Finding Jesus in the Psalms || Prophecy & Typology ft. Dr. Jerry Shepherd

There are a lot of passages in the Psalms that look like they are prophecy about Jesus. Many think the original writers were writing about something else. Dr. Jerry Shepherd thinks ALL of the Psalms are about Jesus. This topic has implications for how we read all of scripture.

For more from Dr. Jerry Shepherd, check out:

More from the channel:

Genesis 1:1 Correctly Translated (“When God began to create”)

John Walton Puts Genesis 1 in Context

Were Adam and Eve Historical?

What is the meaning of “Day” in Genesis 1?

The Misunderstood Origins of Darwinian Evolution

▬ Contents of this Video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 Intro
6:41 How did people pre-20th century see Christ in the psalms?
10:50 Typological approach
17:12 Did the allegorical early church fathers think they were writing literally?
19:28 Newer views on seeing Jesus in the Psalms
26:06 How to show the Psalms are inspired without prophecy
29:01 The best way to look at Christ in the Psalms
42:20 How can passage about harming babies be about Christ?
49:40 Can a passage in the Bible mean more than what the original writer meant?
57:50 Why did Jesus ask God why God forsook Jesus?
1:19:58 Did the book of Matthew misquote Hosea 11:1?
1:31:11 How could Moses talk about Jesus when Moses didn't know Jesus existed?

[andreewendel]

Thank you very much for your channel! I always enjoy your fascinating interviews with very different scholars.

[Trudnepytania]

Tinity would be one of the first things a pastor would tell me about! :)

[earlygenesistherevealedcos]

Dr. Shepherd does well on the Psalms. He also is the only guest I have seen on your program who has a view of the text which is at least broadly compatible with what Christ and the Apostles taught about it. If he had stayed consistent and applied his thinking on the Psalms to Moses then he would have done well on that also. I am speaking of his take on John 5:46 of course. It doesn't fit at all with his major thesis on the Psalms, and I would encourage him to harmonize his views.

Hebrew 3:5 : And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;:

and what were these things? 4:2 says of them "2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."

Yep. The gospel. In the writings of Moses. Not just "well the Father was acting and the Son therefore is a part of it too." But the Incarnation and Atonement, the Christian faith- in the writing of Moses. If we do not see it then we are not seeing it right, for on the Road to Emmaus it is written that Christ, starting with Moses, showed them all the things in the scripture concerning HIMSELF. Not, "the Father but I was along for the ride", but HIMSELF.

Indeed while Christ said "if you have seen Me you have seen the Father" He never said the reverse. Too many scriptures tell us that the Father is invisible and no man has seen or can see Him. But Christ can, and be His Image.

Dr. Shepherd really undersold it when he spoke of how the church fathers thought if God was doing something then Christ was doing something because He is a person of the Godhead. That wasn't it. To see how they looked at it, consider this quote by Church Father Justin Martyr in chapter sixty-three of his book Apology:
“The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him…”

But it goes beyond that in Early Genesis, the part I claim to know something about worth saying. The PRIMARY ORIGINAL meaning of the narrative directly concerned the Incarnation, and Atonement and any other meanings are themselves figurative or typological. IOW, the Incarnation and Atonement are not back-up plans that the God of the OT had to come up with when things didn't go as He thought they would, it was the original plan from the start and that is what the text is really pointing to. THAT is what Jesus meant in John 5:46.

[johnblackstar]

Having grown up around various fundamentalist and evangelical groups that spurned anything other than a face value reading; it's refreshing and weird to hear historical biblical interpretations that aren't taking the text at face value.