Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Subject: Re: Resurrection prophecies Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Many Christians often refer to the OT prophecies as evidence for the veracity of the faith. The problem is that it is sometimes implied through such appeals that the OT *PREDICTS* Christ. And this is exactly how the critic interprets these claims. I believe this approach is flawed. I think it is erroneous to consider all the OT teachings in a way which is quite similar to a psychic prediction. In actuality, the OT teachings exist on a continuum. And this continuum ranges from something being predictIVE at one extreme, through teachings which are "prophetic" to teachings which are typological at the other extreme. In other words, the OT teachings are not a homogenous group of teachings. And that is the problem with the critic's approach, for it assumes that all OT teachings are interpreted by Christians as specific predictions which are supposed to apply ONLY to Christ. Perhaps it would help if we looked at three types of OT teachings, keeping in mind however, that there are no clear-cut boundaries between the types. i. Predictive. I hesitate to use this term, but the type of teaching I am referring to is one that is best understood in terms that it is predominantly "forward-looking". One example is Micah 5:2, where the Messiah is to come out of Bethlehem. Regardless of any debates over the details of this teaching, the larger perspective entails that this prophecy is clearly "forward" looking, as it was universally understood that the Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah. This can be seen not only in the Talmud (Jer. Ber. ii 4, p.5) but makes sense in light of the fact that Bethlehem was the birthplace of King David. Thus, at the very least, anyone claiming that X was the Messiah would have to show that X was born in Bethlehem. It might be objected that Jesus doesn't qualify either because He was not a "ruler over Israel". This objection fails because it does not consider another "forward looking" prophecy, that of Zech 9:9 which reads: "Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey". Now this teaching was also universally recognized as referring to the coming Messiah. There were many traditions about the donkey on which the Messiah was to ride. In fact, the Talmud went so far to teach that "if anyone saw an ass in his dreams, he will see salvation". This verse is Messianically quoted in many ancient Jewish writings. What Zechariah seems to be saying is that the Messiah (who was to come from Bethlehem) was no ORDINARY King. Something is trying to be conveyed by placing this King on a foal. He was a King who was humble and righteous, a ruler over Israel coming to Israel on a "foal of a donkey". This is a paradox that is resolved only in the person of Jesus. I do not think the Zech is trying to say "Here comes your King, and oh yeah, he's riding a donkey". I think what is being said is "The King that you seek will be found riding on a donkey". In other words, the Scripture is doing more than describing, it is describing to identify (and there are some OT teachings which explicitly and implicitly show that the Messiah would not be recognized by all). These two verse alone clearly point to Jesus. For there is no one else who has ever claimed to be Messiah and also who was born in Bethlehem and came to Jerusalem among shouts of praise while riding on the foal of a donkey. ii. The second type of OT teaching is what I would call "prophetic". Many Christians often forget that the OT prophets were not speaking to future generations. They were speaking to their contemporaries. However, the prophet spoke with a distinct philosophy of history in mind, that is, what he said was contexted by what was and what was to come. And in doing this, each prophet contributed to a forming pattern. And it is this pattern which was to be filled by the coming of Christ. Let's consider a prophetic OT teaching, which was discerned by the Apostle Matthew, namely, Hosea 11:1 which reads, "Out of Egypt I called my son". Certainly Matthew knew full well that this verse was speaking about Israel. So why does he cite it as a prophecy that is fulfilled in Jesus? First, the ancient Synagogue did actually apply to the Messiah Exodus 4:22, which reads "This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son". In fact, the Midrash on Ps 2:7 goes into detail in which the unity of Israel and the Messiah in prophetic vision seems clearly indicated. It lists the following: Ex 4:22- "Israel is my firstborn son". Is. 52:13- "Behold my servant shall deal prudently". Is. 42:1- "Behold my servant, whom I uphold" Ps. 2:7- "The Lord said unto Me, Thou are my Son" Ps 110:1- "The Lord said unto my Lord" Dan. 7:13- "Behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven" Hosea 11:1 was not included in this list, yet it is obvious that this teaching rests on Ex 4:22. Matthew, knowing that Israel came to pre-figure the Messiah, must have stumbled upon this teaching and was probably intrigued by the fact that Hosea chose to use the particular word 'son'. Had Hosea chosen the word "people", or even "sons", I doubt Matthew would have found this verse significant. But since the verse employed the word 'son', it might very well have been trying to "say something". Now if indeed Matthew's account about Jesus' flight to Egypt was true, he could not have helped but be struck by "verbal coincidence" between this verse and what happened. Thus he saw it as prophetic, another example where Jesus fulfilled part of the pattern laid out by the prophets. iii. The third type of teaching is typological. Here we find symbolic portrayals of Chistian truths in the various laws and rituals of Judaism. The best way to describe this is to provide an example, that of the Passover. In Exodus, God said to Moses that the people were to take a lamb that was without blemish, slaughter it, and put some of it's blood on the top and both sides of the doorframe. The purpose of this was so that when the Lord came to bring judgment on the Egyptians, He would pass by the doors with the blood on it. Now this seems to be an odd requirement from an omniscient God, doesn't it? Yet this all makes sense if it reflects the manner in which God, during the final judgment, will pass over those who have been covered by the blood of the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29). The parallels are just too uncanny. In fact, the whole area of animal sacrifice in the OT is typological. Sometimes people have dificulty in understanding why it is that "without the shedding of blood their is no forgiveness". The reason this is so is that because without the sacrifice of Christ (the shedding of HIS blood), there can be no atonement, and these animal sacrifices were simply the shadow of the cross extending back through time. Thus, these are three types of OT teachings which all point to Christ. As I mentioned before, the types actually blur into one another, as there seems to be no clear-cut boundaries. But the question remains as to how we KNOW that a teaching really does apply to Christ. Ultimately, it is the guiding hand of the Spirit who brings us into the knowledge of truth. Notice that Jesus "opened" the Scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:32). It appears that perceiving these teachings in the OT as prophecies about Christ depends in part on the Spirit, which explains why they often seem so clear to the Christian, yet clearly unconvincing to the skeptic (whose heart does not seek). Does this mean that the prophecies have no "apologetic" value? I don't think so, it's just that we should not present them to the skeptic as the "definitive proof". Furthermore, is it invalid to use Christ as the standard by which to interpret OT prophecy? Is this a form of circular reasoning? Not really, for the foundation of the veracity of our faith is found in the actual event of the resurrection of Christ, which can be demonstrated without engaging in circular reasoning. Once this is done, it only makes sense to use Jesus as the standard. Consider piecing together a jig-saw puzzle. When you have hundreds of pieces, the picture on the box can be quite helpful as a guide. Jesus is that "picture" and the OT teachings are the "pieces". The fact which is significant is how easily the pieces fit together with this "picture"! It looks like we have the right "picture". And no other "picture" comes anywhere near being such an insightful guide. -- Michael So it is not only the zeal of those who seek him that proves God's existence, but also the blindness of those who do not seek him.