How Much Did The .....

[wpe3bql]

..... OT Prophets Have Really Detailed, Intimate Knowledge of the Fine Points of the Prophecies of Future Events that were Contained Within the Prophecies That God Gave Them to Write Down in Their Specific Prophecies?

Currently I'm doing a review of the various OT prophets proclamations starting with Elijah and going through the remainder of the OT prophets, ending in Malachi.

It seems that some of the things that these OT prophets made predictions that were fulfilled very soon after they were originally proclaimed, while, OTOH, many of their predictions were never fulfilled within or close to that prophet's life span here on the earth.

For example, in Isaiah 44 & 45, as well as in various parts of Ezra 1 through to Chapter 6 of Ezra, you find the name of Cyrus mentioned as being, in the case of Isaiah 44:28 as being God's "shepherd."

But Cyrus was born at least 100 to possibly 200 years after Isaiah died--thus making it humanly impossible for Isaiah to have had any real personal knowledge of Cyrus--who BTW was a Gentile, not a Jewish, leader.

Moreover, Isaiah made many well known prophecies pertaining to Jesus Christ in either His first coming to earth or His second coming, or both advents.

That being established, did Isaiah really know about the Son of God in the sense that He is revealed in the NT Gospel narratives, or did he just blindly set into writing what we find in these Messianic prophecies in Isaiah?

Some skeptics claim that the answer to this mysterious dilemma in Isaiah is that a later writer more or less "kidnapped" the name of Isaiah and inserted these Messianic prophecies at a much later date than the original era in which Isaiah lived which some scholars date as being perhaps about 700 BC.

I don't buy that argument because IMHO, that strikes me as being rather deceptive in that, if it were true, these later additions were very uniquely woven within the original narrative which would have required almost a wholesale "re-editing" of the text that we find in our Bibles today.

Moreover, many of these Messianic prophecies seem to feature a much later Kingdom that has yet to be established--as John describes in the latter chapters of Revelation reveals.

What's your take on these problems that seem to be inherent not only in Isaiah, but in other OT prophetic books as well?

 

[Darrell C]

..... OT Prophets Have Really Detailed, Intimate Knowledge of the Fine Points of the Prophecies of Future Events that were Contained Within the Prophecies That God Gave Them to Write Down in Their Specific Prophecies?

Currently I'm doing a review of the various OT prophets proclamations starting with Elijah and going through the remainder of the OT prophets, ending in Malachi.

It seems that some of the things that these OT prophets made predictions that were fulfilled very soon after they were originally proclaimed, while, OTOH, many of their predictions were never fulfilled within or close to that prophet's life span here on the earth.

For example, in Isaiah 44 & 45, as well as in various parts of Ezra 1 through to Chapter 6 of Ezra, you find the name of Cyrus mentioned as being, in the case of Isaiah 44:28 as being God's "shepherd."

But Cyrus was born at least 100 to possibly 200 years after Isaiah died--thus making it humanly impossible for Isaiah to have had any real personal knowledge of Cyrus--who BTW was a Gentile, not a Jewish, leader.

Moreover, Isaiah made many well known prophecies pertaining to Jesus Christ in either His first coming to earth or His second coming, or both advents.

That being established, did Isaiah really know about the Son of God in the sense that He is revealed in the NT Gospel narratives, or did he just blindly set into writing what we find in these Messianic prophecies in Isaiah?

Some skeptics claim that the answer to this mysterious dilemma in Isaiah is that a later writer more or less "kidnapped" the name of Isaiah and inserted these Messianic prophecies at a much later date than the original era in which Isaiah lived which some scholars date as being perhaps about 700 BC.

I don't buy that argument because IMHO, that strikes me as being rather deceptive in that, if it were true, these later additions were very uniquely woven within the original narrative which would have required almost a wholesale "re-editing" of the text that we find in our Bibles today.

Moreover, many of these Messianic prophecies seem to feature a much later Kingdom that has yet to be established--as John describes in the latter chapters of Revelation reveals.

What's your take on these problems that seem to be inherent not only in Isaiah, but in other OT prophetic books as well?

We know none of the Prophets "blindly set into writing" the prophecy they were given to convey to men, but were moved of God. And God used men to convey that which He desired to reveal, but that does not mean they understood it. Peter, for example, has revealed to him that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, but, just a few verses later Peter rebukes Christ for presenting the Gospel (Matthew 16).

The Gospel was a Mystery, previously unrevealed truth, and had a particular time of revelation to men by the Same God that revealed the Prophecy that foretold Christ. Many aspects of Prophecy have multiple fulfillments, Christ's coming being a prime example. You rightly note that there still seems to be a fulfillment in regards to Christ, such as we see in Zechariah 14. But for the Israelite, prior to the revelation provided by the New Testament, the fulfillment would have been at the First Advent, and a Return not even contemplated. This explains Peter's opposition to the Gospel and his ultimate denial of the Christ he so magnanimously proclaimed. The Lord told him he minded the things which be of the flesh, and this was, in general, true of all Old Testament Saints.

I would probably suggest a study of the word mystery as a beginning to understanding the magnitude of what took place in Christ and through His Work. Many will equate salvation under the Law and previous economies to that which is available now.

And just something to consider concerning the Prophets and their understanding:



1 Peter 1:10-12King James Version (KJV)

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.


The Prophets foretold the grace which would come unto us. It was revealed that they ministered to a future people and event, and Peter states that these things are now reported (in Peter's day) by them that have preached the Gospel with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, which is the Comforter taught of by Christ and referred to in Acts 1:4-8.

All of Prophecy has to be taken in light of multiple fulfillment, in my view. There are numerous prophecies which could not be understood when first spoken of, such as the Tribulation, which can be seen to have fulfillment in at least two different Ages (one following Daniel's Prophecy, and one following Christ's Prophecy which corresponds to John's Prophecy in Revelation(Matthew 24)).

Another example we might see in the failure to comprehend God's Redemptive Plan prior to the revelation of New Testament truth would be Gentile Inclusion.

It is clearly laid out in God's promises to Abraham and the Prophecy of Isaiah that God would be the Savior of the Gentiles as well:


Genesis 12

King James Version (KJV)

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Isaiah 42:6

King James Version (KJV)

6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;




Abraham did not understand this as we do, nor did Isaiah. But we can see that God has done this very thing through Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant.

As far as those who seek to find contradictions, or deny that Prophecy such as Daniel was Prophecy, that it was written after the fact...do not understand either. Because Scripture is spiritual, and not understood by the natural mind, it is no surprise that critics of Scripture would seek to discredit it. But we know it is, and we accept it as it is written. Our goal is to understand it better, and to do that we need only be diligent in study and rely first and foremost on our Teacher, for Christ promised He would lead us into all truth.


God bless.

 

[wpe3bql]

Thanks for your insight on my OP.

I now recall the explanation that the late David C. Auckland (Who was my pastor from 1969 - 1972, when I was a member of the IFB Faith BC in Sellersville, PA) gave regarding the Greek word mysterion (Strong's numbering 3466), which in our English language NT's is rendered "mystery."

He would remind us that this Greek word should be defined as "a mystery that's more akin to our word 'secret,' and quite often would be used to refer to a 'misunderstood' part of the Old Testament when the OT narrative comes to such subjects as predictive (or, better yet, 'unfulfilled' prophecy as it applied to things that were 'mysteries' to the OT Jews, such as the coming(s) of Jesus Christ and/or His Kingdom, which still remains much of a 'mystery' to us today."

When you put it in that perspective, just as the many prophecies concerning the details of Christ's first coming to this world had to be taken "by faith" to the OT prophet who predicted His first coming to earth as far back as almost 700 years before it was actually fulfilled, we today have to accept the prophecies of His 2nd coming "by faith."

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks for your insight on my OP.

I now recall the explanation that the late David C. Auckland (Who was my pastor from 1969 - 1972, when I was a member of the IFB Faith BC in Sellersville, PA) gave regarding the Greek word mysterion (Strong's numbering 3466), which in our English language NT's is rendered "mystery."

He would remind us that this Greek word should be defined as "a mystery that's more akin to our word 'secret,' and quite often would be used to refer to a 'misunderstood' part of the Old Testament when the OT narrative comes to such subjects as predictive (or, better yet, 'unfulfilled' prophecy as it applied to things that were 'mysteries' to the OT Jews, such as the coming(s) of Jesus Christ and/or His Kingdom, which still remains much of a 'mystery' to us today."

When you put it in that perspective, just as the many prophecies concerning the details of Christ's first coming to this world had to be taken "by faith" to the OT prophet who predicted His first coming to earth as far back as almost 700 years before it was actually fulfilled, we today have to accept the prophecies of His 2nd coming "by faith."

But what is the source of our faith? It is the very Word of God which we have seen consistently fulfilled as foretold.

So our faith is not unreasonable, as critics might charge, or blind, but based on the God Who keeps His promises.

Good news for us, bad news for those who reject it.

That revelation is progressive is one of the primary issues overlooked by some. We can read Zechariah 14 and unlike the Old Testament Saint, understand it is a reference to His Return. They were not aware of this in that Age. So the faith we have in that being fulfilled is built on a substantial record of the accuracy and consistency of Prophecy itself, and goes on to be the source of joy in our hearts.


God bless.

 

[wpe3bql]

But what is the source of our faith? It is the very Word of God which we have seen consistently fulfilled as foretold.

So our faith is not unreasonable, as critics might charge, or blind, but based on the God Who keeps His promises.

Good news for us, bad news for those who reject it.

That revelation is progressive is one of the primary issues overlooked by some. We can read Zechariah 14 and unlike the Old Testament Saint, understand it is a reference to His Return. They were not aware of this in that Age. So the faith we have in that being fulfilled is built on a substantial record of the accuracy and consistency of Prophecy itself, and goes on to be the source of joy in our hearts.


God bless.

 

[wpe3bql]

I guess my OP's "blindly following" expression might be a bit more aggressively-stated adverbial phrase than intended, and for which I ask your forgiveness.

Right now I'm re-reading /re-analyzing/re-contemplating what the HS-inspired prophet Jeremiah to record in what some scholars would claim is the second of the four great divisions of the "weeping prophet's'" major work [Lamentations being his other work]---That of God's judgment on Judah.
Basically, it would seem that collectively Judah's sins were the result of their self-pride run amok such that idolatry took top priority while deep-seated, repentance-based genuine worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob was much maligned and grossly ignored to the extent that the faithful few were even persecuted for following Jehovah God ---- eerily similar to much of what's going on today---and, brings me back to my musings in my OP.

Yes, I know that Jeremiah's original (and, to him at least, was his prime concern) was the final years that led up to the Babylonian Captivity of c. 600 B.C., but I just can't help thinking that some of what he wrote in these chapters was a foreshadowing of:

1) God's judgment on Israel for not only rejecting, but actually "doing away" with God's Only Begotten Son (See, e.g., John 1 ff.) which was brought to realization in less than 40 years after the resurrection---A.D. 70 to be exact---which followed a more direct control of Palestine from Rome than it had during Jesus's earthly ministry; and,

2) In the so-called "Olivet Discourse" that encompasses Matthew 24-25, Christ Himself gives an expose to the three distinct, but yet somehow inter-connected with each other, questions that His disciples asked in In Matthew 24:3, namely:
(A) When shall these things [The destruction of the Temple] be? and
(B) What shall be the sign of thy coming? and
(C) [What shall be the sign] of the end of the world?
How one interprets Matthew 24:4 - 25:46 depends on certain factors of the differing and/or contrasting views of eschatology.

I'll try to continue this in a future post. I haven't had anything to eat since 1615 CDT, & now it's nearing 2400 CDT; thus ...... I think y'all know what I'm-a fixin' ta' does!!!

 

[Darrell C]

I guess my OP's "blindly following" expression might be a bit more aggressively-stated adverbial phrase than intended, and for which I ask your forgiveness.

Right now I'm re-reading /re-analyzing/re-contemplating what the HS-inspired prophet Jeremiah to record in what some scholars would claim is the second of the four great divisions of the "weeping prophet's'" major work [Lamentations being his other work]---That of God's judgment on Judah.
Basically, it would seem that collectively Judah's sins were the result of their self-pride run amok such that idolatry took top priority while deep-seated, repentance-based genuine worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob was much maligned and grossly ignored to the extent that the faithful few were even persecuted for following Jehovah God ---- eerily similar to much of what's going on today---and, brings me back to my musings in my OP.

Yes, I know that Jeremiah's original (and, to him at least, was his prime concern) was the final years that led up to the Babylonian Captivity of c. 600 B.C., but I just can't help thinking that some of what he wrote in these chapters was a foreshadowing of:

1) God's judgment on Israel for not only rejecting, but actually "doing away" with God's Only Begotten Son (See, e.g., John 1 ff.) which was brought to realization in less than 40 years after the resurrection---A.D. 70 to be exact---which followed a more direct control of Palestine from Rome than it had during Jesus's earthly ministry; and,

2) In the so-called "Olivet Discourse" that encompasses Matthew 24-25, Christ Himself gives an expose to the three distinct, but yet somehow inter-connected with each other, questions that His disciples asked in In Matthew 24:3, namely:
(A) When shall these things [The destruction of the Temple] be? and
(B) What shall be the sign of thy coming? and
(C) [What shall be the sign] of the end of the world?
How one interprets Matthew 24:4 - 25:46 depends on certain factors of the differing and/or contrasting views of eschatology.

I'll try to continue this in a future post. I haven't had anything to eat since 1615 CDT, & now it's nearing 2400 CDT; thus ...... I think y'all know what I'm-a fixin' ta' does!!!

Hello W, saw in the other thread that you have had a bit of a rough time of it, so just want to say hope things are better at this time.

Probably the one thing I would comment on would be in regards to...

How one interprets Matthew 24:4 - 25:46 depends on certain factors of the differing and/or contrasting views of eschatology.

We don't want to "interpret based on "contrasting views of Theology," and I know you don't mean they set the standard, but, we interpret based on what the texts actually teach.

For example, Christ's response reveals that they (who He is answering) are to take particular steps when the Abomination of Desolation appears (they are to flee). Now we see this same prophecy in Daniel, which shows that the prophecy had not been fulfilled yet. Certain "Theological Views" believe this was fulfilled in the First Century, yet we cannot see all that Christ teaches fulfilled at this time. We can ascribe events in the First Century as a fulfillment, even as we know Daniel's Prophecy can be seen as fulfilled in History in regards to what took place back then. Both Antiochus Epiphanes and Nero can be seen as "antichrists," but...we don't see the Sheep and Goat Judgment as having taken place yet, primarily because the central point for the questions has not been fulfilled.

That is...the Return of Christ.

So we examine the "Theological Views" in order to see how they correspond to the teaching of Scripture. But we interpret Scripture with Scripture. If we do that, we become less involved in "Theological Views," and more involved with Biblical Views.

Again, I understand your statement, and that it was meant to point out how people interpret Matthew 24-25, and just wanted to point out how, because of association with certain Theologies, some will limit their understanding of Scripture.

And again, hope you are feeling better.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

I believe the fact that the disciples, who lived so close to the closing of the OT canon, and yet had so little understanding of it, would point to the fact that the OT prophets themselves did not understand what they were writing. Had they understood that knowledge would have been passed on.

 

[TCassidy]

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

I believe the fact that the disciples, who lived so close to the closing of the OT canon, and yet had so little understanding of it, would point to the fact that the OT prophets themselves did not understand what they were writing. Had they understood that knowledge would have been passed on.

I have to disagree. Remember the multitudes that followed Jesus during His earthly ministry because they recognized He was the One told of in the Old Testament. He was the "seed of the woman" foretold by the Protoevangelion or "First Preaching of the Gospel" in Genesis.

The people knew of the Messhiac or Messiah and could see in the life of Jesus the fulfillment of those things foretold.

Each of the first 12 disciples understood who Jesus was on the basis of their understanding of the Old Testament. Peter's confession was "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God." Psalm 2:7, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son,Today I have begotten Thee.'"

Psalm 2:11-12 "Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him."

Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name?

The fact of the Son of God was found throughout the Old Testament. The church was made up of such believing Jews until Paul was told to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Why did the Jews believe? Those that knew their bibles, spiritual Israel, recognized Him due to the Old Testament teachings.

All of the Old Testament Prophets preached Christ. They preached Him is type, and sign, and shadow of things to come, but they preached Him and made Him known. Acts 10:43 To him (Christ, the Messiah) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

And I am fairly certain you understand the phrase "through (or in) His name" is a statement of authority, not nomenclature.

We see that illustrated in Matthew 28: 18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

We take the gospel around the world in Jesus' Name. Or "by His authority." This understanding is confirmed in the book of Acts in the verse that has been so abused by the so-called "Church of Christ." Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Luke does not contradict the baptismal formula found in the Gospels (in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). Luke was making a statement of authority. New converts submit to baptism because of the command of God who has the authority to give such a command. And Jesus has that same authority as we see in Acts.

We do the same thing today in a similar way. Have you ever seen a keystone cops movie? The cops run after the criminal and yell "Stop in the name of the law!" Is the cop's name "John Law?" No. It is a statement of authority. The same is true of the "name of Jesus." Even when we pray we say "in Jesus' Name." We say that our prayer is offered under the authority of our Lord and Savior. He commanded us to pray so we pray according to His authority.

 

[Darrell C]

I have to disagree. Remember the multitudes that followed Jesus during His earthly ministry because they recognized He was the One told of in the Old Testament. He was the "seed of the woman" foretold by the Protoevangelion or "First Preaching of the Gospel" in Genesis.

The people knew of the Messhiac or Messiah and could see in the life of Jesus the fulfillment of those things foretold.

Each of the first 12 disciples understood who Jesus was on the basis of their understanding of the Old Testament. Peter's confession was "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God." Psalm 2:7, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son,Today I have begotten Thee.'"

Psalm 2:11-12 "Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him."

Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name?

The fact of the Son of God was found throughout the Old Testament. The church was made up of such believing Jews until Paul was told to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Why did the Jews believe? Those that knew their bibles, spiritual Israel, recognized Him due to the Old Testament teachings.

All of the Old Testament Prophets preached Christ. They preached Him is type, and sign, and shadow of things to come, but they preached Him and made Him known. Acts 10:43 To him (Christ, the Messiah) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

And I am fairly certain you understand the phrase "through (or in) His name" is a statement of authority, not nomenclature.

We see that illustrated in Matthew 28: 18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

We take the gospel around the world in Jesus' Name. Or "by His authority." This understanding is confirmed in the book of Acts in the verse that has been so abused by the so-called "Church of Christ." Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Luke does not contradict the baptismal formula found in the Gospels (in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). Luke was making a statement of authority. New converts submit to baptism because of the command of God who has the authority to give such a command. And Jesus has that same authority as we see in Acts.

We do the same thing today in a similar way. Have you ever seen a keystone cops movie? The cops run after the criminal and yell "Stop in the name of the law!" Is the cop's name "John Law?" No. It is a statement of authority. The same is true of the "name of Jesus." Even when we pray we say "in Jesus' Name." We say that our prayer is offered under the authority of our Lord and Savior. He commanded us to pray so we pray according to His authority.

While we know that Christ is preached by the Prophets in the Old Testament, we also know that there was not one believer in the Old Testament who would qualify to be called a Christian.

There is a difference to be distinguished.

The Prophets themselves did not understand, though they preached Christ.

As far as the disciples, the ones who were actually given the Gospel Message (the population was not), they rejected the Resurrection through which men are saved on an eternal basis, and were unbelievers:

Luke 24

King James Version (KJV)

3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.


Divine truth is always revealed by God to men. Sometimes that revelation is given apart from the understanding of the believer.

Did Peter understand the divine revelation provided by God here...


Matthew 16:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


The answer is no.

We know this based on Peter's reaction to the Gospel, which was still a Mystery at this point:


Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Peter would go on to try to avert the very reason the Son of God came from Heaven, then deny he even knew Christ.

So where is Peter's understanding of the Gospel? Of the Church Christ would build?

The Old Testament understanding of Christ, that which was revealed, did not reveal what was not revealed until it's due time.

That is just a simple truth which will help us not be confused about the Gospel of Christ, and the magnitude of what He accomplished at a specific point in time, that is...

...on the Cross.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

I have to disagree. Remember the multitudes that followed Jesus during His earthly ministry because they recognized He was the One told of in the Old Testament. He was the "seed of the woman" foretold by the Protoevangelion or "First Preaching of the Gospel" in Genesis.

The people knew of the Messhiac or Messiah and could see in the life of Jesus the fulfillment of those things foretold.

In the end he did not have multitudes. He had eleven apostles, and 120 disciples in an upper room praying. The multitudes followed him for the signs that he did.

Each of the first 12 disciples understood who Jesus was on the basis of their understanding of the Old Testament. Peter's confession was "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God." Psalm 2:7, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son,Today I have begotten Thee.'"

Psalm 2:11-12 "Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him."

Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name?

The fact of the Son of God was found throughout the Old Testament. The church was made up of such believing Jews until Paul was told to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Why did the Jews believe? Those that knew their bibles, spiritual Israel, recognized Him due to the Old Testament teachings.

All of the Old Testament Prophets preached Christ. They preached Him is type, and sign, and shadow of things to come, but they preached Him and made Him known. Acts 10:43 To him (Christ, the Messiah) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

And I am fairly certain you understand the phrase "through (or in) His name" is a statement of authority, not nomenclature.

We see that illustrated in Matthew 28: 18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

We take the gospel around the world in Jesus' Name. Or "by His authority." This understanding is confirmed in the book of Acts in the verse that has been so abused by the so-called "Church of Christ." Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Luke does not contradict the baptismal formula found in the Gospels (in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). Luke was making a statement of authority. New converts submit to baptism because of the command of God who has the authority to give such a command. And Jesus has that same authority as we see in Acts.

We do the same thing today in a similar way. Have you ever seen a keystone cops movie? The cops run after the criminal and yell "Stop in the name of the law!" Is the cop's name "John Law?" No. It is a statement of authority. The same is true of the "name of Jesus." Even when we pray we say "in Jesus' Name." We say that our prayer is offered under the authority of our Lord and Savior. He commanded us to pray so we pray according to His authority.

However, in light of the OP:

Moreover, Isaiah made many well known prophecies pertaining to Jesus Christ in either His first coming to earth or His second coming, or both advents.

That being established, did Isaiah really know about the Son of God in the sense that He is revealed in the NT Gospel narratives, or did he just blindly set into writing what we find in these Messianic prophecies in Isaiah?

Did Isaiah understand all the prophecies he wrote, and Daniel understand all that he wrote?
It is doubtful. We have a hard time with it today. If understanding was clear then it would be clear now, but it isn't. When was the understanding lost?

As Luke records in Luke 24:
9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

Their unbelief was either due to rebellion or confusion and misunderstanding. I would rather given them the benefit of the doubt and choose the latter. They heard Christ literally teach from the OT scriptures, and from his own mouth. It doesn't mean they understood.

 

[TCassidy]

Did Isaiah understand all the prophecies he wrote, and Daniel understand all that he wrote?

Did Paul? Did Peter? Did John? Even Peter calls Paul's writings "the hard sayings of Paul."

It matters not how well they understood their own writings. There were still Jews in Israel who did understand, and were the godly remnant, "spiritual Israel" who made up the first congregation of Christ's church. It matters not how few or how many there were. They were true believers. They, like Abraham, "believed God and their faith was counted as righteousness."

 

[DHK]

Did Paul? Did Peter? Did John? Even Peter calls Paul's writings "the hard sayings of Paul."

It matters not how well they understood their own writings. There were still Jews in Israel who did understand, and were the godly remnant, "spiritual Israel" who made up the first congregation of Christ's church. It matters not how few or how many there were. They were true believers. They, like Abraham, "believed God and their faith was counted as righteousness."

I think your straying from the OP and confusing the question.
The OP asks "How much of the prophecy that the OT prophets wrote did they actually understand"?
My answer was, "not very much." If they did, that knowledge would have been transmitted down to us.

It seems that you have focused only on one aspect of prophecy, that is of the coming of Christ, called the Messiah.
It is evident that Philip knew enough of the OT scriptures to preach Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch.
Peter used an abundance of Scripture in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost.

Both of those and all of the writings of the NT were post-Pentecost, "when the Comforter would guide them into all truth."

Did Paul know and understand fully what he was writing when he wrote a corrective epistle to the Corinthians? Of course he did.
The same is true when he wrote giving instructions to Timothy and Titus.
John may not have understood the apocalyptic things he was writing, but he observed much of it.

The first "church" was made up of "believing Jews," and it was extended to "believing Gentiles," and both became one in Christ, so that there is neither Jew nor Gentile when in Christ.