I have done some studying on Psalm 22, with its supposed prophecy about
the Messiah having his hands and feet pierced. I did some more work on
this at I am
happy to accept “pierced” as a possible translation, but think it is
questionable as one of the authorities says, “we do not know which of all
these (OT) texts reflects the biblical text faithfully.” How, in that
situation, can so much reliance be placed, so often, on one word in one


No one I know places a huge amount of weight on this one passage. I
certainly do not. I would say that it is about 0.03% of my evidence that
Jesus is the Messiah (just kidding on the number, of course). In fact,
this passage is far more important to the skeptic than to the believer, as
a single passage like this disproves the skeptic’s conclusion, while
dozens support the believer’s position. The skeptic absolutely must
disprove this one, which partially explains the long and convoluted
argument by your ally on Ps 22!!!! The point is that there is an
overwhelming weight of evidence, first, that there were a number of
messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, to which common sense, but
perhaps more importantly, Jewish scholars agree. Second, the fact is that
Jesus fulfilled such a wide variety of prophecies, both through acts over
which he had some control (entering Jerusalem on a donkey) and through
things over which he did not have control (assuming he is not God, of
course), including being born in Bethlehem, being sold for 30 pieces of
silver, etc.. In fact, if it were not for the great number of obvious
prophecies and fulfillments, I might just possibly (but I doubt it… it
is really hard to miss pierced hands and feet) missed the reference in
Psalms 22. The weight of evidence is absolutely overwhelming. To be
honest, I believe the only way to miss the obvious implications is to
either choose not to read the Bible or to willfully ignore the obvious
(for reasons which I will let such people explain).

That is how I see it.

By the way, this argument above also explains the non-believer’s vehement
attacks on the authorship of Daniel. If Daniel was the author, then the
Bible is inspired by God (or to be more careful, certainly one part
is!!). Period. End of story. The believer does not particularly need
the prophecies in Daniel, but the non-believer absolutely must prove bogus
authorship or unbelief becomes untenable. This is why few believers put a
lot of energy into defending Daniel (it is a small piece of evidence in an
ocean at their disposal), while so many skeptics make a big deal about it.

Even if you do not agree with my conclusions, do you at least see the
logic of my point?

John Oakes

Comments are closed.