DO THE PROPHETS SPEAK
OF JESUS?
Shmuel Golding
PART 5 of 5
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.
39
The
manner in which Paul quotes this verse makes his Jewish readers feel that
because of their sins, they have caused God's Name to be blasphemed among the
gentiles.
REFUTATION
Reading carefully this prophecy, we find that Paul is misleading his readers. In context, we see that it is on account of the gentiles' deeds that God's Name is blasphemed. In fact, in addition to mistreating God's People in exile, they also blaspheme God's Name. Paul has added to the text the words "through you" and claims that this is what is written. The reader will find no such accusation in the original Hebrew text.
40
Rom. 3.10-12:
"As it is written,* there is none righteous, no, not one: there is none
that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God: they are all gone out
of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth
good, no, not one." (* Ps. 14.3)
Paul
uses these verses as do today's fundamentalists to "prove" that all
mankind are helpless sinners (Rom. 3.9).
REFUTATION
The psalmist did not have the concept of original sin in his mind when he proclaimed these words. In context, we see that the psalm points out that there are two types of men: "workers of iniquity" (v. 4) and "the righteous generation" (v. 5). "There is none that doeth good, no, not one" can only refer to the first group - as is obvious from the context - and does not suggest that among all mankind there cannot be found one righteous person.
41
Rom. 9.25-26:
"As he saith in Osee,* I will call them my people which were not my people
and call her beloved which was not beloved - and it shall come to pass that in
the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there shall they
be called the children of the living God." (* Hosea 2.25)
Many
fundamentalists believe that these verses taken from Hosea support their claim
of being called "the new Israel of God." Paul obviously had this
doctrine in mind when he wrote these words.
REFUTATION
Paul
quotes the verse and then immediately joins to it another verse from Hosea
(Hos. 2.1). Paul changes the order of the verses and gives the misleading impression
that those described as "not my people" were the gentiles, who were
later brought into the covenant to replace Israel - but when we read the texts
in their right order, we learn first of all that God rejected Israel as being
His people because of their sin of idolatry (2.1) but nowhere does the prophet
indicate that God found Himself another people to replace Israel. On the
contrary - the prophet continues by showing that God accepts
Hosea's
prophecy of doom is thus immediately followed by the promise of
42
Rom. 10.20-21:
"and Isaiah* is very bold and says, I was found by those who sought me
not; I became manifest to those who did not ask for me - but as for
Fundamentalists
tell us that the first part of this passage in Isaiah refers to those who
accepted Jesus. The second part, they claim, refers to the Jews, who did not.
They say that the Jews are "walking in a way that is not good." The
"spread out hands" are the spread out wings of Matt. 23.37: "How
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her
chickens under her wings - and you would not" and finally, the spread-out
hands of Jesus on the cross are all missionary jargon centered around this
verse.
REFUTATION
There
is not the slightest reason to suppose that the first section of this passage
from Isaiah is speaking of a different people from the second section. The
prophet does not specify what people it is. However, "Nizzahon
Vetus," a book of medieval refutations, refutes the fundamentalists in this
manner:
"It seems to us that this verse is talking about a people who make God
angry by:
a)
sacrificing in gardens (v. 3), viz Christian monasteries;
b) who burn incense upon bricks (v. 3), a reference to the high place they call
'altar';
c) those who sit among graves (v. 4) refers to the Christian custom of
surrounding the graves of their saints;
d) who eat swine's flesh (v. 4), as most Christians do. Remember it was Jesus
who said that all things are permitted to be eaten (Mark 7.19, R.S.V.); and
e) 'who prepare a table to God and fill the cup' (v. 11). This can be compared
to the table of the lord's communion and the cup which is said to be his blood
(Luke 22.19-20, John 6.53-56)."
43
Anxious
to establish a christ, a savior, a sinbearer, Paul changes the words of the
prophets to suit his purpose.
REFUTATION
In the Hebrew Bible, we see that a redeemer comes "to
If
Jesus was supposed to be a redeemer, why did he not "turn away ungodliness
from Jacob" and why did he not deliver the Jews of his day from the yoke
of Roman bondage?
44
Fundamentalists
believe that this prophecy refers to Jesus, who they claim was the "root
of Jesse" and that the gentiles will trust in him.
REFUTATION
Jesus however was not from the root of Jesse. Jesus did not see his ministry as a light unto the gentiles. He compared gentiles to dogs (Matt. 15.26) and commanded his disciples not to go to the gentiles or to enter into any city of the Samaritans (Matt. 10.5). Only after he died is he made to come back and command that his gospel be preached in all the world to all creatures (Mark 16.16b).
In the
Hebrew text, it states: "V'haitah m'nuhato kavod," meaning that his
rest or his peace will be with honor. Jesus never established a reign of peace.
He came not to bring peace but a sword (Matt. 10.34) and from the time his
church became an authorized power, it wielded the sword in every age. The
crusades, the inquisition and the holy wars were fought in his name but
established no peace and brought no honor.
45
1 Cor. 15.45:
"and so it is written,* the first man Adam was made a living soul; the
last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
* Paul
adds to the scriptures words which were never written. He creates a second
Adam, whom he says is Jesus.
REFUTATION
In this passage, Paul contradicts the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, by claiming him to have been made a spirit. In Paul's mind, Jesus did not come from Mary; he was not born as a baby but he came as a man from heaven (1 Cor. 15.47ff). The writer of the Gospel of John had much the same opinion: "and he saith unto them, ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8.23).
"Verily,
verily I say unto you, before Avraham was, I am." (John 8.58);
"I
came forth from the Father and am come into the world: again I leave the world
and go to the Father." (John 16.28);
"For
thou lovest me before the foundation of the world." (John 17.24).
46
Gal.
3:13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a
curse for us: for it is written,* Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a
tree." (* Deut. 21.23)
Fundamentalists
believe that because Christ died on a cross, he redeemed mankind from the curse
of the Law. If asked, "Since when was the Law a curse?," the
fundamentalist will reply by quoting from his K.J.V. Bible: "Cursed be he
that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them." (Deut. 27.26)
and he will back it up by quoting Galatians: "Cursed is everyone who does
not abide by all things written in the Law, to do them." (Gal.
3.10).
Thus,
if a man fails to keep just one of the commandments, he has, according to
Christian teaching, broken them all and is therefore cursed.
REFUTATION
In quoting from the Law, Paul has purposely added to the words of the Law. In Hebrew, Deut. 27.26, there is no mention of the word "all." The correct translation of the verse is: "Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this Law, to do them." It does not say "kol divrei hatorah" ("all the words of this Law"), nor could it - because although there are, according to the rabbis, 613 commandments in the Law, they were never meant to be kept by a single individual. Some commandments are for those who own slaves or employ servants; some are for farmers who work the land; some commandments are only for the priests and Levites; some are only for men; some are only for women. In fact, a large proportion of the laws are not intended for the individual at all but for the community as a whole, living in its land. A Christian shows total ignorance of the Law when he approaches a Jew and tells him he has broken the whole Law if he has offended in one point.
In addition
to being mistranslated from Hebrew, this verse is also misinterpreted in
another way. The verse (Deut. 27.26), together with the rest of the passage, is
not being addressed to individuals but to the leaders of the people. The
leadership of the nation is being told to establish the words of this Law, to
make it a force within the national life of the people and that if they did not
establish law in the country, in the end, they would be cursed.
47
Gal 4.22-26:
"Avraham had two sons the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman.
But the one who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, but he of the
free woman was by promise. These things are an allegory: for these are two
covenants: the one from
REFUTATION
Paul by believing that the covenant given at Sinai was given to the sons of Hagar the bondwoman, shows his ignorance of the Jewish scriptures. A reading of the book of Exodus will inform any intelligent person that the covenant at Sinai was made with the sons of the free woman. How then can Paul make such an allegory?
Whenever
did the sons of Hagar receive anything from Sinai? and since when was
48
Eph. 5.14:
"Wherefore he saith,* Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead and
Christ shall give thee light."
REFUTATION
* Paul does not say who was the original author of these words. He makes them appear to come from God but they are nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
49
Heb. 1.5:
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son; this
day have I begotten thee - and again, I will be to him a Father and he shall be
to me a son."*
Heb. 5.5:
"So also Christ did not glorify himself so as to become a high priest but
he who said to him,** Thou art my son; today I have begotten thee."
(* 2 Sam. 7.14) (** Ps. 2.7)
Fundamentalists
believe this whole psalm to be messianic and they believe that the son referred
to in verse 7 is Jesus, whom they claim to be the son of God.
REFUTATION
The writer of Hebrews has borrowed the first half of the verse from Ps. 2.7, where God is addressing David and the latter part is borrowed from 2 Sam. 7.14, where it refers to Solomon.
In this
psalm, God confirms David's calling as King of Israel. To be begotten here is
simply to be appointed by God. This can be seen by comparing "of the rock
(God) that begot thee, thou wast unmindful." (Deut. 32.18). From this, we
learn that all
"Thou
art my son" (Ps. 2.7) refers not to Jesus but to David and underlines the
father-and-son relationship between God and David. In another psalm, "I
will appoint him (David) firstborn." (Ps. 89.28).
Indeed,
God does not have "an only begotten son," as erroneously suggested by
the writer of John (John 3.16) but he has many sons, as seen in Gen. 6.2, Job
1.6, Job 38.7, Hos. 2.1.
50
Heb 7.19:
"For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope
did: by the which we draw nigh to God."
REFUTATION
The writer of Hebrews obviously was not acquainted with Ps 19.7-11 where the psalmist declares, "The Law is perfect converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes... More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold, sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them is great reward."
In true
Pauline style the writer of Hebrews sweeps away the Law of God in order to
establish the new religion of grace.
51
Heb 8.6-8, 10,
.".. by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant which was
established upon better promises. For if the first covenant had been faultless,
then should no place have been found for the second. For finding fault with
them he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new
covenant with the house of
REFUTATION
The New Testament is known in Hebrew as the 'Brit Hadasha', meaning the 'new covenant'. As expressed in the book of Hebrews it is believed to be a new and better covenant, replacing the first covenant, the Law of Moses, because the law was faulty, according to the writer of Hebrews, Heb 10.16, but let us see what is written in the prophets:
Jer
31.31, "Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of
Christianity
believes that the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah was fulfilled by Jesus.
The writer of Hebrews states (Heb 8.6-8,10), .".. by how much
also he is the mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better
promises. For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place
have been found for the second. For finding fault with them he saith, Behold
the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house
of
For
Christianity the law of Moses is no longer applicable because it was proven
faulty according to the writer of Hebrews and was replaced by a new covenant.
A close
examination of the prophecy of Jeremiah shows that the new covenant is none
other than a renewal of the old covenant of law with one innovation, that the
law is to become an internal part of
"I
will put my law within their inward parts and write it in their hearts"
(Jer 31.32). The prophet says nothing about putting the blood of a man upon
one's heart or any of the other teachings of the Gentile church, but does
distinctly say that the new covenant is 'torati', 'my law' ( v 32).
Jeremiah's
prophecy has evidently not yet been fulfilled for we read, "and they shall
teach no more every man his neighbour saying, know ye the Lord, for they shall
all know me, from the least to the greatest" (v 34). If the
fundamentalists do consider this prophecy to be fulfilled, why do they spend
millions of dollars on teaching men to know God which is what they are trying
to do in all their evangelical outreach.
This
'new covenant' is to be made with the house of
Nowhere
in the Hebrew Bible does one find the concept of a Messiah dying for man's
sins. When a fundamentalist Christian says that God made a new covenant with
the Jews and sealed it with his blood by his sacrificial death on the cross and
as proof quotes Jer 31.31ff, one need simply read verse 29, where it states
plainly that there is no need for anyone to die for men's sins, "that
everyone shall die for his own iniquity." The question "are you
saved?" is foreign to the Hebrew Bible.
52
Heb. 9.19-20:
"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to
the Law,* he took the blood of calves and of goats with water and scarlet wool
and hyssop and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the
blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you."
REFUTATION
* This incident is related in Exodus 24.1-9, except that there is no mention of the blood of calves and goats. Neither is there any mention of water and scarlet wool and hyssop. There is no mention of Moses sprinkling the book of the covenant. These are all figments of the writer's imagination.
53
Heb. 10.5-7:
"Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith,* sacrifices and
offerings Thou wouldest not but a body hast Thou prepared for me. In burnt
offerings and sacrifices for sin, Thou hast no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I
come (in the volume of the book, it is written of me) to do Thy Will, O
God." (* Ps. 40.8) (K.J.V., v. 7) In this passage, the writer of Hebrews
performs some acrobatics with the scriptures in order to give his readers the
impression that sacrifice was contrary to God's ordinance.
REFUTATION
On the contrary - offerings were a part of man's worship but not the most
important part. Only when a man does the Will of God is his offering acceptable
to God, as a psalm states (Ps. 51.21): "Then wilt Thou delight in the
sacrifices of righteousness, in burnt offerings and whole offerings; then will
they offer bullocks upon Thine altar."
The
words, "but a body has Thou prepared me" have been added by the
writer of Hebrews. It cannot be found in the Hebrew Bible. Also, compare Heb.
10.7: "Lo, I come in the volume of the book it is written of me" with
the original (Ps. 40.8 - K.J.V., v, 7): "Lo, I have arrived in the scroll
of a book written for me."
The
meaning is completely different. The writer of Hebrews creates a body (Jesus)
and suggests that the volume of the book (the prophets) speak about him,
whereas in the psalm, David is simply saying that he has arrived - that is to
say (at least, I understand) "in the scroll that is the Law written for
me, just what my duty is."
54
Heb 11.12:
"Therefore sprang there even of one (Avraham), and him as good as
dead."
REFUTATION
Avraham
was far from being "one as good as dead," he lived 75 years
after the birth of Isaac. Later he took more wives and produced many more
children (Gen 25.1,2).
55
Heb 11.17:
"Avraham when he was tried offered up Isaac...his only begotten
son."
REFUTATION
Isaac was not Avraham's only begotten son. At the time of offering Isaac, Avraham had an older son called Ishmael.
____________________________________
This concludes the polemics
on 'Do the Prophets speak of Jesus?' in five parts.