That The Scripture Might Be Fulfilled

There are many reasons why we believe that Jesus was the Son of God. One piece of evidence is that of fulfilled prophecy. We believe that hundreds of years before the coming of Christ, God revealed through inspired prophets many of the details of His life and death. By observing how Jesus fulfilled these predictions we see the hand of God in the events described in the gospels. Though there are several dozen prophecies that we may examine, I would draw your attention to two passages in particular. These are Psalms 22:1-18 and Isaiah 53:1-9. By all accounts these passages were written hundreds of years before Christ, yet the writers of the NT tell us that they contain prophecies that were fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus. Though they are generally descriptive of Christ's death, the following verses contain detailed statements that parallel specific aspects of the gospel story:

Psalms 22:1-18 Isaiah 53:1-9

Psalms 22:1 and Matthew 27:46 Isaiah 53:5 and John 19:34

Psalms 22:7-8 and Matthew 27:39-43 Isaiah 53:5 and Matthew 27:26

Psalms 22:16 and Matthew 27:35 Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew 27:12-14

Psalms 22:18 and John 19:23-24 Isaiah 53:9 and Matthew 27:38, 57-60

We believe that these scriptures provide a clear indication of divine influence in the affairs of men. The prophecies are demonstrably older than the events that fulfilled them, and the parallels are too numerous and too detailed to be explained as mere coincidences. The only other possible explanation is that the writers of the NT revised the record of the death of Jesus in order to "fit" the prophecies. This is precisely what most skeptics claim. Let's examine this question.

Unbelieving scholars contend that the gospels were written by second and third generation Christians who knew little or nothing about the details of what really happened at the crucifixion. According to this point of view the "fulfillments" were merely inserted into the narrative from OT passages in order to enhance the legitimacy of the claims made by Christians about the nature and person of Jesus. We may respond to these assertions in the following ways:

The first thing that we must realize is that such arguments are mere assertions. There is no evidence to support the claim of false authorship for the gospels. We know that there were eyewitness disciples of Jesus and that because of them the church grew rapidly after His death. Why wouldn't they write what they saw, or why should Luke's claim for thoroughness and accuracy simply be dismissed, Luke 1:1-4? The NT claims to be written by these disciples and nothing has ever been shown to discredit this claim. The early church writers of the second century vigorously affirm the authenticity of the NT which they quote extensively. They refer to the NT as being "ancient" and having been written long before themselves.

The NT is by far the best preserved ancient document in existence. Historians seldom doubt the authorship of other ancient writings, so the bias of unbelievers is evident when it comes to the NT. They have already dismissed the possibility of the supernatural, so they are certain that material which records supernatural activity must be fabricated. They merely assume the point to be proved.

Several of the books of the NT are universally acknowledged as being written by the stated author. Much of Paul's writings are accepted as authentic even by unbelievers. Yet Paul wrote a mere 20 years after the crucifixion, and he adamantly supports the testimony of the gospels as to what happened, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. It would have been difficult for these men to fabricate details when so many of the eye-witnesses were still around, both in and out of the church.

Besides the weight of the testimony of the NT itself, there are many extra-biblical sources of information which corroborate the gospel narrative. Few if any historians doubt that there was a Jewish teacher named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans in first century Palestine. Secular historical documents from the period such as the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian confirm at least this much. Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr refer to Roman government records which substantiate the gospel story. It is doubtful that they would say such things if the records did not really exist.

On a more basic level we know from historical documents and archaeological finds that many of the details of the crucifixion narrative are accurate. For instance, we know that the relationship between Pilate and the Jews was exactly as portrayed in the gospels. We know that it was the common practice of the Romans to execute slaves and rebels by crucifixion. Josephus tells us that it was the Roman custom to scourge the condemned individual before he was hung. The very pavement mentioned by John in John 19:13-16 was uncovered and identified by archaeologists. It had been buried and forgotten since the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but whoever wrote the gospel of John knew it was there.

An early Jewish record tells us that it was the practice of the women of Jerusalem to mercifully provide wine and myrrh to those being crucified. A well preserved skeleton of a man who had been crucified in the first century was uncovered in Jerusalem in 1968. The body had nail marks through both wrists, and a single nail still pinned the two feet to a piece of wood. The legs had been broken just as John describes in John 19:31. Finally, the manner of burial described in the gospels agrees exactly with the findings of archaeology.

Conclusion

There is nothing about the crucifixion story that does not correspond to everything we know about the customs and practices of the time and place described. All the information we have points to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified exactly when, where, and how the gospel writers record. There is nothing extraordinary or remarkable about the record of the way Jesus died. What is remarkable is that so many of these details were described in "Messianic passages" hundreds of years earlier by Jewish writers who had never heard of the Romans or of death by crucifixion.

When Jesus arose and persuaded His disciples that His death was in keeping with God's plan, He referred them to the prophecies of the OT, Luke 24:25-27, 44-46. When Peter tried to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah of prophecy he pointed them to the connections between the death of Jesus and the predictions of the prophets, Acts 3:18. Paul made the same arguments in his preaching, Acts 13:27-29. Thousands of their contemporaries saw these connections and believed. It is now for us today to consider the same message and decide what we will make of it. - DR-