Editor’s Note: This is a follow-up to a question in which the person said that Christians have stolen Jesus out of the Old Testament, and taken him completely out of context. I asked for specifics so that I could respond, and this is what came in.
Question:
Christians specifically misinterpreted Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12 to justify their false belief that Jesus’ death is predicted in Jewish scriptures. Subsequently, they, on the basis of their false interpretation, called these books “inspired”. Further, NT authors molded the character of Jesus according to their false interpretations and put their words into his mouth. On the other hand, the Quran tells us about Jews that: “Behold! Thy Lord did declare that He would send against them to the Day of Judgment those who would afflict them with a grievous penalty.” (7:167) Up to this time, the Jews have been inflicted by war and fear.
Answer:
Thank you for providing some specifics, as I requested. Now I can respond to an actual criticism, rather than generic rhetoric.
First, let me respond to the Isaiah 53 charge. I am copying and pasting below a couple of responses from my website. After that, below the three Q & As, I will respond to the Zechariah 12 prophecy. Finally, let me respectfully request that you listen to the following youtube broadcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5c-d1pNnvs&ab_channel=PfanderFilms It will help you to understand the relationship between the Old Testament, Jesus and the Qur’an.
One more thing. You are taking Sura 7:167 out of context. If you look at this passage, it is talking about Jews. True, but it is speaking to those who profane the Sabbath. Also, look at 7:170 in which Muhammad has Allah declaring that those who abide by the Old Testament, he never discounts their reward. I suggest you start the habit of reading the Qur’an in context, and not take passages out of their context. Just a thought.
Question:
The NT authors thought that Isaiah was describing the crucifixion of Jesus for the sins of the world in Isaiah 53, but the fact is Isaiah is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future, they are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this is not about a future suffering messiah. What’s your response?
Answer:
The tense of a verb in a prophecy does not always determine when it will be fulfilled. It is the content and the context, not the verb tense which determines the meaning of a prophecy. This is not mere rhetoric. It is proved by looking at specific examples of clear and obvious prophecies which were later fulfilled. For example, there is Psalm 22:16-18. “Dogs surround me, a pack of villians encircles me, they pierce my hands and my feet… They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my clothing.” Here the prophecy about the crucifixion of Jesus is in the present tense, yet the events clearly lie in the future. By the way, let me point out that, even in your own question, you use a tense in an interesting way. You say that “Isaiah is not predicting…” So, you yourself use a present tense about an event in the past. In fact, it is rather normal for prophecy to be given in the past tense. This is called the “prophetic past.” It is a well-known phenomenon (except to the biblical critic whom you read). Another example is Zechariah 9:9, which has the Messiah/king riding into Jerusalem in the present tense. Then there is Zechariah 11:13, a messianic prophecy which predicts the price at which Jesus was betrayed—30 pieces of silver, to be exact. This prophecy, and it is clearly a prophecy—is in the past tense. “So I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord.”
By the way, there is no absolute pattern. For example, Isaiah 9:1 tells us about the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6 shows this) that “in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles. Also, in Isaiah 7:14, also in the future tense. “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son” who will be called God-with-us. We see here that prophecies of the future can be in the future, the present or the past tense.
It is the choice of the prophet, not of the interpreter, what tense to put a prophecy of the future into. If we look at Isaiah 53, this is about as clear and obvious a messianic prophecy as exists in Scripture. The prophet describes one who will be despised and rejected, who will be pierced for our sins, who will be silent when accused, and who will later be raised to life. The prophet, under the inspiration of the Holyl Spirit, is apparently looking at the events of the life of Messiah Jesus from the future. That is his choice. What other figure in human history does this passage apply to? Is there any person or nation to which this applies? The answer is clear. No! This is a messianic passage, and Muslim critics such as the one you have read are clearly thrashing around for any potential excuse to dismiss this clear prophecy about Jesus of Nazareth, his death and his resurrection.
John Oakes
Question:
Some people say that there are no unambiguous prophecies about Jesus in the OT, hence such verses are open to interpretations. For example, even in one of the strongest prophecy about Jesus, Isaiah 53:10 it says, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see HIS OFFSPRING and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.” Looking at this verse, people can think that this person, whom Isaiah 53 describes, would have an offspring, but Jesus didn’t ever have one. How can we have the assurance of the prophecies about Jesus that they talk about Jesus himself?
Answer:
Unambiguous is in the eyes of the beholder, as they say. In my opinion, Isaiah 53 is rather obviously talking about the historical person we know as Jesus of Nazareth. So many details fit exactly, that I believe a reasonable person would agree that this is rather obvious. He was despised and rejected. Fact. He was silent when accused (53:7). Fact. That is why he was convicted on trumped up charges. He was pierced (53:5), unless we can accuse John of outright lying in his gospel. He was buried in a rich person’s grave, etc..
But, he was not literally “crushed.” (53:10). This crushing is clearly metaphorical. How many people actually, literally, get crushed? Also, he has many “offspring” which is all those who follow him and who he calls friend and brother. This is the obvious interpretation. His offspring are spiritual, not genetic. We are Jesus’ friends (John 15:15). We are his brothers and sisters (Hebrews 2:11). We are his children according to Galatians 3:26. All of these claims are spiritual/symbolic, not literal. This is what Isaiah 53:10 is talking about.
Is there any conceivable ambiguity here? Yes. Is the conclusion that this is a prophecy, and that it was fulfilled in Jesus the most reasonable one? Definitely.
God gives us free will and he does not force us to believe. To those who are unwilling to accept what seems rather obvious to you and me, God gives them sufficient room to find an ambiguity and to not accept the obvious, which is that this is a prophecy which was fulfilled by Jesus.
What about Psalm 22:16? “They have pierced my hands and my feet.” Is this ambiguous? Hmmm…. I guess. It depends what you mean by ambiguous. Who else in David’s time got his hands and feet pierced? Seems pretty unambiguous to me, but I am sure that those who choose not to believe in Christ can dig up some sort of ambiguity there. On judgment day, we will answer to God if we refuse to accept the rather clear implications of the dozens of messianic prophecies in the Bible.
John Oakes
Question:
Prophecies need to be specific. There was no need to hide the promised messiah within a passage that was also speaking about something else, for e.g. if Isaiah had an intention of speaking about the Messiah, it would’ve been nice had he said it clearly, instead of using the same moniker to identify both Israel and the Messiah, which has led to 2,000 years of confusion. Moreover, if we apply Isa. 52-53 to Jesus, then Isa. 52:14 reads “his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness”, but Jesus’ most serious wounds were to his hands, feet, and side. No bones were broken, and no serious disfigurement remained. What is your reply? Thanks.
Answer:
You say that “Prophecies need to be specific.” My response to that is this: According to whose rule is it required that all prophecies be specific? Is that your or someone else’s rule? Is God required to abide by your rule or by my rule? Such “rules” are almost by definition arbitrary, and I see no reason why God has to obey human rules about the nature of prophecies. The fact is that there are literally dozens of messianic passages in the Old Testament which are what I would call “double prophecies.” They are prophecies that applied to the Jew’s situation at the time, but also to the messianic age. What rule says that God cannot do this? Examples are all of Ezekiel 36 and much of Ezekiel 37. Both of these long passages are prophecies about the restoration of Judah (Ezekiel 36;37-38), but, quite clearly (Ezekiel 36:24-32) be messianic. To me this is not “confusion.” Zechariah has many of these double prophecies, as do Jeremiah and Isaiah. These prophecies of both the relatively near and the relatively distant future amazing evidence of the inspiration of the Bible!
As for Isaiah 52-53, this lengthy passage is rather obviously messianic, but some have proposed that there is some element of double fulfillment in Israel as the suffering servant. This passage is complex, and much has been written about the “arm of the Lord,” and the “suffering servant.” In any case, Isaiah 52:13-53:12 are very clearly messianic. I discuss the suffering servant issue in an article I published recently. Here it is:
https://evidenceforchristianity.org/a-review-of-rabbi-tovia-singers-lets-get-biblical/ You will need to go in three or so pages to find the relevant material on Isaiah.
As for Isaiah 52:14, from what I understand of the nature of Roman flogging, Jesus’ back, as well as the back of his arms and legs would have been shredded when the flagrum was applied to him by the Roman soldiers. Is it appropriate to described a flogged person as marred beyond human likeness? I am not sure what to say about that, except that the inspired messianic prophecy describes the wounds of the Messiah that way, and, to me, it is not inappropriate to described a crucified and flogged person that way. In your question you seem to be forgetting the flogging.
John Oakes
On Zechariah 12, I assume you mean Zechariah 12:10, which says, “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.” Let me say this. Unlike Isaiah 53, this passage is not an absolute slam dunk as being about Jesus. It is absolutely obvious and completely clear that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, as there is no human figure in all history who fits this prophecy. I would say that Zechariah 12 definitely fits Jesus, but one can argue that it is possible that Jews may not see it that way. But look at the details. Jesus certainly is one who was pierced. Historical records make it perfectly clear that Jesus was crucified, and John records his having been pierced. Also, Jesus certainly was a “firstborn son.” So, even if you are not totally convinced that this is about Jesus, you will have to admit that the details fit. Either way, Christians are not forcing Jesus into this passage. It fits the pattern, which is that Jesus fulfills ALL of the messianic prophetic passages, and Zechariah 12:10 fits that pattern. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your false claim that Christians force Jesus into these passages.
One more thing. You put quotes around the word “inspired.” But you should be aware that Muhammad himself declared the Jewish Scripture as being inspired, so you might want to be careful to undermine the inspiration of the Old Testament, when your own main prophet Muhammad said that the Jews are “people of the book,” and that book is the Old Testament.
John Oakes
