the foremost persecutors of Jesus Christ and the objects of His unsparing denunciation, e.g. Mt.23:1-36; Lk.11:42-44.” The New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 995.

8 This was the whole reason He gave the Sermon on the Mount (for insight into the true meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, see our chapter 5 “Which Prophecies Did Jesus Fulfill?”).

9 So, believe it or not, it may sound too good to be true. If you want to keep the law, all you have to do is rest in Jesus. Read Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3-4 in your New Testament. He kept it for you!

10 Hal Lindsey with C.C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth, p. 31.

11 F.F. Bruce tells us: “An attempt has been made to distinguish between two Sanhedrins at this time–a political body, dominated by the pro-Roman high-priestly party, and a religious body, controlled by leading rabbis. Now it is plain that the Mishnah regards a religious Sanhedrin as existing before A.D. 70, under the presidency of one of the great rabbis of the day. If there were in fact two separate Sanhedrins, then there is no doubt that the political Sanhedrin was the one which sentenced Jesus to death.” Mr. Bruce’s documentation of footnote 7 reads: “E.g. by the Jewish scholar Adolf Büchler in Das Synhedrion in Jerusalem (Vienna, 1902), and more recently by Solomon Zeitlin in Who Crucified Jesus? (Philadelphia, 1942), where it is argued that the pro-Roman political Sanhedrin was the only section of the Jewish nation responsible for the execution of Jesus. A thorough examination of Zeitlin’s thesis by N.B. Stonehouse appears in Paul before the Areopagus and Other NT Studies (1957), pp. 41 ff.” F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame. London: The Paternoster Press, © 1958, pp. 53-54. We note that the men of the “minor” Sanhedrin and the “great” Sanhedrin are mentioned in the Jewish commentary, Midrash Rabbah, Lamentations, published by The Soncino Press, p. 227.

12 Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a Jewish believer in Jesus who holds a Th.M and Ph.D, reminds us in our dispensational faith: “Christ would have died even if Israel had accepted Him. The nation would have proclaimed Jesus as their King, which would have been viewed by Rome as a rebellion against Caesar. Jesus would then have been arrested, tried, and crucified for treason against Rome, as was the case anyway. Three days later, following His resurrection, He would have dispensed with Rome and set up the Messianic Kingdom. His death would have occurred regardless of what Israel did.” Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, © 1993, pp. 624-625, used by permission.

13 See Hal Lindsey with C.C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth, p. 31.

14 F.F. Bruce proves this by using the Talmud’s own admission outside of the New Testament. The Talmud is a Jewish book written for Jews. Using this volume, Bruce clearly exposes this issue when he writes: “This meant an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of a few rich and influential families....‘chief priests’ exercised power out of all proportion to their numbers. The common people’s attitude toward them and the families to which they belonged finds expression in a satirical chant preserved in the Talmud: Woe is me for the house of Boethus! Woe is me for their club! Woe is me for the house of Hanin [Annas]! Woe is me for their whisperings! Woe is me for the house of Kantheras! Woe is me for their pen! Woe is me for the house of Ishmael [ben Phiabi]! Woe is me for their fist! For they are the high priests; Their sons are the treasurers; Their sons-in-law are temple-officers; And their servants beat the people with cudgels!52” Bruce’s footnote 52 is The Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim 57a. F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, pp. 67-68. Dr. David Flusser of Jerusalem informs us of the fact: “If the house of Kantheras is identical with the house of Caiaphas (cf. Schwartz 1990), then the last ‘woe’ is intended against Joseph Caiaphas and his family. The ‘house of Hanin,’ which means the mighty family of Annas, is accused of calumnies, and one could easily include among these calumnies the persecution of Jesus....The New Testament indicates that those who were active in delivering Jesus to Pilate were members of the high-priestly aristocracy....the leading figures in this fateful action were Annas and his clan together with Joseph Caiaphas, probably his son-in-law.” ‘Atiqot, Vol. XXI, © 1992, p. 83.

15 Hal Lindsey, There’s A New World Coming. Santa Ana, CA: Vision House Publishers, © 1973, p. 19, used by permission.

16 Reverend Clarence Larkin also shed some light on this ancient view when he said: “But some one may ask, ‘What would have happened if the Jews, as a nation, had repented, and accepted Jesus as King, would the earthly Messianic Kingdom have been set up?’ Certainly, but not necessarily immediately, for certain Old Testament prophecies as to Jesus’ death and ressurection had to be fulfilled, for He had to die for the redemption of the race, before He could assume His office as King. But this could and would have been fulfilled by the Roman Government seizing Jesus and crucifying Him as a usurper, and with Jesus’ Ressurection and Ascension, Daniel’s 69th week would have terminated, and the 70th week begun without a break, and at its close Jesus would have descended and set up His earthly Kingdom.” Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth or God’s Plan and Purpose in The Ages. Glenside, PA: Rev. Clarence Larkin Est., © 1918, p. 87. Available through Rev. Clarence Larkin Est., POB 334, Glenside, PA, USA 19038. The religious leaders, because of their corruption by Rome, deceived the people regarding the Messiah’s Coming, and this created an approximate 2000-year interlude between the Messianic arrivals. We have discussed this with many rabbis who ridicule the assertion that their Bible spoke of two Comings of the Messiah. However, the ancient rabbinical expositors of centuries past confirm this. They expounded on the words of Hosea in their Bible, written nearly seven hundred years before the birth of Jesus, as refer-

17 ring to the Messiah. They said His two days were symbolic of 2000 years, while His third day was to be the 1000-year kingdom of the Messiah, which will be set up after His 2000 years of patience with Israel, at their final acceptance of Him. Hosea 5:15-6:2 reads: “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight” (KJV). An authentically accepted ancient viewpoint on these words reads: “...as it is said, After two days he will revive us (Hos 6:2). These are the days of the Messiah, which [will last] for two thousand years. On the third day192 he will raise us, [and we shall live before him] (Hos 6:2).193 ” Footnote 192 to this ancient rabbinical commentary reads: “The third millennium, considering a day as a thousand years.” Footnote 193 reads: ‘Living’ in convenantal terms meant living on the promised land with the Messiah.” George Buchanan, Revelation and Redemption, pp. 405-406.
In other words, any promotions in store for him would not be forthcoming.

18 “Tomb in Jerusalem May Be That of Priest Who Doomed Jesus,” New York Times, Aug. 14, 1992, p. 10A, © 1992 by the New York Times Co. Reprinted by permission.

19 Throughout the centuries, Jews have buried many thousands of their loved ones on the Mount of Olives, as they do today, because they believe those buried there will be the first to see the Messiah at the resurrection when He comes to the Mount of Olives mentioned in the Bible’s book of Zechariah. In this situation, we remember Jesus’ statement to Caiaphus at His trial referring to His Second Coming. Caiaphus asked: “...Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62 KJV). Isn’t it interesting that after Caiaphus’ 2000-year-old bones were studied, analyzed and dated, they were “reburied on the Mount of Olives” by Israel’s Ministry of Religious Affairs, as was “customary”? Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 18, Sept./Oct., © 1992, p. 35. Thus Caiaphus is in position to get a bird’s-eye view of Jesus in the resurrection of Messianic judgment, just as he was promised at Jesus’ trial by Jesus Himself. Interesting, to say the least!

20 New York Times. Article and map © used by permission. Photographs above of Caiaphas family member ossuary are courtesy of Chief Archaeologist Zvi Greenhut, of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, © used by permission.

21 The stone in Daniel’s second chapter is the Messiah, who smashes the last rule of the future Gentile kingdom, represented head to toe by this statue. The rabbinical writings and Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians in the New Testament identify this wicked individual, who is to be slain by the mouth of the Messiah, as the Armilus and Antichrist. The analogy concerning the stone “cut out without hands” indicates the divinity of the Messiah, in that He was not created but always existed.

22 For example, David Berger and Michael Wyschogrod, in their anti-missionary book directed at dissuading Jews who believe in Jesus from their faith, asked: “If Jesus was the Messiah, why have suffering and evil continued and even increased in the many centuries since His death?” David Berger and Michael Wyschogrod, Jews and “Jewish Christianity,” p. 19. Our answer is, because He was rejected. Jesus pointed this out in Matthew 23:39. We will discuss this later in further detail.

23 Zechariah 11:12-13 reads: “And I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord” (KJV).