Jesus in the Old Testament
This Class Study by Ashby Camp, has been reformatted to improve readibility
Click Here to Download the original PDF Version
I. Introduction
A. The Old Testament is that collection of divinely inspired writings that in English Bibles consists of the 39 books from Genesis through Malachi. These books refer to events from creation to Israel's situation in the fifth century B.C. after its return from Babylonian exile. With the possible exception of Job, these books were written from the time of Moses in the fifteenth century B.C. to some centuries before the birth of Jesus in 4-6 B.C. I say to "some centuries"
before his birth because it is uncertain when the last writing of the Old Testament was put into its final form by the inspired writers or editors, but we know they all were in existence and recognized at least a couple of centuries before Jesus.
B. The books recognized as Scripture by Jews in the first century (and today) were the same as the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament, except they combined them into 24 or 22 books and arranged them in a different order. The three basic structural units of the Hebrew Bible are Law, Prophets, and Writings. The Law consists of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets is divided into the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the Twelve). All the other books make up the Writings, which are grouped as poetical books, the five rolls, and historical books. (In the 22-book count, Ruth is combined with Judges and Lamentations is combined with Jeremiah.)
C. We know Jesus is referred to in the Old Testament because numerous passages in the New Testament declare that fact. When searching for those Old Testament references to Jesus, it is helpful and important to realize that they only come into focus with hindsight, with the benefit of looking back on them in light of Jesus' appearance and work. And even then, there still is room for people to argue, for people who do not want to see not to see. You do not get something like: "The Messiah will be born on 1st day of the month of Nisan in a house in Bethlehem owned by Judah ben Obed; his parents will be Joseph and Mary of Nazareth; he will be named Jesus, will be crucified as atonement for humanity's sins on Passover in the 4th year of the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and will be raised from the dead on the third day."
1. The Old Testament scholar Iain Duguid remarks, "As Numbers 12:6–8 reminds us, prophecy by its very nature is often dark and obscure, unlike the Lord's clear word through Moses. In particular, some aspects of God's purposes in Christ necessarily remained veiled throughout the Old Testament period, only to be clarified through the coming of the Son."
2. This ambiguity is evident from the New Testament itself which reports it had to be argued that the Old Testament texts were referring to Jesus. That was not self-evident; it was not the case that everyone immediately recognized the references were about Jesus. After Jesus' coming, the references to him became reasonably clear, clear enough to be seen by any who were willing to see, but even then they were not so overpowering or indisputable as to leave no room for rationalization by those bent on denying them. As Duguid says:
One way to think about this is to imagine attending a "prophecy conference" in
the year 10 BC. By then, the participants would have had the entire Old
Testament, as well as several centuries of reflection on it during the
intertestamental period. Yet if someone had presented a paper anticipating the
crucifixion of the Messiah on the basis of Psalm 22, or his resurrection on the
basis of Psalm 16, or even the virgin birth on the basis of Isaiah 7, some vigorous
debate might have ensued. It was not obvious ahead of time that these prophecies
should be interpreted in that way.
The plain message of the gospel runs throughout every page of God's Word. However, with the benefit of hindsight, the New Testament authors rightly identified these texts as finding their anticipated fulfilment in Christ's life, death,
and resurrection. It is not that the New Testament writers were creatively assigning new and alien meanings to these old texts. Rather, the force of Jesus's statement that it was "necessary that the Christ should suffer these things" (Luke
24:26) suggests that a proper reading of the Old Testament expectation of the messiah necessarily compelled them to recognize Jesus Christ as its true fulfillment. This is why Paul could argue from the Old Testament so convincingly
in the context of Jewish evangelism.
3. I suspect God veiled these references at least in part to prevent Satan from knowing beforehand that Christ's death and resurrection was the means of redemption.
a. This was part of God's outwitting of Satan. If Satan knew the plan, he certainly would have tried to prevent Jesus from being crucified instead of moving Judas to bring it about (Lk. 22:3-4, 53-54; Jn. 8:39-44, 13:2, 27). And since Satan was well acquainted with the Scriptures, as he quotes them in the temptation of Christ (Mat. 4:1-11; Lk. 4:1-13), being plain and explicit in the Old Testament about Christ's crucifixion and resurrection would have let him know the plan in advance. Part of the beauty of the outwitting is that the pieces were there, as recognized after the fact, but Satan's failure to perceive the significance of those pieces led him to bring about the very thing prophesied. How marvelous is that? Recall how Paul points out in 1 Cor. 2:8 that none of the rulers of this age understood God's secret wisdom "for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
b. If I am correct in this, Satan was not directly behind Peter's attempt to dissuade Jesus from the cross in Mat. 16:23 (Mk. 8:33). Rather, Jesus calls Peter "Satan" because Peter was talking in a way that opposed the plan of God; he was acting as an adversary, talking the way Satan would talk if he knew the plan. The literal meaning of the Greek word satan is adversary.
c. In relation to this, I assume Christ kept from Satan the more explicit things he taught his disciples about his death and resurrection, which they still did not grasp. Satan could never eavesdrop on any teaching the Lord did not wish him to hear.
4. God may have veiled other references to Christ's identity and life, things not related to his death and resurrection as the means of redemption, to leave just the right intellectual space, the space he desired, for those who want to deny that Jesus is the Messiah to justify that denial. The indications of Christ's identity and work are clear enough after the fact to be evidence for the truth of the gospel for those with eyes to see, but the ambiguity allows them to be rationalized away by those who refuse to see.
a. This way of working is reflected, albeit in a different context, in Christ's words in Mat. 11:25-26 (see also, Lk. 10:21): 25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."
b. We recognize in other settings that there may be valid reasons for not providing all possible evidence for the truth of a matter you want someone to believe; there may be valid reasons for not catering to someone's skepticism by providing additional evidence. Imagine, for example, that a husband asked his wife if he was the father of a child to whom she gave birth during their marriage. You could understand the wife not providing him with lie-detector or DNA evidence, not because she didn't want him to accept the truth that he was the father but because she wanted him to accept it on the evidence she provided, her declaration that he was the father. What I am suggesting is that God had his own reasons for not making the prophecies so clear and specific as to constitute inescapable proof of Jesus' identity.
D. It is also important to realize the Old Testament refers to Jesus in multiple ways. There are prophecies that speak of him, but there also are events recorded, roles performed, institutions established, practices commanded, and specific people that foreshadow his work, things intended by God to be prophetic pictures of that work. These also have varying degrees of ambiguity, but as with prophecies, they are reasonably clear with the hindsight of Jesus' work.
​
E. Our study of this subject certainly will not be exhaustive. Indeed, estimates of the number of messianic prophecies run as high as the hundreds. I am going to focus on some of the better known references to Jesus in the Old Testament, and I am not going to include appearances of the "angel of the Lord," which possibly or probably were preincarnate appearances of God the Son. If I do not include your favorite reference, maybe the next person to tackle the subject will do so.
​​​
II. Old Testament indications of Messiah's sufferings and rising from the dead
A. References in the New Testament
Many of the New Testament passages that declare the Old Testament speaks of Jesus refer to the Old Testament's indications of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection. You may be surprised at how often this point is raised. In the following texts, I have underlined the words referring to the Old Testament and put in bold type the words referring or alluding to his suffering, death, and/or resurrection.
1. Matthew 16:21: 21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
2. Matthew 26:24: 24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."
3. Matthew 26:53-56: 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 should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the
prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled.
4. Mark 9:12: 12 And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with ontempt?
5. Mark 14:48-49: 48 And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled."
6. Luke 9:21-22: 21 And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one, 22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."
7. Luke 18:31: 31 And taking the twelve, he said to them, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. 32 For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. 33 And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the
third day he will rise."
8. Luke 24:25-26: 25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
9. Luke 24:44-47: 44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed
in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
​
10. John 12:32-34: 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die. 34 So the crowd answered him, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?"
11. John 20:8-9: 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
12. Acts 3:18: 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.
13. Acts 13:27-29: 27 For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him. 28 And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.
14. Acts 17:2-3, 11: 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ." . . . 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were
so.
15. Acts 26:22-23, 27: 22 "To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: 23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles." . . . 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe."
16. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5: 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to
Cephas, then to the twelve.
17. 1 Peter 1:10-11: 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.
B. Old Testament indications to which the New Testament refers
1. Suffering and death
a. Psalm 22
(1) This psalm was written by David, who died almost a thousand years before Jesus was born (971/970 BC). David, of course, was the prophesied ancestor of the Messiah, the ultimate King, the ultimate Anointed One. I will look at that connection in more detail down the road, but for now I just want you to see that his relationship with the expected Messiah was understood in Judaism. For example, some of the people declare in Jn. 7:42, "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" Indeed, "Son of David" was used as a title for the Messiah. You recall how the crowds during Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem were shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David!" (e.g., Mat. 21:9).
(2) David faced much suffering and opposition in his own life, and the skeptic will say that David is the innocent sufferer described in this psalm, but the suffering he describes transcends anything he experienced both in substance and effect. A far better understanding is that David, who was a prophet (2 Sam. 23:1-2; Mat. 22:43; Mk. 12:36; Acts
2:29-30), was revealing what was to be endured by his ultimate descendant, the coming Messiah.
Viewed in light of Jesus' coming and work, that identification is quite clear.
(3) Three times in the first 21 verses, David expresses his anguish (vv. 1-2, 6-8, 12-18). Each time he follows with an expression of his confidence in the presence of God and his ability to help (3-5, 9-11, 19-21).
(a) Some of the descriptions of his opposition are more general, such as being scorned by mankind, despised by the people, and mocked and sneered at. But others correspond quite specifically with the brutal treatment the Lord endured.
(b) His bones being out of joint (v. 14) and his tongue sticking to his jaws (meaning his gums or roof of his mouth) (v. 15) certainly suggest crucifixion. The piercing of his hands and feet (v. 16) and the ability to count his bones (v. 17) as when one is stretched out on a cross leave little room for doubt. The casting of lots for his clothes (v. 18),
as happened in the case of Christ, is amazingly specific.
(4) Verses 22-31 depict the jubilant triumph over death and suffering. I will discuss that section below with the other texts indicating the Messiah's resurrection.
(5) Psalm 22 is cited in reference to Jesus by several New Testament writers, which makes that reference certain.
(a) Matthew cites Ps. 22:18 in Mat. 27:35: And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots (see also, Lk. 23:34). John states expressly in Jn. 19:24 that this was in fulfillment of the Scripture we know as Ps. 22:18.
(b) Matthew cites Ps. 22:1 in Mat. 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (see also, Mk. 15:34). There are two main possibilities for what Jesus meant in uttering these words.
[1] It was common in ancient Judaism to invoke an entire psalm simply by quoting the first line of it. If that is what Jesus is doing here, then rather than a cry of despair evoked by a sense of abandonment he is expressing hope and confidence in ultimate delivery. Brant Pitre states, "When the whole psalm is taken into account, Jesus's words make crystal clear that although he appears to be forsaken in his suffering and death, in the end
God will hear him and save him."
[2] It also is possible that Jesus quoted Ps. 22:1 not to the ultimate vindication expressed in the overall psalm but because he was experiencing the agony and pain of forsakenness that David expressed in that particular verse. As Jesus receives the full weight of God's judgment against all the sins of the world, as he becomes a curse for us (Gal. 3:13) and is made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), he experiences a painful alienation from the Father and cries out. Andreas K stenberger and Justin Taylor state:
In some mysterious way beyond our human understanding, Jesus, the second
person of the Trinity, is cut off and separated from God because he is bearing the
sin of humanity and enduring God's wrath as a substitute for and in place of sinful
humans. Of course, Jesus knows how Psalm 22 ends – in vindication – and may be
reminding us that forsakenness is not the end of the story.
​
(c) Revelation 1:7 probably refers either to Ps. 22:16 or Zech. 12:10.
b. Isaiah 50:4-9[11] and 52:13–53:12
(1) Isaiah prophesied in the latter half of the eighth century B.C. The Book of Isaiah has two major literary units. Chapters 1-39 focus on the concerns and sociopolitical realities of Isaiah's day, whereas chapters 40-66 anticipate Judah's exile to Babylon over a century later and address the concerns of those future exiles. Robert Chisholm writes:
[God] can decree and announce events long before they happen. Having warned
that the exile would come, this same God, speaking through his prophet,
addresses this future generation of exiles in advance and speaks in very specific
ways to their circumstances. Such a unique message, originating decades before
the situation it addresses, was designed to challenge the disheartened exiles to
look to the future with hope and anticipation.
​
Isaiah's rhetorical approach in chapters 40–66 may be compared to an aging grandfather who writes a letter to his baby granddaughter and seals it with the words, "To be opened on your wedding day." The grandfather knows he may not live to see his granddaughter's wedding, but he understands the challenges she will face as a wife and mother. He projects himself into the future and speaks to his granddaughter as if he were actually present on her wedding day. One can imagine the profound rhetorical impact such a letter would have on the granddaughter as she recognizes the foresight and wisdom contained within it and realizes how much her grandfather cared for her. When God's exiled people, living more than 150 years after Isaiah's time, heard this message to them, they should have realized that God had foreseen their circumstances and that he cared enough about them to encourage them with a message of renewed hope
(2) Chapters 40–55 assume the perspective of the future exiles and focus on the hope of restoration and renewal for Israel and the nations. It includes four sections that are known as the "Servant Songs," sections that speak of a special divine "servant" who will be instrumental in fulfilling God's purposes. They are 42:1-4[9], 49:1-6[13], 50:4-9[11], and 52:13-53:12.6 Though most modern Jews and some others assert that this "servant" is always the
nation of Israel, there are very good reasons for rejecting that claim. These include:
(a) The servant has a mission to Israel (49:5-6), which means he cannot be identical with Israel.
​
(b) The servant is made to be a "covenant for the people" (42:6), meaning the people of Israel, and thus cannot be equated with Israel. He inaugurates or mediates a covenant with them. "Israel is on the receiving end and not the one who is the subject and author of the covenant."
(c) The servant is "cut off" from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of God's people (53:8). He is distinct from God's people; they are the beneficiaries of his death.
(d) "The Branch" is called God's servant in Zech. 3:8, and "the Branch" clearly is the Messiah in Jer. 23:5-6, 33:14-15, and Zech. 6:12-13, as acknowledged by ancient Jewish interpretation up until the Middle Ages. This supports understanding Isaiah's use of "servant" as messianic in the relevant texts.
(e) "[T]he description of the Servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 does not match the description the prophet Isaiah gave to the nation of Israel, or of any other mortals on planet earth for that matter."
(f) The servant's life is made a "guilt offering" (53:10), which by reference to that offering in Leviticus implies he was a specimen without blemish. Certainly the nation of Israel does not qualify.
(3) Though distinct from the nation of Israel, this special divine Servant is connected to Israel, which explains the similar language that is used of both.
​
(a) Chisholm states:
It seems apparent that the servant, though "Israel" in some sense, is also distinct
from exiled Israel. Later references to this servant support this conclusion, for the
servant suffers on behalf of Israel. Like many of the prophets, he faces opposition
and oppression, but ironically his suffering plays a vital part in God's redemption
of his sinful, exiled people. When viewed in this larger context, the servant is
apparently an "ideal" Israel who is closely linked to, but nevertheless distinct
from, the sinful nation.
(b) Christopher Wright states:
To sum up what we have found so far, then: Israel was the servant of God, chosen
and upheld by him, with the purpose of being a light to the nations, as was the
original intention of the election of Abraham. But historically, Israel was failing in
that role and mission. Israel as the servant of God was "blind and deaf" and under
God's judgment. The individual Servant is thus at one level distinct from Israel because
he has a mission to Israel, to challenge them and call them back to God. The
restoration of Israel, God's servant, is the task of the Servant himself. Yet at another
level, the Servant is identified with Israel and similar language is used of both. This
is because, in the surprising purposes of God, the Servant enables the original mission
of Israel to be fulfilled. That is, through him God's justice, liberation, and salvation will
be extended to the nations. The universal purpose of the election of Israel is to he achieved
through the mission of the Servant.
(4) The third and fourth Servant Songs (50:4-9[11] and 52:13–53:12) refer to the Messiah's physical suffering and death. The Servant says in Isa. 50:6, "I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting." The striking of the back, the disgrace, and the spitting all are part ofthe Lord's crucifixion as reported in the New Testament.
(5) Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is an amazing prophecy of the Servant's suffering and death that was fulfilled by Jesus in detail. Kaiser remarks, "Undoubtedly, this is the summit of OT prophetic literature. Few passages can rival it for clarity on the suffering, death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah."
(a) Isaiah 52:13-15 – He says his Servant will prosper (RSV, NAS, NRS, NJB, and NIV and ESV footnotes) or succeed (NET) (this is the sense of the more literal "act wisely"); he shall be lifted up and highly exalted. Just as many were astonished at
how the Servant's appearance had been marred by his brutal treatment, so the Servant will astonish many nations – kings will be speechless when his majesty and glory are manifested
before them on "that Day."
(b) Isaiah 53:1-3 – Speaking as a representative of Israel in the time of the Servant's suffering, up until his ultimate vindication, Isaiah asks rhetorically who among them believed the message about the Servant and who among them recognized the power of God (the arm of the LORD) at work in him. The implied answer is very few. On the contrary, he seemed insignificant, like a little twig on a tree or a sprout from parched ground that soon withers. He had no majestic bearing, no royal aura; on the contrary, he was rejected by others, experienced great suffering, and was shunned as one cursed by God.
(c) Isaiah 53:4-6 – This central stanza of the fourth song expresses the reality of the situation. Kaiser summarizes it this way:
The atonement of the Servant is given in the third stanza (53:4-6). First is the human occasion (v. 4),
stating the objective side of the reason for the Servant's suffering: He is bearing our infirmities and
sin in his body. But there is a subjective and emotional side as well: He is bearing our griefs and
sorrows. Then a terrible thing happens: We add it all up and conclude that the Servant must
have done something enormously wrong to be put on the cross. Instead of realizing that it is for us
and for our sins that the servant has died, we conclude that it is for the Servant's own sin that he is
smitten and stricken. ​
​​
But verse 5 warns us that God thinks differently. Note that all the verbs in his verse are passive; thus God is emphatically the actor as he does four things to the Messiah: (1) he allows him to be pierced by the nails on the cross; (2) he allows him to be slapped and bruised by the soldiers, to bear the weight of the cross, and to endure the shot of pain from the thrust of the spear on the cross; (3) he allows the punishment due to us to be carried out by the Servant so that we will not need to face the firing squad, the electric chair, or the gallows; and (4) he allows the wounds and stripes that Pilate's men administer to the Messiah and that should have come to us to be the means by which we are healed.
(d) 53:7-9 – The Servant submitted to his suffering and trial without defense (v. 7). He was led away after an unjust trial, without his generation, his contemporaries, considering or caring that he was put to death not for his own sin but for the transgression of his people (v. 8). He was assigned a grave with wicked men, meaning they intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up with a rich man in his death (v. 9). This, of course, was fulfilled in Jesus' being crucified with criminals and buried in the tomb of the rich man Joseph of Arimathea.
(e) 53:10-12 – These verses include an implication of the Servant's resurrection, which I will address with the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection, but they also refer to his death. Verse 10a says it was the LORD's will to crush him; he allowed sinners to kill him that he might serve as an atonement for sin. And v. 12 says that he poured out his soul to death.
(f) But even in this grandest of prophecies of the Messiah's suffering and death, there is ambiguity regarding the Servant's death, issues of translation and meaning, that veiled that revelation before the fact of its fulfillment in Jesus and left some wiggle room thereafter. But with the hindsight of the Jesus story, its meaning is reasonably clear, clear for all with eyes to see. As Herbert Bateman, Darrell Bock, and Gordon Johnston express it in
their book Jesus the Messiah:
​Thus, none of the five statements describing the Suffering Servant's plight in Isaiah 53:12
[sic, means Isaiah 53] demands his premature death because the language and imagery
is fraught with ambiguity. Yet when considered together, the plight of the Servant seems
so bleak that it is difficult to read this passage without assuming that he dies. The only
reason his death is not clear is that 53:10-11 describes God providing life and blessings
to him after he had suffered, while 52:13 and 52:15 portray God exalting him after he
suffered (cf. 49:8-9). Thus, we are left with two options. First, God would rescue the
Servant from premature death after he suffered a life-threatening plight. Second, God
would rescue the Servant from the power of death after he had physically died. Nonetheless,
the weight of the likelihood is that the Servant dies. If a comparison to a sacrifice is made
(53:10b), then a death seems even more likely. Yet a human sacrifice would have been
unthinkable, given God's rejection elsewhere of human sacrifice as a pagan practice. So
while the sacrificial death of the Messiah was present in the divinely designed wording of
our passage, it would have been unthinkable to its original readers. This explains why no
one in the first century was expecting the Messiah to die a propitiatory death. But this is
precisely what God did in Jesus the Messiah.
(6) Isaiah 50:4-9[11] and 52:13–53:12 are cited in reference to Jesus in the New Testament, which makes that reference certain.
(a) Jesus applied Isa. 50:6 to himself as he was heading to Jerusalem with his disciples. He said in Mk. 10:33-34a, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him." See also, Mat. 26:67-68, 27:30-31, and Mk. 14:65.
(b) Matthew 8:16-17 reports that Jesus' healing of the sick was a fulfillment of Isa. 53:4: Surely he has borne our griefs [sicknesses – HCSB; illnesses –NET; infirmities – NRS] and carried our sorrows [pains – HCSB, NET; diseases – NRS]; yet weesteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
(c) Jesus applied Isa. 53:12 to himself in Lk. 22:37. He said, 37 "For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
(d) Isaiah 53:1 is said to be fulfilled in Jesus in Jn. 12:38 and Rom. 10:16.
(e) Isaiah 53:9 (no deceit in his mouth) and 53:5 (he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; by his wounds you were healed) are applied to Jesus by Peter in 1 Pet. 2:22 and 24, respectively.
(f) And perhaps most famous is Philip's application of Isa. 53:7-8 to Jesus in his engagement with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30-35. It states:
30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what
you are reading?" 31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip
to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:
"Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens
not his mouth. 33 In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth." 34 And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask
you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" 35 Then Philip opened his
mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
​
c. Daniel 9:26
(1) The book of Daniel is an account of events involving a Jew from Jerusalem named Daniel. The events that are specifically dated in the book run from 605 B.C. down to 536 B.C. It is clear from the book itself that it was not composed until at least the latter part of the sixth century B.C., but scholars disagree over how long after that time the book was composed. But it clearly was in existence by the second century B.C. because manuscripts
of the book from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) are that old.
(2) Daniel 9:20-23 reports that the angel Gabriel, appearing as a man, came to Daniel while Daniel was praying in a state of extreme weariness or exhaustion, probably associated with his fasting. (This seems preferable to the translation that Gabriel came to him in swift flight – see NAS, NET, Goldingay, 228, and Steinmann, 444). Gabriel informs Daniel that because Daniel is greatly loved he has come to give him wisdom and understanding by delivering to him a message that went out when Daniel began praying.
(3) The message delivered by Gabriel in vv. 24-27 is widely recognized as one of the most difficult texts in the book and even in the entire Old Testament. This translation, which is a composite from various standard translations and scholarly commentators, will make it easier to follow my comments:
24 Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish
transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy [One]. 25
Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and
build Jerusalem to the coming of the Anointed One, the ruler, there will be seven
sevens and sixty-two sevens. It will have been rebuilt [with] plaza and moat, and in
distressing times. 26 Then after the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed One will be cut
off and have nothing. The people of the coming ruler will destroy the city and the
sanctuary; its end will be like a flood. And to the end there will be war; desolations
are decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant for the many [during] one seven. In the
middle of the seven, he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease. And on the wing
of abominations [comes] one who makes desolate until the decreed end is poured out
on the one being desolated.
(4) Because of God's great love for Daniel, which he was prompted to express by Daniel's tremendous prayer of contrition, God is giving him a vision of the future of the Jewish nation, the Jewish people as centered around the holy city of Jerusalem (9:24), that goes beyond the return from exile referred to by Jeremiah. Jim McGuiggan states, "God is saying to Daniel: 'Yes, I know 70 years were decreed and are now fulfilled, but Daniel, I have another decree. It is one which carries within it the outline of my completed work in regard to your nation.'"
(5) The message to Daniel indicates, consistent with the visions of chapters 2 and 7, that God's kingdom in the person of the Messiah, the great Davidic king, which kingdom is the full and true fulfillment for which they long, would not come at the time of their physical return from exile but only after a much longer time than the time they had spent in
exile (seventy sevens instead of seventy years). Israel's return from exile could be thought of as being tied tightly to the coming of the Messiah, one like Moses, who would lead this new "exodus." But the Messiah, the ultimate answer to their (and the nations') need, was still the rise of two kingdoms away.
(6) Through Messiah's coming, God will finally, effectively, and ultimately deal with transgression and sin and atone for iniquity; he will bring in everlasting righteousness, seal both vision and prophecy, in the sense of certifying their authenticity through fulfillment of their messages, and anoint the Most Holy [One] (9:24).
(7) In v. 25, Gabriel says that the sixty-nine sevens that precede the coming of the Messiah, the ruler/prince/leader, in the climactic seventieth seven divide into two groups or periods: a period of seven sevens and then a period of sixty-two sevens.
(a) A number of English versions translate the verse in keeping with the uninspired accents of the MT and thus start a new sentence or clause after the reference to seven sevens (RSV, NEB, NRSV, REB, ESV). The effect is that the anointed one is said to come after seven sevens, and the following sixty-two sevens refer to a time after his coming. This seems quite unlikely given that v. 26 specifies that the anointed one is "cut off" after the sixty-two sevens.
(b) Most English versions, however, have the anointed one, the Messiah, the ruler, coming after the combined periods of seven sevens and sixty-two sevens. This is in keeping with the ancient Greek versions. This not only makes more sense of v. 26, but it is quite possible that the MT accentuation was a reaction against the messianic interpretation of the text by early Christians.
(c) Before the Messiah, the ruler/prince/leader, comes, a period of seven sevens will run from the going out of the word to rebuild and restore Jerusalem until the city is actually rebuilt. Historically, this period of seven sevens ran from Cyrus's decree in 538 B.C. allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem to 445/444 B.C. when Neh. 7:1-2 makes clear that the city had been rebuilt. This suggests that seven sevens is not meant as a literal forty-nine years but as a symbol for the shorter phase, the rebuilding of Jerusalem phase, of the sixty-nine sevens that precede the climactic coming of the Messiah in the seventieth seven.
(d) The rebuilding of Jerusalem will be followed by a much longer period of time, symbolized by sixty-two sevens, in which the rebuilt city will exist through troubled times. (Another possible understanding is that the rebuilding of the city during the seven sevens would be over much opposition.) This is a reference mainly to the tumult of the Hellenistic era, especially the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, pictured in the vision of chapter 8.
(8) According to v. 26a, after this longer post-rebuilding phase of sixty-two sevens, that is, after the total of sixty-nine sevens (seven sevens + sixty-two sevens), the Messiah, the anointed one who is identified in v. 25 as a ruler/prince/leader, will be cut off. In the words of Isa. 53:8, he is "cut off from the land of the living." The following clause commonly is rendered "and have nothing," which means that when he is cut off he owns nothing and is completely abandoned by everyone. That obviously fits the Lord's death. However, the KJV, NKJV, footnote in the NIV, and some modern scholars believe the clause should be translated "but not for himself," which would indicate that his death was vicarious, something endured on behalf of others.
(9) So according to Gabriel in 9:26a, the Messiah was going to be put to death. Verse 9:26b-27 speak of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple that was to occur in association with the coming of Christ. It is possible the original text of v. 26b said only that "the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed with the coming ruler/prince/leader," but all the standard English translations accept the reading "the people of the coming ruler/prince/leader will destroy the city and the sanctuary."
(a) In the context, the coming ruler/prince/leader is the coming anointed one, the Messiah, who in the preceding verse is specifically identified as the ruler/prince/leader. Under the standard reading of v. 26b, it is his people, his ethnic kin (Rom. 9:4-5), meaning the Jewish people, who are said to destroy the city and the sanctuary. This need not mean they will do so directly, by their own hands. Rather, they will do so in the sense their infidelity and rejection of Christ will bring God's judgment on the city, which he will administer through the troops of Rome.
(b) In The Jewish Wars Josephus places the blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the Jewish zealots who brought down the wrath of Rome. In doing so, he illustrates how Jews rather than Romans can be seen as the cause of the destruction, despite the fact the Romans did the actual destroying. So it is a perfectly understandable concept.
(10) According to v. 26c, the city's end will come with the destructiveness of a flood. More specifically, it will come by means of war pursuant to desolations decreed by God. In Lk. 19:41-44 Jesus spoke of this destruction that was going to result from their rejection of him, their killing of him, because they "did not know the time of [their] visitation": 41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation." This prophesied destruction of Jerusalem is also referred to in Mat. 23:36-39, 24:1-2, 15; Mk. 13:1-2, 14; and Lk. 13:34-35, 21:5-6, 20, 24.
​​​​​​
(2) The second clause alludes to that deeper, harmony-destroying conflict between Satan and mankind to which the enmity between humans and physical snakes points. It speaks of one man (he, singular), a descendant of Eve, who shall bruise the head of the serpent (your, singular) not that of the serpent's offspring. The conflict between Satan and mankind that is symbolized in the decreed conflict between humans and snakes ends with Christ, the God-man, prevailing over Satan, the fallen spirit-being who animated the serpent in the garden.
​
g. I am aware that many understand the serpent's offspring in the first clause to be a reference to humans who take after Satan in character, those who are his "sons" in that figurative sense (see, e.g., Mat. 13:38; Jn. 8:44; Acts 13:10). The hostility in that case is between the people of God, called the offspring of the woman, and those who are not in a relationship with God. What steers me away from that understanding of the text is that Eve seems an odd representative of the people of God, the faithful human lineage, given that she is described as the mother of all the living in 3:20 and the statement is in the context of her rebellion. But either way, we are in agreement about the allusion to the Lord's victory over Satan in the second clause.
​
h. Implicit in defeating Satan is the undoing of his harm, the purging of creation of the consequences of the human rebellion he incited. Notice that the champion suffers injury in defeating Satan; his heel is bruised in his bruising of the serpent's head. There is a price to be paid in achieving this victory and that price is born by the champion not mankind generally.
​
2. Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:18
a. The veiled statement of Gen. 3:15 that a man, a descendant of Eve, would win the ultimate victory over Satan is narrowed in Genesis 12 by God's election of Abraham. God calls Abraham and enters into a covenant with him wherein he promises to bless him with a multitude of descendants living securely in a bountiful homeland, which serves as type for the redeemed creation, and promises to bless all the nations of the world through him (12:3, 18:18, 22:18). Of all the people of all the nations, this ultimate servant who would bless the world through the defeat of Satan is going to come in the lineage of Abraham.
​
b. Scrutinizing the wording of one or more Genesis texts, Paul notes in Gal. 3:16 that "seed" is singular rather than plural. Though the singular noun "seed" can be a collective noun that refers to multiple descendants, Paul reveals that there is a sense in which this singular form focuses on a specific descendant of Abraham, the seed, the descendant to whom the promises were spoken. And he identifies this descendant as Christ. He is the seed by whom
all the nations of the earth will be blessed (Gen. 22:18) rather than all the natural descendants of Abraham. He is the doorway through which the promises spoken to Abraham become applicable to a worldwide people.
c. You see this idea in Gal. 3:6-9, 29 – 6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 7You know, then, that those of faith are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture foreseeing that God would pronounce the Gentiles righteous by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying] that "All the nations will be blessed in you." 9So then, those of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. . . . 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise. (See also, Rom. 4:13-17).
3. Genesis 26:4, 28:14, 49:8
a. And, of course, this line is further traced through Abraham's son Isaac (Gen. 26:4 – in your offspring all nations of the earth shall be blessed), through Isaac's son Jacob/Israel (Gen. 28:14 – in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed), through Jacob's son Judah (Gen. 49:10 – the scepter shall not depart from Judah). This ultimate Servant, this ultimate Anointed One (Messiah), will be a Jew from the specific tribe of Judah.
b. Jesus, of course, is from the tribe of Judah. This is declared in his genealogies in Mat. 1:1-2 and Lk. 3:33-34, and the writer of Hebrews states in 7:14a, "For [it is] evident that our Lord descended from Judah." In Rev. 5:5 he is called "the Lion of the tribe of Judah."
​
Excursus on the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
The genealogy of Jesus in Lk. 3:23-38 goes from Adam to Jesus in reverse order. The genealogy of Jesus in Mat. 1:1-16 goes only from Abraham to Jesus, so there is nothing in Matthew's list that corresponds to Luke's genealogy from Adam to Terah.
​
Lineages of Jesus according to Matthew and Luke (mutual names in purple)
Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
[Cainan]
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Some manuscripts of Lk. 3:36 include an extra generation ("Cainan") between Arphaxad and Shelah. It seems likely, however, that "Cainan" was not in the original of Lk. 3:36. It is omitted in P75, a papyrus manuscript from the 3rd century (one of the oldest copies of this text), and in D, a 5th century uncial. Given the presence of "Cainan" (Greek for Kenan) in Lk. 3:37, it is understandable how a scribe could have repeated it accidentally in Lk. 3:36. See, Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 358-359.
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Solomon Nathan
Rehoboam Mattatha
Menna
Abijah Melea
Asa Eliakim
Jonam
Jehoshaphat Joseph
Jehoram Judah
Simeon
Uzziah Levi
Jotham Matthat
Jorim
Ahaz Eliezer
Hezekiah Joshua
Er
Manasseh Elmadam
Amon Cosam
Addi
Josiah Melchi
Jeconiah Neri
Shealtiel
Shealtiel Zerubbabel
Zerubbabel Rhesa
Joanan
Abihud Joda
Eliakim Josek
Semein
​
Between Abraham and David, there are textual uncertainties in the manuscripts of Luke regarding the descendants between Hezron and Amminidab. Some manuscripts match Matthew in listing only Aram equivalent of Matthew's Ram) between Hezron and Amminidab. These are followed by such notable English versions as NKJV, HCSB, and NIV. Other manuscripts mention only Arni and Admin as descendants between Hezron nd Amminidab, and still others have additional variations. A decision as to which is original is difficult.
​
There is also textual uncertainty in the manuscripts of Luke regarding the name of Nahshon's son. Some give it as Salmon, which matches Matthew, but others give it as Sala, which is possibly an alternate spelling. The reading
"Salmon" is followed by ERV, ASV, NEB, NKJV, HCSB, and NIV. The NAS and NASU accept the Greek text "Sala" but render it "Salmon."
​
Azor Mattathias
Zadok Maath
Naggai
Akim Esli
Elihud Nahum
Amos
Eleazar Mattathias
Matthan Joseph
Jannai
Jacob Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus
The real difference between the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are the generations between David and Joseph. They clearly are different lineages. There are two reasonable ways to understand the differences.
​
First, Luke's genealogy may be that of Mary. If Mary was the daughter of Heli and had no brothers, her husband, Joseph, would be Heli's "son" in the sense he would be his legal heir pursuant to Num. 36:1-12. The fact Mary wed within the family of David (Joseph also being a descendant of David) would ensure that Heli's inheritance remained among those in the same household. The weakness of this possibility is that Luke stresses throughout the birth narrative that Joseph is a descendant of David; he never makes a point of Mary's Davidic descent.
​
A second possibility is that both genealogies are of Joseph, but Matthew gives his bloodline, his biological descent, whereas Luke gives the lineage of Heli, his father by law. That would be the case if Jacob and Heli were brothers, Heli married and died childless, and Jacob then fathered Joseph with Heli's widow pursuant to the levirate marriage provision of Deut. 25:5-6. In that case, Jacob "begot" Joseph (Mat. 1:16), was his biological father, but Joseph was "theson of" Heli (Lk. 3:23) by legal right.
​
This scenario raises the question of how Jacob and Heli could be brothers when Mat. 1:15 identifies Matthan as Jacob's father and Lk. 3:23-24 identify Matthat as Heli's father. This need not mean that Jacob and Heli had different fathers. Matthan and Matthat may be variant spellings of the same name, but even if they are two different individuals, the statement that Matthan "begat" or "fathered" (γεννá½±ω) Jacob need not mean that Matthan was Jacob's literal father, his immediate ancestor. The verb can refer to a more distant ancestor, to a grandfather, great grandfather, great great grandfather, etc. For example, Mat. 1:8 says Joram/Jehoram "begat" Uzziah without mentioning the intervening generations of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (2 Ki. 8:25, 11:2, 14:1; 2 Chron. 26:1), and Mat. 1:11 says Josiah "begat" Jeconiah without mentioning Jehoiakim who was between them (2 Ki. 23:34; 1 Chron. 3:16). So Matthew may not identify Jacob's literal father.
​
But even if Jacob and Heli had different fathers, Matthan being Jacob's father and Matthat being Heli's, they still could be brothers. That would be the case if Matthan married a woman, fathered Jacob by her, died, and then his widow married Matthat to whom she bore Heli. That would make Jacob and Heli half-brothers by the same mother, and as such, Jacob would berequired to marry Heli's widow to father a descendant for Heli if Heli had died childless.
​Given that the two genealogies are different lineages, it is curious that both include between David and Joseph a Shealtiel whose next reported descendant was Zerubbabel. It is possible they are different persons, a possibility made more likely by the fact a different ancestor is listed for Shealtiel in the two lists. Perhaps Shealtiel was a relatively common name and Luke's Shealtiel chose to name his son Zerubbabel after the famous son of the other Shealtiel (e.g., Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12-15) that is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy. If the two Shealtiels (and thus Zerubbabels) are the same individual, Shealtiel may have been the biological descendant of Jeconiah and the legal descendant of Neri pursuant to a levirate marriage. Shealtiel's son Zerubbabel then had two children, Abiud and Rhesa, through whom the lineages again separated.
​
4. 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 89, Jer. 23:5
a. Jesus is not only a descendant of Abraham through the line of Isaac, Jacob, and Judah; he is also a descendant of the great King David. This is significant because just over a thousand years after Abraham and many centuries after Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, God further narrowed the lineage of the Messiah by entering into a covenant with Israel's King David.
​
b. In 2 Samuel 7, God tells David that instead of David building him a house, he was going to build a house for David, by which he meant he would establish an eternal ruling dynasty of David's descendants. The right to rule would never be removed from David's family as it had been from Saul's, a point God emphasizes in Psalm 89. God makes clear in 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89 that he would punish David's faithless descendants, and we see that happen at times throughout Israelite history, but that is different from removing the right to rule from David's family.
​
c. Jesus is the immortal descendant of David who has been placed by God permanently on David's throne in fulfillment of that covenant. (see, e.g., Lk. 1:29-33; Acts 2:29-36). His descent from David is announced in Mat. 1:1 and specified in the genealogies in Mat. 1:6 and Lk. 3:31. The angel Gabriel declares that David is Jesus' father in Lk. 1:32, Paul says he is a descendant of David in Rom. 1:3-4 and 2 Tim. 2:8, one of the heavenly elders identifies him as the Root of David in Rev. 5:5, Jesus himself says he is the descendant of David in Rev. 22:16, and he is called the "son of David" by various people on many occasions in the New Testament.
​
5. Micah 5:2
a. Micah prophesied from the middle of the eighth century B.C. to the beginning of the seventh century – during the reigns of the Judean kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Mic. 1:1). "The book of Micah is arranged in three cycles, each opening with judgment and closing with deliverance (Micah 1:2–2:13; 3:1–5:15; 6:1–7:20)." The judgment section of the second cycle is in Micah 3:1-12 where Micah announces that God is about to destroy Jerusalem for the sins of its magistrates, prophets, and priests.
​
b. Micah turns abruptly in Micah 4:1-5 "to a vision of a hidden future in which Jerusalem and its temple will become the center of global justice and righteousness and of international peace and prosperity." This is a picture of Israel's future exaltation. It is further pictured in Micah 4:6-8 as God gathering dispersed Israel and transforming it into a strong nation over which he reigns forever. Verse 8 focuses on this being a restoration to glory.
​
c. In Micah 4:9-10 Micah foresees the distress Judah will endure over a century later in its destruction and captivity by the Babylonians. This travail, like birth pains, will be followed by a blessing the working of which will include God's bringing them back from exile.
​
d. Whereas the "Now" of v. 9 was a proleptic perspective of the future time of the Babylonian invasion, the "Now" of v. 11 probably refers to Micah's own time in which Sennacherib's international horde of mercenaries was threatening Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (701 B.C.). Micah draws on that but does not provide a clear historical referent so that the imagery functions in this context as a generic paradigm for all such crises including the ultimate battle against God's people at the end. It depicts Israel's triumph over her attacking enemies through the power of God. The enemies that gather lusting to destroy God's people do not realize that they have played into his hands; he has gathered them together for destruction by his people.
​
e. Micah 5:1-6 repeats the pattern in Micah 4:9-10 and Micah 4:11-13 that moves from a distressful situation to salvation. Micah 5:1 speaks of Israel being under siege and her ruler being humiliated, but deliverance is now said to come by the Messiah, Israel's long-awaited ruler (whose coming forth is from ancient days) who will come forth for Yahweh and shepherd the people in the strength of Yahweh and whose greatness shall reach the ends of the earth. The reference to Assyrians as enemies in vv. 5-6 is representational. As the actual enemies of Micah's day, the Assyrians are used to picture the enemies of God's people of a later day. It the same thing with Rome in John's vision in Revelation.
​
f. According to the New Testament, it was widely understood in the first century that this text specified that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah (Mat. 2:3-6; Jn. 7:42). This is supported by the fact the Targum of the Minor Prophets, an ancient Aramaic paraphrase or interpretation of the Hebrew text, expresses this understanding. Craig Blomberg states:
​
The Targum of the Minor Prophets very explicitly takes this text as messianic: "And you, O
Bethlehem Ephrathah, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the
house of Judah, from you shall come forth before me the anointed One, to exercise dominion
over Israel, he whose name was mentioned from of old, from ancient times." . . . Other
post-Christian rabbinic literature recognized that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem
(e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 35:21), so there is no reason to reject the claim of the Gospels that this
information was recognized already in the first century.
​
g. The "Ephrathah" distinguishes this Bethlehem from the village in northern Israel known as Bethlehem of Zebulun (Josh. 19:15). Kaiser states, "Ephrathah was either the ancient name for Bethlehem (David's father was known as 'an Ephrathite from Bethlehem in Judah,' 1Sa 17:12; cf. Ge 35:19; 48:7; Ru 4:11) or the district in which Bethlehem was located."
​
h. Jesus, of course, was born in Bethlehem, the prophesied birthplace of the Messiah. This is made clear in Mat. 2:1, Lk. 2:4-7, and Lk. 2:15.
​
6. Isaiah 7:14
a. Isaiah prophesied in the latter half of the eighth century B.C. The political setting of chapter 7 is that Syria and Israel are ready to attack Judah and depose its king, Ahaz, because of his refusal to join their alliance against the Assyrians. This is around 735 B.C. God sends Isaiah to strengthen Ahaz by telling him he is not going to allow that to happen, and then he offers to confirm that word by performing a miracle of the young Ahaz's choosing. Ahaz refused the offer with a pious-sounding response that he would not "put the LORD to the test," but he almost certainly had already decided to court (or was courting) the Assyrians for protection rather than trust the Lord (2 Ki. 16:7-8). That is why Isaiah tells Ahaz, who represents the house of David, that he is wearying Isaiah's God (v. 13), suggesting some uncertainty as to whether the royal house regarded Yahweh as its God.
​
b. Because he was trying God's patience ("Therefore"), the Lord insists on giving him a sign anyway, but it now will be a sign of both salvation and judgment. The sign will be that "the 'almâ" will conceive and bear a son and name him Immanuel (7:14).
​
c. The Hebrew word 'almâ refers to an unmarried young woman. Though she would be a virgin because she was not yet married, that is an implication rather than the direct meaning of the word. The word tends to emphasize youth rather than virginity, but context can bring the latter to the fore. It is similar to the English word "maiden," which has fallen out of use. So the sign is that the maiden, probably referring to a specific young woman who was present, will conceive, give birth to a son, and name him Immanuel.
d. Following NET in taking le-, the preposition affixed to "his knowing," as indicating purpose or result instead of time (see also, KJV, NKJV, NAB), this child will eat sour milk (or cream or curds) and honey which will help him know how to reject evil and choose what is right (7:15). Again following NET, the particle at the beginning of v. 16 (kî – "for, because") "introduces the entire following context (vv. 16–25), which explains why Immanuel
will be an appropriate name for the child, why he will eat sour milk and honey, and why experiencing such a diet will contribute to his moral development" (NET note). The verse begins, "Here is why this will be so:"
​
e. He tells Ahaz the child will be named Immanuel, which means "God with us," because before he gets very old, before he knows how to reject evil and choose what is right, the land whose two kings Ahaz fears, Israel and Syria, will be desolate. The child thus will be a sign, a tangible reminder, of God's presence which will be manifested in his deliverance of Ahaz from that threat. So there clearly is an eighth century B.C. element to the sign.
​
f. And yet the child also will be a sign of God's presence in judgment against Judah for its lack of faith, as represented in Ahaz's relying on political alliances for protection. He declares in v. 17 that God will bring the Assyrians against Judah! As Ahaz's (Judah's) refusal to trust the Lord caused God to transform his blessing into judgment, Isaiah's prophecy turns from relief from the danger posed by Israel and Syria to judgment by other
nations. That is why Immanuel will eat curds and honey – the people will be forced to subsist on goats' milk and honey because the Assyrians will have destroyed the crops (vv. 20-22). This fulfillment will help him make right choices because it will reinforce trust in God which is the beginning of wisdom. It will also force the people to acknowledge God's presence with them (Immanuel) in judgment.
​
g. With many, I think Immanuel at the first level, in the eighth-century context, was Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, whose conception and birth is announced in the next chapter immediately after the portrait of the blessing and judgment of which the promised child will be a sign.44 But this eighth-century fulfillment does not exhaust the meaningof the prophecy. Rather, the son born at that time is a type, a representative of the full and
ultimate fulfillment that will take place in the miraculous birth of Jesus.
​
h. There is reason to believe Isa. 8:1-2 are a condensed allusion to Isaiah taking the virgin identified in 7:14, the young unmarried woman, to be his wife. (Isaiah's former wife, the mother of Shear-jashub [7:3, name means "a remnant shall return"], probably had died, perhaps in childbirth.) This taking of her as his wife is naturally and promptly followed in v. 3 by their having sexual relations and by the consequent birth of the son whom Isaiah is told to name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. In other words, the young woman was a virgin in 7:14 because she was not yet married; she is married in 8:1-2 and then conceives the promised son in the normal manner in v. 3. Unlike Mary, this young woman was not still a virgin at childbirth.
​
i. That Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the initial Immanuel, the child of 7:14-16, is suggested not only by the fact his birth is reported immediately after the portrait of the blessing and judgment of which Immanuel will be a sign but also by the fact 8:4 declares that before Maher-shalal-hash-baz gets very old, before he can talk, Syria will be defeated by the Assyrians. In 7:16 it says that both Syria and Israel would be eliminated by the time Immanuel would know how to reject evil and choose the good, perhaps meaning around age 12 in Jewish culture, when one was presumed to have sufficiently mature judgment. Assyria reduced Syria to a puppet state by 732 B.C., within just a couple of years of the birth of the child, and its conquest of Israel was finalized in 722 B.C., when the child was about 12.
j. And just as the removal of Judah's enemies at Immanuel's young age was followed in 7:17-25 by an Assyrian invasion of Judah, so the removal of Syria at Maher-shalal-hash-baz's young age is followed in 8:7-8 by an Assyrian invasion of Judah. In addition, in 8:8, right in the middle of the discussion of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Isaiah addresses "Immanuel," and in 8:18 Isaiah says that the children given to him are signs, which is how Immanuel is described in 7:14.
​
k. The use of different names for the same child is not unprecedented. Rachel called the son she died delivering Ben-oni, but Jacob called him Benjamin (Gen. 35:18).Chisholm comments:
​
The name Immanuel (given by the mother; see 7:14) would emphasize the basic fact of God's
presence, while the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz (given by Isaiah; see 8:3), meaning "one
hastens to the plunder, one hurries to the loot," wouldexplain exactly how God would be present
(in judgment). Giving the child a different name at the time of his birth would also be highly
ironic, for it highlights how God's presence, normally viewed as a positive reality, had been
transformed into something dark and ominous by Ahaz's unbelief.
​
l. This first Immanuel was a promised son who signified God's special involvement, his presence, with his people in the immediate crisis of the eighth century B.C. But he foreshadowed a greater literal Immanuel who would manifest that presence in a far greater way and thus would express God's love and commitment in a greater way. That this prophesied child foreshadowed a greater future fulfillment is hinted at by the fact the prophecy is addressed not only to Ahaz but to the "house of David" (7:13), an abstract entity that continues beyond the lifetimes of individuals and in which the Messiah will be born. Moreover, in 9:6-7, which is part of the literary unit that began in 7:1,47 there is mention of a child being born who is an ideal Davidic deliverer, one who is described in terms that go beyond any purely human ruler –"Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Even if those are hyperbolic descriptions of a more immediate Davidic king, they carry messianic overtones.
​
m. Chisholm explains the concept like this:
​
Jesus the Messiah is the fulfillment of the Davidic ideal prophesied by Isaiah, the one whom
Immanuel foreshadowed. Through the miracle of the incarnation he is literally "God with us,"
not merely a tangible reminder of God's presence. Matthew realized this and applied Isaiah's
ancient prophecy of Immanuel's birth to Jesus (Matt. 1:22-23). The first Immanuel was a reminder
to the people of God's presence and a guarantee of a greater child to come who would manifest
God's presence in an even greater way. The second Immanuel is "God with us" in a heightened
and infinitely superior sense. He "fulfills" Isaiah's Immanuel prophecy by bringing the typology
intended by God to realization and by filling out or completing the pattern designed by God. Of
course, in the ultimate fulfillment of the type, the incarnate Immanuel's mother must be a virgin,
so Matthew uses a Greek term (parthenos) that carries that technical meaning.
​
7. Isaiah 9:1-2
a. The coming of the ideal Davidic deliverer who in Isa. 9:6-7 is described in terms that go beyond any purely human ruler is announced in vv. 1-2:
But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the
land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea,
the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. 2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a
great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.
​
b. Zebulun and Naphtali were the tribal allotments that formed most of what later would be Galilee and the area northward. They were "the areas of Israel first humbled by foreign military invasions, and the region most influenced by foreign cultures and religions." Isaiah announces that in contrast to the gloom and darkness experienced in the past by these lands, they were going to be the locus of a great light, the Messiah of vv. 6-7, who will be a source of great joy and who will put an end to oppression (v. 4) "[b]y putting an end to the warfare upon which oppression rests" (v. 5).
​
c. Jesus' fulfillment of this prophecy is reported in Mat. 4:13-16:
​
13 And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and
Naphtali, 14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 15 "The land of Zebulun
and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles – 16 the
people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of
death, on them a light has dawned."
​
8. Deuteronomy 18:15-19
a. In Deut. 18:15-19 Moses announces that God will raise up from among them a prophet like him for the people of Israel. He explains in v. 16 that this is in accordance with the Israelites' desire expressed in Ex. 20:18-19 that Moses speak to them on God's behalf rather than God speak to them directly. That suggests that the singular, "a prophet," in 18:15, 18 is a collective singular, that it refers to a group of prophets in the singular, because "the people's request for a mediating spokesperson that leads to this promise is a constant need. In other words, Deuteronomy 18 understood within its ancient context may be perfectly explainable in terms of the rise of the prophetic movement and prophets like Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and so on." God will provide a line of prophets to accommodate their fear.
​
b. And yet, there is a sense in which this promise of a prophet "like [him]" was not fulfilled in the raising up of these other prophets. In Deut. 34:10-12, the inspired writer ends the book (and thus "the Law") by looking back on Moses some time later. He declares, "10 And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, 11 none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 12 and for all the mighty power and all the great deeds of terror that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.
​
c. This suggests there is a distinctiveness to Moses, something about his prophetic role that transcends that of other prophets. You see this also in Num. 12:6-8, where God says to Aaron and Miriam:
​
6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to
him in a vision; I speak with him bin a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my
house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the
LORD.
​
d. So even granting there was an ancient fulfillment of Moses' words in a succession of prophets, that fulfillment did not exhaust the promise. That is why many Jews in the first century expected the coming of this great prophet, this one who would be "like Moses" in the fullest sense, though there appears to have been different ideas as to how he would relate to the Messiah. In Jn. 1:21 the priests and Levites ask John the Baptist if he is Elijah or "the Prophet." When the people saw Jesus feed the 5,000 in John 6, they declared in v. 14, "This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!" Some who heard Jesus teaching in Jerusalem declared in Jn. 7:27, "This really is the Prophet."
​
e. Jesus, of course, was a prophet. He referred to himself as such in Mat. 13:57 (Mk. 6:4; Lk. 4:24; Jn. 4:44), and the people declared him to be a prophet on various occasions (Mat. 21:11, 46; Mk. 6:15; Lk. 7:16, 24:19; Jn. 4:19, 9:17). But he was no "ordinary" prophet; he was "the Prophet" promised by Moses. This is certain from the fact Peter applied Deut. 18:15, 18 to Jesus in Acts 3:22-23 when speaking to the people in the temple. Stephen implied that same connection in Acts 7:37 where he quoted Deut. 18:15 when defending his faith in Christ.
​
9. Psalm 110:1, 4
(a) Psalm 110 was composed by king David. He not only is identified in the title of the Psalm, which title is included in all of the ancient manuscripts, but Jesus expressly confirms his authorship (Mat. 22:43-44; Mk. 12:35-36; Lk. 20:41-42).
​
(b) The psalm is clearly messianic. The divine utterances in vv. 1 and 4 –"Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool" and "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" – "are directed from Yahweh to David about one whom David calls 'my Lord.' In other words, three distinct persons are involved in this psalm: Yahweh, the speaker; David, the recipient of the message; and one whom David calls 'my Lord' and whom he understands to be his sovereign – indeed, the one to whom he must submit." So this exalted,messianic figure is described in v. 4 as "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
​
(c) Melchizedek is a puzzling figure. Other than Hebrews, he is mentioned only in Gen. 14:18-20 and Ps. 110:4. He clearly functions as a type of Christ in that he represents a non-Levitical and perpetual priesthood (Heb. 7:3), but it is uncertain whether he functions that way because he in fact had no ancestors and did not die or because God chose to cast him as a type, to make him a type for those qualities by not saying anything about his genealogy or his death. F. F. Bruce is an example of those who see Melchizedek as a mortal who is described by God in Scripture in such a way to function as a type of Christ. He writes (p. 136-138):
​
The words which follow present an outstanding example of the argument from silence in a typological
setting. When Melchizedek is described as being "without father, without mother, without genealogy,
having neither beginning of days nor end of life", it is not suggested that he was a biological anomaly,
or an angel in human guise. Historically Melchizedek appears to have belonged to a dynasty of priest-
kings in which he had both predecessors and successors. If this point had been put to our author, he would
have agreed at once, no doubt; but this consideration was foreign to his purpose. The important
consideration was the account of Melchizedek in holy writ; to him the silences of Scripture were as
much due to divine inspiration as were its statements. In the only record which Scripture provides
of Melchizedek – Gen. 14:18-20 – nothing is said of parentage, nothing is said of ancestry or progeny,
nothing is said of his birth, nothing is said of his death. He appears as a living man, king of Salem and
priest of God Most High; and as such he disappears. In all this – in the silences as well as in the statements –
he is a fitting type of Christ.
​
(d) What matters for our present purpose is that Jesus is identified explicitly in Hebrews as the fulfillment of Ps. 110:4 (Heb. 5:5-10, 6:20, 7:11-22). He is theexalted promised one who is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek in that his priesthood is likewise non-Levitical, he being of the tribe of Judah, and perpetual, he being immortal.
​
(e) The writer of Hebrews tells us that the name Melchizedek means "king of righteousness" and the name Salem means "peace," which makes Melchizedek also the "king of peace" (Heb. 7:2). George Guthrie observes, "These concepts of righteousness and peace are appropriate for one who prefigures the Messiah, who would make righteousness and peace possible for the people of God."
​
(f) Psalm 110:1 ("Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool") is cited many times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, including by the Lord himself (Mat. 22:44; Mk. 12:36; Lk. 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Heb. 1:13). In fact, Psalm 110 is the most frequently quoted psalm in the New Testament.
​
10. Genesis 28:12
(a) In Genesis 25 Jacob exploited his brother Esau's situation and eakness to obtain the birthright, the disproportionate inheritance, and then in Genesis 27, with the encouragement of his mother, he deceived his father to obtain the blessing of the covenant promise. Esau resolved to kill Jacob but chose to wait until after their father died to do so. Rebekah learned of Esau's intentions and told Jacob to go stay with her brother Laban in Haran. She sold this to Isaac by telling him she could not stand the thought of Jacob marrying one of the local Hittite women. So Isaac sent Jacob to Laban, a journey of just over four hundred miles.
​
(b) On his way to Haran, Jacob came to Luz, which he renamed Bethel (meaning House of God). There he had a dream of a ladder or staircase reaching to heaven with the angels of God ascending and descending (Gen. 28:10-12). The Lord appeared to him in the dream and told him that the covenant blessings would be fulfilled through him and that he would continue to be with him and would bring him back to the land he was leaving. The next day Jacob anointed a stone to commemorate the event and committed himself to God.
​
(c) The Lord Jesus refers to this event in Jn. 1:51 when he tells Nathanael, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." Jesus is saying that Nathanael and others will see through their association with him that he is the bridge between heaven and earth, the ultimate vehicle of God's revelation. They will "see" that he has this function and significance; it will be shown to them throughout the Gospel of John that Jesus is the revealer of heavenly things. Here is how Leon Morris states it in his commentary on John:​
In this passage the place of the ladder is taken by 'the Son of Man.' Jesus himself is the link between
heaven and earth (3:13). He is the means by which the realities of heaven are brought down to earth,
and Nathanael will see this for himself. The expression then is a figurative way of saying that Jesus will
reveal heavenly things, a thought that is developed throughout this Gospel. Philip's view of Jesus (v. 45)
is true but inadequate. Jesus is indeed the fulfiller of prophecy, but he is also the Son of man, the
revealer of God, the means of establishing communication between earth and heaven.
​
11. Amos 9:11
(a) Amos was a prophet from Judea who prophesied in the middle of the eighth century B.C. to the northern kingdom of Israel. He says in 9:11-15 that in the age of Israel's scattering, i.e., after the exile, God promises to raise up the "fallen booth" of David. It is a metaphor for the kingdom of David, one that looks back to the security Israel once enjoyed under David's rule. It is a promise that peace and security will again be established by the revival of the Davidic kingdom, by a descendant of David returning to the throne.
​
(b) At that point, descendants of David were still on the throne in Judah. They continued to rule in Judah until the Babylonian exile in 587 B.C. Thus, it appears that Amos is speaking of a time after the Judean exile, after the collapse of Davidic rule.
​
(c) He indicates that this restored Davidic kingdom will include other nations; other nations will bear God's name under the rule of his king (v.12). The kingdom will be one of unimaginable divine blessing, which is depicted or symbolized by the land's tremendous productivity (v.13) and by being allowed to enjoy the fruit of one's labor (v.14), a state that represents divine protection and security (see, Zeph. 1:13; Isa. 65:21-22; and the futility curses in Dt. 28:30-40). Amos indicates it will be a permanent kingdom (v.15).
​
(d) This promise was not fulfilled when Israel returned from Babylonian captivity in 538 B.C. (Zerubbabel), 458 B.C. (Ezra), and 444 B.C. (Nehemiah). They had no Davidic king; rather, they were under the control of the Persians and then the Greeks. Also, the condition of the Jews in post-exilic Palestine did not square with Amos's description.
​
(e) According to James in Acts 15:12-19, Amos was referring to Jesus. Jesus is the descendant of David who was placed by God on David's throne (see, Lk. 1:29-33; Acts 2:29-36, 5:31). This was announced early in Jesus' life by Simeon and Anna (Lk. 2:25-38). As James argues his case for the inclusion of Gentiles: Jesus is the Davidic king promised by Amos; the restored Davidic kingdom to which Amos referred included Gentiles; therefore, they must permit Gentiles to become Christians, to become participants in that kingdom.
​
(f) Jesus is now ruling on David's throne (Mat. 28:18; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:3-4; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 1:5, 3:21). When the kingdom Jesus inaugurated is consummated or finalized at his second coming, the Amos text will be fully realized (Acts 3:19-21). Resurrected Christians, both the Jewish root and grafted in Gentiles, will live forever in a land (a radically rejuvenated and transformed earth) that is unimaginably blessed. It will be the divine utopia in which there is no death, mourning, crying, or pain (see Rev. 21:1-4).
​
12. Zechariah 9:9
(a) Zechariah prophesied in Israel after the return from Babylonian exile in the latter part of the sixth century B.C. "Zechariah 9:1-17 is a prophetic hymn of the Divine warrior, which consists of two prose oracles (vv. 1-8, 11-17) framing a central poetic oracle (vv. 9-10)." Bateman, Bock, and Johnston summarize the chapter this way:
​
Zechariah 9:1-17 envisions the coming of the King in three successive acts. The Divine Warrior
would march out against the traditional enemies of Israel/Judah,starting in the north and moving
south, exacting victory along the way (vv. 1-8). Then he would enter Zion as her citizens hail his
triumphal entry by proclaiming his kingship and as the sign that their liberation from foreign
oppression was at hand (vv. 9-10). The Divine Warrior would then defeat the foreign armies
occupying the land, and then inaugurate a new age of universal peace (vv. 11-17).
​
(b) In the pivotal poetic verses 9-10, the people of Jerusalem celebrate Yahweh entering the city as King mounted on a donkey. (A donkey "was the stereotypical mount of royalty in the ancient Near East.") There is an allusion in this imagery to Gen. 49:11, which connects it to Israel's messianic hope. As Bateman et al. remark, "We need not choose between Yahweh's coming and the coming of King Messiah. They are wrapped up in each other."
​
(c) Zechariah 9:9-10 depict the eschatological coming of the Divine Warrior to inaugurate his theocratic rule of universal peace. But if God/Christ is this end-time ruler, this eternal King, what of the promised eternal rulership of the Son of David? As salvation history unfolds, it becomes clear that "[t]he future eschatological kingship of Yahweh as well as the kingship of the future eschatological Davidic king will be wrapped up with one another. Yahweh's presence and decisive work will be seen in the reign of the coming Davidic king."
​
(d) This text is applied to Jesus in Mat. 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15 (see also, Mk. 11:7-10 and Lk. 19:35-38).
​
13. Isaiah 42:1-7
(a) Recall that Isaiah 40–55 includes four sections that are known as the "Servant Songs," sections that speak of a special divine "servant" who will be instrumental in fulfilling God's purposes. The first of these sections is 42:1-4[9].
​
(b) This special servant in whom God delights will be endowed with God's Spirit and will establish justice on the earth (v. 1). His modus operandi will not be loud, aggressive, or threatening; rather, it will be characterized by patient endurance and humility in the face of opposition (v. 2). He will not reject the lowly and weak as useless but will care for them (v. 3). Kaiser comments:
​
The Messiah will soothe and uphold the weak without falling into the excesses of encouraging
evil with smooth words or using excessive severity to crush those already weak. His goal will be
to establish the rule and kingdom of God on the earth (v. 4). The standard he will use to bring
about his kingdom and rule will be his truth (v. 3c). "His law" will be what the nations of the world
must come to terms with if they are going to participate in that kingdom (v. 4c). In bringing all this
about, his zeal will not flag or falter, nor will his strength suddenly abate. For God has called
him in righteousness and given him the necessary power to perform his task (v. 6a-b). God's plan is
to appoint his servant "a covenant [belonging to] . . . the people" (v. 6c) and as a "light for the Gentiles"
(v. 6d). Thus, all the blessings of the covenant are resident in the Messiah, just as the salvation God
wants the Gentiles to receive is also in him. He will open the eyes of the blind and set the captives
in the dark prison houses free (v. 7). He is God's Servant par excellence.
​
(c) Isaiah 42:1-3 are cited in reference to Jesus in Mat. 12:17-21. Isaiah 42:6 was applied to Jesus by Simeon in Lk. 2:32, and in Lk. 4:18 Jesus refers to Isa. 42:1, 7 inspeaking of himself.
14. Exodus 25:8-9, 22
(a) In Exodus 25-27 and 30 God instructed Israel to build a beautiful and majestic tent which he specified in 25:8-9, 22 was for the purpose of his dwelling among them. As they were living in tents on their journey to the promise land, he too would "dwell" in a tent in their midst. Of course, even the highest heavens cannot contain God, as Solomon noted in 1 Ki. 8:27, but he chose to dwell among the people of Israel in this tent, the tabernacle; he chose to be present there in some special sense. This special presence was symbolized by the bright cloud of glory that settled on the tabernacle by day and the fire that was on it by night (Ex. 40:34-38; Num. 9:15-23).
​
(b) This special divine presence in the tabernacle, and later the temple, foreshadowed the greater manifestation of the divine presence in the person of Jesus. He is the ultimate Immanuel, God with us as one of us. That Jesus is the fulfillment of the divine presence pictured by the tabernacle is suggested by Jn. 1:14, where John declares, And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
​
(c) The Greek word translated "dwelt" in the phrase "dwelt among us" literally means "to live or camp in a tent," which is precisely what God said he was doing in the tent known as the tabernacle. As he was present among the people uniquely in that structure, John signals that Jesus was God "tabernacling" among us in flesh and blood rather than in a tent. Jesus' coming was foreshadowed in the divine presence in the tabernacle.
​
15. Hosea 11:1
(a) Hosea prophesied in the eighth century B.C. Hosea 11:1 states, When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. This quite clearly is referring to Israel's departure from Egypt in the Exodus of 1446 B.C. "Israel" in the first clause is parallel to "son" in the final clause, a parallel no doubt based on God's instruction to Moses in Ex. 4:22-23:
​
22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say
to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me." If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill
your firstborn son.'"
​
(b) Matthew reports in Mat. 2:13 that an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt and to remain there until told otherwise because Herod was about to search for Jesus with the intent of killing him. Matthew 2:14-15 state:
​
14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained
there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out
of Egypt I called my son."
​
(c) So without denying that the statement "Out of Egypt I called my son" in Hos. 11:1 referred to the nation Israel at the time of the Exodus, Matthew asserts it also looked forward to the later calling of the Messiah, God's unique Son, out of Egypt in the person of Jesus. In other words, the inspired Matthew insists there was a prophetic residual to that statement that remained unfulfilled until Jesus came out of Egypt. I think he perceived that prophetic residual from what God had revealed elsewhere in the Old Testament.
​
(d) In Numbers 24, as Balaam sees Israel camping tribe by tribe after having come out of Egypt, the Spirit of God moves him to declare (vv. 5-9):
​
5 How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your encampments, O Israel! 6 Like palm groves that stretch
afar, like gardens beside a river, like aloes that the LORD has planted, like cedar trees beside the
waters. 7 Water shall flow from his buckets, and his seed shall be [by] many waters; his king shall
be higher than Agag [Gog?], and his kingdom shall be exalted. 8 God brings him out of Egypt and
is for him like the horns of the wild ox; he shall eat up the nations, his adversaries, and shall break
their bones in pieces and pierce them through with his arrows. 9 He crouched, he lay down like a lion
and like a lioness; who will rouse him up? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those
who curse you."
​
(e) Balaam prophesies that God will provide from his buckets the water Israel will need to flourish, and his sons and daughters (God's "seed" in the sense of his children; see, e.g., Deut. 14:1; Isa. 43:6; 1 Jn. 3:9) will occupy a large area, one that encompasses many waters. His (God's) king, meaning the Messiah (Ps. 2:6), will be greater than "Agag," perhaps referring to a known ruling position of significant power, though the original text may have read "Gog," who is an end-time enemy of Israel. And his, the Messiah's, kingdom will be an exalted one. According to v. 8, God brings him, the Messiah, out of Egypt and will be a powerful force on his behalf. This king will be thoroughly victorious, and people will be blessed and cursed based on whether they are with him or against him.
​
(f) In light of God's revelation that Jesus is the Messiah and the fact he came out of Egypt, Matthew realizes that the Messiah's coming out of Egypt that is referred to in Num. 24:5-9 was separate from the coming out of Israel at the time of the Exodus. In other words, God had now clarified that Num. 24:5-9 was not referring to the Messiah coming out of Egypt at the time of the Exodus in the figurative sense that he would descend from Israel, from those delivered in the Exodus. Rather, Num. 24:5-9 was referring to the Messiah himself coming out of Egypt as the nation of Israel had done.
​
(g) Given the insight that Num. 24:5-9 refers to the Messiah himself, God's unique Son, coming out of Egypt separate from the nation's prior exodus from Egypt, the statement "Out of Egypt I called my son" in Hos. 11:1 takes on a prophetic sense. Calling Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus foreshadowed the later calling of the Messiah out of Egypt. It is this prophetic foreshadowing that Matthew declares was fulfilled in Jesus.
​
(h) As for why Matthew cited as fulfilled the more ambiguous prophetic foreshadowing of Hos. 11:1 instead of the more direct prophecy of Num. 24:7-8, he probably was motivated by the fact Hos. 11:1 uses the phrase "my son." In the words of Michael Rydelnik, "The answer is that Matthew was not just describing the journey from Egypt – he wanted to emphasize the Messiah's relationship to His Father as Son."
​​
Conflict between Satan and mankind.
The second clause alludes to that deeper, harmony-destroying conflict between Satan and mankind to which the enmity between humans and physical snakes points. It speaks of one man (he, singular), a descendant of Eve, who shall bruise the head of the serpent (your, singular) not that of the serpent's offspring. The conflict between Satan and mankind that is symbolized in the decreed conflict between humans and snakes ends with Christ, the God-man, prevailing over Satan, the fallen spirit-being who animated the serpent in the garden.
​
I am aware that many understand the serpent's offspring in the first clause to be a reference to humans who take after Satan in character, those who are his "sons" in that figurative sense (see, e.g., Mat. 13:38; Jn. 8:44; Acts 13:10). The hostility in that case is between the people of God, called the offspring of the woman, and those who are not in a relationship with God. What steers me away from that understanding of the text is that Eve seems an odd representative of the people of God, the faithful human lineage, given that she is described as the mother of all the living in 3:20 and the statement is in the context of her rebellion. But either way, we are in agreement about the allusion to the Lord's victory over Satan in the second clause.
​
Implicit in defeating Satan is the undoing of his harm, the purging of creation of the consequences of the human rebellion he incited. Notice that the champion suffers injury in defeating Satan; his heel is bruised in his bruising of the serpent's head. There is a price to be paid in achieving this victory and that price is born by the champion not mankind generally.
​
2. Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:18
a. The veiled statement of Gen. 3:15 that a man, a descendant of Eve, would win the ultimate victory over Satan is narrowed in Genesis 12 by God's election of Abraham. God calls Abraham and enters into a covenant with him wherein he promises to bless him with a multitude of descendants living securely in a bountiful homeland, which serves as type for the redeemed creation, and promises to bless all the nations of the world through him (12:3, 18:18, 22:18). Of all the people of all the nations, this ultimate servant who would bless the world through the defeat of Satan is going to come in the lineage of Abraham.
b. Scrutinizing the wording of one or more Genesis texts, Paul notes in Gal. 3:16 that "seed" is singular rather than plural. Though the singular noun "seed" can be a collective noun that refers to multiple descendants, Paul reveals that there is a sense in which this singular form focuses on a specific descendant of Abraham, the seed, the descendant to whom the promises were spoken. And he identifies this descendant as Christ. He is the seed by whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed (Gen. 22:18) rather than all the natural descendants of Abraham. He is the doorway through which the promises spoken to Abraham become applicable to a worldwide people.
​
c. You see this idea in Gal. 3:6-9, 29 – 6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 7You know, then, that those of faith are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture foreseeing that God would pronounce the Gentiles righteous by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying] that "All the nations will be blessed in you." 9So then, those of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. . . . 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise. (See also, Rom. 4:13-17).
​
3. Genesis 26:4, 28:14, 49:8
a. And, of course, this line is further traced through Abraham's son Isaac (Gen. 26:4 – in your offspring all nations of the earth shall be blessed), through Isaac's son Jacob/Israel (Gen. 28:14 – in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed), through Jacob's son Judah (Gen. 49:10 – the scepter shall not depart from Judah). This ultimate Servant, this ultimate Anointed One (Messiah), will be a Jew from the specific tribe of Judah.
​
b. Jesus, of course, is from the tribe of Judah. This is declared in his genealogies in Mat. 1:1-2 and Lk. 3:33-34, and the writer of Hebrews states in 7:14a, "For [it is] evident that our Lord descended from Judah." In Rev. 5:5 he is called "the Lion of the tribe of Judah."
​
Excursus on the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
The genealogy of Jesus in Lk. 3:23-38 goes from Adam to Jesus in reverse order. The genealogy of Jesus in Mat. 1:1-16 goes only from Abraham to Jesus, so there is nothing in Matthew's list that corresponds to Luke's genealogy from Adam to Terah.
​
Lineages of Jesus according to Matthew and Luke (mutual names in purple)
Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
[Cainan]
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
37 Some manuscripts of Lk. 3:36 include an extra generation ("Cainan") between Arphaxad and Shelah. It seems likely, however, that "Cainan" was not in the original of Lk. 3:36. It is omitted in P75, a papyrus manuscript from the 3rd century (one of the oldest copies of this text), and in D, a 5th century uncial. Given the presence of "Cainan" (Greek for Kenan) in Lk. 3:37, it is understandable how a scribe could have repeated it accidentally in Lk. 3:36. See, Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 358-359.
Reu
Serug
Nahor
TerahAbraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Solomon Nathan
Rehoboam Mattatha
Menna
Abijah Melea
Asa Eliakim
Jonam
Jehoshaphat Joseph
Jehoram Judah
Simeon
Uzziah Levi
Jotham Matthat
Jorim
Ahaz Eliezer
Hezekiah Joshua
Er
Manasseh Elmadam
Amon Cosam
Addi
Josiah Melchi
Jeconiah Neri
Shealtiel
Shealtiel Zerubbabel
Zerubbabel Rhesa
Joanan
Abihud Joda
Eliakim Josek
Semein
​
Between Abraham and David, there are textual uncertainties in the manuscripts of Luke regarding the descendants between Hezron and Amminidab. Some manuscripts match Matthew in listing only Aram equivalent of Matthew's Ram) between Hezron and Amminidab. These are followed by such notable English versions as NKJV, HCSB, and NIV. Other manuscripts mention only Arni and Admin as descendants between Hezron nd Amminidab, and still others have additional variations. A decision as to which is original is difficult.
​
There is also textual uncertainty in the manuscripts of Luke regarding the name of Nahshon's son. Some give it as Salmon, which matches Matthew, but others give it as Sala, which is possibly an alternate spelling. The reading
"Salmon" is followed by ERV, ASV, NEB, NKJV, HCSB, and NIV. The NAS and NASU accept the Greek text "Sala" but render it "Salmon."
​
Azor Mattathias
Zadok Maath
Naggai
Akim Esli
Elihud Nahum
Amos
Eleazar Mattathias
Matthan Joseph
Jannai
Jacob Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus
The real difference between the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are the generations between David and Joseph. They clearly are different lineages. There are two reasonable ways to understand the differences.
​
First, Luke's genealogy may be that of Mary. If Mary was the daughter of Heli and had no brothers, her husband, Joseph, would be Heli's "son" in the sense he would be his legal heir pursuant to Num. 36:1-12. The fact Mary wed within the family of David (Joseph also being a descendant of David) would ensure that Heli's inheritance remained among those in the same household. The weakness of this possibility is that Luke stresses throughout the birth narrative that Joseph is a descendant of David; he never makes a point of Mary's Davidic descent.
​
A second possibility is that both genealogies are of Joseph, but Matthew gives his bloodline, his biological descent, whereas Luke gives the lineage of Heli, his father by law. That would be the case if Jacob and Heli were brothers, Heli married and died childless, and Jacob then fathered Joseph with Heli's widow pursuant to the levirate marriage provision of Deut. 25:5-6. In that case, Jacob "begot" Joseph (Mat. 1:16), was his biological father, but Joseph was "theson of" Heli (Lk. 3:23) by legal right.
​
This scenario raises the question of how Jacob and Heli could be brothers when Mat. 1:15 identifies Matthan as Jacob's father and Lk. 3:23-24 identify Matthat as Heli's father. This need not mean that Jacob and Heli had different fathers. Matthan and Matthat may be variant spellings of the same name, but even if they are two different individuals, the statement that Matthan "begat" or "fathered" (γεννá½±ω) Jacob need not mean that Matthan was Jacob's literal father, his immediate ancestor. The verb can refer to a more distant ancestor, to a grandfather, great grandfather, great great grandfather, etc. For example, Mat. 1:8 says Joram/Jehoram "begat" Uzziah without mentioning the intervening generations of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (2 Ki. 8:25, 11:2, 14:1; 2 Chron. 26:1), and Mat. 1:11 says Josiah "begat" Jeconiah without mentioning Jehoiakim who was between them (2 Ki. 23:34; 1 Chron. 3:16). So Matthew may not identify Jacob's literal father.
​
But even if Jacob and Heli had different fathers, Matthan being Jacob's father and Matthat being Heli's, they still could be brothers. That would be the case if Matthan married a woman, fathered Jacob by her, died, and then his widow married Matthat to whom she bore Heli. That would make Jacob and Heli half-brothers by the same mother, and as such, Jacob would berequired to marry Heli's widow to father a descendant for Heli if Heli had died childless.
​
Given that the two genealogies are different lineages, it is curious that both include between David and Joseph a Shealtiel whose next reported descendant was Zerubbabel. It is possible they are different persons, a possibility made more likely by the fact a different ancestor is listed for Shealtiel in the two lists. Perhaps Shealtiel was a relatively common name and Luke's Shealtiel chose to name his son Zerubbabel after the famous son of the other Shealtiel (e.g., Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12-15) that is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy. If the two Shealtiels (and thus Zerubbabels) are the same individual, Shealtiel may have been the biological descendant of Jeconiah and the legal descendant of Neri pursuant to a levirate marriage. Shealtiel's son Zerubbabel then had two children, Abiud and Rhesa, through whom the lineages again separated.
​
4. 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 89, Jer. 23:5
a. Jesus is not only a descendant of Abraham through the line of Isaac, Jacob, and Judah; he is also a descendant of the great King David. This is significant because just over a thousand years after Abraham and many centuries after Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, God further narrowed the lineage of the Messiah by entering into a covenant with Israel's King David.
​
b. In 2 Samuel 7, God tells David that instead of David building him a house, he was going to build a house for David, by which he meant he would establish an eternal ruling dynasty of David's descendants. The right to rule would never be removed from David's family as it had been from Saul's, a point God emphasizes in Psalm 89. God makes clear in 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89 that he would punish David's faithless descendants, and we see that happen at times throughout Israelite history, but that is different from removing the right to rule from David's family.
​
c. Jesus is the immortal descendant of David who has been placed by God permanently on David's throne in fulfillment of that covenant. (see, e.g., Lk. 1:29-33; Acts 2:29-36). His descent from David is announced in Mat. 1:1 and specified in the genealogies in Mat. 1:6 and Lk. 3:31. The angel Gabriel declares that David is Jesus' father in Lk. 1:32, Paul says he is a descendant of David in Rom. 1:3-4 and 2 Tim. 2:8, one of the heavenly elders identifies him as the Root of David in Rev. 5:5, Jesus himself says he is the descendant of David in Rev. 22:16, and he is called the "son of David" by various people on many occasions in the New Testament.
​
5. Micah 5:2
a. Micah prophesied from the middle of the eighth century B.C. to the
beginning of the seventh century – during the reigns of the Judean kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Mic. 1:1). "The book of Micah is arranged in three cycles, each opening with judgment and closing with deliverance (1:2–2:13; 3:1–5:15; 6:1–7:20)." The judgment section of the second cycle is in 3:1-12 where Micah announces that God is about to destroy Jerusalem for the sins of its magistrates, prophets, and priests.
​
b. Micah turns abruptly in 4:1-5 "to a vision of a hidden future in which Jerusalem and its temple will become the center of global justice and righteousness and of international peace and prosperity." This is a picture of Israel's future exaltation. It is further pictured in 4:6-8 as God gathering dispersed Israel and transforming it into a strong nation over which he reigns forever. Verse 8 focuses on this being a restoration to glory.
​
c. In 4:9-10 Micah foresees the distress Judah will endure over a century later in its destruction and captivity by the Babylonians. This travail, like birth pains, will be followed by a blessing the working of which will include God's bringing them back from exile.
​
d. Whereas the "Now" of v. 9 was a proleptic perspective of the future time of the Babylonian invasion, the "Now" of v. 11 probably refers to Micah's own time in which Sennacherib's international horde of mercenaries was threatening Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (701 B.C.). Micah draws on that but does not provide a clear historical referent so that the imagery functions in this context as a generic paradigm for all such crises including the ultimate battle against God's people at the end. It depicts Israel's triumph over her attacking enemies through the power of God. The enemies that gather lusting to destroy God's people do not realize that they have played into his hands; he has gathered them together for destruction by his people.
​
e. Micah 5:1-6 repeats the pattern in 4:9-10 and 4:11-13 that moves from a distressful situation to salvation. Micah 5:1 speaks of Israel being under siege and her ruler being humiliated, but deliverance is now said to come by the Messiah, Israel's long-awaited ruler (whose coming forth is from ancient days) who will come forth for Yahweh and shepherd the people in the strength of Yahweh and whose greatness shall reach the ends of the earth. The reference to Assyrians as enemies in vv. 5-6 is representational. As the actual enemies of Micah's day, the Assyrians are used to picture the enemies of God's people of a later day. It the same thing with Rome in John's vision in Revelation.
​
f. According to the New Testament, it was widely understood in the first century that this text specified that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah (Mat. 2:3-6; Jn. 7:42). This is supported by the fact the Targum of the Minor Prophets, an ancient Aramaic paraphrase or interpretation of the Hebrew text, expresses this understanding. Craig Blomberg states:
​
The Targum of the Minor Prophets very explicitly takes this text as messianic: "And you, O
Bethlehem Ephrathah, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the
house of Judah, from you shall come forth before me the anointed One, to exercise dominion
over Israel, he whose name was mentioned from of old, from ancient times." . . . Other
post-Christian rabbinic literature recognized that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem
(e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 35:21), so there is no reason to reject the claim of the Gospels that this
information was recognized already in the first century.
​
g. The "Ephrathah" distinguishes this Bethlehem from the village in northern Israel known as Bethlehem of Zebulun (Josh. 19:15). Kaiser states, "Ephrathah was either the ancient name for Bethlehem (David's father was known as 'an Ephrathite from Bethlehem in Judah,' 1Sa 17:12; cf. Ge 35:19; 48:7; Ru 4:11) or the district in which Bethlehem was located."
​
h. Jesus, of course, was born in Bethlehem, the prophesied birthplace of the Messiah. This is made clear in Mat. 2:1, Lk. 2:4-7, and Lk. 2:15.
​
6. Isaiah 7:14
a. Isaiah prophesied in the latter half of the eighth century B.C. The political setting of chapter 7 is that Syria and Israel are ready to attack Judah and depose its king, Ahaz, because of his refusal to join their alliance against the Assyrians. This is around 735 B.C. God sends Isaiah to strengthen Ahaz by telling him he is not going to allow that to happen, and then he offers to confirm that word by performing a miracle of the young Ahaz's choosing. Ahaz refused the offer with a pious-sounding response that he would not "put the LORD to the test," but he almost certainly had already decided to court (or was courting) the Assyrians for protection rather than trust the Lord (2 Ki. 16:7-8). That is why Isaiah tells Ahaz, who represents the house of David, that he is wearying Isaiah's God (v. 13), suggesting some uncertainty as to whether the royal house regarded Yahweh as its God.
​
b. Because he was trying God's patience ("Therefore"), the Lord insists on giving him a sign anyway, but it now will be a sign of both salvation and judgment. The sign will be that "the 'almâ" will conceive and bear a son and name him Immanuel (7:14).
​
c. The Hebrew word 'almâ refers to an unmarried young woman. Though she would be a virgin because she was not yet married, that is an implication rather than the direct meaning of the word. The word tends to emphasize youth rather than virginity, but context can bring the latter to the fore. It is similar to the English word "maiden," which has fallen out of use. So the sign is that the maiden, probably referring to a specific young woman who was present, will conceive, give birth to a son, and name him Immanuel.
d. Following NET in taking le-, the preposition affixed to "his knowing," as indicating purpose or result instead of time (see also, KJV, NKJV, NAB), this child will eat sour milk (or cream or curds) and honey which will help him know how to reject evil and choose what is right (7:15). Again following NET, the particle at the beginning of v. 16 (kî – "for, because") "introduces the entire following context (vv. 16–25), which explains why Immanuel
will be an appropriate name for the child, why he will eat sour milk and honey, and why experiencing such a diet will contribute to his moral development" (NET note). The verse begins, "Here is why this will be so:"
​
e. He tells Ahaz the child will be named Immanuel, which means "God with us," because before he gets very old, before he knows how to reject evil and choose what is right, the land whose two kings Ahaz fears, Israel and Syria, will be desolate. The child thus will be a sign, a tangible reminder, of God's presence which will be manifested in his deliverance of Ahaz from that threat. So there clearly is an eighth century B.C. element to the sign.
​
f. And yet the child also will be a sign of God's presence in judgment against Judah for its lack of faith, as represented in Ahaz's relying on political alliances for protection. He declares in v. 17 that God will bring the Assyrians against Judah! As Ahaz's (Judah's) refusal to trust the Lord caused God to transform his blessing into judgment, Isaiah's prophecy turns from relief from the danger posed by Israel and Syria to judgment by other
nations. That is why Immanuel will eat curds and honey – the people will be forced to subsist on goats' milk and honey because the Assyrians will have destroyed the crops (vv. 20-22). This fulfillment will help him make right choices because it will reinforce trust in God which is the beginning of wisdom. It will also force the people to acknowledge God's presence with them (Immanuel) in judgment.
​
g. With many, I think Immanuel at the first level, in the eighth-century context, was Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, whose conception and birth is announced in the next chapter immediately after the portrait of the blessing and judgment of which the promised child will be a sign.44 But this eighth-century fulfillment does not exhaust the meaningof the prophecy. Rather, the son born at that time is a type, a representative of the full and
ultimate fulfillment that will take place in the miraculous birth of Jesus.
h. There is reason to believe Isa. 8:1-2 are a condensed allusion to Isaiah taking the virgin identified in 7:14, the young unmarried woman, to be his wife. (Isaiah's former wife, the mother of Shear-jashub [7:3, name means "a remnant shall return"], probably had died, perhaps in childbirth.) This taking of her as his wife is naturally and promptly followed in v. 3 by their having sexual relations and by the consequent birth of the son whom Isaiah is told to name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. In other words, the young woman was a virgin in 7:14 because she was not yet married; she is married in 8:1-2 and then conceives the promised son in the normal manner in v. 3. Unlike Mary, this young woman was not still a virgin at childbirth.
​
i. That Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the initial Immanuel, the child of 7:14-16, is suggested not only by the fact his birth is reported immediately after the portrait of the blessing and judgment of which Immanuel will be a sign but also by the fact 8:4 declares that before Maher-shalal-hash-baz gets very old, before he can talk, Syria will be defeated by the Assyrians. In 7:16 it says that both Syria and Israel would be eliminated by the time Immanuel would know how to reject evil and choose the good, perhaps meaning around age 12 in Jewish culture, when one was presumed to have sufficiently mature judgment. Assyria reduced Syria to a puppet state by 732 B.C., within just a couple of years of the birth of the child, and its conquest of Israel was finalized in 722 B.C., when the child was about 12.
j. And just as the removal of Judah's enemies at Immanuel's young age
was followed in 7:17-25 by an Assyrian invasion of Judah, so the removal of Syria at Maher-shalal-hash-baz's young age is followed in 8:7-8 by an Assyrian invasion of Judah. In addition, in 8:8, right in the middle of the discussion of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Isaiah addresses "Immanuel," and in 8:18 Isaiah says that the children given to him are signs, which is how
Immanuel is described in 7:14.
​
k. The use of different names for the same child is not unprecedented. Rachel called the son she died delivering Ben-oni, but Jacob called him Benjamin (Gen. 35:18).Chisholm comments:
​
The name Immanuel (given by the mother; see 7:14) would emphasize the basic fact of God's presence,
while the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz (given by Isaiah; see 8:3), meaning "one hastens to the plunder,
one hurries to the loot," wouldexplain exactly how God would be present (in judgment). Giving the
child a different name at the time of his birth would also be highly ironic, for it highlights how God's
presence, normally viewed as a positive reality, had been transformed into something dark and ominous by Ahaz's unbelief.
​
l. This first Immanuel was a promised son who signified God's special involvement, his presence, with his people in the immediate crisis of the eighth century B.C. But he foreshadowed a greater literal Immanuel who would manifest that presence in a far greater way and thus would express God's love and commitment in a greater way. That this prophesied child foreshadowed a greater future fulfillment is hinted at by the fact the prophecy is addressed not only to Ahaz but to the "house of David" (7:13), an abstract entity that continues beyond the lifetimes of individuals and in which the Messiah will be born. Moreover, in 9:6-7, which is part of the literary unit that began in 7:1,47 there is mention of a child being born who is an ideal Davidic deliverer, one who is described in terms that go beyond any purely human ruler –"Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Even if those are hyperbolic descriptions of a more immediate Davidic king, they carry messianic overtones.
​
m. Chisholm explains the concept like this:
​
Jesus the Messiah is the fulfillment of the Davidic ideal prophesied by Isaiah, the one whom
Immanuel foreshadowed. Through the miracle of the incarnation he is literally "God with us,"
not merely a tangible reminder of God's presence. Matthew realized this and applied Isaiah's
ancient prophecy of Immanuel's birth to Jesus (Matt. 1:22-23). The first Immanuel was a
reminder to the people of God's presence and a guarantee of a greater child to come who
would manifest God's presence in an even greater way. The second Immanuel is "God with us"
in a heightened and infinitely superior sense. He "fulfills" Isaiah's Immanuel prophecy
by bringing the typology intended by God to realization and by filling out or completing the
pattern designed by God. Of course, in the ultimate fulfillment of the type, the incarnate
Immanuel's mother must be a virgin, so Matthew uses a Greek term (parthenos) that carries
that technical meaning.
​
7. Isaiah 9:1-2
a. The coming of the ideal Davidic deliverer who in Isa. 9:6-7 is described in terms that go beyond any purely human ruler is announced in vv. 1-2:
But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the
land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea,
the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. 2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a
great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.
​
b. Zebulun and Naphtali were the tribal allotments that formed most of what later would be Galilee and the area northward. They were "the areas of Israel first humbled by foreign military invasions, and the region most influenced by foreign cultures and religions." Isaiah announces that in contrast to the gloom and darkness experienced in the past by these lands, they were going to be the locus of a great light, the Messiah of vv. 6-7, who will be a source of great joy and who will put an end to oppression (v. 4) "[b]y putting an end to the warfare upon which oppression rests" (v. 5).
​
c. Jesus' fulfillment of this prophecy is reported in Mat. 4:13-16:
​
13 And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and
Naphtali, 14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 15 "The land of Zebulun
and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles – 16 the
people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of
death, on them a light has dawned."
​
8. Deuteronomy 18:15-19
a. In Deut. 18:15-19 Moses announces that God will raise up from among them a prophet like him for the people of Israel. He explains in v. 16 that this is in accordance with the Israelites' desire expressed in Ex. 20:18-19 that Moses speak to them on God's behalf rather than God speak to them directly. That suggests that the singular, "a prophet," in 18:15, 18 is a collective singular, that it refers to a group of prophets in the singular, because "the people's request for a mediating spokesperson that leads to this promise is a constant need. In other words, Deuteronomy 18 understood within its ancient context may be perfectly explainable in terms of the rise of the prophetic movement and prophets like Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and so on." God will provide a line of prophets to accommodate their fear.
​
b. And yet, there is a sense in which this promise of a prophet "like [him]" was not fulfilled in the raising up of these other prophets. In Deut. 34:10-12, the inspired writer ends the book (and thus "the Law") by looking back on Moses some time later. He declares, "10 And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, 11 none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 12 and for all the mighty power and all the great deeds of terror that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.
​
c. This suggests there is a distinctiveness to Moses, something about his prophetic role that transcends that of other prophets. You see this also in Num. 12:6-8, where God says to Aaron and Miriam:
​
6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to
him in a vision; I speak with him bin a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my
house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the
LORD.
​
d. So even granting there was an ancient fulfillment of Moses' words in a succession of prophets, that fulfillment did not exhaust the promise. That is why many Jews in the first century expected the coming of this great prophet, this one who would be "like Moses" in the fullest sense, though there appears to have been different ideas as to how he would relate to the Messiah. In Jn. 1:21 the priests and Levites ask John the Baptist if he is Elijah or "the Prophet." When the people saw Jesus feed the 5,000 in John 6, they declared in v. 14, "This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!" Some who heard Jesus teaching in Jerusalem declared in Jn. 7:27, "This really is the Prophet."
​
e. Jesus, of course, was a prophet. He referred to himself as such in Mat. 13:57 (Mk. 6:4; Lk. 4:24; Jn. 4:44), and the people declared him to be a prophet on various occasions (Mat. 21:11, 46; Mk. 6:15; Lk. 7:16, 24:19; Jn. 4:19, 9:17). But he was no "ordinary" prophet; he was "the Prophet" promised by Moses. This is certain from the fact Peter applied Deut. 18:15, 18 to Jesus in Acts 3:22-23 when speaking to the people in the temple. Stephen implied that same connection in Acts 7:37 where he quoted Deut. 18:15 when defending his faith in Christ.
​
9. Psalm 110:1, 4
(a) Psalm 110 was composed by king David. He not only is identified in the title of the Psalm, which title is included in all of the ancient manuscripts, but Jesus expressly confirms his authorship (Mat. 22:43-44; Mk. 12:35-36; Lk. 20:41-42).
​
(b) The psalm is clearly messianic. The divine utterances in vv. 1 and 4 –"Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool" and "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" – "are directed from Yahweh to David about one whom David calls 'my Lord.' In other words, three distinct persons are involved in this psalm: Yahweh, the speaker; David, the recipient of the message; and one whom David calls 'my Lord' and whom he understands to be his sovereign – indeed, the one to whom he must submit."52 So this exalted,messianic figure is described in v. 4 as "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
​
(c) Melchizedek is a puzzling figure. Other than Hebrews, he is mentioned only in Gen. 14:18-20 and Ps. 110:4. He clearly functions as a type of Christ in that he represents a non-Levitical and perpetual priesthood (Heb. 7:3), but it is uncertain whether he functions that way because he in fact had no ancestors and did not die or because God chose to cast him as a type, to make him a type for those qualities by not saying anything about his genealogy or his death. F. F. Bruce is an example of those who see Melchizedek as a mortal who is described by God in Scripture in such a way to function as a type of Christ. He writes (p. 136-138):
​
The words which follow present an outstanding example of the argument from silence in a typological
setting. When Melchizedek is described as being "without father, without mother, without genealogy,
having neither beginning of days nor end of life", it is not suggested that he was a biological anomaly,
or an angel in human guise. Historically Melchizedek appears to have belonged to a dynasty of priest-
kings in which he had both predecessors and successors. If this point had been put to our author, he would
have agreed at once, no doubt; but this consideration was foreign to his purpose. The important
consideration was the account of Melchizedek in holy writ; to him the silences of Scripture were as
much due to divine inspiration as were its statements. In the only record which Scripture provides
of Melchizedek – Gen. 14:18-20 – nothing is said of parentage, nothing is said of ancestry or progeny,
nothing is said of his birth, nothing is said of his death. He appears as a living man, king of Salem and
priest of God Most High; and as such he disappears. In all this – in the silences as well as in the statements –
he is a fitting type of Christ.
​
(d) What matters for our present purpose is that Jesus is identified explicitly in Hebrews as the fulfillment of Ps. 110:4 (Heb. 5:5-10, 6:20, 7:11-22). He is theexalted promised one who is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek in that his priesthood is likewise non-Levitical, he being of the tribe of Judah, and perpetual, he being immortal.
​
(e) The writer of Hebrews tells us that the name Melchizedek means "king of righteousness" and the name Salem means "peace," which makes Melchizedek also the "king of peace" (Heb. 7:2). George Guthrie observes, "These concepts of righteousness and peace are appropriate for one who prefigures the Messiah, who would make righteousness and peace possible for the people of God."
​
(f) Psalm 110:1 ("Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool") is cited many times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, including by the Lord himself (Mat. 22:44; Mk. 12:36; Lk. 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Heb. 1:13). In fact, Psalm 110 is the most frequently quoted psalm in the New Testament.
​
10. Genesis 28:12
(a) In Genesis 25 Jacob exploited his brother Esau's situation and eakness to obtain the birthright, the disproportionate inheritance, and then in Genesis 27, with the encouragement of his mother, he deceived his father to obtain the blessing of the covenant promise. Esau resolved to kill Jacob but chose to wait until after their father died to do so. Rebekah learned of Esau's intentions and told Jacob to go stay with her brother Laban in Haran. She sold this to Isaac by telling him she could not stand the thought of Jacob marrying one of the local Hittite women. So Isaac sent Jacob to Laban, a journey of just over four hundred miles.
​
(b) On his way to Haran, Jacob came to Luz, which he renamed Bethel (meaning House of God). There he had a dream of a ladder or staircase reaching to heaven with the angels of God ascending and descending (Gen. 28:10-12). The Lord appeared to him in the dream and told him that the covenant blessings would be fulfilled through him and that he would continue to be with him and would bring him back to the land he was leaving. The next day Jacob anointed a stone to commemorate the event and committed himself to God.
​
(c) The Lord Jesus refers to this event in Jn. 1:51 when he tells Nathanael, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." Jesus is saying that Nathanael and others will see through their association with him that he is the bridge between heaven and earth, the ultimate vehicle of God's revelation. They will "see" that he has this function and significance; it will be shown to them throughout the Gospel of John that Jesus is the revealer of heavenly things. Here is how Leon Morris states it in his commentary on John:​
In this passage the place of the ladder is taken by 'the Son of Man.' Jesus himself is the link between heaven and earth (3:13). He is the means by which the realities of heaven are brought down to earth, and Nathanael will see this for himself. The expression then is a figurative way of saying that Jesus will reveal heavenly things, a thought that is developed throughout this Gospel. Philip's view of Jesus (v. 45) is true but inadequate. Jesus is indeed the fulfiller of prophecy, but he is also the Son of man, the revealer of God, the means of establishing communication between earth and heaven.
​
11. Amos 9:11
(a) Amos was a prophet from Judea who prophesied in the middle of the eighth century B.C. to the northern kingdom of Israel. He says in 9:11-15 that in the age of Israel's scattering, i.e., after the exile, God promises to raise up the "fallen booth" of David. It is a metaphor for the kingdom of David, one that looks back to the security Israel once enjoyed under David's rule. It is a promise that peace and security will again be established by the revival of the Davidic kingdom, by a descendant of David returning to the throne.
​
(b) At that point, descendants of David were still on the throne in Judah. They continued to rule in Judah until the Babylonian exile in 587 B.C. Thus, it appears that Amos is speaking of a time after the Judean exile, after the collapse of Davidic rule.
​
(c) He indicates that this restored Davidic kingdom will include other nations; other nations will bear God's name under the rule of his king (v.12). The kingdom will be one of unimaginable divine blessing, which is depicted or symbolized by the land's tremendous productivity (v.13) and by being allowed to enjoy the fruit of one's labor (v.14), a state that represents divine protection and security (see, Zeph. 1:13; Isa. 65:21-22; and the futility curses in Dt. 28:30-40). Amos indicates it will be a permanent kingdom (v.15).
​
(d) This promise was not fulfilled when Israel returned from Babylonian captivity in 538 B.C. (Zerubbabel), 458 B.C. (Ezra), and 444 B.C. (Nehemiah). They had no Davidic king; rather, they were under the control of the Persians and then the Greeks. Also, the condition of the Jews in post-exilic Palestine did not square with Amos's description.
​
(e) According to James in Acts 15:12-19, Amos was referring to Jesus. Jesus is the descendant of David who was placed by God on David's throne (see, Lk. 1:29-33; Acts 2:29-36, 5:31). This was announced early in Jesus' life by Simeon and Anna (Lk. 2:25-38). As James argues his case for the inclusion of Gentiles: Jesus is the Davidic king promised by Amos; the restored Davidic kingdom to which Amos referred included Gentiles; therefore, they must permit Gentiles to become Christians, to become participants in that kingdom.
​
(f) Jesus is now ruling on David's throne (Mat. 28:18; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:3-4; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 1:5, 3:21). When the kingdom Jesus inaugurated is consummated or finalized at his second coming, the Amos text will be fully realized (Acts 3:19-21). Resurrected Christians, both the Jewish root and grafted in Gentiles, will live forever in a land (a radically rejuvenated and transformed earth) that is unimaginably blessed. It will be the divine utopia in which there is no death, mourning, crying, or pain (see Rev. 21:1-4).
​
12. Zechariah 9:9
(a) Zechariah prophesied in Israel after the return from Babylonian exile in the latter part of the sixth century B.C. "Zechariah 9:1-17 is a prophetic hymn of the Divine warrior, which consists of two prose oracles (vv. 1-8, 11-17) framing a central poetic oracle (vv. 9-10)." Bateman, Bock, and Johnston summarize the chapter this way:
​
Zechariah 9:1-17 envisions the coming of the King in three successive acts. The Divine Warrior
would march out against the traditional enemies of Israel/Judah,starting in the north and moving
south, exacting victory along the way (vv. 1-8). Then he would enter Zion as her citizens hail his
triumphal entry by proclaiminghis kingship and as the sign that their liberation from foreign
oppression was at hand (vv. 9-10). The Divine Warrior would then defeat the foreign armies
occupying the land, and then inaugurate a new age of universal peace (vv. 11-17).
​
(b) In the pivotal poetic verses 9-10, the people of Jerusalem celebrate Yahweh entering the city as King mounted on a donkey. (A donkey "was the stereotypical mount of royalty in the ancient Near East.") There is an allusion in this imagery to Gen. 49:11, which connects it to Israel's messianic hope. As Bateman et al. remark, "We need not choose between Yahweh's coming and the coming of King Messiah. They are wrapped up in each other."
​
(c) Zechariah 9:9-10 depict the eschatological coming of the Divine Warrior to inaugurate his theocratic rule of universal peace. But if God/Christ is this end-time ruler, this eternal King, what of the promised eternal rulership of the Son of David? As salvation history unfolds, it becomes clear that "[t]he future eschatological kingship of Yahweh as well as the kingship of the future eschatological Davidic king will be wrapped up with one another. Yahweh's presence and decisive work will be seen in the reign of the coming Davidic king."
​
(d) This text is applied to Jesus in Mat. 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15 (see also, Mk. 11:7-10 and Lk. 19:35-38).
​
13. Isaiah 42:1-7
(a) Recall that Isaiah 40–55 includes four sections that are known as the "Servant Songs," sections that speak of a special divine "servant" who will be instrumental in fulfilling God's purposes. The first of these sections is 42:1-4[9].
​
(b) This special servant in whom God delights will be endowed with God's Spirit and will establish justice on the earth (v. 1). His modus operandi will not be loud, aggressive, or threatening; rather, it will be characterized by patient endurance and humility in the face of opposition (v. 2). He will not reject the lowly and weak as useless but will care for them (v. 3). Kaiser comments:
​
The Messiah will soothe and uphold the weak without falling into the excesses of encouraging
evil with smooth words or using excessive severity to crush those already weak. His goal will be
to establish the rule and kingdom of God on the earth (v. 4). The standard he will use to bring
about his kingdom and rule will be his truth (v. 3c). "His law" will be what the nations of the world
must come to terms with if they are going to participate in that kingdom (v. 4c). In bringing all this
about, his zeal will not flag or falter, nor will his strength suddenly abate. For God has called
him in righteousness and given him the necessary power to perform his task (v. 6a-b). God's plan is
to appoint his servant "a covenant [belonging to] . . . the people" (v. 6c) and as a "light for the Gentiles"
(v. 6d). Thus, all the blessings of the covenant are resident in the Messiah, just as the salvation God
wants the Gentiles to receive is also in him. He will open the eyes of the blind and set the captives
in the dark prison houses free (v. 7). He is God's Servant par excellence.
​
(c) Isaiah 42:1-3 are cited in reference to Jesus in Mat. 12:17-21. Isaiah 42:6 was applied to Jesus by Simeon in Lk. 2:32, and in Lk. 4:18 Jesus refers to Isa. 42:1, 7 inspeaking of himself.
14. Exodus 25:8-9, 22
(a) In Exodus 25-27 and 30 God instructed Israel to build a beautiful and majestic tent which he specified in 25:8-9, 22 was for the purpose of his dwelling among them. As they were living in tents on their journey to the promise land, he too would "dwell" in a tent in their midst. Of course, even the highest heavens cannot contain God, as Solomon noted in 1 Ki. 8:27, but he chose to dwell among the people of Israel in this tent, the tabernacle; he chose to be present there in some special sense. This special presence was symbolized by the bright cloud of glory that settled on the tabernacle by day and the fire that was on it by night (Ex. 40:34-38; Num. 9:15-23).
​
(b) This special divine presence in the tabernacle, and later the temple, foreshadowed the greater manifestation of the divine presence in the person of Jesus. He is the ultimate Immanuel, God with us as one of us. That Jesus is the fulfillment of the divine presence pictured by the tabernacle is suggested by Jn. 1:14, where John declares, And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
​
(c) The Greek word translated "dwelt" in the phrase "dwelt among us" literally means "to live or camp in a tent," which is precisely what God said he was doing in the tent known as the tabernacle. As he was present among the people uniquely in that structure, John signals that Jesus was God "tabernacling" among us in flesh and blood rather than in a tent. Jesus' coming was foreshadowed in the divine presence in the tabernacle.
​
15. Hosea 11:1
(a) Hosea prophesied in the eighth century B.C. Hosea 11:1 states, When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. This quite clearly is referring to Israel's departure from Egypt in the Exodus of 1446 B.C. "Israel" in the first clause is parallel to "son" in the final clause, a parallel no doubt based on God's instruction to Moses in Ex. 4:22-23:
​
22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say
to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me." If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill
your firstborn son.'"
​
(b) Matthew reports in Mat. 2:13 that an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt and to remain there until told otherwise because Herod was about to search for Jesus with the intent of killing him. Matthew 2:14-15 state:
​
14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained
there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out
of Egypt I called my son."
​
(c) So without denying that the statement "Out of Egypt I called my son" in Hos. 11:1 referred to the nation Israel at the time of the Exodus, Matthew asserts it also looked forward to the later calling of the Messiah, God's unique Son, out of Egypt in the person of Jesus. In other words, the inspired Matthew insists there was a prophetic residual to that statement that remained unfulfilled until Jesus came out of Egypt. I think he perceived that prophetic residual from what God had revealed elsewhere in the Old Testament.
​
(d) In Numbers 24, as Balaam sees Israel camping tribe by tribe after having come out of Egypt, the Spirit of God moves him to declare (vv. 5-9):
​
5 How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your encampments, O Israel! 6 Like palm groves that stretch
afar, like gardens beside a river, like aloes that the LORD has planted, like cedar trees beside the
waters. 7 Water shall flow from his buckets, and his seed shall be [by] many waters; his king shall
be higher than Agag [Gog?], and his kingdom shall be exalted. 8 God brings him out of Egypt and
is for him like the horns of the wild ox; he shall eat up the nations, his adversaries, and shall break
their bones in pieces and pierce them through with his arrows. 9 He crouched, he lay down like a lion
and like a lioness; who will rouse him up? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those
who curse you."
​
(e) Balaam prophesies that God will provide from his buckets the water Israel will need to flourish, and his sons and daughters (God's "seed" in the sense of his children; see, e.g., Deut. 14:1; Isa. 43:6; 1 Jn. 3:9) will occupy a large area, one that encompasses many waters. His (God's) king, meaning the Messiah (Ps. 2:6), will be greater than "Agag," perhaps referring to a known ruling position of significant power, though the original text may have read "Gog," who is an end-time enemy of Israel. And his, the Messiah's, kingdom will be an exalted one. According to v. 8, God brings him, the Messiah, out of Egypt and will be a powerful force on his behalf. This king will be thoroughly victorious, and people will be blessed and cursed based on whether they are with him or against him.
​
(f) In light of God's revelation that Jesus is the Messiah and the fact he came out of Egypt, Matthew realizes that the Messiah's coming out of Egypt that is referred to in Num. 24:5-9 was separate from the coming out of Israel at the time of the Exodus. In other words, God had now clarified that Num. 24:5-9 was not referring to the Messiah coming out of Egypt at the time of the Exodus in the figurative sense that he would descend from Israel, from those delivered in the Exodus. Rather, Num. 24:5-9 was referring to the Messiah himself coming out of Egypt as the nation of Israel had done.
​
(g) Given the insight that Num. 24:5-9 refers to the Messiah himself, God's unique Son, coming out of Egypt separate from the nation's prior exodus from Egypt, the statement "Out of Egypt I called my son" in Hos. 11:1 takes on a prophetic sense. Calling Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus foreshadowed the later calling of the Messiah out of Egypt. It is this prophetic foreshadowing that Matthew declares was fulfilled in Jesus.
​
(h) As for why Matthew cited as fulfilled the more ambiguous prophetic foreshadowing of Hos. 11:1 instead of the more direct prophecy of Num. 24:7-8, he probably was motivated by the fact Hos. 11:1 uses the phrase "my son." In the words of Michael Rydelnik, "The answer is that Matthew was not just describing the journey from Egypt – he wanted to emphasize the Messiah's relationship to His Father as Son."
​​