Mathew 26:54. What, exactly, needed to be fulfilled?

I recently stumbled upon an interesting passage from the Second Temple period. This passage strikes me as helpful in understanding how Jewish people in the first century read scripture.

1 Maccabees 3:48

And they opened the book of the law to inquire into those matters about which the Gentiles consulted the likenesses of their gods. (NRSV)

The Common English Bible reads this way:

In addition, they opened up the Law scroll to find answers to the kinds of questions Gentiles would ask of their idols.

In other words, these soldiers, before going into battle, read from the Law to see if there was something in there they could apply to themselves. Can they find something that might be fulfilled in the coming battle?

The Gospels are sprinkled with many "fulfillment" passages. Consider this one.

Matthew 26:54

But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?”

Claims like this sometimes defy modern exegetical sensibilities. Here is the verse with some relevant context.

Matthew 26:51-56

51 Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But all this has taken place, so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

What does Matthew mean by quoting Jesus this way? Based upon our modern notions of "prophecy" we expect to find some very specific Old Testament prophecies describing soon-to-happen events in Matthew's Gospel; but if we look very closely, we fail to discover any such prophecies, especially any that detail events that include the arrest, trial, suffering, crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

What scriptures did Matthew's Jesus have in mind that describe things that "must happen?"

Whatever events or scriptures Jesus had in mind by this statement, the actions of the people in this scene will affect whether or not current events will play out to fulfill (in the Matthean sense) the scriptures he had in mind.

Consider the way Second Temple Jews applied Scripture in light of 1 Maccabees 3:48. They were comfortable to contemporize the readings as if they were about themselves rather than about (or, in addition to) their original contexts. They were comfortable finding in the classical (Old Testament) literature similarities to current or recent events and name those events fulfillments of scripture.

Shipwreck in Acts 27 and a frequently altered prophecy

Biblical prophecy works a lot like regular predictions. As circumstances change, the certainty of the predictions are often affected. An example of a change of prophetic expectation appears in Acts 27. Paul, at that time, was a prisoner of the Roman government and he was on his way to Rome to appear before the emperor. At one point in the journey, he warned of danger.

Acts 27:9-12:
9 Since much time had been lost and sailing was now dangerous, because even the Fast had already gone by, Paul advised them, 10 saying, "Sirs, I can see that the voyage will be with danger and much heavy loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives." 11 But the centurion paid more attention to the pilot and to the owner of the ship than to what Paul said. 12 Since the harbor was not suitable for spending the winter, the majority was in favor of putting to sea from there, on the chance that somehow they could reach Phoenix, where they could spend the winter. It was a harbor of Crete, facing southwest and northwest.

Paul coached the centurion to delay the next leg of the voyage; but the centurion ignored the advice and pressed forward with his travel plans. Note that Paul had insight, possibly miraculously, that the the ship's cargo would be lost and that people would die.

Well, the storm came. They threw the cargo and the ship tackle overboard. The sailors wore themselves out fighting the storm for "many days" (Acts 27:20). Paul encouraged them with a vision he received.

Acts 27:21-26:
21 Since they had been without food for a long time, Paul then stood up among them and said, "Men, you should have listened to me and not have set sail from Crete and thereby avoided this damage and loss. 22 I urge you now to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. 23 For last night there stood by me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, 24 and he said, "Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before the emperor; and indeed, God has granted safety to all those who are sailing with you.' 25 So keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told. 26 But we will have to run aground on some island."

That announcement must have been encouraging. But note that the prediction changed a little bit. Paul's original prediction was that the cargo and [at least some] lives would be lost. Now, Paul was divinely informed that no lives would be lost. The storm went on for fourteen days and some of the sailors tried to escape in the lifeboat (Acts 17:30). Paul made an announcement that might be shocking to some readers.

Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved." (Acts 27:31)

Paul had earlier issued a prophecy that there would be no loss of life in this ordeal. Now, the fulfillment of that prophecy is threatened by the human action of these sailors! These cowardly sailors were about to undermine the prophesied survival of the whole crew! How could that be? The reason is that, as circumstances change, the expected outcome of an earlier prophecy can also change.

For another example of this phenomenon, see the book of Jonah. See also Jeremiah 18.

Peter's denial, a little clarity

I hope to provide a little clarity to how we read about Jesus' prediction that Peter would deny him. For most of us, we read that prediction through lenses of how we have been taught rather than by what we have read in the Bible.

I will give special focus here to the record of Jesus' prediction as it appears in the book of Luke. All four Gospels record the prediction but Luke includes a detail about Peter's restoration. Peter's restoration seems to also be predicted.

31 “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” 33 And he said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death!” 34 Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me.” (Luke 22:31-34 (NRSV)

Peter voices a kind of objection in verse 33. In Matthew and Mark, Peter's protest is that he will not desert. Matthew follows Mark's order in which Jesus informs the disciples that they will all desert (Mark 14:27 = Matthew 26:31). John's record resembles Luke's in that Peter claims that he is willing to die for Jesus (John 13:37). However, John's record seems to come from a different witness than Mark, possibly that of the beloved disciple who was present at the time of the conversation.

In all four cases, Peter's denial is predicted and the sign of the morning rooster crow is offered.

We know the story. Peter did indeed deny Jesus and the rooster crowed.

Here is how we tend to read the Lord's prediction. We read that Jesus foresaw Peter's denial as a fixed feature of the future. Fortunately, that kind of predictive foresight is not taught in the Bible. Fixed-future foresight is definitely not taught in this passage. All we need do to see that Peter's denials were not certain is to look down the page a couple verses to Luke 22:40 where Jesus took the disciples to the Mount of Olives and went off alone to pray, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done" (Luke 22:42). He told the disciples to pray. The suggested prayer was for God to keep them from the time of trial.

When he reached the place, he said to them, “Pray that you may not come into the time of trial.” (Luke 22:40. see also Luke 22:46)

If Peter's denials were that certain, Jesus would be asking Peter to pray for something that could not possibly be answered in a good way.

The obvious conclusion is that Jesus' prediction of Peter's denials was not a prediction of something that was fixed in the future; but it was something that could be changed now that Peter was warned about it. The lesson for us, especially in light of Peter's claim that he would never desert is that Jesus knows us better than we know ourselves. Indeed, we who have children know what it means to know our children better than our children know themselves. Thus, it is also possible for a friend or fellow Christian to know me better than I know myself. If we brag about our loyalty to God, we should watch out (1 Corinthians 10:12).

Did Jesus "foreknow" Peter's denials? Yes, in the Biblical meaning of the word "foreknow" (which does not appear in this passage; but it is inferred). Foreknow [Greek, proginōskō] means to know something in a predictive way. Sometimes, the word is simply translated as "know" because the predictive aspect in context is too soft. Consider these examples.

"All the Jews know my way of life from my youth, a life spent from the beginning among my own people and in Jerusalem. ⁵ They have known [proginōskō] for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I have belonged to the strictest sect of our religion and lived as a Pharisee." (Acts 26:4-5)

You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned [proginōskō], beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. (2 Peter 3:17)

Simple foreknowledge in the Bible usually means an anticipatory prediction that can be changed if the people involved make different decisions than anticipated (foreknown).

In few places in the Bible, God foreknows something that people will do but actual events do not work out as God anticipated. We don't need many examples of God being surprised by people's choices in order to undo the notion that foreknowledge is exhaustive and definite. We need only one. I offer Jeremiah 3:6-7.

6 The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and played the whore there? 7 And I thought, “After she has done all this she will return to me”; but she did not return, and her false sister Judah saw it.

In the above example, God fully anticipated that Israel would return to God after they had their little season of pegging out. Boy, was God surprised when they did not repent! God thought they would; but they did not. When God foreknows someone's future behavior, actual events may turn out some other way. In the case of Peter's denial, Peter might have taken Jesus' prediction as a warning and assessed himself. He might have cautiously considered that he is not as strong as he thinks and he might have spent more time praying to be spared temptation and, if tempted, that God will give him the strength to endure it. Then, the rooster might have crowed without Peter having denied Jesus.

The above quote from Jeremiah is pertinent to the other prediction mentioned in Luke. Jesus predicted that Peter would repent (Luke 22:32). Did Peter's repentance have to go down as Jesus predicted? It was no more a certainty than was Israel's repentance in Jeremiah 3:6-7. However, Jesus knew Peter well enough to be fairly certain that Peter would repent. He was not at all certain about what kind of disciple Peter would be after his repentance. Many people who have fallen away, after they repent, they return in a broken state. They come back as ineffective Christians. Here is where Jesus steps in and gives Peter direction. "When once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." If I may paraphrase, "When you turn back, you will feel pain and shame for a long time. Don't let those feelings prevent you from working for your brothers. Strengthen them." Darrell Bock (InterVarsity Press Commentary on the New Testament, Luke) says, "Peter will be able to strengthen fellow believers after his fall because he will understand how easy it is to fall."

Let us not overlook this point. Jesus did not predict that Peter would be a great strengthener of the brothers. He commanded Peter to take on that role.

Real repentance is a major theme in Luke. It is not enough to repent. It is not enough to be baptized. Repentance must be visible in the converted person's actions. Many people came to John the Baptist repenting and being baptized. John said what they have done is not the end of the story. There is more to do.

Luke 3:7-14
7 John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9 Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
10 And the crowds asked him, “What then should we do?” 11 In reply he said to them, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” 12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, “Teacher, what should we do?” 13 He said to them, “Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what should we do?” He said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.”

That is our lesson from Peter's ordeal. He fell and he repented. We fall and repent. Now, let's get to work.

What about Daniel?

I have argued that the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies depend to a large extent on the continuation of current conditions at the time of the prophetic announcements. If reality changes at some point between the giving of the prophecy and the point of expected fulfillment, then the fulfillment of the prophecy may not happen as predicted. When prophecies predict human behaviors, the precision is less dependable because people often respond to events in surprising and unexpected ways.

When the above position is taken, a frequent retort is, "What about Daniel?"

The claims I have defended are most vulnerable when they are held up against the book of Daniel. If God accurately foresaw detailed events hundreds of years before they happened—including human actions of near spontaneity—how can the future properly be understood as "open?" Many of the prophecies in Daniel are given with such precision that a reader is apt to conclude that the future is totally closed, not partially closed.

So what about Daniel? Daniel's prophecies in chapter 11 speak about the rise of Greece. The prophecies mention several very specific actions of the Greek kings from Alexander down to Antiochus IV Epiphanies. People's actions are precicely predicted. While it is true that some Biblical prophecies about people's actions did not go as predicted, in Daniel, prophecies about human actions―people that did not yet exist, no less―are very precise. Prophecy seems to work two different ways. Do the two ways share common ground? How we approach this question is informed by the different kinds of literature we find in the Bible.

The Bible contains different types of literature. The way we understand and apply what we read ought to be informed by the kind of literature we are reading. The Bible contains, for example, history literature, poetry literature, wisdom literature, prophecy literature, gospels and epistles. In the arena of World Literature, the examples we see in the Bible are not the only examples ever written. All of the writings in the Bible, however, are theologically consistent. They are writings that stood such a test of time that they came to be recognized as having theological authority. Long story short: The Bible came together with all those Scriptures included and a lot of typically similar writings excluded.

We do not read the Psalms the same way as we read the Chronicles (or, we should not read them the same way).

A proper approach to the book of Daniel begins with a realization that it is mostly an apocalypse. The Bible contains two formal apocalypses: Daniel 7-12 and Revelation. To properly read Daniel and Revelation we should have some familiarity with the meaning of apocalypse literature. If we read Daniel the same way we read, say, Amos, we will draw improper theological conclusions sharply opposing theology found in other parts of the Bible. Frederick J. Murphy says in his introduction to Apocalyptic literature, "A solid understanding of the genre, the worldview, and the original historical circumstances of apocalypses can enable today's believers to benefit from their spiritual insights and strange beauty without being misled by simplistic and sometimes dangerous interpretations" (8). He defines "apocalypse" as follows.

All apocalypses are narratives, stories describing the disclosure of otherwise inaccessible secrets to a human seer by a heavenly being. The disclosures are usually through visions. (The term seer literally means "see-er," one who sees visions.) Often the visions themselves are enigmatic and must be interpreted by a heavenly being, usually an angel. There are two main kinds of apocalyptic narratives. In the first, the seer travels to the heavenly realm or to parts of the cosmos usually inaccessible to human beings. The second type contains no otherworldly journey. This type often incorporates a review of history, culminating in an eschatological crisis and resolution, such as a conflict between the forces of good and evil, resulting in evil's defeat. ... The element common to all apocalypses is postmortem rewards and punishments, an idea that enters Judaism through the medium of apocalypticism, since it does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. (Murphy 2)

Sidnie White Crawford offers a similar definition:

Apocalypses are characterized by the presence of vision, symbolism, a human seer and otherworldly mediator, an otherworldly journey, an emphasis on events on the cosmic rather than human realm, an increased interest in angels and demons, the notion of the transcendence of God, and pseudonymity.

The above definitions are true for nearly all apocalypses. There are probably some exceptions. The most notable exceptions occur in literature containing apocalyptic features without being proper apocalypses (Isaiah 56-66; Ezekiel, Zechariah; Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21, although the apocalyptic sections in Matthew, Mark and Luke may qualify as proper apocalypses). There are several apocalypse features I want to highlight for this study. Apocalypses

1. present a review of history and includes a prophetic prediction of something that must shortly take place, or the prophet/seer witnesses something otherworldly;
2. are pseudonymous—that is, the author is writing under a pseudonym;
3. feature an expectation of life-after-death.

Murphy adds:

They [apocalypses] allow their readers to see their own situations from the perspectives of the supernatural world and from the vantage point of life after death. This change of perspective allows a different consciousness to emerge, thereby changing experience itself. Human experience is found to be connected to larger, even cosmic realities. One's own historical period or personal life is viewed within a broad vista and can thereby be ordered correctly. This does not just make experience more tolerable; it actually changes experience, since experience is inseparable from perception. To change perception is to change the world. (Murphy 7)

Apocalypses emerge in times of crisis. They give readers hope and meaning in situations where life is otherwise hopeless and meaningless. In that respect, an apocalypse is crisis literature. For that reason many scholars describe apocalyptic language as "language of oppression." Therefore, apocalypses

4. emerge in times of crisis in order to provide hope and meaning to readers whose lives feel otherwise hopeless and meaningless.

The book of Revelation is a good place to start. We analyze it as an apocalypse. Revelation is noteworthy for not being pseudepigraphic (pseudonymous). The book of Revelation was written by a man named John. Otherwise, it fulfills all the appropriate definitions of an apocalypse. It features a conversation with otherworldly persons (Jesus and angels). It features a brief history of the rise of the Roman empire (or the rise of an oppressive Roman administration) and it predicts the fall of Rome (or the oppressive administration) by divine action. Afterwards, there is a kind of eschatological expectation, the meaning of which is beyond the scope of this article. The crisis situation is pretty clear. People are being martyred for their faith. When people are imprisoned and martyred for trying to do the right thing, life feels pretty meaningless. The book of Revelation aims to provide meaning for those saints.

In Daniel 11, almost all interpreters see the rise and fall of the Greek empire. That meaning in Daniel is almost unmistakable. The particular crisis situation addressed in Daniel 11 is associated with persecution under the Greek governor Antiochus IV Epiphanies.

A quick look at the book of I Enoch is informative here. First Enoch is an apocryphal collection of apocalypses from the pseudonymous pen of Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam (Jude 1:14, citing 1 Enoch 1:9). First Enoch 83-90 is an apocalypse that addresses the same historical crisis as that of Daniel 11. The whole vision describes the history of the world from the Adam and Eve to the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanies's Jerusalem occupation 165-161 B.C. In the apocalypse of 1 Enoch 83-90, various people and peoples are described as animals, especially from chapters 85-90, often identified as The Animal Apocalypse.

At the end, the crisis under Antiochus IV reaches a climax and God steps in to help the Jews in their resistance. They suddenly triumph.

Then I kept seeing till one great horn sprouted on one of the sheep [one of the Maccabean leaders], and he opened their eyes; and they had vision in them and their eyes were opened. He cried aloud to the sheep, and all the rams saw him and ran unto him. In spite of this, all those eagles, vultures, ravens, and kites until now continue to rip the sheep, swooping down upon them and eating them. As for the sheep, they remain silent; but the rams are lamenting and crying aloud. Those ravens gather and battle with him (the horned ram) and seek to remove his horn, but without any success.

I saw thereafter the shepherds coming; and those vultures and kites cried aloud to the ravens so that they should smash the horn of that ram. But he battled with them, and they fought each other; and he cried aloud, while battling with them, so that (God's) help should come. I kept seeing till that man, who writes down the names of the shepherds and elevates them before the Lord of the sheep, came; it is he who helped him and revealed (to him) everything; thus help came down for that ram. And I kept seeing till the Lord of the sheep came upon them in wrath, and all who saw him fled and fell into darkness, from before his face. All the eagles vultures, ravens, and kites gathered, with all the sheep of the field lining up with them; and having thus come together in unity, all of them cooperated in order to smash the horn of the ram. I saw that man who was writing a book by command of the Lord, for he opened that book (of) the destruction which those twelve last shepherds caused; and he revealed before the Lord of the sheep that they had much greater destruction than their predecessors. I kept seeing till the Lord of the sheep came unto them and took in his hand the rod of his wrath and smote the earth; and all the beasts and all the birds of the heaven fell down from the midst of those sheep and were swallowed up in the earth, and it was covered upon them. Then I saw that a great sword was given to the sheep; and the sheep proceeded against all the beasts of the field in order to kill them; and all the beasts and birds of heaven fled from before their face. (Isaac, 1 Enoch 90:9-19)

There quickly follows a kind of judgment against fallen angels and of those who oppressed the Jews. Note the eschatological hellish punishment they receive.

Then the Lord called those people, the seven first snow-white ones, and ordered them to bring before him (some) from among the first star(s) that arose, and from among those stars whose sexual organs were like those of the horses, as well as (that) first star which had fallen down earlier. And they brought all before him. He spoke to the man who was writing in his presence―that (man) being one of those seven snow-white ones―saying, "Take those seven shepherds to whom I had handed over the sheep, but who decided to kill many more than they were ordered." Behold, I saw all of them bound; and they all stood before him. Then his judgment took place. First among the stars, they received their judgment and were found guilty, and they went to the place of condemnation; and they were thrown into an abyss, full of fire and flame and full of the pillar of fire. Then those seventy shepherds were judged and found guilty; and they were cast into that fiery abyss. (1 Enoch 90:21-25)

The Jews who were complicit with the Greek oppression―those who gave lip-service to the resistance but never gave real support―receive a similar punishment.

In the meantime I saw how another abyss like it, full of fire, was opened wide in the middle of the ground; and they brought those blinded sheep, all of which were judged, found guilty, and cast into this fiery abyss, and they were burned―the abyss is to the right of that house; thus I saw those sheep while they were burning―their bones were also burning. (1 Enoch 90:26-27)

There follows a national restoration and a reward for the righteous, both living and dead. The restored nation is ruled by a strong messianic figure. The description of the national restoration in 1 Enoch 90:28-38 sounds a lot like what the disciples had in their minds when they asked Jesus, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).

A couple observations: The whole Animal Apocalypse prophecy is aimed at the people suffering at the end of the detailed history. The predictions do not pertain to the people who lived at any other time in the Animal Apocalypse chronicle in 1 Enoch 85-90. The prophecy pertains to those living during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanies. The seer describes a future that punishes those who practice evil and rewards those who practice righteousness, both living and dead. The described future is very near to the people living in those times. The prophecy did not play out as described but notice what the prophecy did for those living in that horrible time. The prophecy gave meaning to the injustices those righteous Jews were suffering. Once they were able to see reality as something more than life in the world―that there is more to life than living―then death is not a point of defeat. It is a moment of victory. That perspective changes the meaningless into the meaningful.

As for the author, Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam, he is certainly not the actual author; but he is tagged as the author pseudepigraphically. Why? It may be because Enoch was an ancient hero who legendarily predicted the Great Flood. He went to be with God without having to first experience death. Why the real author wrote about his visions under a pen name of an ancient hero is a point of speculation. I think he wanted to keep his identity secret for reasons of personal security. The more common explanation is that by writing under the name of an ancient hero, it gives an appearance that the much more ancient writer was able to accurately predict all the events that led up to the current date; so the events that are still yet future must be dependable prophecies too. That may be the case; but that motive comes off in my mind as deliberate deception. The contemporary readers knew that the documentation of the visions were pseudepigraphic. I think the writer detailed all that history to show that his predictions logically follow from history and Scripture.

Up to this point I have been working toward comparing the Daniel 7-12 with other apocalypses. I selected the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch because it and and Daniel both apply to the same historical crisis.

In Daniel 10:20-21 an otherworldly being presents a book that contains the history of the world from King Darius of Persia to Antiochus IV Epiphanies. The history details particularly the divided Greek empire and highlights the northern (to Israel) branch spanning Syria all the way to Persia and the southern (to Israel) branch that covers the historical region of Egypt. The rulers of those two branches of Greek empire constantly bickered over who controls Israel. Eventually, the northern branch gained control of Israel under the leadership of Antiochus IV Epiphanies. In the prophecy, Antiochus IV is the most interesting actor (Daniel 11:20-39). The writer describes the friction that ensues between Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI Philometor of Egypt (Daniel 11:25-28).

The whole vision that is detailed in the chapter is extraordinarily accurate historically... right up to Daniel 11:39. Then the seer predicts "The time of the end" which happens when Ptolemy VI attacks Antiochus IV. They will war against each other and Antiochus IV will die alone. The beginning of the end in Daniel 11:40-45 has no historical parallel. The accuracy of the events in Daniel 11 suddenly falls apart beginning with verse 40. Was the seer just wrong? No. What he is doing now (and for the first time in chapter 11) is prophesying. John Goldingay notes in his commentary on Daniel, "It is not the nature of biblical prophecy to give a literal account of events before they take place" (305).

The eschatological events described in Daniel 12 include eternal reward for the righteous, both living and dead, and eternal punishment for those who practiced wickedness. Those who are punished may include Jews who insincerely cheered on the ones who resisted the occupation (Daniel 11:34).

Note that this prophecy has nothing to say to people in Daniel's time; nor does it have anything useful to say to anybody else living in the period between Daniel and Antiochus IV! But for the people living just before the "time of the end," the prophecy has an important message. The message is to remain faithful. Antiochus may kill you but he cannot take away your eternal reward. Martyrdom is not meaningless. Your righteousness and patience means something.

Why did the seer write under the pseudonym Daniel? Possibly, he wanted to disguise his true identity. He selected Daniel possibly because he is a great example of one who remained faithful against threats of death. Daniel thus served as an example for people in the time of Antiochus IV. Their lives were likewise threatened by their righteousness.

Following the standard rubric of an apocalypse, the writer wrote under a pseudonym. He wrote for people living in a time of moral crisis. He wrote their history as if he were Daniel himself; so the history comes across as quasi-prophecies. The readers recognized their time in the quasi-prophecies and they knew that the writer had written under the pseudonym of Daniel. They read the prophecies of Daniel 11:40ff as a logical "what's next" of history up to the point before the expected fulfillment. The seer himself consulted the Bible to try to understand the nature of his times (Daniel 9:2).

Finally, the apocalypse ends with an eschatological expectation that features eternal reward and punishment for those both living and dead.

The original readers of the book of Daniel did not believe the author was being dishonest. The readers were quite familiar with the genre and they knew they were reading pseudonymous literature. The seer was writing in the style of a kind of writing that was well represented in those days. That kind of Scripture is called an apocalypse.



Sources:
Crawford, Sidnie White. "Apocalyptic." Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Electronic.

Goldingay, John. Daniel. WBC 30. Dallas: Word, 1989. Print.

Isaac, E. "Translation and Introduction of 1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch." The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Ed. James Charlesworth. Doubleday, 1983. Print.

Murphy, Frederick J. "Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature." The New Interpreter's Bible 7. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Print.

What about prophecies that predict human behavior?

When Biblical prophecies predict divine action, the fulfillment of those prophecies depend upon the continuation of the current state of affairs when the prophecy is delivered. God reserves the right to change his mind and change his plans (Jeremiah 18).

When prophecies depend upon human behaviors, their precision is less dependable because people often respond to events in surprising and unexpected ways. They may repent of their sinful ways or they may respond to a prophecy in ways that nullify the prophecy's fulfillment. Sometimes, prophecies only predict how people will behave in certain situations. When the time comes for fulfillment, for some strange reason, those people respond in unanticipated ways. Consider Isaiah's prophecies about the Assyrian king Sennacherib when he threatened Jerusalem (2 Kings 19):

2 And he [Hezekiah] sent Eliakim, who was in charge of the palace, and Shebna the secretary, and the senior priests, covered with sackcloth, to the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz. 3 They said to him, “Thus says Hezekiah, This day is a day of distress, of rebuke, and of disgrace; children have come to the birth, and there is no strength to bring them forth. 4 It may be that the Lord your God heard all the words of the Rabshakeh, whom his master the king of Assyria has sent to mock the living God, and will rebuke the words that the LORD your God has heard; therefore lift up your prayer for the remnant that is left.” 5 When the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah, 6 Isaiah said to them, “Say to your master, ‘Thus says the LORD: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have reviled me. 7 I myself will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land; I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.’” 

God did indeed cause Sennacherib to believe two rumors; but Sennacherib's consequent actions did not go as predicted.

8 The Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria fighting against Libnah; for he had heard that the king had left Lachish. 9 When the king heard concerning King Tirhakah of Ethiopia, “See, he has set out to fight against you,” he sent messengers again to Hezekiah, saying, 10 “Thus shall you speak to King Hezekiah of Judah: Do not let your God on whom you rely deceive you by promising that Jerusalem will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. 11 See, you have heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, destroying them utterly. Shall you be delivered? 12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them, the nations that my predecessors destroyed, Gozan, Haran, Rezeph, and the people of Eden who were in Telassar? 13 Where is the king of Hamath, the king of Arpad, the king of the city of Sepharvaim, the king of Hena, or the king of Ivvah?” (2 Kings 19:2-13)

The Assyrian king heard two rumors. He heard Libnah was rebelling against the Assyrian army. He also heard that the Ethiopians were coming up against him. It appeared that Judah had two new allies, Lackish and Ethiopia. Neither was true; but Sennacherib believed the rumors, as God promised. The expected result was for Sennacherib to abandon the Jerusalem effort and head back to Assyria. Surprise of all surprises, Sennacherib did not go home. Instead, he steeled his resolve against Jerusalem. Well. That was totally contrary to the prophetic expectation! How could God have been so wrong? The reason is because the prophecy was based upon Sennacherib's likely response to the rumors. His response was not certain, even from God's perspective. The prediction was a likelihood but not a certainty.

In round two, Hezekiah himself prays. The prayer plus Sennacherib's blasphemous bragging provoke a new divine response. God sent an angel into the Babylonian camp. The angel killed 185,000 Assyrians. Sennacherib finally went home to Nineveh.

When God predicts human behaviors, the predictions are based upon strong likelihoods rather than on unalterable certainties. Thus, for example, we recall that Jesus told Peter that he would deny Jesus three times. A short time later, he instructed the disciples‒and Peter‒to pray that they will not come to the time of trial (Luke 22:40, 46). That means Jesus' prediction of Peter's denials was not a certainty but rather a strong likelihood.

There is an interesting side-lesson here. Prayer affects God. God makes plans and alters plans based upon people's prayers. The sincerity of an offered prayer seems to matter. Hezekiah's prayer resulted in stronger divine action than did Isaiah's prayer. We do not know why; but it is very possible that the reason for the stronger divine response was due to Hezekiah's greater commitment in the prayer. Hesekiah's appeal reminds me of the prayer of Epaphras when he prayed for his friends in Colossae.

Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you. He is always wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured in everything that God wills. (Colossians 4:12)

When you need prayers, be sure to ask your friends and maybe even your minister to pray for you; but be sure to bend your own knees in prayer too. Your prayer may be the one that has the biggest impact on God.

How is prophecy fulfilled?

Most Bible readers unknowingly impose upon the Bible their own notions of what they see as appropriate characteristics of the Bible. That is, if the Bible is God's revelation of himself to mankind (which it definitely is), then it ought to be infallible. Some Christians use the word "inerrant" to describe the Bible, and then they discuss among themselves what "inerrant" even means.

One area where people have their own expectations of the Bible is in the area of prophecy. We see a word of prophecy kind of like the mythological prophetic oracle received by Oedipus in Sophocles's tragedy Oedipus the King. In the mythological story, Oedipus was told by the oracle that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Oedipus tried very hard to prevent the fulfillment of the oracle and his efforts actually worked to bring about its prophetic fulfillment.

The Bible does not expect prophecies to be fulfilled in that way. If a prophecy is given that involves the actions of people, the actual fulfillment may or may not come about. That is the nature of biblical prophecy. Many Bible readers, when they realize that biblical prophecy does not always find fulfillment, are thrown off their balance and come to doubt the divine influence upon the Bible. We should permit Scripture to speak for itself. We should get to know the Bible by spending time with it and learning its personality. Our faith in God should not be threatened when we discover a surprising aspect of the character of biblical prophecy. Instead, we should register our surprise and apply the new discovery to our understanding of God.

Most prophecies are conditional. They depend to a large extent on the assumption that current conditions (as they are when the prophecy is given) continue. If reality changes at some point between the giving of the prophecy and the point of expected fulfillment, the fulfillment of the prophecy may not take place.

Today, I am making a very strong and cautious claim: Literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy is conditioned upon the continuation of the current state of reality at the time of the prophetic pronouncement.

Now, why would I, a believer who wants to facilitate stronger faith in fellow believers, write such an article? The reason is a little bit strategic. The information is available already on the Discovery Channel, PBS or in college classrooms. The information is often presented by Bible scholars who are atheists and don't really care how believers will process the information. Well, I care. Furthermore, if you read the Bible, you will eventually make these discoveries yourself. Most biblical apologists will try to show that your assumptions about the Bible were right all along; but sometimes, the case really cannot be made and you, the Bible reader, are left with a lingering unanswered question. How the God of the Bible acts in prophecy tells us something about how God works in the world. God reveals himself and his experiences to us through Scripture. That is pretty cool if we pay attention.

I give one exception to the above claim of conditional prophecy fulfillment. There is going to be an "End" (e.g., 2 Peter 3) and a judgment (e.g., Matthew 11:22; Luke 11:32; Matthew 7:21-23).

We are interested here with prophecies that anticipate something about the future. I am going to divide those prophecies into two groups. One kind of forward-looking prophecy is described as something God is going to do. God reserves the right to alter his plans as reality changes with respect to the original purpose of God's original plan of action. That divine right is abundantly clear in Jeremiah 18, Exodus 32, the book of Jonah and in other passages.

The second kind of forward-looking prophecy deals with people's actions as anticipated by God. God expects people to behave in a certain way and he reveals that particular expectation to a prophet. Most of the time, the human actors to which the prophetic word pertains do indeed behave as expected. But not always. Sometimes, a word of prophecy is proclaimed that a particular person will behave in a certain way and then the person behaves in a different way resulting in an unfulfilled prophecy. There are many examples; but I will present here what I see to be the most clear examples.

In 1 Samuel 23, David is a fugitive. He is doing his best to keep a comfortable distance between himself and King Saul. At one point, David asks the priest to inquire of the LORD what Saul's actions will be.

10 David said, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 And now, will Saul come down as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, I beseech you, tell your servant.” The LORD said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” The LORD said, “They will surrender you.” 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, set out and left Keilah; they wandered wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. 14 David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. Saul sought him every day, but the LORD did not give him into his hand. (1 Samuel 23:10-14)

This example is pretty straightforward. The prophecy about King Saul's actions depended upon the current given state of reality. As soon as David and his men changed their plans, the fulfillment of the prophecy was no longer expected. The word of the inspired priest was not foreknowledge in the sense of God standing outside of time and observing the future and then giving a report to the priest. It was, rather, the case of God's foreknowing the future based upon the current state of reality. It was a view of the future that takes into account all available contemporary (temporal) evidence.

Here is another fascinating example from 2 Kings 13.

14 Now when Elisha had fallen sick with the illness of which he was to die, King Joash of Israel went down to him, and wept before him, crying, “My father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!” 15 Elisha said to him, “Take a bow and arrows”; so he took a bow and arrows. 16 Then he said to the king of Israel, “Draw the bow”; and he drew it. Elisha laid his hands on the king’s hands. 17 Then he said, “Open the window eastward”; and he opened it. Elisha said, “Shoot”; and he shot. Then he said, “The LORD’s arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram! For you shall fight the Arameans in Aphek until you have made an end of them.” 18 He continued, “Take the arrows”; and he took them. He said to the king of Israel, “Strike the ground with them”; he struck three times, and stopped. 19 Then the man of God was angry with him, and said, “You should have struck five or six times; then you would have struck down Aram until you had made an end of it, but now you will strike down Aram only three times.” (2 Kings 13:14-19)

I always imagine the sound of a cat's shriek when Joash shoots the arrow out the window. Anyway, in this interesting example, a word of prophecy is changed on the fly. The prophet gives a word of prophecy and within a minute he cancels the prophecy and gives a different prophecy! The prophet, in his divinely inspired wisdom, gave the first prophecy, that King Joash would put Aram to a complete end. We can see in this short account that the fulfillment of the prophecy depended at least in part upon the will of King Joash. The prophet believed Joash was sufficiently motivated to bring the prophecy to its completion. On the other hand, when Joash struck the ground with the arrows, the prophet saw that the king's determination was lacking. The prophecy depended upon the will of King Joash which was not as strong as the inspired prophet had originally thought. The details of the prophecy had to be adjusted.

Sometimes, the actors involved with the fulfillment of a prophecy are very determined to bring it to fulfillment and yet the prophecy somehow still fails.

Ezekiel 26 features a prophecy against the island city of Tyre. In the prophecy, King Nebuchadrezzar (NRSV) will be the instrument by which God destroys Tyre. Nebuchadrezzar and his army tried really hard to capture Tyre but he failed. God saw the hard work of Nebuchadrezzar's men and he believed they deserved some loot; so God authorized the Babylonian king to invade Egypt and get its loot there.

18 Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had expended against it. 19 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: I will give the land of Egypt to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. 20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he labored, because they worked for me, says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 29:18-20)

The text does not explain why the king was unable to bring the prophecy against Tyre to fulfillment. It does report the determination of the king and his men. They were motivated. We might speculate that the city of Tyre anticipated the coming battle and better prepared for it than they had been at the time of the original prophecy. Something changed that resulted in the prophecy's failure.

Realizing that fulfillment of prophecies involving the actions of free agents depend upon those agents' choices gives us a more honest way to read scripture. We may read about a prophecy concerning King Zedekiah.

4 Yet hear the word of the LORD, O King Zedekiah of Judah! Thus says the LORD concerning you: You shall not die by the sword; 5 you shall die in peace. And as spices were burned for your ancestors, the earlier kings who preceded you, so they shall burn spices for you and lament for you, saying, “Alas, lord!” For I have spoken the word, says the LORD. (Jeremiah 34:4-5)

Then we read that Zedekiah had his eyes plucked out and he died in prison (Jeremiah 52:8-11). The compilers of the book of Jeremiah were not bothered that this prophecy did not find fulfillment. Neither should we. The fulfillment of the prophecy depended upon the attitudes of free agents at the time of the prophecy. People's attitudes change and they sometimes make unexpected choices.

The book of Jeremiah also records a prophecy about Jehoiakim.

Therefore thus says the Lord concerning King Jehoiakim of Judah: He shall have no one to sit upon the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat by day and the frost by night. (Jeremiah 36:30)

But King Jehoiakim received a proper burial and his son succeeded him (2 Kings 24:6).

A proper reading of prophecy helps us to appreciate passages like Haggai 2:21-23 which anticipates Zerubbabel's rise to full kingship and yet we never see that prophecy fulfilled. Zerubbabel seems to disappear from history shortly after Haggai's prophecy about him. Why? Nobody knows. It is very possible that the king of Persia detected Zerubbabel's ambitions or he heard about Haggai's prophecy. The Persians then responded maybe by removing Zerubbabel from his office of governor of Judah.

Biblical prophecy functions very differently than the oracle at Delphi in Oedipus. There were real prophecies that came from Delphi; but on the mythological level, they were expected to be bullet-proof. The fulfillment of biblical prophecy involving the free actions of humans depends upon how those choices will eventually be made. Such prophecies do not need to find fulfillment.

Footnote: There are prophecies in the book of Daniel that detail very specific future actions of several people. I will address those prophecies in a separate article.

Prophecy in 1 Peter 1:10-12

1Peter 1:10-12 (NRSV)

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look!

This passage appears to say that the Old Testament prophets directly predicted the suffering of Christ and they knew their prophecies of Christ applied to a time well into their future and not for their own times.

There is an exegetical problem with that understanding of the passage. It is a problem with Biblical consistency. The real problem comes in verse 12 where the writer says, "they were serving not themselves but you." That is, the prophets knew what they were predicting applied to people hundreds of years into the future. There is no prophecy that I know of that has no message for the people of the prophets' times (except one, discussed below). Verse 11 mentions "the sufferings destined for Christ" (NRSV) which might motivate us to look at the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Indeed, Peter cites in this epistle that very chapter in Isaiah (1 Peter 1:19; 2:22, 23, 24, 25); but a careful look at those passages reveals that the writer is not citing them as prophetic of Jesus but is citing them because they appropriately apply linguistically to Jesus. However, 1 Peter 1:11 comes pretty close to saying that the Lord's suffering was predicted by prophecy.

I will report without extensively arguing the point that the suffering servant in Isaiah 40-55 is captive Israel (Isaiah 41:8-10; 44:1-2; 44:21; 45:1-4; 48:20 with Isaiah 42:1). Occasionally, the identity of the Isaiah servant blurs into that of the prophet himself; but never is the suffering servant a prophecy of a distant future Messiah.

Could the writer of 1 Peter mean the one prophecy that was definitely far reaching? God told Abraham:

I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families on the earth shall be blessed. (Genesis 12:3)

That statement by God to Abraham is prophetic and the rest of the history of God with his people in the Old Testament is obvious (in my view, anyway) divine working towards the salvation of all mankind through the seed of Abraham (e.g., Isaiah 11:16; 19:18-25; 24:3; 62:10). That is, in the Old Testament, Israel's vocation was to restore the world to God. That promise was finally fulfilled with Jesus and the establishment of the church. God is still working with the church for the salvation of all mankind (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Could that prophecy be the one identified in 1 Peter 1:10-12? As far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no prophecy of Israel's outreach vocation that includes suffering either for a future generation or for a Messiah at least as it might point directly to the Christians of the writer of 1 Peter's day.

Was the 1 Peter writer just reading the Old Testament wrong? I am not willing to resort to that solution without very strong argumentative proof.

What if the prophets mentioned here are not Old Testament prophets? What if they were prophets like John the Baptist? What if they predated the ministry of Christ just a little bit in advance (a few decades)? John Baptist had some predictive things to say about Jesus' ministry. Jesus himself had some things to say about the sufferings of his disciples once their own ministry began. There were definitely plenty of prophets contemporary with John Baptist. If they were the ones who predicted the suffering of Christ or the church (Revised English Bible translates 1 Peter 1:11 to mean Christian suffering), then the passage comes into contextual agreement with the rest of the Bible. If we understand the "prophets" as people prophesying around the turn of the millennium (shortly before Jesus and during the Lord's youth), the tension of the passage with the rest of the Bible is resolved.

Just how popular is this view of the identity of the prophets of 1 Peter 1:10-12? The vast majority of scholars believe the 1 Peter writer means Old Testament prophets; but the view is not unanimous. None that I consulted went so far as to accuse the writer of reading the Old Testament wrong; but the way I see it, they must have to accept that uncomfortable conclusion. One commentator who says the prophets here are John Baptist types is Edward Gordon Selwyn in a commentary he wrote in the 1940s. Another, and more interesting to me, is Duane Warden. He said the prophets here were John Baptist types. He argued the point in the Restoration Quarterly, volume 31, 1989. Unfortunately, that particular issue is not available online. In Warden's commentary on 1 & 2 Peter and Jude (Truth for Today, Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 2009), he effectively argues that the prophets were New Testament prophets rather than Old Testament prophets, which include Christians who had the Spiritual gift of prophecy (pp. 56-59). (Some readers may be interested in an article by Warden in Evangelicalism & the Stone-Campbell Movement, Vol 2. In that article, Warden speaks quite favorably for Open Theism and the fact that, for the most part, it is already mostly accepted by Restorationists today. They just don't know it yet.)

First Peter 1:10-12 does not force a new way of reading the Old Testament, that is as prophecy that becomes suddenly clear when looking back through Christ. When the New Testament writers see Jesus in the Old Testament, they see him as an type of the things written there. The old words can be applied appropriately to Jesus.

How is scripture fulfilled?

When we read in the new testament, "This happened to fulfill the scripture that says...," we typically read it in a way that the first century readers did not. We read the passage supposing that the way the New Testament writer used it is the same way the Old Testament writer intended it. If we read it that way, we are reading it wrongly. This conclusion came crashing down on me one day when I was sitting in on a Bible class on the book of Matthew. Then the text came to Matthew 2:14-15 (NRSV).

Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”

The teacher said, "When you are doing your private studies and you encounter something that fulfills an Old Testament Scripture, you should look it up. You will see how the events in New Testament times were truly foretold in the Old Testament. It is a real faith builder."

I decided to go ahead and follow the teacher's advice right then and there. I checked the cross reference in my Bible and looked up Hosea 11:1-2.

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.
The more I called them,
    the more they went from me;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals,
    and offering incense to idols.

Wow, I thought. That's not about Jesus. The writer of Matthew completely misquoted Hosea! This is not really helping my faith, teacher. I did a quick mental "inspiration" adjustment with, "Well. While it is true that we don't use scripture that way, the inspired writer of Matthew was better qualified than I to stretch it the way he did." In the mean time, I kept a close eye on the New Testament - watching for "fulfilled Scripture."

One passage in James really helps to clarify our thinking on the phrase "was fulfilled."

Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. (Jam 2:21-23)

James quoted Genesis 15:6. It is not a prophecy and it is not something that needed to be "fulfilled." James is not implying that Abraham fulfilled a prophecy when he believed God. What he is doing in this case is quoting the passage in order to conclude his argument and also to give it more weight.

"Fulfill" does not mean that the current point is a prophecy that is now coming true. The usual meaning is that the current point can be rephrased in classical Old Testament language. It is quoted for its rhetorical impact.

Today, instead of saying "fulfilled" we would probably say "We might verbalize the current point in classical Old Testament verbiage" or, "I am reminded of the text" or "This idea gives new meaning to the Old Testament saying."

We often say contemporary things in phrases that have become classic. When I make an elaborate plan and it fails, I often say, "Oh, the best laid plans of mice and men." I don't mean the original poet had my situation in mind. I am recycling his excellent verbiage and applying it to my situation.

You may have heard an energetic preacher speaking of a difficult situation and calling upon the church for prayer and then start quoting the poetry, "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord." He does not mean that he hopes the Civil War will soon be over. He means he hopes God will speed up the end of a current problem.

So, what was the writer of Matthew doing by applying Hosea 11:1 to Joseph, Mary and Jesus' trip to Egypt? In simple terms, the Egypt trip reminds the writer of the words he read in Hosea. On a slightly more sophisticated level, he may be thinking of the Egypt trip as a kind of reenactment by Jesus of the Exodus.

I will take a look at a few more just so you can get a feel for it. There are some "it was fulfilled" passages that are a little more complex to dissect and will thus make this article cruelly lengthy. (I am thinking of Luke 4:18-19).

Mat 1:21-23
"She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

“Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”

which means, “God is with us.”

The original passage (Isaiah 7:14) is a sign for King Ahaz. In that day, Judah was threatened by a war against an alliance of Syria and Israel. Isaiah informed Ahaz that the Syrio-Ephraemite threat would be no longer a threat. God would remove the threat soon. Isaiah challenged Ahaz to ask for a sign connected with God's intention. Ahaz refused, so Isaiah indicated a young woman, possibly a woman they both knew. Maybe she was on her way to her wedding. Isaiah said she would get pregnant and have a child. By the time the boy is weaned, God will have removed the treat of the alliance (Isaiah 7:16).

The writer of Matthew connected Isaiah 7:14 to what the angel told Joseph in his dream. The language fits while the situation does not. Joseph received news about an important pregnancy and Isaiah's words are fitting even if not a perfect match. The writer quoted the Greek version of Isaiah 7:14 because the Greek uses the word "virgin" and Mary was a real virgin - not just a young woman. The writer invoked classical Old Testament out-of-context language because it fit the current situation. It is not a precise fit. Otherwise, Joseph and Mary would have named the child "God-with-us" (Emmanuel) instead of "Deliverer" (Jesus).

Here is an interesting one.

Mat 2:3-6
When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet:

‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who is to shepherd my people Israel.’ ”

Herod's aids identified the location of the birth of the Messiah as Bethlehem. The passage they quoted is Micah 5:2. Micah 5 is kind of Messianic but not necessarily. Bethlehem is definitely connected with the family of King David. The deliverer in Micah 5 is described as a war hero. It looks like the Jews' expectation of a war-hero Messiah was anticipated by their reading of Micah 5. Jesus was, in fact, born in Bethlehem because he was from the family of David. It strikes me as almost coincidental that Herod's aids correctly located the birthplace of the Messiah by quoting Micah 5. Their reasons were different from the actual reasons for Bethlehem being the birthplace of Jesus. (Not all Gospel writers agree on this detail, by the way. That gives me an idea for another article.)

This next example highlights the true writing art of the Gospel writer.

Mat 2:16-18
When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

“A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.”

By now, you expect me to tell you that Jeremiah 31:15 has nothing to do with Herod's evil act. Your expectations are not in vain. Jeremiah, it turns out, is doing something very similar to what the Matthew writer is doing. He is connecting something classical to an immediate situation. Jeremiah is weeping over the devastating destruction of Judah by the Babylonians. In that section of Jeremiah, God is revealing his plan to restore Judah to her land. Thus, Jeremiah should feel some encouragement. Why does Jeremiah use words that describe Ramah and Rachel's weeping?

Well, that tradition goes back to Genesis 35:19-20. Rachel died in childbirth. With her last breath, she named her son "Son of sorrow" but Jacob altered the name to "Son of my right hand" (Benjamin). She was buried just outside of Bethlehem and the writer says the grave was there "to this day." Thus, Rachel's grave was a lasting monument and people visiting the site would remember her sorrow. Her burial site, we suspect, became a monument to sadness. There is also a town town near Bethel by the name of Ramah that was part of the Benjamin tribal inheritance; but Ramah is also a descriptive title of any small town that is built on a hill. Judges 20 details a civil war that nearly exterminated the tribe of Benjamin. The Israelites wept for the loss of their brethren (Judges 20:26-28; 21:2). So, Ramah became known for weeping for Benjamin, Rachel's last child.

Jeremiah combines Rachel's weeping in connection to Benjamin's birth and Israel's weeping for the tribe of Benjamin. He applies that grief to the grief he feels for the loss of Judah to the Babylonians.

Then, the Matthew writer invokes Jeremiah's poetry and applied it to the Herod's atrocity.

So, Matthew 2:17-18

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:
“A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.”

can be paraphrased as...

This terrible thing that Herod did brings new meaning to the words of Jeremiah:
"A voice was heard in Ramah...."

The connection is even more poignant since there is a monument to weeping just outside of Bethlehem.

Here is one that is applied to Judas.

John 13:18
I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’

The quote is from Psalm 41:9. In that Psalm, the psalmist has a disease. Bosom friends from his own household are visiting him, acting like they hope he gets better; but secretly, they hope he dies. The Psalm is clearly not about Jesus. Jesus did not die from a nasty disease (Psalm 41:8) and he was not a sinner (Psalm 41:4). Judas fulfilled the scripture because the scripture is easily quoted out of context to apply to Judas.

There are many examples and I have probably worn out my welcome by citing so many already. It is worth observing that this kind of Scripture citation was effective in persuading Jews of God's work in their day, as evidenced, for example, by Peter's sermon in Acts 2. On the other hand, New Testament preachers did not spend a lot of time arguing from the Scriptures when they were trying to persuade Gentiles (Acts 17:22-31).

Today, we need to acknowledge the Jewish appreciation of "fulfilled" Scripture and try not to bend the Old Testament into our own expectations. Having a Bible study with an unbeliever and pointing out all the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus "fulfilled" is dishonest. By Western academic method, such arguments are really unpersuasive, unless you obfuscate the original meaning of those passages.

One of the themes in the John Gospel is belief. In particular, a very strong reason for people to believe in Jesus is because of his good works. The man Jesus healed of a lifelong blindness told the council of Pharisees,

Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. (John 9:30-33)

Jesus told the Jews,

If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. (John 10:37-38)

We are encouraged to believe Jesus because of his works; and that's a pretty good reason to believe!

What, really, is Biblical inspiration?

 What is “Biblical inspiration?” How were the writers of the Bible inspired to write what they wrote?

The answer to this question is not as straightforward as most of us think. I have sat through countless Bible classes where the teacher explained Biblical inspiration and gave such a simplistic answer that the conclusion was not supported by the facts.

I am going to present what I see in the Bible as Biblical inspiration. I do not believe it is the simple explanation. I don’t think it is the comfortable explanation either; but if it is the truth, we should incorporate it into our individual belief systems.

Here is the usual format of a class on Biblical Inspiration. There will be a little introduction that says something like, “How do we know that the Bible is from God?” and then we all turn to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

The introduction plus the scripture reading moves the student to define inspiration as “from God.” That is a pretty good working definition. “All scripture” is assumed to be the Protestant cannon of scripture. That is definitely not what Paul meant by “All scripture,” but that is a topic for another article. The teacher will notify that the word “inspired” means “God breathed.” That’s good.

The class will then take a direction of assuming everything in the Bible is inerrant (doctrinally, theologically, historically and grammatically flawless). The rest of the class time may be devoted to examples of how Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in New Testament times. The assumption is that fulfilled prophecies prove the Bible is inerrant. The case is not made for inerrancy; but for most pew-sitters, it’s good enough.

I want to highlight inspiration as I find it in the Bible.

The first kind of inspiration I find in the Bible is divine word to a prophet. “The word of the LORD that came to Hosea son of Beeri” (Hosea 1:1). A word or vision of the LORD is the common kind of inspiration that Prophets received. Words from the LORD appear throughout the Old Testament and in the New Testament book of Revelation. It is not transcribed into the Bible word for word. Each writer had a personal style; but we can feel comfortable that the gist of the vision was faithfully recorded.

The rest of the Bible came to be written by another kind of inspiration. It is the inspiration that is provided by the Holy Spirit working through writers. Many of us want to believe that the method of inspiration for all scripture writers is the same as that for the prophets who had visions. It is not.

The usual approach is to examine how the Spirit worked through people in New Testament times. There were Spiritual gifts such as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healings, miracles, tongues (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) and, of particular interest, prophecy (1 Corinthians 14). The New Testament Christian with the Spiritual gift of prophecy can speak the Word of God inerrantly, right? Wrong. Whenever a prophet spoke, the rest of the church (or the other prophets in the church) were supposed to weigh (judge) what was said (1 Corinthians 14:29)! That means, the church was supposed to scrutinize what prophets said rather than accept it hook, line and sinker.

The working of God’s Spirit in the Bible is expressed quite well in Isaiah 11:1-3.

A shoot shall come out of the stump of Jesse,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
The spirit of the LORD shall rest on him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and fear of the LORD.
His delight shall be in the fear of the LORD.

Sometimes the Spirit of God manifested himself in a person by making him strong enough to kick the butts of a hoard of Philistines (Judges 15:14-15). Sometimes God’s Spirit caused a man to act crazy (1 Samuel 19:23-24). The usual way, in both testaments, that the Lord’s Spirit manifested himself in a person was by giving the person wisdom. That gift is described in the passage quoted above. We can see it in King Solomon’s gift of wisdom. In the Isaiah passage, the prophet is looking forward to a Davidic (or Jesse-esque) king who will have similar evidence of God’s Spirit.

Both testaments? Yes. Second Peter 3:14-16 is often quoted in classes about Biblical inspiration.

Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

This passage is quoted to show that Peter considered Paul’s letters as properly belonging to the collection of documents called “the scriptures.” The word “scripture” just means “writing” but in a New Testament context it means the First Century Christian scriptures which is the Old Testament. There were different views in New Testament times of what documents had authority and what ones did not; but Peter definitely ranked Paul among the greats in the Old Testament.

I want to highlight something else in the above passage that is rarely observed. Paul wrote “according to the wisdom given him.” Thus, what moved Paul to write what he wrote is God given wisdom. He did not have a “The word of the Lord that came to Paul.” Paul was able to know God’s will in the church by applying his knowledge of the scriptures.

I think the best example of Paul’s application of Spirit given wisdom occurs in Acts 13:13f. Paul and his companions had been sent by the church in Antioch to do mission work. They did not seem to know how they were going to go about it. They just kind of hit the road. They hopped a boat and did some preaching in Cyprus. They hopped a boat again and came to a place called Antioch of Pisidia. They attended synagogue there and Paul was invited to speak. Paul’s sermon was strongly Jewish, showing how Jesus’ ministry was validated by the history of the Old Testament and by events surrounding John the Baptist, Galilee and Jerusalem—including Jesus’ death and resurrection. He concludes that Jesus provides forgiveness of sins, something that the law of Moses could not accomplish.

Everyone liked the message so much that Paul and Barnabas were invited to speak again the following week. Much to the surprise of everyone, including Paul, was that the Gentiles in attendance had been especially moved by Paul’s message. They must have been particularly impressed by the points that “descendants of Abraham’s family, and others who fear God, to us the message this salvation has been sent” and that Jesus freed everyone from the law of Moses.

The following Saturday, almost the entire town showed up to hear Paul’s message. The Jews did not like that many Gentiles around. They were happy to have a token collection of Gentiles in their synagogue; but they didn’t want the church to be overrun by Gentiles. It’s just too much of the wrong kind of element, you know. They turned against Paul and Barnabas. Paul got the message. Gentiles were interested in salvation for all through Jesus. Jews were willing to add a little Jesus teaching to their Jewish religion. As you read Acts 13, you can see that Antioch Pisidia was a turning point for Paul. Something happened there that was a learning event for Paul. He did not expect that much interest from Gentiles and now he knew that they were more interested than were the Jews. His ministry from that point forward gave equal or more than equal time to preaching to Gentiles.

As you read through the book of Romans you will observe that every doctrine promoted by Paul is supported by scripture. He never says, “God told me in a vision” or “God appeared to me and said this.” Rather, it looks like he scoured the Bible (Old Testament) to see if it supports such an aggressive mission to Gentiles. Paul quotes a lot of scripture in Romans 15. Everywhere the Old Testament passage says “nations” Paul sees “Gentiles.”

Something happened to Paul in Antioch Pisidia that he needed to interpret. Through his God given wisdom and his hard earned knowledge of scripture he was able to determine God’s will regarding salvation to the Gentiles. It was Paul’s conclusions (and Peter believes it was by wisdom Paul received from God) that appear in Paul's letters.

The bulk of Biblical inspiration is the “wisdom” kind. Writers were able to interpret events of their times and apply what they knew of God’s character as well as what was available to them in written form. They preached in person and in writing God’s will by the wisdom (inspiration) that God gave them.