This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
As Christmas gift exchanges approach, the gift of Jesus is easily
obscured.
Worldly companies would be less successful if Christians stopped being such shameless consumerists.
But gifted prophets predicted the birth of the Messiah, and these
prophesies, like other Old Testament prophecies, testify to the Divine nature
of the Bible.
Dream on. I refute your attempts to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of any OT prophecy. The problem is far more complex than your simple-minded proof-texting would indicate.
The New Testament contains two different types of prophetic
declarations: the prophecies uttered by Jesus and the prophecies fulfilled by
Jesus. Old Testament prophets declared the coming of a Savior (a Messiah who
would save the Jewish people and the entire world from their sin). Here is a
brief summary of the prophecies predicting the gift of Jesus:
The Messiah Would Come from the Tribe of Judah
Jacob made this prophetic prediction around 1400 BC.
Genesis 49:10
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s
staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the
obedience of the nations is his.
Christians believe Jesus will establish an everlasting
kingdom in the future. His ancestry is traced back to Jacob’s son, Judah, in
Luke 3:23-34 and in Matthew 1:1-16.
Then you must think Jesus was a drunkard, because drunkenness is one description of the Genesis 49 future Shiloh ruler:
8 "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father's sons shall bow down to you.
9 "Judah is a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up?
10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
11 "He ties his foal to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, And his robes in the blood of grapes.
12 "His eyes are dull from wine, And his teeth white from milk.
13 "Zebulun will dwell at the seashore; And he shall be a haven for ships, And his flank shall be toward Sidon. (Gen. 49:8-13 NAU)
Evangelical Christian scholar G. J. Wenham on v. 12:
12 “His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk” seems to be a reference to the leader’s beauty (cf. 1 Sam 9:2; 16:12; cf. LXX, Vg, S, Caquot [Sem. 26 (1976) 5–32]), but it could be another reference to the abundance of wine and milk under the coming king. In this case, it would be preferable to translate the lines “His eyes are dark with wine and his teeth white with milk.” Canaan is often described as “flowing with milk and honey” (e.g., Exod 3:8, 17; Num 13:27; Deut 6:3). In an Arabic proverb, being “red with wine” is metaphorical for being very rich. And Isa 7:21–23 reflects on the erstwhile abundance of milk and vineyards. But the suggestion that his eyes will be “dark with wine” might suggest drunkenness as in Prov 23:29, which prompts the Targums to take the eyes and teeth as metaphors for the mountains and valleys of Palestine (e.g., Tg. Onq.).
Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 2: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 16-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 479). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Jesus' beauty? Nope, Christians think other OT predictions of Jesus say he was ugly:
2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. (Isa. 53:2 NAU)
The abundance of wine and milk under the coming king?
Whatever the metaphor might mean, it isn't explicit enough to intellectually obligate non-Christians to admit fulfillment in the 1st century. Jesus probably did a lot of good, but his own family sure didn't think he was increasing the metaphorical wine and milk (Mark 3:21, they thought he was crazy and tried to put a stop to his public ministry, the interpretation that most conservative Christian inerrantist scholars adopt).
I think the more likely interpretation of Genesis 49:10 is that the speaker in Genesis 49 meant that Judah in the future will get literally drunk very often and enjoy luxury and ease due to being wealthy, traits that fit the context well enough, but traits Jesus did not have (see Luke 9:58, Jesus was apparently homeless).
That Genesis 49:10 is at best an ambiguity that fights against attempts to understand it with certainty, is clear from the admissions of such a bastion of fundamentalism as Keil and Delitzsch:
Some of the Rabbins supposed our Shiloh to refer to the city. This opinion has met with the approval of most of the expositors, from Teller and Eichhorn to Tuch, who regard the blessing as a vaticinium ex eventu, and deny not only its prophetic character, but for the most part its genuineness. Delitzsch has also decided in its favour, because Shiloh or Shilo is the name of a town in every other passage of the Old Testament; and in 1 Sam. 4:12, where the name is written as an accusative of direction, the words are written exactly as they are here.
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Vol. 1, Page 254). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Furthermore, the originally intended audience of Genesis 49 would likely have understood "scepter" literally, that is, if it refers to a future ruler, it will be one who literally rules with a literal sceptor the way ancient Judean kings literally did. Jesus did not rule with a literal sceptor, and since other arguments prove that Jesus stayed dead consistently after the crucifixion, Genesis 49:10 is not talking about what Jesus will be like at his second coming. And preterists are forced to admit that if Jesus made his second coming in the 1st century, then his ruling with a "sceptor" can only be limited to a typological fulfillment of this "prophecy".
Nothing deflates the power of messianic prophecy quite like "typology". You may as well say Nahum 2:4 was a prediction of speeding cars with headlights on. Nobody would give a fuck. Next?
The Messiah Will Appear After the Jews Return to Israel
Jeremiah uttered this prophecy between 626 BC and 586 BC. It
was first fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly ministry and will be fulfilled again in
the end times.
Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in using messianic prophecy to convince skeptics, you are only doing this to help those who already embrace the Christian faith, to believe that it has some intellectual basis. Clearly the easier of the two possible goals.
Jeremiah 23:3-6
‘I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the
countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture,
where they will be fruitful and increase in number. I will place shepherds over
them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor
will any be missing,’ declares the LORD. ‘The days are coming,’ declares the
LORD, ‘when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign
wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will
live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our
Righteousness.”
First, the "gathering" of the "flock" would have been understood by Jeremiah's originally intended audience as literal, given that Jeremiah spoke while he and Israel were living under the Babylonian captivity. So if this is about Jesus, then it is saying Jesus' coming will be attended by a literal gathering of God's flock, likely back to Israel. That obviously didn't happen in the 1st century, and we can only guess at how many centuries need to pass without fulfillment, before you will agree that your "partial fulfillment" bullshit is nothing but desperate hot air.
Second, "they will no longer be afraid or terrified" would also be taken by the originally intended audience as signifying a literal gathering of the people upon the ending of the captivity. Yet such comforting didn't happen when Jesus came the first time, and hasn't happened for 2,000 years. You lose.
Third, the prophecy says "in his days Judah will be saved" and "saved" in its original context would have meant
release from captivity, it would not have meant "accept Jesus into your heart and become born again".
Curiously, evangelical Christian scholar P.C. Craigie's comments say nothing about whether this passage is a prediction of Jesus:
Yahweh is about to raise up a new king, either a rightful (=legitimate) descendant of David, or a righteous one. This king will bring the covenant conditions to the people: righteousness and justice. Liberation will come and the people will dwell securely in their own land. This king will be named “Yahweh is our righteousness.”
Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 26: Word Biblical Commentary : Jeremiah 1-25.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 331). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
It is also curious that Craigie understands this prophecy to be saying the coming of the predicted ruler will cause the
liberation of the people, in the sense that
they will dwell securely in their own land. Jesus did precisely nothing during his lifetime to free Israel from foreign occupation, and Israel hasn't dwelt securely in any land for 2,000 years, and any exceptions were temporary.
Feel free to tell yourself that Jesus will fulfill the liberation prediction at his second-coming, but be sure you google "preterism" first. Many Christians believe Jesus' second-coming occurred in the 1st century...a serious problem since, regardless, the Jews were in dispersion for centuries afterward and have never "dwelt securely" in any landd since. Unless you think ceaseless wars and civil unrest for 2,000 years constitutes "dwelling securely"?
That's quite sufficient to show that the passage is nowhere near so clear as to intellectually compel an objective person to see Jesus in it. We have no doubts why many Christian scholars and apologists appeal to "partial fulfillment". They need a nice way to say "Jesus didn't correctly fulfill this prediction".
Wallace continues:
The Messiah Would Be Born in Bethlehem
The prophet Micah predicted this between 750 BC and 686 BC.
Micah 5:2
‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among
the clans of Judah, out of
you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of
old, from ancient times.’
To be fair, there is disagreement regarding the translation
of Micah 5:2. Some say the reference to ‘Bethlehem’
is simply a reference to the bloodline of King David. Other people say it is a
reference to the town of Bethlehem.
Jesus meets both criteria; He is a descendant of King David and He was born in Bethlehem.
What you aren't telling the reader is that Matthew changed the wording to make it sound more like Jesus than it originally did. Compare:
|
Micah 5
|
Matthew 2
|
|
1 "Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of
troops; They have laid siege against us; With a rod they will smite the judge
of Israel
on the cheek.
2 "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."
3 Therefore He will
give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then
the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel.
|
4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of
the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.
5 They said to him,
"In Bethlehem of Judea;
for this is what has been written by the prophet:
6 'AND YOU, BETHLEHEM,
LAND
OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE
LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU
SHALL COME FORTH
A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD
MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"
7 Then Herod
secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star
appeared.
|
Micah merely says "to be a ruler in Israel", Matthew changes this in a way that conveniently makes the prophecy sound more Christian: "a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel".
Christian scholars agree that Matthew changed some of the wording:
This is one of the most familiar pericopes in Micah for Christians. Matthew quoted 5:1 in reference to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt 2:6). However, the OT text is slightly altered in Matthew’s account. Instead of saying, “little to be among the clans of Judah,” Matthew says, “by no means least among the rulers of Judah.” Also Matthew omits “Ephrathah,” and adds, “my people” Judah.
Smith, R. L. (2002). Vol. 32: Word Biblical Commentary : Micah-Malachi.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 44). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Gleason Archer, the doomed king of bible inerrancy, surprisingly admits that Matthew changed the wording:
|
Commentary
|
Micah 5:1(2); MT 5:1a hd'Why> ypel.a;B.
tAyh.li ry[ic' ht'r'p.a, ~x,l,-tybe hT'a;w>; LXX kai. su,, bhqle,em oi=koj tou/
Efraqa, ovligosto.j
(very small) ei=
tou/ ei=nai evn cilia,sin Iouda. MT laer'f.yIB. lveAm
tAyh.li aceyE yli ^M.mi; LXX evk sou/ moi
evxeleu,setai tou/ ei=nai eivj a;rconta (“from thee shall one come forth
for/to me in order to become a ruler”).
MT ~l'A[ ymeymi ~d,Q,mi
wyt'ac'AmW; LXX kai. ai` e;xodoi
auvtou/ avpV avrch/j evx h`merw/n aivw/noj. The LXX furnishes a very
accurate rendering of the MT. But Mt 2:6 has an entirely independent
rendering that provides some challenging deviations: (1) NT kai. su.
Bhqle,em, gh/ Iou,da
(instead of ht'r'p.a,).
Perhaps Ephrathah was taken as an identifier as to which of the two Bethlehems
was to be the Messiah's birthplace, whether that of Zebulon to the north (Josh
19:15)
up near Nazareth, or the one to the south of Jerusalem. Therefore Matthew, or
the advisors of King Herod, saw fit to identify it as Judah, bringing out the
implication of Ephrathah, which was the name of the region in which the town was
located; (2) NT ouvdamw/j evlaci,sth
ei= evn toi/j h`gemo,sin; the LXX states that Bethlehem was very small to
be among the 1000-family (or 1000 militiamen) towns of Judah. But Matthew
understands from the next clause that if the messianic ruler himself is to come
from Bethlehem, then it is—regardless of its size—to be regarded as a town of
outstanding importance and glory. So he uses the negative to bring out the
implication that it is after all a very important town within the tribe of
Judah, despite the modest size of its population.
The next change was in
the term h`gemo,nej,
“rulers,” instead of ~ypil'a]
“thousands,” referring to a community that could number 1000 families or even
1000 men at arms. (From this it was but a step to refer to the commander of
these troops as a @l,a, varo
(prince of 1000), or @l,a, for
short, just as the Roman centurio was derived from centurium, or a
company of 100 soldiers). But to the Greek reader it may have been more helpful
to use a less confusing term than cilia,dej, i.e.,
h`gemw,n
as the commander of 1000 soldiers. While it is true that in the first century
h;geww,n
was often used of a procurator like Pontius Pilate, it could also refer to the
commander of a cohort, for which a more technical equivalent would be cilia,rcwn. But
since the term h`genw,n several
times is used in the LXX for the Hebrew @WLa; (Gen
36:15; Ex 15:1;
1 Chron 1:50; Psalm 54:14), some have suggested that
Matthew may have read yPl.a; as ypeWLa; or
ypeLua;.
This is certainly a good possibility, for it would involve no consonantal change
of the received consonantal text. (E) |
Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament
(© 1983 Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, BibleWorks edition © 2005)
Sorry folks, but if you have to change the prophecy's wording to make it fit the "facts", you probably shouldn't be screaming your head off about the "amazing accuracy" of biblical prophecy. Or you should at least cease doing so when you leave church and go back out into the real world where truth actually matters.
Wallace continues:
The Messiah Would Be Preceded By a Messenger
Isaiah predicted there would be a messenger who would
precede the Messiah and proclaim His coming. Isaiah made the prophecy between
701 BC and 681 BC.
Isaiah 40:3
A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for
the LORD ; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.”
Christians believe this passage foreshadowed the life of
John the Baptist who played an important role in preparing the groundwork for
the ministry of Jesus Christ.
But in the original context, Isaiah 40 wasn't talking about John the Baptist, for several reasons:
1 "Comfort, O comfort My people," says your God.
2 "Speak kindly to Jerusalem; And call out to her, that her warfare has ended, That her iniquity has been removed, That she has received of the LORD'S hand Double for all her sins."
3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
4 "Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain, And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
5 Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."
6 A voice says, "Call out." Then he answered, "What shall I call out?" All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.
7 The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isa. 40:1-8 NAU)
First, "speak kindly" (v. 1) interprets "a voice is calling" (v. 2) and the two verses make clear this is Isaiah himself addressing Israel's situation there during his lifetime in 700 b.c.
Second, Isaiah is obviously talking to his contemporaries and telling THEM to clear the way for the Lord.
Curiously, evangelical Christian scholar J. D. W. Watts doesn't even mention future fulfillment or John the Baptist when commenting on the critical verse 3, nor does he mention John the Baptist anywhere in his entire commentary on Isaiah:
Isaiah 40:3 A solo voice calls for monstrous preparation, including a highway. One might expect that this would be for pilgrims returning to Jerusalem or for those who would resettle the land. But the highway does not come to Jerusalem from the northeast or from the north (i.e., from Babylon) or even from the south (i.e., from Egypt), where the Diaspora is located. The wilderness spoken of here is in the southeast, the Arabah. And the one to travel on it is Yahweh, our God. Ezekiel had pictured Yahweh abandoning the city (Ezek 9–11). Now he is returning, using the way that was familiar from Temple traditions of Yahweh coming from Sinai or from Edom (cf. chaps. 34 and 63:1–6) through the Arabah south of the Dead Sea to approach Jerusalem from the east (cf. Comment on 10:27–32). The heart of the announcement, the reason for the messages of good news, is that Yahweh is returning to take up residence in Jerusalem again. This calls for royal preparations.
Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 80). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
You lose.
The Messiah Would Enter Jerusalem While Riding on a Donkey
Zechariah made this unusual prediction between 520 BC and
518 BC.
Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king
comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on
a colt, the foal of a donkey.
As recorded in Luke 19:35-37, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and
presented Himself as the Messiah, the King.
I think Wallace is being dishonest here, for while Luke 19 surely talks about Jesus riding on a donkey, Wallace surely knew that Matthew's version of the story is the one that a) contains a direct quote of this "prophecy" and b) Matthew's version is the one that has convinced many scholars that Matthew did not understand hendiatys, and misunderstood a parallel expression of one donkey, to signify two. Compare:
|
Zechariah 9
|
Matthew 21
|
|
7 And I will remove their blood from their mouth And their
detestable things from between their teeth. Then they also will be a remnant
for our God, And be like a clan in Judah, And Ekron like a Jebusite.
8 But I will camp
around My house because of an army, Because of him who passes by and returns;
And no oppressor will pass over them anymore, For now I have seen with My
eyes.
9 Rejoice greatly,
O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
10 I will cut off
the chariot from Ephraim And the horse from Jerusalem; And the bow of war will be cut
off. And He will speak peace to the nations; And His dominion will be from
sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.
|
1 When they had approached Jerusalem
and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives,
then Jesus sent two disciples,
2 saying to them,
"Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a
donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me.
3 "If anyone
says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and
immediately he will send them."
4 This took place
to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5 "SAY TO THE
DAUGHTER OF ZION,
'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU,
GENTLE,
AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY,
EVEN ON
A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.'"
6 The disciples
went and did just as Jesus had instructed them,
7 and brought the
donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats.
(Matt. 21:1-7 NAU)
|
First, Matthew 21:3 has Jesus telling others that he has need of "them" (i.e., BOTH the donkey and her colt). Well wait a minute...Zech. 9:9 wasn't talking about two animals. It was talking about one, a colt. The verse says "mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey". That's not two animals, but one, because of a Hebrew parallelism technique called hendiatys. Some examples:
Hebrews 11:13 The formulation ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι, “strangers and sojourners,” is a hendiadys, the expression of an idea by two nouns joined by the conjunction “and.” It is equivalent to “sojourning strangers.”
Lane, W. L. (2002). Vol. 47B: Word Biblical Commentary : Hebrews 9-13
. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 357). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
“Made well and live” (σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ) could refer to two distinct ideas (Taylor, 288). Yet since these two verbs render the Aramaic חיה, ḥayâh, some have taken them to be a hendiadys, two expressions for the same thing (Black, Approach, 71, n. 1; Klostermann, 51).
Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 296). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Luke 2:4 “house and family,” is probably a hendiadys.
Nolland, J. (2002). Vol. 35A: Word Biblical Commentary : Luke 1:1-9:20.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 104). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Furthermore, under Markan priority, Matthew probably got this story from Mark 11 which says:
1 As they approached Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples,
2 and said to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.
3 "If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' you say, 'The Lord has need of it'; and immediately he will send it back here."
4 They went away and found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street; and they untied it.
5 Some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?"
6 They spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission.
7 They brought the colt to Jesus and put their coats on it; and He sat on it.
8 And many spread their coats in the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields.
9 Those who went in front and those who followed were shouting: "Hosanna! BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!"
11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking around at everything, He left for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late. (Mk. 11:1-11 NAU)
In other words, Matthew's likely source were these Markan admissions about a single colt, nothing expressed or implied about a second animal.
Why then does Mark specify that "the Lord has need of IT" and Matthew specifies "the Lord has need of THEM"? Most likely because the Matthean author of this part of Matthew mistakenly took Zechariah 9:9 literally, and was ignorant that the OT expression was describing one animal in two ways. Otherwise, why would Matthew feel compelled to modify the singular to the plural, especially if he thought his Markan source was inerrant?
Sorry, but at best this "prophecy" could have been fulfilled improperly by any messianic pretender by simply obtaining a colt and riding it into Jerusalem. You lose. Next?
The Messiah Would Suffer and Be Rejected
Isaiah made this prediction as well, between 701 BC and 681
BC.
Isaiah 53:3
He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and
familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was
despised, and we esteemed him not.
Some scholars claim Isaiah was referring to Israel as a
nation in this passage rather than the Messiah. But, many important, historic
Rabbis believed this passage was indeed about the Messiah.
You need to look at the context first, that's more objective than simply asking how some important Rabbis
understood it.
Rabbi Moshe Alshekh,
one of the great seventeenth-century expositors from Safed, Israel,
said ‘Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet
is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same
view.”
Ok, since you don't go to the context, I will. The suffering servant in Isaiah is spoken of in past tense terms which
is a rather confused way of predicting the future (!?). Isaiah 53:7 says the servant
didn't open his mouth while his executors were slaughtering him, but
Jesus obviously does plenty of talking during his execution, John 19:11,
Luke 23:28, 34, 43, 46. Also the Hebrew word for death in Isaiah 53:9 is a plural, so in
your quest to show this stuff literally applies to Jesus, be sure you
cite the evidence showing that he died several times.
Finally, again curiously, a Christian scholar doesn't even mention Jesus as a possible fulfillment of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, which would hardly be the case if Jesus being the fulfillment had been the least bit "clear":
This commentary will show that “the sufferer passages” are distinct from “the servant passages” sufferer and the servant are not the same person and that the in the Vision. Israel and the Persian emperor (Cyrus or Darius) are called “the anointed” or “the servant of Yahweh” (See Excursus: Identifying the “Servant of Yahweh”). But the sufferer in 50:4–9 and the dead sufferer in chap. 53 is more likely to be a leader in Jerusalem (perhaps Zerubbabel) who has been executed before the arrival of authorities sent by Darius.
Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 227). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
later on he specifies:
53:2 He grew up like a plant before him. Pronouns without antecedents appear throughout these verses. The waw consecutive ties this verse closely to v 1. This interpretation understands most of the third person masculine pronouns to refer the “the servant” of 52:13 (Darius). The second pronoun may refer to his patron Cambyses. That is, Darius grew up in the court of Cambyses as an insignificant and unpromising person. A vine from dry ground is figurative language for one of parentage not in line for succession to the throne. No form, no beauty, no attraction imply that Darius was a most unlikely candidate to gain support for his seizure of the throne. We: the speakers are the many, the crowd, of 52:14. They are talking among themselves, not addressing the emperor.
Watts, J. D. W. (2002). (id, 230)
And later:
53:11 The heavenly perspective is accented by Yahweh’s words. The travail of his soul refers to the suffering and death of Zerubbabel. He will see; he will be satisfied. This speaks of Darius. He has a way out of his dilemma if he treats Zerubbabel’s death as atonement for the charge of rebellion. By knowing about him (Zerubbabel), he (Darius) can justify. The death of Zerubbabel provides Darius with a legal way to resolve the issue. My servant refers to Darius, who by this act proves his legitimacy as Yahweh’s servant. He vindicates Jerusalem and its people against the charges brought by the governor and neighboring peoples. He forgives their wrongs. This is presented as Yahweh’s realistic and practical solution to the problem posed in 52:14–15.
Of course, the reader may suggest J.D.W. Watts perhaps wasn't a Christian when he wrote this commentary. Wrong: From logos.com:
John D.W. Watts, formerly Professor of Old Testament at Southern Baptist
Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky and Old Testament editor of the Word Biblical Commentary, well known for his scholarly contributions on the prophetic books.
See
here.
So if even Christian scholars say next to nothing about Jesus' relationship to Isaiah 53, you can hardly consider the non-Christian to be intellectually obligated to view Jesus as the fulfillment of that "prediction".
The Messiah Would Be Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver
Zechariah predicted the betrayal of Jesus when he wrote this
prophecy between 520 BC and 518 BC.
Zechariah 11:12-13
I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if
not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to
me, ‘Throw it to the potter’–the handsome price at which they priced me! So I
took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to
the potter.
As recorded in Matthew 26:15, Judas was paid 30 silver coins
for his betrayal of Jesus. Judas later tossed the money into the Temple (the house of the
Lord) and the money was used to buy a potter’s field as a burial place for
foreigners.
And responsible Christian scholars tell us the original OT passage wasn't talking about the future:
Although NT writers connect this passage about the thirty pieces of silver paid to the prophet for his unappreciated service as a shepherd to his people to the money Judas received for betraying Jesus, the original passage makes no reference to a future Messiah. S. R. Driver says that the evangelist (Matthew) makes the connection because he “follows the exegetical methods current among the Jews of his time” (cf. Matt 2:15, 18; Driver 259).
Although no strict messianic view should be seen in the original passage, the quality of leadership is its central theme.
Smith, R. L. (2002). Vol. 32: Word Biblical Commentary : Micah-Malachi.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 272). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Fuhr and Yates consider this prophecy fulfillment to be typological, not literal prediction:
see
here.
The publisher acknowledges these scholars are Christians with a Christian purpose:
Old Testament scholars Richard Alan Fuhr, Jr. and Gary E. Yates believe
that the message of the twelve Minor Prophets is relevant for the church
today, and they re-introduce these important books of the Bible to
contemporary Christians. (source)
Wallace continues:
The Messiah Would Be Silent Before His Accusers
Isaiah predicted this between 701 BC and 681 BC.
Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his
mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her
shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
In the book of Isaiah, chapter 53, Isaiah wrote about a
“servant of God”. As recorded in Matthew 27:12-14, Jesus was falsely accused
but remained silent and did not protest the accusations. Jesus was crucified by
the Romans a short time later.
This is a non-starter. Isaiah doesn't say the servant refused to protest the accusations, Isaiah says the sufferer was silent before his accusers the way a lamb is silent before the shearer, but the NT has Jesus saying much to his accusers. Compare:
|
Isaiah 53
|
John 18
|
|
7 He was oppressed
and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He
did not open His mouth.
|
33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and
summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"
34 Jesus answered,
"Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you
about Me?"
35 Pilate answered,
"I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered
You to me; what have You done?"
36 Jesus
answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this
world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over
to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
37 Therefore Pilate
said to Him, "So You are a king?"
Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king.
For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to
testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
|
I think this is the part where mouthy apologists suddenly discover who wise Christian scholar Craig Evans was in saying that Jesus probably didn't say most of the things the gospel of John puts in his mouth. See
here.
The Messiah Would Suffer at the Crucifixion
The Psalmist, King David wrote Psalm 22 and repeatedly
predicted the events on the cross that would happen centuries later. Here are a
few examples:
Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far
from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
Psalm 22:7
All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their
heads:
Psalm 22:8
‘He trusts in the LORD ; let the LORD rescue him. Let him
deliver him, since he delights in him.’
Psalm 22:16
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled
me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
Psalm 22:17
I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
Psalm 22:18
They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my
clothing.
Why did Jesus, while dying on the cross, say ‘My God, my
God, why have you forsaken me?’ Those words are actually the first line of
Psalm 22, which according to Jewish tradition was written by King David about
1,000 years before Jesus was crucified. There are many parallels between the
details in Psalm 22 and the manner in which Jesus died.
First, the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 shows his own effort to "fulfill" that passage, which means there is no intellectually forceful argument that divine inspiration is the only way this fulfillment could have happened.
Second, Psalm 22:16's "pierce my hands and feet", in context, is referring to the Psalmist's metaphorical complaint that his enemies are chewing him up the way an animal would piece your hands and feet by biting them.
16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;
18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
19 But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion's mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me. (Ps. 22:16-21 NAU)
Third, responsible Christian scholars translate 22:16 in a way that gets rid of the "pieced" crap that Christians need to link it up Jesus' crucifixion:
For dogs have surrounded me;
a packa of thugs have encompassed me;
my hands and my feet were exhausted.b
a 17.a. On the nuance “pack” for עדת, see Dahood, Psalms I, 140.
b 17.b. MT’s כָּאֲרִי (“like a lion”) presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct. One must suppose that incorrect vocalization of the consonantal text occurred, perhaps through association with a marginal gloss at v 14; see note a at v 14 and L. C. Allen, “Cuckoos in the Textual Nest,” JTS 22 (1971) 148–50. It is probably best to read a consonantal text כארו or כרו; see the massive discussion of the manuscript evidence in De-Rossi, IV, 14–20. G’s translation, “they pierced my hands and feet” (ὤρυξαν), may perhaps presuppose a verb כרה, “to dig,” or כור (II), “to pierce, bore” (though the latter verb is dubious). Some scholars have supposed a verb אָרָה (“to pluck, pick clean”), prefixed by כְּ; for different approaches to this solution of the problem, see Dahood, “The Verb ĀRĀH, ‘pick clean,’” VT 24 (1974) 370–71, and Tournay, VT 23 (1973) 111–12. Still another solution is the proposal of a verb כרה (V), “to be shrunken, shriveled” (on the basis of Akk. and Syriac), as proposed by Roberts, VT 23 (1973) 247–52. The starting point for the translation which is adopted above is provided by E. J. Kissane (The Book of Psalms, 97–101). He proposes an original text כלו, changed to כרו (noting the occasional interchange of ל and ר), and translates “consumed.” This is basically the position adopted above; on the consonantal interchange, see A. Fitzgerald, “The Interchange of L, N and R in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 97 (1978) 481–88. Thus the verb is a form of כלה (3 plur. perf.); on the nuance “to be exhausted,” for this verb, see BDB, 477.
Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 195). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Craigie also makes the "typological" interpretation the most likely when he says the original intent of the Psalm wasn't messianic:
Though the psalm is not messianic in its original sense or setting (though some scholars would interpret vv 28–32 as a messianic relecture: see MartinAchard, art. cit.), it may be interpreted from a NT perspective as a messianic psalm par excellence.
Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 202). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Wallace continues:
The Messiah Would Be Buried in a Rich Man’s Tomb
In yet another prophecy of Isaiah, made between 701 BC and
681 BC, the prophet predicted the burial of the Messiah.
Isaiah 53:9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich
in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Seven hundred years after this was written, Jesus was killed
with two criminals and buried in a tomb owned by a wealthy man. Jesus was
resurrected three days later and eventually ascended into Heaven.
Maybe so. But since he was buried in a rich man's tomb, the rich man could also have easily bribed the guards to simply say they found the tomb empty upon arrival...and that particular story would not have subjected them to any punishment, whereas the bribery story Matthew gives (i.e., they were bribed to say they were asleep when the disciples stole the body) not only would subject the guards to severe punishment, but would not make sense anyway, they'd obviously anticipate their boss asking "how could you know who the grave robbers were, if it happened while you were asleep?" In this case, the historicity of the burial account opens historiographical doors the apologists don't want to open, doors that are more plausible than the bullshit story Matthew gives. So yes, the disciples stole the body before the guards arrived (if Joe can move a stone in front of the tomb, other men can just as easily move it aside).
It would seem that skeptics are winning the messianic prophecy debate. Christian Research Institute ('CRI') has always stood for standard Protestant orthodoxy and apologetics, but in one of its articles (attributed to Hank Hanegraaff but more than likely ghost-written for him mostly by actual bible scholars, as was the case with his best-selling books), it specifically denies that Isaiah 7:14 was a literal prediction of Jesus' birth, it rather admits the fulfillment in Jesus is "typological":
As with double-fulfillment, single-fulfillment does violence to the
biblical text. Indeed, Isaiah 7:14 does not constitute a direct
prediction about the Messiah at all. Though Mary gave birth to Jesus as a
virgin, Isaiah did not predict the virgin birth of Jesus. As we will
now see, when Matthew says the virgin birth of Jesus is the fulfillment
of Isaiah’s prophecy, he speaks of typological fulfillment, not
predictive fulfillment.
See
here.
