The Gospels have more information about the historical Jesus than all other external sources put together [1]. These are succinct and anecdotal compared to those in the Gospels. However, these texts must be taken seriously in order to approach them critically and objectively. We know there are criticisms leveled against them. Some of them are actually worth considering; however, the majority of them are subjective and unfounded, due to the fact that these critiques start from an assumption that the writings of the Gospels, and of the Bible in general, relate only theological facts, as if the latter do not. could not be counted as historical facts.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

If it is true that the theological fact is central in the biblical accounts, however, it must be emphasized that the latter take on meaning in history not as a symbolic construction transcribed into moral language to dictate the behavior of the human being in his life. relationship with the Divine, but as the fulfillment of real events. God steps into history and leaves imprints that can be spotted. The history of the Jewish people and their relationship with their environment are historically proven. The history of the development of Christianity reported by Luke in the Book of Acts of the Apostles is verified historically. The apostle Paul's letters to non-Jewish Christians in lands outside of Jerusalem are not forgeries. Just as the account concerning the central character of the gospel, namely the life and the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, is not of the fictitious or symbolic order but of the order of history. No serious seeker can ignore the fact that Jesus of Nazareth existed. In this sense, the mythist thesis claiming to deconstruct its existence is unfounded. However, some historians find it difficult to accept the version presented by the gospels concerning, above all, the miraculous birth of Christ and the miracles he performed. We can however understand, as we have pointed out elsewhere, that it depends on the paradigm in which we are situated [2]. For those who take the modern materialist perspective of historical science, the theological fact is not taken into account in the investigation of historical research; while in the case of the Jewish paradigm of history, this is an integral part of the research [3]. In the latter, it should be noted that the historical fact is not always different from the theological fact. In other words, it is not always easy to contrast the theological fact with the historical fact. They are sometimes inextricably linked, and this is specifically in the case of biblical accounts. On this question, we have studied in relatively detail the accounts of the Gospels as well as of historical texts. The criteria of historicity and reliability of these documents are well established. In this sense, these documents [4] can be used as a documentary source for the investigation of research from other disciplines. This has been shown wildly by archeology and history [5]. Biblical accounts have been and are still the object of archaeological research. Whether we like it or not, the relationship between archeology and the Bible is mutually enriched. No offense to mythical skeptics who want to deconstruct the Bible at all costs, it turns out that archaeological findings have confirmed the biblical accounts.

In the case of this present text, it will preferably be a question of studying the messiannic dimension of Jesus of Nazareth, by studying the texts of the Old Testament in relation to the documents of the New Testament. At this level, we must especially understand that the New Testament elucidates the reader about the Old Testament concerning the person of Jesus of Nazareth, since it provides us with a major understanding of the prophecies of the Old Testament. To do this, the Messiah is the central concept that allows us to study what the Old Testament says about Jesus [6]. This text is subdivided into two points. The first deals with theoretical reflections on the study of messianism. Note that we will not take into account all the existing theories on this question, however, we will limit ourselves to those that we consider important for our study. In the second point, it will be a question of approaching Jesus as “the Messiah of God”. This expression, as we will see, is a specific designation in the writings of the Old Testament. It marks a certain affinity between God and the chosen one. And one of the ways that we can see this affinity is in the mission that God gives to him.

Considerations on the doctrine of the “Messiah”

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Studies on messianism make it possible to understand that the notion of Messiah is subject to different interpretations in the context of the Old Testament, and especially in relation to its applicability to Jesus of Nazareth. In reality, it must be conceded that in the Old Testament, the word messiah does not necessarily refer to Jesus of Nazareth. It turns out that during the OT period it was used in different contexts to different people, who were “kings”, “priests” and “prophets”. Lisbeth S. Fried wrote about this:

Many people are anointed in the Hebrew Bible, and many are called “Messiahs” or “the Anointed”. The high priest is called the anointed priest (Leviticus 4: 3, 5, 16, 6:15). God told Elijah to anoint two different men as kings of their people: Hazael as king of Aram (1Kings 19:15) and Jehu son of Nimshi as King over Israel. God also commands Elijah to anoint Elisha his own successor, Elisha son of Shaphat, as a prophet (1 Kings 19:16). In these precise moments, the term “messiah” or “Anointed” would not refer to a future savior of humanity [7].

As Fried well pointed out, this term is used in TA for many people without referring directly to someone, in particular, who is to come in the future to perform a specific mission. In that sense, it was a designation linked to a function that someone fulfilled as a chosen one of God among the Jewish people. By the way, it turns out that somewhere in the Bible this notion in its most particular designation was used for a non-Jew, Cyrus king of Persia. This is not simply called the Messiah, but is referred to as “the Messiah of God”, an expression which designates a certain peculiarity in its meaning. In this regard Fried went on to write the following:

These people are called “messiah” or “the Anointed One”. But they were not referred to as the “Messiah of Yaweh,” as Cyrus was referred to. This unusual phrase (including variations such as “my Anointed” or “his Anointed”) always referring to Yaweh, the God of Israel) occurs 30 times in the Hebrew Bible, but always in reference to the legitimate kings of Judah. It is applied: 11 times to Saul (1 Samuel 12: 3,5, 24: 6 (twice), 10, 26: 9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Samuel 1: 14, 16); three times to David (1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Samuel 19:22, 23: 1); and once to an unknown king of the unified monarchical kingdom or Judah (1 Samuel 2:35). It also refers to the kings of Judah: in Lamentations (4:20), in eight Psalms (Psalms 2: 2,18: 50, 20: 6, 28: 8, 45: 7, 84: 9, 89:20, 38,51, 132: 10, 17), in the prayer of Habakuk (3:13) and in the prayer of Anne (1 Samuel 2:10). But in Isaiah 45: 1, this phrase refers to Cyrus, a Persian monarch. [8]

It should be noted that “the Messiah of God” in the context of OT is not a mere designation. On the other hand, this expression makes it possible to understand that there is a privileged relationship established between God and his chosen one. It also designates that the chosen one is the commissioned protege of God. Fried emphasized in this sense that “for biblical writers, however, the term“ Anointed of God ”is more than a title. It also has a theological connotation. The “Anointed One of God” is a legitimate king who is his designated and his protege ”[9]. But the question that needs to be asked now is: why does the prophet Isaiah refer to Cyrus as being the Messiah of God?

Following the analysis of the texts of Isaiah (44 and 45: 1) by Fried, and at the same time of those of Ezra (1, 5 and 6) also highlighting the mission of Cyrus, the king of Persia, three reasons can be considered. First, Cyrus is designated as the Messiah of God because he used him to enable the people of Israel to return from exile; then, to rebuild the temple and return the sacred objects of the temple that the Babylonian king had taken during his invasion, and to enter into judgment with the kings who oppressed Israel, profaned and destroyed the temple of Jesusalem. So to speak, this expression of the “Messiah of God” in the prophetic context of OT simply shows how God was choosing a non-Jewish king, the only one for that matter, to accomplish his purpose. In this specific context, the Messiah of God in Isaiah's prophecy is only applicable in the context of the Old Testament, and it has nothing to do with the expectation of a special Messiah who is to fulfill in the future the ultimate plan of God [10]. However, this does not mean that we must reduce the notion of “Messiah” or the expression “the Messiah of God” quite simply to the context of the Old Testament, as Anthony Collins did, by prioritizing only the literal meaning of Bible prophecy. He argued that passages that some claim to find fulfillment in Jesus are taken out of context. He believes in taking the OT prophetic text for what it is in the spirit of his day. The idea that these writings herald someone to come, The Messiah, in a future beyond the OT Age is not of relevant concern. About this Walter C Keizer wrote:

The supposedly “full” or “spiritual” conclusion to those OT texts that many applied to Jesus, Collins concluded, could only be illustrative; in any case, they did not constitute a specific "proof" that Jesus had been foreseen as the "messiah" with certain characteristics and works at the time of the prophets [11].

If according to some, like Collins, the word Messiah in the context of the Old Testament is used in a general dimension of which the meaning of the word “messiah” or “chosen” is considered as an epithet to designate “kings”, the “ priests ”and“ prophets ”chosen by God, which is in part true, and that these prophecies literally find their fulfillment in real-time in the days of OT itself, however, according to Keiser, this notion in its technicality and in a particular context it refers specifically to a special messiah who, coming out in the line of David, will in the future be the king of Yaweh forever [12]. And, in this case, Christ of the New Testament is the only one who is this type of “special anointed”. In fact, Keizer continues to say that the word “anointed” in its three meanings applies to Jesus. He is considered at the same time as king, priest and prophet [13]. From this perspective of Keiser, we would not have locked ourselves in a general dimension of the notion of Messiah. That said, it must be understood in its specific and technical dimension, which in reality depicts Jesus of Nazareth from the New Testament as being “the messiah of God”.

In this sense, studying the passages of the Old Testament concerning the coming of the Messiah of God who will reign forever on the throne of God amounts to emphasizing the technical dimension of this notion. So they should be considered in another dimension which would infer, for example, the taking into account of the same prophecy in a double fulfillment in a different time. In this same line of thought, Thomas Sherlock emphasizes, about the double scope of prophecy, that there is the original meaning of the text that must of course be taken into account, but there is what he calls the “fuller meaning [14]” which allows a messianic interpretation of the text [15]. However, the approach of JG Herder and JG Eichhorn goes in the opposite direction. If for Sherlock the prophetic text of the OT can have a double meaning, for these authors it can have only one meaning. Moreover, they see in the idea that a prophecy can contain a prediction concerning the coming of a savior as a dogmatic imposition on the text. It should be understood that the hope for the future found in the text of the Old Testament lies within the limits of its historical context. In this sense, attention is focused on the prophet and the sense in which he understands his prophecy [16].

In fact, there is a major problem with the approach of Herder and Eichhorn when we read how New Testament writers understood certain OT prophecies in relation to Jesus, specifically when we read the places where Matthew shows clearly that certain Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled at a particular time in Jesus' earthly life. Further, if we truly believe in the reliability of what the gospel writers report about the speeches and statement of Jesus himself, how would these writers interpret the words of Jesus who after reading Isaiah's prophecy 61: 1-2, said that this word of prophecy is fulfilled today [17]? While it is true that we should not ignore the historical context of the prophecy spoken by an OT prophet, and that we must also give importance to the original meaning of the latter, however, we cannot deny that it can obviously be applied to Jesus, as several texts of the New Testament show. So to speak, when we consider these texts, we can simply notice that this perspective does not provide a solid explanation to support this thesis of the one literal meaning of OT prophecies.

In addition, concerning the importance of the New Testament in the process of interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament related to the messiah, there is even an approach which tends to make the latter a frame of reference which makes it possible to explain some prophetic writings of OT. The main proponent of this approach is EW von Hengstenberg. According to him, at the same time that we analyze certain particular texts of the OT according to their chronological order in a messianic perspective, we must consider the NT as the final arbiter, in the sense that it will allow difficult passages to be understood. [18].

Jesus: the Messiah of God announced by the OT prophecies

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

There is a panoply of theoretical considerations on OT prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah. However, it should be noted that some of them have no solid basis, since they are simply ramblings that do not advance ideas on the subject. The perspective which takes into account both the historical context, the circumstances in which the prophet speaks his prophetic words, and the predictive dimension of the latter concerning the coming of the Messiah presents the most sustainable alternative when we read the texts of the Lord. 'Writing. Prophetic words, in this case, can have immediate and futuristic meaning. At this level, the prophet may not be able to grasp the full scope of which he is prophesying. In other words, the latter may not fully understand the main plan or purpose of God behind this divine word that he has entrusted to him. However, where the prophet sees only what God is going to do for Israel in the future, God himself is also planning his project for humanity; where the prophet sees a predictive word about the messiah who will come in the future to deliver Israel from its oppressors, God, in this same word, also builds a project of spiritual deliverance for all humanity.

The formulation of prophecies set in a specific historical context should be seen, so to speak, as the progressive fulfillment of God's promise. Keiser, in his critical considerations on the main theories of messianism, made a relevant point which opens the way for a perspective, which emphasizes above all the progressive development of the fulfillment of God's promise through prophecy. entrusted to men during the history of a specific people. Thus he writes, showing the limits of the theory of literal meaning and that of double fulfillment, the following:

What has been overlooked by both sides of this debate is the actual progress of the word from prediction to its fulfillment as it materializes in Israel's history. This aspect was more or less seen as an unnecessary element between the prophetic word and its fulfillment. But, that was the purpose of the Messianic doctrine. God didn't just predict what would happen; he was working with just as much force so that his plan of promise, in the daily course of events on the scene of history and in accordance with what he had announced in advance, be accomplished. And what work in history and work in the distant future have in common is that the same word speaks of both the immediate future and the distant future [19].

This reflection of Keiser makes it possible to understand that it is necessary to see how God, through the history of a people, gradually accomplishes his plan. While it is true that the historical circumstances, socio-political and spiritual contexts in which the prophets spoke the prophetic words are to be considered, it is also important to keep in mind that there is a “constant element”, that of the promise of God, which is taken into account directly and indirectly in these prophecies. In other words, we must read the Bible more particularly the prophecies of the Old Testament with regard to the ultimate promise of God. Keiser tells us that: “The Bible should be read with an appreciation for its integrity, its unity, and its concept of the divine plan which is put into action both in immediate historical accomplishments and in its final fulfillment on the last day [ 20] ”.

Having said that, when we read the Bible, specifically OT, we must see how the plan of God's ultimate promise to restore mankind unfolds throughout history. God intervenes in the temporal to carry out his eternal plan, and the latter can only be accomplished through what the Old Testament calls the Messiah of God. So then, we can only understand this when we approach Scripture as a dynamic unit. It develops from the ultimate promise, which constitutes the basis on which all divine word, all prophecy, all intervention of God converge towards its fulfillment. Which prompts Keizer to conclude as follows:

(…) The Messianic doctrine is located in the only unified plan of God, called in the NT his “commitment”, which is eternal in its fulfillment, but climatic in its final fulfillment, while being built by historical achievements that are part of integral to this single current plan as it headed towards its final plateau [21].

To reach its final destination, this ultimate promise can only be fulfilled, as God prophesied himself, through the posterity of women. Thus we read: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed: the latter will crush your head, and you will hurt her heel” (Gen. 3:15). In this passage we have both the statement of the promise and the means by which it will be fulfilled. All the rest of Scripture builds on this passage. The basis of the messianic doctrine is established there. God's eternal plan is simply established. The hope in future deliverance promised by God, through the progressive divine and prophetic words found in OT, peaked in the coming of the posterity of the woman. The question he now has to ask himself is: who is the seed of the woman? The New Testament provides the answer clearly: Jesus of Nazareth. Christopher JH Wright, in this same line of ideas could write:

The Old Testament is full of hope for the future. He looks beyond himself to an expected end. This forward movement, or eschatological push… is a fundamental element of the faith of Israel. It was based on their experience and their concept of God himself. In history, God was constantly active in working towards his primary goal for Earth and mankind. Just as Matthew summed up this story in the first chapter in the form of his genealogy, his concluding observation in verse 17 indicates that it is a story whose purpose is now achieved in Jesus. This is the end of it [22].

Jesus constitutes the climax of the unfolding of history, in that he is the goal and the limit of what must happen to fulfill the fundamental promise built in God's eternal plan. While it is true that God intervenes in history starting at a specific time, choosing a specific people, however we must see beyond that the fundamental purpose of God to establish the redemptive plan for all. 'humanity. God's promise to Abraham by telling him that all nations will be blessed in him and in his seed (Gen. 12: 2-3; 22: 17-18) - which moreover indirectly echoes what God had already prophesied in Genesis 3:15 - and which promise is repeated again and again in OT prophecies, finds its fulfillment in the coming of Jesus.

Moreover, we do not want to ignore either that God has a specific plan for the people of Israel in particular, because this same Jesus will come in a future time to physically deliver this people from the domination of their oppressors. And, this is clearly stated in the letter to the Romans in chapters 9, 10 and 11. But, this type of deliverance as important as it is does not in reality constitute the ultimate plan of God that Jesus himself had mentioned in his conversation with Nicodemus, specifying: “for God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not perish (John 3:16)”. This is the ultimate plan of deliverance from God, only actually possible in Jesus. The divine interventions in the process of deliverance of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt and the oppression of other peoples in a way foreshadowed the intervention of God, in the person of Jesus, in the deliverance of humanity. from the slavery of sin.

Among other things, it would be important to also underline that the ultimate plan of God and the means of its fulfillment found in the text of Genesis (3:15) actually concerns the future of humanity. The people of Israel did not yet exist at that time, although it is true that God was building the nation of Israel, the people through whom He had spoken His prophetic words and from whom the Messiah had to come out to perform this plan. The first 11 chapters of Genesis present the creation of the universe, the human being and his fall, and God's redemptive plan to restore it. Then, the remainder of Genesis to the last book of the Old Testament tells the story of the constitution of the people of Israel and of God's intervention in the process of developing His plan which He will accomplish in Jesus. God is using these people to reveal his prophetic messianic words in accordance with his ultimate plan. It is not without reason that this people preciously preserves the texts of the Old Testament which constitute the first part of our Bible. It tracks how God, in an orderly fashion through time and under historical circumstances, acts with the ultimate goal of fulfilling his promise through his Messiah. Regarding these texts, Butt was able to point out that: “Each of the 39 books contains a calculated revelation describing an aspect of the coming Messiah, which, according to these scriptures, is not only intended to save the nation of Israel, but the whole world. In fact, the reader cannot go very far in the writings of the Old Testament before being inundated with descriptions and predictions concerning the coming Messiah [23] ”.

Every calculated revelation described in these 39 books about the coming of the Messiah is to be understood in terms of both straightforward prophecies and standard prophecies concerning Christ. JE L Vander Geest, in a text written on Tertullian's understanding of the Old Testament in relation to Christ, emphasized this aspect. For Tertullian, the coming of Jesus was well prepared by the old covenant. Geest wrote:

Tertullian believes that the order of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ did not come unannounced, unprepared. Strictly speaking, it is not 'new' at all since, in fact, it was already announced in the old order. When Tertullian reads the words of the Old Testament, he sees them preferably in this prophetic function. He looks at the Old Testament as a piece of writing which is also and above all turned towards the future, and in particular, the future which begins in Christ [24].

And he continued:

There are two ways in which the coming of Christ was prepared in the Old Testament. The first is prophetic prediction. Tertullian sees in it the coming of Christ clearly and expressly announced. In the second place, Tertullian believes that the coming of Christ was prepared by various events, institutions, laws, obscure words, other things and other facts, what are called the 'types [25]'.

Tertullian's far-sighted analysis, to some extent, helps to understand that the Old Testament constitutes the biographical story of Christ. That said, if we want to understand his true identity, it would be necessary, alongside what the Gospels teach us, to read the texts of the Old Testament, more precisely the specific prophecies which announced the coming of this messiah. In fact, the prophecies contained in these texts do not only inform us about the ministry of Jesus. They also teach us about his birth, death and resurrection. In this way, the New Testament writers were well advised. One should, for example, simply read the four Gospels to better understand this.

Furthermore, it would be important to make it understood that if God allowed the authors of the Gospels and the Epistles to understand that most of the prophetic texts concerned the coming of Jesus, it was relatively different for the prophets to whom God confided his oracles concerning the coming. of the Messiah. They did not quite understand what they were prophesying about Jesus and his grace. Peter tells us in this connection: “the prophets, who prophesied concerning the grace which was reserved for you, made this salvation the object of their research and their investigations, wanting to fathom the time and the circumstances marked by the Spirit of Christ who was in them, and who foretold the sufferings of Christ and the glory by which they would be followed. It was revealed to them that it was not for themselves, but for you, that they were the stewards of those things, which have now been announced to you by those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. , and into which the angels desire to gaze ”(1 Peter 1: 10-12, LSB).

Regardless of how far we can understand what those men who were the mouth of God prophesied, the amazing lesson we must learn is that God, being sovereign, controls the history of mankind. To fulfill his ultimate promise, being that of the redemption of mankind, a demonstrative proof of his love, intervenes at well-determined moments in space and time by gradually revealing words to his prophets who find their fulfillment in the coming of Jesus, called the Messiah of God.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Mauley Colas

Vice-President of Standing 4 Christ Ministry

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

____________________________________________________________________
* Quotes are in English. Translations from English to French are by the author.

[1] There is one question that some people tend to ask most often in relation to information recounted in the gospels: is there any external evidence that supports the gospel accounts of Jesus. It must be said that this question is actually biased, due to the fact that it infers that the Gospels, if what they report are not relayed by external evidence, are doubtful and unreliable. First, we would like to point out that this question could be Objective if and only it was asked for all other ancient classical texts such as classical philosophy texts of antiquity. In fact, as an ancient document, we believe that the Bible receives special treatment from its detractors, in the sense that the latter do not bother to question in the same way a set of other ancient texts as they do. accept for real. Second, while it is true that this question may be useful in that it allows for more evidence to be sought elsewhere in order to verify the veracity of the information, however, it is first of all important to study the reliability. of these documents in themselves on the basis of objective criteria of credibility established by textual criticism, which are used for example for the texts of Socrates and Plato. Indeed, when external sources come to confirm the internal information of a document, it reinforces credibility; which is also the case with the Bible. However, the intention of the question must be sparked by the concern to seek the truth. To say like Descarte, it must be raised by methodical doubt.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

[2] Mauley Colas, Reliability of the Gospels: The Gospels as Historical Texts. Available at https://www.s4cministry.org/copie-de-fiabilite-des-evangiles-le

[3] Here is raised an epistemological concern linked to the construction of the object and the delimitation of the investigation. The criteria for choosing an object of study vary from one discipline to another, from one paradigm to another. They mainly depend on the interest of the researcher or research group in question. Now, the question that should be asked is: on what basis do we choose these criteria? To answer this question, if it is true that the researcher or research group can say that we start from what we observe, from what can allow us to experience and measure the object under study, it is important to point out that this also depends on our (subjective) inclination, that is, our personal interest. And this is not limited to the hermeuneutical or interpretative sciences such as the socio-human sciences; but this also applies to researchers in empirical-formal sciences, such as physics or chemistry. We tend to ignore this aspect in choosing our research object. There is no choice devoid of emotion. There is always the subject's involvement in the object.

However, this does not mean that the criterion of objectivity is not applicable. It is to a certain degree. It is never complete. The researcher cannot claim to be in perfect objectivity. If he believes it, he deludes himself. This is why it is preferable to speak of objectification, that is to say a “process towards objectivity”. It must also be conceded that some fields of research have a more advanced degree of objectivity than another, in the sense that there is, for example, a higher degree of objectivity in physics than in sociology in terms of implication. subjectivity of the subject. However in both cases, the researchers construct intelligible instruments such as methods, theories and concepts to investigate their research object. Furthermore, we also want to point out that one should not confuse measurement and measuring instrument. We measure according to an instrument that we design in a very specific paradigm for a well determined object. This means that it is obvious that this instrument which we design for one aspect of one object may not be effective for another; and that does not mean that this other aspect does not exist. For example, by the fact that the proponents of modern materialist science maintain that any metaphysical hypothesis is excluded from their field of research should not mean that it does not exist. So to speak, the limit imposed by a paradigm and the ignorance which accompanies it, does not imply the non-existence of the object blacklisted. Unfortunately, it is this trend that predominates in our present time.

[4] What we are emphasizing for the writings of the Gospels also applies to the whole Bible, specifically for historical and prophetic texts.

[5] In this sense we can refer to the following works: Joseph M. Holden, Norman Geisler, The popular handbook of Archeology and the Bible: discorveries that confirm the reliability of Scripture, Eugene: Harvest House publishers, 2013; Kennett Anderson Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, Downer Grove: Inversasity press, 1966; Kennett Anderson Kitchen, On the reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: William B. Eermans publishing company, 2003; William G. Dever, Beyond the texts: an archaeological portrait of Ancient Judah and Israel, SBL press, 2017; Matthieu Richelle, The bible and Archeology, Hendrickson publichers inc, 2018.

[6] It must be said that what makes the Bible unique is not the fact that its reliability is attested. Moreover, it is not only the biblical text that is reliable. Although this aspect is important because it allows to deconstruct the forging thesis that some claim to support in order to discredit it. Then, the fact that archeology and history corroborate the biblical accounts, attest the historical existence of certain great biblical figures does not in reality determine the true nature. As important as this aspect is, we would say what truly teaches us about the nature of the Bible is the fulfillment of its prophecies. The prophecies and their fulfillment clearly teach us that it has its origin in God as the bible itself makes clear. It is a fundamental element which proves its uniqueness compared to all other religious books. Henry M. Morris and Henry M. Morris III wrote on this subject: “one of the strong objective evidence of biblical inspiration is the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy. The Bible is essentially unique among the religious books of mankind in this respect. Some of them contain a few vague forecaste, but nothing comparable to the vast number of specific prophecies found in the Bible ”in Many evidences for the infallible proofs: evidences for the Christian faith, Green Forest: Masterbooks, 2015, p.189.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

[7] Lisbeth S. Fried Cyrus the Messiah, Bible review, vol.19, issue 5, Oct.2003. retrieved online: https://members.bib-arch.org/bible-review/19/5/3

[8] Lisbeth S. Fried, Ibib.

[9] Lisbeth S. Fried, Op.Cit.

[10] In this same line of ideas Young emphasizes regarding Cyrus's designation as The Messiah of God the following: “The fact that Cyrus was anointed suggests that God put his Spirit upon him in order to perform a specific task. . This does not necessarily imply that Cyrus had become a true worshiper of the God of Israel. It also did not mean, as some suggest, that he was sanctified by God to fulfill the office of King. The term preferably suggests that there is a specific task to be accomplished and for this he was anointed by the sovereign God of Israel, who equipped him with his Spirit in order to perform his mission. In this sense, Cyrus is a type of Messianic servant of the Lord upon whom the Spirit has come in a greater measure, in order to be equipped for the task, infinitely greater than that of Cyrus, of freeing his people from bondage. spirituality of sin and guilt. ”. In Edward J. Young, The book of Isaiah, vol 3, chapters 40-46, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambrigde: William B. Eerdmans publishing company, 1972, P195.

[11] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. The Messiah in the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan publishing house, 1995, p14

[12] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Op.cit. P.16

[13] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Ibid.

[14] We could translate this expression of fuller meaning by the greatest meaning or greatest meaning.

[15] Walter C. Kaiser, Op.Cit. p.19

[16] Walter C. Kaiser, Ibid.

[17] To understand better, let's read the passage from Luke:

“He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and as was his custom, he entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day. He rose up to read, and they gave him the book of the prophet Isaiah. Unrolling it, he found the place where it was written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
Because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor;
He sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim deliverance to the captives,
And to the blind the recovery of sight,
To set the oppressed free,
To publish a year of the Lord's grace ”.

Then he rolled up the book, gave it to the servant, and sat down. All who were in the synagogue had their eyes fixed on him. So he began to say to them: “Today this word of Scripture, which you have just heard, is fulfilled” (Luke 4: 16-21 NVG).

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

[18] Walter C. Kaiser, Op.Cit. 20. It would be important to point out that there are no theories presented on this subject by Walter, which we will not have time to present in this text so as not to be too long. The reader can however refer to the text for more details.

[19] Walter C. Keizer, Op.Cit. p.24.

[20] Walter C. Keizer, Op.Cit., P26

[21] Walter C. Keizer, Op.cit. p.31

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

[22] Christopher JH Wright, Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament, 2nd ed, Downers Grove: IVP academic, 2014, P.21

[23] Kyle Butt, “The Predicted Messiah” Apologetic press. Available online at http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=1734 (accessed October 27, 2018).

[24] I L Vander Geest, Christ and the Old Testament in Tertullian, p.116. Available online at http://hdl.handle.net/2066/148534

[25] I L Vander Geest, Ibid.