“Jesus of Testimony” – New Documentary Testifies to the Historicity of Jesus Christ

First below, I’ve posted the trailer (3:34) for this new documentary, and then the documentary (2:14:34) itself.

Jesus Of Testimony Trailer from Nesch Bros on Vimeo.

Jesus Of Testimony from Nesch Bros on Vimeo.

With Easter approaching, this is the time of year when public television and other networks provide documentaries and similar programming about Jesus of Nazareth.  Only problem is that these documentaries usually invitge unbelieving biblical scholars to be the experts.  Such liberal scholars usually have impressive degrees from schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.  While they might not come right out and say that they don’t believe in Jesus, that’s their obvious view – otherwise public television would never have considered them experts, right?

The good news is that the Nesch brothers (whom I otherwise don’t know) have pulled together an impressive set of believing Bible scholars and the result is this documentary:  Jesus of Testimony.  It’s a welcome antidote to the usual fare I’ve been describing, and I enthusiastically endorse it.

I do love this documentary and recommend it highly.  That said, I do have some caveats:

  1. This documentary may seem long and tedious for anyone not intensely interested in the subject matter.  Maybe you should break it up and watch one segment at a time.  Each section is certainly meaty enough.
  2. This documentary might be scratching where you’re not itching; if so, it may seem extra tedious.  This documentary will be most appreciated by 1) people who wonder if there is any scholarly support for the history we see recorded in the New Testament, and 2) people who long to hear from biblical scholars who aren’t hostile to the biblical text and biblical ideas.  If you don’t fall into either of these two categories, there’s no need to watch this film.
  3. I had difficulty with the video streaming.  Perhaps it was just my connection.  I eventually got to the end, but you may want to pay $5.99 for the download to avoid the hassle if it bothers you too much.
  4. This could be a great documentary to recommend to others who might be curious about historical scholarship about Jesus, but first be sure the warnings above don’t apply.  If someone has somehow been unaware of liberal bibical scholarship, why trouble them by bringing them into the argument?

The important point to remember is that this documentary is the other half of the scholarly polemic about Jesus.  Liberal scholars are about all the general public ever sees on broadcast television.  Therefore, if you wonder why these scholars phrase things and frame things the way they do, recognize that they have to coexist with their antagonistic academic colleagues.  Being a believer and a biblical scholar is almost as difficult a professional life as being a believer and a scientist.

The following breakdown of the documentary is taken from the film’s website.  Because the film lasts 2:14:34, I have inserted the starting point and duration time for each section so that you can go directly to a particular section that interests you more.  I also add some short commentary where I thought it might be helpful.  The film begins with a minute-and-a-half segment in which scholar Richard Bauckham lays out the false dichotomy which the film will dispel: that “the Christ of faith” is somehow different from “the Jesus of history.”  Bauckham seeks to replace both with the term “the Jesus of Testimony” – hence the name of the film.  From the film’s website:

A feature length film exploring the evidence for Jesus’ existence and the reliability of the New Testament gospels.

In Part 1: Lord or Legend [starts at 0:01:30; lasts 0:17:50], the historicity of Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the important non-Christian historical sources that are available to us today.  [The documentary starts not with the Bible, but with the evidence outside the Bible.  This makes a great beginning to the historical case.]

Part 2: Are the Gospels Reliable? [starts at 0:19:20; lasts 0:41:00] examines the historical reliability of the Gospels as eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus.  [This is the longest section, but the length is very appropriate and everything here is meaty.  You could actually divide this segment into two sections: the history of the Gospels through oral tradition and the history of the Gospel texts.  Both sections are worthy of the time they are given.  The focus on oral transmission of the life and teachings of Jesus lasts until 0:42:57, which is 23:37 into the segment – the remaining 17:23  is given over to the discussion about written transmission of that information.  The reasons for believing what the Gospels tell us – rooted in both a strong oral culture of the 1st Century and an exceedingly abundant chain of textual evidence since then – are quite strong.  To the point of the film, the testimony of Jesus is substantial; there is no valid reason to see a conflict between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.]

Part 3: Miracles [starts at 1:00:20; lasts 0:18:18] provides strong evidence that miracles happen today and happened in history.  [This segment could have been longer considering the fact that Craig Keener has published extensive research on miracles both ancient and modern.]

In Part 4: The Testimony of Prophecy [starts at 1:18:38; last 0:14:56], many of the Old Testament messianic prophecies are quoted along with their New Testament fulfillments which establish a solid confirmation of Jesus’ credentials as the Messiah.  [There were good graphics of the relevant Scriptures in this segment – that is, Old Testament prophecies matched with New Testament fulfillments.  However, they are not matched to the audio and so it’s hard to follow what’s written and what’s spoken at the same time.  Michael Brown – a Jewish believer and scholar – is used very effectively in this segment.]

In Part 5: The Resurrection – Fact or Fiction? [starts at 1:33:34; lasts 27:29] the case is presented for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  [The scholars talk a lot about crucifixion as well as resurrection; problems because of the Quran which says Jesus never really died.  Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have devoted practically their entire careers to establishing the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, so they make this segment particularly strong.]

Finally, Part 6: The Good News [starts at 2:01:03; lasts 0:11:57] concludes that the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels, dependent on eyewitness testimony, is more plausible than the alternative hypotheses of its modern detractors and presents the Jesus’ message of the Gospel.  [Some of the scholars speak quite personally in this short section.  The music is helpful, and the effect is appropriately uplifting.]

Credits [start at 2:13:00; lasts 00:01:34]

As I’ve said, if you don’t enjoy listening to scholars talk, you could find the film quite tedious.  That said, the 11 scholars participating in the project bring great content to the screen.  I have read most of them in the past and recommend their work.  Moreover, the directors add useful narration and helpful graphics at key points.  Here are the scholars interviewed:

Richard Bauckham – New Testament scholar, author, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

Craig Blomberg – New Testament scholar, author, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

Greg Boyd – pastor of Woodland Hills Church, author, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition [co-author with Paul Eddy, listed below]

Michael Brown – PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, author, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus : Volume 3: Messianic Prophecy Objections [This is but one of five books in a series on Jewish objections; Brown is a Jew]

Paul Eddy – PhD from Marquette University, author, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition [co-author with Greg Boyd, listed above]

Steve Gregg – Bible teacher, radio talk show host, The Narrow Path

Gary Habermas – PhD in History and Philosophy of Religion, author, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

Craig Keener – PhD in New Testament and Christian Origins, author, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts

Michael Licona – PhD in New Testament Studies, author, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Dan Wallace – PhD in New Testament Studies, Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

Ben Witherington – PhD from University of Durham, England, author, The Jesus Quest

More detail on each of these scholars can be found on the About page of the documentary’s website.

The Jesus of Testimony website (which includes the full documentary, available for online viewing without cost)

The Jesus of Testimony FaceBook page

ht: The Poached Egg (Ratio Christi)

Quote from Phil Long Book on Jesus as the Bridegroom

Did Jesus claim to be the “bridegroom”? If so, what did he mean by this claim? When Jesus says that the wedding guests should not fast “while the bridegroom is with them” (Mark 2:19), he is claiming to be a bridegroom by intentionally alluding to a rich tradition from the Hebrew Bible. By eating and drinking with “tax collectors and other sinners,” Jesus was inviting people to join him in celebrating the eschatological banquet. While there is no single text in the Hebrew Bible or the literature of the Second Temple Period which states the “messiah is like a bridegroom,” the elements for such a claim are present in several texts in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea. By claiming that his ministry was an ongoing wedding celebration he signaled the end of the Exile and the restoration of Israel to her position as the Lord’s beloved wife. This book argues that Jesus combined the tradition of an eschatological banquet with a marriage metaphor in order to describe the end of the Exile as a wedding banquet.

from Jesus the Bridegroom: The Origin of the Eschatological Feast as a Wedding Banquet in the Synoptic Gospels by Phillip J. Long

HT:  Jim West blog (Zwinglius Redivivus) of December 10, 2013 and December 19, 2013

Publisher’s catalog listing for the book (from which the quote was taken): Wipf and Stock Publishers.

A List of Royal Psalms

The Jewish Study Bible, in its notes on Psalm 2defines “royal psalms” as “those concerning kings.”  It goes on to say that “None [of them] mentions a specific king by name, and their origin and uses remain obscure.”  It also gives a “possible list of royal psalms” which is reproduced below.  To the original list I have added italicized elements.  The first to be noticed is that I added the verse citations for any explicit reference to the “king” that appears in the psalm.  Some of the psalms do not make explicit reference to the king as “king,” and, because of this, do not show a verse citation.

Psalm 2:6

Psalm 18:50

Psalm 20:9

Psalm 21:1, 7

Psalm 45:1, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15

*Psalm 61:6

*Psalm 63:11

Psalm 72:1

Psalm 89:18

Psalm 101

Psalm 110

Psalm 132

Psalm 144

*These verses were not on the original list but are included here because they are psalms that include an explicit reference to a “king” who is not God.  I did not include psalms where merely a synonym or allusion to the king appeared (such as Psalm 28, where a reference to “His anointed” occurs in verse 8).  

The original list is from The Jewish Study Bible, ed. by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford University Press (2004)  p. 1285

Herman Gunkel is a notable scholar of the Psalms.  For more on his classification (upon which the Jewish Study Bible‘s list would seem to be based), see this post.

Donald Juel on Pre-Christian Messianic Texts

Donald Juel here identifies passages from the Old Testament that were deemed to refer to the Messiah even before Jesus of Nazareth was born:

Such “messianic texts” (i.e., acknowledged by a broad spectrum of Jewish groups as references to the coming king from the line of David) include Gen. 49:10- 12; Num. 24:17; 2 Sam. 7:10-14; Zech. 6:12; Isaiah 11; Jeremiah 33; Psalm 2.

Donald Juel. Messianic Exegesis (p. 193). Kindle Edition.

Donald Juel on Pre-Christian Messianic Passages in the Old Testament

Donald Juel here identifies Old Testament passages considered as messianic even before the time of Christ.  In saying this, is speaking a biblical scholar on behalf of the scholarly community.

“[A]  constellation of biblical passages accepted as messianic by a wide spectrum of Jewish interpreters, from the Qumran sectarians to early Christians to the rabbis,…include 2 Sam. 7:10-14; Isaiah l l; Num. 24:17; Gen. 49:8-10, Zechariah 6; Psalm 2; and perhaps Daniel 7 and Psalm 110.”

Donald Juel. Messianic Exegesis (p. 172). Kindle Edition.

Notes from “Messianic Exegesis” by Donald Juel

The following is a collection of unorganized notes taken from reading Donald Juel’s Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (1988).

I wrote a review of the book, which can be found here.

I also wrote a post about Juel’s reference in this book to the “occasional” nature of the New Testament documents.

I also have posted a short glossary of terms relevant to first-century biblical understanding, which relies on Juel’s view.

Where I am quoting the book directly, I use quote marks below.  Otherwise, I am recording an idea or thought that I either found in the book, or that occurred to me while reading the book.

In this book, Juel builds on the work of, among others, Nils Dahl, Geza Vermes, Alan Segal, and C. H. Dodd.

On p. 17 Juel writes that his interest is principally in “the preliterary period in the history of the Christian movement.”  This would be ca. 30-50 A.D.  since seven of Paul’s letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are believed by scholars to have been the first New Testament documents written, that these were written ca. 50-50 A.D. (though not in the order listed above), and also since scholars generally agree that Jesus died ca. 30-33 A.D.   Thus ca. 30-50 A.D. can be called the “preliterary period of the Christian movement (which, of course, was a Jewish, or Jewish sect, movement).

During this “preliterary period” oral teaching, and thus oral tradition, would have prevailed.  Therefore, the literary period (ca. 50 A.D. and after) would have inherited an oral “canon” of confessions, creeds, and hymns – some of which can be found sprinkled, and thus preserved, throughout the New Testament and elsewhere (e.g. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho).

Examples of these oral vestiges include Romans 4:25 (rooted in Isaiah 53:5, 12?), Romans 8:32 (rooted in Genesis 22:5?), and Romans 1:2 (rooted in 2 Samuel 7:14 or Psalm 2:7?).

(The apostles were obviously in no rush to write things down.)

The most notable of these confessions might be 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and Philippians 2:6-11.

We see the recurring theme of suffering and glory in the expressions of crucifixion and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-7).  We see it also in humility and exaltation (Philippians 2:6-11).

In his Introduction, Juel writes, “The thesis of this book can be summarized in a two-part sentence: The beginnings of Christian reflection can be traced to interpretations of Israel’s Scriptures, and the major focus of that scriptural interpretation was Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah.”  He goes on to explain why this thesis is not as mundane as it might first seem (mainly contrasting it with that of Barnabas Lindars and C.H. Dodd; Juel contending that those two said the OT was used for arguing in behalf of the gospel while Juel said the OT was used first to understand the gospel).

At the end of his first chapter, Juel says, “The extensive exploration of the Scriptures generated by faith in Jesus the Messiah is what we will examine in subsequent chapters of this book.”  Can you not picture the earliest disciples exploring the Scriptures to find how it spoke of the One they had seen resurrected?  Of course, Luke 24 tells us that Jesus Himself  got them started on this exploration.

Other noteworthy quotes from the book:

“In Jesus the Jew, Vermes nicely summarizes evidence that the “Lord’s Anointed” from the line of David was a recognizable figure in pre-Christian tradition.”

“Without some striking new piece of evidence, there is little reason to disagree with Vermes that the definite the Messiah” could have been understood in NT times only as a reference to the coming King.”

“What stands at the heart of the kerygma-and thus at the beginning of Christian tradition-is the surprise that God’s Messiah should appear as one who died on a cross.”

“Biblical material did affect the shape of religious expressions and reflection, even if the texts exercised a control of a different sort than we presume should be the case in contemporary exegesis.’ And however we may evaluate the appropriateness of midrashic productions, we must reckon with the fact that scriptural interpretation was the primary mode of theological reflection.”  Juel then quotes Geza Vermes from his Scripture and Tradition on the same point:

“Doctrinal exegesis was similarly influenced by the evolution of Jewish religious thought, and its impact was the more obvious because, in ancient Judaism, systematic theology was unknown, and the establishment, transmission, and development of doctrines and beliefs were effected within the framework of scriptural interpretation.”

Back now to Juel:  “The focus of this book is christological exegesis. The general thesis is that we cannot understand the evolution of Christology without appreciating the place of exegesis, and that we cannot understand early Christian exegesis without knowing something about the way people read the Bible in the Jewish world of the first century of our era.”

Juel contrasts Rabbinic midrash, which he characterizes as “scholastic” (and corresponds to  “the academy” and its ethos today) with the “sectarian” approach of Qumran and NT midrash, saying:

“The self-conscious use of interpretive principles and discussions of hermeneutics display a confidence in reason and logic to disclose the truth within the Scriptures that is not found at Qumran and rarely in the NT. This feature once again has something to do with the scholastic setting of the tradition. Similarly, the playfulness of interpretation, the concern to preserve a variety of opinions, and the lack of preoccupation with opponents are signs of an established institution and contrast sharply with the “sectarian” character of Qumran and NT midrash.”

“Whereas the rabbis spoke of the essential timelessness of the Torah, the Qumran group stressed the nearness of the end of days.”

Of the Qumran group, Juel says, “Scriptural interpretation is portrayed as a prophetic enterprise, possible only to those inspired by the Spirit of God.”

“And it is hardly accidental that interpretation is portrayed as a matter of revelation rather than reason. They were well aware that the most sophisticated arguments would never convince outsiders of their views. Central to their own hermeneutical reflection were not the principles of intellectual discourse but the insurmountable barriers to communication that seemed to defy rational solution. True understanding, they knew, could only be revealed.”

“The exegesis was not offered as an argument calculated to convince outsiders but was expected to be persuasive to insiders who knew certain fundamental secrets and who knew the rules of interpretation. Discovering the mysteries of the Scriptures required the inspiration of the Spirit, particularly apparent in the career of the teacher who founded the sect.”

“The differences between midrashim and pesherim should be understood properly. They are largely formal differences, arising from distinct social settings, which may be classified as scholastic and sectarian.”

“Lengthy debates about whether a particular exegetical comment within the scrolls should be termed a midrash or a pesher are not very helpful.” Differences among various approaches to interpretation within postbiblical Jewish tradition should not obscure similarities. Rabbinic midrash, Qumran pesher, and NT scriptural exegesis belong within a common ethos in which texts are read in particular ways.”

“At first glimpse, the NT is very different from the rabbinic and the Qumran literature. It contains not a single commentary. It is made up of letters, narratives, and an apocalypse. Behind the formal differences, however, lie notable similarities. Biblical interpretation plays a central role in NT literature, as it played a role in preliterary tradition.”

“The greatest difference between early Christian exegesis and other forms of Jewish scriptural interpretation is the impact made by Jesus. That is only to state the thesis, however, it does not explain the precise shape of the tradition. That is the task of our study.”

Juel talks about “the Nathan oracles,” by which he means 2 Samuel 7:10-14, with parallels in 1 Chronicles (17:13-15) and Psalm 89.

“The thesis will look something like this: convinced that Jesus was the promised Messiah, Christians undertook the task of reflecting on the gospel of his death and resurrection in light of the Scriptures.2 What came first was not apologetic argument but scriptural reflection whose goal was to understand the gospel and its implications. If my proposal is tenable, it should be possible to find evidence that royal texts, meaning OT passages acknowledged as messianic in postbiblical Jewish tradition, have played a critical role in the development of Christian exegesis.”

At the beginning of his sub-chapter on “2 Samuel 7 in the New Testament,” Juel writes, “On the basis of casual observation, it would be difficult to argue that Nathan’s oracle was a text of major importance to the early Christian movement.”  By the end, however, he says, “The paucity of allusions to 2 Samuel 7 suggests that its importance was located at a stage in the history of interpretation soon superseded, a stage to which we have only limited access. Enough traces remain, however, for us to identify Nathan’s oracle as one of the foundational christological texts. The oracle provided a way into the Scriptures for those who confessed Jesus as the promised Messiah, and it generated interpretive traditions that led into the more developed reflection of the early church.”

Along the way, Juel says, “Messianic oracles like 2 Samuel 7 have provided a basis for speaking of Jesus as God’s Son, even if the connections lie buried deep in the tradition,” and  “Christian interpreters were more interested in the images used of the coming king, like ‘seed’ and ‘son’.”

Juel begins chapter 4 (“The Role of the Psalms in the Passion Tradition”) saying, “The Psalter played a critical role in the development of the passion tradition.”  Nevertheless, he maintains “The thesis I am arguing in this book, however, is that the starting point for interpretation of the OT was the confession of Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah.”

“The point is that words and phrases from the psalms were used to construct a framework within which to make sense of Jesus’ death-and to offer testimony that his death was “in accordance with the scriptures.”

Juel make the points repeatedly through this book that to say things happened to Jesus “according to the Scriptures” is to say that they happened “according to the will of God” because the Scriptures reveal the will of God.

“Early Christian interpretation was far closer to that of the rabbis than to that of modern biblical scholars.”

“As we have observed in the case of 2 Samuel 7, frequency of citation does not always provide a reliable indicator of exegetical priority. I wish to propose Psalm 89 as one of the keys to the interpretive tradition.”

“For students of royal traditions in the OT, Psalm 89 is of obvious importance. It provides perhaps the earliest version of Nathan’s oracle, the promise of God’s eternal support for the Davidic dynasty.”

“The influence of Psalm 89 is remarkably widespread in the NT. Nestle lists over twenty allusions to the psalm, to which a few others may be added.”

“If there is a pre-Markan passion tradition that can be isolated, the psalms surely form the basis of the tradition. It is unlikely that Jesus’ story was ever told as a recitation of facts. And from the outset, psalms were employed to tell the story not of a paradigmatic righteous one or a prophetic martyr, but of the King of the Jews, “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,” whose resurrection proved that he was indeed the Christ, the Stone, rejected by the builders, which became the head of the corner.”

“From the outset the psalms were part of a tradition that narrated the death of the King of the Jews.”

“The confession of Jesus as Messiah is not a goal toward which scriptural interpretation moves but the presupposition for the interpretive tradition.”

“As befits the whole spirit of midrash, the appropriateness of a particular interpretation to the original setting in Isaiah is not a criterion for exegetes.”

“Since tradition knew nothing of a crucified Messiah, it could hardly have any conceptions of a resurrected King.”

And here is the opening paragraph of the conclusion to this book:

“I have attempted to examine christological exegesis in early Christian tradition. The work has involved attention to specific passages as well as to the character of scriptural interpretation in the first century of the Christian era, comparison with postbiblical scriptural exegesis in Jewish sources, and the testing of a hypothetical model for the development of the tradition. Of particular concern has been identifying a starting point for the historical development of the tradition to which the NT writings bear witness. I have argued that the confession of Jesus as the crucified and risen King of the Jews stands at the beginning of christological reflection and interpretation of the Scriptures-at least the reflection and interpretation that form the substructure of NT Christianity. Beginning with the historical realities of Jesus’ passion as King of the Jews, we can understand the process by which a variety of biblical passages came to be enlisted in the task of making sense of Jesus and his career, and how they were combined. The exegetical data, I have argued, confirm the hypothesis regarding a starting point.”

(All quotations taken from the Kindle Edition.)

James McGrath on the Early High Christology Club

In this post –The Early High Christology Club – James McGrath comments on Larry Hurtado’s earlier post on the subject.  I got involved in the comment thread here, for the sake of seeking to learn more precisely how Dr.McGrath himself viewed the Christology of the earliest disciples.   This is as far as he was willing to go in that exchange:

Again, these are questions that require long answers. Since the author of the Gospel of Matthew seems to have known the Similitudes of Enoch, and so may well have thought of the Messiah having pre-existed in heaven. But that isn’t taken literally, and nothing in that work suggests that Jesus is not thought of as a human being like others, however miraculously conceived and however much authority he may be given. In the Gospel of John, however, we see the idea being taken literally. My own view is that this results from conflicts about Jesus as revealer if heavenly things, which motivated some Christians to begin to take such language literally and draw literal implications from it in a manner that they had not previously.

That’s just a small section of a much bigger picture…

Q: What Old Testament passages prophesied the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus?

This answer first appeared here, in a dialogue with Nate and others.

The Old Testament prophecies of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection do not show up in explicit form.  That is, there is no verse that says, “The Messiah shall be crucified,” or “After his crucifixion, the Messiah shall be resurrected.”  If it had, the Jewish Sanhedrin would never have given Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion.  They would have sought to dispose of him in some other way for they would not have wanted to play into the hands of those Jews who thought Jesus was the Messiah.

In order for the promises of God about Messiah to be fulfilled, they had to be given in veiled form – like a riddle.  With riddle, the answer is inscrutable…until its given, and then it seems obvious.  For example, what gets wetter and wetter the more it dries?  A towel.  Or consider this biblical riddle from Samson: “Out of the eater came something to eat, and out of the strong came something sweet” (Judges 14).  What is it?  The carcass of the lion Samson killed which housed a honeycomb.  In somewhat similar fashion, the prophecies of Messiah were about his sufferings and his glories.  Of course, sufferings and glories don’t naturally go together so it was puzzling…until it was revealed that his sufferings ended in death and his glories began with resurrection.  For this reason, Paul talks about proclaiming “mysteries” that have been “revealed”  (Romans 16:25-27 and elsewhere).  Jesus also talks about things “hidden” that shall become “made known” (Matthew 10:26 and elsewhere).  (For more on biblical riddles, see these posts.)

Therefore, prophecies of Jesus’ crucifixion include being “wounded for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5), “hung on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:23), “looked upon as pierced” (Zechariah 12:10), and “the stone that was rejected” (Psalm 118:22).  Prophecies of resurrection include “became the chief cornerstone” (the continuation of Psalm 118:22), “a prophet raised up” (Deuteronomy 18:15), “high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1), and “seated at God’s right hand” (Psalm 110:1).  Of course, there are many, many more prophecies (promises) in both categories (suffering and glory).

This is why the first-century Jews we see described in the New Testament were focused on whether the reports they were hearing about Jesus’ resurrection were indeed consistent with the prophecies (see Acts 17:1-3, 10-11).  Did this event solve the riddle of all riddles for the descendants of Abraham?  That was the question.  Certainly, Jesus’ lineage from David was critical because the Scriptures had made clear this requirement.  Resurrection from the dead was indeed a big deal for these folks, as it would be for any folks, but it was the context of Israel’s Scriptures which invested the phenomenon with sufficient meaning for pious Jews to re-orient their lives around the One resurrected.

We can actually see Jesus presenting the messianic riddle to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-46.  Essentially, he was asking them how David could be both superior to (i.e. an ancestor, and therefore a father, of David) and subordinate to (i.e. addressing as “Lord”) the Messiah.  The Pharisees had no answer.  It was a riddle that stumped them.  Of course, in hindsight we are able to see the answer: David was Jesus’ superior (ancestor) according to the flesh, but his subordinate (follower) in the spirit by virtue of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (a state which David had not been able to escape on his own).

The messianic prophecies of the Old Testament present a riddle to which the New Testament provides the only reasonable answer:  that is, the crucifixion and resurrection of a descendant of David.