Paul refers to scriptures not written?

[fred_conty]

I Cor 15;3-4
“…I taught you what I had been taught myself, namely that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures…”

The scriptures of the new testiment had not yet been written yet, and as far as I have looked, his death and resurrection in the old testiment is not mentioned.

In Psalm 22 there are references to jeering and also let God save him if God is his friend, and also to his bones being disjointed and also that garments were divided.
But this is so undefinite as to whom the psalm is referring to, and dosen’t mention the cross.
In addition the reference to resurrection is not there.

So what scriptures is I Cor 15;3-4 referring to? Anyone know?

 

[Luvtosew]

Try Isaiah 53.

 

[Richard320]

The footnotes in the NAB on the USCCB website says

In accordance with the scriptures: conformity of Jesus’ passion with the scriptures is asserted in Mt 16:1; Lk 24:25–27, 32, 44–46. Application of some Old Testament texts (Ps 2:7; 16:8–11) to his resurrection is illustrated by Acts 2:27–31; 13:29–39; and Is 52:13–53:12 and Hos 6:2 may also have been envisaged

Isaiah has the “Suffering Servant” section that gets read at the tail end of Lent. And remember Jesus explained things on the Road to Emmaus [BIBLEDRB]Luke 24:25-27[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[thesacrifice]

Jon 1:17 But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Death

Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.
Jhn 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Psa 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
Rev 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
Zec 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
Jhn 19:37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

Psa 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
Jhn 19:24 “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, “They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.” So this is what the soldiers did.

Exd 12:46 "It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.
Num 9:12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations.
Psa 34:20 he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.
Jhn 19:36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”

Isa 52:14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him–his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness–

sins
read this chapter:Isaiah - Chapter 53
The list goes on…on…on

When u read the Bible always remeber that it proclaims the Glory of Jesus but in the old testament he has not given himself that name yet.

 

[fred_conty]

Thanks to all for very good references.

Except for Jona, are there any more references to the resurrection? Or did I miss some?

 

[bogeydogg]

There are some who say that Mark, being a disciple of Peter, went with him to Rome and there wrote his Gospel to aid the new Church there around 54 AD.

Also the Gospel of Matthew some think was originally in Aramaic and may have been written as early as 55-60. Even if it was taken from the “Q” source, that source would have to have been around before the Gospel of Matthew which puts a written record of some sort being extant perhaps as early as 10-15 years after Pentecost.

So it is not out of character at all for Paul to reference Christ rising according to the Scripture because the Gospels probably appeared very early on.

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

I’m not sure that it is about individual verses, that Paul is only thinking of individual verses from the Old Testament scriptures which point to Christ. I’m reasonably sure that he is thinking about the Exodus in general and the passover specifically, as recorded in the Book of Exodus.

The Exodus from Egypt and the celebration of the first passover on that night was the central event in Jewish history.

The passover lamb prefigures Christ, and Paul would have understood this. He knew that the lamb not only had to be killed, and the blood put on the doorpost, but that the lamb had to be eaten. The passover was not complete unless the lamb was consumed. Remember that if you did not do everything as perscribed by moses, including consumption of the flesh of the lamb, you would die. One had to eat the flesh of the lamb, and in doing so one recieved the life which was given up.

And every Jew who celebrated the passover through the centuries, even to today, understood that the ritual of the passover, which must include the eating of the flesh, was how each Jew personally participated in the Exodus from Egypt.

*When your children ask you, ‘What does this rite of yours mean?’ you will reply, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice for the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt; when he struck down the Egyptians, he delivered our houses. … And on that day you will explain to your son, ‘This is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.’ (Exodus 12:26-27, 13:8) *

Notice that the father is to say, “What the Lord did for me when I came out” Me personally. The father is to explain to his son that he personally was led out of Egypt. The death and consumption of the lamb was every Jew’s personal participation in the Exodus, when God saved them from death.

And it should be obvious to Catholics that this all ties in - is inseperable from - the Eucharist.

The death and consumption of the lamb is each persons’s participation in salvation from Pharoah’s bondage and subsequent Exodus. The death of the lamb prefigures Christs death, but the death of Christ is inseperable from the ressurection of Christ. The death of Christ and the ressurection of Christ are a strict unity - each meaningless without the other. And the death and ressurection of Christ is given to us in the Eucharist. We not only recieve Jesus’ sacrificed body, but we also recieve Jesus ressurected and glorified body. The death and ressurection are a strict unity.

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:53)

The blood on the doorpost at the first passover was a sign to God; a sign that he was not to kill you but to grant you life. Christ tells us the same thing about his flesh which has to be eaten, just like the passover lamb had to be eaten. And just like the blood which had to be on the doorpost for God to grant the Jews life, we have to drink the blood of the perfect lamb in order to have life within us.

We have to ask ourselves how it is that the first Christians would have understood that Christ was present in the Eucharist, how they undersood the basics of the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine. It is because of theirpersonal participation in the Exodus nthrough the rituals of the passove and their deep understanding of the Passover as a sacrifice and granting of continued life. Paul may have been thinking of individual verses, but he was an amazingly adept scripture scholar, and I believe that he was thinking of entire themes, especially the Exodus and most especially the passover when he said, “in accordance with the scriptures.”
-Tim-

 

[fred_conty]

There are some who say that Mark, being a disciple of Peter, went with him to Rome and there wrote his Gospel to aid the new Church there around 54 AD.

Also the Gospel of Matthew some think was originally in Aramaic and may have been written as early as 55-60. Even if it was taken from the “Q” source, that source would have to have been around before the Gospel of Matthew which puts a written record of some sort being extant perhaps as early as 10-15 years after Pentecost.

So it is not out of character at all for Paul to reference Christ rising according to the Scripture because the Gospels probably appeared very early on.

God Bless

This is interesting. I read that the best guess on the date Matthew’s gospel was about the year 70. But does anyone really know? That is the question.

I would have thought that Paul would make a mention in his letters of any of the four gospels if he had been familiar with them and maybe cited them frequently. But he doesn’t seem to do this.

Any thoughts out there?

 

[fred_conty]

TimothyH you mentioned,
" I believe that he was thinking of entire themes"
UNQUOTE

That certainly sounds like Paul to me. I just wish he had given some clue or reference.
Jesus did talk about Jona which was clear from the Old Testament and we still have that possiblity that Paul was referring to this. The Paschal Lamb would fit too, but the three days connotation are missing. Like Jesus said, “destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it.”

Just a thought, and thanks for yours.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

This is interesting. I read that the best guess on the date Matthew’s gospel was about the year 70. But does anyone really know? That is the question.

I would have thought that Paul would make a mention in his letters of any of the four gospels if he had been familiar with them and maybe cited them frequently. But he doesn’t seem to do this.

Any thoughts out there?

Would be the first time St. Paul ever made any mention of the Synoptic Gospels. His training was of oral tradition as well, so it doesn’t follow. Remember he was a Pharisees, and an extremely scholarly one at that who studied philosophy and theology which means he was a strict observant Jew and had a heavy emphasis on the Old Testament (that is evident in his letters). One could make the argument that at this particular point in time, the Gospels were not yet looked at as scripture but accounts of Christ. As he stated in 2 Tim 3:16, all scripture is inspired by God but the scriptures he was referring too was the old texts. And not just Hebrew texts but the Greek texts, as some of his references match exactly word for word in the Greek texts and he made references to the deuterocanonical books. Though that doesn’t matter now since 3 of 7 deuterocanonical books were found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, further validating the Catholic Canon. Anyways, in 2 Tim 3:16 he was referring to Old Testament, so it naturally follows that 1 Cor 15:3-4 is also speaking of the Old Testament.

The only thing I could find is Hos 6, as stated in Richard320’s quote from the USCCB website.

[BIBLEDRB]Hos 6:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]

Haydock agrees,

on the third verse,

*In a short time the Lord will easily set us free. But the prophet refers more directly to the resurrection of the faithful, and of Christ. Eph. ii. 5. and 1 Cor. xv. 4. C. — S. Paul mentions the third day according to the Scriptures, which nowhere else so clearly specify it. W. See S. Jer. S. Cyp. Sanct. 9. — Know. Hitherto we have been reproached with voluntary ignorance in adoring idols. C. iv. 6. We will amend. — His, Christ’s. — Rain. It falls only in autumn and in spring. Deut. xi. 14. C. *

 

[Luvtosew]

I’m thinking it sounds like reference to Jonah since Christ made reference to him also.

 

[bogeydogg]

This is interesting. I read that the best guess on the date Matthew’s gospel was about the year 70. But does anyone really know? That is the question.

I would have thought that Paul would make a mention in his letters of any of the four gospels if he had been familiar with them and maybe cited them frequently. But he doesn’t seem to do this.

Any thoughts out there?

I have recently been reading and am currently listening to Knox Chamblin teach on the Gospels and he thinks that there is pretty strong evidence that Matthew and Mark were extant prior to or during the Neronean persecution. Plus there a fragments of Matthew and John which some (though the dating is disputed) think date them back to 50-60 AD.

I think the best evidence for a closed NT cannon (including Revelation) before 70 AD is that Christ made this outrageous claim that Jerusalem would be surrounded and destroyed and the Temple would be razed to the ground and not one single Apostolic writer ever said, “And as we all know that prophesy came true.”

God Bless

 

[fred_conty]

I have recently been reading and am currently listening to Knox Chamblin teach on the Gospels and he thinks that there is pretty strong evidence that Matthew and Mark were extant prior to or during the Neronean persecution. Plus there a fragments of Matthew and John which some (though the dating is disputed) think date them back to 50-60 AD.

I think the best evidence for a closed NT cannon (including Revelation) before 70 AD is that Christ made this outrageous claim that Jerusalem would be surrounded and destroyed and the Temple would be razed to the ground and not one single Apostolic writer ever said, “And as we all know that prophesy came true.”

God Bless

In reading Lk 21:20- and also Mt 21:9-, it is about the destruction of Jerusalem, but in that description it also seems to mix in the idea of the destruction of the new Jerusalem of his chosen people, christians, along with the destruction of the world and events leading up to it. So in effect the destruction of the city is a forecast of the destruction of the world
and the persecutions his followers will endure, who belong to the new Jerusalem.

This may be the reason that not one single Apostolic writer ever said, “And as we all know that prophesy came true.” because it hasn’t been totally fulfilled at this time since it is a prefigurement and signal of what is still to come.

Just a thought and thanks for yours.

 

[fred_conty]

Trever Stamm, you mentioned,
“at this particular point in time, the Gospels were not yet looked at as scripture but accounts of Christ.”

That’s a good point because the New Testament wasn’t defined then or for that matter whether any of it was written is uncertain.

The verse in Hosea could fit. But the resurrection in the Old just dosen’t have the quality and refinement as the passion has in the Old. The sufferings can easily be seen as those of Jesus. I wonder why the Holy Spirit didn’t give the resurrection a similiar treatment.

Just a puzzle to think about. Thanks for your info.

 

[bogeydogg]

Trever Stamm, you mentioned,
“at this particular point in time, the Gospels were not yet looked at as scripture but accounts of Christ.”

That’s a good point because the New Testament wasn’t defined then or for that matter whether any of it was written is uncertain.

The verse in Hosea could fit. But the resurrection in the Old just dosen’t have the quality and refinement as the passion has in the Old. The sufferings can easily be seen as those of Jesus. I wonder why the Holy Spirit didn’t give the resurrection a similiar treatment.

Just a puzzle to think about. Thanks for your info.

However we do have St Peter referring to St Paul’s writings as Scripture, so if the Gospel writings were extant and of Apostolic Authority there is no reason why St Paul would not have referred to them as Scripture.

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

I’m thinking it sounds like reference to Jonah since Christ made reference to him also.

What Jesus mentioned was the “Sign of Johah” which would be the only sign given to the Jews.

This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it, except the sign of Jonah. Just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. (Luke 11:29)

Many look to this passage and immediately think of Jonah being in the belly of the whale three days and Jesus being in the tomb three days. Matthew even makes the reference to three days and night in the whale explicit, from the mouth of Jesus himself.

But notice that Luke puts the words “Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites” into Jesus’ mouth. The Ninevites were not around to see Jonah get swallowed by the whale. The Ninevites were Assyrians, arch-enemies of the nation of Israel for several centuries, and they repented and turned to God. So the “Sign of Jonah” according to Luke’s gospel was that the Gentiles and enemies of Israel would be converted. The Pharisees saw Israel as God’s special posession and salvation as theirs alone and so this must have made the Pharisees furious. The master scripture scholar Paul even makes an oblique reference to the episode.

***For Jews demand signs *and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, (1 Corinthians 1:22-23)

I think it has bearing on the question in the OP as it shows Paul’s absolute mastery of Scripture, something which cannot be underestimated.

…as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand… (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Even Peter the Pope acknowledges that Paul is so advanced that some of the things he writes are difficult to understand.

So I am not discouraged when I find it difficult to discern exactly what it is that Paul is referencing when he says some of the things he does. I think the only way to actually understand Paul is to slow way down, read his work very deliberately and very slowly, almost doing Lectio with it, and to stick with each book and each argument for a very long period of time. I have spent my daily scripture reading for the past two months in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. I’m sure I have read it slowly and deliberately five times, and some of the circular arguments are just beginning to make sense.

Paul was probably referencing many things which we don’t understand because we are not first century Jews. It’s super fun to ask and learn and try to figure it out though, isn’t it?

-Tim-

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

What Jesus mentioned was the “Sign of Johah” which would be the only sign given to the Jews.

This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it, except the sign of Jonah. Just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. (Luke 11:29)

Many look to this passage and immediately think of Jonah being in the belly of the whale three days and Jesus being in the tomb three days. Matthew even makes the reference to three days and night in the whale explicit, from the mouth of Jesus himself.

But notice that Luke puts the words “Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites” into Jesus’ mouth. The Ninevites were not around to see Jonah get swallowed by the whale. The Ninevites were Assyrians, arch-enemies of the nation of Israel for several centuries, and they repented and turned to God. So the “Sign of Jonah” according to Luke’s gospel was that the Gentiles and enemies of Israel would be converted. The Pharisees saw Israel as God’s special posession and salvation as theirs alone and so this must have made the Pharisees furious. The master scripture scholar Paul even makes an oblique reference to the episode.

***For Jews demand signs ***and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, (1 Corinthians 1:22-23)

I think it has bearing on the question in the OP as it shows Paul’s absolute mastery of Scripture, something which cannot be underestimated.

…as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand… (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Even Peter the Pope acknowledges that Paul is so advanced that some of the things he writes are difficult to understand.

So I am not discouraged when I find it difficult to discern exactly what it is that Paul is referencing when he says some of the things he does. I think the only way to actually understand Paul is to slow way down, read his work very deliberately and very slowly, almost doing Lectio with it, and to stick with each book and each argument for a very long period of time. I have spent my daily scripture reading for the past two months in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. I’m sure I have read it slowly and deliberately five times, and some of the circular arguments are just beginning to make sense.

Paul was probably referencing many things which we don’t understand because we are not first century Jews. It’s super fun to ask and learn and try to figure it out though, isn’t it?

-Tim-

Agreed. Since the Church has always held an “and / both” stance and hardly, if ever, thinks in " either / or", do you think St. Paul was speaking about Jonah, Hosea, and possibly first fruits since Christ rose on the feast of First Fruits and all the typological connections concerning Christ and the commandment of the first fruit offering? Remember, in this SAME letter AND chapter, St. Paul refers to Christ as the firstfruits. This is the earliest and, as far as I know, only time Christ is referred as the firstfruits, least I am wrong. Something to ponder about.

 

[TimothyH]

Agreed. Since the Church has always held an “and / both” stance and hardly, if ever, thinks in " either / or", do you think St. Paul was speaking about Jonah, Hosea, and possibly first fruits since Christ rose on the feast of First Fruits and all the typological connections concerning Christ and the commandment of the first fruit offering? Remember, in this SAME letter AND chapter, St. Paul refers to Christ as the firstfruits. This is the earliest and, as far as I know, only time Christ is referred as the firstfruits, least I am wrong. Something to ponder about.

I didn’t know about the feast of firstfruits and just Googled it. Extremely interesting.

To borrow a computer analogy, I’m amazed at how multithreaded this guy is. He can hold several trains of thought together at once, explaining each in parallel and often simultaneously, in an effort to make a single point. In the Letter to the Hebrews he uses the word “Therefore” in his arguments at least thirteen times and one has to go back two or three “Therefore’s” to see what in the world he is is basing this conclusion on.

I’m sure he was referencing many individual verses, themes, and the entirety of scripture itself with regard to the question in the OP.

-Tim-

 

[Abu]

fred conty #8
This is interesting. I read that the best guess on the date Matthew’s gospel was about the year 70. But does anyone really know? That is the question.

Claude Tresmontant in *The Hebrew Christ *makes a strong case for the Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew John shortly after the death and resurrection of the Lord, with Luke between 40-60 A.D. The First Letters of Paul he places between 50-52 A.D. Fr Jacques Carmignac and the Anglican John A.T. Robinson lend support to this.

 

[fred_conty]

Claude Tresmontant in *The Hebrew Christ *makes a strong case for the Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew John shortly after the death and resurrection of the Lord, with Luke between 40-60 A.D. The First Letters of Paul he places between 50-52 A.D. Fr Jacques Carmignac and the Anglican John A.T. Robinson lend support to this.

That is something to consider and keep in mind.

However would Paul use what we know today as the the gospels in his letters since the
New Testiment was not yet considered scripture because it was not yet identified as
scripture. In this passage referring to the resurrection he almost has to be referring to the Old Testiment.

I have been doing some looking and maybe Paul was referring to Macabees. Here are some quotes from that book that seem to fit.

2 Maccabees 7:9
And when he was at the last gasp, he said thus: Thou indeed, O most wicked man, destroyest us out of this present life: but the King of the world will raise us up, who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life.

2 Maccabees 7:14
And when he was now ready to die, he spoke thus: It is better, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God, to be raised up again by him: for, as to thee thou shalt have no resurrection unto life.

2 Maccabees 12:43
And making a gathering, he twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.

Now the sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, but the pharisees did, and maybe this is where they were coming from. But if this were the case, then why wouldn’t the
sadducees believe in the resurrection as well? One thing leads to another.

Thanks to everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut.