Jewish Prophecies Concerning Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonsofquestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonsofquestions

Guest
I’ve read some articles that claim the “prophecies” in the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled were taken out of context and were not talking about the Messiah at all. Here are some examples:

Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means “God with us.” Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible. Now maybe He was called this and we simply have no record of it, but it is strange.

Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre, if said massacre did actually occur.

“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” Hosea 11:1. Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse. I have to say, though I don’t want to be judgemental, it sure seems like whoever wrote the book of Matthew was being a tad bit dishonest. I, like many of you, despise when people take verses out of context. The writer takes this one step further, taking only half of the verse, the half which suits him, and omitting the other half, the first half that clearly show this was talking about Israel and the Exodus. Read this verse for yourself, and the verses following it, and ask if this is talking about the Messiah or about Israel.

Micah 5:2, which is Quoted in Matthew as saying that the Messiah shall come from Bethlehem, says, “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.” The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfills this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.

A) “Bethlehem Ephratah” in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah” rather than “Bethlehem Ephratah” as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

Anyone know a way to refute these claims?
 
One other thing, the verse quoted in John, Psalm 69:10, where “zeal for your house consumes me”, the mother of the person mentioned is specifically said to have had other sons, which means that if it was Jesus, that would contradict the dogma of perpetual virginity. This is a problem for Catholics, not really for Protestants.
 
Did I say something offensive? Did I break a forum rule, is that why no one is answering me? If so, please tell me and I will fix it.
 
Pick your favorite one of them you’d like me to answer, and I’ll attempt to do that. 😃

I don’t have time to look up each of them, some of this you might have to do on your own.

Which is of course is generally a good idea and helps you learn how scriptural prophecy works besides.
 
Shin said:
Pick your favorite one of them you’d like me to answer, and I’ll attempt to do that. 😃

I don’t have time to look up each of them, some of this you might have to do on your own.

Which is of course is generally a good idea and helps you learn how scriptural prophecy works besides.
Click to expand...
You pick any one of them. I’d like to hear your opinion on any of them, just pick the one you think is easiest.
 
But if you really want me to pick one, try the one in Hosea about God calling His son out of Egypt.
 
As a rule, throughout scripture the names of important people have a meaning, and it is that name’s meaning that explains what is truly going on. The names however, when translated into English, no longer retain the meaning that is clear to a reader in the original language.

Names like Adam, Immanuel, etc. translated into meaning, mean, ‘Man’, ‘God is With Us’, etc.

If they had been translated like that we would see how clearly the prophecies were being fulfilled and how many of the scriptural passages contain moral lessons more clearly. But they aren’t. We generally have to look to the footnotes to find out what a particular Jewish name means. That’s fine, but if you don’t do it, and watch for it, you can completely miss the point and think often enough that the names you encounter in scripture are simply a bunch of sounds strung together.

Far from it. You cannot understand some passages of scripture without actually knowing what the names mean of those involved. At the very least it gives a much more perfect perspective on what is happening to know the meanings.

Prophecies are also generally, ‘types’, that is, they have multiple fulfillments – an earlier fulfillment, that is setting the stage by smaller example of what the later, complete fulfillment will be… a foreshadowing is another way to put it.

So in the Old Testament, Abraham with his son Isaac, is a type, or example of the Father and the sacrifice of Christ.

So, in regards to Hosea, and everything else – You are not approaching how prophecy works, it isn’t in the sense of, ‘Israel comes out of Egypt’ so the man has to be named Israel and come out of the literal nation of Egypt, though in this case Christ did – far from it the meanings are deeper.

One of the prime meanings is:

Egypt is the land of the pagans, idolaters.
Israel is the nation of God.

So, Christ going into the land of pagans, and then returning from it – Is bringing out the nation of God from the paganism and idolatry, after dwelling within it.

Foreign nations all have their particular spiritual meanings in the scriptures as well. Canaanite, etc.

I am not an expert on prophecy, and all the meanings of the names in the scriptures – I generally have little to do with prophecy and focus on moral law, because it is moral law that is most important to the spiritual life, so I am not the best person to instruct another in these matters. I apologize for that. But this is the proper method of approach, I can tell you that.
 
Shin said:
As a rule, throughout scripture the names of important people have a meaning, and it is that name’s meaning that explains what is truly going on. The names however, when translated into English, no longer retain the meaning that is clear to a reader in the original language.

Names like Adam, Immanuel, etc. translated into meaning, mean, ‘Man’, ‘God is With Us’, etc.

If they had been translated like that we would see how clearly the prophecies were being fulfilled and how many of the scriptural passages contain moral lessons more clearly. But they aren’t. We generally have to look to the footnotes to find out what a particular Jewish name means. That’s fine, but if you don’t do it, and watch for it, you can completely miss the point and think often enough that the names you encounter in scripture are simply a bunch of sounds strung together.

Far from it. You cannot understand some passages of scripture without actually knowing what the names mean of those involved. At the very least it gives a much more perfect perspective on what is happening to know the meanings.

Prophecies are also generally, ‘types’, that is, they have multiple fulfillments – an earlier fulfillment, that is setting the stage by smaller example of what the later, complete fulfillment will be… a foreshadowing is another way to put it.

So in the Old Testament, Abraham with his son Isaac, is a type, or example of the Father and the sacrifice of Christ.

So, in regards to Hosea, and everything else – You are not approaching how prophecy works, it isn’t in the sense of, ‘Israel comes out of Egypt’ so the man has to be named Israel and come out of the literal nation of Egypt, though in this case Christ did – far from it the meanings are deeper.

One of the prime meanings is:

Egypt is the land of the pagans, idolaters.
Israel is the nation of God.

So, Christ going into the land of pagans, and then returning from it – Is bringing out the nation of God from the paganism and idolatry, after dwelling within it.

Foreign nations all have their particular spiritual meanings in the scriptures as well. Canaanite, etc.

I am not an expert on prophecy, and all the meanings of the names in the scriptures – I generally have little to do with prophecy and focus on moral law, because it is moral law that is most important to the spiritual life, so I am not the best person to instruct another in these matters. I apologize for that. But this is the proper method of approach, I can tell you that.
Click to expand...
You could prove anything with that kind of logic. You could pick any verse, like one about someone vanquishing their enemies, and say, “look, this guy vanquished his enemy, he must be the Messiah!” It wouIdn’t have to be a Messianic prophecy, or even a prophecy, it could just be any random verse. This is the same reasoning the Gospel writers used, picking out verses that had nothing to do with the Messiah, and applying them to Jesus, and saying he “fulfilled what was written”. Heck, I could make Obama look like the Messiah with that kind of reasoning. That verse in Hosea wasn’t even a prophecy, if you look at the verses following it, where worship of Baal is mentioned, etc., it’s talking about something that happened in the past, when Israel was called out of Egypt, then how Israel was unfaithful after, and that He had to baby Israel like it was a child. Matthew specifically left off the part of the verse that mentioned Israel, only mentioning the part about God calling His son out of Egypt, and then claiming that because Jesus’ family came out of Egypt, Jesus was fulfilling some kind of prophecy, which, in fact, wasn’t even a prophecy.
 
tonsofquestions said:
You could prove anything with that kind of logic. You could pick any verse, like one about someone vanquishing their enemies, and say, “look, this guy vanquished his enemy, he must be the Messiah!” It wouIdn’t have to be a Messianic prophecy, or even a prophecy, it could just be any random verse. This is the same reasoning the Gospel writers used, picking out verses that had nothing to do with the Messiah, and applying them to Jesus, and saying he “fulfilled what was written”. Heck, I could make Obama look like the Messiah with that kind of reasoning. That verse in Hosea wasn’t even a prophecy, if you look at the verses following it, where worship of Baal is mentioned, etc., it’s talking about something that happened in the past, when Israel was called out of Egypt, then how Israel was unfaithful after, and that He had to baby Israel like it was a child. Matthew specifically left off the part of the verse that mentioned Israel, only mentioning the part about God calling His son out of Egypt, and then claiming that because Jesus’ family came out of Egypt, Jesus was fulfilling some kind of prophecy, which, in fact, wasn’t even a prophecy.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you have a predisposition against the normal methods of understanding prophecies and aren’t going to look into those methods, which in fact, are sound and not so vague as you put forth.

If you had listened to the sermons I left there, you would have understood what types are and how they work. And they occur not just in the New Testament in relation to the Old Testament, but in the Old Testament alone. So it -is- demonstrably the proper method, and not in fact the method you wish to apply.
 
The prophecies are messanic prophecies. They are what the Messiah will do and what will happen to him. Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, so He is the Messiah.

After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the messianic prophecies were changed, because Judaism wanted to distance itself from Christianity. For example, you will hear Jews saying the Suffering Servant is not the Messiah but is Israel. However, before the destruction of the Temple, the Sufferig Servant was believed to be both Israel and the Messiah.
 
Eucharisted said:
The prophecies are messanic prophecies. They are what the Messiah will do and what will happen to him. Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, so He is the Messiah.

After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the messianic prophecies were changed, because Judaism wanted to distance itself from Christianity. For example, you will hear Jews saying the Suffering Servant is not the Messiah but is Israel. However, before the destruction of the Temple, the Sufferig Servant was believed to be both Israel and the Messiah.
Click to expand...
What is your source for this? What ancient Jewish source says that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah?
 
I suggest you read the Dialogue with Trypho, which addresses much of what you are asking about, you appear to be using Jewish objections, which were made by the Pharisees after they feared Christ.

The Dialogue can be found here: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

The subjects of each of the chapters is listed.
 
tonsofquestions said:
What is your source for this? What ancient Jewish source says that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah?
Click to expand...
There are none that I am aware of, but there is a Christian source that shows Jews believed the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. It is Acts 8:34-35. Philip, a Jewish convert to Christianity, explains to an eunuch that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah, Jesus.
 
tonsofquestions said:
What is your source for this? What ancient Jewish source says that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah?
Click to expand...
The following is from Isaiah:
Code: 
See, my servant shall prosper, he shall be raised high and greatly exalted.
Even as many were amazed at him-- so marred was his look beyond that of man, and his appearance beyond that of mortals--
So shall he startle many nations, because of him kings shall stand speechless; For those who have not been told shall see, those who have not heard shall ponder it.
Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.
He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.
Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.
We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.
Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.
Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,
A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.
(But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.) If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.
Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.
Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.
Footnotes:

Only God appreciated his Servant’s true greatness.

[52:13-53:12] The last of the four “Servant-of-the-Lord” oracles. An extraordinary description of the sinless Servant, who by his voluntary suffering atones for the sins of his people, and saves them from just punishment at the hands of God. Only in Jesus Christ is the prophecy perfectly fulfilled.
[3] Because he suffered, he was regarded as a sinner and therefore as one to be spurned.
[4-6] He did indeed suffer but it was for the sins of mankind, and through his sufferings men are healed.
[10-12] Because he fulfilled the divine will by suffering for the sins of others, the Servant will be rewarded by the Lord. See the light: enjoy happiness. This line may originally have read, “he shall drink and eat to the full”–at the thanksgiving sacrifice at which he shall divide the spoils (53:12).
 
Eucharisted said:
There are none that I am aware of, but there is a Christian source that shows Jews believed the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. It is Acts 8:34-35. Philip, a Jewish convert to Christianity, explains to an eunuch that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah, Jesus.
Click to expand...
Phillip,at this time, was already a Christian, and so would have seen Isaiah from a Christian point of view. However, the fact that an Ethiopean eunuch,(not a Jew), was willing to believe this says nothing about what the Jews believed. You accused the Jews of changing Messianic prophecy, and yet you can’t provide a single Jewish source that says they believed this was talking about the Messiah? Were did you get this idea, then?
 
tonsofquestions said:
Phillip,at this time, was already a Christian, and so would have seen Isaiah from a Christian point of view. However, the fact that an Ethiopean eunuch,(not a Jew), was willing to believe this says nothing about what the Jews believed. You accused the Jews of changing Messianic prophecy, and yet you can’t provide a single Jewish source that says they believed this was talking about the Messiah? Were did you get this idea, then?
Click to expand...
The earliest Jewish source on the Suffering Servat that I’m aware of is after the destruction of the Temple. The best source, therefore, is Jewish Christians who would have, as Jews, interpreted the Suffering Servant as both Israel and Messiah. Philip is an example of this.
 
tonsofquestions said:
Phillip,at this time, was already a Christian, and so would have seen Isaiah from a Christian point of view. However, the fact that an Ethiopean eunuch,(not a Jew), was willing to believe this says nothing about what the Jews believed. You accused the Jews of changing Messianic prophecy, and yet you can’t provide a single Jewish source that says they believed this was talking about the Messiah? Were did you get this idea, then?
Click to expand...
Trypho, a Jew, acknowledges that this is talking about the Messiah, and in any case it is quite clearly the case objectively.

Where are you getting this stuff? I am curious because I know you didn’t come up with it on your own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top