Claimed prophetic fulfillment seems highly questionable. - Were they acquired rather than intended?

[St. SteVen]

I posted a couple of topics about (supposed) OT prophecy and NT references to them. (misquoted claims)
I would like to get a reaction from those more familiar with the subject. Topic links below.

Were messianic prophecies acquired, rather than intended? (in the original texts)

I recently remembered a prophecy referred to by Jesus. But I also remembered that orthodox Jews typically reject these "prophecies" saying that is not what they meant. Were some of these prophecies, or other OT quotations acquired rather than intended? Here are a couple. (we'll need to...

www.christianityboard.com

Of what value is the fulfillment of OT prophecy? - since the prophecies were acquired rather than intended

This is a follow-up to the previous topic: Were messianic prophecies acquired, rather than intended? (in the original texts) https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/were-messianic-prophecies-acquired-rather-than-intended-in-the-original-texts.67180/ In the previous topic it was somewhat...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[St. SteVen]

37 views but no response?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

42 views but no response?


[

 

[Douggg]

42 views but no response?


[

No responses because you haven't made a viable post to start with. Whatever you were discussing in the unorthodox doctrine forum using these terms you employ - "aquired or intended" - takes you to explain what you meant - and no-one here is interesting in going through that mumbo-jumbo.

 

[St. SteVen]

No responses because you haven't made a viable post to start with. Whatever you were discussing in the unorthodox doctrine forum using these terms you employ - "aquired or intended" - takes you to explain what you meant - and no-one here is interesting in going through that mumbo-jumbo.

Here are a couple. (we'll need to examine the context of the OT quotes)
Acquired rather than intended?
If the OT "prophecy" was not intended as a prophecy, then the NT writer acquired it as such.

Mark 14:27 NET
Then[a] Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written,
‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’[b]

--- COMPARE ---

Zechariah 13:7 NET
“Awake, sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who is my associate,”
says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.
“Strike the shepherd that the flock may be scattered;[a]
I will turn my hand against the insignificant ones.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew 1:23 NET
“Look! The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son,
and they will name him[a] Emmanuel,”[b] which means[c] “God with us.”[d]

--- COMPARE ---

Isaiah 7:14; 8:8, 10 NET
14 For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign.[a]
Look, this[b] young woman[c] is about to conceive[d] and will give birth to a son.
You, young woman, will name him[e] Immanuel.[f] ...
8 It will spill into Judah, flooding and engulfing, as it reaches to the necks of its victims.
He will spread his wings out over your entire land,[a] O Immanuel.”[b] ...
10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted.
Issue your orders, but they will not be executed![a]
For God is with us![b]

[

 

[grafted branch]

Here are a couple. (we'll need to examine the context of the OT quotes)
Acquired rather than intended?
If the OT "prophecy" was not intended as a prophecy, then the NT writer acquired it as such.

Mark 14:27 NET
Then[a] Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written,
‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’[b]

--- COMPARE ---

Zechariah 13:7 NET
“Awake, sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who is my associate,”
says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.
“Strike the shepherd that the flock may be scattered;[a]
I will turn my hand against the insignificant ones.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew 1:23 NET
“Look! The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son,
and they will name him[a] Emmanuel,”[b] which means[c] “God with us.”[d]

--- COMPARE ---

Isaiah 7:14; 8:8, 10 NET
14 For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign.[a]
Look, this[b] young woman[c] is about to conceive[d] and will give birth to a son.
You, young woman, will name him[e] Immanuel.[f] ...
8 It will spill into Judah, flooding and engulfing, as it reaches to the necks of its victims.
He will spread his wings out over your entire land,[a] O Immanuel.”[b] ...
10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted.
Issue your orders, but they will not be executed![a]
For God is with us![b]

[

I’m not sure what the real issue is here. Jesus spoke the words in Mark 14:27, we either have faith that He spoke the truth or we don’t.

If the issue you’re looking at is why the OT reads different in some cases than where it is quoted in the NT, the folks at 2001translation.org have done quite a bit of work on those issues.

Why the Greek Septuagint? — 2001 Translation of the Bible

 

[RedFan]

Here are a couple. (we'll need to examine the context of the OT quotes)
Acquired rather than intended?
If the OT "prophecy" was not intended as a prophecy, then the NT writer acquired it as such.

Mark 14:27 NET
Then[a] Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written,
‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’[b]

I might phrase the question as "adopted rather than intended" but it's still a fair question: Did NT writers bend OT verses to their own purposes different from their original intent? And I think your example from Mark 14:27 is probably an instance of this.

I’m not sure what the real issue is here. Jesus spoke the words in Mark 14:27, we either have faith that He spoke the truth or we don’t.

Assuming that Jesus did indeed speak the words in Mark 14:27 (I wasn't present. Were you? was Mark?), the "real issue" is whether Jesus was quoting Zechariah to cast himself as Shepherd and his apostles as sheep in a manner Zechariah never foresaw or intended to presage, to make his own point about the Scripture rather than to underscore Zechariah's.

 

[grafted branch]

Assuming that Jesus did indeed speak the words in Mark 14:27 (I wasn't present. Were you? was Mark?), the "real issue" is whether Jesus was quoting Zechariah to cast himself as Shepherd and his apostles as sheep in a manner Zechariah never foresaw or intended to presage, to make his own point about the Scripture rather than to underscore Zechariah's.

Well if we view Jesus as the Word of God then I would say whether or not Zechariah foresaw, Jesus’s view clarifies the intent of the verse.

 

[RedFan]

Well if we view Jesus as the Word of God then I would say whether or not Zechariah foresaw, Jesus’s view clarifies the intent of the verse.

"Clarified," or "reinterpreted"? Clarification suggests an initial ambiguity. I don't think Zechariah was ambiguous at all.

 

[St. SteVen]

I’m not sure what the real issue is here. Jesus spoke the words in Mark 14:27, we either have faith that He spoke the truth or we don’t.

If the issue you’re looking at is why the OT reads different in some cases than where it is quoted in the NT, the folks at 2001translation.org have done quite a bit of work on those issues.

Why the Greek Septuagint? — 2001 Translation of the Bible

What is bothering me is the apparent lack of intent by the OT writer to prophesy.
The NT writers seemed to have assigned prophetic intent to the OT quotes.

John 15:25 NIV
But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[a]

Psalms 35:19
Do not let those gloat over me
who are my enemies without cause;
do not let those who hate me without reason
maliciously wink the eye.

Psalms 69:4
Those who hate me without reason
outnumber the hairs of my head;
many are my enemies without cause,
those who seek to destroy me.
I am forced to restore
what I did not steal.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I might phrase the question as "adopted rather than intended"

Thanks. I've struggled this whole time to articulate the problem I am seeing.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Well if we view Jesus as the Word of God then I would say whether or not Zechariah foresaw, Jesus’s view clarifies the intent of the verse.

Is it intent, or did Jesus adopt it for his own use as if it was originally written prophetically?

Genuine prophecy was of no private interpretation.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

There's a lot of them. Here's one:

Matthew 2:15
And [Jesus] was there [in Egypt] until 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 is quoting Hosea:

Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Now, Hosea IS a prophet, but right here he's talking about something that already happened. And he's talking about Israel, not Jesus.

This is another good example. (from the first thread link in the OP)

Matthew 2:15
And [Jesus] was there [in Egypt] until 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."

Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

[

 

[grafted branch]

"Clarified," or "reinterpreted"? Clarification suggests an initial ambiguity. I don't think Zechariah was ambiguous at all.

Sure, if you think the clarity is found in the OT and ambiguity in the NT then we are going to be on totally different planes.

Numbers 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

 

[RedFan]

Sure, if you think the clarity is found in the OT and ambiguity in the NT then we are going to be on totally different planes.

Numbers 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

I think clarity and ambiguity are found in both the OT and the NT. Each verse must be considered separately.

 

[grafted branch]

Is it intent, or did Jesus adopt it for his own use as if it was originally written prophetically?

Genuine prophecy was of no private interpretation.

[

A decision has to be made as to which way of interpreting is correct, I personally see the NT revealing what is hidden in the OT.

 

[St. SteVen]

Acts 13:33 God has fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Question: Was that the intention of the writer of the 2nd Psalm, or was the prophecy adopted?

Psalm 2:7 NIV
I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

A decision has to be made as to which way of interpreting is correct, I personally see the NT revealing what is hidden in the OT.

That may be, but the connections are rather shaky. Why is that?
It seems more likely that these things were being adopted but then claimed to be intentional.
There are a lot of near misses. The original OT quotes obviously referring to something else.

[

 

[grafted branch]

I think clarity and ambiguity are found in both the OT and the NT. Each verse must be considered separately.

I agree, I find the study of eschatology eliminating or disallowing certain interpretations of verses found in the OT.

Do you have any verses that are in question that are about events after the cross?

 

[grafted branch]

That may be, but the connections are rather shaky. Why is that?
It seems more likely that these things were being adopted but then claimed to be intentional.
There are a lot of near misses. The original OT quotes obviously referring to something else.

[

What do you suppose the OT quotes were referring to if not Jesus?