This text copyright (c) 1993 by Jim Lippard, 2930 E. 1st St., Tucson, AZ 85716 (lippard@rt
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.
The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah
By Jim Lippard
"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
"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:
"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.
"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:
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.
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:
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."
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:
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.
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
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank