Questionable Prophecies of Jesus

[cloudyday2]

We were discussing Nazareth in another thread, and I found mention of Matthew 2:23

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_2:23

The problem is that there isn't a prophecy in the Bible about Nazareth. Matthew 2:23 is probably the most blatantly bogus prophecy, but an honest appraisal of the other prophecies leads me to question the integrity and/or education of the early Christians who made these claims. Were these people even Jewish? Were they illiterate?

Here is a link to a discussion of these prophecies from an atheist website:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

 

[juvenissun]

We were discussing Nazareth in another thread, and I found mention of Matthew 2:23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_2:23

The problem is that there isn't a prophecy in the Bible about Nazareth. Matthew 2:23 is probably the most blatantly bogus prophecy, but an honest appraisal of the other prophecies leads me to question the integrity and/or education of the early Christians who made these claims. Were these people even Jewish? Were they illiterate?

Here is a link to a discussion of these prophecies from an atheist website:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

Why should all prophecies be completely recorded in the OT?
If the OT has 50 prophecies about Jesus, could the actual number of such prophecies be more than 50?

 

[cloudyday2]

Why should all prophecies be completely recorded in the OT?

That is a possibility. Another possibility is that the prophecy is from Judges:

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+13:5&version=KJV

This Bible verse prophecies the birth of Samson and his Nazarite vow. If the author of Matthew considered Judges 13:5 to be a prophecy of Jesus, then I think the credibility of the gospel of Matthew is diminished.

 

[Alla27]

Why should all prophecies be completely recorded in the OT?

Word of God. Important or not important? this is the question!!

John was warning that if someone TAKES AWAY WORD OF GOD from the Book of Revelation, God is not going to be very happy with that person. Why would John give this warning if he believed that this will never happen?

Hmm, could someone TAKE AWAY WORD OF GOD from the Old Testament?

 

[mindlight]

That is a possibility. Another possibility is that the prophecy is from Judges:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+13:5&version=KJV

This Bible verse prophecies the birth of Samson and his Nazarite vow. If the author of Matthew considered Judges 13:5 to be a prophecy of Jesus, then I think the credibility of the gospel of Matthew is diminished.

Jesus drank wine and may have cut his hair. Does not really fit.

 

[mindlight]

We were discussing Nazareth in another thread, and I found mention of Matthew 2:23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_2:23

The problem is that there isn't a prophecy in the Bible about Nazareth. Matthew 2:23 is probably the most blatantly bogus prophecy, but an honest appraisal of the other prophecies leads me to question the integrity and/or education of the early Christians who made these claims. Were these people even Jewish? Were they illiterate?

Here is a link to a discussion of these prophecies from an atheist website:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

Matthew was written in Hebrew originally rather than Greek and for a Jewish audience. So some have suggested wordplay and an association between the Hebrew word nasir(shoot) and the town. There are references in Isaiah which are then Messianic.

But perhaps the best explanation I have heard is that the passage refers to a spoken rather than written prophecy. Most spoken prophecies were written down in scripture but this one and one other from Jeremiah were not. So it was either a prophecy familiar to those versed in the tradition of the prophets or it was one directly recalled by the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Matthews writing.

http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbaother4.htm

 

[cloudyday2]

Jesus drank wine and may have cut his hair. Does not really fit.

Jesus was not observing Nazarite vows, but the author of Matthew may have been so ignorant of Judaism that he saw Nazarite in the book of Judges and associated it with "Jesus of Nazareth". The other prophecies such as the slaughter of the innocents show no respect for the original meaning and context of the prophecy, so why should this prophecy about Nazareth be any different? I suspect the author of Matthew was either very dishonest or very unfamiliar with Judaism. That doesn't give me confidence in the gospel of Matthew.

 

[Tree of Life]

We were discussing Nazareth in another thread, and I found mention of Matthew 2:23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_2:23

The problem is that there isn't a prophecy in the Bible about Nazareth. Matthew 2:23 is probably the most blatantly bogus prophecy, but an honest appraisal of the other prophecies leads me to question the integrity and/or education of the early Christians who made these claims. Were these people even Jewish? Were they illiterate?

Here is a link to a discussion of these prophecies from an atheist website:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

Matthew is probably employing a play on words in Matthew 2:23. Some think that Matthew's gospel may have originally been written in Hebrew for this reason. Either way, there is a play on words going on in the Hebrew.

The Hebrew נזר (nazar) means "holy one". The Hebrew נצר (natsar) means "branch" (see Isaiah 11:1). Both of these ideas are connected to the Messiah in the OT. So there is clearly a play on words going on here as both nazar and natsar sound like Nazareth and Nazarene.

Other prophecies are more complicated and go to show that the NT author's idea of "fulfill" is much more complicated than our simple notion of direct promise and direct fulfillment. What others are troubling you?

 

[juvenissun]

Word of God. Important or not important? this is the question!!

John was warning that if someone TAKES AWAY WORD OF GOD from the Book of Revelation, God is not going to be very happy with that person. Why would John give this warning if he believed that this will never happen?

Hmm, could someone TAKE AWAY WORD OF GOD from the Old Testament?

In the issue of the OP, nobody is doing that. You are shooting to a wrong target.

 

[cloudyday2]

But perhaps the best explanation I have heard is that the passage refers to a spoken rather than written prophecy. Most spoken prophecies were written down in scripture but this one and one other from Jeremiah were not. So it was either a prophecy familiar to those versed in the tradition of the prophets or it was one directly recalled by the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Matthews writing.

http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbaother4.htm

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the other supposed oral prophecy. Actually it is a bungled quote from Zechariah 11:13

Like many of the Hebrew Bible quotations in Matthew, the author has liberally reworked these verses from the source material. The verse nowhere exactly matches any Old Testament texts, but the closest is Zechariah 11:13.[2] The WEB translation of these verses is:

13 Yahweh said to me, "Throw it to the potter, the handsome price
that I was valued at by them!" I took the thirty pieces of silver,
and threw them to the potter, in Yahweh’s house.
One immediate complication with this verse is that if it is quoting Zechariah, why does the author attributes it to Jeremiah? This misattribution has been noted since the earliest days of Christianity, and a number of explanations have been given. Many scholars, including Augustine and Jerome, have accepted that this was simply a mistake on the part of the writer.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_27:9-10

 

[cloudyday2]

Matthew is probably employing a play on words in Matthew 2:23. Some think that Matthew's gospel may have originally been written in Hebrew for this reason. Either way, there is a play on words going on in the Hebrew.

The Hebrew נזר (nazar) means "holy one". The Hebrew נצר (natsar) means "branch" (see Isaiah 11:1). Both of these ideas are connected to the Messiah in the OT. So there is clearly a play on words going on here as both nazar and natsar sound like Nazareth and Nazarene.

Other prophecies are more complicated and go to show that the NT author's idea of "fulfill" is much more complicated than our simple notion of direct promise and direct fulfillment. What others are troubling you?

Yes that is another of the theories mentioned in the links I provided. Given the absurdity of the more identifiable OT prophecies in Matthew, I suspect this prophecy about Nazareth is indeed referring to the verse about Samson being a Nazarite. Would that really be any more absurd that the prophecy of the slaughter of the innocents?

Take a look at the link from infidels for an overview of the prophecies
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes that is another of the theories mentioned in the links I provided. Given the absurdity of the more identifiable OT prophecies in Matthew, I suspect this prophecy about Nazareth is indeed referring to the verse about Samson being a Nazarite. Would that really be any more absurd that the prophecy of the slaughter of the innocents?

Take a look at the link from infidels for an overview of the prophecies
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

I don't think that Matthew is referring to Samson in Matt 2:23. But if he is, then he's probably doing something similar to what he's doing in Matthew 2:15 and Matthew 2:18. Let me explain what Matthew means by "fulfill" in each of these passages.

Matthew 2:15 - Here Matthew quotes from Hosea 11:1. Upon closer inspection, Hosea 11:1 does not seem to have anything to do with the Messiah. In Hosea 11:1 God is recounting his relationship with Israel, his "son". Yahweh had been very good to Israel, even calling them out of bondage in Egypt. But Israel had been a rebellious son to Yahweh. So the original meaning of Hosea 11:1 seems to have nothing to do with a future Messiah. Why does Matthew think that it does? Matthew is employing what we would now call typology. Israel, as God's son, was a type of Christ (the anti-type). If you're not familiar with the concept of typology check out this article. Matthew's point would be that Jesus is the true Israel, the true son of God, the true obedient son - everything Israel was supposed to be.

Matthew 2:18 - Here Matthew quotes from Jeremiah 31:15. In the Jeremiah passage, Judah has just gone into exile in Babylon and Jeremiah is writing to them with some comforting words. Jeremiah's basic point is that they are going to be in exile for awhile so they better get comfortable there. But don't get too comfortable. Though they are now suffering for their sin (Rachael weeping for her lost children - gone in exile), a day is coming when God's wrath will pass away and he will begin to restore his people. Why does Matthew apply this to Jesus? During the time of Jesus, and especially when he was born, Israel was, in many ways, still "in exile". Though they were living in the land, they were suffering under the false King Herod the Great. But Matthew's point seems to be that, with the arrival of Jesus, the time of suffering and the time of God's wrath is coming to an end and the time of restoration (along with the appointing of a true king) has come. The greek word for "fulfill" can also mean "bring to an end" or "bring to completion". So Rachael's weeping for her children suffering in exile is coming to an end. The exile is coming to an end. That's Matthew's point.

Like I said... a bit more complicated than simple "direct promise" -> "direct fulfillment". More nuanced. More beautiful.

Hope that helps.

 

[Alla27]

In the issue of the OP, nobody is doing that. You are shooting to a wrong target.

OK, sorry

 

[ChetSinger]

We were discussing Nazareth in another thread, and I found mention of Matthew 2:23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_2:23

The problem is that there isn't a prophecy in the Bible about Nazareth. Matthew 2:23 is probably the most blatantly bogus prophecy, but an honest appraisal of the other prophecies leads me to question the integrity and/or education of the early Christians who made these claims. Were these people even Jewish? Were they illiterate?

Here is a link to a discussion of these prophecies from an atheist website:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

I've read quite a bit about this prophecy over the years, and the conclusion I've finally accepted as most likely is one you may never have heard.

A good source for it is here: http://christianthinktank.com/fabrach.html

First, notice that Matthew says this was spoken of by "prophets", not "the prophet". That is, we shouldn't be looking at a single OT prophecy, but multiple ones.

But since Nazareth is never mentioned by name anywhere in the OT, what's going on?

There's really only one thing we know about Nazareth during Jesus' time, other than its location: it was a place with a crappy reputation. If you were a Nazarene, you were thought of as a low-life. Here's Nathaniel, talking about Nazareth:

Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

Nazareth was, indeed, such a crummy place that when Jesus offended them in their synagogue they tried to literally throw him out of town. He grew up among them, and they tried to toss him over a cliff? What a bunch of jerks. He was also amazed at their lack of faith.

It had had that reputation for 1,000 years. When Solomon gifted that land to Hiriam, and Hiriam traveled there to inspect it, he was disgusted with what he found and complained to Solomon.

There's even more, in the link, that I won't take the time to type here.

In short, to be labeled a Nazarene was to be despised. And that is the gist of this prophecy: he was called a Nazarene in order to fulfill the OT passages that the messiah was to be despised and rejected by men. Matthew's gospel was directed at Jews, and this passage is local color that would've baffled a Gentile audience but been understood by a Jewish one.

This is the most convincing explanation I've heard. And I've heard quite a few.

 

[cloudyday2]

OK, sorry

Actually, your point that the OT has probably changed seems relevant. It supports the argument that the Nazareth prophecy came from a lost scripture as opposed to being a ridiculous reference to Samson's Nazarite vow.

Here is a article about the Biblical canon. The canon was still fluid at the time when Matthew was written. The Christians probably evolved out of the Jews who revered the book of Enoch and other texts that have been lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Also, within each book of the canon, there have been edits over the centuries. Isaiah was written by several authors. The Torah was composed from earlier stories. Most of the gospels were composed from earlier texts and had later edits. Things can easily get lost in the shuffle.

Of course, the ridiculousness of the other prophecies in Matthew make me suspect that the prophecy of Nazareth was more of the same. In other words, I don't think it referenced some scripture that was later lost.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't think that Matthew is referring to Samson in Matt 2:23. But if he is, then he's probably doing something similar to what he's doing in Matthew 2:15 and Matthew 2:18. Let me explain what Matthew means by "fulfill" in each of these passages.

Matthew 2:15 - Here Matthew quotes from Hosea 11:1. Upon closer inspection, Hosea 11:1 does not seem to have anything to do with the Messiah. In Hosea 11:1 God is recounting his relationship with Israel, his "son". Yahweh had been very good to Israel, even calling them out of bondage in Egypt. But Israel had been a rebellious son to Yahweh. So the original meaning of Hosea 11:1 seems to have nothing to do with a future Messiah. Why does Matthew think that it does? Matthew is employing what we would now call typology. Israel, as God's son, was a type of Christ (the anti-type). If you're not familiar with the concept of typology check out this article. Matthew's point would be that Jesus is the true Israel, the true son of God, the true obedient son - everything Israel was supposed to be.

Matthew 2:18 - Here Matthew quotes from Jeremiah 31:15. In the Jeremiah passage, Judah has just gone into exile in Babylon and Jeremiah is writing to them with some comforting words. Jeremiah's basic point is that they are going to be in exile for awhile so they better get comfortable there. But don't get too comfortable. Though they are now suffering for their sin (Rachael weeping for her lost children - gone in exile), a day is coming when God's wrath will pass away and he will begin to restore his people. Why does Matthew apply this to Jesus? During the time of Jesus, and especially when he was born, Israel was, in many ways, still "in exile". Though they were living in the land, they were suffering under the false King Herod the Great. But Matthew's point seems to be that, with the arrival of Jesus, the time of suffering and the time of God's wrath is coming to an end and the time of restoration (along with the appointing of a true king) has come. The greek word for "fulfill" can also mean "bring to an end" or "bring to completion". So Rachael's weeping for her children suffering in exile is coming to an end. The exile is coming to an end. That's Matthew's point.

Like I said... a bit more complicated than simple "direct promise" -> "direct fulfillment". More nuanced. More beautiful.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for taking the time to post that theory. I don't agree with it, because even the typology seems ridiculous. A real typology would be have many similarities, and the similarities would be profound. Apparently some Christians buy that argument, but it seems unpersuasive to me.

 

[cloudyday2]

I've read quite a bit about this prophecy over the years, and the conclusion I've finally accepted as most likely is one you may never have heard.

A good source for it is here: http://christianthinktank.com/fabrach.html

First, notice that Matthew says this was spoken of by "prophets", not "the prophet". That is, we shouldn't be looking at a single OT prophecy, but multiple ones.

But since Nazareth is never mentioned by name anywhere in the OT, what's going on?

There's really only one thing we know about Nazareth during Jesus' time, other than its location: it was a place with a crappy reputation. If you were a Nazarene, you were thought of as a low-life. Here's Nathaniel, talking about Nazareth:


Nazareth was, indeed, such a crummy place that when Jesus offended them in their synagogue they tried to literally throw him out of town. He grew up among them, and they tried to toss him over a cliff? What a bunch of jerks. He was also amazed at their lack of faith.

It had had that reputation for 1,000 years. When Solomon gifted that land to Hiriam, and Hiriam traveled there to inspect it, he was disgusted with what he found and complained to Solomon.

There's even more, in the link, that I won't take the time to type here.

In short, to be labeled a Nazarene was to be despised. And that is the gist of this prophecy: he was called a Nazarene in order to fulfill the OT passages that the messiah was to be despised and rejected by men. Matthew's gospel was directed at Jews, and this passage is local color that would've baffled a Gentile audience but been understood by a Jewish one.

This is the most convincing explanation I've heard. And I've heard quite a few.

Well, that argument is supported by John 1:46 I suppose. It doesn't explain all the other ridiculous claims of prophecies in Matthew. I haven't read the entire link, and I see that it addresses some of these other problems.

 

[cloudyday2]

One argument against the lost scripture explanation for the Nazarene prophecy is that Christians would have preserved this scripture.

 

[danny ski]

One argument against the lost scripture explanation for the Nazarene prophecy is that Christians would have preserved this scripture.

Sometimes the simplest answers are the best. Simply, there's no such prophecy. Matt 2 15 is another such "prophecy".

 

[cloudyday2]

Sometimes the simplest answers are the best. Simply, there's no such prophecy. Matt 2 15 is another such "prophecy".

What I can't decide is whether the author of Matthew was deceiving others or deceiving himself. At that time, manuscripts were expensive and had variations.

In other words, was the author of Matthew deliberately deceiving his readers? Some scholars think the gospels were midrash. I understand that to mean that the author and the wiser readers understand that this is a work of fiction, but the fiction serves some benign instructional purpose.

I imagine the author of Matthew was a sincere person who believed what he wrote, but he may not have had access to the scriptures, and his source material was the early Christian folklore.