What Has the Bible Predicted That Has Happened?
by
Philip du Nard
Since whole books have been written to answer a question such as this and I do not intend to write a book, I will restrict myself to five instances in which I believe the Bible has accurately predicted something that has transpired.
A frequent complaint from skeptics is that when Christians seek to "prove" the Bible, they quote the Bible. Let's be reasonable. In order to demonstrate that something the Bible has predicted has come to pass, one must quote the Bible to show what the prediction was.
1. The birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
Because the full manifestation of the kingdom of God is not yet in evidence and Jesus Christ is not yet openly ruling over such a kingdom, the skeptics will naturally say this prediction has failed in its fulfillment. But let's ponder this rather bold proclamation a bit. The prophet Micah lived over 700 years before Christ. What incentive would he have had to utter these words? Was he part of some vast, coordinated religious conspiracy that extended over the centuries designed to dominate the minds of the superstitious and unsuspecting? If so, he could hardly have chosen a more unlikely approach to achieve that end. In his day, as it was for centuries thereafter, Bethlehem was a rather insignificant spot on the landscape. Religious conspirators would perhaps have had a better chance of overawing the masses by focusing on Jerusalem or some other important city for something of such far-reaching significance. Considering how prophets of the Lord were often mistreated, it would not be incredible to suppose he might have been laughed to scorn for coming up with such an idea.
It was not too healthy for someone to try to exploit this prediction either. The only response on the part of those in possession of these writings at the time of Christ's birth and therefore ones we would naturally think to be the most likely to be a party to such a conspiracy was to try to kill anyone who might be a potential candidate for the fulfillment of this prophecy even if it meant slaughtering little children. And, this could hardly be placed in the category of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Jesus Christ did not go around trumpeting the fact that He was born in Bethlehem and many of the people who cried Hosanna and wanted to make Him king knew only of His connections with the city of Nazereth. Despite all these obstacles and whatever category one might be inclined to relegate Christ to, it is most remarkable that the name of someone born in this obscure village has ,in accordance with Micah's prophecy, been exalted above all other names throughout much of the world to the extent that His birth is the reference point for our dating system and He is already regarded by many as their king. Micah also said something else remarkable. Of the One to be born in Bethlehem it is written, "whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting." . By saying that this individual that was to be born in Bethlehem ( remember Isaiah wrote "for unto us a child is born" ) was Him "whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting." a reference is thus made in the Old Scriptures to the incarnation of God. So this is not strictly a New Testament teaching. Again, those in possession of the Scriptures at the time of Christ did not take kindly to this notion and so they had Him crucified. They dropped the ball if they were a part of this conspiracy to uphold the Scriptures. Of course, they were unwittingly fulfilling the Scriptures but that's another aspect of the story. The Gospel accounts declare Christ to have been born in Bethlehem. The burden of proof is on those who would like to believe that the Gospel writers told a lie to make people believe He was born there when He was not as part of some vast, religious conspiracy to improperly exalt the person of Christ.
2. The suffering and death of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world.
The full text of Isaiah 53 can be accessed here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa053.html
When we read this prediction given by Isaiah, it is amazing to think that it also was made over 700 yrs. before Christ. In between writing prophecies about nations, Isaiah gives a portrait of an individual. What he had to say must have seemed very strange to the people of his time. The idea that an individual was to die for the sins of the people and this would satisfy God's justice was not really a part of the theology of that time but this is what Isaiah wrote. What was his incentive? What was in it for him? What are the odds that an individual such as Jesus Christ with a few followers could arrange things on their own so has to have someone such as Christ who was born in Bethlehem go through the brutal experience described here just so they could trumpet the idea that Christ fit the bill? Who would go through this and go to all this trouble just for a scam? Human nature being what it is, the gospel accounts are more credible when they portray Peter and the others as trying to persuade Christ to not submit to this ordeal. When Isaiah says this individual would make his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death, was it the disciples who arranged for Christ to die between two thieves and to have a rich man provide his burial place? Or is the idea that later generations of Christian writers studied Isaiah and Micah, figured out what the requirements for the Messiah were, and fabricated the story of Jesus to make it all look like prophecy was being fulfilled? If this is so, how in the world did Christianity get started in the first place? This notion is wishful thinking on the part of the skeptics. We have four independent accounts of what transpired during the life and ministry of Jesus Christ which is more detail than we have on most historical figures, especially that far back. Did they suddenly become less than credible the moment they were all joined together in one book called the Bible?
3.The Rise, Decline, and Fall of the Roman Empire and the Manner Thereof.
If the book of Daniel is to be accepted at face value, it would appear that it was written by someone living in the 6th century B.C. The skeptics do not believe this for obvious reasons. In Daniel 11-12, there is a very detailed prophecy regarding a series of events that transpired in later centuries B.C. It concerns the wars and intrigues of the Ptolemies of Egypt versus the Seleucids of Palestine and Asia Minor. The prophetic account follows the external historical record so precisely that the actual names of the principles can be supplied. The skeptics do not deny this. Operating on the assumption that denies the miraculous, they conclude that the book of Daniel was written after the fact and fraudulently presented as something that was written before the fact. The argument goes like this: If I, living in the year 2002, wanted to start a new religion or lend credibility to an existing one, the thing for me to do is to write a detailed account of World War 2, the, facts of which are already available elsewhere, and try to pass it off as something that was written by someone in 1850 as a prediction in the hopes that a thousand years hence someone would be taken in by the hoax as a part of this ongoing, vast, religious conspiracy. There are religious hoaxes to be sure and one might almost have to consider this. What the skeptics have overlooked however, aisde from the fact that the book of Daniel had long been incorporated into Scriptures held sacred is that Daniel speaks of events that have transpired long past the time that even the skeptics consider reasonable for when the book of Daniel made its appearance.
Daniel chapter 2 can be accessed here, the whole chapter being important to establish the setting but special attention is to be paid to verses 40-43:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Dan/Dan002.html
In this chapter, king Nebuchadnezzar, a heathen king, is given a vision by God. Only Daniel is able to tell him what the dream was and what it meant. Nebuchadnezzar saw an image, evidently of a man, that had a head, arms, legs, etc. The various parts of the body were composed of different metals, the legs were of iron and the feet and toes were iron mixed with miry clay. This image represented a succession of kingdoms, the so-called Babylonian succession of empires. From the description, Daniel accurately foretells the eventual fall of the Babylonian empire which was then to be replaced by the Medo-Persian, then that of Alexander the Great, and finally by Rome. Only those kings and kingdoms that affected the Israelites in some way are mentioned. The phrase, "the whole earth," is generally understood to mean that part of the world that concerned Israel. The fourth kingdom, represented by the iron legs and the feet and toes mixed with clay was to be as strong as iron and would subdue, break in pieces and bruise. This signified the renowned military might of Rome. Daniel saw what historians have subsequently seen, that the kingdom would be divided. Eventually, the Roman Empire was divided into a western empire with Rome as its capital which fell in 476 A.D. and an eastern empire which became the Byzantine empire with Constantinople as its capital which fell in 1453 A.D. to the Turks. This division occurred in the year of our precious Lord, 395. These dates are long after the book of Daniel was written. Historians have acknowledged that, for all the might of Rome, there evidently was a source of internal weakness that caused it to break apart. Daniel sees this too as he says the kingdom would be "partly strong and partly broken." Though there undoubtedly were many factors that contributed to the fall of this entity, there is but one that the Holy Spirit has left to our remembrance and for our learning. It is no secret that one of the chief characteristics of the Roman Empire is that it was the melting pot of the ancient world. Though this came about chiefly after the book of Daniel had been written, the prophet sees this too as he notes that they would "mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another even as iron is not mixed with clay." In other words, they carried multiculturalism and race-mixing a little too far and this incompatible, unnatural, mingling brought them down.
4. The destruction of the city of Jerusalem subsequent to the crucifixion of the Messiah.( 70A.D.)
Both Daniel and Jesus Christ predicted the destruction of Jerusalem before the fact. Of the temple, the Lord said in Matt. 24:2 that not one stone would be left upon another. This was remarkable in that at the time these words were spoken, Jerusalem was under the "protection" of Rome. Again, the skeptics have to return to their conspiracy theory of someone cooking the books after the event occurred but Daniel predicted this too and no one can say that Daniel was written after 70 A.D. Daniel gives some additional information regarding the timing of all this.
Daniel 9:24-27 demands, perhaps, a fuller exposition than I will render here but, for our purposes, suffice it to say, after Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Babylonians circa 585 B.C., Daniel's vision foretold that Jerusalem would be rebuilt ( which it was), that a specific period of time would pass until the appearance of the Messiah. The Messiah would be "cut off, but not for himself." This harmonizes with Isaiah. Jesus Christ was crucified, not for Himself, but for the world. Subsequent to this, the city and the sanctuary were to be destroyed and the religious sacrifices were to cease, all of which happened when the Romans leveled the place in 70 A.D. What would Daniel's motive be for predicting yet another destruction of the beloved city of the Jews? This would not be and was not a very popular message. How did this come about? I know, I know. It was all rigged. The disciples somehow persuaded the Romans to destroy Jerusalem so they could go around pointing to the fulfillment of prophecy. I trust the reader realizes I'm being a bit facetious here.
In answer to the question, "What has happened that the Bible has predicted?," there can be no denial that the Bible predicted the destruction of the city of Jerusalem beforehand. Was it a lucky guess? Perhaps. But how many lucky guesses does the Book get before we can no longer attribute these things to chance and coincidence?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Dan/Dan009.html
5. The involvement of the Jews in the realm of finance throughout the Christian era as a means of survival subsequent to their scattering.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk016.html
See verses 1-9.
This, also, is a rather remarkable prophecy and it does not lend itself readily to charges of human intervention. Not only does it concern events that are now a matter of history yet transpired long after the New Testament Scriptures were completed, it can hardly be said that Christian scholars dreamed this up to make the words conform to history or influence history if that were possible to conform to the prophecy as the record of the past two thousand years will reveal that the full meaning of this passage has been lost even on Christian theologians. Even today, most have regarded this parable of the Unjust Steward as nothing more than the Lord preaching the virtues of Christian stewardship to His disciples. LIke the Jews before them, there have been Scriptures in their possession they did not fully understand. There may well be some lessons here but that is not all there is to it.
In Matt. 23:2-3, speaking of the Jewish religious leaders, Christ said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." This is another way of saying the Jews had stewardship of the laws of God pertaining to the nation and the responsibility of administering those laws. In Matt. 15:6, he accused them of making the commandment of God of none effect through their tradition. This is another way of saying they had failed in their stewardship. This theme runs throughout the Gospels and the following interpretation of this parable is in harmony with that theme.
Thus, returning to our parable in Luke 16, when the lord of the parable tells his unfaithful steward "thou mayest no longer be steward," and we see the reaction of the steward to this news, in veiled language, Jesus Christ accurately predicted how the Jews would adapt to being put out of the stewardship by God. The unjust steward called each of his lord's creditors and revised their bill downward. It is plain that this involved the manipulation of money and probably the extension of credit. The motivation for doing this was "that they may receive me into their houses." The lord of the parable commended the unjust steward, not for his righteousness, but for his wisdom this way: "And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." I am inclined toward the belief that this is not yet the moral of the story that Jesus is presenting to his disciples but the continuation of the parable and the use of the plural, "yourselves," is an indication that the steward is indeed representative of a group of people and not just one person. The steward is being told, "Involve yourselves in financial matters so that when you are kicked out of Jerusalem, you will be received into everlasting, or age-lasting, or Christian habitations.
By contrast, the writer James admonishes Christian people in James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." In light of this, it is not likely that it is the disciples that the Lord is instructing to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness.
No, not every Jew became a moneylender. But in medieval times, the association of the Jews with the practice of usury was proverbial. And even in more recent times, names like Rothschild and many others have stood out and been dominant in the realm of international banking and as sympathetic as such names have naturally been to Jewish causes, this has given the Jews more clout in the nations of Christendom than they might otherwise have had. This happened, and the Bible predicted it and Jesus Christ is "*that prophet*" that was to come.
The point to be made here with these fulfilled prophecies is that while they are, according to the Scriptures, God's means of validating His Word, He did not make predictions simply for the purpose of making them but each one, in some way, is consistent with His overall plan.