DO THE PROPHETS SPEAK
OF JESUS?
Shmuel
Golding
Part 3
The
purpose of these polemics is threefold: to arm with logical refutations those
who are pestered by fundamental Christian evangelists who come knocking at the door,
to examine the claims of the evangelists by comparing the New Testament with
its ancient base, the Hebrew Bible and to enlighten the fundamentalists who are
ignorant or unwilling to submit to the findings and intensive research of
scholars and theologians over the past 200 years - and rightly so. Their
"christological proofs" would disintegrate.
Christianity
is said to be founded on Judaism and the New Testament upon the Old. Jesus of
Nazareth is claimed by the New Testament to be the promised messiah of the Old
Testament. These polemics examine those claims.
13
Matt 21.12-13,
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them that sold
and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the
seats of them that sold doves. And said unto them, It is written, My house
shall be called the house of prayer; buy ye have made it a den of
thieves."
From
this slanderous accusation, the world has been taught to believe that the Jews
were corrupt even in their worship, that buying and selling and corrupt
business were carried out in the holy place.
REFUTATION
The
writer of Matthew has joined together two half verses Isa 56.7 and Jer 7.11 to get this
saying.
The
only dealings that went on in the temple area were the exchange of pilgrims'
money for the silver shekel of the sanctuary and the selling of doves for
sacrifices. Jesus was trying to change these customs appointed by the Law and
taking a whip he drove away both the people and their sacrifices (John 2.15).
Note:
According to Matt, Mark and Luke this incident in which Jesus is supposed to
have cleansed and purged the temple was at the close of his ministry just a few
days before his death. However, according to John, this incident took place
three years before his death (John
2.13-22).
14
Matt 21.42, "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the
scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head
of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"
"As
it is written, behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offense and
whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" (Rom 9.33)
"Wherefore
also it is contained in the scriptures, Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner
stone, elect, precious and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense even to them which stumble at
the word, being disobedient whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Pet 2.6-8). (Ps 118.22) (Isa 28.16)
Christians
of most denominations believe that Jesus is the 'precious corner stone' which
God laid in
REFUTATION
The
verses in Hebrew do not in context refer to Jesus. 'The stone which the
builders rejected' refers to
Nowhere
in Isa 28.16
does it suggest that one should believe 'on him' - i.e., on a person. Paul (in Rom 9.33) has
misquoted and replaced the words 'he that believeth shall not make haste' by
the words, 'he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed'.
One
obvious reason why the 'foundation stone' or 'corner stone' in Isa 28.16 cannot be
referring to Jesus is that the prophet uses the past tense 'yisad' meaning
'have established'. The stone was already established hundreds of years before
the time of Jesus.
In context,
the prophecy cannot refer to Jesus because the verse reads, 'Justice will be
established as the line' (Isa
28.17), that is to say, 'Justice will be the norm'. Where was
the justice established by Jesus? Certainly it is not to be found in his
teachings, as we can see for example in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15.11ff) where
the wayward son is given a welcome home party to which the servants are invited
but the faithful son working in the field is not summoned to attend. Or as in
the parable of the steward who instructed his master's creditors to forge their
bills so as it would appear they owed less that what they were due to pay.
Jesus commends such cheatings as wise (Luke
16.1-9).
This
prophecy cannot be referring to Jesus because it is addressed to Ephraim, that
is to
15
Matt 22.42-45,
.”..what think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of
David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"
Many
Christians believe that Psalm
110.1 begins with a conversation between God and his son Jesus.
In the K.J.V. both 'Lords' are written with a capital ’L’.
REFUTATION
The
original Hebrew does not lend itself to this belief. It is perfectly clear from
the text which lord is which, for it is written, 'saith Yaweh to Adoni', which
means, 'said God to my master'. Adoni is an everyday Hebrew word which means
'mister', 'sir' or 'master'.
It
should also be noted that this psalm was not written by David but about David.
In Hebrew it begins 'Le David', 'to David', or 'concerning David'. Thus here we
have someone writing in a
flattering way about David and saying, 'God said to my master'. There is no
indication here that God is speaking to another god, whether as father to son
or in any other way.
'Sit at
my right hand' (Ps 110.1).
Christians believe that this is a prophecy concerning the ascension of Jesus,
but in fact this is a continuation of the honour that the writer of the psalm
describes as being given to David. To seat a person at one's right hand is a
mark of respect (1 Kings
2.19).
Further
evidence that this psalm does not describe Jesus is found in the fact that
Jesus' enemies were never 'made into his footstool' (v. 1). On the contrary
Jesus' enemies triumphed over him as seen in the gospels.
16
Matt. 26.31: "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye
shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written* I will smite the
shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." (*Zech.
13.7)
Matthew
believed that because Jesus was smitten and his followers all forsook him and
fled, that a prophecy was fulfilled.
REFUTATION
Before
comparing Jesus to Zechariah's shepherd, the fundamentalists would be wise to
see what else is said about this shepherd:
a) He
is a "foolish shepherd" (Zech. 11.15-17).
b)
Zechariah indicates that after false prophets and the "foolish
shepherd" are cut off, the people will turn to God (Zech. 13.9).
c) He
is called the "idol shepherd" (Zech. 11.17), referring possibly to
Mithra, the Persian god known as the "good shepherd" to his
followers, who is depicted on statues found dating from that period as a
shepherd carrying a lamb over his shoulders.
17
Matt. 27.9:
"Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet* was fulfilled,
saying 'and they took the 30 pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price
had been set by the sons of
Christianity
believes that Judas, a disciple of Jesus, betrayed his lord for 30 pieces of
silver. After having remorseful feelings, he offered the money back again but
it was not at first accepted. Later, the money was cast into the potter's field
in the
REFUTATION
One can
search Jeremiah in vain for this prophecy; it is but another figment of
Matthew's imagination. There are 52 chapters in the Book of Jeremiah and these
words cannot be found in any of them. The "divinely-inspired" New
Testament made a mistake. A similar prophecy can however be found in Zech.
11.12.
The
Smith Bible Dictionary states: "Potter's field: a piece of ground which,
according to the statement of Matthew (27.7), was purchased by the priests with
the 30 pieces of silver rejected by Judas and converted into a burial place for
Jews not belonging to the city. Matthew adduces this (ver. 9) as a fulfillment
of an ancient prediction. What that prediction was and who made it is not,
however, at all clear. Matthew names Jeremiah but there is no passage in the
Book of Jeremiah resembling that which he gives – and that in Zech. xi.12b
which is usually supposed to be alluded to has only a very imperfect likeness to
it."
"And
I said to them, if you think good, give me my hire and if not, forbear. So they
weighed for my hire 30 pieces of silver - and the Lord said to me, Cast it into
the treasury: the goodly price that I was priced at by them - and I took the 30
pieces of silver and cast them into the treasury in the House of the
Lord." (Zech. 11.12-13)
Even
those who must admit that Matthew made a mistake in accrediting this
"prophecy" to the wrong prophet can still be refuted. No doubt, they
will correct Matthew by saying that the "prophecy" is to be found in
Zechariah and will quote from the K.J.V. to prove their point - but addition
must be drawn to the fact that the K.J.V. has mistranslated the Hebrew.
The
K.J.V. has misunderstood the Hebrew word "yotser,” meaning "potter.”
In fact, the text should read "otsar,” meaning "treasury.” Matthew
has added a field, yet it is clear that Zechariah does not mention any
field.
Wherever
was there such a thing as a potter's field in the
What is
more, if the 30 pieces of silver given by the priests to Judas for the betrayal
of Jesus are seen as a fulfillment of this passage of scripture, then one must
insist upon consistency. The New Testament portrays the priests as being evil,
whereas the ones who paid the money to Zechariah were considered to be the poor
of the flock, who waited upon God and who knew it to be the Word of God (v.
11). Zechariah calls the payment an act of goodness: "The goodly price
that I was priced at of them" (v. 13). Why then should we believe it to be
an evil act of betrayal?
Matt 27.5:
"And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed,
and went and hanged himself.”
This
contradicts Acts 1.18
where Judas' life ended not in suicide but accidentally, for he is described as
having some kind of a nasty fall headlong which resulted in his stomach being
cut open so that all his bowels fell out.
Matt 27.7
"And they (the chief priests) took counsel and bought with them (the
thirty pieces of silver) the potter's field, to bury strangers in.”
This
is another contradiction
for the writer of Acts declares that it was Judas who purchased a field with
the money. See Acts
1.18.
At this
point it will be well to ask what really happened to Judas?
Mark
and Luke both state that Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples on the evening
following the resurrection Mark
16.14, "Afterwards he appeared unto the eleven as they sat
at meat..."
"And
they arose up the same hour and returned to
The
above verses may cause the reader to presume that Judas had committed suicide
as according to Matt
27.5 therefore there were only eleven disciples.
But
John says, "But Thomas one of the twelve called Didymas was not with them
when Jesus came," John
20.24ff. Thomas was not present and did not believe the others
when they told him that they had seen the Lord. Not until eight days later does
Thomas have the privilege of seeing Jesus.
This
can only contradict the account of Judas committing suicide. He could not have
done so but was one of the eleven that saw Jesus. They could not have included
Thomas among the eleven because he wasn't there. Also Paul clearly states in 1 Cor 15.4,5,
"That he (Jesus) was seen of Cephas and then of the twelve.”
How
could there be twelve if Judas was dead? It was not until after the
"ascension" that another person was voted in to make up the number to
twelve. Acts 1.26.
18
Matt. 27.46:
"Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabach tani?* That
is to say, My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?" (*Ps. 22.2) (K.J.V.
v 1)
Most
Christians believe that the whole of Psalm 22 is a prophetic description of Jesus's
mode of execution and his anguish on the cross.
REFUTATION
If
Jesus knew himself to be fulfilling God's plan, why should he have thought
himself forsaken by God? If he was the Christ (messiah), as envisioned by the
Christians, he surely knew that the crucifixion was essential to his mission.
Yet, Jesus is said to have prayed that God would spare him from having to
undergo this bitter fate (Matt. 26.36-45).
If, as
the gospels assume, Jesus knew and predicted long in advance the events
surrounding his death; e.g., Mark 8.31 - and if those events were neither a
surprise nor a defeat but the working out of a divinely-inspired plan - what
sense does it make for Jesus to complain, especially when he had the knowledge
of his immediate resurrection? Surely, instead of crying out, "My God, my
God, why has Thou forsaken me?,” his despair should have given way to joy, as
he realized that God's purpose had been attained through his sacrificial death.
Continued
in Part 4