Where are they...?

[Bezant]

Does anyone know where these prophecies (in bold), referenced in the NT, came from in the OT?

---

"45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them,** “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem**. 48 You are witnesses of these things. [Luke 24:44-46]

“23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets,** that he would be called a Nazarene.
**.” (Matthew 2:23)

---

“54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way? 55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this [ed note: that Jesus has not been arrested after all this time] has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.” (Matt 26:54-56)

 

[midori]

Neither of them are explicitly stated as such in the OT.

One school of thought is that they were things that were common knowledge to the people of the time— rather like in Acts 20, where Paul says:

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ”

and yet if you look in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you’ll never find that exact quote, either. But it’s obviously a saying that Paul’s audience is expected to have been familiar with.

There are other schools of thought as well that certain passages (Hosea, Jonah, etc) were considered “foreshadowings” of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day that you could read up on, but as far as being able to point out chapter-and-verse where such prophecies are spelled out word-for-word and can be cross-referenced like certain other prophecies made, it’s not to be found in the OT.

 

[IrishRush]

I think a lot of that is stuff from Isaiah, paraphrased. Read that and you’ll probably find most, if not all, of what you’re looking for.

 

[Balian]

Unfortunately the explanation of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ is a far more complex undertaking than your questions take into consideration. In other words no one is going to be able to give you one concise reference from the Old Testament that adequately answers the questions you posed. It would in fact be a time consuming undertaking as the O.T. prophetic scripture references would have to be expounded on to provide an adequate response.

In the specific New Testament verses you referenced the gospel writers referred to numerous prophecies made by many different O.T. prophets rather than inferring that there was one concise O.T. passage that each event pertaining to Christ foretold.
Allow me to offer one example using the easiest question you posed…

“23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets,** that he would be called a Nazarene.**.” (Matthew 2:23)

There is no direct Old Testament citation that states that Christ would be would be called a Nazarene. Nazareth isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. What most Bible scholars believe about this N.T. passage is that Matthew was actually making use of a word play of sorts. While Christ did reside in Nazareth (See John 1:46 - “And Nathanael said to him, ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ Philip said to him, ‘Come and see.’”), the word “Nazarene” was not intended to identify Christ as a resident of that city in the sense of a person living in New York City being identified as a “New Yorker.”

In the time of Christ, Nazareth was the headquarters of the Roman military garrison that controlled northern Galilee. Consequently the city was roundly despised by the Jews. Since the city was despised, those living in Nazareth were often maligned since they lived in a city that few self-respecting Jews would have anything to do with. That explains the reason for Nathanael’s question to Philip in John 1:46. The situation was somewhat similar to how Jews regarded Samaria and Samaritans.

Matthew 2:23 referred to several Old Testament prophecies by several different prophets that pertained to the despised and maligned character of the Messiah (Christ). Isaiah 53:3 is but one example: “He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.” So “he would be called a Nazarene” was most likely a reference to the maligned character of the Messiah among the Jewish religious leaders of the day after the manner of Nazareth being despised for housing a Roman garrison, not a reference to Nazareth as a geographical location. Matthew instead probably intended to reference the implied hatred of Christ prevalent among the Scribes and Pharisees that had been prophesied by the O.T. prophets like Isaiah.

The only realistic way to get at the answers you seek is to obtain a respected, comprehensive Bible commentary and to study the books related to the O.T. prophecy. Just to name a few, the fulfilled O.T. prophecies referenced in the N.T. passages you provided include scriptures from Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, Daniel, Jeremiah, and even Psalms. A good understanding of those books is needed to see the connections being made as often they are not plainly seen with casual reading. That is where a good commentary comes in. To further complicate the issue some of the prophetic references that the gospel writers were familiar with and used came from the Jewish Talmud and don’t appear in the Bible.

 

[Julia_Mae]

---

“54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way? 55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this [ed note: that Jesus has not been arrested after all this time] has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.” (Matt 26:54-56)

Wisdom 2
12 Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us;
he opposes our actions,
Reproaches us for transgressions of the law*
and charges us with violations of our training.g
13
He professes to have knowledge of God
and styles himself a child of the LORD.h
14
To us he is the censure of our thoughts;
merely to see him is a hardship for us,i
15
Because his life is not like that of others,
and different are his ways.
16
He judges us debased;
he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.
He calls blest the destiny of the righteous
and boasts that God is his Father.j
17
Let us see whether his words be true;
let us find out what will happen to him in the end.k
18
For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him
and deliver him from the hand of his foes.l
19
With violence and torture let us put him to the test
that we may have proof of his gentleness
and try his patience.
20
Let us condemn him to a shameful death;
for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”m
21
These were their thoughts, but they erred;
for their wickedness blinded them,n
22

• And they did not know the hidden counsels of God;
  neither did they count on a recompense for holiness
  nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

I think it’s important to remember that the Gospels werre not written, nor did Jesus speak, having in mind proving anything to anyone. He is not speaking of some specific chapter and verse (esp because there were no chapters or verses ) but of a cultural understanding people in His time and place would be familiar with. If you read the Prophets yourself, and the Psalms, you will probably understand this all a lot better.

 

[Nate13]

"23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
." (Matthew 2:23)

I believe “Nazareth” or “Nazarene” means branch. There is a prophecy in the Old Testament that does speak of a “branch” although I can’t remember where it is. The passage could effectively be translated as saying "So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a “branch”. Anyone know what passage I’m referring to?

**“54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way? 55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this [ed note: that Jesus has not been arrested after all this time] has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.” (Matt 26:54-56) **

I think from this passage its implied that if he had been arrested sooner he would not have been able to do all the miracles and work he did that fulfilled what the prophets had said.

 

[patrick457]

In the time of Christ, Nazareth was the headquarters of the Roman military garrison that controlled northern Galilee. Consequently the city was roundly despised by the Jews. Since the city was despised, those living in Nazareth were often maligned since they lived in a city that few self-respecting Jews would have anything to do with. That explains the reason for Nathanael’s question to Philip in John 1:46. The situation was somewhat similar to how Jews regarded Samaria and Samaritans.

The Galilee in Jesus’ time was a tetrarchy ruled by Herod Antipas, who pretty much enjoyed a semi-independent status: he was only required by Rome to do the necessary (collecting tribute, for one) and was then left to run his domain as he wished. He most likely had his own troops and would have only needed direct Roman aid in emergency cases. Judaea meanwhile was a province ruled by a prefect (or after AD 41, a procurator), who commanded auxiliaries recruited from local non-citizens (being an equestrian, he was not of high rank enough to command a legion; his immediate superior, the legate of Syria, had four legions under his belt). And even then, the prefect and the majority of his soldiers stayed in the capital of Caesarea Maritima for most of the year far away from the sight of Jews, preferring instead to let the native rulers run daily affairs for him. Rome has found that indirect rule through local collaborators is a more effective method, and it shows.

Second, the whole idea of Nazareth being a garrison town apparently rests solely upon the discovery of the remains of a bathhouse in the area. While a few folks are quick to identify this as dating from the time of Jesus, all that we know for certain is that it is quite ancient, dating from or somewhere before the Crusader period or even from the Roman period. But I personally think that given that there is still much that we don’t know about this bathhouse that we shouldn’t be quick to pass judgment on it. Who knows if this structure was already there in the 1st century as opposed to, say, the 4th century?

To further complicate the issue some of the prophetic references that the gospel writers were familiar with and used came from the Jewish Talmud and don’t appear in the Bible.

Actually it would have been the opposite, since the Talmud was not really codified and written until centuries after Jesus: the evangelists may have been drawing from popular traditions, which are also drawn upon by the rabbis who formulated the Mishna and the Gemara.

 

[midori]

There is a prophecy in the Old Testament that does speak of a “branch” although I can’t remember where it is…Anyone know what passage I’m referring to?

Probably the bit about the branch-from-the-tree-of-Jesse in Isaiah that we hear every Advent?

This is a segment from an article that talks more about the Nazareth/Branch theory:

The prophets used various metaphors to refer to this anticipated revival of the ideal monarchy to replace the corrupt kings of the day, including “servant” (Haggai, Isaiah), “signet ring” (Haggai), “shepherd” (Micah, Ezekiel), or simply “David” (Amos). But in all three of the above examples, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah also use the term “branch” as a metaphor to refer to the new king that God would raise up from the line of David (Isa 4:2, 11:1, Jer 23:5, Zech 3:8, 6:12). The metaphor is most clearly expressed in Isaiah 11:1: There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.

 

[Big_Dummy]

crivoice.org/branch.html

 

[Big_Dummy]

Jerome writes in Letter 57,

But in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew it reads differently, for it is not God who speaks, as the evangelist makes out, but the prophet who appeals to God the Father saying:— “Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” In this instance according to my judgment— and I have some careful critics with me— the evangelist is guilty of a fault in presuming to ascribe to God what are the words of the prophet. Again the same evangelist writes that at the warning of an angel Joseph took the young child and his mother and went into Egypt and remained there till the death of Herod; “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” Matthew 2:13-15 The Latin manuscripts do not so give the passage, but in Hosea Hosea 11:1 the true Hebrew text has the following:— “When Israel was a child then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” Which the Septuagint renders thus:— “When Israel was a child then I loved him, and called his sons out of Egypt.” Are they altogether to be rejected because they have given another turn to a passage which refers primarily to the mystery of Christ? Or should we not rather pardon the shortcomings of the translators on the score of their human frailty according to the saying of James, “In many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word the same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the whole body.” James 3:2 Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Matthew 2:23 Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. Isaiah 11:1 For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene,’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacrilege either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery.

newadvent.org/fathers/3001057.htm

 

[Bezant]

Thanks all. Much appreciated.