What are the Bible's failed prophecies?

Answer 1

There are no failed prophecies of God at all in the Bible. There are prophecies that have already been completely fulfilled, others that are only partially fulfilled, and still others that have not yet been fulfilled at all. Just because some may appear to have failed means absolutely nothing:-

Isa 46:9-11 KJV Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, [v. 10] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: [v. 11] Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

God is omnipotent but also merciful, and at least half of all prophecies will not be completely fulfilled until the Millennium and the return of Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Opinion Matthew, 23:36 (see also Luke 9:27 & Mark 13:30) are failed prophecy.

With a few exceptions, almost all prophecy has 3 applications: a past, a present, and a future application, and are therefore only partially-fulfilled. The best thing anyone can do to understand prophecy is to take the Bible literally and actually believe what God says, not what others say. Then read all the verses about "the Day of the Lord" ;( this also includes: the time of Jacob's trouble, day of darkness, day of clouds etc .) This will give an overall view of the whole theme of the nation of Israel's apostasy, punishment, repentance, and finally blessings. Many prophecies are just a type, or figure, of what is to come; most prophecy is Messianic. Once this is grasped, it puts a whole new understanding on things. All prophecy is successful, and those prophecies that seem unsuccessful just haven't been completely fulfilled yet. From God's perspective all prophecy is past-tense - He sees it as having already happened, yet man can only look at the past and guess at what is going to happen in the future based on history, whereas God actually knows what is going to happen because He has decreed it to occur. To understand this takes faith, and since this faith is only given to believers it means that agnostics, scoffers, and atheists cannot really understand prophecy no matter how intelligent, educated, or scholarly they are The prophecy in Ezekiel 29:12

Another answer:

In understanding any prophecy all of it must be read, not just a few verses, and it must not be taken out of context, or have read into it what is not there to suit a predetermined point of view.

Eze 29:10 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia.

Eze 29:11 No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.

Eze 29:12 And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.

Eze 29:13 Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered:

The prophecy in Ezekiel did happen, but it was only partially-fulfilled; it is yet to be fulfilled in its entirety. The prophecy in Ezekiel 29:10-13 was part-fulfilled "when Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar, reigned supreme in Egypt (see verses 19-20) from ca.568/67BC to 525BC until Cyrus gained Persian control., but only in part: it is not completely fulfilled yet. " (quoted from John MacArthur in "The MacArthur Study Bible"). This prophecy is fulfilled only in part: it is not completely fulfilled yet. The ancient prophets described the 'Day of the Lord' and God's plan to bring Israel to repentance by its enemies which they foresaw happening thousands of years in the near-coming future but were only able to use language and idioms of their day.

The critical part is verse 11, where it basically says nothing at all will be able to go from one side of Egypt to the other for 40 years. It doesn't say nothing will be able to enter the area: it says nothing will be able to cross it from one side to the other. This includes men, animals, birds, insects, cockroaches, and plants: everything single living thing there dies. Obviously this has not occurred yet so it is yet future. Think of nuclear bombs: then think of radioactivity killing all those who try to cross Egypt from one side to the other. The Book of Daniel

Daniel is often attacked by critics because it is too accurate and dares to say in detail what is going to happen in the future. The reason the 9th chapter of Daniel is the proof test of Bible prophecy is that it tells the exact date when the restoration of Jerusalem would begin after the Babylonian captivity and how long it would take, and it tells of the crucifixion of Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the 7 years preceding His coming again. All these things were written over 500 years before the birth of Jesus Christ. It still stands as the cornerstone of Bible prophecy, proof that God knows all things from beginning to end. But then if you don't believe in God in the first place you are not going to believe what He says anyway.

Traditionally, it is believed that Daniel was written by Daniel between 530 and 537BC:-

"As to the date of the composition of Daniel, the narrative of the prophet's earliest experiences begins with his capture as a hostage by Nebuchadnezzar back in 605-604 B.C. and according to 1:21 continues certainly till the first year of Cyrus (c. 537 B.C.), in relation to his public service, and to the third year of Cyrus (535 B.C.), in relation to his prophetic ministry (Dan 10:1). Daniel seems to have revised and completed his memoirs during his retirement sometime about 532 or 530 B.C. when he would have been close to ninety years old (assuming his birth c. 620 B.C.). The appearance of Persian-derived governmental terms, even in the earlier chapters composed in Aramaic, strongly suggests that these chapters were given their final form after Persian had become the official language of government."

(from "The Expositor's Bible Commentary" Gaebelein, Frank E., ed., Vol I. Zondervan, 1979.)

This early dating is denied by scholars such as J.D. Michaelis (1771), J.G. Eichhorn (1780), L. Berthold (1806), F. Bleek (1822), and many others after them, who taught that every accurate prediction in Daniel was written after it had already been fulfilled and was therefore written in the period of the Maccabean revolt which was from 168 to 165 B.C.

It is generally accepted by scholars of ALL theological orientations that some of the elements of Daniel 11 were fulfilled (at least partially) by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), with the 'abomination of desolation' being in 167 BC.

To prove Daniel is a book of prophecy it is actually unnecessary to prove it was written in the 6th century BC. All that has to be done is prove it was written BEFORE 167 BC. If the prophecies were uttered even ten years before the event, then they constitute 'prophecy proper'.

Strictly speaking, all that is therefore necessary to do is to demonstrate that the material/content in the book of Daniel was in existence by the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ie 167BC). It is not necessary to show that the book was in its current form at all, because if references or close/obvious allusions to the images/languages in Daniel are found, it will have pre-dated the events of 167BC, and hence be 'real' prophecy.

This is easily done: much of the Old Testament, and this may include Daniel, was translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek in the Bible translation now known as the Septuagint between 260BC and 276BC, or a full century before 167BC. That it was translated into the Septuagint is a definitely known and agreed historical fact, and any so-called'scholar' or someone else who denies this or says "Yes, but..." only proves that they do not want to accept Daniel as a book of prophecy despite incontrovertible evidence proving otherwise, and that by rejecting Daniel they are really rejecting God. Isaiah chapter 7:14

The assertion here is that Matthew 1:23 refers to a virgin giving birth, but that it's taken from Isaiah chapter 7:14 where it means a young woman, there was really no such thing as a virgin giving birth, it was instead just a normal birth, so the baby was just a normal human being, and therefore could not be God. When ten different translations are compared they all translate the verse in Matthew 1:23 as "virgin":-

(ASV) Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.

(BBE) See, the virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a son, and they will give him the name Immanuel, that is, God with us.

(CEV) "A virgin will have a baby boy, and he will be called Immanuel," which means "God is with us."

(GNB) "A virgin will become pregnant and have a son, and he will be called Immanuel" (which means, "God is with us").

(ISV) "See, a virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name him Immanuel," which means, "God with us."

(KJV) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

(LITV) "Behold! The virgin will conceive in her womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel" (which translated is, God with us). Isa. 7:14

(MKJV) "Behold, the virgin shall conceive in her womb, and will bear a son. And they will call His name Emmanuel," which being interpreted is, God with us.

(NET) "Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him 19 Emmanuel,"20 which means21 "God with us."22

(WEB) "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel;" which is, being interpreted, "God with us."

This verse in Matthew 1:23 is taken from Isaiah 7:14 , and when the same ten translations are compared seven also translate the word as "virgin":-

(ASV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(CEV) But the LORD will still give you proof. A virgin is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him Immanuel.

(KJV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(KJVA) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(LITV) So, The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! The virgin will conceive and will bring forth a son; and she shall call His name Immanuel.

(MKJV) So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.

(WEB) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Seven outr of ten - 70% - also translate this as "virgin". However, there are three that do not, but translate this as "young woman" instead:-

(BBE) For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.

(GNB) Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'

( (NET) For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, 'almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (eg Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated "young woman". However, this does not mean it is wrongly translated: the Septuagint translation rendered this Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean "virgin" in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew's usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, but ultimately one's view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected.

Contentious verses must be looked at both in their context and in full, not ignoring inconvenient sections. Go back to Matthew 1:23 and see what else it says:-

Mat 1:20-23 And as he was thinking about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord was seen by him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For that in her is generated by the Holy Spirit. [v. 21] And she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. [v. 22] And all this happened so that might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet [ie Isaiah], saying, [v. 23] "Behold! The virgin will conceive in her womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Immanuel" (which translated is, God with us).

Then go to the verses in Isaiah and you will find that it was all prophesied 7 centuries earlier:-

Isa 7:14 So, The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! The virgin will conceive and will bring forth a son; and she shall call His name Immanuel.

Isa 8:7-10 [v. 7] Behold, therefore the Lord also brings on them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And he [ie the Lord] shall come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks. [v. 8] And he [ie the Lord] shall pass through Judah. He [ie the Lord] shall overflow and go over. He [ie the Lord] shall reach to the neck; and his[ie the Lord's] wings will be stretching out, filling the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. [v.9] O peoples, suffer evil, and be broken! And listen, all from the far places of the earth; gird yourselves, and be broken. Gird yourselves and be broken! [v. 10] Counsel a counsel, and it is frustrated; speak a word, and it shall not rise; for God is with us.

Because these verses from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus' birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ's virgin birth. The liklihood of these prophecies just being purely coincidental is so remote as to be ridiculous, and you either accept this prophecy or reject it. However, on your own head be it: if you reject God He will reject you. Jeremiah 3:17: At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

Jeremiah prophesied that all nation will embrace Judaism. This has never happen and will likely never happen in the future since Judaism is now on a decline.

For this prophecy to be fulfilled, all people of different faiths, including Christians, will have to convert to Judaism. Zecariah 9:8 And I will encamp about mine house because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth: and no oppressor shall pass through them any more: for now have I seen with mine eyes. 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion;

Israel (Zion)has been occupied many times since the time of Zechariah, so this clearly is not a prophecy that will happen in the future. These verses refer to both events that have already been fulfilled and also to events that yet future and have not happened yet: the prophecy is only partially-fulfilled . The verses of Zechariah 9:8-9 are

Zec 9:8-9 MKJV And I will camp around My house because of an army, because of him who passed by, and because of him who returns. And no tyrant shall pass through them any more. For now I have seen with My eyes. [v. 9] Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King comes to you. He is righteous and victorious, meek and riding on an ass, even on a colt, the son of an ass.

John Macarthur in his Notes in 'The MacArthur Study Bible' says that

"This is the pledge of God's protection of Jerusalem from Alexander. It came true when, on his way south, Alexander treated Jerusalem with kindness. After having subjugated Egypt he returned through Palestine again without doing Israel any harm.

'no tyrant shall pass through them any more'...[this] anticipates the Second Advent of the messiah [in the] transition from Alexander to Christ...If God can use a pagan king to judge the nations and save Israel, how much more will he use His righteous Messiah?...[T]he two advents of Christ are compressed as if they are one. ...Verse 9 refers to His First coming and verse 10 the Second... 'King ...riding on an ass' ...This was fulfilled at Christ's triumphal entry (Matthew 21:1-5)"

Another answer:

In understanding prophecy it is important to read a few verses either side of the passage to get things in context, and the very next verse (verse 10) says:-

[v. 10] And I will [note: in future tense] cut off the chariot from Ephraim [ie Israel] , and the horse from Jerusalem. And the battle bow shall be cut off [ie weapons of war destroyed], and He shall speak peace to the nations; and His dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

This has not occurred and is therefore yet future. Isaiah 30;26 Moreover the "light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun,..."

The ancient Hebrews and the writer of Isaiah believe that the moon produces it's own light. Since the brightness of the moon is reflected light from the sun it will never be as bright as the sun. Although the moon may explode and be as bright as the sun, at (least for a minute or two) billions of years from now, how can that be relevant to us now?

Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Nazareth is now on the map, but during Jesus' time there's no city called Nazareth not even a small town. The naming of Nazareth happen several decades after Jesus' time. So the prophecy of the unnamed prophet failed.

Answer

Isaiah 30:26 says:-

Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

Yes, it is relevant and it will happen.

(1). Go to Revelation and follow it through:-

Rev 1:16 And he [Jesus Christ, the Son of man] had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

(2). The Sun and moon don't give out any of their light, and thus no heat from the sun:-

Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

(3). Then two-thirds of the light from the sun etc is restored, along with the resultant heat:-

Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

(4). Then light is restored to all of the sun, and Christ's great anger and vengeance strikes the earth as great heat from the sun [see 1:16] :-

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

Rev 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

It is relevant to us now and it will happen.

(See the Question below "Will the prophecy on Isaiah 30 v26 ever happen?")

Re Matthew 2:23 and Nazareth:-

Do not confuse 'Nazarene' and 'Nazarite' as they are both different:-

A Nazarene is someone who lives in Nazareth, while a Nazarite is someone who has under taken a Nazarite vow meaning they couldn't, among other things, have wine or strong drink (eg John the Baptist).

(See the Question below "Which Prophecy was Matthew 2 v23 referring to?") Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all, as is clear when the entire verse is quoted ("When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."). It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus.

11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").

Matthew specifically says that this is in fulfillment of a particular prophecy :-

Mat 2:15 [KJV] And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet [ie Hosea] , saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son".

The prophecy in Hosea is:-

Hos 11:1 [KJV] When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

In cases of doubt, look at another translation:-

Hos 11:1 [NET Bible]

When Israel was a young man, I loved him like a son,[note 1]

and I summoned my son [note 2] out of Egypt.

The relevant Notes in the NET Bible for Hosea 11:1 are:-

" 1 tn The words "like a son" are not in the Hebrew text, but are necessary to clarify what sort of love is intended (cf. also NLT).

2 tc The Masoretic Text (MT) reads בְנִי (veni, "My son"); however, the Septuagint (LXX) reflects בָנָיו (vanav, "his sons"). The Masoretic Text (MT) should be retained as original here [ie 'my son] because of internal evidence; it is much more appropriate to the context."

ie it should read:-

"When Israel was a young man, I loved him,

and I summoned my son [ie singular - not plural] out of Egypt."

If Matthew specifically calls it a fulfilled prophecy, then it is a fulfilled prophecy, no matter what you think. Prophecy can be ambiguous, which is why it's called that: if everyone knew what it meant it wouldn't be a proof that God was behind it and caused something to come to pass that was impossible or didn't make sense. You might want to look at other examples just by Matthew:-

Mat 1:22 And all this happened so that might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

Mat 1:23 "Behold! The virgin will conceive in her womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel" (which translated is, God with us).

(See Isa 7:14)

Mat 13:34 Jesus spoke all these things in parables to the crowds, and He did not speak to them without a parable,

Mat 13:35 so that was fulfilled that spoken through the prophet, saying: "I will open My mouth in parables; I will speak out things hidden from the foundation of the world."

(See Psalm 78:2)

Mat 22:31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that spoken to you by God, saying:

Mat 22:32 "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" God is not God of the dead, but of the living.

(See Exodus 3:6)

Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And I took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who had been priced, on whom they of the sons of Israel set a price,

Mat 27:10 and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

(See Zechariah 11:12-13)

.Don't believe me: believe what the Bible says:-

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom [ie in heaven]: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luk 16:23 And in hell he [ie the rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. [ie to hell]

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Luk 16:30 And he [ie rich man] said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

Luk 16:31 And he [ie Abraham]said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Matthew 1:23 vs Isaiah 7:14.

Assuming that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Matthew 1;23 still failed, because the promised Messiah will be from the seed of David. It was Joseph who was from the seed of David, not Mary. see Genealogy in Matthew 1:2-16 and Luke 3:23-38.

Matthew 1:23 has not failed, because both Joseph and Mary were descended from David. Writing about Jewish family genealogies and their accuracy, in his "Daily Bible Illustrations" Dr Kitto writes:

"The fact that the descent of Jesus from David could be established by registers , and the presence of two such minute pedigrees as those of Matthew and Luke, evince that the Jews were, up to this time, still careful in the registration of family descents....The rabbins [sic] assure us that [after the captivity] they became still more careful in registering their genealogies; with immediate reference, doubtless, to the expectation of the Messiah; but with the ulterior object ...of preserving means for establishing the exact fulfillment of the predictions respecting his parentage. That such existed to even a later date is shown by Josephus, who declares that he traced his own descent in the tribe of Levi by public registers; and he expressly informs us that, however dispersed and dispossessed his nation were, they never failed to have exact genealogical tables prepared from the authentic Roman Empire documents which were kept at Jerusalem; and that in all their sufferings they were particularly careful to preserve these tables, which were renewed from time to time."

(From page 76 of "Daily Bible Illustrations - The Life and Death of Our Lord " section "29th Week, Third Day" by Dr Kitto, exact date unknown but possibly 1871.)

The Bible tells us David's wife Bathsheba had 4 sons, 2 of whom were Nathan and Solomon:-

1Ch 3:5 ...[David's]wife Bathsheba, daughter of Ammiel, bore him four sons: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. Solomon became king, and among his descendants was Joseph, (ie the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus, and Jesus' stepfather);

His genealogy is given in Matthew chapter 1:-

Mat 1:7 [Good News Bible] From David to the time when the people of Israel were taken into exile in Babylon, the following ancestors are listed: David, Solomon (his mother was the woman who had been Uriah's wife [ie Bathsheba]), Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, and Jehoiachin and his brothers.Mat 1:12 From the time after the exile in Babylon to the birth of Jesus, the following ancestors are listed: Jehoiachin, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, and Joseph, who married Mary, the mother of Jesus, who was called the Messiah.

However, his wife Mary traced her lineage back to Solomon's brother Nathan:-

Luk 3:23-31 CEV When Jesus began to preach, he was about thirty years old. Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph. But his family went back through Heli, [v. 24] Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Jannai, Joseph, [v. 25] Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, [v. 26] Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda; [v. 27] Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, [v. 28] Melchi, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, [v. 29] Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi; [v. 30] Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, [v. 31] Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David,

Regarding these genealogies in Matthew and Luke, Dr William Smith says in 'Smith's Bible Dictionary' (1884) in the article 'Genealogy of Jesus Christ', that:-

"1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, that is, of Jesus Christ as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary.

2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph's genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke's is Joseph's private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David's son, and thus, showing why he was heir to Solomon's crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David's and Solomon's throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all.

3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph, her husband. ...

(Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering Luk_3:23thus: Jesus"being (as was suppposed), the son of Joseph, (but, in reality), the son of Heli." In this case, Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus.

Mary's name was omitted because "ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." So we often find in the Old Testament, the grandson called the son. This ... shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom [that] his real descent from David should not be given. ).

In his "Daily Bible Illustrations" Dr Kitto says:-

"... But the two genealoogies are materially different. They coincide until David, when Matthew takes the ruling line [ie of Solomon]; whereas Luke takes the ...line by David's son Nathan....Matthew makes Joseph the son of Jacob,whereas Luke represents him as Heli, or Eli. He could not naturally have been the son of both these persons [thus] Jacob and Heli are different names for the same person. They are obviously two different genealogies from the common ancestor David.....[T]he genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph, and the one in Luke that of Mary - the former being the legal, and the latter the real genealogy of Jesus.....

Furthermore, Mary is always called by the Jews 'the daughter of Heli' and by the early Christian writers 'the daughter of Joakim and Anna'. I believe Joakim and Eliakim (as different names in Hebrew for God) are sometimes interchanged; so that Heli or Eli is an abridged form of Eliakim interchanged for Joakim."

(From page 77 of "Daily Bible Illustrations - The Life and Death of Our Lord " section "29th Week, Third Day" by Dr Kitto, exact date unknown but possibly 1871.)

The Bible says in Luke 3:23 that Joseph's father was Heli.

Just as Joseph was "of the seed of David" but through the kingly line , so was Mary was also "of the seed of David"but through the non-kingly line. This means that Jesus was definitely of royal blood as He was descended from King David on both his (step)father Joseph and mother Mary's genealogies, making His claim to be the "king of the Jews" not just figurative but also literally correct.

It can be absolutely guaranteed that the Pharisees would have gone through Jesus' family genealogies with a very fine toothcomb looking for the slightest inaccuracy to disprove His claim to be "king of the Jews" and to then trumpet aloud that He was a fraud: the Pharisees called Jesus a lot of things, but they never said He was not entitled to call Himself the "king of the Jews" . In fact He had the full and perfect credentials for the job, which was why the people wanted to make Him king and overthrow the hated Roman occupation.

Jesus predicted that the High Priest will see his coming.

26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.Comment on above answer This verse is definitely Messianic:-

Matt 26:64 [NKJV] Matt Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

This is because the phrase"sitting at the right hand" from Matt 26:64 is an allusion to Ps 110:1 where Jesus shares authority with God in heaven:-

Psa 110:1 KJV The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

(The Pharisees may have thought they were His judges, but, in fact, the reverse was true).

The expression 'the right hand of the Power' is an indirect reference to God common in 1st century Judaism out of reverence for the divine name.

The phrase in Matt 26:64 'coming on the clouds of heaven'is an allusion to Dan 7:13-14:-

Dan 7:13-14 KJV I saw in the night visions, and, behold, onelIke the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. (v.14) And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominionisan everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom thatwhich shall not be destroyed.

In both Jewish and Christian circles this reference to 'the Son of man' in the book of Daniel is probably the main OT background for Jesus' use of the term "Son of man" and has traditionally been understood to refer to a messianic individual.

Christ used this term when He was explaining to the disciples what would happen in the end-times; they knew their scriptures (ie the Old Testament) and when He used the term "Son of man" in Matthew 24:30 they knew He was referring to Messianic prophecy by the prophet Joel :-

Mat 24:29-31 KJV (v.29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (v.30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (v.31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Joe 2:1, 10-11 KJV Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it isnigh at hand; (v.10) The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining: (v.11) And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp isvery great: for he isstrong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD isgreat and very terrible; and who can abide it?

The verse of Matthew 26:64 is not a failed prophecy because it is definitely Messianic, and since the Messiah has not returned (yet) it's fulfillment is still future.

Answer 2

In early Hebrew times, a prophet was not someone who foretold the future, but someone regarded as an intermediary between God and his people. It was only after the Babylonian Exile that Judaism really came to expect prophets to foretell the future.
The later books of the Old Testament begin to show much use of prophecy, not always successfully. The prophecy in Ezekiel 29:12 ("And I will make the land of Egypt desolate ... and the cities that are laid waste ...") is one that never came true.

The Book of Daniel is often considered to be an exemplar of prophecy, since it is widely believed to have been written during the sixth century BCE and accurately prophesied events as late as the second century BCE. However, some scholars have pointed out that, while it is accurate in respect to the second century, it is highly inaccurate about events at the time it was supposed to have been written, leading to the conclusion that Daniel was really written much later than formerly believed. It is inconceivable that a man of Daniel's alleged importance in both the Babylonian and Persian Empires would be so uninformed about the events of his time, and even be uncertain as to whether it was Darius or Cyrus who conquered Babylon. Moreover, in spite of Daniel being placed second to the King in both the Babylonian and Persian Empires, neither civilisation left even one record of his existence.

The gift of prophecy became even more important in Christian belief. For example, Matthew's Gospel quotes Isaiah 7:14, where it was said that "this young woman" would conceive and have a baby - a prediction that comes true a few verses later. However, Matthew relied on the Septuagint, an early Greek translation that contains several translation errors. One error in the Septuagint was to replace "this young woman" by "a virgin". By taking this mistranslation, out of context, Matthew found a "prophecy" that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

Answer 3

Some critics argue that prophecies such as the imminent return of Jesus in the first century did not materialize. Additionally, some interpretations of Old Testament prophecies regarding the establishment of Israel suggest discrepancies with historical events. However, interpretations of prophecies can vary widely among religious scholars and believers.