The Fabulous Prophecies Of The Messiah
Jim Lippard
This text copyright (c) 1993 by Jim Lippard, 2930 E. 1st St.,
Tucson, AZ 85716 (lippard@rtd.com).
Permission is granted to redistribute this file electronically provided
this notice is retained.
"I have examined all the passages in the New Testament quoted
from the Old, and so-called prophecies concerning Jesus Christ,
and I find no such thing as a prophecy of any such person, and I
deny there are any." -- Thomas Paine (1925), p. 206
These two quotations express diametrically opposed views about
whether or not the life of Jesus as described by the New
Testament gospels fulfills prophecies of the Jewish Messiah
found in the Hebrew scriptures. Josh McDowell's view is the
standard evangelical Christian view, found in countless
Christian apologetic works. The view expressed by Thomas Paine,
however, is much less widely known. This is unfortunate, because
Paine is correct. Every case of alleged fulfillment of messianic
prophecy suffers from one of the following failings: (1) the
alleged Old Testament prophecy is not a messianic prophecy or
not a prophecy at all, (2) the prophecy has not been fulfilled
by Jesus, or (3) the prophecy is so vague as to be unconvincing
in its application to Jesus.
The Significance of Messianic Prophecy
Before examining specific claims of fulfilled messianic
prophecy, some remarks should be made about its significance.
The fulfillment of biblical prophecy is a central pillar in
evangelical Christian apologetic arguments for the truth and
accuracy of the Bible. The Bible contains many statements about
future events which are intended to be prophetic--the books of
the prophets, such as those of Isaiah and Jeremiah, are full of
them. Of these statements, many are about actual historical
events of the past. Given our present knowledge of the
chronology of the Bible's writing, however, in most cases it
cannot be demonstrated that the prophetic statements do not
post-date the events being predicted. In the case of the Old
Testament prophecies of the Messiah, however, we have documents
(e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) which do predate the time at which
the historical Jesus is believed to have lived. If numerous
specific and detailed prophecies in the Old Testament were found
to match the life of an historical Jesus, this would provide
considerable evidence in support of the Christian faith. This is
just what Christian apologists claim to be the case.
On the other hand, if it were found that there are no such
specific prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, or that there are
specific messianic prophecies which were not fulfilled by Jesus,
this would be evidence against the truth of Christianity. Since
Christianity claims accuracy and truth of both the Old and New
Testaments, it is bound by the biblical standards for a true
prophet of God set forth in the Hebrew scriptures. The book of
Deuteronomy puts forth these standards when it says that Moses,
speaking on behalf of God in chapter 18, verse 22, proclaimed
that "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the
thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which
the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it
presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." In verse 20, he
says that "... the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously
in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he
shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die."
In other words, any prophecy from God is guaranteed to be
accurate, and any prophecy which is not from God but given in
his name shall guarantee the death of the prophet.
While these standards require that prophecies from God are
accurate, truth of a prophecy does not guarantee that it comes
from God. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 points out that false prophets may
also be accurate, but true prophets will never lead Jews astray
from their religion, under penalty of death.[1]
If, as I will show, there are messianic prophecies which are not
fulfilled by Jesus (and which will not be fulfilled in the
future), then these standards entail that either Jesus was not
the Messiah or the prophecies in question were not made by a
true prophet of God. Both horns of the dilemma have the
consequence that any form of Christianity which maintains
biblical inerrancy is false.
Birth Prophecies
There are a number of alleged messianic prophecies about Jesus'
birth: prophecies about the location, manner, and time of his
birth, about his genealogy, and about events which were to occur
at the time of his birth. Probably the most famous of these
prophecies is the prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin.
The gospels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-35) both claim
that Jesus was born of a virgin, but only Matthew (1:23) appeals
to the Hebrew scriptures as an explanation for why this should
be the case. The verse appealed to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a
virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his
name Immanuel."
There are a number of difficulties with this passage. As many
have noted, the Hebrew word translated as "virgin" in this verse
is "almah," which is more accurately translated simply as "young
woman." The Hebrew word "bethulah" means "virgin." In the book
of Isaiah, "bethulah" appears four times (23:12, 37:22, 47:1,
62:5), so its author was aware of the word. In the New American
Standard translation of the Bible, all other appearances of
"almah" are translated simply as "girl," "maid," or "maiden"
(viz: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19,
Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8). Thus the claimed fulfillment adds a
biologically impossible condition which is not even present in
the original prophecy.[2]
Another problem is that nowhere in the New Testament does Mary,
Jesus' mother, refer to him as "Immanuel." Thus we have no
evidence that one of the conditions of the prophecy was ever
fulfilled.
But the most serious problem with this alleged messianic
prophecy is that it has been taken out of context. Looking at
the entire seventh chapter of Isaiah, it becomes clear that the
child in question is to be born as a sign to Ahaz, King of
Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Rezin, King of
Syria, and Pekah, son of the King of Israel. Jesus' birth was
some seven centuries late to be such a sign. In Isaiah 8:3-4, a
prophetess gives birth to a son--Maher-shalal-hash-baz--who is
clearly described as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah
7:14.[3]
J. Edward Barrett (1988, p. 14) points out evidence that early
Christians rejected the virgin birth. One piece of Barrett's
evidence is that in 1 Timothy 1:3-4, the writer (who may or may
not be the apostle Paul) advises that his audience "instruct
certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention
to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere
speculation rather than furthering the administration of God
which is by faith." The earliest gospel, Mark, lacks an account
of Jesus' birth, as does John, the latest gospel. Virgin birth
is obviously quite relevant to genealogy, and both Matthew and
Luke present Jesus' genealogy in close proximity to the story.
A second claimed birth prophecy is that Jesus would be born in
the city of Bethlehem, cited in Matthew (2:1-6), Luke (2:4-7),
and John's (7:42) gospels. Of these, Matthew and John
specifically refer to prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures. The
passage referred to is Micah 5:2, which reads: "But as for you,
Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you one will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel. His
goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."
"Ephrathah" is the ancient name of Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19,
Ruth 4:11) but, to confuse matters, "Bethlehem Ephrathah" is
also the name of a person: Bethlehem the son (or grandson) of
Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51). This prophecy could
therefore refer to either a native of the town or to a
descendent of the person. If the latter, Jesus does not qualify
since neither of his alleged genealogies (more on these below)
list either Bethlehem or Ephrathah. If the former (more likely
since Bethlehem was the birthplace of King David, from whom the
Messiah is supposed to be descended), then Jesus qualifies by
birthplace[4] but fails to meet the condition of being "ruler in
Israel." Christians claim that this is a prophecy which will be
fulfilled at the Second Coming.
There are various alleged genealogical prophecies about the
ancestry of the Messiah. It is claimed that Genesis 22:18 and
12:2-3 are prophecies that the Messiah will be a descendent of
Abraham, but these verses say nothing about the Messiah. They
say simply that the descendents of Abraham will be blessed.
Other claimed prophecies about the Messiah's ancestry are that
he will be of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10, Micah 5:2), of
the family line of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1, 10), and of the house of
David (Jeremiah 23:5, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalms 132:11). Some of
these do appear to be genuine messianic prophecies, but others
simply seem to refer to future kings. All of these verses refer
to kings--and thus none have been fulfilled by Jesus.
But the problems for these prophecies run even deeper. Is Jesus
actually of the tribe of Judah, the family line of Jesse, and
the house of David? The sole evidence for this is two sets of
genealogies for Jesus, in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Both
of these trace Jesus' lineage through his father, Joseph. If the
virgin birth story is taken seriously, then Jesus lacks the
proper ancestry. On the other hand, if the genealogy in Matthew
is taken seriously, then Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah
(Matthew 1:12), of whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this
man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days,
for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne
of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30) The
genealogy in Luke suffers from the same problem, since it
includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom were descendents
of Jeconiah.
A final oft-noted problem is that the genealogies in Matthew and
Luke contradict each other and the Hebrew scriptures. Was Jesus'
grandfather on Joseph's side Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Eli (Luke
3:23)? Was Shealtiel's father Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17,
Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27)? Matthew 1:11 omits Jehoiakim
(who in Jeremiah 36:29-30 suffers a curse similar to that of his
son, Jeconiah) between Josiah and Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:15)
and Matthew 1:4 omits Admin between Ram and Amminadab (Luke
3:33). Finally, Matthew 1:13 says that Abiud is the son of
Zerubbabel, Luke 3:27 says that Rhesa is the son of Zerubbabel,
but 1 Chronicles 3:19-20 lists neither as sons of Zerubbabel.[5]
Another prophecy related to the birth of Jesus is the claim that
the Messiah would be born at a time when King Herod was killing
children. Only the gospel of Matthew (2:16-18) makes this claim,
quoting a prophecy of Jeremiah (31:15) which states that "A
voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel
weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted,
because they were no more." There are two problems with this
alleged messianic prophecy: it is not a prophecy about children
being killed and it is quite doubtful that there ever was such a
slaughter of innocents by Herod. "Rachel weeping for her
children" refers to the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (and wife
of Jacob) weeping about her children taken captive to Egypt. In
context, the verse is about the Babylonian captivity, which its
author witnessed. Subsequent verses speak of the children being
returned, and thus it refers to captivity rather than murder.
The slaughter by Herod is also in doubt because the writer of
Matthew is the only person who has noted such an event. Flavius
Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses, makes no
mention of it.
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.
At the end of the same chapter of Matthew (2:23), its author
writes that Mary, Joseph, and the child Jesus settled in
Nazareth, in order "... that what was spoken through the
prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'"
There is no such prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures, though some
claim this refers to Judges 13:5. This verse describes an angel
speaking to the mother of Samson, telling her that her son
"shall be a Nazirite." This is not only not a messianic
prophecy, it can't be what Matthew is referring to. A Nazirite
is quite different from a Nazarene. A Nazarene is an inhabitant
of Nazareth, but a Nazirite is a Jew who has taken special vows
to abstain from all wine and grapes, not to cut his hair, and to
perform special sacrifices (see Leviticus 6:1-21). Jesus drank
wine (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18), and so could not
have been a Nazirite.
A prophecy relating to the time of the Messiah which many
evangelical Christians find extremely convincing is found in the
book of Daniel. It is probably no exaggeration to say that this
prophecy, more than any other, convinces Christians that Jesus
was the Messiah. Daniel 9:24-27 says:
"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree
to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there
will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again,
with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and
have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will
destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a
flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are
determined.
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but
in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and
grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who
makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is
decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
The word translated in these verses as "weeks" is a form of the
Hebrew word for "sevens," and is interpreted by Christians to
mean seven years rather than seven days. Thus "seventy weeks" in
verse 24 is interpreted to mean seventy periods of seven years,
or 490 years, "seven weeks" in verse 25 is interpreted to mean
49 years, "sixty-two weeks" in verses 25 and 26 is interpreted
to mean 434 years, and "one week" in verse 27 is interpreted to
mean seven years.
The starting point of the prophecy is the "issuing of a decree
to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." A decree described in the
Bible to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem is found in 2
Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. These verses describe the
decree issued by Cyrus, king of Persia and contemporary of
Daniel, in 538 B.C.E. "Seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," or 483
years, after this decree would be 55 B.C.E., many years too soon
for Jesus.
So Christians must reject the equation of the decree in verse 25
with that of Cyrus, and they do. What other decrees are
available? Josh McDowell (1972, p. 180) offers three
alternatives: a decree of Darius described in the book of Ezra,
a decree of Artaxerxes described in Ezra, and a decree of
Artaxerxes described in Nehemiah. The decree of Darius,
described in Ezra 6:1-9, was to conduct a search of the archives
to find the text of the decree of Cyrus, and then to resume the
construction of the temple at Jerusalem using tax money. This
occurred around 522 B.C.E. (see Ezra 4:24), which would put the
coming of the Messiah at 39 B.C.E.--still too early for Jesus.
The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra described in Ezra 7:11-28
allows for the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem, taking
with them various support from the royal treasury. This decree
was issued in 458 B.C.E. (see Ezra 7:7), which would put the
coming of the Messiah at 26 C.E. This works fairly well if you
take the end of the "sixty-two weeks" to be the beginning of
Jesus' ministry, though most Christians take the end point to be
the crucifixion due to the reference in verse 26 of the Daniel
prophecy to the Messiah being "cut off." Most Christians reject
this decree, as well as those of Cyrus and Darius, as being the
appropriate starting point for the prophecy. One exception is
Gleason Archer. Archer (1982, pp. 290-291) argues that Ezra 9:9
implies that Ezra was given permission by Artaxerxes to rebuild
the walls of Jerusalem, despite the fact that they were not
rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah (see Nehemiah 1:3). Ezra 9:9
states that God has not forsaken the Jews but has given them a
chance "to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins,
and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem." In defense of the
end point of the "sixty-two weeks" being the beginning of Jesus'
ministry rather than his crucifixion, Archer points out that
verse 26 of the prophecy says only that the Messiah's being "cut
off" occurs after that time period, not necessarily immediately
after it.
The decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah described in Nehemiah 2:1-6
is really no decree at all. Rather, Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah
letters of safe conduct for travel to Judah and to obtain timber
to rebuild the gates of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem.
This occurred in 445 B.C.E., putting the time of the Messiah at
39 C.E., too late for Jesus, who is believed to have been
crucified some time between 29 and 33 C.E. Despite these flaws,
most evangelical Christians adopt this as the appropriate decree
because Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. In order to
make the 445 B.C.E. starting point result in an ending point 483
years later that is either at the beginning of Jesus' ministry
or at the time of the crucifixion, something other than a
365-day year must be used. The most popular such calculation,
due to Sir Robert Anderson and promoted by Josh McDowell, is to
adopt a "360- day prophetic year"--an invention of Anderson
based on his reading of Revelation 11:23, where he equates 42
months with 1260 days, giving 30 days per month. Using
"prophetic years" puts the end of the 483-year period at 32
C.E., believed by many to be the year of the crucifixion. Robert
Newman (1990, pp. 112-114) points out several flaws in this
calculation scheme which together are fatal to it: (1)
Revelation 11:23 does not justify the invention of the
"prophetic year," because there is no indication that 1260 days
is said to be exactly 42 months (it could be 41.5 rounded up),
(2) a 360-day year would get out of synch with the seasons, and
the Jews added an extra lunar month every two or three years to
their 354- day lunar year, giving them an average year length of
about 365 days, and (3) the present consensus on the date of the
crucifixion is 30 C.E. rather than 32 C.E.
Newman offers his own alternative: the use of sabbatical years,
which do have biblical justification (Exodus 23:10-11 and
Leviticus 25:3-7,18-22). Every seventh year is a sabbatical
year. Newman uses information from the first book of Maccabees,
which has reference to an observance of a sabbatical year, to
calculate that 163-162 B.C.E. was a sabbatical year and
therefore 445 B.C.E., the starting point of the Daniel prophecy,
falls in the seven-year sabbatical cycle 449-442 B.C.E. If this
is the first sabbatical cycle in the count, the sixty-ninth is
28-35 C.E., a time period that the crucifixion falls in. In
response to the criticism that the prophecy says that the
Messiah will be "cut off" after sixty-two weeks, Newman says
that in conventional Jewish idiom "after" means "after the
beginning of."
There are further problems for all of the above interpretations,
which Gerald Sigal (1981, pp. 109-122) points out. Foremost
among Sigal's criticisms is that the Masoretic punctuation of
the Hebrew Bible places a division between the "seven weeks and
sixty-two weeks," meaning that rather than stating that the
Messiah will come after the combined time periods, he will come
after the "seven weeks" alone. Another criticism Sigal makes is
that the Hebrew text does not put a definite article in front of
the word "Messiah" (or "anointed one"). The Revised Standard
Version of the Bible is translated with these facts in mind, and
it gives the Daniel 9:24-27 as follows:
Using the Masoretic punctuation, the "sixty-two weeks" goes with
the rebuilding of the city rather than with the coming of the
Messiah. This interpretation explains why "seven weeks and
sixty- two weeks" are given separately, rather than simply
stating "sixty-nine weeks." Most apologists are either unaware
of or ignore the Masoretic punctuation, but Robert Newman (1990,
p. 116) rejects it on the grounds that "such punctuation may not
date back before the ninth or tenth century AD" and that the
structure of the verses as a whole favor his interpretation.
The result of all this? The Daniel prophecy is not nearly so
convincing as it might initially appear to someone presented
only with one of the interpretations that "works." It is not
surprising that with four choices for beginning points (the
decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, plus the letters of
Artaxerxes for Nehemiah), several possible choices for end
points (the birth, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus), and at
least three ways of counting (ordinary years, "prophetic years,"
and sabbatical cycles) calculations have been found for which
Jesus fits the prophecy. There are good reasons to reject each
of these interpretations. The first two choices for beginning
points don't work for any offered interpretations. The
Artaxerxes decree works for ordinary years with the ministry of
Jesus as the end point, but says nothing about rebuilding
Jerusalem. The Artaxerxes letters work for sabbatical cycles
with the crucifixion as an end point, but they are not a decree
to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Rather, they gave Nehemiah
safe conduct to Judah and permission to use lumber from the
royal forests. Finally, none of them take into consideration the
Masoretic punctuation, which, if not itself in error, eliminates
all of them as possible interpretations of the text.
Ministry Prophecies
Alleged prophecies about Jesus' life and ministry claim that he
would be preceded by a messenger (i.e., John the Baptist), that
he would have a ministry in Galilee, that he would perform
miracles, and that he would have a triumphant entry into the
city of Jerusalem on a donkey. The first of these, that he would
be preceded by a messenger, refers to Isaiah 40:3, which reads,
"A voice is calling, 'clear the way for the Lord in the
wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.'"
This verse speaks not of a messenger for the Messiah, but of the
Jews being released from the Babylonian captivity. Another verse
claimed to offer the same prophecy is Malachi 3:1, which says
"Behold, I am going to send my messenger, and he will clear the
way before me. ..." This may be plausibly taken as a messianic
prophecy. But did John the Baptist actually "clear the way" as a
messenger for Jesus? The historian Flavius Josephus writes about
John the Baptist, but makes no link of his name with that of
Jesus (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.5.2; Josephus (1985), p.
382). The earliest of Christian writings, the letters of Paul,
make no mention of John the Baptist. The gospels (and the book
of Acts, written by the author of Luke) are the only real
evidence of a link. But the gospel evidence does not hold up.
The gospel of John shows John the Baptist explicitly recognizing
Jesus as the Messiah (John 1:25-34) before being cast into
prison by Herod (John 3:23-24). But the gospels of Matthew
(11:2-3) and Luke (7:18-22) depict John the Baptist, in prison,
sending his disciples to Jesus to ask if he claims to be the
Messiah. If the story in John were true, John the Baptist would
have had no reason to ask this question. (For more on John the
Baptist and his relation to Jesus, see Miosi (1993).)
Christian apologists claim that Jesus' Galilean ministry is
prophesied by Isaiah 9:1, which says, "... in earlier times he
[God] treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with
contempt, but later on he shall make it glorious, by the way of
the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles."
All this verse says is that God will make the area
"glorious"--it says nothing of ministry by the Messiah. The
subsequent verses (Isaiah 9:6-7) speak of a child to be born who
will be king, whose "name will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Jewish tradition
says that this refers to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah (Sigal
1981, pp. 29-32). Isaiah 9:7, if applied to Jesus, is
unfulfilled since it speaks of his kingship.
Prophecy of Jesus' miraculous healings are purported to be found
in Isaiah 35:5-6 and Isaiah 32:3-4. The latter does not speak of
healing, but says that "the eyes of those who see will not be
blinded, and the ears of those who hear will listen. And the
mind of the hasty will discern the truth, and the tongue of the
stammerers will hasten to speak clearly." It is further stated
that this will occur during the reign of a king (Isaiah 32:1),
which did not occur in Israel during Jesus' ministry. The former
verse, on the other hand, describes people being healed ("the
eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will
be unstopped") but also, in verses 7-8, describes land being
"healed." There is no clear indication here that these healings
have anything to do with the Messiah, rather, it is God himself
doing the healing. The gospels contain no account of Jesus
healing land.
A final prophecy dealing with Jesus' life and ministry is
Zechariah 9:9, which says "Behold, your king is coming to you
... humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of
a donkey." Again, Jesus was not king, so that aspect of the
prophecy remains unfulfilled. The alleged fulfillment of this
prophecy is also problematic. According to Mark (10:11-19), Luke
(19:28-38), and John (12:12-19), Jesus entered Jerusalem riding
on a donkey. But Matthew 21:1-11 has Jesus riding on both a
donkey and a colt, indicating his misunderstanding of the
prophecy.
Betrayal Prophecies
A number of alleged prophecies relate to Jesus' betrayal by
Judas. These include prophecies that Jesus would be betrayed by
a friend for thirty pieces of silver and that this money would
be thrown into the temple and used to buy a potter's field. Two
verses taken as prophecies of betrayal by a friend are Psalms
41:9 and Psalms 55:12-14, the former of which reads, "Even my
close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up
his heel against me." Both are psalms which speak of feelings of
pain from being betrayed by a close and trusted friend. Yet
Jesus already had foreknowledge of his betrayal by Judas (John
13:21-26), and so must not have trusted him. When the gospel of
John (13:18) quotes from Psalm 41:9, it tacitly admits this
problem by omitting the phrase "in whom I trusted." Neither
verse from the Hebrew scriptures gives any indication of being
intended as prophetic.
Matthew 26:14-15 states that Judas Iscariot was paid thirty
pieces of silver by the Jewish priests as payment for his
betrayal. Matthew 27:9-10 claims that this is done to fulfill a
prophecy of Jeremiah:
The problem here is that the quoted verse appears nowhere in the
book of Jeremiah. There is a verse which is quite similar in the
book of Zechariah, but there the prophet Zechariah is speaking
about himself and no betrayal is involved. Christian apologist
Gleason Archer (1982, p. 345) tries to resolve this problem by
citing various verses in Jeremiah which refer to "the prophet
purchasing a field in Anathoth for a certain number of shekels"
(32:6-9), "the prophet as watching a potter fashioning
earthenware vessels in his house" (18:2), "a potter near the
temple" (19:2), and God saying "Even so I will break this people
and this city as one breaks a potter's vessel" (19:11). Why does
Archer write "a certain number of shekels" instead of giving the
number specified in Jeremiah? Because Jeremiah 32:9 says
seventeen shekels, not thirty. What Archer has done here is
simply look for the words "potter," "shekel," and "field" in an
attempt to argue that Matthew really was referring to Jeremiah
rather than Zechariah. But there is really no question that
Matthew meant to refer to Zechariah rather than Jeremiah.
Compare Zechariah 11:12-13:
Again, this is Zechariah speaking of his own experience rather
than a messianic prophecy. But Matthew 27:5-7 tries to fulfill
this non-prophecy by telling a story of Judas Iscariot throwing
his payment into the temple before committing suicide, after
which the priests use the money to buy a potter's field. This
story does not appear in the other gospels (though Acts 1:18-19
says that Judas himself, rather than the priests, bought a field
with the (unspecified amount of) money earned by his betrayal).
Another problem with this alleged prophecy is that in the
earliest (Syriac) manuscripts of Zechariah, verse 13 does not
even contain the word "potter"--instead, it says "treasury,"
which makes more sense but further damages its credibility as
prophecy. (The Revised Standard Version gives the verse as "Cast
it into the treasury," with the "to the potter" translation
relegated to a footnote.)
Crucifixion Prophecies
Christian apologists are perhaps most impressed by a number of
alleged prophecies relating to Jesus' crucifixion. They claim
that the Hebrew scriptures contain prophecies that Jesus would
be crucified, that his garments would be divided by the casting
of lots, that he would be given wine mixed with gall or myrrh,
that he would cry out about being forsaken, and that none of his
bones would be broken. There are several verses taken to refer
to crucifixion: Psalms 22:16, Zechariah 12:10, and Zechariah
13:6 are typical examples. Psalms 22:16 reads, "For dogs have
surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me; they
pierced my hands and my feet." This is a psalm of David which
gives no indication of being prophetic and which describes the
speaker being hunted down and killed rather than being
crucified. Gerald Sigal (1981, p. 98) argues that the Hebrew
word translated here as "pierced" is "ariy," which means "lion,"
and so a more accurate translation would be "like a lion [they
are gnawing at] my hands and feet." Gleason Archer (1982, p.
37), however, argues that "they pierced" is correct, based on
the Septuagint's translation and other considerations.
Zechariah 12:10 says "they will look on me whom they have
pierced; and they will mourn for him, as one mourns for an only
son ...." The gospel of John (19:37) takes this as prophecy
fulfilled by Jesus' crucifixion, but there is no indication that
this speaks of crucifixion. Further, the "him" being mourned for
is not the "me" that is being pierced. The Jewish interpretation
of this verse is that God is speaking of the people of Israel
being "pierced" or attacked (Sigal 1981, pp. 80-82).
Zechariah 13:6 speaks of "these wounds between your arms,"
spoken of one who claims not to be a prophet and to have been
sold as a slave in his youth (Zechariah 13:5). Wounds between
one's arms are not characteristic of crucifixion, and Jesus was
neither sold as a slave nor claimed not to be a prophet.
Only the gospel of John speaks of Jesus' garments being divided
among the soldiers and their casting of lots for his tunic (John
19:23-24), and he cites Psalms 22:18 as the prophecy which is
thereby fulfilled. This latter verse reads, "They divide my
garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." This
verse tells of one event--clothing being divided by the casting
of lots. But John transforms it into two events: first the
division of Jesus' clothing apart from his tunic (John 19:23)
and then casting of lots for his tunic (John 19:24). It appears
that John created a story in an attempt to provide a fulfillment
for his misunderstanding of a verse which gives no indication of
being a prophecy in the first place.
Matthew (27:34) speaks of Jesus being given "wine to drink
mingled with gall" and Mark (15:23) says he was offered "wine
mixed with myrrh." These are both taken to be references to
Psalms 69:21, which says "they gave me gall for my food, and for
my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." The Hebrew word here
translated as "gall" is "rosh," meaning poison or gall, and
referring to some poisonous plant. The verse says that poison is
being put into food, which does not apply to the crucifixion.
Myrrh, which is not poisonous, is referred to by the Hebrew word
"mor," which does not appear in Psalms 69:21. This psalm, which
speaks repeatedly of flood waters, gives no indication of being
either prophetic or of applying to Jesus.
The gospels of Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) give Jesus' last
words as "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," a
quotation of Psalms 22:1. Luke (23:46) gives "Father, into thy
hands I commit my spirit" as Jesus' final words, while John
(19:30) has Jesus say "It is finished." Only the first of these
is claimed to be fulfillment of prophecy, yet it is hardly
miraculous that Jesus would make such a statement. Presumably
Jesus was familiar with the Hebrew scriptures. Such a remark,
however, is inconsistent with Christian theology. Why would
Jesus, supposed to be God incarnate, speak of being forsaken by
himself at all, let alone at the culmination of his plan for
human salvation? It is also not apparent that Psalms 22 is
either prophetic or applicable to Jesus (see Sigal 1981, pp.
95-99).
A final prophecy I wish to examine relating to the crucifixion
is that Jesus' bones would not be broken. It is only the gospel
of John (19:32-36) which tells of soldiers breaking the legs of
the crucifixion victims to hasten their deaths, yet sparing
Jesus because he was already dead. John 19:36 cites Psalms
34:20, "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken," as
the prophecy which is thereby fulfilled. There is no indication
that Psalms 34 is intended as prophetic, nor that it applies to
Jesus. The intent in the gospel of John is to represent Jesus as
a sacrifice, specifically corresponding to the paschal lamb
(e.g., John 1:29, 36). A requirement of the paschal lamb is that
none of its bones be broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). But
this analogy fails for several reasons: the paschal lamb was not
for the atonement of sin, and Jewish sacrifices were required to
be completely without blemish, sore, or injury (Leviticus
22:20-25) while Jesus was scourged and mutilated (John 19:1;
Sigal 1981, pp. 265-268).
Conclusions
It is worth briefly examining some conclusions regarding
messianic prophecies quite contrary to mine presented by Peter
Stoner (1952) (and repeated in McDowell (1972)). Stoner
calculates the probability of just eight messianic prophecies[6]
being fulfilled as 1 in 10^21 (McDowell (1972), citing a more
recent edition of Stoner's book, gives the probability as 1 in
10^17. Jeffrey (1990, pp. 17-20) gives a list of eleven
messianic prophecies[7] and a probability of 1 in 10^19.) There
are a number of problems with Stoner's calculations. The
probability of each prophecy being fulfilled by chance was
arrived at by getting an estimate from "a class in Christian
Evidences" at Pasadena City College sponsored by Inter-Varsity
Christian Fellowship (Stoner 1952, p. 71). These estimates did
not consider any of the above objections to these prophecies,
nor did they consider the possibility of intentional
fulfillment. (For example, a Messiah claimant might hire a
John-the-Baptist-style messenger to precede him, or
intentionally ride a donkey into the city of Jerusalem.) Another
problem with this method is that such probability estimates are
notoriously unreliable.[8] Of these problems, the most serious
is Stoner's failure to consider the objections I have offered
above, and it alone is sufficient to invalidate his calculations.
I have examined more than two dozen alleged messianic prophecies
which Christian apologists claim are fulfilled by Jesus.
Although there are many more claimed such prophecies (e.g.,
McDowell (1972) lists 61 in some detail and refers to numerous
additional verses without details), these are by far the best
examples, by the apologists' own reckoning.[9] This examination
shows that none stands up as a specific, detailed, and accurate
prediction of an event which came to occur in the life of Jesus.
Instead, the purported prophecies appear to be the result of
deliberate attempts by the gospel writers and Christian
apologists to find post hoc similarities between events
described in the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures.
Messianic prophecies, contrary to apologists, do not provide
evidence for Christian faith.
Notes
[1] It could be argued (and has been argued by Jews at least
since the third century) that Jesus led Jews astray from their
religion and was therefore a false prophet. See Sanhedrin 43a in
the Babylonian Talmud (Epstein 1935, p. 281).
[2] It should be noted that some Christian apologists claim that
"virgin" is meant because the Jewish translators of the Old
Testament into its Greek form (the Septuagint) used the Greek
word "parthenos" ("virgin") for "almah" in translating this
verse. This probably indicates, rather, that Matthew used the
Septuagint. Gerald Sigal (1981, p. 24) points out a case
(Genesis 34:3) where the Septuagint uses "parthenos" for the
Hebrew word "na'arah" ("girl") when the woman in question is
most definitely not a virgin (see Genesis 34:2). Nahigian (1993,
p. 13) also points out that later Greek translations of Isaiah,
by Aquila, Theodocion, Lucian, and others did not use
"parthenos" to translate "almah" in Isaiah 7:14.
[3] The usual Christian response is to invoke a doctrine of
"double fulfillment" of prophecy. Note that this, combined with
the Christian view that "almah" means "virgin," means that the
Christian must accept two virgin births.
[4] The gospel of John says nothing about Jesus being from
Bethlehem, but instead says that he is from Nazareth in Galilee.
See John 1:45-46 and 7:41-42,52.
[5] There are two common attempts made to resolve these
contradictions. The most common among evangelical Christians is
to claim that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, not Joseph. This
fails to explain the repeated convergence followed by divergence
as you trace the ancestry backward. It also fails to explain why
the Luke genealogy contains almost twice as many ancestors as
Matthew's in the same time period. Yet another problem is that
this explanation conflicts with the Catholic tradition which
says that Mary's parents were Joachim and Anna. A second
explanation, favored by Catholics, is that each case of
divergence is the result of Levirate marriage. That is, the
discrepant fathers are brothers of each other, and when one died
the other married his brother's wife (see Deuteronomy 25:5).
This explanation also fails to explain the difference in number
of ancestors.
[6] Micah 5:2 (born in Bethlehem), Malachi 3:1 (preceded by a
messenger), Zechariah 9:9 (enters Jerusalem on a donkey),
Zechariah 13:6 (betrayed by a friend, wounded in hands),
Zechariah 11:12 (betrayed for thirty silver pieces), Zechariah
11:13 (silver thrown in temple and used to purchase potter's
field), Isaiah 53:7 (remains silent before accusers), and Psalms
22:16 (hands and feet pierced). All of these except the Isaiah
verse have been examined above (see note 9).
[7] Jeffrey gives the same eight as Stoner and McDowell
(substituting Isaiah 40:3 for "preceded by a messenger" and
Psalms 41:9 for "betrayed by a friend") and adds Isaiah 53:5
(wounded and whipped by enemies), Isaiah 50:6 (spit upon and
beaten), and Isaiah 53:12 (crucified with thieves). These latter
three verses are not addressed in this article; see note 9.
[8] See Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky (1982) and Falk (1982).
[9] Prophecies I have not dealt with include Isaiah's writings
about the "Suffering Servant," which are dealt with by Sigal
(1981, pp. 35-68) and in issue 30 (June 1985) of Biblical
Errancy.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ed Babinski, who recommended Gerald Sigal's book, and
to Robert Sheaffer (sheaffer@netcom.com) for his helpful
comments on an early draft of this article, and to David Wood
(dpw@sei.cmu.edu) for pointing out the RSV translation of
Zechariah 11:13.
All Bible quotations, except where otherwise noted, are from the
New American Standard translation.
References
Archer, Gleason (1982) Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House.
Barrett, J. Edward (1988) "Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth
Seriously?", Bible Review, October, pp. 10-15, 29.
Epstein, Rabbi Dr. I., editor (1935) The Babylonian Talmud:
Sanhedrin. London: The Soncino Press.
Falk, Ruma (1982) "On Coincidences," Skeptical Inquirer 6(Winter
1981-82):18-31.
Jeffrey, Grant R. (1990) Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny.
N.Y.: Bantam.
Josephus, Flavius (1985) The Works of Josephus. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson Publishers. Translated by William Whiston.
Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos (1982)
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McDowell, Josh (1972) Evidence That Demands A Verdict. San
Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Publishers.
Miosi, Frank T. (1993) "Who Was John the Baptist?" Free Inquiry
13(2, Spring):38-45.
Nahigian, Kenneth E. (1993) "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy?" The
Skeptical Review 4(2, Spring):13-14, 16.
Newman, Robert C. (1990) "The Time of the Messiah." In Robert C.
Newman, editor, The Evidence of Prophecy, second printing with
corrections. Hatfield, Penn.: Interdisciplinary Biblical
Research Institute, pp. 111-118.
Paine, Thomas (1925) "Examination of the Prophecies." In William
M. Van der Weyde, editor, The Life and Works of Thomas Paine,
volume IX. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Thomas Paine National Historical
Association, pp. 205-292.
Sigal, Gerald (1981) The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A
Jewish Response To Missionary Christianity. N.Y.: Ktav
Publishing House, Inc.
Stoner, Peter W. (1952) Science Speaks: An Evaluation of Certain
Christian Evidences. Wheaton, Ill.: Van Kampen Press, Inc.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
"The Old Testament ... contains several hundred references to the
Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Christ and they establish
a solid confirmation of his credentials as the Messiah." -- Josh
McDowell (1972), p. 147
"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy
city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to
bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.
Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and
your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to
sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a
most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the
going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the
coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks.
Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and
moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an
anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the
people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and
the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end
there shall be war; desolations are decreed. And he shall make a
strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week
he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing
of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the
decreed end is poured out on the desolator.
Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was
fulfilled, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver for
the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of
Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord
directed me."
And I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my
wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty
shekels of silver as my wages. Then the Lord said to me, "Throw
it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by
them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to
the potter in the house of the Lord.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.