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 McDowells 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 Bibles 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 Barretts 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 Johns (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 Messiahs 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, and 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 Josephs side Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23)? Was Shealtiels 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 Herods abuses, makes no mention of it. Matthew goes on to claim that to evade Herods 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 cant 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 Messiahs 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 11:2-3, 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 Sigals 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 dont 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.
Posted on: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 02:33:02 +0000