310 Old Testament Prophecies Fulfillied by Yeshua the Mashiyach

Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled by Yeshua the Mashiyach [Randy Lane] on leondumoulin.nl *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This is a study tool for.
Table of contents

Only if we take the words of the New Testament authors as yielding the authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament texts, and likewise accept their messianic atonement theology, might we find prophecy fulfillment. But the contrived and inventive exegesis of 1st century Christians does not make it so. It is clear that this contention will be a recurring theme in the claims of prophecy fulfillment.

If claims of prophecy fulfillment are to persuade us that the Bible contains some level of divine revelation then we cannot start by giving the biblical authors full exegetical reign and thereby presuming biblical authority. There is nothing messianic here. The prophecy only identifies the land that Israel will inhabit and had been inhabited long before this pericope was written.

Paul can be said to be linking with Genesis One could do a deep dive on this, but the short answer is that where Paul uses the Greek singular sperma and plural spermata to make this distinction, the original Hebrew zera only ever used the singular in the entire Tanakh and in a context such as this it is always intended as a collective singular e.

This is simply creative wordplay by Paul. At best, this is an example of typology via post hoc fabrication. The author of Hebrews is assigning inscrutable, theological attributes to Jesus to align him with Melchizedek in accordance with the messianic pattern in Psalm , which was a favorite of the early church.

That particular passage is addressed in more detail in — In light of that, we can simply observe that bread and wine was common to formal Jewish meals and that the Last Supper accounts were likely influenced by several cultural traditions even beyond the Seder meal. An interesting read on the topic can be found here. So the simplest explanation starts with a common tradition that feeds into both the text in Genesis and the Last Supper — there is no need to suppose any other relationship between the events.

In Genesis we have a prophecy of the establishment of the kingdom of Israel through Isaac. In Romans 9 it appears that Paul is trying to explain why Jews — the people of the covenant — are not the sole heirs of the messianic age. To do this, he argues that Abrahamic lineage is not sufficient because otherwise Ishmael would have been included. Here again we have Paul engaging in creative exegesis to fit the Tanakh into his agenda.

310 Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled by Yeshua the Mashiyach

There is no reason to read something prophetic into Genesis See paragraph 5 of the bible. As that article shows, lambs figure heavily in the Jewish tradition of sacrificial offerings. If a 1st century sect adopts the sacrificial theology of their Jewish tradition as a means to reconcile the death of their messianic candidate then it is not surprising if their writings include analogies to sacrificial lambs.

Regarding Genesis, see 6. Regarding Galatians, see 7. This is simply an update of the promise discussed in 6 and 7 for Abraham, now addressed to Isaac. The reference from Hebrews to Genesis is only in the context of a commentary on the soteriological efficacy of faith. This has nothing to do with prophecy fulfillment. The author who composed John 1: All this tells us is that the author was familiar with the LXX and wanted to build upon the authority of the Tanakh to boost the respectability of their claim.

This starts with a contentious interpretation of Shiloh as a reference to a messianic figure see On that assumption, then this would be prophesying that Judah would rule retain the scepter until the messiah comes — but this is a problem since the tribe of Judah did not rule until Jesus showed up. In the end, these all appear to be strained interpretations that are only adopted to fit a desired outcome.

Once this is established, the relationship to Judah comes as a consequence of the genealogies already established for David in the Old Testament which, not so coincidentally, is also where Matthew and Luke actually agree. The meaning of Shiloh in this verse is unclear and differs throughout translations. Many individuals who are far more qualified than I have invested countless hours to that investigation and as far as I can tell there is no consensus.


  • ¡Qué injusticia! (Spanish Edition)?
  • .
  • .
  • !
  • ;
  • .
  • .

All I will note is simply that Shiloh was never assigned a messianic personage until perhaps the 1st century CE. Regardless of what Shiloh actually means, the claim of fulfillment in John John uses apesteilas extensively, and it is not an uncommon word in general, and there is no reason to believe that it is intended here or anywhere else to be a parallel to Gen Israel routinely fantasized about being the world power in their writings and John, like most Christian texts, supports the extension of salvation to the Gentiles.

The Johannine Christology clearly equates Jesus with Yahweh, so it is no surprise that words are put into his mouth which cause him to identify himself as Yahweh. As such, there is a simple explanation that does not entail prophecy fulfillment. Entries 23 — 27 are all clearly claims of typological fulfillment which are identifying the Passover Lamb as a prefiguring of Jesus.

There are no explicit prophecies here but this is a substantial topic that warrants a more thorough review at some point.

See a Problem?

Regarding the timing, the most straightforward parsing of the text in Mark would seem to place the event at five days prior to Passover — which accords with the explicit timing that is given in John John tells us that Jesus arrived in Bethany six days before Passover and that the Triumphal Entry was the next day.

To get to four days we have adopt one of the following interpretations:. Option 3 is the most compelling and may be correct — it eliminates what would otherwise be an eventless day on the 13th of Nissan. In that case, the timing proposed by the claim of fulfillment would be accurate but we still have what is an otherwise highly ambiguous parallel.


  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • Body Building Meal Plans;

How might we determine whether the New Testament authors are borrowing the Passover ideology and imposing it onto Jesus, or whether the Passover was actually a prefiguring of Jesus? Well, one option is to look at how this has worked in every other case in the history of the world, where the prior concept is identifiable as a source for the later concept see the typology foreword.

Given that the Johannine text repeatedly emphasizes Jesus as fulfillment of the Passover tradition, it is no surprise that Ex The author tips his hand in this regard by inserting an appeal to sworn testimony in v35 to support the claims of prophecy fulfillment in v Such appeals suggest that the author knows that the account is otherwise suspect.

Can anybody explain how these verses are possibly connected in any way? It is specifically directed at Yahweh. The New Testament passages also have no clear connection to the verse in Exodus. At best, this is a case of some attributes being assigned to Yahweh in the Old Testament and then the same or similar attributes being assigned to Jesus in the New Testament.

Now all we need is allegory to claim prophecy? As an interesting aside, the 1 Corinthians verse indicates that Paul is affirming on a non-canonical tradition in which the rock was believed to have literally moved along with the Israelites in the desert. At best this is another claim of typological fulfillment in that the Levitical burnt offerings are a prefiguring of the crucifixion. Another claim of typological fulfillment. In this case, Jesus heals a leper in Luke 5 and then tells the man to go see the priest to perform the cleansing ritual in Leviticus In other words, somebody other than Jesus plays the role of the priest in this episode.

I also encourage everybody to read all of Leviticus Then stop and think about the fact that Jesus affirmed the practice even though he was supposedly a revolutionary voice who was revealing the true meaning of the Torah and ushering in the new covenant. Let me know if I missed something there. This is pretty much the same as 24 , except that the proposed prefiguring is the Day of Atonement Yom Kippur instead of Passover. See regarding that argument. Leviticus is saying that the disposal of the sacrificial animals has to occur outside the camp.

Hebrews 13 affirms that it occurred outside the city by way of reference to Leviticus 16 and uses this as a rhetorical device to persuade the reader that they also need to go outside the camp — an allusion to leaving behind the temple practices. So in the end, this is another example of a New Testament author straining to introduce typology in order to support his agenda. The drink offering mentioned in Leviticus In practice, this became part of the morning service during the feast of tabernacles and grew to include the pouring of a large quantity of water in concert with the wine see the Jewish Encyclopedia entry for more.

John explicitly identifies this event as occurring on the last day of the feast but Mishnah Sukkah 4. So there might be a typology here, but it is extremely weak and not clearly discerned and, as with many typological claims, it rests on an inscrutable theological assertion. The Nehushtan most likely finds its origins in pre-Israelite Canaan , perhaps sharing ancient roots with the source for the Rod of Asclepius Greek god of medicine and tracing all the way back to the Sumerian diety Ningishzida.

Though the crucifixion was not fabricated, it is very likely that Jesus never said any of the things attributed to him in these passages in John. The simple explanation, then, is that the author s of John perceived a parallel between the serpent on the pole and the crucifixion and used it to reinforce their ideology by introducing a typological claim.

The majority of critical scholars agree that of all the gospels, the Johannine sayings and discourses are the furthest from the actual teachings of Jesus. Lastly, as with 33 , I encourage you to read Numbers What would we think about parents who responded to their complaining children this way?

A star will march forth out of Jacob, and a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the skulls of Moab, and the heads of all the sons of Sheth. A ruler will be established from Jacob; he will destroy the remains of the city. As a whole, the prophecy in Deuteronomy was most likely never intended to be messianic, though it certainly was interpreted as such in the early church.

It is perhaps more accurately understood as a commentary on prophets in general, where the author is essentially offering an apologetic for why Yahweh does not speak directly to the people and instead speaks through prophets. This was probably composed in the 7th or 6th century BCE when the words and deeds of Elijah, Isaiah, Hosea and others were being raised up along with the Torah to centralize and codify Judaism around a set of texts and authorities. As such, this passage, more than anything, serves to reinforce the divine authority of the religion that is formalizing around those prophets, their successors and the associated traditions.

The verse in John is almost certainly a reference to the Deuteronomy prophecy, but all this tells us is that the author viewed Jesus as the messiah and also believed that the Deuteronomy verse was messianic. So we again have an inscrutable theological assertion about Jesus which offers no evidence as to whether he is the messiah in the first place. The first hint of such an expectation comes in 1 Maccabees 4: Qumran yields slightly more explicit expectations in the Community Rule 1QS 9.

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.

Investigating the collision of faith, science and reason

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.

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.

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.

Messiah

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. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. This is a study tool for new and old Christians alike. There is over three hundred prophecies that were fulfilled in the Old Testament by the Lord Yeshua Mashiyach.

It is my hope that those who buy this study book find it useful in getting to know a little more about who the Lord Jesus Christ really is.

Prophecies | A Measure of Faith

Shalom the Lord bless and keep you. 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.