DO THE PROPHETS SPEAK
OF JESUS?
Shmuel Golding
Part 4
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.
Matthew's gospel has been commented on in the last three
parts of this series.
19
Mark 14.21:
"For the son of man is to go - just as is written of him* - but woe to that
man by whom the son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man
if he had never been born."
REFUTATION
*Nowhere in the prophets can it be found written that the "son of man is
to go.” Neither can any "woe" be found upon the man who betrayed him.
This
imaginary prophecy has been the root cause of centuries of anti-Semitism.
20
Luke 4.16-21:
"And he (Jesus) came to Nazareth where he had been brought up and as his
custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up forth to
read and there was delivered to him the book of the prophet Isaiah and when he
opened the book, he found the place where it was written* 'the spirit of the
Lord is upon me because the Lord has anointed me to announce good things to the
meek: he has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the
captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord' - and he closed the book and he gave it to the
minister and sat down - and the eyes of all of them that were in the synagogue
were fastened on him and he began to say unto them, this day is this scripture
fulfilled in your ears." (*Isa. 61.1-2)
Christians
of all denominations believe that Jesus was anointed by the holy spirit. The
anointing was essential to his ministry, for without it, he would not be able
to claim messiahship. According to Luke, Jesus himself declared, "This day
is the scripture fulfilled."
REFUTATION
Our
first question is: when was Jesus ever anointed? Only kings, high priests and
prophets were anointed and the ritual of anointing was carried out in a
prescribed manner, which required authorization. First of all, there was the
recipe for preparing the anointing oil, as seen in Ex. 30.22-38. This was to be "a holy
anointing oil throughout your generations" (v. 31): "Neither shall you make any
other like it." (v. 32).
We have therefore the right to ask: with what oil was Jesus anointed? Was it
done according to the prescribed method (Ex.
29)? It certainly was not known generally because the gospels
record many queries made as to his authority (e.g., Matt. 21.23).
The
fundamentalists believe Jesus was a prophet, a priest and a king according to
the Book of Hebrews - but they cannot find one verse in the New Testament that
describes how he was anointed for these three offices.
When a
king was anointed, this was made known publicly so that all would know who was
the Lord's anointed. (See 1
Sam. 9.16, 10.1, 16.1, 3, 12, 13, 2 Sam. 19.22, 1 Chr. 16.22.)
David was able to prove his anointing since the whole House of Judah had
anointed him king over them (2
Sam. 2.7); Solomon could prove his anointing because Zadok the
priest and Nathan the prophet and the servants of the Lord anointed him king
over Israel and blew the shofar for all to hear (1 Kings 1.45); Elijah anointed Elisha to be a
prophet and other prophets established their calling by the ritual of anointing
(1 Kings 19.15-16).
In
Hebrew, the word "anointed" is "mashuach" and signifies
"one who has been smeared with oil.” Since this did not happen to Jesus,
he cannot have been the messiah (mashuach).
Of
course, some fundamentalists will argue that the anointing took place in the
house of Simon the leper, when a woman smeared Jesus with a box of precious
ointment (Matt. 26.6-13)
but it should be pointed out that the Law forbids the making of the anointing
oil by the common people and warns that whosoever makes it or partakes of its
scent will be cut off from his people (Ex.
30.37-38). Also, Jesus himself, according to Matthew, said that
this anointing was a preparation for his burial (Matt. 26.12).
Another
reason why Jesus did not fulfill Isaiah's prophecy (Isa. 61.1-2) is because he did not
"proclaim liberty to the captives.” Whom did he liberate? All
21
Luke
11.49-51:
"Therefore also said the wisdom of God,* I will send them prophets and
apostles and some of them they shall slay and persecute, that the blood of all
the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required
of this generation, from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who
perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, it shall be
required of this generation."
*Luke
accredits this anti-Semitic and false charge to the wisdom of God.
REFUTATION
One can search in vain for any reference to the slaying of Zacharias, who
Matthew identifies as the son of Barachais (Matt.
23.35).
This is
a misquotation of scriptures. Zacharias son of Barachais was never put to death
by the Jews. There was a Zacharias slain by the altar, but he was Zecharias son
of Jehoida, and the reference is found in 2 Chron 24.20-21 and that was in the days
of Joash 840 BCE whilst Zechariah son of Berechiah (who was never slain as
Jesus claimed) lived during the days of Darius 520 BCE. Something which is
divinely inspired should never make mistakes like this. Now Jesus goes on to
blame the Jews for the blood of righteous Abel, and according to his words Jews
are to be punished for every murder that occurs in the world (Matt 23.35), yet at
the time, for example, when Abel was killed by his brother Cain there was no
Jewish people.
Some
scholars are of the opinion that there was a Zechariah son of Barachais
who was slain and according to John E. Remsburg author of a book entitled
"The Christ"
published in 1909, he states that, "The Zacharias mentioned was
slain in Jerusalem, 69 A.D; so that Matthew makes Jesus refer to an event that
occurred forty years after his death.
Referring
to this passage, the Catholic scholar, Dr.
Hug, says,
'There
cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its circumstances,
and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the same Zacharias Barouchos,
who, according to Josephus, a short time before the destruction of
Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple.'
Commenting
on this passage, Prof.
Newman says:
"There is no other man known in history
to whom the verse can allude. If so, it shows how late, how ignorant, how rash,
is the composer of a text passed off on us as sacred truth.” (Religion not History, p. 46).
22
John
2.17: "His
disciples remembered that it was written: 'The zeal of thine house hath eaten
me up.'" (Ps. 69.10)
(K.J.V., v. 9)
Fundamentalists
believe that the psalm is prophetic and refers to Jesus; this is because the
writers of the New Testament erred by pretending that Jesus
"fulfilled" several verses from this psalm. John refers to the psalm
again, in John 15.25: "That the word might be fulfilled that is written in
their Law; they hated me without a cause." This is brought from verse 5 (K.J.V.,
v. 4) of the psalm. Paul writing to the Romans makes use of this psalm twice;
once in Rom. 11.9-10, where he quotes Ps. 69.23 (v. 22, K.J.V.) and in Rom.
15.3: "Christ pleased not himself but as it is written, the reproaches of
them that reproached thee fell on me." This is also a quotation from Ps.
69.10 (K.J.V., v. 9). Other verses of this psalm, when taken out of context,
appear to be "christological,” such as verse 22 (21, K.J.V.): "They
gave me also gall for my meat and in my thirst, they gave me vinegar to
drink."
REFUTATION
Psalm
69.10 (K.J.V., v. 9) has nothing
to do with Jesus becoming angry about the moneychangers in the temple.
"The zeal for thy house" is clearly referring to the integrity of the
House of Israel, which the psalmist considers is being reproached. Compare Jer. 11.15, 12.7, 23.11,
where the house referred to is
Anyone who
believes that Jesus is the subject of Ps.
69 will have to agree that Jesus was a sinner, for it states, in
verse 6 (5, K.J.V.),
"O God, Thou knowest my folly and my sins are not hid from Thee." The
subject of this psalm wore sackcloth (verse
12 (v. 11,
K.J.V.)), whereas Jesus's garments were valuable enough to be
divided among the soldiers whilst they cast lots for his outer garment (Matt. 27.35).
A final
comment on Ps. 69 is in reference to verse
22 (v. 21,
K.J.V.). The Hebrew states, "They put poison in my food,”
which is translated in the K.J.V. as "gall for my meat.” However, none of
the gospel-writers refer to Jesus eating food, either at his trial or at his
crucifixion - but they do contradict themselves about what he drank. Matthew
states that they gave him vinegar mingled with gall but he refused to drink it.
Mark states that it was wine mixed with myrrh. Yet, in the Hebrew, there is no
mention of either gall, myrrh or wine.
Clearly,
there is nothing in this psalm that refers to Jesus or to any king
messiah.
23
John 3.14:
"and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,* even so must the
son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but
have eternal life." (*Num.
21.9)
Christian
evangelists liken the serpent of brass which Moses set upon a pole to Jesus,
who was put upon a cross. They teach that mankind has been bitten by the
serpent (symbol of evil) and as a result, men are perishing in their sins. The
gospel presented by fundamentalists offers "hope"; people are told to
look to the cross of Jesus for forgiveness of sin, just as the people in the
time of Moses looked to the serpent of brass.
REFUTATION
The Hebrew Bible states: "and Moses made a serpent of brass and put it upon a pole and it came to pass that if a serpent had bitten a man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." (Num. 21.9)
Although
the serpent of Genesis 3
is merely symbolic of evil, in Christian teachings, the serpent is regarded as
the devil. The fiery serpents in the wilderness (Num. 21) came as a punishment to the people
for sin. If Jesus is symbolic of the serpent, then he can be regarded as
something evil, a devil. When in later days the serpent of brass became an
object of worship, King Hezekiah broke it in pieces, declaring it was merely a
piece of brass (2 kings 18.4).
In any
case, the comparison to Jesus is unflattering.
24
John 7.38:
"He who believes in me, as the scriptures said,* out of his belly shall
flow rivers of living water."
REFUTATION
* This is another imaginary scripture nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
25
John 17.12:
"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that
thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition;
that the scripture might be fulfilled."*
REFUTATION
* This is another imaginary prophecy. "Son of perdition" is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
26
John 19.23-24:
"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and
made four parts - to every soldier a part - and also, his coat: now the coat
was without seam, women from the top throughout. They said therefore among
themselves, let us not rent it but cast lots for it, whose it shall be, that
the scripture* might be fulfilled which saith, They parted my garment among
them and for my vesture, they did cast lots. These things therefore the
soldiers did." (*Ps.
22.19) (K.J.V., v. 18)
To the
Christian mind, this is another prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. They believe the
whole of Ps. 22 related to the crucifixion.
REFUTATION
As in the case of the two donkeys (Matt. 21.2), the writers of the gospels have misunderstood the Hebrew use of parallelism and made one thing into two - the dividing of his outer garment among themselves and the casting of lots for his coat. The psalm is only referring to one garment (a set of garments) (v. 19; K.J.V., v. 18).
The
whole of Psalm 22 - if it is prophetic at all - can only be referring to the
People of Israel.
Threats
against Jews by Martin Luther were put into action by Hitler and in the
concentration camps, not only were their garments divided but also the gold
fillings from their teeth. Their ribs were seen protruding through their flesh.
How many must have seen themselves as the fulfillment of this psalm: "I
may count all my bones." (v.
18; K.J.V., v. 17)
"They
pierced my hands and my feet." (v.
17; K.J.V., v. 16).
Fundamentalists
say Jesus fulfilled this when he was nailed to the cross.
The
original Hebrew says no such thing. There are many words for
"pierced" in Hebrew - "rats's,” "
The
psalm ends on a note of hope and trust in God, for though
27
John 19.36,
"These things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, "a
bone of him shall not be broken.”..
The
scriptural passage referred to is in Exodus, where we read: Exodus 12.46,
"In one house shall it (the passover lamb) be eaten; thou shalt not carry
aught of the flesh abroad out of the house, neither shall ye break a bone
thereof..."
REFUTATION
The words found in Exodus are not prophetic but simply a statement concerning how the Paschal lamb should be prepared. In the same passage it tells how one should dress when the passover is eaten, who is entitled to eat it and how it should be eaten with unleaven bread etc. The meat is not to be carried outside the house and caution is to be used so that not a bone of it (the Paschal lamb) shall be broken.
John in
his gospel describes this as a prophecy which he says was fulfilled by the
manner, which only he states, in which Jesus was crucified.
John
19.32-36, "Then
came the soldiers and brake the legs of the first and of the other which was
crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead
already, they brake not his legs. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced
his side ... And he that saw it bare record and his record is true that ye
might believe. For these things were done, that the Scripture should be
fulfilled: A bone of him shall not be broken..."
The
writer of this gospel can not be trusted to quote a simple passage from the Hebrew
scriptures correctly. In Exodus it does not say "a bone of him" but
"a bone of it.” The entire chapter Exodus
12 gives as it were a cook-book recipe for preparing the
passover meal. We cannot tear the scriptures apart. To take one phrase out of
context and call it prophecy is like taking one phrase out of a cook book
recipe for baking a cake (happy birthday) and saying that the sifting of flour
is a prediction of a coming snow storm.
The
author of John's gospel purposely misquoted the verse from Exodus so that the
reader would be made to believe it was referring to Jesus. This is another
point whereby we see that John's gospel reflects the doctrine of the 2nd
century church. The church teaches that Jesus was the Paschal lamb made flesh,
in human form. John needed something from the law concerning the passover lamb
to establish the "truth" of this doctrine which he could weave into
his forged story. He found what was a possibility in the text "neither shall ye break a bone of it.”
Another
thing to note is that there were many paschal lambs (one for each family) not
just one lamb for the whole people, therefore which of the many paschal lambs
was Jesus?
28
John 19.37:
"and again another scripture* saith, They shall look on him whom they have
pierced." (*Zech. 12.10)
Most
Christians believe that this prophecy describes how all Israel will one day be
made to gaze upon Jesus, whom they have pierced by nailing him to a cross - and
will lament him as an only son.
REFUTATION
To
arrive at this belief, the writers of the New Testament have blatantly
misquoted the prophet and changed his words to: "They shall look upon him whom they have
pierced." (John 19.37).
Altering a text may be a convenient way of proving one's theological viewpoint
but it has nothing to do with Biblical authenticity. We should look carefully
at the Hebrew Bible and see that this verse is not difficult to understand, if
read in its context. From Zechariah,
chapter 12, we learn that God will defend his People Israel and
destroy its enemies (v. 9).
It continues by saying that one day, "they"
(the Nation Israel, as is clear by the words "the House of David and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem") shall look to "Me" (God), whom "they" (the nations
spoken of in verse 9
that shall come against Jerusalem) have pierced. Then, "they" (
The one
who was pierced, according to this verse, is God. This is not strange: to
attack
"He
that touches you (
So, to
the nations, having pierced
Continued in Part 5