What do you think?
Rate this book
The Jesus Prophecies: How to Understand the Old Testament Messianic Passages
The messianic prophecies of Jesus are one of the most discussed, yet often misunderstood, topics of the Bible. Join one of the world's leading scripture scholars in exploring this fascinating subject.
This nine-lecture audio series takes you on a gripping journey from the Age of the Prophets to the Babylonian Exile (587 BC) to the writing of the Dead Sea Scrolls during Jesus’ time. Along the way, you will explore essential passages in both the Old and New Testaments, shedding light on your understanding of Jesus as the Messiah.
What exactly does the word messianic mean? Under the guidance of Fr. Michael Guinan, OFM, you will dive into the biblical passages that address the concept of the Messiah, looking at the Davidic covenant and the promise of the "anointed king" in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the post-exilic prophets. You will also explore how the New Testament addresses Jesus as the fulfillment of these messianic prophecies.
After examining how early Christian texts addressed messianic meanings, you will look back over the road you've traveled to ask the most essential questions: In what sense can we say that the Old Testament "predicts" Jesus as messiah? And what does it mean to say that Jesus fulfills such promises?
If you love to explore scripture and faith, this course is for you.
This nine-lecture audio series takes you on a gripping journey from the Age of the Prophets to the Babylonian Exile (587 BC) to the writing of the Dead Sea Scrolls during Jesus’ time. Along the way, you will explore essential passages in both the Old and New Testaments, shedding light on your understanding of Jesus as the Messiah.
What exactly does the word messianic mean? Under the guidance of Fr. Michael Guinan, OFM, you will dive into the biblical passages that address the concept of the Messiah, looking at the Davidic covenant and the promise of the "anointed king" in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the post-exilic prophets. You will also explore how the New Testament addresses Jesus as the fulfillment of these messianic prophecies.
After examining how early Christian texts addressed messianic meanings, you will look back over the road you've traveled to ask the most essential questions: In what sense can we say that the Old Testament "predicts" Jesus as messiah? And what does it mean to say that Jesus fulfills such promises?
If you love to explore scripture and faith, this course is for you.
Audible Audio
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 8, 2021
This series of lectures is by a Catholic scholar, but rather than presenting the interpretation of the passages that normally would be given by a confessional Christian he shared interpretations that result from modern historical research. Drawing from mainstream critical scholarship, he points out that ancient Israelites were likely originally Canaanites who replaced Baal with YHWH, maintained much of the Canaanite mythology: YHWH, rode upon the clouds, like Baal was known to. As Baal fought and defeated Yam, the Psalmist declare that YWHW defeated Yam and slew the Rehab. The way YHWH was enthroned in Israel was through his earthly Messiah, who carried his rule on the earth. In Ps 89, David, YHWH's Anointed One, has ascribed to him the activities that were earlier ascribed to YHWH. David is to take the chaos waters and bring YHWHs order in the world and destroy his enemies. The Davidic Covenant was that one of David's sons was to always be on the throne, and in 1 Sam 7, and Ps 89, it was was given as an unconditional and everlasting promise; not contingent upon the righteousness of David's descendants. All early references to a Messiah spoke of actually kings and descendants of David, though Chief priests were also known as Messiahs.
Eventually, however, Babylon did away with the Davidic monarchy, The Psalmist of the last section of 89 calls YHWH a liar, who was unfaithful and profaned the covenant. Other writers like that of 1 Kings, and another psalmist, simply changed the Davidic covenant, to make it conditional upon perfect whole-hearted obedience of every king, like the Mosaic covenant given in Deuteronomy was conditional. Others like Isaiah and Jeremiah though, started to hope that the monarchy, though cut down like a tree, would spring forth a branch; that God must be true to his word, so eventually God would raise up another Davidic king to rule, and thus once again God would be enthroned in Zion. It was pointed out how the northern Israelites had no such hopes, nor the Samaritans, who simply held the Torah as sacred and didn't accept the Judean's love for David.
Eventually, in the 2nd century BC, the author of Danial wrote of the Son of Man who would come down and have an everlasting dominion after the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes. The author's own interpretation of the vision suggests the "Son of Man" was Israel (described as a man compared to the beast), but others interpreted the Son of Man as the angel Michael, this all would take on a life of its own in Qumran literature, and a long time later, some begin to think of the Son of Man as the Messiah.
Other prophecies that Christians believed Messianic, but don't appear to be, is a promise to Ahaz in Isaiah 7, that a young woman (likely his wife; it doesn't use the word to designate a virgin in the original Hebrew) who was with child (likely Hezekiah) would be a sign that Assyria wouldn't do them in. Later high titles are ascribed to this king, a common thing to do. In Micah 5, around the time of Hezekiah, we have a promise that a Davidic ruler from Bethleham would arise and destroy the Assyrians, which didn't happen. In Isaiah 53, we have a suffering servant, spoken of in past tense, no one has a clue who it was representing when it was originally penned. And so on. As Guinan points, there is literally not a single prophecy that clearly predicts Jesus.
He pointed how the prophets did a really poor job predicting the future in general; one scholar estimates 50% of predictive prophecy didn't occur. A Fascinating example is where Ezekial promises Nebuchadnezzar that he would conquer Tyre. Later in Ezekial however, it recognizes Nebuchadnezzar failed in his campaign against Tyre, so Ezekial prophecies he'd take and conquer Egypt, something that didn't occur.
Matthew taking Micah 5 out of context, and believing it to be future has to somehow get Jesus who was from Nazareth to be born in Bethlehem, and due to his misreading of Isaiah 7 in the Septuegent, he had to make Jesus be born of a virgin. After the fact, Isaiah 53, though never before thought previously as speaking of the Messiah, was a helpful way to make sense of a Jesus who had to suffer.
Different Christians saw Jesus as becoming the Messiah at different time, one verse states Jesus would become the Messiah at his second coming, another that it was at his Ascension, another that it was at his resurrection, another that it was at his baptism, another that it was at his birth and another that in the begin was the Logos.
His closing points was how Catholics have now realized that the previous insistence that the OT clearly predicted Jesus as the Messiah, tragically resulted in horrible treatment of the Jews, who are thought to therefore be intentionally suppressing the truth, denying the obvious, and NT terms to be from below, evil, unchosen and hard-hearted Christ-killers whose father is the devil. And thus, it is high time to allow biblical scholarship to show us that we have no grounds for condemning the Jews for their reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, for in light of their scriptures, in light of the historical meaning, a crucified Messiah is an oxymoron. But Christians can still have faith that Jesus is the Messiah, and though not found in the original context of the scriptures, Jesus provided a fuller meaning.
I found it quite interesting, how the entire book seems to tear down any of the apologetic arguments that try point out Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy and that it is thus rational to put our trust in him, and then still proposes taking a blind leap. I suppose for Biblical Scholars, who accept what seems rather strong evidence for the thoroughly human and error-ridden scriptural text, who yet remain Christian, they are forced towards Fideism--removing what is assumed as the main grounding for faith--the inerrant word of God, really highlights the degree faith that is required.
Eventually, however, Babylon did away with the Davidic monarchy, The Psalmist of the last section of 89 calls YHWH a liar, who was unfaithful and profaned the covenant. Other writers like that of 1 Kings, and another psalmist, simply changed the Davidic covenant, to make it conditional upon perfect whole-hearted obedience of every king, like the Mosaic covenant given in Deuteronomy was conditional. Others like Isaiah and Jeremiah though, started to hope that the monarchy, though cut down like a tree, would spring forth a branch; that God must be true to his word, so eventually God would raise up another Davidic king to rule, and thus once again God would be enthroned in Zion. It was pointed out how the northern Israelites had no such hopes, nor the Samaritans, who simply held the Torah as sacred and didn't accept the Judean's love for David.
Eventually, in the 2nd century BC, the author of Danial wrote of the Son of Man who would come down and have an everlasting dominion after the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes. The author's own interpretation of the vision suggests the "Son of Man" was Israel (described as a man compared to the beast), but others interpreted the Son of Man as the angel Michael, this all would take on a life of its own in Qumran literature, and a long time later, some begin to think of the Son of Man as the Messiah.
Other prophecies that Christians believed Messianic, but don't appear to be, is a promise to Ahaz in Isaiah 7, that a young woman (likely his wife; it doesn't use the word to designate a virgin in the original Hebrew) who was with child (likely Hezekiah) would be a sign that Assyria wouldn't do them in. Later high titles are ascribed to this king, a common thing to do. In Micah 5, around the time of Hezekiah, we have a promise that a Davidic ruler from Bethleham would arise and destroy the Assyrians, which didn't happen. In Isaiah 53, we have a suffering servant, spoken of in past tense, no one has a clue who it was representing when it was originally penned. And so on. As Guinan points, there is literally not a single prophecy that clearly predicts Jesus.
He pointed how the prophets did a really poor job predicting the future in general; one scholar estimates 50% of predictive prophecy didn't occur. A Fascinating example is where Ezekial promises Nebuchadnezzar that he would conquer Tyre. Later in Ezekial however, it recognizes Nebuchadnezzar failed in his campaign against Tyre, so Ezekial prophecies he'd take and conquer Egypt, something that didn't occur.
Matthew taking Micah 5 out of context, and believing it to be future has to somehow get Jesus who was from Nazareth to be born in Bethlehem, and due to his misreading of Isaiah 7 in the Septuegent, he had to make Jesus be born of a virgin. After the fact, Isaiah 53, though never before thought previously as speaking of the Messiah, was a helpful way to make sense of a Jesus who had to suffer.
Different Christians saw Jesus as becoming the Messiah at different time, one verse states Jesus would become the Messiah at his second coming, another that it was at his Ascension, another that it was at his resurrection, another that it was at his baptism, another that it was at his birth and another that in the begin was the Logos.
His closing points was how Catholics have now realized that the previous insistence that the OT clearly predicted Jesus as the Messiah, tragically resulted in horrible treatment of the Jews, who are thought to therefore be intentionally suppressing the truth, denying the obvious, and NT terms to be from below, evil, unchosen and hard-hearted Christ-killers whose father is the devil. And thus, it is high time to allow biblical scholarship to show us that we have no grounds for condemning the Jews for their reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, for in light of their scriptures, in light of the historical meaning, a crucified Messiah is an oxymoron. But Christians can still have faith that Jesus is the Messiah, and though not found in the original context of the scriptures, Jesus provided a fuller meaning.
I found it quite interesting, how the entire book seems to tear down any of the apologetic arguments that try point out Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy and that it is thus rational to put our trust in him, and then still proposes taking a blind leap. I suppose for Biblical Scholars, who accept what seems rather strong evidence for the thoroughly human and error-ridden scriptural text, who yet remain Christian, they are forced towards Fideism--removing what is assumed as the main grounding for faith--the inerrant word of God, really highlights the degree faith that is required.
Displaying 1 of 1 review