Mac

Assuming you are simply refering to the prophesies allegedly dealing with Jesus, that would very likely be because the NT writers/editors had access to the prequel.

Mac

bakura82

The Return from Egypt [A Jewish Perspective]

Matthew goes on to claim that to evade Herod's murders, Jesus was taken as a child to Egypt. This is done, according to Matthew 2:15, in order "that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Out of Egypt did I call my son.'" This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which is not a messianic prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt.

This passage is just another case of typology, and so the argument doesn't find the intended target. A simplified version of many of these arguments looks like this:

1. The OT passage is describing a PAST event.
2. (PAST events can have NO future messianic pattern-predictive content/implications.)
3. Therefore, this OT passage can have NO messianic pattern-predictive content/implications.

The problem is obviously with statement #2 above, for we have demonstrated amply that the very OPPOSITE was true-MOST major past events in Israel's history were ASSUMED to have predictive elements, under the structure of typology. This was NOT a 'Christian Invention', as we demonstrated. Therefore, all such objections are off-target, due to the incorrect middle premise.

But this still doesn't answer the question of WHY Matthew used this passage-it DOES look a bit strange to 'Western minds'. We have seen that typology would be an appropriate vehicle for understanding this connection, but is there something MORE TO IT?

Indeed, in this passage we see the peculiar Semitic notion of 'corporate solidarity', that forms an ever-present substrate in biblical teaching, and which goes BEYOND typology.

In what sense can we say that Israel was a type of the Messiah? The 'my son' element in the passage in Matthew tips us off that the element of sonship may be the pivotal concept.

In the OT, YHWH uses the term 'son' in several different settings:

1. The nation of Israel (Ex 4:22,23-"Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me.")

2. The promised Son of David (2 Samuel 7: "'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son." See also Psalm 2, Psalm 89:26f)

3. Individual Israelites (Dt 32.19-" The LORD saw this and rejected them because he was angered by his sons and daughters." See also Hos 1.10)

4. Angelic figures (Job 1,2; Psalm 82:6; Dan 3.25)

In this case, the usage of "My son" for BOTH Israel AND the promised Son of David is the crux of the matter. If there is some REAL identification of the two in Israelite thought, then applying a passage ORIGINALLY used on one semantic target, to the OTHER one, in a different context, would be perfectly acceptable, and be even STRONGER of a link than simple typology.

Enter the concept of Corporate Solidarity. (For the seminal work on this topic, see H.W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, 1964). This notion is somewhat bizarre to western minds, to be sure, but was part and parcel of the ANE worldview. It is summarized in Reumann's introduction to Robinson's work:

Eichrodt has one of the better descriptions of how this looked to the individual in Isreal (The Theology of the Old Testament, vol II, 175):

Even though there are examples of ordinary individuals affecting the community this way (e.g. Joshua 7.1), the three most explicit identifications are 1) father=offspring; 2) king=nation; and 3) Servant of YHWH=nation (or remnant).

1. Father = Offspring
This has been dealt with in the typology piece, and was pervasive throughout both Israel and her neighbors in the ANE. (For a full discussion, see Eichrodt, II: 231-267). It has no relevance to the passage before us [but does in many cases, in which David (father)= Son of David (offspring).]

2. King = Nation
This is where the King 'sums up' or embodies the whole of the Nation. The familiar stories in 2 Sam 12 and 24 demonstrate how the sin of the king (i.e. David) resulted in judgment on the nation, and the theological histories we call the books of I and II Kings record soberly how the moral failures of Israel's leaders resulted in the great judgments.

3. Servant = Nation
This is where the celebrated Servant of YHWH in Isaiah (specifically in the Servant Songs-principally 42:1-4; 49:1-13; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12) is identified with the nation Israel and often with the righteous remnant of Israel.

The Servant Song passages are notoriously complex, but the Servant designation is variously applied to Israel the nation AND to some individual/remnant group that 'ministers' to Israel (1st and 2nd Songs), and in the 3rd and 4th Songs, the emphasis seems to be on an individual (e.g. birth, obedience, suffering, death, triumph, sacrifice)-beyond the bounds of simple personification. [see ZPEB, "Servant of the Lord" and EBC, VI: 17-19.] Jewish interpreters over the ages have identified the Servant with historical Israel, the faithful remnant, Ideal Israel, and various historical characters (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, Zerubbabel, Cyrus, the Messiah).

The relevance of this to our study here should be clear. The identification of Israel-King-Messianic Servant --at the corporate solidarity level-allows NT (and Jewish) writers to see OT passages in the wider messianic complex of concepts. Longnecker (BEAP: 94) states it carefully:

The Net: Not only would typology allow Matthew to use Hosea 11.1 in reference to Christ, but the pervasive concept of solidarity between the Messiah and the Nation gives even stronger support for the legitimacy of his exegesis.

bakura82

In regards to the messianic time line, I think you will find this link more useful in answering your questions. Please click here.

The following might help you, but I think the previous link will be better.

Food for thought - you may want to look into this...

DANIEL'S 70 WEEKS

I. Scripture: Dan.9:24-27.
II. Background to the revelation.
A. It takes place at the end of the 70 years of Babylonian captivity, Dan.9:1 (around 538BC, in the first year of Darius).
B. The time of the vision is 538BC, about 67 years after the first fall of Jerusalem in 605BC when Daniel was captured.
C. It occurred after Daniel had his 70year breakthrough while studying Jeremiah, Jer.25:11,12; 29:1014.
D. It occurred while Daniel was praying for his nation, Dan.9:4-19; cf. Lev.26.
E. It was revealed by Gabriel, Dan.9:20-23.
III. The entire prophecy has to do with Daniel's city and people (Jerusalem and the Jews), Dan.9:24.
IV. The term "weeks" refers to years of 360 days each (common ancient calendar).
A. Hebrew bv; shav: seven.
B. Israel had both a seven of days (weekly Sabbath) and a Sabbatical Year in a seven of years, Lev.25:3,4.
C. Days renders the prophecy absurd.
D. Besides, Daniel's breakthrough involves a seven of years, Dan.9:2.
E. The 70 seven's of Dan.9 are equal to 490 years of 360 days each.
V. The 490 year period began March 5, 444BC, when Artaxerxes decreed to rebuild Jerusalem, Neh.1:14; 2:1; Dan.9:25.
A. This decree is not to be confused with the decree to rebuild the temple, Ezr.1:1,2; 4:15,11-24; 6:15,14,15; 7:11,20,27.
VI. The 69th week of years (483 years) ended, to the day, when Messiah rode up to Jerusalem in fulfillment of Zech.9:9.
A. It was the 173,880th day, or March 30, 33AD, on a Monday.
B. Jesus recognized that day as His formal rejection by the nation, Lk.19:42.
C. The day was the very last day of the 69th week. After that, the prophecy said Messiah would be cut off.
D. The things producing prosperity are mentioned in Dan.9:24,25.
E. Ignorance of this led to the nation's destruction, Lk.19:44.
VII. The parenthesis between the 69th and 70th week.
A. The continuous interpretation, that the 70th week followed the 69th, renders the prophecy absurd.
B. Two prophetic events occur before the 70th week and after the 69th week:
1. The Cross.
2. The fifth cycle in 70AD.
C. Many Old Testament prophecies postulate a gap or parenthesis, Isa.9:6.
D. To Daniel and other prophets, this gap presented a problem, 1Pet.1:11.
E. The existence of the present dispensation solved the problem.
VIII. The period between the 69th and 70th week is characterized by war, Dan.9:26; Mt.24:6.
IX. The 70th week is a 7year period between the Rapture and the Second Advent (these are still 360-day years, not 365.25636 sidereal day years).
A. The Church will not go through this period, Rev.3:10.
B. For purposes of analysis, the Tribulation (the 70th week) is divided into 2 halves of 1,260 days each, Dan.9:27; Rev.12:14; 11:2,3; 13:5; 12:16.
C. The Antichrist will make a 7year pact with Israel in the middle of the week.
D. This pact is in response to America's nuclear annihilation and Russia's threats to Israel.
E. Israel will be disciplined for making a "covenant with death", Isa.28:15.
F. For protection, Israel must accept the Antichrist as God, 2Thess.2:4; Rev.13.
G. He will be destroyed by the Lord Jesus Christ at the Second Advent, Dan.9:27; 2Thess.2:8.

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: bakura82 ]

bakura82

Does almah mean young woman or virgin?

A common argument raised against the "virgin birth" and against the New Testament's reference to Isaiah 7:14, is that the Hebrew word "almah" does not mean virgin, and Jews do not believe in such a thing as a virgin birth.

Archaeological findings show that the Hebrew word "almah" refers to a virgin. The possibility of a virgin birth is upheld by open-minded Jewish sages and scholars, even those who are not believers in Jesus.

Here is the verse in question in two different translations:
Cyrus Gordon, a leading Jewish scholar who was formerly Professor of Assyriology and Egyptology, Dropsie College, wrote:

-- "'Almah in Isaiah 7:14," Journal of Bible and Religion 21 (1953), p. 106.

Jewish sages have sometimes had something to say about the possibility of a virgin birth:

Abraham Farissol, medieval Jewish sage:

--quoted by Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (New York: KTAV/ADL, 1977), p. 153.

The Nizzahon Vetus, medieval work of polemics:

--David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996, © 1979), p. 103.

Contemporary scholar Adam Kamesar:

--Adam Kamesar, "The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century," Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., vol. 41 part 1 (April 1990), p. 51.

Pitshade

Bakura82, the essay you quoted does not address the issue in dispute, that is whether or not Hosea 11:1 refers to a messiah when it states, “Out of Egypt, I have called my Son.” The article’s contention that a Jewish writer might use a past event as an allegory for a future one way be true, but it does not make a case that this particular past event is allegorical. Looking at the surrounding passages in Hosea for clues as to the context of 11:1 shows that Israel the nation is being referred to, but makes no sense if interpreted for a messianic figure.

Hosea 10:13-15 says, “You have plowed iniquity, you have reaped injustice, you have eaten the fruit of lies. Because you have trusted in your chariots and in the multitude of your warriors, therefore the tumult of war shall arise among your people, and all your fortresses shall be destroyed, as Shalman destroyed Beth-ar'bel on the day of battle; mothers were dashed in pieces with their children. Thus it shall be done to you, O house of Israel, because of your great wickedness. In the storm the king of Israel shall be utterly cut off.” This immediately precedes the alleged prophecy!

Hosea 11:5 says, “ They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me. ”

There is no break in the passages to indicate that it now refers to another subject, or even a combined subject (as your essay suggests.) Therefore whatever applies to ‘Israel’ in Hosea 10 and the rest of Hosea 11 must also apply to Hosea 11:1!

Hosea 11:2 continues the passage about whoever is called ‘out of Egypt, saying, “ The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Ba'als, and burning incense to idols. ” If you choose to interpret ‘Son’ to refer to Jesus as well as the nation of Israel, you must consider several things:

• Did Jesus make sacrifices to Ba’als?
• Did Jesus burn incense to idols?
• Did Jesus return to Egypt and so that he could be ruled over by Assyrians?

Or will he fulfill these prophecies when he returns?

ex-preacher

Dear Uncle Onion,

I have done some research for you on the 70 weeks prophecy.

First some quotes from a conservative source (Edward Young in The New Bible Commentary, which regards the Bible as inerrant): “This prophecy of the seventy sevens is one of the most difficult in the entire OT, and although the interpretations are almost legion, we shall confine ourselves to the discussion of three which may be regarded as of particular importance.” The three theories he discusses are:

1. That the passage refers to Antiochus Epiphanes; the “desolation” in v. 27 occurred under Antiochus; the anointed one of v. 25 is the priest Onias III. Young says that this view is accepted by virtually all scholars who reject “the absolute trustworthiness and divine authority of the Scriptures.” Thus, he concludes, it can’t be right.

2. The dispensationalist view takes the starting of the seventy sevens as 445 BC. They think that the anointed one is Jesus, but that the seventieth week won’t start until the rapture and tribulation. They think we are living in the “parenthetical” church age that wasn’t revealed to Daniel (or any other OT prophet). Young points out several fatal flaws of this interpretation.

3. The traditional messianic view, and the one favored by Young, views the numbers (70 weeks) as purely symbolic thus relieving themselves of the impossible task of matching the numbers of years with actual events. They view the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in AD 70 as part of the fulfillment.

Here are the flaws I see with JW interpretation that you posted.
1. Where did they get the starting date of 455 BC? Most scholars, including the conservative Young, view the starting event as Cyrus’ decree to rebuild Jerusalem which came in 538 BC. Dispensationalists, and some others, put the date at 444 BC, when Nehemiah was commissioned to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. They like this date because it puts them closer to matching the ministry of Jesus. Unfortunately, they still miss it since this puts the end of the sixty-nine weeks in AD 38, well after the death of Jesus. (Some recalculate using a 360 day year as our friend above has shown). I have never heard or seen the date 455 BC used. What is their pretext for using this date?
2. Even with the 455 BC date, there are problems. The JW material says that Jesus began his ministry in AD 29 and died in the spring of AD 33. However, the best chronologies I have seen put his death in 29. This completely ruins their chronology. I wouldn’t be surprised if they revise their starting date to 459 BC to “fix” the prophecy. They also must have a 3 ½ year ministry in order for everything to work. Yet, scholars are divided as to whether Jesus’ ministry lasted 1, 2, 3 or 4 years.
3. They say that the seventieth week ended with the conversion of Cornelius in the autumn of 36. Two big problems here. Jewish sacrifices continued until AD 70, yet the prophecies say sacrifices will end in the 70th week. I don’t at all buy their rationalization. Second problem: how do they know Cornelius was converted in the autumn of 36? As far as I can tell, they just made that up because it comes 3 ½ years after the spring of 33. There is absolutely no way to know when Cornelius was converted since Acts gives no reference points that could be used to date the event. I can’t even find a source that will attempt to date the event.

There are other major problems with the JW interpretation. If you just read Daniel 9:25-27 there are numerous things that don’t fit with Jesus’ life. Jerusalem was not destroyed in Jesus’ lifetime. There was no war then. The one who ends sacrifices is the same one who causes the “abomination that causes desolation.” That’s why some say the anointed one refers to Jesus while others say it is the Antichrist.

In answer to the question about the messianic prophecies in general: The Jewish messianic prophecies speak almost exclusively of a military ruler who will deliver Israel. Jesus didn’t do this. They say nothing about the messiah being divine or the son of God. This is why virtually all Jews then and now have rejected the claim that Jesus was the messiah. Most of the “fulfilled prophecies” claimed by Matthew weren’t prophecies at all. He had a fertile imagination and a deep desire to prove that Jesus was the messiah.

ex-preacher

I'm not sure why Bakura82 has started posting information on Hosea 11:1 and Isaiah 7:14. Obviously, you are trying to make an apologetic case. I think the www.jewsforjudaism.org folks have a slightly better grasp on the meaning of the OT prophecies than the Jews for Jesus people. If you will read the context of Hosea 11:1 and Isaiah 7:14 it becomes painfully clear that neither is a messianic prophecy. The Hosea passage isn't a prophecy at all. Matthew even invented a trip to Egypt just to try to create both a prophecy and a fulfillment. You gotta give him points for trying. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it is clear that the one prophesied is not Jesus at all. As you note the Jews of that time had a truly bizarre way of interpreting Scripture so that anything could become a prophecy. The problem with their method is that virtually anyone can use virtually any passage to prove virtually anything. A very flexible method and one that Matthew stretched to the limits (and beyond).

Pitshade

He was responding to the first post I made on this thread. I chose to use the Matthew 2-Hosea 11 problem to show Matthew's grasping for prophecies.

ex-preacher

Ah, yes, now I see. I had forgotten, my apologies. I stand by the rest of my post.

Boro Nut

You say' I will ride on an ass.
Our survey says - "Bing" That's our top answer.

You say, people will throw twigs.
Our survey says - "Bing"

You say, the world will end by Tuesday.
Our survey says - "Du - oh"
Groan. You were so close to the car then. Can we see the top answer? Oh, it was "It won't." Hard luck.

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Boro Nut ]