Messianic Prophecies

This post is a rehash of a post I made during my brief sojourn at "EvolutionFairytale.com", and the full discussion can be seen there. A lot of the Christians' defense of the messianic prophecies involving claiming that other prophecies were convincing, which is perhaps telling.

I was prompted to discuss this issue in the first place because of this web page, by a guy called Fred Williams, who, I believe, runs the "EvolutionFairytale.com" forum. He says:

Perhaps the most compelling of evidences demonstrating that the Bible is the word of God is its unswerving ability to accurately predict future events, often in minute details.

A strong claim indeed! That page discusses various types of prophecies, of which the messianic prophecies are but one. Specifically with regards to them, Williams says:

When Dr. Kennedy finished reading these scriptures to the Jewish man, he asked him to whom these verses were referring to.  The man responded that "Obviously they are talking about Jesus... So what?".  Dr. Kennedy then pointed out that all the verses he had just read to him were from the Old Testament!   The man was stunned and demanded to see the passages with his own eyes9.
...
The Old Testament contains 333 prophesies regarding the Messiah, most of which were fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus Christ.  Even the most liberal critics acknowledge that these prophesies were written at least 400 years before Christ.  Mathematicians have easily shown that the odds of all these prophesies being fulfilled by chance in one man is greater than the number of atoms in the universe many times over.

The page offers about half a dozen such prophecies, and personally I am not convinced, for reasons I will explain.

There certainly are messianic prophecies in the Bible, but the messiah the Jews were waiting for was a king, a military leader who would free them from the Assyrians, and later the Romans, just as Moses had done previously. The Romans were perfectly well aware of this, which is why they were keen to stamp down on any supposed messiah quickly. In fact, messiah merely means "anointed one"; it was traditional to anoint the king with oil.

So let us examine those that Williams selected...

Psalm 22

Psalm 22:7-8 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 'He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him

Psalm 22:16 They have pierced my hands and my feet

This is a song, not a prophecy, in which the author bemoans the fact that the nation of Israel is held in low regard. It is nothing to do with Jesus, and not a prophecy.

The word translated here as "pierced" certainly lends itself to prophesying the crucifixion, but that was a choice made relatively recently. Elsewhere in the Bible, the same word is consistently translated as "dig" and also as "lion". In fact, it is curious that Strong's concordance has two different entries for this one word (3738 and 738 if you are interested).

A rather better translation would be, "They maul me like lions", but that is not used because then it would not seem to be a prophecy. Here is what Williams says:

According to secular sources, crucifixion was invented as a method of capital punishment no earlier than the 6th century BC10. This is 4 centuries after David wrote in Psalms 22:16, "They have pierced my hands and my feet". Even if critics try to persuade against a 1000 BC date for Psalms 22, they can't deny this Psalm existed in the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls that were translated around 200 BC11. Does the critic really want to try to convince us that a Jesus pretender would want to self-fulfill such a terrible way to die?

See, if you look what the text actually says, this is rather less impressive. David (if he really was the author) had no knowledge of crucifixion - and indeed was making no reference to it. What this critic is trying to convince you of is that the text has been twisted to appear to be a prophecy many centuries after the date.

Here is how the line is translated by Jews. 

For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.

Of course, they may have their own agenda to deny the status of Jesus, so I suggest looking at this page which gives a transliteration from the Hebrew - and uses the word "dig".

Or check this on-line Bible, which makes the damning admission "Psalm 22:16 Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text me, / like a lion"

It is worth mentioning verse 1 of the psalm too.

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
    Why are you so far from saving me,
    so far from my cries of anguish?

Remarkably, these are the same words Jesus says as he died on the cross. Quite a prophecy! Or is it? Is it not possible that Jesus quoted the Psalm? Rather more likely, these words were attributed to Jesus later. It is worth pointing out that they are nonsense in modern Christianity, in which Jesus is part of the trinity, knowingly fulfilling his own plan. How could Jesus have forsaken himself?

Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors

This is a messianic prophecy, but this is about a messiah who will free the Jews. It starts:

Isaiah 52:1Awake, awake, Zion,
    clothe yourself with strength!
Put on your garments of splendor,
    Jerusalem, the holy city.
The uncircumcised and defiled
    will not enter you again.
2 Shake off your dust;
    rise up, sit enthroned, Jerusalem.
Free yourself from the chains on your neck,
    Daughter Zion, now a captive.

This is Isaiah telling the Israelites to hold tight; things are bad now, but soon God will send someone who will set us free (free of the Assyrian, that is, if you read verse 4). Jesus did not do that.

In Isaiah 52:14, we read "his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being". Is that really a description of Jesus? Of course not. Either the so-called prophesy got it wrong, or it was no prophecy at all.

By the way, here the word "pierced" actually is supported by the Hebrew.

Psalm 41

Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me

Again, not about Jesus. Just look a few verses back:

Psalm 41:4 I said, “Have mercy on me, Lord; heal me, for I have sinned against you.

Did Jesus sin against God? Of course not, so therefore it cannot be Jesus who is the subject of the Psalm.


Is Williams unaware of this? It would seem that either this guy is happy to read Bible verses entirely free of context, or he is deliberately misleading people.

Zechariah 12

Zechariah 12:10 They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son

Look at the context.

Zechariah 12:9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.
10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on[b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

This is another prophecy of the Israelites becoming powerful again. God is the one pierced because of the way other nations have treated his own people, while the one they will mourn for is the nation of Israel itself.

If you are still convinced this is a prophecy that has come true, ask yourself exactly which day it was that God "set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem".

Isaiah 7

This is not on Williams' web page, but is also popular, and was first used by Matthew.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

This is a prophecy, but not of a messiah. Ahaz was worried about whether his military forces would prevail, and Isaiah said that God would send a sign. That sign is pretty useless if it really is Jesus, arriving over seven centuries later. Rather, this was a sign expected in the next few months. If it was seen, Ahaz could be sure of military success.

The prophecy says their enemies will be destroyed before the child is old enough to know right from wrong. Which of these makes sense:

God will send you a sigh to show you will be successful, a child born called Immanuel. When you see the child, you will know God is with you, and within a few years, before the child can tell right from wrong, your enemies will be defeated

OR

God will send you a sigh, a child born called Immanuel. But not for over seven centuries. Before the child can tell right from wrong, your enemies will be defeated

Oh, and let us not forget that the child was prophesised to be called Immanuel, not Jesus. Some Christians claim Immanuel is a title, not a name, but it is a title only ever given to Jesus in the context of the prophecy. Another case of twisting the prophecy to fit the event.