#STRask - How Is Prophecy About the Messiah Recognized?

Episode Date: May 19, 2025

Questions about how to recognize prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament and whether or not Paul is just making Scripture say what he wants it to say when he appears to use Old Testament passages out of context.   I heard a pastor connect Psalm 69:21 with John 19:28–30, saying it was Old Testament prophecy being fulfilled, but it doesn’t look like prophecy to me. How is prophecy about the Messiah recognized? How do we know Paul is not just making Scripture say what he wants it to say when he appears to use Old Testament passages out of context?

– music – I'm Amy Hall. Thanks for joining us on the hashtag SDR Ask podcast from Stan to Reason, starring Greg Kogel. Amy, don't say that. With Greg and Amy. All right, with Greg and Amy. Okay, Greg, we have some questions about the Bible today, and we're going to start with one from Michael. And here's his question. I heard a pastor reference the vinegar slash sour wine in Psalm 6921 and connect it with John 19, 28 through 30, saying it was an Old Testament prophecy being fulfilled.

I see similarities between the two, but see David lamenting, not prophesying. How is prophecy about the Messiah recognized? Well that's a great question and it's a hard one to answer. All right, I have a couple of guidelines. I want to just read the passage. The verse itself simply says, they also gave me gall for my food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. If you look higher above that, that's verse 21 and verse 16, there's an appeal that God

would answer him based on his loving kindness and rescue him from the anguish that he's experiencing and the difficulties that he's experiencing. And certainly this is first-person stuff about David. I would think that's the most natural way to put it. But at the same time, there appear to be these passages that have reference to Jesus prophetically. Now I've always been uncomfortable with these kind of passages because I would rather cite prophecy fulfilled in the life of Jesus, which clearly in the original context in the Old Testament looks forward to Jesus. You know, I think Isaiah 53 does that. Clearly it's talking about somebody that's going to suffer in this particular way, and it's not Israel. I think that Psalm 22 is similar like that. The Daniel prophecy about

the 70 weeks, this is clearly for the future. But these little kind of innuendos that you see in passages that seem to make sense in the context of the passage written by the psalmist, in this case David, you wonder how is this phrase isolated and then applied to Jesus. And there are two things that I would say that help out. One of them is when the New Testament authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, identify a passage as being one that has a reference to Christ. Now in prophetic utterance, prophetic scriptures, prophetic revelation, you have a category or sometimes a dynamic where you have a dual fulfillment.

There's a picture of something happening in the moment, but it also has ramifications for the future. Think of Jesus' comment about Elijah coming, and I thought Elijah was going to come first, and Jesus said, well, Elijah did come, sort of, in John the Baptist. But then we read Revelation, what, 11, and I think that's where the two witnesses, one maybe Elijah, kind of show up again at the end, and so there's a kind of a dual fulfillment, and sometimes that seems to be the case. And I think part of the reason that God did it this way is so these hints would show up in the Old Testament, but people wouldn't be able to put it all together in a precise way, for one, and it couldn't be in a certain sense

artificially fulfilled. And so when we have New Testament authors looking back at passages like this one, I'm not sure what the text in John says, if it just uses the same language or it says, so that the prophecy would be fulfilled, and then we have a reference to this. Do you have that right? Yeah, so it says, after this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the scripture, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the scripture, said, I am thirsty. Yeah, okay. And so what we have is, in a certain sense, God-inspired insight into the Hebrew scriptures

by an inspired author saying, God meant this when he wrote that, when David wrote that. All right? So that's one thing to help. Another thing is when the Jewish rabbis of the time understood these passages to be messianic. Psalm 2 is an example of what appears to be an obvious messianic psalm. And I'm trying to think of the book written by Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah is one of them, then he has another one about Judaism and their famous resource books written a long time ago, but he's got a whole appendix showing the rabbinic interpretation of Old

Testament passages that they saw as being messianic. Now, I don't know how they figured that out. Sometimes I think it's their familiarity with the language, especially the language and the statements that were made in the context of the culture they were deeply familiar with, that they were able to see things that we aren't able to now, removed in time and culture and language. But that's another source. These guys seem to have seen something in there that referred back. But I think there are also other things that are fulfilled, sometimes typologically. Out of Egypt I have called my son. What was that promise? The scripture. It doesn't say that. But we do see the nation of Israel drawn out of Egypt, and it seems to be referring to

that fulfillment of a typology. Okay? So there are different ways to kind of understand that, but at the same time, I think there's kind of a mystery here. And I remember the first time I met Stephen Meyer and had him speak for a thing at Hope Chapel before Standard Reids and even started. And we had something going on there and we had him come out and we had dinner and he taught on this. And he taught on this issue. And I can't remember all of what he said all these years later, but one of the things is that sometimes expos facto, when all these things come fall into place kind of after the fact of the Old Testament revelation, you start seeing all of these bits and pieces tying together. And it gives the impression of a supernatural hand that's at work.

And even though the passage didn't seem at first glance to our reading to be referring to something future in an individual person known as the Messiah, when you see all these things that are consistent with his life, you see this pattern. And then it kind of comes together and there's understanding when the fulfillment takes place and you can see the things. Now I realize that may feel to some people like, well that sounds like cheating a little bit, but I don't know, I think there's something there. I think it's worth considering.

There is certainly a mystery about some of this, Michael. I get that. And I don't know all the reasons, or as let's see, I can't divine the technique, you know, where we're able to isolate all of the Messianic passages, especially when some of them seem to be referring to circumstances in the moment. A virgin shall give birth, you know, Isaiah seven. So, wow, that seemed to apply to a circumstance there, but there are other details that project that into the future such that the

gospel writers can make reference to it as a prophecy of Jesus. And by the way, the virgin, I mean the word there in Hebrew is Alma, but when the Septuagint translated that passage, this is all Jewish authors translated the passage in the Greek, they used the Greek word pothanos, which means virgin, unambiguously. So they saw something in that too, even though when we look at it, we wouldn't see that. And I think that's part of the answer. But I think there's a kind of mystery here too. And unless we have really good reason to identify a verse as an Old Testament prophetic word, then I think we have to be a little careful and kind of hold those interpretations with a bit of a loose grip. Now I think that the pastor, Michael's pastor, who was probably completely justified because the wording is exactly the same and the New Testament author identifies this passage as one referring to Christ.

You have to remember the Holy Spirit has inspired all of scripture, so we should expect to see these interactions between all the parts and especially if he reveals that's solid proof that's what it was about. But I think when we look at how God was doing things throughout history, what we see is a certain pattern. We see that he was creating certain things that would shape the imaginations and the worldviews of the people without they're even realizing it necessarily. So, you see him creating the tabernacle in a certain way with certain things that would prefigure Christ. They were, Hebrews talks about them being shadows of what was to come and talks about Moses having to make things in a particular way because they were shadows

of particular things to come. Now God didn't say, these are shadows of things to come. He was just shaping the way they looked at the world. Until we get to Hebrews. Right. Yeah. I mean, ex post facto. Exactly.

Right. Exactly. But at the time when he was setting it up, another example would be marriage. So God creates marriage and that is a shadow of Christ and the church that we don't find out until later. That's the mystery, right. So there are all sorts of visual parables that God gives to shape the understanding of the people so that as time goes on, they recognize the things that are the things of

God. Sure. It's kind of like if you are very familiar with an author and you read all a bunch of his books, you can recognize certain things and certain ideas. And when you're reading the book, even if you don't know it's the author, you might say, wait a minute, this sounds like so-and-so. Because you recognize the artistic handiwork of that author. And I think that's part of what's happening here. Another example would be what C.S. Lewis was doing with the Chronicles of

Narnia. He was trying to shape the imaginations of children so that when they encounter Christianity, they would recognize it. And I think that's what God is doing with all of these passages that maybe we don't see is a prophecy of Jesus or a type of Jesus until we get to the New Testament and there's like an explicit statement saying that, oh yes, this was referring to Jesus. Yeah, we see that in Hebrews. We actually see it in Acts 6, or make that Acts 7, where Stephen is making his defense and he's given this whole history of Israel and then he applies all of these particulars to Jesus and basically sums it up by saying, you guys and your fathers always rejected God's anointed and you're doing it again. Okay, so we see that kind of typology there. I mentioned mystery a few moments ago and you were talking about the church kind of revealed the

Gentiles' role in to becoming one. When I used the word just a moment ago, mystery, I was referring to a more technical sense that Paul uses it. There's something that is, in a certain sense, hinted at in the Old Testament that people don't see until the New Testament, and then this mystery is revealed, then we see it in its fullness, and then we can look back and realize, oh, this is, that's what was going on in these kind of more subtle references to it. They're one of the thought that came to mind about recognizing patterns in a certain sense, like a writer's voice and everything. I think when you read the Gospels a lot and you understand Jesus' way of teaching and his way of speaking historically, you realize he has a certain way of doing that. He has a certain voice, okay? I mean, physical voice and pattern. And so nowadays when you find these people that are

saying, here's what Jesus told me to tell you. For example, there was one thing going around in our community a number of years ago where the pastor's wife had heard from Jesus, and Jesus says, allegedly, and this is to the local community church, I know you're really excited about my second coming. I'm more excited about it than you are. Now I know Jesus would never say that. This is not Jesus' voice. Jesus talks very differently. And when you read all of these so-called,

whatever, even books that people write that have, here's what Jesus said, you realize that in the way Jesus talks. I read Jesus in the authorized scripture, you know, in the inspired scripture. He had a certain way of dealing with things. He didn't sound frivolous. He didn't sound scattered. He didn't sound silly. And that's the way a lot of these people, they write Jesus' words in their own voice. And that's why it sounds that way, not Jesus.

And that helps you when you're familiar with Jesus, you realize you can spot a phony. And so anyway, I just wanted to add that to what you're saying. Even if you can't put your finger on all the exact things you read that made you think this is not him. So I think that, again, that's what's going on throughout the whole Bible. All right, Greg, so here's a question that follows somewhat from this, and we've covered some of this already, but this one comes from Josh. In Romans 10, Paul appears to use Old Testament scripture out of context to make his arguments. He picks and chooses certain passages, but they could be referring to something else in their respective context. How do we know that this is not just making scripture say

what he wants it to say? Well, my first response is that if you have a high view of scripture in the sense of inspiration, then you know God, I mean, sorry, Paul is not just kind of making it up as he goes along. I mean, I'm not sure what particular passage he's referring to, but in Romans 10, there's a passage in Romans 10 that talks about, you know, about the natural revelation of verse 18, their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the earth. Now I think he's speaking of the voice, quote unquote, of natural revelation, because the

way he's led into that, he says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But some will say, well, we didn't hear. And then Paul says, of course you have. And he started the book of Romans after starting verse 18 and following, saying, natural revelation reveals the Father. And for this reason, you're guilty for rejecting the Father, not rejecting the Son, but the Father. And then he's in chapter 10, he's talking about the voice of the missionary or the Christian that goes out and communicates the word,

how will they know, how would they believe in what they haven't heard, and how will they hear somebody hasn't been sent? So he's making that point, but then he falls back on natural revelation and he says, yeah, you don't have an excuse even if you haven't heard about Jesus, because you have already heard about the Father. And of course, that's my paraphrase of his point, but I think that's what he's getting at. Now I'm not sure if that's the verse that Josh is concerned about. I have a strong conviction based on my high view of Scripture that if Paul sees something in a text that has a theological significance that I don't see when I read that text, well, then Paul has divine insight on it. That doesn't give us the latitude, of course, when we're

interpreting to kind of find our own meaning in these texts, and some people take that liberty. But I don't think we have a liberty to do that. But there are times where you seem, and this goes back to the earlier question, where it seems to be the case that they're isolating something and making an application that doesn't seem justified to us. And I would say, great, a lot of these are Paul illustrating a certain principle. For example, he's talking about how many people in Israel rejected the truth even when they did hear it, and God said he was going to make them jealous by another nation. So he's showing principles of how God has worked in the past.

Now the one I think maybe he's referring to is towards the beginning of the chapter where he's talking about, do not say in your heart, who will ascend into heaven, that is to bring Christ down, or who will descend into the abyss, that is to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does it say? In this case, because I think that passage is about when God gave the law and saying that He has revealed it so they don't have to say we don't know what we're supposed to do. So in this case, I think what Paul is doing is he's taking an idea that they're familiar with and he's applying that idea to the idea of faith in Christ. So I don't

think he's necessarily saying that that passage was about Christ, bringing Christ down, but he's applying this idea that this is not too hard for you to do, this is Christ doing this for you. And he's using something they're familiar with, law, because he's talking about how they're no longer under the law, now they're joined to Christ. So I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We kind of do the same sort of thing where we'll use statements that maybe culturally we're very familiar with and we'll use them in a different context to try and communicate more than just the words. You're communicating the idea of what was being communicated at the beginning,

even though you're not saying that's exactly what it was saying. I hope that makes sense. Okay. That's all I have to say about that. Again, this goes back to the Holy Spirit, and, you know, he can use things however he wants. Right, right. And it's important, I'm glad for both Michael and Josh's question, because it basically, when we ask questions like that, it gives us pause as to how to use Scripture properly. And, you know, our strong emphasis is working with stuff in context and according to the authorial intent.

And that's the right way to approach these texts. Now the fact that inspired interpreters of scripture didn't always do it entirely like that, doesn't change or alter our responsibility because we're not inspired interpreters. Right. All right. We are out of time. Thank you so much, Michael and Josh.

We appreciate hearing from you. We'd love to hear from you with your question on X with the hashtag STRask or you can go to our website at str.org and just look for our hashtag STRask podcast page and you'll find a link there where you can submit your question. We'd love to hear from you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Coco for Stand to Reason.