If there were Jews who were considered righteous and blameless, guided and influenced by divine inspiration, without being contradicted or corrected, then their testimony, expectations, and interpretations—what they anticipated, believed in, and had faith in—should be regarded as a dependable source of Scriptural wisdom.

In this post we will take a very close look at the men and women mention in Scripture who exhibited knowledge of the OT, primarily in their understanding of prophecy and expectations of the Messiah and His Kingdom. We will also be studying material from The Theocratic Kingdom and expanding on Peters’ argument in section 20 & 21.

Before we begin examining the Scriptures, let’s take a look at the main points Peters makes in Obs. 7 of Prop.20,

Another large class . . . inform us that the non-fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic Kingdom expectations indicates a Jewish misapprehension of Scripture language; and that hence, however the grammatical construction may demand it, the language, covenant and prophetical, expressive of such a faith must be interpreted to correspond with the result thus far attained. The non-fulfillment becomes both the rejecter of the ancient faith and the apologist for applying a spiritualistic interpretation.

In other words, here we are 2,000 years after Jesus walked this earth, died, and resurrected. There currently is no earthly kingdom of Jesus ruling and reigning. There is no true justice being meted out, everlasting righteousness, nor a restoration of Israel and her city. There is also neither a physical Davidic throne, nor disciples sitting on them. Therefore, these things spoken of and expected, the way they were conveyed like every other, must mean something else, purely on the grounds they have not come to fruition.

It is assumed that the prophecies relied on by the Jews to sustain their faith must mean something very different from its natural meaning — in brief, words, phrases, and sentences that had a definite meaning for centuries are, under the impulse of this misconception of the actual facts in the case, transmuted into something else to suit existing circumstances. This, too, is represented as faith in the Word—a reception of its divine teachings with implicit confidence. Need we be surprised at infidelity exulting in the gross confusion thus occasioned, and the more gross by implicating as utterly unreliable representative men, men of faith in the ancient church.

Did God give men and women promises, that for centuries sustained their faith by their plain and clear meaning, only to mean something else? Do the current circumstances really mean we can confidently say that God actually intended something entirely different than what a major portion of His inspired Word, spanning for centuries, plainly says? As we’ve touched on in the previous post, and how Peters brings to light here once again, critics of the Word, unbelievers, are fully justified in attacking the reliability of men and women the Word says were filled with the Holy Spirit. For centuries the Jews held onto the Messianic hopes born from the plain teaching of God’s Word, yet the same theologians today who would never deny that God is not a God of confusion, so confidently tell us that He confused, deceived, and misguided His chosen, beloved, people for centuries—He said one thing while meaning another, He intended for some to be taken literal and others to be taken “spiritually” or “allegorically”—once again, purely on grounds of non-fulfillment. What then can we say to those who attack our Scriptures for inconsistencies and unreliability?

The question returns, Were the Jews really mistaken and is any one authorized to engraft another and diverse meaning upon the prophecies which excited their faith, in order that the language may be reconciled with a certain supposed result? The simple, sad fact is this: in this whole matter the Word of God is unfairly handled by the multitude. According to their notion of the church as the covenanted Messianic Kingdom, both the primitive and Jewish faith must be discarded, and the predictions of the Word must be made to accommodate themselves to this Church-Kingdom theory.

The true and honorable method is the following: If the events did not take place, and have not yet occurred as predicted and believed in by these ancient worthies (i.e., as far as relates to the Kingdom), it ought to suggest the inquiry, Why have they not been realized? and in receiving the plain reasons presented in the Word why they have been withholden, deeply ponder them, and allow them the weight that divine teaching possesses. It is premature to assume, without mature examination, the foregone conclusion that they will never be verified in the believed-in grammatical sense, and thus bring reproach on the Scriptures containing and leading to such a sense; thus heap discredit on the belief of those ancient saints, making them misguided and ignorant Jews; thus hold up to scorn the faith of the Primitive Church, regarding it as mistaken in the leading doctrine of the Kingdom; and then, as a resort against infidelity, search for some accommodation theory to shelter those believers and the Scriptures. How can it be shown, with the reasons before us of the postponement of the Kingdom to the Second Advent, that God will not, as predicted, ultimately perform this glorious work? Instead of spiritualizing the language of the Word away into vagueness; instead of decrying the hopes of the pious of former ages . . . would it not be better to look at the most solemnly given assurances, coming from the Christ Himself, that these things are purposely postponed? Some preliminaries must first be logically passed over before we are fully prepared to discuss this postponement; if the student will patiently follow our steps he will be enabled to appreciate the irresistible force of the reasons assigned—reasons which for several centuries influenced and pervaded the Christian Church. (Prop. 20, Obs. 7)

Let’s now take a look at what is recorded for us in the Scriptures to see what exactly it is these Jews so earnestly clung to. What is it that God spoke through His prophets and promised to their forefathers, that led them to believe what so many now say must be reinterpreted? Were their statements ever corrected? How did Jesus respond to their hopes and expectations?

---

There are Jewish men and women in the Gospels who are explicitly called righteous or blameless or good or honorable or filled with the Holy Spirit. This being the case, we can and should be able to learn a great deal from what they say and what they believed in. Where there are corrections or rebukes of their statements we can disregard, and where there is neither correction or rebuke, we can gain wisdom. So what is this unfulfilled portion that has led many today to spiritualize?

The Testimonies Of . . .

Mary

The one who calls herself servant of the Lord (Luke 1:38) and called mother of my Lord (Luke 1:43) by Elizabeth, is Mary, one of the greatest examples of what a Jew expected of the Messiah and His Kingdom.

In the Gospel of Luke, the first mention of Mary is during the circumstances of the angel proclaiming the message of Jesus’s birth. The angel tells her:

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.
Luke 1:31-33

Consistent Literal Fulfillment

Here the angel echoes the predictions of Isaiah (Isa. 9:6-7)—the Promised One, the future King, the Horn of Salvation, has finally come, and Mary is the one to bear Him. If the prophet Isaiah was alive at the time of Christ’s birth, having seen his own prophecies begin to be fulfilled, “For a Child will be born to us, a Son will be given to us,” or “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14), would he, looking at the state of the world today, truly believe that what he spoke in the subsequent verses (Isa. 7:14-16) were also fulfilled? What about Mary, especially when considering all of the fulfillments Jesus fulfilled by His birth and ministry? In the angel’s announcement alone we can find literal fulfillment—Jesus is called great (Luke 3:16, Matt. 12:42, Phil. 2:9-11), He is called the Son of the Most High (Luke 1:35, Mark 5:7, Mark 14:61, John 6:69, Acts 16:17).

Now, would Mary and Isaiah require uninspired men centuries later, like Origen or Augustine, to explain some deeper meaning to them? Certainly not, and Walvoord well states the ridiculousness of this kind of implication:

“Did Mary for one moment hold the amillenarian view? Would she spiritualize this passage—the throne of David is God’s throne in heaven; the kingdom is a spiritual kingdom; Israel is synonymous with the church? Certainly not! It was totally foreign to her thinking. If the amillenarians are right, Mary was sadly deceived. The prophecy of the angel could hardly have been better worded to confirm the ordinary Jewish hope as well as the exact essentials of the premillennial position—the literal and earthly fulfillment of the davidic Covenant“¹

Justin Martyr, in his debate with a Jew named Trypho, argues that Christ is the one whom the angel announced to Mary, grounding his argument on the strict literal fulfillment of prophecy:

Moreover, the prophecy, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,’ was uttered respecting Him. For if He to whom Isaiah referred was not to be begotten of a virgin, of whom did the Holy Spirit declare, ‘Behold, the Lord Himself shall give us a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son?’ For if He also were to be begotten of sexual intercourse, like all other first-born sons, why did God say that He would give a sign which is not common to all the first-born sons? But that which is truly a sign, and which was to be made trustworthy to mankind,—namely, that the first-begotten of all creation should become incarnate by the Virgin’s womb, and be a child,—this he anticipated by the Spirit of prophecy, and predicted it, as I have repeated to you, in various ways; in order that, when the event should take place, it might be known as the operation of the power and will of the Maker of all things; just as Eve was made from one of Adam’s ribs, and as all living beings were created in the beginning by the word of God. But you in these matters venture to pervert the expositions which your elders that were with Ptolemy king of Egypt gave forth, since you assert that the Scripture is not so as they have expounded it, but says, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive,’ as if great events were to be inferred if a woman should beget from sexual intercourse: which indeed all young women, with the exception of the barren, do; but even these, God, if He wills, is able to cause [to bear]. For Samuel’s mother, who was barren, brought forth by the will of God; and so also the wife of the holy patriarch Abraham; and Elisabeth, who bore John the Baptist, and other such. So that you must not suppose that it is impossible for God to do anything He wills. And especially when it was predicted that this would take place, do not venture to pervert or misinterpret the prophecies, since you will injure yourselves alone, and will not harm God.² (citation can also be found on p. 686 in the pdf upload to this blog here)

Mary was given full assurance that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled (Matt. 1:22), therefore, all of it will be, and it will be precisely as spoken. Being a devout servant of God, what exactly would Mary be recalling when hearing these words from the angel? Let’s look at two prophecy packed statements:

Angel’s Proclamation	Old Testament Promises
the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David	2Sa 7:11-13; Psa 132:11; Isa 9:6-7, Isa 16:5; Jer 23:5-6, Jer 33:15-17; Eze 17:22-24, Eze 34:23-24, Eze 37:24-25; Amos 9:11-12
He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.	Psa 45:6, Psa 89:35-37; Dan 2:44, Dan 7:13-14, Dan 7:27; Obad. 1:21; Mic 4:7; 1Co 15:24-25; Heb 1:8; Rev 11:15, Rev 20:4-6, Rev 22:3-5

The Depth of Mary’s Knowledge

Can we be sure Mary understood the angel in this way? Is Walvoord’s above statement true that she never would have spiritualized these things? We can be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt! In fact, Mary was so confident in her understanding and had faith in the Angel’s incredible and unbelievable predictions that she had sung a hymn of thanksgiving. The hymn reveals the depth of her knowledge of the Old Testament, faith in God’s promises and of all the Messianic expectations. This hymn recorded in verses 46-55 of Luke is known as the “Magnificat.”

The Bible Knowledge Commentary calls this hymn a “beautiful expression of her trust in God and her joyful submission to His will.” It then goes on to say that, “Her words are saturated with Old Testament imagery, and they reflect her understanding of God’s greatness, His mercy, His care for the poor, and His faithfulness to His promises . . . her son’s role in God’s plan of salvation.” In the Ryrie Study Bible, it mentions that there are at least 15 discernable OT quotations. Echoing the praise of Hannah in 1 Sam. 2:1-10 after the birth of her own son, Mary herself gives praise to God for never failing to fulfill precisely what He promises.

What’s contained in the Magnificat reveals Mary’s, and Joseph’s, great knowledge of the OT psalms and prophets, their righteous expectations of the Messiah and His earthly Kingdom, and of redemption and restoration of Israel. Let’s break it down, finding the OT promises or allusions.

The Magnificat

Mary’s Hymn	References
48 For He has had regard for the humble state of His bond-servant; For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed.	1Sam. 1:11, 1Sam. 2:8; 2Sa. 7:8, 2Sam. 7:18-19; Psa. 102:17, Psa. 113:7-8, Psa. 136:23, Psa. 138:6; Isa. 66:2 cf. NT: Lk. 1:28, Lk. 1:42, Lk. 11:27
49 For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name.	Psa. 71:19-21, Psa. 126:2-3, Exo. 15:11; 1Sa. 2:2; Psa. 99:3, 9, Psa. 111:9; Isa. 6:3, Isa. 57:15; Rev. 4:8, Rev. 15:4
50 And His mercy is to generation after generation toward those who fear Him.	Gen. 17:7; Exo. 20:6, Exo. 34:6-7; Psa. 31:19, Psa. 85:9, Psa. 103:11, Psa. 103:17-18, Psa. 115:13, Psa. 118:4; Psa. 145:19, Psa. 147:11; Mal. 3:16-18; Rev. 19:5
51 He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their hearts.	Ex. 15:6-7, Ex. 15:12-13; Deut. 4:34; Psa. 52:9, Psa. 63:5, Psa. 89:13, Psa. 98:1, Psa. 118:15; Isa. 40:10, Isa. 51:9, Isa. 52:10, Isa. 63:12 cf. NT: Rev. 18:8
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble.	1Sa. 2:4, 1Sa. 2:6-8, Job 5:11-13, Job 34:24-28, Psa. 107:40-41, Psa. 113:6-8, Ecc. 4:14, Eze. 17:24, Amos 9:11 cf. NT: Lk. 18:14, Mk 6:3; Jas 1:9-10, Jas 4:10
53 He has filled the hungry with good things, And sent the rich away empty-handed.	1Sam. 2:5, Psa. 34:10, Psa. 107:8-9, Psa. 146:7, Eze. 34:29 cf. NT: Matt. 5:6; Jn 6:11-13, Jn 6:35; Jas 2:5; Rev. 7:16-17

So far we can see from verses 48-53 that Mary truly is filled with the Holy Spirit. She has a vast and inspired understanding of God’s Word. She recalled all the times that God literally fulfilled His Word, and she justly expects God to have mercy on her people, Israel, and for His mighty arm to rescue them from their enemies. What Mary clearly understood from her Scriptures is that God is an immutable God—a God who judges not on the merit of His people, but by His unconditional mercy, grace, love, and promises.

In Mary’s final words of praise (vv. 54, 55, examined below) she recalls God’s everlasting covenant with Israel. God’s Word tells her that He may discipline for a time, but ultimately He redeems. He may hide his face, and then show compassion and everlasting love. He may appear as their enemy, then remember His promise.

In the rest of the inspired record, Mary was never corrected, contradicted, nor rebuked in all this that she believed in. These are what Mary expected, these are what sustained her faith.

---

Elizabeth & Zechariah

Parents of John the Baptist, Elizabeth and Zechariah were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord (Luke 5:6).

In an earlier post (The Announcement and Preaching of The Kingdom) we talked about John the Baptist and his announcement of the nearness of the Kingdom of God. Since John was the forerunner of Christ and the first to announce the imminence of the Kingdom, it becomes vital to understand who taught him what he knew, and what did they teach him. George Peters has this to say about John’s parents:

The son could not receive, being instructed by them, any other idea of the Kingdom than they themselves possessed. Now it happens that the very writers who so significantly laud and magnify “the enlightened piety” of Elizabeth and Zacharias, and endeavor to engraft upon their language modernized notions respecting the Kingdom, all, without exception, estimate John’s knowledge of the Kingdom as very “limited and Jewish.” Well may we ask, How comes it, if the parents were so enlightened that the son, specially consecrated, etc., failed in obtaining the same views? The simple fact is, that the knowledge of the Kingdom in both parents and son did not materially differ from that entertained by Nathanael, Nicodemus, or the Jews generally. (Prop. 20, Obs. 5)

We will see exactly what knowledge they had of the Kingdom as we dissect the passages that record what Elizabeth and Zechariah put their faith in and imparted to their child.

Elizabeth’s Prophetic Blessing

Mary, who had just received the amazing news that she is the one to bring Christ into the world, visit’s Elizabeth after also being told that Elizabeth would be bearing a son in her old age. Upon seeing Mary, Elizabeth becomes filled with the Holy Spirit and bestows a blessing onto Mary (Luke 1:41-45). In this blessing she says, blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.

Here, in just a single statement, the claims made that diminish the study of prophecy, asserting its application is only active after fulfillment, is destroyed by Elizabeth, under the influence of Holy Spirit, proclaiming the blessed result that comes from believing—in the present-tense—and looking forward to the promises of what remains unfulfilled. She did not say, blessed is she who believes what is being fulfilled, or even, believed in what has been fulfilled. No, Elizabeth teaches simply that trusting in God’s prophetic Word is a blessing—and many years later Paul would concur, telling us:

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
2 Peter 1:19

How could a woman who is called blameless, and righteous, who is filled with the Holy Spirit, proclaim to be blessed by believing in words that will never come to pass—words that uninspired men, centuries later, like Origen or Augustine, tell us that because of the unfulfillment of their literal sense, it must mean they were always meant to be understood in some other, hidden sense. This is far too damaging to the character of God, the plain teaching of His Word, and the hopes and expectations of those righteous men and women from whose spirit-filled words are recorded for us to be, as Paul declared, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Zechariah’s Prophecy

The Bible Knowledge Commentary on Luke 1:67-79, also known as Zechariah’s Prophecy or the Benedictus, states that Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied about the coming of the Messiah and Kingdom, and the role of his son John in preparing the way for him.

According to the commentary, Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1:68-79 is divided into three parts: a hymn of praise to God for fulfilling His promises to Israel (vv. 68-75), a prophecy about John’s role in preparing the way for the Messiah (vv. 76-77), and a prediction of the Messiah’s coming and his mission to bring salvation and peace (vv. 78-79). Zechariah’s prophecy, like Mary’s hymn, is filled with Old Testament allusions and imagery, including references to the Davidic covenant (v. 69), the Abrahamic covenant (v. 73), and the prophecy of Isaiah (vv. 76-79). If you haven’t already, read the post on the announcement of the Kingdom where we discussed the significance of how Zechariah’s prophecy relates to the Davidic covenant.

In the below table, Zechariah’s prophecy is juxtaposed with the final verses of Mary’s hymn, as well as the related allusions and prophetic Scripture. When we look closely at the last two verses in Mary’s hymn, and the first division (vv. 68-75) of Zechariah’s prophecy, we can see not only the depth of their knowledge of God’s word but their understanding of God’s character and future promises. The references of OT scripture that can be gleaned from these passages remind us of God’s unchangeable and unconditional nature throughout the history of their people. When comparing their words with prior Scripture, we can see that they both recognized that God will never reject Israel, and still has future plans for them to fulfill His everlasting, unconditional covenant ultimately in the restored Kingdom on this earth.

	Mary’s Hymn	Zechariah’s Prophecy	Scriptural References
Future Redemption	54 He has given help to His servant Israel	71; 74 that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us;	1 Sam. 2:10; 2 Sam. 22:3; Psa. 132:17-18; Isa. 14:1-3, 35:9-10, 45:17, 54:7-17; Jer. 23:6, 30:8-11; Eze. 28:24-26, 29:21, 34:25-28, 38:8; Zec. 9:10; Zep 3:14-20
Immutable Mercy	54 In remembrance of His mercy (cf. Lk. 1:72-73)	68; 72a Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant	Gen. 12:3; Psa. 98:3; Isa. 49:14-16, 54:7-17, 63:7-16; Jer. 30:8-11, 32:40, 33:24-26; Mic. 7:20; Rom. 11:28-31
Everlasting, Unconditional Covenant	55 as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”	69-70; 73 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old; the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us	2Sam. 7:26, 22:3; 1Ki. 11:13; Psa. 18:2, 89:3, 89:20-37, 105:6-10, 132:11-17; Isa. 9:6-7, 11:1-9; Jer. 23:5-6, 33:15-26; Eze. 34:23-24, 37:24-25; Amos 9:11; Mar 11:10; Rom 1:2-3; Rev 22:16

Jehovah is gracious, He remembers His oath

Read each and every Scripture mentioned in the above table, and you will see that there could be no understanding that Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah, or John would have had other than what comes from a literal reading of the text—that God remains ever faithful to His mercy, grace, and covenant despite disobedience, He promises a powerful Redeemer and King to rule of His chosen people, Israel, and those inheriting the blessings, in a restored earthly Kingdom providing peace and security, and when in the midst of discipline, God will always return to redeem.

Peters comments on these “temporal” expectations that would arise from their literal reading of God’s word. This is clearly evident in how Zechariah references God’s prophetic Word in which he so fervently clung to:

Men profess to be amazed that the Jews and disciples should be so ignorant as to expect in the Messiah “a temporal deliverer,” and regard those who retain this Jewish idea as “fanatical,” “unspiritual,” etc. But how, if we receive God’s express promises, the plain grammatical sense, can we believe otherwise? Temporal deliverance, in addition to great spiritual blessings, are linked together (e.g. Zechariah 14) in numerous prophecies, and it would indicate lack of faith in God’s honor and faithfulness to reject or ignore the same. We know that by the spiritualizing process Zechariah’s declarations (Luke 1:71, 74), “saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us,” “delivered out of the hand of our enemies,” are made to denote exclusively spiritual enemies. But this is not sustained by the predictions of the Word, seeing (as will be consecutively shown hereafter, e.g. Props. 111–115) that temporal deliverance is assigned to the restoration of the Jewish nation, and is to be in a special manner the work of the Messiah at His Second Coming. The prophets all uniformly predict the temporal depressed condition of the nation, and in the same connection a glorious temporal deliverance. Leaving the proof to come in its proper place, it is sufficient now to say that if the Theocracy is to be restored at all as covenanted and predicted, such a restoration must necessarily include temporal deliverance (how else can the throne and Kingdom be re-established), and hence the Messiah, in addition to other perfections, is also a temporal Deliverer. The sinfulness of the nation, the postponement of the Kingdom, etc., only throws the time of its manifestation to the period of the Second Advent. (Prop. 42, Obs. 13)

One example of a real, physical expectation of the Messiah from Zechariah’s prayer is the reference to the Messiah as a “horn.” In ancient literature, the horn of an animal was a common symbol denoting physical strength for person of thing being described. The many passages using this term would denote to the reader a strong and powerful deliver from real enemies and real danger.

The security and permanence of Israel, promised through their redemption and protection through the horn of salvation, the Messiah, is so hard-coded into God’s Word that they’re embedded into very names of these men and women:

John        — Jehovah is gracious
Zechariah — He remembers
Elizabeth  — His Oath

Remembers what Oath? That Israel will be wholly rejected and replaced by the church? Christ will sit on a spiritual throne? There is no physical restoration of a people to their land? No! The everlasting, unconditional oath which they recalled in their hopeful, prophetic praises.

In Nehemiah chapter 1 we find a prayer with striking resemblance to the one from Mary and from Zechariah, with Nehemiah’s putting an emphasis on graciousness and remembrance. In the events following Israel’s return from Babylonian captivity and in the wake of Ezra dealing with yet more disobedience from his people, Nehemiah finds himself calling to God for more mercy and more help. Why should God give it?—Israel was given their promised return from captivity, yet turned around and began to violate God’s law. Their crimes were so appalling, especially following so closely God’s faithfulness and grace, that Ezra plucked out the hair from his head and beard, sat astonished until the evening, then finally fasted and tore his garment and robe. He admitted their sins to have stacked so high that they grew up to the heavens! (Ezra 9:4-6). Following these events, all of Israel pleaded for mercy and confessed their sins. Once again, we find the pattern of mercy, redemption, remembrance, and confirmation of Oath in the midst of disobedience. God shows His unwavering forgiveness following repentance, and this is precisely what Christ Jesus predicted would happen one final time with Israel in the future period just before his return:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'BLESSED is HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'"
Mat. 23:37-39

Paul would later confirm this future mercy and redemption in his letter to the Romans (ch. 11)—What Elizabeth & Zechariah expected and expressed in their praises will still come to pass, and in the rest of the inspired record they were never corrected, contradicted, or rebuked in all this that they believed in. These are what they expected, these are what sustained their faith.

---

Why This All Matters

So far we’ve put Mary & Joseph’s and Elizabeth & Zechariah’s words under a microscope. We’ve seen what it is they clearly expected of the Messiah and His Kingdom, as well as proven their knowledge of God’s Word. But why is what they say important; why are their expectations important to heed? Why are they more important than our modern expectations or interpretations?

To summarize, I present four concluding reasons why all that has been studied here in this post matters and contributes to our understanding of God’s unchanging plan for us and His Kingdom, and is no less significant a link than any others following it in the whole chain of His progressive revelation.

1. Their words, not ours, were recorded in the Bible

To keep from restating what most of this post has been about, it’s sufficient to say that the recorded words of these individuals suggest there’s wisdom to be gleaned from them. As described earlier, these Jews were referred to with the most honoring titles found in the bible: “righteous”, “blameless”, “good”, “honorable”, “servant of the Lord” . . .

Neither the parents of John the Baptist nor the parents of Jesus, nor even Jesus Himself for that matter, authored a book of the Bible. However, what matters is that their words—unlike those of any other Jew or Christian of their time—are immortalized for us to live by in what’s called a God-breathed and profitable book (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

2. They were filled with the Holy Spirit

As read in just the first few chapters of Luke, these men and women were said to be filled with the Holy Spirit—immediately they have been deemed holy and set apart from those, for example, like the Pharisees or Judas, or any other pagan leader mention throughout the OT whose words were recorded in God’s Word, yet were never said to be words born from a filling of the Holy Spirit.

3. They instructed the first preacher of the kingdom

Not much else needs to be done to defend the wisdom and trustworthiness after the Scriptures declare Elizabeth and Zechariah to be holy. However, it’s important to bring this to attention again, now in relation to John and his ministry. In a prior post (The Announcement and Preaching of The Kingdom) we discussed how John, Jesus, the disciples, and the “seventy,” preached the Kingdom without explanation. There was clearly a prior knowledge taken for granted. If we are to spiritualize the numerous Old Testament prophecies, including those spoken by Mary and Zechariah under spiritual guidance, we must also accept that John, the forerunner of Christ, preached about a Kingdom whose true meaning he himself did not fully understand.

As we consider all the facts before us, it becomes evident that adhering to this notion leads to an unavoidable dilemma and undeniable absurdity. How could God commission a man to preach a Kingdom that required repentance as a prerequisite (Matt. 3:2; 4:17), while this Kingdom supposedly had a hidden or “undeveloped” meaning? This is especially perplexing given that the man’s spirit-filled parents are also said to have fallen short in their understanding

The case is settled when God Himself chose Elizabeth and Zechariah to be the ones to raise and instruct the forerunner of Christ in all things pertaining to the revelation of God. Therefore, being the ones chosen for this vital role, their wisdom should be held with highest esteem. Any disagreement about the role of John’s parents is put to rest when we read Zechariah’s prophecy. It is even evident from a single verse (Luke 1:76) that Zechariah understood the importance of his son’s role; when referring to John, he did not say “my son,” but rather “thou child.” The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary notes that this is because the child’s relation to Zechariah was secondary to his relation to God.

It becomes unequivocally clear that Zechariah wasn’t some unenlightened Jew; he was a man of God deeply rooted in divine understanding. His insight into prophecy, reflected in his Benedictus, and even in the subtle phrasing of “thou child” instead of “my son,” speaks volumes. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary underscores that Zechariah saw John’s connection to God as paramount, overshadowing even paternal bonds. If God’s choice and Zechariah’s own words don’t make a compelling case for the weight of his wisdom, then I don’t know what does.

4. They interpreted the prophecies literally, and the same beliefs were perpetuated by the disciples, and into the early church

This post would feel incomplete by discussing the hopes and expectations of the early faith, while ignoring the fact that they all interpreted prophecy literally. Considering everything that has been presented from the Scriptures, it becomes strangely unreasonable why so many are surprised or appalled at the idea that these pious and humble Jews expected the Messiah to be a temporal Savior; one who would literally rule in an earthly Kingdom. If they were truly spirit-filled, how could they have made statements that are now interpreted as mere carnal or undeveloped ideas that needed time to be reinterpreted to understand some hidden meaning?

In Proposition 21 of The Theocratic Kingdom, titled, The Prophecies of the Kingdom, interpreted literally, sustain the expectations and hopes of the pious Jews, Peters opens with a strong introduction explaining how the literal interpretation of prophetic Scripture surrounding the Kingdom was unquestionably what the Jews employed:

This is universally admitted, even by those who contend that the same prophecies are susceptible of a different interpretation. The plain literal sense expressly teaches what the Jews anticipated; and no author has yet arisen who has dared to assert that the grammatical construction of the Old Testament language, received according to the usual laws, does not convey the meaning found therein of a literal restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic throne and kingdom as expected by the believing Israelites. Even after the attempted undue advantage taken of this circumstance by unbelieving writers, and after Apologists have informed us that this naked sense is only “the husk” to be discarded, no one has attempted to call the fact of such an existing sense into question.

Believers, infidels, and semi-infidels teach this fact; every author and commentator consulted, every Life of Christ, every Introd. to the Bible, etc, fully admits it. With infidels it is a standing joke that the prophets predicted such a Kingdom. Thus e.g. Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 86) calls it “a gigantic dream for centuries,” and “they dreamed of the restoration of the house of David, the reconciliation of the two fragments of the people, and the triumph of the Theocracy,” etc. “They dreamed of the Messiah as judge and avenger of the nations,” of “a renewal of all things.” In view of this, he informs us (p. 266) that “the first Christian generation lived entirely upon expectations and dreams,” and that it required “more than a century” for the church to disengage itself from such “dreams,” which, however (p. 251), were more or less held, although but “a fantastic Kingdom of God,” etc. All that our argument at present requires is simply to direct attention to the concession, however scornfully put, or however attempted to be weakened by accommodation, that the Jewish and Primitive faith is based on an acknowledged grammatical sense. We are not concerned at the protest, that if the covenant and prophecies are thus understood then there is presented “an ideal Jewish King,” “languid dreams,” “impracticable pedantries,” “carnality,” etc. The concession is all that is required at this stage of the argument, forming a necessary and important link, for it evinces a correspondence existing between the Word and the early belief. (Prop. 21, Intro)

Regrettably, these criticisms originate from unbelievers who follow closely behind our own faith’s apologists. However, as believers, we understand that these so-called “dreams” were bestowed upon the Jews and subsequently passed on to the first generation of Christians through plain, simple teachings found in God’s Word. Our responsibility as believers is to uphold the hopes entrusted to these Jews, who were guided by the same Spirit that teaches us, as well as the first Christian generation directly influenced by the Apostles themselves. We should confidently affirm that God will unquestionably fulfill what He has firmly established in His unchanging Word. To preserve the integrity of His teachings, maintain harmony between the Testaments, and foster unity among believers, we must uphold these promises, however “fantastic” or “impractical” they may seem. Rather than resorting to contrived theories to explain their non-fulfillment, or attributing ignorance and failure to “disengage” from these “dreams” to our Lord’s disciples and the early church, we should stand firm in defending these truths. Otherwise, how empty were their hopes and expectations for centuries? How sad if they were merely “dreams” that never came to pass? How confusing is the immutable God we claim to speak pure words?

George Peters continues further into his 3rd observation, saying:

In view of the faith of the Jews, and from whence derived, it may well be asked: Is it reasonable to suppose that God would give utterances by His prophets respecting a Kingdom, which, taken in their usual literal sense (making due allowance for the usage of figures common to all languages), positively denote the re-establishment, in a most glorious form under a Son of David’s, of David’s cast-down throne and kingdom, etc., and yet that all these assurances must be taken in a different sense? (Prop. 21, Obs. 3)

Peters goes on to make the point that God would essentially be leading His people into error by saying one thing while meaning another. In a prior post, we discussed some of the commentaries that criticize the disciples for holding onto carnal understandings, attempting to account for their alleged ignorance in the most patronizing manner. Yet the pure words (Psa. 12:26) of God Himself would lead one to no understanding other than what the Jews held for centuries. How else could Israel comprehend the Kingdom from the Scriptures when what they had, which we only now call the OT, was to them the unchangeable Word of God?

In a much earlier proposition discussing the link between the OT & NT, Peters emphasizes how important an understanding of the OT is to comprehending the Kingdom.

The Kingdom being a leading subject of many portions of the Old Testament, a subject specially mentioned in covenant and prophecy, it is utterly impossible to understand it properly without passing over the same. This is realized the more, if it is considered that the doctrine originates in the Old Testament; that the New Testament in its opening takes a knowledge of the Old for granted; that in view of such a previous obtained information important details given in the Old are either slightly presented or omitted in the New; and that, aside from the Apocalypse, the most glowing and extended descriptions pertaining to the Kingdom, as God’s predictions relating to it receive an ample verification, are still found in the Old. It is not uncharitable to suspect, that one reason why so many meanings and contradictory definitions are given to the Kingdom, arises from the neglect—conscious or unconscious, designed or undesigned—of the Old Testament Scriptures, or, from an artful, misleading, but well-intended exaltation of the New over the Old, as if some great and vital difference existed between them instead of their being inseparably one. (Prop. 16, Obs. 6)

How can we claim harmony between the Old and New Testaments while simultaneously creating a disconnect and confusion by reinterpreting the OT by supplanting its meaning instead of building upon it? Our claim as believers that the entire Bible is consistent, infallible, and harmonious is more powerful and less susceptible to confusion and attack when we proclaim, with one voice, that the faith and expectations inspired by the predictions and descriptions of the Kingdom presented in the Old Testament, which instructed God’s people for centuries through the prophets for the purpose of sustaining that very hope and faith, will be vindicated when every jot and tittle is fulfilled, no differently than any other promise of God.

In Peters’ introduction to Proposition 21, he emphasized the significance in how the beliefs and interpretations continued unaltered from the Old Testament era into the early Christian church. He stated, ‘…it evinces a correspondence existing between the Word and the early belief.’ This uniformity is sustained by adhering to the plain teachings of the Scriptures. Consider this:

In 2 Corinthians Paul responded to gossip about allegations against him for not following through with his promises to the church at Corinth. He defended his actions by appealing to God, claiming the source of his stability is God Himself who is faithful and immutable. He uses the argument that God does not say one thing while meaning another (2 Cor. 1:15-21). The Believers Bible commentary comments on this passage saying, “Paul argues that his actions were not untrustworthy because the Savior he preached was the divine, unchangeable One in whom there was no vacillation or changeableness . . . All the promises of God, no matter how many they are, find their fulfillment in Christ.” How weak and empty of an argument would this be if the Apostles were going around preaching the spiritualized version of all God’s promises?

Only a literal interpretation—one that affirms the truthfulness of the plain sense of God’s promises without resorting to hidden meanings—can preserve the true harmony of God’s entire revelation and maintain unity across all generations, from before the New Testament to the early Church and beyond.; “If the careful reader finds that this literal sense produces a harmonious whole, an unbroken unity in the Divine Purpose (the great test after all), he surely is authorized, in confirmation of faith, to receive and treasure it as a most precious guide.” (Prop. 21, Obs. 1)

Based on our observations of Christ Jesus’s own disciples, as well as John the Baptist’s parents and Christ Himself, it’s evident that their faith was grounded in the literal interpretation of God’s promises. John and his family serve as the connecting link between the Old and New Testaments (Luke 16:16). If we are to preserve the unity between these two covenants, we cannot impose an entirely new meaning drawn from the New Testament and forced onto the Old Testament. As mentioned earlier in this post, this is often done “in order that the language may be reconciled with a certain supposed result.” If these key figures—who bridged the 400-year gap between the two testaments—along with Christ’s disciples who followed Him until His death, and the early believers in the first centuries, all interpreted the prophecies in a literal manner, then this offers a compelling case for the truth and accuracy of such an interpretation, as well as the future fulfillment of those prophecies.

The Faithful Expectation of a Literal Kingdom

Throughout this post, we have examined the lives and testimonies of Mary, Elizabeth, Zechariah, and others who were considered righteous and filled with the Holy Spirit. Their faith in the literal fulfillment of the Kingdom prophecies is recorded in Scripture without correction, rebuke, or reinterpretation. These were not misguided hopes but Spirit-inspired convictions rooted in the plain meaning of God’s Word.

The question we must ask is simple: If these Spirit-filled individuals, instructed directly by God’s Word, held to a literal understanding of the Messiah’s Kingdom, what authority do we have to spiritualize these prophecies? Their expectations were not corrected by Jesus or the apostles, and their beliefs continued into the early church. This provides us with a clear and consistent foundation upon which to base our own understanding of the Kingdom.

The promises of God are not subject to change based on non-fulfillment within our limited timeline. Just as God fulfilled His Word in sending a literal Messiah born of a virgin, so too will He fulfill His promises of a literal Kingdom where Christ reigns over Israel and the nations. To spiritualize these prophecies is to undermine the faithfulness of God and the trust of the saints who came before us.

As believers, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of God’s Word, affirming that every jot and tittle will come to pass exactly as He has said. The Kingdom promised to Israel is not a dream to be reinterpreted; it is a reality yet to be fulfilled. Let us hold fast to this hope, for the God who spoke these promises is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

In the end, the faith of the righteous Jews and early Christians was not misplaced—neither is ours when we trust in the literal fulfillment of God’s unchanging Word.

---

---

Key Concepts

Recommended Sources

Prophetic Scripture

• Book: The Theocratic Kingdom (Prop. 17)
  • In this proposition, Peters elaborates on the importance of prophecy

---

1. Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Zondervan Publishing House, 1959, p. 117
2. ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (p. 643). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved from https://ccel.org/ccel/s/schaff/anf01/cache/anf01.pdf