The fulfilment of the prophecies

We are comparing the twenty-four prophetic points defined in the chapter entitled ‘Prophecy’ with the events related in the Gospels. Our aim is to assess the consistency and precision of the relationship between these prophecies and the historical facts reported.

We will rely solely on the available information, without adding personal interpretations. We will note that the Gospel writers, especially Matthew, have already made some of these connections.

The first twelve points specifically concern the Messiah:

1-The announcement of a future Messiah

2-His divine sonship

3-The coming of a forerunner

4-His birth in Bethlehem

5-His messianic titles and roles

6-His performance of messianic miracles

7-His messianic entry into Jerusalem

8-His experience of suffering and rejection

9-The prophesied date of his death

10-His burial in a rich man’s tomb

11-His plan of redemption and universal blessings

12-His foretold resurrection

The second list of twelve points is associated with the Messiah because of specific events concerning him:

1-His virgin birth

2-His settling in Nazareth

3-The massacre of the innocents

4-His return from Egypt

5-His betrayal

6-The price of this betrayal

7-The use of the betrayal money to buy the potter’s field

8-His drinking of vinegar

9-His hands and feet pierced, with no bone broken

10-Darkness in broad daylight

11-The moon turned blood-red

12-His ascension to heaven

Our task will be to draw parallels between the prophets’ writings and the Gospel accounts, drawing particularly on Matthew’s approach, since he has already carried out much of this analysis. We will seek to identify the sources of the connections he made.

We will return to the first twelve points, which, in our view, directly concern the person of Jesus the Messiah.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

The designation Mighty God:

The prophet Isaiah calls the Messiah ‘Mighty God’, and the apostle John, in his prologue, provides further details about Jesus’ divine nature.

John 1.1-5 describes the Word as existing from the beginning, with God, and as being God himself. Everything was created through him, and in him is life, the source of light for human beings.

In John 1.14, this Word becomes flesh and dwells among us, full of grace and truth, revealing to us the glory of the Father’s only Son.

John begins his Gospel by affirming Jesus’ divinity, testifying that he is both the Son of God and the Messiah foretold by the prophets. John emphasises that understanding the Messiah requires recognition of God’s incarnation as a human being.

Thus Jesus the Messiah is presented not merely as a great man, but as God himself.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

Supernatural events occurred at Jesus’ baptism. John the Baptist, who witnessed the scene, reports a remarkable manifestation: a heavenly voice proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God.

This declaration might have been perceived as blasphemous in the Jewish context of the time, when the idea of God having a son ran counter to the traditional understanding of God’s nature.

Nevertheless, John faithfully relates what he saw and heard, despite the challenge this poses to his own interpretation of events.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

Jesus the Messiah stated that the messenger foretold to precede him was John the Baptist. This statement resonated with the Jews of his time, who expected the advent of two messiahs.

According to this belief, the first messiah was to be priestly in nature, a role now associated with John the Baptist. The second messiah was envisaged as a king, a figure Jesus came to embody.

This distinction between a priestly messiah and a royal messiah was common in Jewish messianic expectations of the time.

a) The text

The prophet Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah and Hosea, ministered in the eighth century BC during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. This period, about 150 years before the Babylonian deportation, was marked by growing threats to the kingdom of Judah as the Babylonians rose to power.

In his prophecies, Micah goes beyond immediate warnings to the rulers of his time and looks towards a distant future. He foretells a time of restoration and speaks of a king’s birth in Bethlehem, David’s home village.

Micah also emphasises the antiquity of this future king’s origins, suggesting a lineage reaching far into the past. These prophetic announcements describe events that will occur long after Micah’s own time.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

The Jewish religious leaders clearly understood these words of the prophet Micah. When King Herod the Great asked these learned men where this king would be born, they answered without hesitation: Bethlehem.

The evangelists Matthew and John explicitly confirm that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, corroborating Micah’s prophecy about the Messiah’s birthplace. Joseph and Mary, like other Jews of their time, were probably aware of this prophecy.

Micah’s announcement that this king’s origins reach far into the past can be interpreted in two ways.

On the one hand, it may indicate that the Messiah comes from a royal line, as successor to David’s dynasty.

On the other hand, as the apostle John suggests in his prologue, these ancient origins may also signify the Messiah’s existence before the creation of the world, thus emphasising his divine and eternal nature.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

This psalm, whose author is unknown, was initially a warning addressed to the nations, urging them not to rebel against the newly established king.

Over time, however, this psalm gradually became associated in collective memory with the long-awaited future messianic king, Shiloh or the Messiah.

Expressions such as ‘King of the Jews’ and ‘Son of David’ are frequently used in the Gospels to refer to Jesus, thus confirming his messianic identity according to the understanding of the time.

These terms reflect the recognition of Jesus as the promised Messiah, a central figure in Jewish eschatological expectations.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

John the Baptist was familiar with the prophecy of Isaiah 34.4-5. Referring to this text, Jesus establishes a direct link between his mission and Isaiah’s writings, thus openly proclaiming himself the promised Messiah.

This affirmation was particularly significant, since the Jews of that time knew Isaiah’s writings well. The religious leaders of the time also recognised this, as John 3.2 testifies when it states that no one can perform such miracles without God’s help.

This recognition of Jesus’ messianic role rested on the performance of miracles, considered evidence of his connection with God.

a) The text

c) The historical reality of the Gospels

The scene in which Jesus enters Jerusalem riding a donkey’s colt is related in all four Gospels: Matthew 21.1-5, Mark 11.1-10, Luke 19.28-44 and John 12.12-14.

We focus particularly on John’s account, because he emphasises a crucial point: the disciples did not understand what was happening before their eyes.

At that moment, they failed to connect the event with the prophecy of Zechariah 9.9, which they probably knew. This indicates that they found it difficult to associate Jesus’ actions with the Old Testament prophecies.

Only later, as Matthew mentions in his Gospel, did the disciples begin to perceive and understand these correspondences between events in Jesus’ life and the prophetic writings.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

All four evangelists address the crucifixion in their accounts, but Luke provides the most detail.

Beyond the extreme suffering endured during the crucifixion, we see that the crowd shows no compassion, choosing instead to mock Jesus. Isaiah’s text is thus fulfilled to the letter.

This cruel scene, described by Luke, poignantly illustrates the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah’s suffering.

a) The text

We clarify and interpret this complex text in the chapter The prophet Daniel , as well as in the appendix ANN005 : Calculating dates concerning Jesus the Messiah’s life, the appendix ANN006 : The exact date of the decree, and the appendix ANN067 : Anderson’s and Denney’s theories.

From these analyses, we conclude that Jesus the Messiah was crucified on 1 April 33. These documents provide a detailed and thorough overview of the calculations and assumptions underlying this specific date.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

We see that the prophecies recorded by Daniel make it possible to deduce the precise date of Jesus the Messiah’s crucifixion.

This remarkable conclusion becomes evident only after careful study of these prophecies. The result is astonishing and suggests the existence of a Higher Authority orchestrating historical events so that his pre-established plan is fulfilled exactly.

At the time appointed by God, Jesus the Messiah died, as Romans 5.6 and Daniel 8.19 indicate.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

All four Gospel writers mention Jesus’ burial in a tomb (see Matthew 27.59, Mark 15.47, Luke 23.50 and John 19.38.

Usually, only wealthy individuals were buried in tombs, while the remains of less affluent people were often buried in communal graves. The fulfilment of this particular prediction by Isaiah therefore seemed unlikely.

However, Joseph of Arimathea’s intervention in placing Jesus’ body in his own tomb led to the remarkable fulfilment of this prophecy. Joseph is unlikely to have had the text of Isaiah 53.9 in mind when he made this decision. Nevertheless, his unwitting action contributed to the prophecy’s fulfilment, making his name memorable to this day.

a) The text

Hosea 6.2 does not explicitly indicate the Messiah’s resurrection, but the correspondence with Jesus’ resurrection on the third day is remarkable.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

All four Gospels give a remarkable description of Jesus the Messiah’s resurrection (see Matthew 28.1, Mark 16.1, Luke 24.1 and John 20.1.

Despite the Master’s explicit teaching on this subject, his disciples did not expect such a miracle. We will see that they struggled to accept this reality, although the prophecies had foretold it and Jesus himself had given them direct warnings.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

Jesus the Messiah’s death differs from all others because it offers the world the possibility of redemption. This is why it is sometimes called the ‘sacrifice of the cross’.

This concept belongs to the Jewish tradition, in which the death of an innocent victim serves as atonement for human sins. The great difference with Jesus the Messiah’s death, however, is that his sacrifice is considered final and universal, covering the sins of all who acknowledge him.

We now turn to prophecies that had already found a specific fulfilment in the past and, by extension, also concern the Messiah.

We understand them by relating them to Jesus the Messiah’s story. Without these historical events, these prophecies would have remained unknown or misunderstood.

a) The text

This text comes from a declaration by the prophet Isaiah to Ahaz, king of Judah. Its primary purpose is to warn the rebellious ruler. The prophecy would make no sense without a concrete fulfilment that would speak to Ahaz.

Isaiah announces that a young virgin will bear a child and name him Immanuel, meaning ‘God with us’. This birth is entirely natural, occurring within marriage and involving a man.

The sign given to Ahaz lies in the child’s name and the time of his birth. About three years after this prophecy, in 732 BC, the alliance between Ahaz, king of Judah, and Rezin, king of Syria, collapses when the Assyrian emperor Tiglath-Pileser III destroys Damascus.

Ahaz will then have to pay a heavy tribute to the Assyrian Empire. The child’s birth and the details in verse sixteen are literally fulfilled at that time. Ahaz probably knew this woman and child and understood the sign announced by the prophet Isaiah.

He could not, however, foresee what would happen 730 years later. We often observe this principle in prophecies: a first fulfilment at the time of the announcement and another in the future.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

These verses from Isaiah acquire a special meaning with Jesus’ birth. The apostle Matthew connects Isaiah’s prophecy with the extraordinary conception of the infant Jesus.

It is important to remember that Matthew addressed a Jewish audience familiar with Isaiah’s writings. Any mistaken or biased interpretation would have been easily identified and criticised by his contemporaries.

We agree with Matthew’s conclusions in interpreting Isaiah’s text as a prophecy announcing the extraordinary birth of the infant Jesus. In this particular case, we see a first fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah’s time, followed by a second about 730 years later.

It becomes clear that this prophecy could not be fully understood without the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth, as experienced by Mary. History thus revealed the fulfilment of this prophetic word.

a) The text

Although we find no specific Old Testament text supporting Matthew’s statement about Nazareth, he explicitly mentions ‘the prophets’. This idea therefore appears to result from an interpretation of various Old Testament passages.

Une hypothèse est que Matthieu ait fait le lien entre le mépris envers Nazareth, un village dont le développement dépendait directement de la ville romaine de Sépphoris toute proche, donc associé à l'occupant Roman — show definition INF004, et le rejet que le Messie Jésus allait subir.

This perspective could be connected with Isaiah’s texts about the contempt and suffering experienced by God’s servant. Nazareth, as a despised place, thus becomes symbolic of the rejection Jesus, who came from this village, would experience.

With this terse remark, Nathanael clearly sums up the situation at the time.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

Matthew states without hesitation that, in accordance with the prophecies, Jesus was to live in Nazareth. Although direct prophetic sources supporting this assertion are difficult to find, the biblical account does confirm that, after returning from Egypt, Jesus’ family, who initially wished to settle in Bethlehem, ultimately chose to return to their home village of Nazareth.

This decision is influenced by an angel’s revelation to Joseph. Matthew’s reference to Nazareth, although not based on a specific prophecy, is interpreted within a broader context in which he seeks to connect Jesus’ life with the prophetic writings.

It seems clear to us that Matthew did not make a mistake in citing this passage, but rather chose a theological interpretation to emphasise the significance of Jesus’ life in relation to the Hebrew Scriptures.

a) The text

In this text, the prophet Jeremiah refers to a tragic and painful event. Ramah, about eight kilometres north of Jerusalem, is the place Jeremiah mentions, whereas Bethlehem lies about eight kilometres south of Jerusalem. Rachel, regarded as the ancestral mother of Joseph and Benjamin, symbolically represents Israel’s mothers. She lived nearly ten centuries before the event Jeremiah describes.

Jeremiah’s reference to Rachel weeping for her children appears to be a métaphore — afficher la définition INF181 expressing the grief and desolation mothers experienced during the deportation of 722 BC, when the northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians and many Israelites were deported. This deportation undoubtedly caused unspeakable suffering, including children’s deaths, which could explain the mention of Rachel weeping.

It is therefore likely that, through the figure of Rachel, Jeremiah refers to the collective, historical pain of the people of Israel, symbolised by a mother’s grief at losing her children. This poignant image illustrates the depth of national distress following the tragedies and upheavals the people experienced.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

In Matthew’s text, the evangelist explicitly connects the prophecy of Jeremiah 31.15 with the massacre of children in Bethlehem and the surrounding area, as reported in his Gospel.

Matthew appears to interpret Rachel’s grief over her children lost during the deportation as a symbolic foreshadowing of the despair of Bethlehem’s mothers facing the massacre ordered by King Herod.

Matthew’s interpretation reflects a typological approach to Scripture, in which an Old Testament event is seen as a foreshadowing or symbol of a New Testament event. Here, Rachel’s suffering is seen as an anticipation of the pain of Bethlehem’s mothers. This shows how Matthew, as a Gospel writer, weaves connections between the Old Testament prophets’ writings and events in Jesus’ life, thus emphasising the continuity and fulfilment of biblical prophecies in the person of Jesus.

It is therefore clear that Matthew does not use Jeremiah’s text literally, but rather as a means of symbolically connecting past sufferings with those of Jesus’ time.

Matthew’s interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the massacre of children at Bethlehem exemplifies the typological approach used by New Testament writers. This interpretative method sees Old Testament events as symbolic foreshadowings of later New Testament events.

In his Gospel, Matthew explicitly connects Herod’s massacre of Jewish male children with the prophecy of Jeremiah 31.15, in which Rachel weeps for her lost children. Although Jeremiah’s original passage does not specifically predict this tragedy under Herod, Matthew interprets it as a symbolic fulfilment of the prophecy.

From Matthew’s perspective, Rachel’s pain in Jeremiah’s prophecy anticipates the grief of Bethlehem’s mothers. It is important to note, however, that this typological interpretation is specific to Matthew and does not follow directly from Jeremiah’s text itself.

Thus, while recognising the validity of this interpretation within the New Testament context, we must also acknowledge that Jeremiah’s passage did not explicitly indicate such a future event.

a) The text

Matthew quotes the prophet Hosea, who in these lines recalls the Hebrews’ great deliverance with Moses. He returns to this theme several times in his book: Hosea 12.10, Hosea 12.14 and Hosea 13.4.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

Matthew therefore takes up this observation by the prophet and applies it to Jesus the Messiah, who will indeed return from the land of Egypt.

Only Jesus the Messiah’s story allows us to connect the prophet’s words in Hosea 11.1 about ‘calling my son out of Egypt’ with Jesus’ family’s return from Egypt after their exile. In his Gospel, Matthew readily refers to this passage, considering it further evidence of Jesus’ messiahship.

Joseph and Mary are unlikely to have interpreted the event as Matthew later does. However, Matthew draws a parallel between the deliverance of the Hebrew people, whom God brought out of Egypt, and the deliverance brought by Jesus the Messiah, a source of blessing. Matthew’s interpretation shows how past events can acquire new meanings in the light of more recent ones.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

The parallel between David’s psalm and Judas Iscariot’s betrayal seems clear. In his writings, David refers to specific events in his own life, yet, curiously, these same words seem to echo in the betrayal by Judas, someone close to Jesus the Messiah.

This connection becomes apparent only with knowledge of the events that led to Jesus’ arrest. Without this contextual understanding, the prophetic significance of David’s text would remain veiled.

a) The text

The prophet Zechariah even specifies the sum paid for the betrayal. This amount corresponds to the price of a slave.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

Matthew reports Judas Iscariot’s betrayal and specifies the amount of money the Sanhédrin — afficher la définition INF003 offered for it.

Judas Iscariot’s betrayal and the amount he received shed light on Zechariah 11.12. This sum matches the price of a slave as established in Exodus 21.28-32.

The precision of this prophecy is striking. It is not clear that Judas Iscariot knew this passage from Zechariah. Nothing indicates that he connected the prophecy with his actions, since he continued on his destructive path, which ultimately ended in his suicide.

a) The text

Verse thirteen of Zechariah offers remarkable revelations. It highlights two distinct elements: first, money thrown into the Temple, then the intriguing mention of a potter.

These details seem to foreshadow specific events connected with Judas Iscariot’s betrayal, as described in the Gospels, where Judas throws the betrayal money into the Temple and it is subsequently used to buy the potter’s field.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

Matthew makes a connection with the prophetic text of Zechariah 11.12, but cites Jeremiah as the source. This raises a question: could Matthew have confused the two prophets?

This hypothesis seems unlikely, especially considering that Matthew addressed an audience familiar with these texts, who would easily have identified any mistake.

Although Jeremiah deals with similar themes (see Jeremiah 19.4 and Jeremiah 6.11, the passage in question is clearly more closely connected with Zechariah 11.12. Matthew probably chose intentionally to quote Jeremiah, a better-known prophet, to emphasise the importance and significance of the event described, while implicitly referring to Zechariah’s specific passage.

The prophetic text of Zechariah 11.13, written several centuries before the New Testament events, predicts with remarkable precision details that will materialise during Judas Iscariot’s betrayal.

This passage describes a specific sum of money, the act of throwing it into the Temple, and the subsequent purchase of a potter’s field. These elements, originally prophesied by Zechariah, find concrete fulfilment in Judas’ actions as reported in the Gospels.

Interestingly, despite this prophecy’s clarity with historical hindsight, the religious scholars contemporary with these events do not seem to have connected Zechariah’s prophecy with Judas’ betrayal, which might have influenced their interpretation of events and their reactions.

a) The text

Verse thirteen of Zechariah offers remarkable revelations. It highlights two distinct elements: first, money thrown into the Temple, then the intriguing mention of a potter.

These details seem to foreshadow specific events connected with Judas Iscariot’s betrayal, as described in the Gospels, where Judas throws the betrayal money into the Temple and it is subsequently used to buy the potter’s field.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

The Jewish religious authorities recovered the money Judas had thrown into the Temple. They decided, however, not to put it back into the treasury, since it had been used to secure Jesus’ betrayal.

They decided to allocate this sum and, if necessary, pay the balance to buy a plot of land that would serve as a burial ground for foreigners.

The land in question belongs to a potter, precisely matching the prophecy of Zechariah 11.12-13. It is interesting that the prophecy’s details were fulfilled exactly. Yet experts in the law, such as the pharisiens — afficher la définition INF002, failed to notice; otherwise they would have bought another plot.

The pharisiens — afficher la définition INF002 may not have known these facts at the time of the purchase. This information came to light only later. Luke mentions it in his book, in Acts 1.16-19.

Only in hindsight did the apostles recognise the accuracy of the details recorded by Zechariah. These details probably provoked discontent among the pharisiens — afficher la définition INF002, who did not immediately grasp the implications of their decision.

a) The text

In this passage, David speaks of his own trials and adversities. His words express his own sufferings and challenges.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

David’s psalm evokes bitterness through images of poison and vinegar. These same elements reappear poignantly in Matthew’s account of Jesus the Messiah’s crucifixion.

While suffering on the cross, Jesus is offered vinegar mixed with gall, probably a bitter or toxic substance. This correspondence between David’s writings and events in Jesus’ life emphasises the prophetic character of the Old Testament.

It highlights the Messiah as a central figure throughout the Bible, whose sufferings were predicted long before their fulfilment.

a) The text

In Psalms 22.1-30, David addresses themes that foreshadow events of the Messiah’s crucifixion: he speaks of pierced hands and feet, divided garments and lots cast for his tunic, while specifying that none of his bones will be broken.

These surprisingly specific details correspond closely to the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Zechariah also uses the word ‘pierced’ and refers to an ‘only son’ and a ‘firstborn’. Although written centuries earlier, these prophetic expressions seem strikingly to evoke the circumstances of Jesus’ death, thus emphasising the prophetic and anticipatory character of the Old Testament writings concerning the Messiah.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

You can consult the following biblical references: Exodus 12.46, Psalms 34.20, Zechariah 12.10 and Revelation 1.7.

The apostle John highlights the fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecies, emphasising specific details that materialised during the events surrounding Jesus’ life.

Such precision in the fulfilment of so many ancient prophecies leads us to consider the existence of divine guidance orchestrating these events.

This challenges our usual logical reasoning and strongly suggests supernatural intervention or foreknowledge guiding the course of history in accordance with the prophetic writings.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

The prophet Amos predicts that abnormal darkness will fall at midday on the day of the Messiah’s death. This prophecy is particularly relevant to Jesus’ crucifixion, when the sky is reported to have darkened during his suffering.

We will explore this phenomenon and its correspondence with Jonah’s ‘three days and three nights’ in more detail in the appendix ANN035 : The three days and three nights.

This analysis will help us understand how the events surrounding Jesus’ death align with the predictions of Amos 8.9, reinforcing the idea of a correspondence between Scripture and the historical facts of Jesus’ life.

a) The text

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

When the apostle Peter quotes the prophet Joel, referring to various atmospheric phenomena, he seems to refer directly to events on 1 April 33, which most of the witnesses present would have observed.

This interpretation is explored further in the appendix ANN036 : The apostle Peter’s speech. There we analyse how Peter connects Joel’s prophecies with the exceptional circumstances surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion, shedding light on the biblical and historical context of his message.

a) The text

David, the king and prophet, speaks of the Messiah’s ascension.

b) The historical reality of the Gospels

Jesus the Messiah’s ascension, a momentous event in the apostles’ lives, is described only by Luke in his two writings, the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. In this period after the resurrection, the disciples had many questions about the outcome of their Master’s ministry.

For forty days, the risen Messiah appeared repeatedly, not only to the women who had followed him, but also to his apostles and other disciples.

This period of uncertainty ended unexpectedly. Thursday, 12 May 33, a day that began like so many others, was to enter history.

Gathered with their Master on the mont des Oliviers — afficher la définition INF305, the apostles received his final instructions. Then, before their astonished eyes, Jesus the Messiah rose towards heaven. This extraordinary scene, full of meaning and emotion, would remain engraved in their memories for ever.

This moment marks not only the physical end of présence de Jésus — afficher la définition INF235 among his disciples, but also the beginning of a new era in their mission.

The precise date, 12 May 33, emphasises this event’s importance in the Christian calendar, marking a turning point in the spread of their faith.