Contents Updated: Sunday, July 25, 1999
Ernest Phibber now takes us to Daniel 9:24-26 which he considers to be a prophecy of the death of Jesus Christ. The verses are doing the prophetic trick we have noted several times above of writing history as if it were prophecy. The book of Daniel was written in the second century BC, only about two hundred years before the crucifixion but Daniel, the prophet, its supposed author, lived at about the time that Cyrus the Persian released Israel from captivity in Babylon. Hence a whole era of four hundred years could be predicted with absolute correctness. That is just what the author of Daniel did—the book is a valuable historic source.
The climax of the verses quoted is the beginning of verse 26 where it says the anointed one shall be cut off. Our tutor says the Jews do not like this passage because they do not believe in a Messiah (the anointed one) who is cut off (killed). The truth is that the Jews see no prophecy of a Messiah in this passage because it prophesies nothing other than history past at the time it was written. Nor was the anointed one necessarily the Messiah. High Priests of the Temple of Jerusalem were anointed ones because they were anointed to admit them to office.
Weeks are weeks of years, a common usage of the time, so the passage simply relates the history of Israel from the restoration of the Temple to the time of the author, Daniel, or rather pseudo-Daniel. It says that in 170 BC, sixty two weeks of years after the restoration, the High Priest would be cut off. Daniel could prophesy this exactly because pseudo-Daniel was writing a few years after 170 BC in about 165 BC.
What had happened was that the High Priest, Onias III, having been deposed by his brother, Jesus, was murdered. Pseudo-Daniel highlighted this because it marked the end of the Zadokite line of Priests that had traditionally existed since the time of Solomon.
Now Phibber, our scholarly, highly qualified student of the Bible, should have known this but he tells us God’s Truth—it is a prophecy of the death of the man who gave his name to Christianity. The more you read this man’s scholarship the more you think God’s Truth means Christian lies.
Pseudo-Daniel actually got his sums wrong probably because he did not know the exact dates of the restoration, but also because it suited his prophetic style to use the magic sounding seventy weeks of years. We are certain when the Pseudo-Daniel was writing because his prophesies go wrong when he actually tries to prophesy. Working back from about 165 BC we find his seventy weeks goes back before the release from captivity.
Of course Phibber believes the 490 years and tries to work out the mathematics of it all—but it doesn't actually work! 490 years from the release from captivity in 538 BC is 48 BC, a year of no particular interest in Christian terms. If the cutting off is that of Jesus in around 30 AD, as our tutor supposes, then the commandment to rebuild the Temple must have gone out as late as 460 BC.
Obviously, the commandment must have preceded the Jewish princes Sheshbazzar and Zerubabbel laying the foundations which was before 500 BC. Furthermore Cyrus promised to pay for the restoration of the Jewish temple himself, so it is likely that the commandment went out before his death in 529 BC. All of this points to Jesus not being the one who was cut off, whichever way you look at it.
Phibber continues with another five prophecies about the Messiah. From Micah 5:2 he gives us a prophecy:
Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
So, the ruler of Israel shall come forth out of Bethlehem Ephratah. Phibber assures us that we all know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not even his enemies denied it, and isn’t it amazing that the prophecy came true even though Bethlehem is such a tiny place. Phibber tells us it is like someone saying the next President of the United States will be born in Piketon, Ohio.
Well, no! It isn’t like that really. It’s more like prophesying that the next madman to claim to be George Washington will be born in Bridges Creek, Virginia. Really it would not matter whether he was or he was not but, if the prophecy was important to my desire to promote worship of the madman, I could always write that he was born in Bridges Creek, Virginia, or in Piketon, Ohio, for that matter.
The point is that nobody would know any better. I could not do this for a President of the United States. In like wise nobody knows where Jesus was born but, because there had been a prophecy that he would be born in Bethlehem, like the man he had to emulate, king David, his chroniclers wrote that he was born in Bethlehem.
Curiously enough, if Christians are to be believed, the prophecy did not come true anyway.
Christians deny that Jesus was, in fact, a king as Pilate wrote on the cross. They deny strongly that Jesus was ever a ruler in Israel. They deny that he wanted to be an earthly king. The innocence of Jesus depends on him not being a ruler in Israel nor even claiming to have been a ruler. If either could have been true, then Pilate had an unequivocal reason to hang him as a traitor to the Emperor.
Strange then that Christians should take as prophetic of Jesus a passage that distinctly says it is the man that is to be ruler in Israel who shall come forth from Bethlehem. Our Christian instructors in truth are doing their usual thing—picking what suits them, and no one seems to bother challenging them.
Next we get from Phibber a prophesy from Zechariah 9:9-10 about the king entering Jerusalem on an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass. This is just what Jesus deliberately chose to do, according to the gospels. Our tutor, for the first time, accepts that actions in the New Testament could be in deliberate fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy. Why then shouldn’t Jesus enter Jerusalem on an ass if he had read Zechariah? It’s hardly a prophecy if it is done deliberately in its fulfillment.
Phibber has an answer. Any king would want to enter Jerusalem on a chariot or on a warhorse not on a humble ass. So whoever wrote the prophecy must have known that Jesus was going to enter on a lowly ass. Get out of that one, Unbeliever!
All right. Our Bible scholar, Phibber, cannot have failed to see that the author of Zechariah was himself using prophecy from Genesis 49:10 where Jacob is foretelling the future of his son Judah. The passage is quite mysterious but was taken by the Essenes to be a Messianic prophecy. Zechariah who also was strongly apocalyptic took up the reference. Now in Genesis 49:10 the Messiah seems to be called Shiloh and the reference to the foal and the colt links them to vines. The whole song is a transcription of an early work so the animal references could have been tribal symbols of some sort, perhaps associating the tribe of Judah with the culture of grapes. In pagan religions the ass and the vine are often connected. Later Zechariah saw the chance to use them as symbols of the coming Deliverer and so depicted his messianic king entering Jerusalem on a colt, the foal of an ass.
Pshaw! I can hear Dr Ernest Phibber raging: What people would ‘rejoice greatly’ and ‘shout’ their approval of a king entering on an ass? How absurd it must have all sounded. (I know he would say this because it is what he writes.) And yet, he continues, it did not seem absurd because Jesus was such a humble man though one with the personality of a mighty king.
Sounds great to a Christian but the reality was that the Jews were expecting a king who would conquer the world. He did not need to have chariots or mighty armies because God would be on his side and success would be through a miracle. The Jews knew no one could gather a mighty army without the Romans finding out. They did not expect it. Furthermore Zechariah seems closely linked with Essenism. The Essenes valued the poor and the humble, believing that righteousness came from poorness and meekness. Contrary to the assertions of our tutor therefore it is fully understandable how Zechariah could predict a humble entry into the Holy City.
Perhaps our scientific Bible reader, Dr Ernest Phibber, had not had the chance to read about the Essenes so could not fully appreciate the influence of one of the most important strands of Judaism at the time of Jesus. What he did know about however was the effect that the humble entry would have upon the world because Zechariah prophesied that in considerable detail. The tribes would gather together with Judah and Ephraim and conquer the world aided by a few lightning bolts. These bits didn’t come true but no matter; the bits that suit the Christians did come true because Jesus made them.
Now we come to Psalms 45:2,7. Dr Ernest Phibber, our mentor, believes it tells us why God blessed the Messiah more than anyone else. Only a perfect man with perfect speech and perfect behaviour could be a Messiah.
Thou art fairer than the children of men; grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee forever. (Psalms 45:2).
Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (Psalms 45:7).
This prophecy must be about Jesus, he’s so good. What else, then, does it says about him? Surely it must predict more about the humble, poor and meek man at the centre of Christianity. Here is a selection of verses:
Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, thy glory and thy majesty. Thine arrows are sharp; the peoples fall under thee; out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad. At thy right hand doth stand the queen in gold of Ophir. Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou shall make princes in all the earth.
Dr Ernest Phibber has again forgotten about most of the prophecy—indeed all of it that does not fit the outcome. The perfect man of this Psalm is a mighty, and mighty wealthy, king who will put his children as princes to rule the world. He is a combination of David and Solomon; he is the idealised king that the Jews, in times of tribulation, yearned for to lead them out of oppression; he is their Messiah, a God given king who would inaugurate the kingdom of God on earth. I expect the doctor would tell us the rest of it is metaphorical—what suits suits; what does not suit is metaphorical. God’s Truth.
Anyway the doctor goes on to say that Jesus had to be sinless because the Christian gospel of salvation is based on a sinless sacrifice. Even non-Christians will agree that the Jesus of the gospels seemed a remarkably good man but was he sinless? I always understood that there were seven capital sins one of which was wrath. The gospels tell us that Jesus was liable to fits of anger for example when, at the age of twelve, he is rude to his mother; when at an older age he is rude to his family; when he is rude to Peter, calling him Satan; and other instances. But most of all he is furious in the Temple and rages about, throwing tables over. That sounds angry enough. Isn’t that a sin? I don’t know why I ask, of course, it isn’t. It is all part of God’s plan so cannot be a sin, don’t you see?
Now Phibber gives us another quotation from Psalms (16:9-11) to prove that the Old Testament foretold that Jesus would rise from the dead. The cited verses include:
My flesh shall dwell in safety. For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life: In thy presence is fulness of joy; in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore.
These lines were themselves quoted in the Acts of the Apostles (2:24) by Peter so our skeptical physicist will be certain that they are true. They sound quite convincing as they stand but let us take a look at them in context.
When the whole prayer is read the first thing that strikes you is that there is not the slightest indication in any way that it is the Messiah who is speaking to God. The Christian argument therefore adopts a circular shape: it does not indicate that this is the Messiah but it speaks about incorruptibility so it must be the Messiah speaking. Yet whoever is praying feels it necessary to tell God that he has never put his trust in any other gods. It seems amazing that the Messiah should feel he has to tell God this. Whatever minor infringements the Messiah committed requiring confession before God, one would not have thought sacrificing at a pagan alter could have been one.
The general sense is not of the Son of God asking his father in heaven to confirm that he would be resurrected but that of a good but sick man praying that he should not yet be taken by death. I accept that these observations will not impress any Christian if only because what is good for St Peter is good enough for them, but those who are less fixed in their ideas could only conclude that the use of these verses by St Peter shows God’s Truth has a long history.
Finally we get quotations from another psalm (Psalms 110:1,4) which apparently prophesies that Jesus was to ascend to heaven because God tells someone, interpreted to be the Messiah, to sit at My right hand thereby showing that the Messiah was in heaven. Incidentally Doctor Phibber believes that these psalms were really written by king David in about 1000 BC. Our tutor betrays himself not as the analytical and inquiring scientist that he makes out but a barmy Christian fundamentalist who evidently believes the Bible is literally true in every particular! No doubt you will believe who you will but it is certain that the psalms of David were not in general written by David. It is more than likely that none of them were. They were hymns, some doubtless part of the liturgy of the First Temple, but many might have been added later.
Our mentor tells us immediately that this psalm should not be in the Hebrew Bible at all because it is heretical for Jews because the psalmist (king David) addresses his descendant, the Messiah, as my lord when respect of son for father requires David to be lord over his descendant. Phibber tells us this because it was the argument used by Jesus to confound his inquisitors in Matthew 22:41-46. It does not seem to me nor, I imagine, to you a problem that a mere spirit—that of David—should address a supernatural being sitting as a favourite of God in heaven, as lord. The New Testament says it was a problem for the Jews. Jesus does not reveal the answer to the conundrum, but it has the required effect upon his opponents—they scarper.
Heresy or no heresy, there it is, number 110 of the Book of Psalms. Verse 1 of it is:
The Lord said unto my lord, sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Phibber informs us that these lines baffle the Jews because the Messiah, having ascended to heaven, is evidently hanging about waiting to return to power on earth. Why is it necessary? Why indeed? The answer is that the right hand of God is a metaphor for power. Only a fundamentalist Christian could interpret these lines as literally meaning that my lord had been raised to heaven while mayhem reigned below. The chant is of God telling His Messiah that he would give him power and authority. There is nothing baffling about it especially for a Jew who expected a supernatural Messiah with God-given powers.
The other verses Phibber quotes are:
The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
The thoughtful Dr Ernest Phibber tells us that the Messiah had to be of the tribe of Judah as all Jewish kings were, and the Messiah was a king. Priests however were Levites (of the tribe of Levi). You could not be both because only the male line counted so there could be no such thing as a Mechizedek, a king who is a priest. Proof was that king Uzziah who tried to usurp the role of the High Priest was struck down by God with leprosy.
Well, maybe so, but we are getting a touch of God’s Truth here because Jewish kings besides Uzziah broke the rules. The whole of the dynasty of the Macabbees were kings and priests and the dynasty continued for over a hundred years. Why then didn’t God strike them down with leprosy, and why does not Doctor Phibber point out this contradiction to us? Because it is more fun doing to the Jews what the gospels tell us Jesus did to the Jews—expose them as bigots. The Jews did not like the idea of Melchizedek, he tells us, because in Genesis Melchizedek was the Priest-King of Jerusalem to whom Abraham had to pay tithes of a tenth. He was therefore superior to Abraham and to the priests descended from him. After this he is not mentioned again in the Old Testament except in Psalm 110.
Christians have grasped on this apparent superiority over the orthodox Jewish tradition and great play is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews of the identity of Jesus with Melchizedek. This might prove to be a doubtful blessing for Christians who consider Jesus to be unique because it seems the figure of Melchizedek was important to the Essenes, and the evidence that the Essenes were the fount of Christianity is considerable.
Phibber winds up this section by asking how a psalm that was anathema to Jews ever came to be written and preserved by the very people who hated it. No prizes for the answer—it was the work of God.
An examination of the psalm in question shows that it is an old liturgical formula for the coronation of a king. Possibly this is one of the psalms that actually harks back to the time of David and was used at his coronation. Solomon, as the Old Testament proves, was a Melchizedek, offering sacrifices as a priest in his new temple though he was a king. Solomon then appointed a priesthood based on a priest called Zadok and this continued until the time that the book of Daniel was written when the Zadokite line was broken by the Greeks who ruled Israel at the time. So by our learned mentor’s arguments the Jews must have hated the First Book of Kings and the First and Second Books of Macabbees as well as Psalm 110 because Melchizedeks known as Solomon or the Macabbees figure in one or other of them, though the word Melchizedek is not used.
Finally let us, as usual, look at the whole Psalm. After the person being addressed is made a priest forever of the order of Melchizedek, is he told to go out and heal, forgive sins and be a sacrifice as a redemption for sin? Not this person. he is to strike through kings in the day of his wrath, strike through the head in many countries, be a judge among the nations and fill the places with dead bodies. Is this really the same Jesus that our Teacher in Truth, Phibber, is referring to. If the bit in which he sits at God’s right hand refers to Jesus, why does the rest of it not apply to him? This is indeed God’s Truth.
Now our tutor addresses the question of how unbelievers explain the uncanny accuracy of the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus. Three possibilities are offered:
Quite so. We have touched upon these three at various points so far. Dr Ernest Phibber expresses the first possibility as Jesus spending years swotting up the Old Testament until he knew all the Old Testament prophecies then going around fulfilling them. Not only does it sound silly, put like this, but how could Jesus arrange to be born in Bethlehem? How did he manage to live a life without sin? Did he really arrange to be tortured to death, to get his tormentors to carry out every minute instruction, arrange to be resurrected then carried up to heaven? Wow! You got me there, is the response invited.
The second accusation is that Christians read prophecies in the Old Testament where none exist. Our Teacher of Truth says it won’t do. Christians see in the Old Testament the same prophecies about the Messiah as the Jews. It is just that the Jews are unbelievers. Gulp. I never thought of that.
The third theory is that the events of the gospels never took place at all. It is a collection of stories put together based on the many prophecies in the Old Testament. The gospels are fiction. But the moral tone of the New Testament is so high that it could not possibly be fiction. What more can you say? Game, set and match.
I imagine that anyone with more than zero brain cells would regard Doctor Phibber’s arguments as fatuous, especially the last one, yet he seems to think, with all his degrees and years of Bible study, that there is little more to be said. God’s Truth requires that there can be no combinations of the three possibilities offered because as soon as you allow all three deceits to apply then the feeble arguments offered against any one simply do not stand up. Thus Jesus knew what he was doing (deliberately in fulfilment of prophecy) when he chose an ass and a colt, the foal of an ass, to enter Jerusalem. He was saying: I am the Son of David, the king you have been expecting. It was an example of Case 1.
Jesus did not need to arrange to be born in Bethlehem because the gospel writers arranged it for him. If the main parts of the gospels are anything to go by Jesus was brought up in Nazareth and therfore was probably born there. The birth in Bethelehem is tacked on by unhistorical stories that are added later. An example of Case 3.
As to Case 2, we have already seen many examples of how prophecy, for Christians is selective: they take the bits that suit and reject all the rest because they do not suit. Jews have no need to do this because mostly they do not believe that the Messiah has yet visited and so there is nothing that the prophecies have to measure up to. If Phibber, our instructor, is to be credited then any prophecy judged to be so by the Jews—and all of it not just the suitable bits—should be checked against the reality in Jesus. Automatically all of those prophecies in which a mighty king is foretold would have to be disregarded, even if some of the bits seem to fit very well. But that would not suit God’s Truth.