Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

[-Peacemaker-]

Originally Posted by Poisonshady313

On a probably less important note... did you notice that Matthew said "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled" while showing me that the text is supposed to be from Zechariah? Another indication that the gospel writer was inept, or he expected his audience to be.


Let me show you the artscroll version of the passage at hand:

I said to the people "If it is proper in your eyes, give Me My fee, and if not refrain." So they weighed out My fee: thirty silver coins. The Lord said to me, "Throw it to the treasurer of the Precious Stronghold, which I have divested from them." So I threw it into the Temple of the Lord, to the treasurer.


This is one of those that isn't even a prophecy, much less a messianic prophecy.

I request that you give this whole chapter a good read, and come to me with questions you may have about it.

Zechariah - Chapter 11 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

What happened to the mention of the potter?

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by Junglej25

What happened to the mention of the potter?

There is none.

Interesting, no?

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by Junglej25

As always, a compelling apologetic exists to explain all





Apologetics Press - Who was Matthew Quoting?

Who was Matthew Quoting?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After reporting in his gospel account about Judas’ suicide and the purchase of the potter’s field, Matthew quoted from the prophets as he had done many times prior to chapter 27. He wrote: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me’ ” (27:9-10). For centuries, these two verses have been contemplated by Christians and criticized by skeptics. The alleged problem with this passage, as one modern-day critic noted, is that “this is not a quote from Jeremiah, but a misquote of Zechariah” (Wells, 2001). Skeptics purport that Matthew misused Zechariah 11:12-13, and then mistakenly attributed the quotation to Jeremiah. Sadly, even some Christians have advocated this idea (see Cukrowski, et al., 2002, p. 40). What can be said of the matter?
As with all alleged contradictions, critics and skeptics should have investigated further (i.e., study with diligence and handle the Scriptures correctly—2 Timothy 2:15) before making such boisterous claims that Matthew mishandled the prophets’ words. Three considerations help clarify the situation. First, notice carefully that Matthew did not say that Jeremiah wrote this particular prophecy; rather, he indicated that this prophecy was spoken by Jeremiah. Similar to how Paul’s quotation of Jesus (recorded in Acts 20:35—“It is more blessed to give than to receive”) was from something Jesus verbally stated that never was recorded by one of the gospel writers, it may be that Jeremiah once spoke the prophecy in question, but never had Baruch, his amanuensis, put it in written form. Truly, one should not automatically expect to find a written account of a prophecy when the New Testament writer mentions it as having been spoken. Also, it should not be surprising to us if the Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire Jeremiah to speak these words, and then a few years later to inspire Zechariah to put a similar sentiment in written form.
Second, in Jesus’ day, rabbinical practice entailed identifying quotations by the name of the first book in a group of books that had been clustered by literary genre. Writing in the journal Bibliotheca Sacra over a half a century ago, Charles Feinberg commented on this point, saying, “The Talmudic tradition [e.g., Baba Bathra 14b—DM/EL] shows that the prophetic writings in order of their place in the sacred books was Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. This order is found in many Hebrew MSS…. Matthew, then quoted the passage as from the roll of the prophets, which roll is cited by the first book” (1945, p. 72). Furthermore, in all of the quotations from Zechariah in the New Testament, no mention is ever made of his name in conjunction with the prophecies (cf. Matthew 21:4; 26:31; John 12:14; 19:37). Thus, it is logical to conclude that Matthew merely referred to this whole division of the Old Testament by naming its first book (Jeremiah), just as Jesus referred to the “writings” section of the Old Testament by the name of its first book, Psalms (Luke 24:44). Jeremiah could have served as the designation for quotations from any of the included books. (Another example is found in Mark 1:2-3 where Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 are blended and attributed to Isaiah.)
Third, and perhaps most important, Old Testament context is critical in sorting out the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. New Testament writers frequently were guided by the Holy Spirit to weave the thought of several Old Testament contexts into a single application. Matthew referred to a series of details in the following order: the thirty pieces of silver (vs. 3); Judas threw the silver down in the temple (vs. 5); the chief priests took the silver and bought the potter’s field (vs. 6-7); and the field is named (vs. 8).
Matthew then quoted from the Old Testament (vss. 9-10). Notice the comparison between Matthew’s wording and the Old Testament references:

Matthew
Zechariah

“And they took the thirty pieces of silver”
“So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.”
“the value of him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced”
“And the Lord said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—that princely price they set on me.”
“And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me”
“So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter.”

Jeremiah

“Arise and go down to the potter’s house…there he was, making something at the wheel” (18:2-3).
“Go and get a potter’s earthen flask…and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom” (19:1-2).
“Even so I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel” (19:11).
“Please buy my field that is in Anathoth…. So I bought the field…and weighed out to him the money—seventeen shekels of silver” (32:8-9).

Matthew’s use of Zechariah is clearly paraphrastic, drawing from its wording while adjusting locus. In Matthew, the chief priests took the money returned by Judas; in Zechariah, Zechariah requested wages from the people. In Matthew, Judas threw the money on the ground before the chief priests; in Zechariah, Zechariah was told to throw the money “to the potter,” which was achieved by throwing it into the house of the Lord for the potter. Matthew’s greatest emphasis is on the acquisition of a potter’s field. Zechariah says nothing about a field.
It is not until one peruses the pages of Jeremiah that one sees the striking resemblance, first to Zechariah, and then to Matthew’s narrative. Zechariah’s allusion to the potter harks back to the imagery and symbolism of Jeremiah. But Matthew’s allusion to the potter’s field harks back to Jeremiah—not Zechariah. So Matthew was demonstrating the overriding superintendence of the Holy Spirit, Who was combining and summarizing elements of prophetic symbolism both from Zechariah and from Jeremiah.
A superficial assessment of the surface tension between Matthew and Jeremiah fails to grasp the complexity and sophistication of the ultimate Mind behind Matthew’s handling of the sacred text. The one who assumes error on the part of Bible writers inevitably fails to probe the depths of inspired writ to discover the ingenuity and power that reside there.

REFERENCES

I hate to sound like a broken record, but this seems to be written either by someone who doesn't know any better, or who expects you not to know any better.


Seriously... Read Zechariah 11. Read Jeremiah 18, 19, and 32.

If you want to break it down into specifics, I suppose we can go that route... but in general, having read this apologetic you present... it's not very compelling. It's rather sloppy and nonsensical.

[Poisonshady313]

Also... where the hell does the concept of betrayal come from? Who was being betrayed in either Zechariah or Jeremiah that this whole Judas thing is supposed to be a parallel to?

It's like the gospel writer searched the scriptures for any mention of money... any mention at all... wrote down all the references he could find on separate pieces of paper, mixed them all together, and pulled one out of a hat. The one he found was thirty pieces of silver... and having absolutely no idea whatsoever what the context of this verse was, decided to write it into the narrative.

We don't have a mixup in translation, interpretation, or anything of the sort.

We have both the gospel writer and the guy who complies these lists just making stuff up.

Just making stuff up.

And the guy writing the apologetic... he has no idea what's going on... all he knows is, it's written in the book of Matthew so it MUST be meaningful, and critics must just not get it.

Nobody was even trying with this one. It's kinda embarrassing.

[Poisonshady313]

I gave you the link to Zechariah 11. I want to show you the footnotes from the artscroll for the verses you highlighted.

Understand that the speaker of verse 12 is God.

Footnote to Zech 11:12 If you want Me to be your Shepherd, you must pay My fee, namely, you must righteously observe My laws. But as the verse goes on, only thirty people were truly righteous.

Footnote to Zech 11:13 By throwing the deeds of these thirty righteous people into the Temple, Zechariah symbolized that the Temple would be rebuilt because of their merits.

[esmith]

According to the NRSV
Zechariah 11:1-3 is a "Taunt against Israel's norther neighbors. The regions personified and characterized by three trees, two of which are fabled --cedars of Lenanon (Ezek 31.3) and oaks of Bashan (Ezek 27.6) which was in northern Transjordan. Shepherds and lions probably symbolize communal leaders. The destruction will affect foliage as far away as the Jordan Valley."

Zechariah 11:4-17 Diverse oracles and reports, all using the metaphor of a shepherd for the community's leader (13:7-9). 4-6:An unnamed person, perhaps the prophet Zechariah, is charged to lead the community, which is doomed. 7-14: The symbolic action is reported by the individual who wields and then destroys two shepherd's staffs, symbolizing the end of a covenantal relationship.12-13: Thirty shekels of silver: Exodus 21:32 stipulates this amount as restitution for a slave gored by an ox. Other ancient texts understand this to be a trifling amount of money. 15-16: The deity commands a second symbolic action, again involvinga shepherd's implements. 17: Woe oracle against the community's leader.

According to this I see no correlation between Zechariah 11 and Judas in the NT. Numerology was common in the Ancient Near East, and who knows what the number 30 could represent. Also the NRSV has the 30 shekels of silver thrown into the treasury; However the Syriac Version translates to "potter"

[-Peacemaker-]

I agree the explanation below Jeremiah is confusing. I chose that apologetic because I thiought it was an interesting explanation about how Jeremiah is mentioned in Matt but Zechariah is what's quoted.

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by Junglej25

I agree the explanation below Jeremiah is confusing. I chose that apologetic because I thiought it was an interesting explanation about how Jeremiah is mentioned in Matt but Zechariah is what's quoted.

Its main feature is that we have to just take Jesus' word for it... which is something I'm not inclined to do. I have no reason to believe that Jeremiah spoke the words that were written by Zechariah, nor do I buy that people quoting scripture would refer to the first of a series of books to reference a book that was not the first book. They'd just say "The Prophets" or "The Torah".

The first and second considerations kinda cancel each other out. If you have one, you don't need the other, but he's asking you to consider all three. Either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he hopes that you don't.

And his second consideration.... I don't know if you ever bother to follow up on citations, but I checked out Baba Bathra 14b, and it listed first among the writings section of the "Old Testament" the book of Ruth.

So when the apologetic says "just as Jesus referred to the “writings” section of the Old Testament by the name of its first book, Psalms (Luke 24:44).", it's clear that he's just clueless. I don't know if he's the one doing the lying, or if he's been very easily lied to.

Either way, it doesn't help make the case that Zech 11 belongs in this list of 48 prophecies allegedly fulfilled by Jesus.

BTW... are you keeping track of the numbers? Are we counting each chapter as a one out of 48? (which would bring us to 3 at this point), or the various "prophecies" contained therein (which would make this something like 15 if we count the three from Zech 11 and the 12 I picked out from Pegg's list regarding Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53)?

Do you have anything else regarding Zech 11, or are we ready to move on?

[-Peacemaker-]

BORN OF A VIRGIN

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 700 B.C. Mattthew 1:20-23 [20] But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. [21] She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." [22] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: [23] "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us.

[esmith]

The translation of Isaiah 7:14 has been mistranslated. The actual translation is "young woman" not virgin. The NRSV reads in this manner and there is also various sources showing this:

Isaiah 7:14 Translation Issues
Catholic Culture Latest Views On Isaiah 7:14

As far as this prophecy goes it appears that it has now been rendered false.