|
There is a subtle but important difference between, on the one hand, knowing the meaning of a prophecy beforehand and thereby using it to seek out the Christ, and, on the other hand, realizing that the Christ has come, and then going back and considering the prophecies that He was supposed to have fulfilled. The former is, according to my understanding, quite an unlikely possibility. The latter, however, represents the interaction intended by God between prophecies and man (62:1) In the above verses that John has recorded, it is quite clear that no one in that situation was led to believe that Jesus was the Christ because they believed that the Christ would come from Bethlehem. These verses offer additional confirmation that everyone who believed in Him must have had some other reason for believing than prophecy. How do we know this? We know this because John makes it clear that the people assumed that Jesus was from Galilee. To paraphrase, the people said: "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? But our understanding is that He should come from Bethlehem." (62:2) For the people of Christ's time, then, the prophecy of Bethlehem would be more of an obstacle than an aid in finding the Christ. If someone were looking for a ruler from Bethlehem, they would not have found Him. In the minds of the people, Jesus was Jesus of Nazareth, a Galilean, the leader of the sect of the Nazarenes. Jesus Himself said "I am Jesus of Nazareth" . There is no mention of Jesus of Bethlehem in the Bible. In fact, after the story of Christ's birth, that is the last we hear of any association of Jesus with Bethlehem. It is possible, of course, that during Christ's ministry, it may have been explained to some that Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, and that this may have confirmed some in their belief in Him. There is, however, nothing in the New Testament to suggest this (62:3) Although it appears that none were led to Christ through the Bethlehem prophecy, a question still remains regarding the understanding of this prophecy, namely: Was it correctly understood before it was fulfilled? The Bible clearly shows that it was - half of it, that is. The religious leaders did correctly understand the part of this prophecy referring to Bethlehem. But does understanding part of a prophecy mean anything? Should they have been trusted to interpret the other half, the one referring to "ruler in Israel"? Did they really know what they were talking about, or were they guessing? If the answer to this question does not seem clear to you, then let's try asking another, more-to-the-point question: Should the people have followed the interpretation of the religious leaders, or not? (62:4) To really understand the meaning of a prophecy requires some divine confirmation, as in the case of the prophecies we now understand regarding the First Coming of Christ. As far as I can understand, there is essentially no difference between not understanding the true meaning of a prophecy, and understanding the true meaning, but having no way of confirming it
(62:5)
|