Jason S. Derouchie argues that the Old Testament is more "messianic" in nature than generally believed by some scholars; Micah 5 is a prophecy of an "eschatological David."

Date
2022
Type
Book
Source
Jason S. Derouchie
Non-LDS
Hearsay
Direct
Reference

Jason S. Derouchie, “Response to John Goldingay (The Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach),” in Five Views of Christ in the Old Testament, ed. Brian J. Tabb and Andrew M. King (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 58-59

Scribe/Publisher
Zondervan Academic
People
Jason S. Derouchie
Audience
Reading Public
PDF
Transcription

Does the First Testament Prophesy About Christ?

Goldingay appears to commit the word-thing fallacy when he asserts that the First Testament does not prophesy about Christ because it does not announce “Jesus” by name like it did for Josiah (1 Kgs 13:1-2). Similarly, the messianic hope of Micah 5;1 (5:1 MT) is only a matter of significance and not meaning since the term Messiah does not appear. However, the “shepherd” (5:4 [5:3 MT]) from Bethlehem (5:2 [5:1 MT]) is an eschatological David, who like the original David, would certainly be an “anointed one” or “messiah” (cf. 1 Sam 16:13; 2 Sam 5:3). Furthermore, the one Isaiah tags “Immanuel” (Isa 7:14) and a child-king (9:6) could still refer to Jesus of Nazareth, even though the prophet never applies the name Jesus or the title ”Messiah” to him. Goldingay himself finds “Antiochus . . . in Daniel 11” (38)—a text that never names him, and this fact identifies the fallacious nature of his earlier comments.

Given Goldingay’s position regarding the First Testament containing no references to the Messiah, he asserts, “It’s hardly surprising that John the Baptizer wonders if Jesus is really the one who was to come (Luke 7:18-19)” (33). Against Goldingay, however, John’s claim assumes that the First Testament actually anticipated someone to save (cf. Luke 2;25, 38), and Jesus’s response identifies himself as the servant-person for whom Isaiah was looking. Any offensive to the imprisoned John would arise only if he failed to hope in the completed work that Christ was inaugurating.

Goldingay denies that Jesus’s response to John in Luke 7:22-23 bears any link with Isaiah’s words. But Goldingay ignores the close context, missing that the prophet associates the very epoch that Isaiah 35:5-6 describes with the promised king, servant, and anointed conqueror! Goldingay further fails to see Isaiah 61:1-2’s messianism since he limits First Testament “prophecy” to a particular genre, standing against the New Testament authors who view “prophecy” and “fulfillment” (i.e., plēroō, “to fulfill”) in much broader terms (Matt 11;13; cf. Luke 16:16). Jesus prophetically fulfills not only explicit promises but also recorded events like the exodus (Matt 2;15; cf. Hos 11;1), legal material from Moses (Matt 5:17-18), and depictions like the servant’s role in bringing healing (Matt 8:17; cf. Isa 53:4).

Citations in Mormonr Qnas
Copyright © B. H. Roberts Foundation
The B. H. Roberts Foundation is not owned by, operated by, or affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.