One evening a few years ago I carried out an interesting experiment. I was with a friend who did not believe the Bible, and, like most unbelievers, knew very little about it. But at least he was willing to discuss it.
So I said to him: "Excuse me, Arthur. Do you mind if I give you a little Bible quiz? Id like to read to you a well-known Bible passage about Jesus, and then see if you can tell me whereabouts in the New Testament it comes from? Will you have a try?"
"O.K., Im game. I dont mind exposing my ignorance," said Arthur. So I read him a few verses about the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, and then stopped.
Arthur wrinkled his brows. "I know the words all right. But I've no idea which gospel they come from. Or maybe they even come from one of Paul's epistles," he added as an afterthought.
"No, they dont originally come from any of those places, although they are quoted by several New Testament writers," I said. "I was reading to you from the book of Isaiah, in the Old Testament."
"In the Old Testament? Youre kidding!"
But I wasnt kidding. I was satisfying myself that some of the Old Testament prophecies of Jesus really do fit Him so well that they can be mistaken for New Testament passages.
On a number of occasions Jesus reminded His followers that the Old Testament was full of prophecies about Himself. Here is just one example:
"He (Jesus) took unto Him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished. For He shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on. And they shall scourge Him and put Him to death. And the third day He shall rise again."1
Jesus was not exaggerating. Most of the dreadful things that happened to Him during the last twenty-four hours of His mortal life were foretold in the Old Testament. So was His resurrection, and His ascension to heaven, too. Yet the whole of the Old Testament was already yellow with age when Jesus was born.
You may perhaps wonder whether the early Christians might have cunningly altered the wording of the Old Testament prophecies, to make them fit the events. But there is no fear of that. The Christians kept their own copies of the Bible in the Greek language, while the Jews kept their copies of the Old Testament in Hebrew.
The best copies of the Old Testament, upon which our English Bible is based, are the Jewish ones. It is quite certain that the Jews would never have altered their copies of the Scriptures, so as to further the claims of a rival religion.
We need to look in detail at two of the chapters that Jesus would have had in mind. If you want to appreciate fully the wonder of these prophecies, turn them up in your own Bible. As you read them, keep asking yourself this question: how could the writers have foreseen these things, unless God inspired them?
Psalm 22 describes the Man of God being put to death by His enemies. Instead of using the common Jewish method of execution (stoning) they "pierce his hands and feet".2 He is tormented by thirst as he dies.3 His enemies stand round him.4 They stare at him.5 They laugh at him.6 They jeer at him, asking why God does not rescue him.7 They strip off his clothes and share them out, casting lots for the odd one left over.8
If you are familiar with the gospels, you will recognise each of these details. It all adds up to a picture of Calvary, painted hundreds of years before it happened.
Isaiah 53 fills in more of the details. He was to be "despised and rejected" by his fellow men, a "man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief".9 He would be wounded and flogged,10 led as a condemned prisoner to his execution.11 Yet he would accept his fate meekly and without speaking in his own defence,12 although he was innocent of any crime.13
The chapter insists that this was not just another martyrdom. Seven times over (in verses 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12) it explains that this righteous man's death would be an atonement for the sins of others. Because of this, God would raise him from the dead,14 and give him a position of great honour.15
It is no wonder that when I read this chapter to Arthur, he thought it occurred in the New Testament. If it did so, people would accept it as a great piece of Christian literature, a beautiful poetic description of the sufferings of Jesus Christ. But it is not a Christian writing. It is found in the Old Testament, the Holy Book of the Jews - a nation that had always hated the thought of human sacrifice, and has never accepted Jesus.
The official Jewish interpretation is that this chapter describes the Jewish race, not Jesus. One look at the chapter is enough to show how absurd this interpretation is. Every verse fits Jesus; half of then could not possibly be applied to the Jews. Try fitting these extract to the Jews (or, for that matter, to any other nation):
"He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (verse 9)
"By his knowledge shall My Righteous Servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities." (verse 11)
Even the Jews are not comfortable with their own interpretation. They dislike this chapter, and avoid reading it in their synagogue But though they try to ignore it they cannot destroy it. Isaiah 5 remains a lasting proof of the superhuman origin of the Bible.
It is difficult for us to appreciate the full significance of these prophecies without knowing what the Old Testament word "Messiah" meant to the Jews at the time of Jesus. Even today, it still means quite a lot to them. A Jewish encyclopaedia says this about what it calls "Messianism":
"The term Mashiah is used in the Bible . . . it was applied an ideal king, who would bring salvation to Israel and a regeneration of the human race . ."16
Historians tell us that in the first century Israel was positively buzzing with excitement at the prospect of Messiahs coming. They we convinced that the time for Messiah to appear was "now, or never". Their conviction was based upon the following passage in the book of Daniel:
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of 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. 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 threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off."17
The Jews paid no attention to the words in italics, because they did not understand them. "Cut off" was a common Old Testament expression meaning "killed",18 and the Jews did not see how Messiah could possibly be killed. They knew lots of splendid prophecies about the coming Messiah: he was going to be a great and glorious leader, the deliverer of Israel, and king of the whole world. So they turned a blind eye to the passages (including Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53) that spoke of Messiahs death.
But what did excite them was Daniels promise that Messiah would appear some 69 or 70 "weeks" after the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem (which in Daniels day was lying in ruins). The Hebrew word for "week" is the ordinary word for "seven", and they knew that in the prophets it could mean either seven days or seven years.19
So the Jews had long been waiting for Daniels period of 483 to 490 years (69 to 70 "weeks") to elapse. They were not sure of the exact starting point of the prophecy, because there had been several "commandments to restore and to build Jerusalem" around the end of the sixth and the beginning of the fifth centuries B.C.
But one thing at least was clear to them: Messiah would have to come sometime in the earlier part of what we now call the first century A.D.
From Daniel 9, therefore, we can add two more to the growing list of prophecies fulfilled when Jesus first came:
But, what is even more important, we have learnt something about the way the Jews understood the Old Testament. There are scores of Old Testament passages that speak about a Very Important Person who was to come. This Person was occasionally referred to as "Messiah" in the Hebrew Bible (although the word appears in the English Old Testament only in Daniel 9), but in most cases he is unnamed. Nevertheless the Jews accepted all these passages as prophecies of the Messiah.
It is essential that we keep this fact in mind. Some of those passages may not look to an English reader as if they are prophecies of the Messiah. But the Bible was not written, in the first place, for English-speaking people. It was written by Hebrews, for Hebrews. And the ancient Hebrews had a very different literary style from modern Europeans.
The ancient Jews themselves had no doubt at all that those passages were prophecies of the Messiah. Consequently we are bound to take the Jews word for it, and look at the prophecies in the same way as they did.
There are so many of these prophecies that it is difficult to know when to stop. Here are five more to add to the list:
"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."20
We all know that Jesus actually was born in Bethlehem. That an established fact. Even those arch-enemies of the Christian faith the Pharisees and Sadducees, never denied it. But has it ever occurred to you how unlikely it was for that prophecy to have been fulfilled by accident?
Bethlehem was, as the prophecy mentioned, a very small place. Some unscrupulous gentleman wanted to establish a reputation for himself as a prophet, he might take a gamble and say, "The next president of the United States will be a man born in New York." many leading Americans are New Yorkers that at least he would stand a sporting chance of being right.
But suppose that he said "The next president of the United States will be born in Piketon, Ohio." Since Piketon has only a few thousand inhabitants the odds against his guess being right would be enormous. Yet Micah picked a similarly insignificant village as the birthplace of the Messiah - and his prophecy came true.
How did Micah manage it, unless he was inspired by God?
I can imagine your reaction to that statement. "Well, so what? Lots of people entered Jerusalem on asses, didnt they? Why shouldnt Jesus do so, too - especially if He had read the prophecy that said He had to?"
For a very good reason. Lots of people did indeed enter Jerusalem on asses, but they were all ordinary, humble folk. Conquering kings were far too high and mighty to ride asses. They rode on mules warhorses, or in chariots. And the prophet said that it was as King of Jerusalem, King of the World, that Jesus would arrive at His capital city on a humble donkey. Here are Zechariahs words:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass . . . and he shall speak peace unto the nations, and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth."21
When these words were written, they would have seemed utterly ridiculous. What king would ever become "lowly, and riding upon an ass"? And if he ever did approach his capital in such an improper fashion, would his people "rejoice greatly" and "shout" their approval of such behaviour? How absurd it must all have sounded!
And yet, when it happened, it all seemed perfectly natural. Jesus was a poor man, a humble man, a man of peace. It would have been unthinkable for Him to have mounted a warhorse. Yet at the same time He had the bearing, the strength of character, the dynamic personality and the personal magnetism of a mighty king.
So when Jesus deliberately rode into Jerusalem in the way that Zechariah had said He must, nobody laughed. Instead, great crowds carpeted His path with their own clothing, and shouted their acknowledgement that He was their King.22
Without this response from the crowd, any attempt by Jesus to fulfil Zechariahs prophecy would have been a farce. But as it turned
Out, an utterly improbable prophecy came true.
Suppose we ask the question: "Why should God bless Messiah so richly, by making him so much greater than anyone else?"
Several correct answers could be given. This is the reason given in Psalm 45:
"Thou art fairer than the children of men Grace is poured into thy lips
Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever."23
" Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness
Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee
With the oil of gladness above thy fellows."24
The answer is clear. God would bless Messiah so richly because of his perfect speech and his perfect behaviour. Consequently, only a perfect man could claim to be Messiah. An unrighteous self-styled Messiah would soon have been exposed as a fraud.
Jesus made this claim. "Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" He asked.25 No one took up His challenge.
His disciples, who knew Him intimately, were clearly convinced of His utter sinlessness. The whole Christian gospel of salvation was based upon a belief in a sinless sacrifice. As Peter put it:
"Ye were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot . . . who did no sin . . . For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust."26
Now suppose that this had not been true. Suppose that Jesus had actually been as imperfect as everybody else. Isnt it obvious that in that case Christianity would have been stillborn? The Pharisees and Sadducees stopped at nothing-not even at persecution and murder in their attempts to stifle the preaching of the early disciples. Yet they could have destroyed the very foundation of Christianity by bringing evidence that Jesus was a sinner.
But they failed to do it.
Why?
One answer stands out as being far more likely than any other. They could not. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that Messiah would be a sinless man.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? This question is so important that a whole chapter must be devoted to it. For now, it is enough to put on record that the Old Testament prophesied that He would.
"My flesh also shall rest in hope
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,
Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Thou wilt shew me the path of life.
In thy presence is fulness of joy;
At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."27
This prophecy is easier to understand in the original Hebrew than in the English. The word translated "hell" in the second line is the Hebrew word Sheol which simply means "the place of the dead". In about thirty places in our Old Testament it is translated "the grave".
As the Apostle Peter pointed out28 the Psalm clearly means that, although Messiah would be buried, his body would not rot away in the grave. He would be raised up by God to a new life of everlasting Joy.
At this stage you must reserve your judgement as to whether this prophecy was fulfilled, or not. After you have read Chapter 7, you may be able to decide.
Another prophecy which must have been impossible to understand at the time was written by King David:
"The Lord said unto my lord, Sit thou at My right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool."29
"The Lord hath sworn and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek."30
The astonishing thing about this Psalm of David is that it exists in the Jewish scriptures at all. Humanly speaking, it has no business to be there. From a Jewish point of view, it should never have been written, or, if written, it should have been burnt at once, as heresy.
Many prophecies declare that Messiah was to be a descendant of David. In accordance with oriental custom, this meant that he should be subordinate to David. Yet in the opening line, David refers to Messiah as "my lord".
Whatever made David do that? Jesus asked this question of the rabbis, and they could not answer.31 It did not make sense to them.
The next two lines were (and still are) equally baffling to the Jews. Since Messiah is to be king of the world, why should he have to ascend to heaven and wait there for some time before being given power on earth?
The last three lines of the passage quoted above are even more surprising, if you know the Old Testament background. This Messiah who Sits in heaven is to be an everlasting priest, "after the order of Melchizedek".
The point of this is that Messiah, like all Jewish kings, had to be of the tribe of Judah. But Jewish priests could only come from the tribe of Levi, and consequently a king could not possibly be a priest. King Uzziah tried to do a priests job once, and God immediately punished him for it.32
How, then, could Messiah be a priest? The answer lies in the reference to Melchizedek. This man is mentioned only once before in the Bible, and that in the very beginning, way back in the book of Genesis. Melchizedek was a priest to Abraham, and he was also a king.33
Moreover, as one New Testament writer pointed out,34 he was an even greater man than Abraham who paid him tithes. Consequently his priestly order must have been far higher than that of the priests descended from Abraham.
The priests of Israel must have winced every time they read that psalm. It was both baffling and painful. It implied that their own order of priesthood would come to an end, and give way to a greater order when Messiah came. Yet those same priests had somehow been compelled to keep that uncomfortable psalm for centuries, safely preserved along with the rest of their Scriptures.
Once more we have a strange fact that demands an explanation. How did a psalm that could never have made sense to its writer come to be written? How did it come to be accepted as part of the Jewish Scriptures? Why did the priests, who must have found it so embarrassing-mg, keep it and not destroy it?
And above all, how does it happen that the events recorded in the New Testament fit the psalm so perfectly? That they, and they alone, bring the psalm to life and fill it with meaning?
I have heard only one explanation that fits all the facts. The psalm must be a prophecy given by God. The New Testament account of Jesus ascending to heaven, to be a priest for His followers and to await the time of His Second Coming, must be true.
Some very important facts have been established in this chapter.
There is clear evidence that most of the main events described in the gospels were foretold in the Old Testament. These include the crucifixion (with very much detail), the approximate date of Christ 5 appearance, His birthplace, the extraordinary nature of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, His perfect character, His resurrection, His ascension to heaven, His heavenly priesthood, and the promise of His Second Coming.
How do the unbelievers explain these facts?
Not very well. I think I am being fair to them in saying that these are the alternatives they offer you:
One theory is that He spent years swotting up the Old Testament until He knew all the Messianic prophecies, and then went around fulfilling them. But this bristles with difficulties. To begin with, how did Jesus contrive to get Himself born in Bethlehem? How did He manage to achieve what no other human being has managed: a sinless life? Did He really arrange to be tortured to death, just because prophecy required it? And if so, how did He persuade His executioners to comply with all the detailed requirements of the prophecy? And what about His resurrection and ascension to heaven?
Obviously that wont do.
It has been suggested that the first Christians "saw" prophecies in the Old Testament where no prophecies really existed-that they twisted the meaning of the Old Testament to bolster up their own preaching.
But that wont do, either. The early Christians interpreted their Old Testament in the same way that Jews had always done. Even the unbelieving Jews never denied that the Old Testament was full of Messianic prophecies. The Jews merely denied that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, because He did not behave as they thought the Messiah ought to behave.
According to this theory the events recorded in the gospels never took place at all. This treats the New Testament as nothing more than a collection of legends, compounded to make it look as if Old Testament prophecy was being fulfilled.
That was a popular excuse in Queen Victorias day, but it does not hold water nowadays. We know now that the gospels were written while plenty of eyewitnesses were still alive. (Chapter 16 gives the evidence for this.) And besides, the moral tone of the New Testament is so high that it simply cannot be the work of men who cooked up stories to deceive the public.
Well, what do you think?
Which is easier? Which is more reasonable?
To believe that the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth?
Or to believe the feeble explanations of the unbelievers?
16 Dr. J. H. Greenstone, in The Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge, edited by J. De Haas. Behrman, New York, 1934
18 For example, Exod. 31:14; Ps. 37:34; Ezek. 17:17