Bethlehem: The Messiah's Birthplace?

Messiah truth

I. Introduction

The Christian apologetic and missionary claim that Bethlehem is the birthplace of the Messiah was briefly considered in another essay^¹[1]. A more detailed analysis of the claim will be the focus of the present essay.

In the opening verse of the second chapter in the Gospel of Matthew, the author declares that Bethlehem was the birthplace of Jesus:

Matthew 2:1(KJV) – Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, …

The author then claims this event to be a "fulfillment" of a prophecy found in the Hebrew Bible, which he states as follows:

Matthew 2:5-6(KJV) – (5) And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, (6) And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

According to Christian apologists and missionaries, Matthew 2:6 points to Micah 5:2 in their Old Testament; in the Hebrew Bible this is Micah 5:1. Micah 5:1[2]^²[2] has thus become a popular Christian "proof-text" in the apologist and missionary's portfolio.

A careful analysis of the Hebrew text in Micah 5:1 demonstrates that the false application by the Greek rendition of this verse in the New Testament, and its subsequent mistranslation in the King James Version (KJV) Old Testament (and in other Christian Bibles), are inconsistent with the teachings of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the KJV Old Testament's rendition of a key phrase in the verse is also inconsistent with other instances of the same phrase elsewhere in the King James Version Bible.

II. Comparison of Jewish and Christian Translations, and the New Testament Application

Table II-1 provides a side-by-side comparison between the verse from the KJV New Testament, the KJV Old Testament rendition of the verse, and a Jewish translation of the original verse. For reference, the corresponding verse from the Hebrew Bible is also displayed in the table. As was already pointed out above, note that the KJV Old Testament verse number is different from the verse number as it appears in the Hebrew Bible. The highlighted phrase in both the Jewish and KJV translations corresponds to the highlighted phrase shown in the Hebrew text.

Table II-1 – Comparing Matthew 2:6 with Micah 5:1[2]

Hebrew Text

King James Version New Testament	King James Version "Old Testament"		Jewish Translation from the Hebrew
Matthew 2:6	Micah 5
And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.	v.2	But 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.	v.1	And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from old, from ancient days.

Aside from the fact that Matthew 2:6 leaves out the last phrase of the source verse and is, at best, a paraphrase of the quoted portion, there are a number of problems with the Micah 5:2 rendition in the KJV. These problems, as well as the truncated rendition of the verse in the New Testament, will be explained in the analysis.

III. Analysis of the Passage

To help facilitate the analysis, the correct translation of Micah 5:1 is separated into two segments:

Segment A

Micah 5:1A – And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;

Segment B

Micah 5:1B – and his origin is from old, from ancient days.

Segment A and Segment B will now be separately analyzed.

Analysis of Segment A

Micah 5:1A – And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;

The name Bethlehem, in the original Hebrew is (beit-lehem), which literally means House of Lehem [(lehem) means bread, or (generic) food]. Therefore, the title (beit-lehem) may refer either to the town or to a clan with the name (lehem). In the case of Micah 5:1, the reference is to a clan. How can one determine this?

The first clue is found in the opening phrase of the verse, where the Hebrew is (v^eatah beit-lehem ephratah). The term (v^eatah) has the components (v^e), the preposition and, and (atah), the pronoun you for the 2^nd-person, singular, masculine gender. Thus, (v^eatah) translates as and you, using the 2^nd-person, singular, masculine gender pronoun (the KJV has but you in Micah 5:2; note, however, how the KJV translators correctly render this phrase as And thou in Mt 2:6!). The rest of the phrase in Segment A is also cast in a 2^nd-person, singular, masculine gender conjugation. Following this term (v^eatah) is the phrase (beit-lehem ephratah), where (ephratah) or, alternatively, (ephrat), is an alternate name for the town of Bethlehem in Judah in the Hebrew Bible, as seen from the following example:

Genesis 35:19(KJV) - And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrat (ephrat), which is Bethlehem (beit-lehem).

In the Hebrew Bible, singular pronouns, such as (atah), you, are often used interchangeably in both the singular and plural context. In the case of Micah 5:1, (atah) is a singular compound entity, a specific clan, so that the context is the [plural, masculine] you. Though the singular usage is the most common one, the plural application occurs as well (e.g., Exod 33:3, Deut 9:6). Therefore, the one being addressed here in Micah 5:1 is (beit-lehem), which is the name of a family, or clan, residing in the town of (ephratah), Ephratah, i.e., in the town of Bethlehem. According to this analysis, perhaps a more accurate version of Segment A (and, thus, Micah 5:1) would be:

Micah 5:1A – And you, House of Lehem [from] Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;

In the expression (b^ealphei y^ehudah), amongst the clans of Judah, contains a plural possessive construct of the Hebrew term (eleph), (alphei), which is used in the context of clans of …. The most common application of (eleph) in the Hebrew Bible is a thousand, which is its general meaning. However, there are instances in the Hebrew Bible where (eleph) is used in reference to a portion of a tribe, i.e., a clan or family. Micah 5:1 is one of these cases, and others are found at Numbers 31:5, Deuteronomy 33:17, Joshua 22:14, Judges 6:15, and 1 Samuel 10:19, 23:23. It is interesting to note that most translators (both Jewish and Christian) are consistent in their (mis)translation of this word in all but one of these instances, the one at Judges 6:15, where the term (alpi) [1^st-person, singular conjugation of the noun (eleph)] is correctly translated as my family. Although, in general, it is not a serious contextual discrepancy when using a thousand in place of a clan in the above mentioned places, the correct context in Micah 5:1 is that the reference is to a [particular] clan from the town of Bethlehem. This case is further supported by the fact that members of a clan are frequently referred to by the name of the clan, often derived from the name of its progenitor, as is seen from the following example:

Numbers 3:27 - And of Kohath, the Amramite family, and the Izharite family, and the Hebronite family, and the Uzzielite family; these are the Kohathite families.

Regarding someone from the Bethlehemite clan [(beit-ha'lahmi)], the Hebrew Bible has passages such as the following:

1 Samuel 16:1 - And the L-rd said to Samuel, "Until when will you mourn for Saul, that I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go, I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite [(beit-ha'lahmi)], for I have found among his sons a king for Me.

Another reference in the Hebrew Bible is even more explicit:

1 Samuel 17:12 - And David was the son of this man from Ephrat [(ephrati)] of the House of Lehem [(mi'beit-lehem)] in Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons; and the man, who was elderly in Saul's time, was among the [respected] men.

In the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender, i.e., a separate Hebrew word for it does not exist, cities and towns are assigned the feminine gender. So, if it were the town of Bethlehem being addressed in Micah 5:1, the opening term would have been (v^eat), such as in Jeremiah 50:24 and elsewhere, the components of which are (v^e), the preposition and, and (at), the Biblical form of the pronoun you for the 2^nd-person, singular, feminine gender. Consequently, (v^eat) translates as and you, with the 2^nd-person, singular, feminine gender pronoun. Understanding this difference is essential for the correct reading of this verse!

The KJV translators, lacking the required level of proficiency of the Hebrew language, did not recognize that a certain clan, the House of Lehem, is being addressed in Micah 5:1[2]. Rather, from the sources they used, one of which was most likely the Christian LXX (that which Christians mistakenly call the Septuagint), it appeared to them that the town of Bethlehem is being addressed here. Consequently, they characterize Bethlehem as a small and insignificant town from the territory of Judah, in an introductory phrase to the prophecy. Namely, that in spite of its insignificance, the town will be the birthplace of the promised Messiah.

However, since it is the clan, the House of Lehem, and not the town, that is being addressed here by Micah, it does not matter in which town the Messiah will be born; rather, it is the clan, the family, that is significant! The phrase in Segment B, "and his origin is from old", simply means the Messiah will come from a family with a long lineage.

How can one learn more about the particular clan to which this verse refers? The ancestry of the known members of the clan is a good place from which to start the investigation, and it leads to a woman named Ruth, a Moabitess, who is among the ancestors of King David. Ruth was married to one of the two sons Elimelech and Naomi, a family that hailed from Bethlehem.

A famine in Judah forced Elimelech to take his family to a place that had food, and they wound up in the Land of Moab. Originally, Elimelech and Naomi’s plan was to go to Moab just to wait out the famine, but they then decided to remain there, a decision that eventually led to tragic consequences. Elimelech and Naomi's two sons, Killion and Mahlon (Ephrathites from House of Lehem [Ruth 1:2]), married Gentile women, Orpah and Ruth, respectively. Elimelech and his two sons died while the family was in Moab, leaving the three women, Naomi, Orpah, and Ruth, as widows. Naomi made plans to return alone to her home in the Kingdom of Judah, and she instructed her two daughters-in-law to go back to their people, the Moabites. Orpah approached her mother-in-law, kissed her goodbye and left. Ruth came over to Naomi, held on to her and did not let go. Ruth informed Naomi that she was coming with her; and even though Naomi attempted to dissuade her from returning to the famine in Judah, Ruth insisted and said to her:

Ruth 1:16-17 – (16) … Do not entreat me to leave you, or to desist from following you; for wherever you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your G-d is my G-d; (17) Wherever you die, will I die, and there will I be buried; the L-rd may do so to me, and so may He continue, for [only] death will separate me from you.

From Ruth's declaration of her intentions to Naomi when she says, “…For where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people are my people, and your G-d is my G-d;…”, it is understood that she converted to Judaism. But Ruth, a person of outstanding character, had a problematic ancestry – she was a Moabite woman. This is what the Torah instructs the Israelites about a Moabite:

Deuteronomy 23:4 - An Ammonite [(ammoni)] and a Moabite [(mo'avi)] shall not enter into the congregation of the L-rd; even the tenth generation shall never enter into the congregation of the L-rd.

In other words, Ammonites and Moabites were prohibited from ever converting to Judaism. Note, however, that in the Hebrew text, the terms (ammoni) and (mo'avi) are used, terms that translate as an Ammonite (male) and a Moabite (male), respectively. The corresponding terms for a female, as used in the Hebrew Bible are, (ammonit) and (mo'avit) [or (mo'avi'yah)].

The reason for the prohibition is stated immediately following it:

Deuteronomy 23:5-6 – (5) Because they did not greet you with bread and water on the way, when you left Egypt, and because he [Moab] hired Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim against you, to curse you. (6) But the L-rd, your G-d, did not want to listen to Balaam. So the L-rd, your G-d, transformed the curse into a blessing for you, because the L-rd, your G-d, loves you.

And this is repeated at a much later time by Nehemiah:

Nehemiah 13:1-2 – (1) On that day the Book of Moses was read to be heard by the people; and it was found written therein that an Ammonite [(ammoni)] and a Moabite [(mo'avi)] may not enter into the congregation of G-d forever; (2) Because they did not come to meet the people of Israel with bread and with water, and [instead] hired Balaam against them, to curse them; and our G-d turned the curse into a blessing.

Considering this prohibition, how was Ruth the Moabitess able to "… enter into the congregation of the L-rd…"? How could she become the ancestor of the greatest king of the Jewish people, King David? The Sages explain in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Yevamot, 76b; Tractate Ketubot, 7b) that this prohibition applies only to Ammonite and Moabite men, and not to women. This is because only a man was expected to leave his house and bring food and drink to the traveler; a woman was not expected to do that for obvious reasons. Thus, the interpretation of the law (Deut 23:4), which had to be rendered by ten elders, that the prohibition on becoming one of the assembly of the L-rd, i.e., to be admitted into the community of Israel, applied only to Ammonite and Moabite men and not to Ammonite and Moabite women. This clarified the law, and enabled Boaz to marry Ruth the Moabitess. So, the (beit-lehem) clan, with a history marred by Ruth's ancestry of a nation that was excluded from Judaism, is characterized by the phrase, "you SHOULD HAVE BEEN the LOWEST amongst the CLANS of Judah", in Segment A. This phrase reflects the uneasiness people may have had even with King David, whose great-grandmother was a Moabitess. Yet, the fact is that out of this clan rose the greatest king of Israel, and the promise is made that the Messiah will also come from it.

This passage is all about King David's ancestry, with the Messiah being but a "by-product" of it. This fact is even confirmed by the rendition in The New Jerusalem Bible (a Christian translation), whose translators state the following in a footnote to this verse (Micah 5:2; only the relevant portion of the footnote is being quoted here):

“Micah is thinking of the ancient origin of the dynasty of David, Rt 4:11,17,18-22; 1 S 17:12. The evangelists later interpreted this passage as a prophecy of Christ’s birthplace.”

In other words, while this passage does not rule out the town of Bethlehem as being the Messiah's birthplace, as could be any other place, the notion that it is his birthplace was introduced later, in the New Testament, as an interpretation by the Gospel writers.

B. Segment B

Micah 5:1B – and his origin is from old, from ancient days.

The fact that Segment A of Micah 5:1 voids the positive identification of Bethlehem as the Messiah's birthplace, creates a serious problem for the Church. This problem is compounded by the closing phrase in the Hebrew text in Segment B, (mi'y'mei olam), from ancient days.

Micah, who was a contemporary of the prophets Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, and of King Hezekiah (around 730 B.C.E.), states something special here, namely, that the origin of the Messiah would be from Bethlehem, from the long ago past, from ancient days. However, this statement conflicts with Christian theology, since Jesus is considered as having been around since the beginning of time, since before the Creation, and the expression from ancient days does not satisfy this condition. To "rectify" this problem, many Christian translators simply replace ancient days with days of eternity, or everlasting, or days of time indefinite (see, e.g., KJV, NAS, NWT). How can one determine who is telling the truth?

The Hebrew expression (y^emei olam), ancient days, is used in Micah 5:1 with the preposition (mi-), from, as (mi'y'mei olam), from ancient days. Table III.B-1 shows all six instances in the Hebrew Bible of the expression (y^emei olam), ancient days, including its combinations with various prepositions. Also shown in the table are the respective renditions of these expressions in the KJV.

Table III.B-1 – KJV renditions of the expression (y^emei olam) in the Hebrew Bible

Hebrew	Pronunciation	#	Reference	Correct Translation	KJV Rendition
	y^e-ME-i o-LAM	2	Isaiah 63:9,11	the days of old	the days of old
	kiy-ME-i o-LAM	3	Amos 9:11; Micah 7:14; Malachi 3:4	as in days of old	as in the days of old
	miy-ME-i o-LAM	1	Micah 5:1[2]	from ancient days	from everlasting

Note that the expression is correctly translated in the KJV in five out of the six cases as days of old, which is synonymous with ancient days, yet at Micah 5:2 it is rendered as from everlasting. What could have motivated the KJV translators to render the same expression correctly in all but one place, the one exception being at Micah 5:2, which speaks of the Messiah? Could it be that replacing from ancient days with from everlasting in this passage would "harmonize" this Old Testament prophecy with Christian theology? Did the KJV translators engage here in an act of "pious fraud"?

For the sake of completeness and fairness, it should be noted that, in contrast to the KJV (and several other Christian Bibles), some Christian translators have correctly rendered this phrase, e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, RSV, The New Jerusalem Bible, among others.

Matthew 2:6

As was demonstrated above, the phrase from ancient days brings the reader back to King David and his ancestors, which created a serious theological problem for Christianity. It was also shown how the KJV translators attempted to "solve" this problem in their rendition of Micah 5:2. The author of the Gospel of Matthew apparently recognized this problem as he was attempting to construct a cohesive scenario, and his creative way of dealing with the true context of Micah 5:1[2] was to simply restates this verse:

Matthew 2:6(KJV) – And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Upon comparing Matthew 2:6 with even the KJV rendition of Micah 5:1[2], the following changes are evident in the part that corresponds to the passage in the KJV equivalent of Segment A:

U The name of the place, Ephratah, is absent from the verse.

U A subtle change in context takes place, from "though thou be little among the thousands of Judah", in the KJV Old Testament, to "thou … art not the least among the princes of Juda", in the KJV New Testament.

U The generic title of ruler in the KJV Old Testament is replaced with the specific position of Governor In the KJV New Testament.

As was already noted earlier, the author of the Gospel of Matthew uses a truncated version of Micah 5:1[2] in Matthew 2:6. Thus, the obvious change is:

U Segment B of the original verse was deleted

Clearly, Segment A, being a rather straight forward passage that could refer to the Messiah hailing from Bethlehem, required just a minor amount of editing to get it to "line up" with the rest of his story.

Regarding Segment B, which is disastrous to Christian theology, the author of the Gospel of Matthew does something interesting, as he also does in other places as well (e.g., Mt 2:13). He deletes the problematic part (Segment B) of Micah 5:1[2] so that it is absent from Matthew 2:6; he only applied an edited version of Segment A to what he wrote in Matthew 2:6. The problematic part would have drawn the reader to the origin of the Messiah, some 200-300 years behind Micah on the historical time scale, to King David himself.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew refused to accept the words of the Prophet Micah, because they describe Bethlehem as the least significant of the clans and communities of Judah. How can that be, if the Messiah is to be born there? The Messiah cannot be born in the insignificant place that is the lowest on the totem pole. This action demonstrates that the author of the Gospel of Matthew knew and understood very little of the Hebrew Bible, and that he did not understand that the reference here was to Ruth. So, in order to tailor this passage to fit his paradigm, he not only applied a portion of the verse out-of-context by dropping the problematic part of it, but he also changed the context of that which is written in the Hebrew Bible by reversing the you are to read you are not.

In contrast to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, the author of the Gospel of Luke was somewhat more careful. While he insists that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he makes the correct connection, that it was the city of David (Lk 2:4,11). There are other instances where the author of the Gospel of Matthew, allegedly a Jew, made a mistake, while the author of the Gospel of Luke, allegedly a Gentile, used much more care in dealing with the same subject. One notable example is the application of Zechariah 9:9-10 in the Gospels. As dealt with in Matthew 21:1-7, the passage has Jesus coming into Jerusalem on two animals, while in Luke 19:29-35, Jesus is said to be coming on one animal.

IV. Summary

Is Micah 5:1[2] a prophecy that the (Jewish) Messiah will be born in Bethlehem? The Christian claim is that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by being born in Bethlehem. As was demonstrated in the analysis, the town of Bethlehem was the place from which King David's family originated, and this prophecy speaks of Bethlehem as the Messiah's place of origin, though not necessarily his place of birth. The Hebrew text clearly states that the Messiah's ancestors came from Bethlehem.

Since the KJV translation of the Hebrew Bible came many centuries after the Gospel of Matthew was written, the only option available to Christian translators for "harmonizing" Micah 5:2 with Christian theology and Matthew 2:6 was to suitably alter the context of the source verse. Since Christians generally study the New Testament first, their theological ideas are well established by the time they proceed to the Old Testament to look for the "pointers". So that the discrepancies between Matthew 2:6 and Micah 5:2 are not likely to even be noticed.

Using the logic of the Christian claim, and considering the many thousands of people having come from Bethlehem during its history, how is it possible to identify which one of them was the Messiah? It is also worth noting that, relative to the important messianic attributes spelled out by the Jewish prophets in the Hebrew Bible, which Jesus did not fulfill, being born in Bethlehem is inconsequential, even if it were true.

Addressing Micah 5:2

Jim Lippard

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 John's (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 Messiah's 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.

Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Return to Refuting Alleged Old Testament Prophecies Pointing to Jesus

Return to Homepage

2^[2] The notation Micah 5:1[2] shows the verse number from the Hebrew Bible first, followed by the corresponding verse number from the Christian Old Testament shown in brackets

=================================================

True Messiah - Properly Anointed;

False Messiah - Smeared with Ointment

Messiah truth

I. Introduction

The ninth chapter in the Book of Daniel has been a popular component in the portfolio of Christian apologists and missionaries. The passage that is commonly extracted from this chapter as an example of a definitive "messianic prophecy" is Daniel 9:24-27 because, according to most Christian translations, it contains two direct references to the Messiah (Dan 9:25-26), which are claimed to be references to Jesus. With the help of mistranslations and some mathematical hocus-pocus, they transform this passage into a prophecy that allegedly foretells the coming of Jesus and his crucifixion.

The analysis presented in this essay demonstrates that these claims concerning Daniel 9:25-26 are inconsistent with the teachings of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, since these claims also include references to being anointed, the anointing process, as defined and applied in the Hebrew Bible, is cast into a template against which the "anointing" of Jesus, as described in the New Testament, is compared in order to test its validity.

II. Christian and Jewish Translations of Daniel 9:25-26

Table II-1 shows side-by-side English renditions and the Hebrew text of the passage Daniel 9:25-26. The Hebrew term (mashia'h) and its respective renditions in the two translations are shown in highlighted form.

Table II-1 – Daniel 9:25-26

King James Version Translation		Jewish Translation from the Hebrew		Hebrew Text
Daniel 9
25	Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.		And you should know and understand that, from the emergence of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until an anointed ruler, [shall be] seven weeks; and [in] sixty-two weeks it will be restored and be built, street and moat, but in troubled times.
26	And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.		And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off, and [he] will be no more; and the city and the Sanctuary will be destroyed by people of the coming ruler, and his end will come about like a flood; and by end of the war, there will be desolation.

A significant disagreement exists between the two translations in their respective renditions of the noun . A study of the applications of this term in the Hebrew Bible helps resolve this issue.

III. Review of Hebrew Terminology

According to the Hebrew Bible, the men who were selected to fill the positions of the high priest [(ha'kohen ha'gadol)] and king [(melech)] had to go through a ritual anointing ceremony. The Hebrew root verb (mashah), [to] anoint, appears in the Hebrew Bible 70 times in various conjugations. This verb is used on 63 occasions to describe an act of anointing, i.e., applying a specially prepared oil or compound to someone or something for the purpose of sanctification or consecration; and on the seven remaining occasions, it is used in the context of covering something with paint or oil for various other purposes.

Someone who went through the process of anointing was referred to as (mashi'ah), an anointed one, in the Hebrew Bible. The noun derives from the root verb , [to] anoint, and it appears in various conjugations and forms in the Hebrew Bible on 39 occasions. The salient fact about the noun is that not one of these 39 instances refers to the Messiah. The reason is that the usage of the noun as the present Hebrew term for Messiah is a product of the first century B.C.E., which is interesting information that emerged from research done on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Around that time, the Jewish messianic vision experienced a significant paradigm shift from the expectation of an era (i.e., “End of Days”) to an expectation of a Jewish leader who will deliver Israel ("Redeemer"). This fact alone defeats the claim by Christian apologists and missionaries concerning references to the Messiah in Daniel 9:25-26.

IV. Application of the Noun in the Hebrew Bible

An analysis of the 39 applications of the noun in the Hebrew Bible, and how these are rendered in most Christian Bibles, provides the Biblical evidence that refutes the claims concerning its occurrences in Daniel 9:25-26. Table IV-1 shows the 39 applications of the noun in the Hebrew Bible. Each form of the noun is shown separately along with the frequency of occurrence, a pronunciation guide (CAPS identify the accented syllable), the respective Scriptural citations, the correct English translation, and the respective KJV rendition. References indicate chapter and verse numbers in the Hebrew Bible; verse numbers in Christian Bibles, if different from the Hebrew Bible, are shown in brackets.

Table IV-1 – The term in the Hebrew Bible and its KJV renditions

Hebrew Term	#	Pronunciation	References	Correct Translation	KJV Rendition
	3	mah-SHEE-ah	2 Sam 1:21	an anointed	anointed
			Dan 9:25	an anointed	The Messiah
			Dan 9:26	an anointed	Messiah
	4	ha'mah-SHEE-ah	Lev 4:3,5,16,6:15[22]	the anointed	[the priest] that is anointed
	8	m^e-SHEE-ah	1 Sam 24:6,10, 26:16; 2 Sam 1:14,16, 19:22[21], 23:1; Lam 4:20	anointed [of]	anointed [of]
	3	bim-SHEE-ah	1 Sam 26:9,11,23	against the anointed of -	against [the LORD's] anointed
	1	lim-SHEE-ah	1 Sam 24:7	to the anointed of -	to [the LORD's] anointed
	1	m^e-shee-HEE	1 Sam 2:35	my anointed	mine anointed
	1	lim-shee-HEE	Ps 132:17	for/to my anointed	for mine anointed
	6	me-shee-HEH-cha	Hab 3:13; Ps 84:10[9], 89:39[38],52[51], 132:10; 2 Chron 6:42	your anointed	thine anointed
	7	me-shee-HO	1 Sam 2:10, 12:3,5, 16:6; Ps 2:2, 20:7[6], 28:8	his anointed	his anointed, *[the LORD's] anointed
	3	lim-shee-HO	2 Sam 22:51; Is 45:1; Ps 18:51[50]	to his anointed	to his anointed
	2	bim-shee-HAI	Ps 105:15; 1 Chron 16:22	at/upon my anointed	[touch not] mine anointed

The KJV rendition of the term differs from the generic an anointed one in only two cases out of the 39 applications, with both instances occurring in Daniel 9:25-26. The question is: "What motivated the KJV translators to cast the term as a reference to the Messiah in Daniel 9:25-26, particularly in view of the historical fact that this association of the two terms came much later than the Book of Daniel?"

A related issue arises from the way some other Christian Bibles render the noun in Daniel 9:25-26, as shown in Table IV-2.

Table IV-2 – The term as rendered in other Christian Bibles

Source	Verse	Source Translation	Correct Translation
Amplified Bible (AMP)	Daniel 9:25	the Anointed One	an anointed one
	Daniel 9:26
New International Version (NIV)	Daniel 9:25	the Anointed One	an anointed one
	Daniel 9:26
New Living Translation (NLT)	Daniel 9:25	the Anointed One	an anointed one
	Daniel 9:26
World English Bible (WEB)	Daniel 9:25	the Anointed One	an anointed one
	Daniel 9:26

The translation of as the Anointed One, although closer to the correct an anointed one, still contains Christological bias, though it is more subtle. The use of the definite article, the, and the capitalization of the terms in the expression, Anointed One, is a design that implicitly points to Jesus.

For the sake of fairness, it should be noted, however, that not all Christian Bibles have mistranslated in Daniel 9:25-26. Among the Christian Bibles that translate the term correctly are: Basic Bible in English (BBE), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

V. Anointing According to the Hebrew Bible

The process of anointing

According to the Hebrew Bible, the substance used and the ritual performed are the two significant components of the anointing process.

1. The substance

In order to be considered properly anointed, a king (or high priest) had to be sprinkled with a special substance that was stored in a special container, and which was prepared from pure olive oil, according to the following formula:

Exodus 30:22-25 – (22) And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying, (23) "And you, take for yourself spices of the finest sort - of pure myrrh five hundred [shekel weights]; of fragrant cinnamon half of it, two hundred and fifty [shekel weights]; of fragrant cane two hundred and fifty [shekel weights], (24) and of cassia five hundred [shekel weights] according to the sacred shekel, and one hin of olive oil. (25) And you shall make it onto an oil of sacred anointment [(shemen mish'hat-qodesh)] a perfumed compound according to the art of the perfumer; it shall be an oil of sacred anointment [(shemen mish'hat-qodesh)]."

No other substance is acceptable for anointing and, being a holy substance, this anointing oil had to be stored in the (portable) Tabernacle while the Israelites were in the wilderness, and in the Temple in Jerusalem later on.

2. The ritual

Moses was commanded to anoint his brother Aaron as the first high priest:

Exodus 29:7 – And then you shall take the anointing oil, and pour [it] upon his head, and anoint him.

The Hebrew Bible contains several accounts of the anointing of royalty in Israel.

a. King Saul

Saul was anointed as King of Israel when the prophet Samuel poured the special oil on his head:

1 Samuel 10:1 - And Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it on his [Saul's] head, and kissed him. And he [Samuel] said, "Indeed, the L-rd has anointed you to be a ruler over His inheritance."

b. King David

David, the son of Jesse, was anointed as King of Israel when the prophet Samuel poured the special oil on his head:

1 Samuel 16:13 - And Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him [David] in the midst of his brothers. And a spirit of the L-rd passed over David from that day forth, and Samuel arose and went to Ramah.

c. King Solomon

This is who anointed Solomon to be King of Israel, and how it was done:

1 Kings 1:34,39,45 - (34) And Zadok the [high] priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him [Solomon] there as king over Israel, and blow the horn and say, "[Long] live King Solomon."
(39) And Zadok the [High] Priest took the horn of oil from the Tabernacle [the Sanctuary] and anointed Solomon, and they blew the shofar [ram's horn], and all the people said, "Long live king Solomon."
(45) And Zadok the [high] priest and Nathan the prophet anointed him [Solomon] king in Gihon, and they came up from there rejoicing, and (therefore) the city was in an uproar; that is the noise you were hearing.

A template for the anointing of kings

The Biblical accounts of the anointing of the first three kings of Israel, Saul, David, and Solomon, contain the necessary elements for the construction of a template for the process of anointing royalty of Israel, one of which will be the promised Jewish Messiah. According to the Hebrew Bible, these elements are:

[1] A special preparation from pure olive oil was used as the oil of anointing.

[2] Being sacred, the anointing oil was stored in the Temple.

[3] A universally recognized prophet performed the ritual of anointing a king.

[4] The prophets used the vial of oil, or the horn of oil, to anoint the new king, not merely a vial of oil or a horn of oil.^¹[1]

[5] The oil of anointing was poured only on the head.

[6] Anointing was tantamount to crowning a king (or appointing a high priest).^²[2]

I. Anointing According to the New Testament

This template for the anointing process can now be used to test the validity of the anointing of Jesus, as deduced from the accounts in the New Testament.

The process of anointing

1. The substance

The four Gospel authors describe the substance used on Jesus as follows:

Matthew 26:7-9(KJV) – (7) There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. (8) But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? (9) For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

Mark 14:3-5(KJV) – (3) And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. (4) And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? (5) For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

Luke 7:37(KJV) - And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

John 12:3-5(KJV) – (3) Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. (4) Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, (5) Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

1. The ritual

All four Gospel authors describe the manner in which Jesus was anointed:

Matthew 26:7(KJV) - There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

Mark 14:3(KJV) - And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

Luke 7:37-38,46(KJV) – (37) And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, (38) And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

(46) My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

John 11:2(KJV) - (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

John 12:3(KJV) - Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

Moreover, Jesus himself allegedly states the purpose of his anointing:

Matthew 26:12(KJV) - For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

Mark 14:8(KJV) - She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

Elements of the ritual of anointing Jesus

The accounts quoted from the Gospels contain the elements of the process that was described as the anointing of Jesus, and these are listed in the order of the elements in the template for the anointing process developed above:

[1] The substance used to anoint Jesus was an ointment of spikenard.^³[3]

[1] It is unknown from where the costly ointment of spikenard came. It clearly was not a sacred substance, since people complained about having wasted it by pouring it on Jesus rather than selling it and giving the money to the poor.

[2] Jesus was anointed by a woman (Mary of Bethany, described as a sinner).

[3] The ointment used on Jesus was contained in an alabaster box.^⁴[4]

[4] There are conflicting accounts in the New Testament about where on his body the anointing substance was applied to Jesus. The accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark say it was applied to his head; while the accounts in the Gospels of Luke and John state it was applied to his feet only.

[5] Jesus declared that his anointing was a preparation for burial, i.e., for death, and not for kingship.^⁵[5]

II. The Anointing of Jesus Contrasted with the Requirements in the Hebrew Bible

Table VII-1 contains an element-by-element comparison of the components of the anointing process in the template against the accounts described in the Gospels. For each element, a yes/no score indicates whether the respective component from the Gospel accounts meets the specification set forth in the Hebrew Bible.

Table VII-1 – Hebrew Bible specifications versus New Testament accounts of anointing

Item	Hebrew Bible Specifications	According to the New Testament	Comments	Valid?
[1]	The oil of anointing was a special mixture of spices and pure olive oil.	The substance used to anoint Jesus was an ointment of spikenard.	Ointment of spikenard, no matter how costly, cannot substitute for the sacred special oil.	NO
[2]	Being sacred, the oil of anointing had to be stored in the Temple.	The spikenard was not sacred, and its source is unknown.	Sacred items were kept in the Temple, and were not offered for sale.	NO
[3]	A recognized prophet had to anoint a king.	A woman named Mary anointed Jesus.	Did a recognized prophet anoint Jesus?	NO
[4]	A special vial, or special horn, of the special anointing oil had to be used in anointing a king.	The spikenard ointment used on Jesus came from an alabaster box.	The Hebrew Bible never speaks of alabaster containers used for holding the oil of anointing.	NO
[5]	The oil of anointing was poured on the head only.	2 accounts - head only; 2 accounts - feet only.	Which version of the account is the true one?	NO
[6]	The anointing was a preparation for kingship (or high priesthood).	Jesus declared his anointing was to prepare him for burial.	Jesus never reigned as the monarch over any kingdom.	NO

This comparison demonstrates that the anointing of Jesus, as described in the New Testament, violates all the specifications for a valid anointing of royalty in Israel as provided in the Hebrew Bible.

Conclusion: Jesus was smeared with ointment and not properly anointed and,

for that reason alone, he was a false Messiah.

III. Summary

Two important and interconnected issues were addressed. The first question concerned the Hebrew noun as it appears in Daniel 9:25-26:

¤ What is the correct translation of the Hebrew noun , which appears twice in the passage Daniel 9:25-26?

According to most Christian translations, the term points to Jesus either by being translated as [the] Messiah or the Anointed One. A word study on all 39 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of the noun in its various forms demonstrated that the correct translation is an anointed one, a "generic" reference to two different individuals who were to appear on the scene at some future time, neither of whom had any connection to the Jewish Messiah.

The question concerned the validity of the "anointing" of Jesus, which arose from the translation of the term in some Christian Bibles as the Anointed One:

¤ Did the "anointing" of Jesus, as described in the New Testament, conform to the specifications given in the Hebrew Bible?

To help determine the validity of the "anointing" process which the accounts in the New Testament describe, a template for the anointing process of kings and high priests of Israel was constructed from the specifications detailed in the Hebrew Bible. The relevant elements of information were then extracted from the accounts in the New Testament which describe the "anointing" of Jesus, and these were compared, on an element-by-element basis against the template. The analysis demonstrated that Jesus was not anointed according to the specifications described in the Hebrew Bible.

Therefore, since Jesus was never properly anointed according to the specifications contained in the Hebrew Bible, the Scripture in force during his lifetime, neither of the two applications of the term in Daniel 9:25-26 can possibly point to him.

Source: www.messiahtruth.com/anointed.html

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Return to Refuting Alleged Old Testament Prophecies Pointing to Jesus

Return to Homepage

1^[1] King David and his royal descendants were anointed with the sacred oil poured from the horn. According to the Jewish Sages, this indicated the superiority of the Davidic kings over the non-Davidic kings of Israel (e.g., Saul), who were anointed using the vial.

2^[2] Saul, David, and Solomon all sat on the throne as kings soon after being anointed. They successfully fought those nations that were enemies of Israel. They commanded entire governments, complete with soldiers, spies, tax collectors, foreign ambassadors, treasuries, palace servants and courts.

3^[3] The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Publishers [1991]), describes spikenard as: "1. An aromatic plant, Nardostachys jatamansi, of India, having rose-purple flowers. 2. A costly ointment of antiquity, probably prepared from the spikenard."

4^[4] The authors of the New Testament refer to Jesus as the "son of David", implying that he is from the royal line of King David: Matthew 1:1(KJV) - The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. If, as claimed in the New Testament, Jesus were a bona fide king of the Davidic dynasty, why was the anointing substance taken from an alabaster box and not from that special vessel called the horn?

5^[5] The New Testament is silent on whether Jesus sat on the throne of David during his lifetime, and whether he led a Jewish army in any battles against Israel's enemies and defeated them. Likewise, there is no mention in the New Testament of Jesus being in command of an entire political government.

.==================================================

A Piercing Look at A False Claim

[Zechariah 12:10]

Messiah Truth

I. Introduction

Zechariah 12:10 is a verse used by Christian apologists and missionaries as a so-called "proof text" to support their claim that the crucifixion of Jesus was foretold in the Hebrew Bible. Although the passage is problematic even in its mistranslated forms that appear in most Christian Bibles (as will be shown below), just a slight modification in the way it is applied in one of the Gospels supposedly "fixes" the problem. However, a closer examination of this passage reveals that the imputed Christological relevance is absurd.

II. The Hebrew Text and Several Christian and Jewish Translations

Table II-1 displays the Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10, along with five Jewish translations and seven Christian translations. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) shows Zechariah 12:10 pointing to two passages in the New Testament and these, in turn, cross-reference Zechariah 12:10. These passages, as quoted from the KJV, are shown below Table II-1. some words and phrases are emboldened, highlighted, or underlined in the Hebrew text, with the corresponding words and phrases marked likewise in the various translations, and these will all be addressed in the analysis that follows.

Table II-1 – The Hebrew Text of Zechariah 12:10 with Christian and Jewish Translations

Hebrew Text of Zechariah 12:10 -

Jewish Translations of Zechariah 12:10
Jewish Publication Society Bible (1917)	And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.
Judaica Press NACH Series; translation by R' A. J. Rosenberg	And I will pour out upon the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son.
The Jerusalem Bible, Koren Publishing	But I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Yerushalayim the spirit of grace and of supplication: and they shall look towards me, regarding those whom the nations have thrust through. And they shall mourn for him (that is slain) as one mourns for an only son, and shall be in bitterness over him, as one that is in bitterness for a firstborn.
Soncino Books of the Bible; edited by R' Dr. A. Cohen	And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me, because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.
ArtScroll Stone Edition Tanach; ArtScroll/Mesorah	I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. They will look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed, they will mourn over him as one mourns over an only [child], and be embittered over him like the embitterment over a [deceased] firstborn.
Christian Translations of Zechariah 12:10⁽¹⁾
Darby Translation	And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look on me whom they pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for an only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.
King James Version (KJV)	And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)	I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
New International Version (NIV)	And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. 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.
New Living Translation (NLT)	Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.
Revised Standard Version (RSV)	And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)	And I have poured on the house of David, And on the inhabitant of Jerusalem, A spirit of grace and supplications, And they have looked unto Me whom they pierced, And they have mourned over it, Like a mourning over the only one, And they have been in bitterness for it, Like a bitterness over the first-born.

1. New Testament passages cross-referenced (in the NASB) with Zechariah 12:10:

John 19:37(KJV) - And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they

pierced.

Revelation 1:7(KJV) - Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and

they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail

because of him. Even so, Amen.

It is interesting to note that, in general, the Jewish translations and the Christian translations, separately, are internally consistent. However, these two groups of translations show significant differences relative to each other in their renditions of the verse, and these details will be examined below.

III. Overview of Christian and Jewish Interpretations

A. Overview of the Christian Perspective

This verse is perceived by Christians as foretelling the crucifixion of Jesus and the grief that followed, a notion that is reinforced in New Testament narratives. The author of the Gospel of John quotes almost verbatim the specific phrase of the verse that allegedly foretells the crucifixion and ensuing mourning, albeit with the help of some revision of the text that appears in the Hebrew:

John 19:37(KJV) - And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Then, with some help from the Book of Revelation (believed to have the same author as the Gospel of John), the connection with Zechariah 12:10 is reinforced:

Revelation 1:7(KJV) - Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

The passage in the Gospel of John which precedes the verse that allegedly refers to Zechariah 12:10 sheds some light on the Christian scenario:

John 19:31-36(KJV) – (31) The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. (32) Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. (33) But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: (34) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. (35) And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. (36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

Crucifixion was a horrible way to die. On the cross, without having the feet supported in some manner, suspension from the hands or wrists nailed to the crossbeam would cause the body's weight to collapse the chest cavity and result in death by asphyxiation – a faster process. However, when the feet were supported, either with a small wooden pedestal underneath or by being nailed to the central-beam of the cross, a person could stay alive for as much as several days.

Jewish Law, however, required a prompt burial following a person's death:

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 – (22) And if a man were to commit a sin deserving death, and he were to be put to death, and you hanged him on a tree. (23) His body shall not remain upon the tree overnight, rather you shall surely bury him on that [same] day, for a hanged one is a cursed of G-d; and you shall not defile your land, which the L-rd your G-d gives you as an inheritance.

Thus, during the era of the Roman occupation, it was customary for the Jews to plead with the Romans to break the leg bones of Jewish people who were crucified, in order to quicken their death and, thereby, enable their burial within the required amount of time.

According to the account in the Gospel of John, there was no need to break the legs of Jesus. The Roman soldiers who approached Jesus perceived that he was already dead, and then they stabbed his side with a sword to confirm that he had expired. This act was depicted as yet another prophecy fulfilled some 2000 years ago, and which also identified Jesus with the Passover Lamb in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor 5:7), since the requirements spelled out in the Torah included the prohibition against breaking any of it's bones:

Exodus 12:46 - In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not bring from the house any of the meat outdoors; neither shall you break any bone of it.

More detailed verse-by-verse Christian interpretations of Zechariah 12:10, which are beyond the scope of this essay, may be found in the standard Christian sources, such as commentaries by Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown.

B. The Jewish Perspective

From the Jewish perspective, two general Jewish interpretations of the passage that contains Zechariah 12:10 are plausible. One view has it as an historic Biblical event from the prophet's own era, while the other considers it a prophecy of an event that will take place at some time near the commencement of the messianic era.

1. Historic Event

The predominant perspective on Zechariah 12:10 among the Jewish commentators is that it describes the mourning over those Jews who were slain while defending the Kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem. Those who fell in the battle were the ones described as having been thrust through with the swords and spears of soldiers from the attacking nations. In other words, this verse describes a historical event from the Biblical times around which this was written. Even S. R. Driver, the noted Christian commentator, is at variance with many of his colleagues since he views Zechariah 12:10 as follows:

"The context points plainly to some historical event in the prophet's own time, for which the people would eventually feel that sorrow here described."

Driver apparently recognized that the passage describes an historical event from Zechariah's era.

2. Messianic Prophecy

The other perspective on this passage, which originates in the Talmud, actually shares with the Christian view the fact that it is a messianic prophecy, except that, according to the traditional Jewish concept of the Messiah, this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.

Since there is an ambiguity in the Hebrew text in terms of whether the subject (i.e., the "victim") here is an individual or a group – the particular pronouns used here are applied in both ways in the Hebrew Bible – there are two ways to interpret this passage within this messianic perspective. Both interpretations are consistent with the Hebrew text as well as with Jewish tradition.

The "singular pronoun scenario" depicts a great hero who will fall in the battle of the nations against Jerusalem that was described earlier in the chapter (Zech 12:3). Because this person will be one of towering stature among the Jewish people, the mourning for him will be great and widespread; the entire nation and all of Jerusalem are described as being in a state of great mourning (Zech 12:12). But, this crying and mourning will lead people to repent and return to observance of Torah, as had happened in previous times:

Numbers 14:39-40 – (39) And Moses spoke these words to all the Children of Israel; and the people mourned greatly. (40) And they arose early in the morning, and they ascended to the top of the mountain, saying; "Behold, we are here, and we will go up to the place of which the L-rd has spoken, for we have sinned."

This particular scenario fits well with the Rabbinic "two Messiahs" paradigm. According to this Talmudic tradition, the first "Messiah", (mashi'ah ben Yosef), Messiah son of Joseph, will be a hero out of either the Tribe of Ephraim or the Tribe of Menasheh (recall that Joseph's sons were Ephraim and Menasheh). He will fight, and be killed in the Great War, an event that will be the catalyst for all of Israel to turn to G-d and repent. After that, (mashi'ah ben David), Messiah son of David, the Davidic Messiah, will appear and usher in the messianic era with its promised redemption of Israel. The intensity of the sadness is quantified in Zechariah 12:11 by comparing the mourning in Jerusalem with the mourning in the valley of Megiddo. This reference points to the death of King Josiah, the last of the great and righteous kings of Judah (2 Kgs 23:25), who was killed in a battle with Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt:

2 Kings 23:29-30 – (29) In his [Josiah's] days, Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt, went up against the King of Assyria by the Euphrates River; and King Josiah went against him, and he [Pharaoh Necho] killed him [Josiah] at Megiddo, when he saw him. (30) And his servants transported him dead from Megiddo, and [they] brought him to Jerusalem, and [they] buried him in his grave; and the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father’s stead.

2 Chronicles 35:22-24 – (22) Nevertheless, Josiah did not turn his face from him [Pharao Necho], but disguised himself in order to fight with him, and he did not pay heed to the words of Necho [which came] from the mouth of G-d; and he came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. (23) And the archers shot at King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, "Take me away, for I am badly wounded." (24) And his servants took him from that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and he was buried among the graves of his forefathers; and all of Judah and Jerusalem were mourning for Josiah.

Following Josiah's death, the mourning throughout the Kingdom of Judah and in Jerusalem was immense. In the Hebrew Bible, this is alluded to by Jeremiah, and recorded in the historical books:

Lamentations 4:20 - The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the L-rd, was captured in their pits, of whom we said, "In his shadow we shall live among the nations."

2 Chronicles 35:24-25 - (24) And his servants took him from that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and he was buried among the graves of his forefathers; and all of Judah and Jerusalem were mourning for Josiah. (25) And Jeremiah lamented Josiah; and all the singing men and the singing women had spoken of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them a statute upon Israel; and behold, they are written in the lamentations.

According to the Jewish Sages, these descriptions also characterize the magnitude of the grief that will prevail among Jews over the falling of (mashi'ah ben Yosef), Messiah son of Joseph.

In the "plural pronoun scenario", the singular pronoun is applied to a group of Jewish people, a usage that is common in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Hosea 11:1 has the Jewish people described via the same singular pronoun, him). In Zechariah 12:10, the new spirit that G-d will pour unto the Jewish people will motivate them to look toward Him concerning the Jewish martyrs who fell in the battle over Jerusalem before His divine intervention on their behalf. Here, as was the case in the previous scenario, the intensity of the mourning over those who will fall in the Great War of the future is still reflected in the historical references that appear in Zechariah 12:11.

In summary, the Jewish perspective on Zechariah 12:10 is that it may be viewed as either an historical event that occurred in the prophet's time or, alternatively, as a messianic prophecy that is yet to be fulfilled. Neither of these interpretations agrees with, nor can accommodate, the Christian view that it is a messianic prophecy that was historically fulfilled with the death of Jesus.

IV. Pronouns and Context: A Closer Look at the Verse

As noted above, the Christian interpretation of this passage as foretelling the crucifixion of Jesus is problematic. An analysis of the KJV rendition, which represents a typical Christian translation of Zechariah 12:10, will help illustrate some of the salient issues.

Zechariah 12:10(KJV) - And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

To facilitate the analysis, the KJV rendition is divided into two segments:

Zechariah 12:10A(KJV) - And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon

the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications:

Zechariah 12:10B(KJV) - and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

The segment Zechariah 12:10A(KJV) has two noteworthy aspects:

Variations among virtually all translations, Jewish and Christian, are insignificant – they all agree on context and content.
From all translations, Jewish and Christian, it is clear that the one speaking here is G-d (… I [G-d] will pour …)

The segment Zechariah 12:10B(KJV) requires a detailed analysis.

A. Who is "me" and who is "him"?

A paraphrase of Zechariah 12:10B(KJV) will illustrate the way a Christian might read it, which will also bring to light some of its inherent problems:

And they [the Jews {or the Romans}] shall look upon me [Jesus] whom they [the Romans] have pierced; and they [the Jews] shall mourn for him [Jesus] as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him [Jesus] as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Given that G-d is the speaker, and that most Christians regard Jesus as an integral part of the godhead (the Trinity), can the pronouns me and him, as they appear in this passage, refer to the same person, namely, Jesus? It should be clear that the prophet is speaking here of not one, but of two distinct entities. These pronouns, me and him, cannot refer to the same entity simultaneously! Moreover, there is still the issue of the pronoun I as used in Zechariah 12:10A. How does G-d's speaking in the 1^st-person in Zechariah 12:10A fit in with the rest of the verse, Zechariah 12:10B?

B. The New Testament to the Rescue?

Evidently, the author of the Gospel of John was familiar with this passage from the Book of Zechariah, and he understood its problematic nature relative to the new religion. To interpret this passage as saying that, at some future time, the Jewish people shall look unto Jesus whom the Romans had pierced, did not appear to him to be what Zechariah had in mind. So he decided to "rectify" this problem by revising and abridging the passage, and "quotes" it in this way:

John 19:37(KJV) - And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

The RSV translators utilized this version in the New Testament to revise the context of Zechariah's own words in their Old Testament version of Zechariah 12:10 (The Living Bible has a similar rendition):

Zechariah 12:10(RSV) - And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.

Although this appears to solve the problem created by the use of two distinct pronouns, it does not resolve the identity issue between the two segments of this verse, Zechariah 12:10A&B. Moreover, the RSV rendition is a deliberate revision of the Prophet's original words designed to "harmonizing" this passage with the Christian paradigm. The evidence for this allegation is presented Table IV.B-1, which shows the Hebrew text, a Jewish translation, and the RSV rendition of Zechariah 12:10B broken into three components, with respective terms highlighted.

Table IV.B-1 – Comparing RSV translation with Hebrew text and Jewish translation

Revised Standard Version Translation		Jewish Translation from the Hebrew	Hebrew Text
Zechariah 12:10B
i	so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced,	and they shall look toward me because of him who they pierced
ii	they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child,	and they shall mourn over him as one mourns over an only son,
iii	and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.	and be embittered over him as one is embittered over a firstborn son.

The significant Hebrew pronouns in the respective phrases that comprise Zechariah 12:10B are as follows:

 Zechariah 12:10B(i) has (elai), to me or toward me.

 Zechariah 12:10B(ii) has (alav), over him or upon him or for him.

 Zechariah 12:10B(iii) has (alav), over him or upon him or for him.

The combination of the two terms, (elai) and (alav), in the same verse is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, e.g., at Genesis 44:21, which the RSV correctly renders as:

Genesis 44:21(RSV) - Then you said to your servants, "Bring him down to me [(elai)], that I may set my eyes upon him [(alav)]."

Is there any doubt that the RSV rendition of Zechariah 12:10B(i) is based on John 19:37 in the New Testament rather than on the Hebrew text?

It is also interesting to note that, according to the Gospel of John, the prophecy was fulfilled at the time when the Roman soldiers pierced the side of Jesus. Yet, neither in the New Testament nor in recorded history is described the prophesied event that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem would mourn for Jesus. In fact, the New Testament portrays Jews; who were the overwhelming majority of Jerusalem's population, as anything but compassionate and mournful over the death of Jesus. This prophecy was not fulfilled when Jesus died!

C. How Well Did Christian Translators Know the Hebrew Language?

There is yet another serious problem with the Christian renditions of this verse, one that stems from a lack of knowledge and understanding of the Hebrew language. Specifically, the problem concerns the mistranslation of the Hebrew expression (et asher-daqaru) found in Zechariah 12:10B(i), which reads: because of him who they pierced [or because of the ones who they pierced], when correctly translated.

The Hebrew words (et) and (asher) are ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible. (et) is a preposition that serves as the marker of a definite direct object of a verb. In its root form, it is similar to the definite article the in English. However, unlike the case of the English language, (et) can be conjugated, and thereby it becomes the objective case of the respective pronoun, such as (oti), me (1^st-person, singular, masculine or feminine pronoun; as in "He taught me."), (ot'cha), you (2^nd-person, singular, masculine pronoun; as in "He taught you."), etc. The word (et) may also serve as the preposition with, and it can be conjugated in that context as well, albeit differently, such as, (itti), with me, (it'cha), with you, etc. The Hebrew word (asher) is a conjunction, a part of speech that connects other words or phrases. (asher) can mean because or for, that or which, who or whom, and it may take on various other meanings when combined with prepositions.

When (et) and (asher) occur together as a phrase, and in the particular grammatical structure, such as is found in Zechariah 12:10B(i), the phrase (et asher) must be read as, because of or concerning or regarding [something] or simply because or that which, but not simply as whom or the one, which are common in Christian translations. The particular translation depends on the context of the specific passage. The following example demonstrates this in another passage which has a grammatical structure similar to Zechariah 12:10B(i):

1 Samuel 30:23 – And David said, "You will not do so, my brothers, concerning that which [(et asher)] the L-rd has given us, and He watched over us, and delivered the troop that came against us into our hand.

The KJV has a correct translation of that passage:

1 Samuel 30:23(KJV) – Then said David, Ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the LORD hath given us, who hath preserved us, and delivered the company that came against us into our hand.

The special application of this combination, (et asher) appears to have been better understood by the writers of the Christian Septuagint (LXX), in which appears the following rendition of Zechariah 12:10B(i):

Zechariah 12:10B(i)(LXX) - and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me,

Although still badly mistranslated and inaccurate, the LXX rendition does not at all resemble the common Christian translations, and it has the (et asher) at least partially right.

D. Zechariah 12:10 in Context

Once the pronouns in this verse are properly understood, it becomes evident that the Christian renditions of Zechariah 12:10 are incompatible with the grammatical structure of the verse as well as with context of the rest of the chapter.

The passage Zechariah 12:8-14, when read in the original Hebrew text or in a correct translation thereof, clearly shows that the Prophet could not possibly have spoken of Jesus. The 12^th Chapter in the Book of Zechariah speaks of a war and does not describe the event of the crucifixion. In Zechariah 12:7-8 the following promise is made

Zechariah 12:7-8 – (7) And the L-rd will save the tents of Judah first, so that the splendor of the House of David and the splendor of the inhabitants of Jerusalem should not overwhelm Judah. (8) On that day, the L-rd shall protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and it shall come to pass on that day that even the weakest among them shall be like David; and the House of David shall be as angels, like an angel of the L-rd before them.

Jerusalem and its people will be protected. Yet, we know from the historical record that, less than 40 years after Jesus died, Jerusalem was torched and destroyed by the Romans, and the inhabitants were expelled and exiled. Another prophecy not fulfilled by Jesus. Zechariah 12:9 foretells of nations being destroyed:

Zechariah 12:9 – And it shall come to pass on that day, [that] I will seek to destroy all the nations that have come upon Jerusalem.

Yet, according to the historical record, no nations were destroyed during the lifetime of Jesus, so that this, too, remains a prophecy not yet fulfilled.

Finally, the only son and firstborn in Zechariah 12:10 are mentioned in the context of a deceased only son and a deceased firstborn, i.e., any only son and any firstborn who has died. How could this possibly refer to Jesus? Was he an only son or a firstborn? Was there such intense mourning for him throughout Jerusalem and Judah when he died? Though Zechariah uses the definite article (ha), the, in both cases, (ha'yahid), the only son, and [also ] (ha'b^echor), the firstborn, there is no name identified anywhere in the surrounding text regarding any specific individual(s) to whom this might apply, which is a common practice in the Hebrew Bible, as can be seen from the following example:

Deuteronomy 21:15-16 – (15) If a man has two wives, one beloved and another despised, and they have born him sons, the beloved and the despised one; and if the firstborn son [(ha'ben ha'b^echor)] is hers who was hated; (16) and it will be on the day he [the husband] bequeaths his property to his sons, that he will not be able to give the son of the beloved one the birthright over the son of the despised one, the [real] firstborn[(ha'b^echor)].

Whenever the same expression, (ha'b^echor), is used in reference to a specific individual, the name of that person is found nearby:

Genesis 41:51 - And Joseph called the name of the firstborn [(ha'b^echor)] Manasseh; because "G-d has made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house."

Zechariah's intent in using these generic phrases here, albeit inclusive of the definite article, was to describe the intensity of the mourning in Jerusalem and throughout the land, that it would be like the grief over a deceased only son or firstborn.

It should now be clear that the Christian renditions of Zechariah 12:10 are problematic relative to the Hebrew text. Although the Jewish translations of this passage also show some differences, they are consistent on the overall context, the proper application of the respective pronouns, and the correct understanding of the Hebrew expressions.

V. Summary

Christian apologists and missionaries make the claim that a single verse lifted out of the 12^th Chapter in the Book of Zechariah, Zechariah 12:10, prophesies the crucifixion of Jesus.

The piercing look that was taken at this verse, in the form of a detailed analysis of this verse using the Hebrew grammar and contextual consistency, demonstrated that its common Christian interpretation is incompatible with both grammatical structure and correct context, and cannot be supported from within the Hebrew Bible. It was shown that the primary reason for this is that Christian interpretations are based on mistranslated and altered texts from both parts of the Christian Bible, and which has created irreconcilable problems vis-à-vis both the Hebrew text and the historical record.

zec1210.html

Zechariah 12:10

"And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."
Zechariah 12:9 (RSV)

Messiah Truth

One of the most dramatic scenes in the New Testament is Jesus' crucifixion. It seems so tragic, yet the story tells us it was all a fulfillment of prophecy:

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: [34] But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. [35] And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. [36] For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. [37] And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. (KJV)

This passage would indicate that the piercing of Jesus was prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures. Such a bold claim must surely be verified.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (KJV)

The Christian claim is that John 19:33 is the fulfillment of this prophecy in Zechariah. The problems with this claim are with context and translation.

Context

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. [2] Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. (KJV)

These two verses set up the background. At some future date, the nations of the world will be gathered against the Jewish people, and will besiege the Jerusalem.

Zechariah 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. [4] In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness. [5] And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God. [6] In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. (KJV)

This siege is part of a tremendous war, the war of Gog and Magog. The Jews shall fight back against the enemy nations, and they shall be victorious.

Zechariah 12:7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. [8] In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. [9] And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Of course, the real source of the victory will be from Heaven.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. [11] In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. [12] And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; [13] The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; [14] All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

The concluding verses speak of someone who is pierced and dies. His death will so shock the nation that the people will be moved to repentance and mourning, an intense mourning of this person who is killed that it would be as if they were mourning for a firstborn son. Verse 11 paints a rather dramatic picture of how widespread the mourning will be by comparing this mourning to the mourning the people did over the death of King Josiah, who was killed in battle against the Egyptians, as told in 2 Kings 23:29-30. 2 Chronicles 35:22-25 tells that all of Judah mourning for him.

Does Jesus fit this picture? Three points prevent this:

1) This scenario of war against the nations of the world didn't take place in Jesus' time.

2) The Jews (meaning the whole people) didn't mourn over Jesus' death according to the New Testament account.

3) This proof, like nearly all of Christianity's proofs, requires one to assume the conclusion, that Jesus is the Messiah and that he's special enough that the prophets would have written about him. If you approach the verse without believing in Jesus, there's really no reason to think that the verse refers to him.

Translation

The translation of this verse is rather awkward. Let's give it a closer look.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (KJV)

The speaker in this verse is the Lord, yet in this translation, it appear that the Lord Himself is pierced. (Hence, the Christian connection, because they believe that Jesus is G-d in the flesh.) However, the rest of the verse would indicate that the Lord was speaking of someone else. "For him" they shall mourn. "For him" there shall be bitterness.

The author of the Gospel of John apparently didn't see our verse from Zechariah the same way that the King James Bible translated it.

John 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Note that in our verse from Zechariah, it reads "upon Me whom they have pierced." In this verse from John, it's now "on him whom they pierced." If G-d is the speaker, and He is the one being pierced (as if such a thing were possible), then it is reasonable to think that the rest of the verse would be consistent with this. John's quote is consistent, although taken out of context. John never saw the verse as the Lord being pierced, because John clearly believed that Jesus and G-d were two separate entities, as seen by the following:

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (KJV)

The context of the King James translation leads one to think that this is a mistranslation. Examining the Hebrew text of the verse will confirm this.

Source: http://www.messiahtruth.com/zech12.html

Zechariah 12:10

Biblical Unitarian

First of all, there are problems with the transmission of the Hebrew text such that the original meaning is not clear. Thus there are versions such as the NIV above that make the sentence refer back to God and these versions usually supply the word “me” or some equivalent. On the other hand, there are other translators that see the “one whom they have pierced” as referring to someone other than God, and those versions usually supply the word “him.” An example of this is the Revised Standard Version.

Zechariah 12:10 (RSV)
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.

Translators and commentators who believe that the word “pierced” should refer back to the pronoun “him” cite textual variants that more clearly read “him,” as well as the flow of the sentence which continues with the word “him” in the phrase “they shall mourn for him” and “grieve bitterly for him.” The Jewish understanding of this verse has always been that the one pierced was one in an intimate relationship with God, but there is no record of any early Jewish commentator understanding Zechariah 12:10 to be saying that somehow Yahweh Himself would come into the flesh and be pierced in the literal sense of the word. It is apparent to us that the Revised Standard Version has a good translation of the verse and that Zechariah 12:10 is a prophecy of the piercing of the promised Messiah.

Another important point to make is that Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in John 19:37 after the Roman soldier thrust his spear into Christ’s side. John 19:37 reads: “and, as another scripture says, ‘They will look on the one they have pierced.” The King James Version translates John 19:37 as follows: “And again another scripture saith, ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced.’”

The different versions may disagree on the Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10, but none of them disagree on the translation of the way it is quoted in the New Testament. None of the versions have the word “me,” and most of them supply the word “him” as does the KJV, NASB and RSV. If the original reading of Zechariah 12:10 was “me, whom they have pierced,” we can think of no reason that it would not be quoted that way in the New Testament. On the other hand, if the reading of Zechariah 12:10 in the RSV and other versions is correct, then it makes perfect sense that the verse would be quoted in the New Testament the way it is. We contend that the New Testament quotation of Zechariah 12:10 gives us the proper interpretation of the verse.

Not only is Zechariah 12:10 quoted in John, but also it is alluded to in Revelation. Revelation 1:7 says, “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.” Commentators freely admit that this verse alludes back to Zechariah, and it uses the word “him,” not “me.” Thus we conclude that the internal evidence of Scripture is conclusive that the one pierced in Zechariah is not God but one in an intimate relation with God, the Messiah.

The third point I would make is that although we do not believe that “me” is properly supplied in many versions of Zechariah 12:10, it certainly is the case that God was “pierced” when the Messiah was tortured and put to death. When Simeon met Joseph and Mary in the Temple when they came to consecrate Jesus, he said to Mary, “A sword will pierce your own soul too” (Luke 2:35). Commentators freely admit that this statement is not referring to the physical piercing of Mary in any way, but rather is referring to the grief that Mary will endure as she watched her son be tortured and killed. Thus Scripture gives us evidence that, if Zechariah said, “they will look on [or “unto”] me who they have pierced,” then he was saying that God’s heart would be pierced. If “me” is the true reading in Zechariah 12:10, then the Bible tells us that both the hearts of God the Father of the Messiah and Mary the mother of the Messiah were pierced when Jesus their Son was tortured and killed.

Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=157

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Return to Refuting Alleged Old Testament Prophecies Pointing to Jesus

Return to Homepage

=============================================

سيف الإسلام للرد على الشبهات

السبت، 27 يونيو 2020

دانيال 9 وزكريا 12:10

I. Introduction

B. Segment B

IV. Summary

Addressing Micah 5:2

I. Introduction

I. Introduction

II. The Hebrew Text and Several Christian and Jewish Translations

III. Overview of Christian and Jewish Interpretations

Source: http://www.messiahtruth.com/zec1210.html

Zechariah 12:10

ليست هناك تعليقات:

إرسال تعليق