310 Old Testament Prophecies Fulfillied by Yeshua the Mashiyach

---

310 Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled by Yeshua the Mashiyach

Lastly, in Antiquities See 42 regarding the messianic character of the Deuteronomy text. These verses in John are not obviously derived from Deuteronomy but could still feasibly be a reference to that passage. I doubt that the development of Christian soteriology was motivated by this verse — I suspect that was driven more by eschatological concerns.

Regardless, if we grant that this passage is messianic then there is a limited degree of correspondence. Even so, this relies on vague and subjective interpretations and still faces the problem that the required soteriology is an inscrutable theological assertion. There is no sense in which the Deuteronomy verse is messianic or even prophetic. In Galatians, Paul is defending the claim that Torah observance is not sufficient for salvation and seizes on the opportunity to address two problems in one fell swoop.

The first problem is that the Tanakh in general appears to conflict with this diminished view of the law.

Investigating the collision of faith, science and reason

This is exemplified where Paul quotes from Deuteronomy Paul cleverly deals with this by simultaneously addressing the second problem — that of a crucified messiah who is, according to Deuteronomy The trick is to say that the curse of Deuteronomy Paul was a skilled spin doctor and his ability to manipulate the Tanakh to fit his agenda was impressive; but there is no reason to believe that these manipulations are unveiling mysterious and obscure prophetic treasures.

It took some effort to find the link between these verses, but I think I see it. So the two passages are really speaking of very different things and only appear similar because of a shared prefix and suffix in the Greek. There are a lot of stories to choose from in the Old Testament and if you pick and choose certain characteristics from them then, yes, you can probably come up with some sort of typological connection to the Jesus story.

I struggle to see why claims like this should be seen as anything more than the byproduct of confirmation bias and pattern seeking. Is he serving himself? Lastly, as with so many other claimed prophecies in this list, the fulfillment relies on an inscrutable theological assertion. This title was only ever ascribed to Jesus because it was expected that the messiah be a king. The obvious reading of 2 Samuel 7: Rather than accepting the prophetic utterances as having been given at the time and place indicated by the text, we need to realize that — as with every written history — the text was authored well after the historical context of the story and so is more representative of the perspective of the author than of the characters in the story itself.

See a Problem?

In this case, the author was fully aware that Solomon had built the temple but was probably also writing prior to the Babylonian exile and destruction of the temple, so that the subsequent verses reflect the still present hope for the eternal persistence of the Davidic line. Also see 18 regarding the genealogies of Jesus that tie him to the Davidic line.

See 51 above for the proper context of this passage. The failed realization of those eternal hopes contributed to the eschatological fervor of the second temple period. After Cyrus enabled the restoration of an ethnic identity, the Jews saw a window of opportunity and built upon those pre-exilic hopes to interpret them as future promises rather than as dashed dreams. However, without that hopeful bias in place, there is no reason to read these passages as messianic and we can simply accept them for what they are.

The notion of an eternal kingdom in the New Testament is only partially derived from the passage in 2 Samuel 7. It is better understood as reflective of the broader eschatological views in the second temple period, which have their roots in multiple texts and ideas.

OK, but you are now imposing a ton of theology back onto a text which is otherwise absent such claims. Quite simply, it is far more coherent to just read the whole passage in context as a reference to a literal son of David i. See 65 and for additional discussion on the concept of divine sonship in messianism. The author of the passage in Chronicles is just copying from 2 Samuel or the same source as was used for 2 Samuel — see 52 regarding that element.

As a result, he offers an explanation for the failure of that promise. The first hint comes in 1 Chronicles 9: In 2 Chronicles the explanation becomes more explicit. This caveat is added here and in 2 Chronicles So, all of this is clearly written from the perspective of somebody who is writing the events of the Babylonian exile back into the narrative as part of an effort to a explain away the failed hopes of the earlier texts as a consequence of religious unfaithfulness, and b foster support for the restoration of the temple and dedication to the religious structure through a combination of fear mongering and hope for the future.

These are the seeds of the messianic culture which gave rise to Christianity. As with 56 , the chronicler is directly copying from 2 Samuel, or the same source text. Regardless, this is still an inscrutable theological assertion and the connection is extremely weak. See 60 for a more exhaustive discussion on the identity of the mediator in Job.

First, note that these verses in Job have challenged exegetes for centuries. As a whole, the book of Job is perhaps the most difficult Hebrew in the Tanakh and some consider these verses to be among the most difficult to interpret and thus translate. There are echoes of this throughout the Tanakh, but this context is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Job. We can then see verses as building upon that perspective to say that as Job approaches death this intercessor will petition the divine king to come down from the heavenly realm to stand on the earth to speak with Job face to face to explain the tragedies that have transpired.

The passage does seem to speak of a redeemer figure, a theophany and possibly a resurrection though that would be inconsistent with other passages in Job. As noted below 65 , this Psalm was a favorite of the early church for its support of the messianic divine sonship motif. Of course, the plain reading of the Psalm shows that it is speaking of contemporary conflicts between Israel and other nations.

The adoption of this text was driven not by its specific content but by the inclusion of a couple key words, and that is a poor justification for the claim of prophecy. This claim has it backward.

The use of mashiach in v2 serves to distinguish the Israeli king, chosen by God, from the lesser kings of other nations who lack divine favor. This distinction evolved over the subsequent centuries to specifically identify an eschatological persona, which the early church assigned then to Jesus. It is not that Jesus happened to be called Christ and that this prophetically matched the word used in the Psalm but rather that title was given to Jesus only because he was perceived to be the eschatological figure which was ultimately derived from the Psalm among many other passages.

The holiness in the Psalm is attributed to Zion, not the king. And even if we grant that the holiness is being indirectly attributed to the king by placing him at Zion, this is still an inscrutable theological assertion. As with 62 , the kingship assigned to Jesus is solely a derivative of the attribution of the messianic persona.

When viewed from outside the Christian tradition, this is actually a significant fault in the whole program because the Old Testament messianic persona clearly entailed a far more political role than Jesus ever approached. A proper understanding of the Psalm is captured well by the accompanying note in the NET translation:. This particular Psalm is closely related to 2 Samuel 7 see 53 and this reveals another shared influence between Christianity and the Qumran community, who latched on to both of these passages in support of the concept of messianic divine sonship per 4Q See for additional discussion.

As with the previous entries for this Psalm 62 and 64 , the divine sonship assigned to Jesus is therefore a derivative of the attribution of the messianic persona, where the cultural origins of Christianity emphasized this aspect of the messiah. Acts reports that Paul quotes from this Psalm and claims its fulfillment in Jesus. There is nothing of the sort in Psalm 2: Those events just happen to be the last things mentioned in the passage in Acts before the Psalm is quoted.

Instead, the text in Acts is best understood as claiming that the divine sonship attributed to Jesus is prophesied in the messianic portrayal in the Psalm. See 65 above regarding that. First, this portion of the Psalm is in reference to Jehovah, not the messianic king. And lastly, this is another inscrutable theological assertion. This claim is much more interesting than it appears at first glance. The pericope in Matthew has children proclaiming Jesus to be the son of David messiah and then responding to the indignation of the religious authorities by quoting Psalm 8: Where the LXX has children proclaiming praise to master Jehovah, the Masoretic text appears to be using young children as symbols of weak vessels through whom God can demonstrate his strength.

The divergence is enough to say that the Masoretic version would not be an apt fit in the Matthean context. As to why the author of Matthew may have framed a pericope around this verse, I would guess that it has to do with the language of Psalm 8 discussed in 70 below combined with a desire to present Jesus as seeing himself worthy of receiving praise that would normally have been reserved for Jehovah. The passage in Hebrews also uses this verse in reference to mankind but then also uses it in reference to Jesus.

It seems likely, then, that the inclusion of this construct is a primary reason for the attention give to the Psalm in Hebrews 2 and why it was understood by some early Christians to be a messianic text. This is another Psalm that is absent any messianic connotations. The judgements referenced are rendered by Jehovah and are contemporary, not eschatological. Furthermore, the claimed fulfillment in Acts is just another prophecy about the eschatological judgement. This is another case where the LXX uniquely provides opportunity for reading Jesus back into the text.

Even though this is a parallel with the previous line in the verse, which places the author in that role, the grammatical change opens the door to a messianic interpretation.

The author is praising Jehovah for sustaining his life and not allowing him to die prematurely. See 72 to understand why this passage was interpreted by some in the early church as describing a resurrection. The cited verse in John carries no allusions to the Psalm.

Again, no reason to read this as a messianic prophecy in any way.

The word choice is a bit strange but would make sense if the petitionary prayer is understood to be occurring at the end of the day, such that the Psalmist expects God to reveal himself by answering the petition the next day after he awakes. The cited verse in Luke carries no allusions to the Psalm. Regardless, the Psalm is not messianic and this is another inscrutable theological assertion. Again — prophecy fulfillment does not come simply by virtue of a New Testament author applying Old Testament language to Jesus.

It is clear that the gospels are deliberately drawing upon Psalm 22 in their passion narratives. Regardless, the author s of this listing have gone far above and beyond the gospel authors by proposing eighteen connections within Psalm 22, as captured in 76 — While the influence of Psalm 22 is evident in the passion narratives of the gospels, I am not aware of references in any earlier texts e. However, the inclusion of the exclamation in Aramaic could also indicate a pre-Markan source for this particular element, pointing toward a feature of the early oral tradition that may have been the catalyst for the larger adoption of Psalm 22 into the passion story.

But even if we grant this claim — that Jesus uttered an Aramaic version of Psalm We have only established that a later figure Jesus knew of an earlier writing Psalm Though the contextual narrative in Matthew and all the gospels is clearly borrowing from Psalm 22 I doubt that the story of the darkness is derivative of this verse, which only suggests that the author is in a continual state of prayer.

The use of Psalm The surrounding context and similarity are sufficient to infer that the author of Mark was aiming for correspondence with the Psalm. Matthew, however, takes the Markan text and makes this more explicit by nearly quoting from the LXX version of Psalm One could argue that the close correspondence between the Psalm and the synoptics is a consequence of the close correspondence between the actual events and that the authors were simply reinforcing this congruence, but I find it much more parsimonious to see the Psalm as a direct influence on the narrative, even if there was some degree of mockery involved in the actual crucifixion event.

No mention of a savior in any of the referenced passages. At best, they both speak of somebody being born. This is only possibly construed as a prophecy by virtue of the adoption of the Psalm 22 to inform the passion as a whole. Additional clues are found in review of the surrounding context in John. The passage closes in John Earlier, in John 7: That reference is difficult to source, but is perhaps most similar to the flowing of living water from Jerusalem in Zechariah John also references Zechariah 9: Collectively, these observations indicate that the author of John probably understood Jesus in the light of the eschatological context of Zechariah and integrated that perspective with the pre-existing thematic adoption of Psalm 22, introducing this verse to tie together those connections.

This seems to be going beyond 83 and 85 to capture the pitiful disposition described by the Psalmist. As before, it is trivially true that the crucifixion event and the lamenting of defeat both entail suffering. The original adoption of this Psalm was certainly encouraged by the common theme of suffering but this is so vague as to have limited application to the claim of prophecy. The verse in John possibly suggests that the thirst is linked to some sort of prophecy fulfillment, which may or may not be rooted in Psalm This tradition is also present in the synoptics; so either the synoptics or a common source served as input for the author of John.

Regardless, the separate pre-crucifixion refusal to accept the offer of wine in the synoptics Mark This carries forward into the offer of sour wine on the cross and relates to the exclamation of thirst in John Why do I suggest that the author of John was trying to correct the tradition? The Johannine eschatology differs from the synoptics in that it appears to be more closely aligned with a realized eschatology — meaning that the kingdom is a state which Jesus was ushering in with his ministry rather than at the end of time.

So in John So John stands in contrast to the pre-crucifixion rejection of wine and the failure to receive the unrequested offer sour wine in the synoptics and instead has Jesus explicitly asking for and receiving it John This serves to demonstrate that the kingdom had been established, as emphasized by the juxtaposition with the subsequent exclamation of completion.

In addition, it is worth noting that despite the fact that the passion narratives appear to have drawn upon Psalm 22 as a whole, this particular verse was never singled out as prophetic until the middle of the second century by Justin Martyr. It seems quite possible that verse 16 played little to no role in the adoption of the Psalm for the passion. This is redundant with The Psalm is explicitly quoted in the referenced verses in John and even the earliest version of the account in Mark It is very likely that Jesus was in fact stripped naked as part of the crucifixion sequence, as this was typical, but I see little reason to suspect that the tradition of casting lots is anything but an intentional fabrication derived from the Psalm.

However, I find it more accurate to see that this is another moderate similarity that was latched onto by the early church and incorporated into the tradition so that the narrative we have overstates the degree of correspondence i. I was not able to identify the connection being claimed here. Please advise if you can explain. Please let me know if you can help make sense of this claim. I see nothing close to a resurrection in the Psalm. I suppose this could be referring to the change in tone that starts with the end of v21 and transitions into a praise of thanks for God having heard the lament of the earlier verses.

Again, let me know if you can help clarify the intent here. The passage in Colossians does not appear to have any textual or thematic relation to the Psalm. Furthermore, it is speaking of Jesus as creator, not as a political entity. The Psalm clearly distinguishes between YHWH and the oppressed figure the author throughout the text. The author has so far only been taken as the prefigure of Jesus, but verses are obviously describing YHWH.

So this entry is implying that we should somehow read both the author and YHWH as prophetic figures of Jesus. Not to mention that fact that this is another inscrutable theological assertion. The only connection I can make out here is the concept of accomplishment or completion. In a manner similar to Psalm 22 and Isaiah The juxtaposition of these themes endears these passages to an eschatologically grounded Christian tradition built upon a messiah as an individual who suffered and then rose victorious.

However, in the case of Psalm 69 it is less obvious that the text was venerated and used as the inspiration for the gospel narratives. In this particular case the correspondence is almost certainly driven by the quotation in John, but is more generally appealing to an image of innocence that was applied to Jesus and emphasized throughout the New Testament. Though I do not place Jesus within the communities of zealots in the first century, I do find it hard to believe that the crucifixion arose in the absence of any political concern.

This is also a good opportunity to observe how these prophetic claims can employ cherry-picking. In the very next verse, Psalm If we are to apply the innocence of verse 4 and all of the Psalm to Jesus, why should we suddenly exclude the subsequent verse from relevancy? Perhaps this should instead be taken to count against the prophetic interpretation? Yes, both the Psalm and the verses in John identify the figure as being forsaken by their own people or brothers. That said, the fact that the gospels used this Psalm in other ways does make it plausible that the claims of rejection were inspired by the Psalm.

John quotes from the Psalm here and the context is certainly appropriate, but I do not believe that the cleansing of the temple was inspired by the verse in Psalms. But in evaluating the claim of prophecy, we have only a pious attitude or disposition being proclaimed in the Psalm, so this is again very vague and does not clearly entail the cleansing event. It is only the questionable interpretation of the Psalm as applicable to a messianic individual and the quotation in John which support the claim.

The referenced text of Matthew does not appear to contain any specific allusions or connections with the content of the Psalm. I see this as with 84 , in that we have only a vague similarity through the theme of a suffering figure, which is not sufficient to warrant prophetic significance. As with , I do not see any specific allusions or connections to the Psalm in the verse in Matthew. At best there is just a parallel expression of despair, which is vague and reasonably expected in either context.

Of all the verses in the Psalm, this is probably the best candidate for a prophetic event, and I think there is in fact some relationship from this verse to the gospels. The link from here to the tradition of Jesus having been offered sour wine or vinegar is frequently identified in commentaries and notes on the passage, and some believe that the claim to scripture fulfillment in John Matthew then builds on the tradition in Mark and expands the connection to this Psalm by offering a mixture of gall in the pre-crucifixion offering of wine the Psalm places gall in the offered food.

Luke separately but similarly builds on the Markan tradition to emphasize the connection with the Psalm by making it part of the mockery of the oppressors as is the case in the Psalm. If I had to guess, I would suggest that there was some underlying event that was observed and was then extrapolated and tied into both the Psalm and the last supper. It is known that Roman soldiers received Posca and that wine was widely used medicinally in that era. So there was possibly an observed event in which Jesus was offered but did not receive wine in the context of the crucifixion.

This then evolved into a parallel of Psalm This was then tied back into the tradition of the establishment of the eucharist at the last supper. This claim appears to be reading the Psalm through the lens of the quotation in Matthew while simultaneously misinterpreting Matthew. The original text does not infer that the king is a descendant of David — and this is also in fact how Jesus is said to have interpreted the Psalm in the dialog in Matthew! So the pericope in Matthew is not suggesting that the messiah Jesus is the son of David, but rather that the messiah is the son of God and is accorded a higher authority than would be granted to a messiah only on the basis of their Davidic lineage.

There is no ascension language here. There is no doubt that this Psalm was favored by the early Christians with an affinity that is far more pronounced than in any other eschatological community from that period. Either way, that word association would appear to be a driving force behind the favor granted to this Psalm by the church.

So, despite the observation in that a Davidic descendant is not obviously in view, there is certainly an elevation of a king which corresponds with the messianic expectations and which played perfectly into the language adopted by the early Christian communities, such that Jesus was easily read back into the LXX version of the Psalm. Kindle Edition , 53 pages. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Jun 08, Charles Flowers rated it really liked it.

Very informative I enjoyed learning of many fulfilled prophecies that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was God among us, the promised one, our Messiah, and our Saviour. Charles Alexander is currently reading it Aug 31, There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Books by Randy Lane. Trivia About Old Testament No trivia or quizzes yet.

• Natural Weight Loss Management - Newly Revised Edition
• Atomic Force Microscopy/Scanning Tunneling Microscopy 3
• Case Studies in Public Budgeting and Financial Management, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (Pub
• The Nightmare Room #10: Full Moon Halloween
• Sport in the City: The Role of Sport in Economic and Social Regeneration