The following essay was written in response to the original Jury Is In Chapter 9 by Robby Berry. Berry's essay was replaced by a much shorter response written by Robert Price.

For comments on Price's newer essay(s), please see the Rogue's Gallery main page under his name. I have retained this original response to Berry because it contains material that may be used by skeptics in the future.

The topic of this chapter - Messianic prophecy - is one which, I would generally agree, is not terribly useful for apologetic purposes. Messianic prophecy was for the Jews; its purpose was to help them identify their Messiah when He came. That, according to Christianity, has happened; and now we are in a different time, when the attitude towards prophecy is greatly changed. This does not mean that we CANNOT use Messianic prophecy apologetically; it DOES mean - if I may generalize - that it will not have the same appeal when dealing with skeptical people (as are the Jury writers) as it would when dealing with someone who is quite willing to accept the idea that prophecy can occur in the first place. Inevitably, the skeptic must (and will) resort to other explanations for fulfilled prophecy: When possible, they appeal to corrupted texts or prophecies written after the fact (see reply to Steven Carr, Ch. 11). That is not possible with Messianic prophecy, but there are a host of other possibilities available for the skeptic, as we shall see.

In light of the above, and in light of other factors to be noted shortly, I will not be providing a full exposition on some of the topics alluded to; in many cases, I will simply provide links to other places where information and discussion may be found. Long before I treaded the Web, this topic was being bandied about by Jim Lippard of "Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah" fame (whom Berry quotes liberally) for the skeptics, and Glenn Miller and others have already made extensive replies. There is obviously no need for me to tread over ground that has already been covered, so the reader will, I hope, excuse me for taking a break for much of this one!

Here is the general outline we shall follow:

1. We will begin with a few general comments.
2. We will look at Berry's seven objections to prophetic fulfillment.
3. We will examine a few miscellaneous errors by Berry.
4. Finally, we will provide links to some sites where the reader may look for further information.

|

Preliminaries: The Plot Starts

Berry's rebuttal begins with what can only charitably be called a rather childish cheap shot at Josh McDowell. He writes:

McDowell claims that one possible objection to the argument from messianic prophecy is that the prophecies were written after Jesus lived, and therefore weren't really prophecies at all. I know of no atheist who has ever claimed that any of the Old Testament books were written after the Jesus lived, and it is significant that McDowell does not quote anybody who does. McDowell has set up a straw man to make his argument look more impressive. McDowell's answer to this objection (which, as stated above, is raised by nobody but himself) is that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) was initiated in 250 B.C.. ..the argument is a straw man designed to make atheists look stupid. (That, or McDowell greatly misunderstands his opponents' views. Either way, this reflects poorly on McDowell.)

Actually, this reflects poorly not on McDowell, but on Berry's understanding of McDowell's presentation:

• I do not see where McDowell is trying to make atheists look stupid here. In fact, atheists are not even mentioned!
• Who, then, are Josh's "opponents" here? Well, who knows? Josh McDowell has travelled around the world for many years, met literally thousands of people, and has encountered any number of objections to Christianity - probably including this one! That he quotes no one on this issue simply means that no published scholar holds this view [other than G. A. Wells, perhaps? :-) ], nor is it held by anyone whose name would mean anything to his readers.

Let us keep in mind that Josh is not just being fanciful here. The average Joe on the street, if asked, has no idea when the books of the OT were actually written down and could probably name no more than 5 or 10 OT books before spluttering to the ground from the mental strain of recollection. Indeed, I have encountered many people (atheists, New Agers - even Christians) who didn't know when specific parts of the OT were written (neither liberal nor conservative dating); there was only a vague notion of "thousands of years ago." And is this so hard to believe, in an era when, in a recent Gallup survey, 42 percent of people couldn't name the person who delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and some even thought that it was delivered from horseback? (And this was in America; in some countries, China for example, there are demonstrably people who don't even know that there is an Old or New Testament!)

Of course, in light of recent publicity surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the advent of the Information Age, this argument is undoubtedly heard less and less today than it was in the 70s when McDowell put the first Evidence volume together. Nevertheless, there is no straw man here - just a misunderstanding by Berry.

|

STARK PUTBACK ONE: TAKE A CHANCE ON THE MESSIAH?

Some of these prophecies are those which could easily be fulfilled by chance...if a prophecy is such that all (or most) humans fulfill it, then we shouldn't be at all surprised that Jesus fulfilled it.

Let's have a look at the list of prophecies that Berry puts in this category:

...there are 7 prophecies which are so broad that there are millions (perhaps billions) of people who could fulfill them. These are:

There are not many here, so I will deal with them one at a time:

1. Born of the seed of a woman - Here, Berry has simply misunderstood this prophecy of a virgin birth as simply being a prophecy of a normal birth. We will provide links to material on this subject at a later point in this essay.

21. Zeal for God - We may agree that this prophecy COULD be fulfilled by chance, but it is my opinion that Jesus fulfilled this deliberately. (See below.)

33. Betrayed by a friend - As above, this COULD happen by chance, but I would not agree with Berry that the chances of it being fulfilled are "very close to 100%." The point is not that important, though, so I shall leave it be.

39. Dumb before accusers; 42. Mocked; 51 Stared Upon - I will also agree here that these COULD be fulfilled by chance, within reasonable bounds.

60. Darkness over the land - Please see Tekton 1-1-1 entry on Thallus concerning this.

|

STARK PUTBACKS TWO AND THREE - A PASSOVER PLOT PROPOSED?

2 . Prophecies Which Could Be Fulfilled Deliberately - Many of the prophecies below could be fulfilled deliberately... If Jesus fulfilled a prophecy (of this sort), we couldn't tell if he did so because he was the messiah, or if he did so because he deliberately worked to fulfill them. The second choice is the more reasonable one, assuming that what is being predicted is within the human control of Jesus.

3. Prophecies Which Could Be Faked - Many of the prophecies listed by McDowell could be faked...given the choice between the hypothesis that Jesus actually fulfilled predictions made centuries ago, or that he faked the fulfillment of these events, the second is the more reasonable choice, assuming that the fulfillments are such that they can be faked.

It could be that Jesus fulfilled several (prophecies) by chance, and then, having noticed that, decided that he must be the promised messiah. He thus began to act like a messiah, which means he would have deliberately done what the messiah was supposed to do, as described in prophecy. From time to time, he may even have faked a few prophecies in order to strengthen people's belief in him.

I'm going to put these all together, because they are very closely related - and they bring up an issue that Berry does not even touch upon. Question: If Jesus went about deliberately fulfilling and arranging for the faking of fulfillment of prophecies - did He believe Himself to be the Messiah and/or God incarnate? And thus, our next question arises, the same as it did in Tekton 1-3-1 - was Jesus therefore lying, or telling the truth, or what? If we choose "truth," we are Christians; but if we choose the other options, we have all of the attendant problems associated with it! (I find it peculiar that whereas Jim Perry (Ch. 7) wishes to argue that it is viable to say that Jesus never made claims to divinity, Berry argued that Jesus CONSPIRED to claim it! At least now, with Berry's essay removed, this is one inconsistency across the board that no longer exists...)

Let's look at the "deliberately fulfilled" list Berry that offers first:

McDowell claims that this objection fails because many of the prophecies predicted the sort of things that humans cannot control. This, however, is less true than McDowell supposes. Of the 66 prophecies listed above, the following 21 prophecies are such that a human could deliberately fulfill them-- usually with a minimal amount of effort:

14. He shall be called Lord

21. His zeal for God

22. Preceded by messenger

23. Ministry to begin in Galilee

27. He was to enter Jerusalem on a donkey

28. "Stone of stumbling" to Jews

29. "Light" to Gentiles

33. Betrayed by a friend

38. Accused by false witnesses

39. Dumb before accusers

40. Wounded and bruised

41. Smitten and spit upon

46. Made intercession for his persecutors

49. Friends stood afar off

50. People shook their heads

51. Stared upon

52. Garments parted and lots cast

54. Gall and vinegar offered him

55. His forsaken cry

56. Committed himself to God

57. Bones not broken

I won't deal with these one at a time, because it really isn't necessary - the basic question I'll ask is, how desperate is Berry willing to venture that Jesus was to fulfill these prophecies?

Let's first make a division:

1) Prophecies that I agree were deliberately fulfilled. I would include here 21 (Zeal for God), 23 (Ministry to begin in Galilee), 27 (Donkey Ride), 28 (stumbling stone), 29 (Gentile light), 39 (silent before accusers), 55 and 56 (forsaken cry/committed self to God). Of course, these are hardly things that one does NOT do intentionally! For example, I have yet to see anyone take a ride on a donkey by accident!

2) Prophecies that require a certain measure of desperation to believe were deliberately fulfilled. Some of the proposals made by Berry here are rather amusing! Not even Hugh Schoenfield's Passover Plot went as far as suggesting the following:

Item 14 - It would be fairly easy to fulfill this prophecy deliberately, simply by convincing others (through friendly persuasion, by performing impressive magic tricks, or through bribery) to refer to him as lord. Thus, even if this really is a messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, it is not particularly impressive.

I would hazard that it is extremely doubtful that anyone, using only persuasion, tricks, or mere bribery, could convince pious Jews to call them "Lord", and thereby have them commit a blasphemy that would ensure their being ostracized, persecuted, and possibly executed - not to mention put their souls, by Jewish belief, in peril of eternal damnation! But Berry is welcome to try and report the results back to us...

Elsewhere in Berry's essay we have a Jesus who is quite free with the cash reserves in order to get things accomplished. (Though where he GETS all this money to bribe people with is NOT explained! Peter, John and Andrew may have had some reserves as successful fishermen, but overall, they would not have had enough to finance the bribes needed to persuade the people needed...and get away without someone noticing.) Here are the incredible examples that Berry cites:

Item 22 - This verse would not be too difficult to fulfill deliberately; Jesus could have hired or otherwise persuaded John the Baptist to go before him. Likewise, it would not be too difficult to fake; Jesus could have convinced others that some obscure or symbolic phrases spoken by John were actually references to him (Jesus). So even if Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, it wouldn't be that impressive.

Item 33 - ...Jesus could have faked a fulfillment of this prophecy by asking or bribing Judas to betray him. Taking this into consideration, we see that even if Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, it would not require a supernatural explanation.

Item 38 - Jesus could have deliberately fulfilled this prophecy by bribing the witnesses to falsely testify against him. (This is a strange notion-- but no stranger than the notion that events predicted centuries ago were fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Weirdness is relative.)

Item 49 - It would not be difficult for Jesus to deliberately fulfill this prophecy by asking his friends to stand far off.

Item 52 - As in "Gall and vinegar offered him", this could be deliberately fulfilled (albeit with some difficulty) by bribing one of the guards. Jesus may well have had friends among the guards, so this isn't as outrageous as it seems. (See Luke 7:1-10.)

Item 54 - This prophecy could be deliberately fulfilled, albeit with some difficulty, by bribing a guard to get him to offer Jesus vinegar and gall. Jesus was alleged to have friends among the Romans (Luke 7:1-10)

So Berry's Jesus may have bribed/cajoled/done whatever to get John the Baptist, Judas Iscariot, all his friends (and maybe some enemies), and at least one Roman soldier (one stationed in Capernaum, almost a hundred miles a way, no less!) in order to deliberately fulfill prophecy! My, but this was a broad conspiracy; and yet, no one snitched afterwards when (presumably) the whole scheme failed; there is not a trace of evidence left behind to support its existence (no "smoking spear"); nothing, none, nada, zilch - all we have is the notion that Jesus actually BEING the Messiah is far more incredible to believe. About the only thing I find agreeable here is the statement, "Weirdness is relative." - especially in light of these next suggestions! Not only is Berry's Jesus a scoundrel and a trickster; Berry's Jesus is also a sadomasochist - to wit:

Item 40 (with reference to it from Item 41) - It would be easy to fulfill this prophecy deliberately. All Jesus would have to do is place himself in a situation where he would be likely to be abused. This could be done by deliberately angering powerful people, for instance-- something Jesus is known to have done.

Items 50, 51 - Given that people shook their heads to indicate contempt, it would have been easy to fulfill this verse deliberately by acting in such a way as to inspire the contempt of others. Hence, even if Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, it would not be too surprising.

Item 53 - Jesus could have faked this prophecy by claiming to be thirsty when he really wasn't.

Item 57 - ...it could be fulfilled deliberately simply by being careful not to break anything.

I ask the reader: Is this "Passover Plot" scenario believable? If you say "yes" - congratulations! You are a skeptic of remarkable faith!

But then, the plot thickens, as ever it does! Berry's Jesus has an awful lot of influence, and an awful lot of tricks up his sleeve - as may be seen by this list of prophecies that Berry proposes Jesus may have faked:

Here, I can agree that 20, 21, and 23 COULD be faked; and I can see, perhaps, lies being told to cover 11, 33, 46, 53 and 58 (which is what Berry suggests for the most part), though there would be a certain difficulty in getting away with them! Significantly, however, although these suggestions are thrown out to us as fulfilled by fakery (in the manner of spaghetti on the wall), we are not given any process WHEREBY these prophecies could be faked, and how the fakers got away with it. Let's examine those left one at a time:

Item 2 - Born of a virgin - It would be easy for a man to fake being born of a virgin, especially among a superstitious society with no technology for managing and transferring large amounts of data (such as birth or medical records) efficiently. There is certainly no evidence in the Bible capable of disproving this explanation, and in the absence of further evidence, a faked virgin birth is more plausible than a real virgin birth. Note also that a virgin birth would be especially easy to fake in a society where virgin birth myths were already popular.

Ah, yes - those primitive people with the bones in their noses! All a bunch of suckers for a good story...superstitious, AND no computers to boot! This is what is commonly termed "chronological snobbery" - and it is not the only place that we see it. Check this entry under Item 8 (which is also applied to Item 9, House of David, and similar reasoning used in Item 10, Born at Bethlehem):

In a society where information could not be easily transferred from one place to another, it would be easy to fake one's lineage.

Is it really? I should like to know whether Berry has pursued the study, for example, of the details taken in a Roman census of the first century, or the histories of Tacitus, Herodotus or Josephus, if he thinks that ancient people didn't care about or were careless with information. They were no more careless than we are: And how can we say otherwise when the Internal Revenue Service, using computers, is sending letters to dead people? How can we claim to have superior techniques for processing and transferring information when breakdowns in service are so common? As a librarian and information specialist, let me assure you, readers, that data management techniques and technology are only as good as the people who manage the data; and as regards mental capabilities, we are no better than people in the first century. Berry's uninformed suggestion here should be treated with the minimal respect that it deserves.

It is not clearly explained how Item 12 - Herod kills children could be faked (just plain lying, perhaps?), so I'll pass that over. That leaves two:

No points for guessing what Berry argues here:

Item 24 - Miracles can be faked, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a faked miracle is a more reasonable explanation than a real one. Thus, even if Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, we need not be impressed unless the Christian apologist can demonstrate that these miracles were not faked.

I'm not going to be too hard on Berry here - after all, this is really no place for a discussion of miracles; although (as if it were not clear already!) he should make it clear that he is taking an a priori skeptical viewpoint. I'd also object to the idea that a faked miracle is a more reasonable explanation than a real one - this assumes that "faked" is ALWAYS more reasonable than "real," which assumes knowledge of ALL possible "miracle situations." A blanket assertion is merely skeptical hot air, as is the shifting of proof onto the apologist.

Item 30 contains a neat twist:

Item 30 - There are any number of good reasons to doubt that the resurrection actually occurred-- see chapter 10 of The Jury Is In. Briefly, we should note that a resurrection can be faked, and in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, a faked resurrection is a better explanation than a real one.

Problem here is, Jury Chapter 10 hasn't been on the air since I found Jury back in October '96...and it still isn't. But, then again, no need to worry now, since Berry's essay has been removed.

|

STARK OBJECTION 4: HIGH TEST

4. Prophecies Which Are Untestable - Many of the prophecies listed below are untestable... A prophecy might be untestable for several reasons. It might be so vague that we don't know what is being predicted. Or it might be clear what is being predicted, but it might not be clear how to go about determining whether Jesus fulfilled it or not. Or it might be clear what is being predicted, and how to test if Jesus fulfilled it, but it might be that the evidence needed to judge is no longer available-- or never was. In all these cases, the prophecy is untestable and must be thrown out.

In terms of usefulness for apologetics, I'm in agreement here. Items such as 3 (Son of God) and 13 (Pre-existence) aren't going to do a lot of good when they assume what it is you set out to prove! On the other hand, we may suggest here that vagueness is in the eye of the beholder. Absent Berry's credentials as a Biblical scholar or proof of equivalent studies, we may ask whether the "vagueness" is due to his own misunderstanding or lack of knowledge - and by some of what follows, it seems that the latter is the case! But that, we will get to shortly.

|

STARK OBJECTIONS 6 AND 7: TYPOLOGICAL TROUBLE

6. Prophecies Which Violate Christian Theology - The argument from messianic prophecy is intended to prove Christianity, and so it should be obvious why a prophecy which would violate Christian theology if Jesus fulfilled it would be problematic.

7.Prophecies Based On Misinterpretations Of The Old Testament - This flaw is present in nearly every prophecy McDowell lists. Sometimes a prophecy is based on a mistranslation of a word, or a misquotation of a text. We will see many cases where portions of the context are ignored in order to make the prophecy work, since taking the context into account would result in a prophecy which Jesus did not fulfill, or a prophecy which violates Christian theology. We will see cases where the "prophecies" are written in the present tense, and thus are not prophecies at all. We will see cases where McDowell sees meanings in the Old Testament verses which aren't actually there. We'll even see one case which a prophecy of a false prophet is twisted into a prophecy of Jesus.

I have put these together because the objection of 6 falls under that of 7. Those objected to with 6 (and there are less than 6 of them!) are misunderstandings of the sort of thing referred to in objection 7 - they are not misinterpretations of the OT, but typologies.

As it happens, Berry and Glenn Miller are having a discussion on this issue, so I will only cover a bit of basic data here, and provide links later on to their discussion. Here's the basic data on typology, for your convenience:

A "type" is an OT institution, person, event, or ceremony which has reality and purpose in Biblical history, but also foreshadows something yet to be revealed. The institution, person, or event that it foreshadows is called an "antitype."

The biggest type/antitype relationship in the Bible, of course, is the connection between the OT sacrificial system and the Jesus' death on the cross. Hence 1 Corinthians 5:7 refers to "Christ our Passover."

In the same vein, the brass snake raised up on a pole by Moses, upon which the children of Israel could look for healing from the afflictions of snakebite (Numbers 21:8), acted as a "type" for Jesus being raised up on the cross (John 3:14-15).

An antitype fulfillment must always involve a "heightening" upon the type - that is, the antitype must be a greater and more significant action.

Berry, at a time when I surmise he was not as clear on the concept as he is now, wrote this about typology, under Item 21 of his essay:

Some may try to excuse this by saying that David is an "archetype" or "forerunner" of Jesus. This claim is not credible...there are far too many dissimilarities between Jesus and David...

A typology, however, does not require a one-to-one correspondence in every surrounding verse of the Bible. Typology only requires that, to use this example, David be a type to the antitype of Jesus in a single, specific way, such as being King of the Jews. (Obviously, the type could foreshadow the antitype in more than one way as well.) Furthermore, typological persons or events do not depend upon context for their validity; hence, many statements made by Berry complaining of prophecies not being in future tense, or the verses surrounding the type not reflecting conditions relevant to the antitype, are irrelevant.

As a matter of demonstration, let's look at this material from Item 16. Here is the OT verse in question:

Deut. 18:15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me (the speaker is Moses) from among your own brothers.

McDowell draws links between the lives of Jesus and Moses in order to demonstrate the typological connection. It is instructive to read Berry's rebuttal to these:

Both were delivered from death during their infancy. [McDowell actually says "violent death", but Moses would have died from drowning, not violence.] The first comparison is invalid, for as we saw ...Herod did not engage in the slaughter of children, and so there is no evidence that Jesus' life was ever in any danger during his infancy.

Drowning? Berry has apparently forgotten the instructions given by Pharaoh to execute all Hebrew babies that were born male (Ex. 1:16)! (We will show that the argument against the historicity of the Slaughter of the Innocents is groundless later on.)

(Both were willing to become redeemers for their people.) The second comparison is also invalid, for according to Exodus 3:10 Moses was to save the Israelites from slavery. Jesus did not save the Jews of his time from slavery, nor could he, as they were not slaves in the literal sense. Nor did he save the Jews from being dominated by the Romans. And the claim "Jesus saved us from our 'slavery' to sin" cannot be used to make this comparison valid, for to do so would be to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. (This is because, in order to prove that Jesus saved us from slavery to sin, we would have to first demonstrate the truth of Christianity. The very fact that we are considering the messianic prophecies at all suggests that Christianity has not yet been shown to be true.) It would seem that these comparisons are invalid.

Berry hits the mark when he speaks of "slavery to sin." No other prophet of the Bible, OT or NT, has in any sense been regarded as a Redeemer of any sort. This is the exclusive province of Moses and Jesus. (The fallacy is only there if we try to use this apologetically.)

(Both worked as mediators between Yahweh and Israel.) (This) comparison is also invalid. In Exodus 19:16 Moses must act as a go-between between the Israelites and Yahweh, because Yahweh (for reasons unknown) would destroy anybody but Moses who attempted to gaze upon Yahweh or get too close to Mt. Sinai. God takes the form of fire, smoke and thunder. (Given their proximity to Mt. Sinai, perhaps a volcano is a better description of how Yahweh appeared to the Israelites.) There is no evidence that Jesus ever acted as liaison between the Jews and a volcano-god such as described in Exodus. For that matter, there is no proof that Jesus acted as a liaison between Yahweh and the Jews at all. (Such a proof would almost certainly have to take the truth of Christianity as a starting premiss, anyway.)

Here, the role of Moses is a grand typology. As only Jesus could approach the Father for ratification of the New Covenant of forgiveness of sins, so only Moses could approach God for ratification of the original Covenant of the Law. The form or appearance of God is quite irrelevant. (We gracefully acknowledge the necessary theological starting point of the comparison. )

(Both made intercession on behalf of sinful people.)(This) comparison is also invalid. In the tale of Exodus, Yahweh is threatening to destroy Israel after they commit idolatry. There is no evidence that the Jews of Jesus' time were idolatrous in the same way as those of Moses' time. Nor is there any evidence that Yahweh was planning to destroy them in a fit of rage, as was the case in Exodus.... So it seems that all four comparisons given by McDowell between Jesus and Moses are invalid in one way or another.

This point is incredibly wide of the mark. The issue is not a specific sin, but any sin. It doesn't matter whether the sin is idolatry, adultery, or getting in the express lane with more than 12 items! By that account, Moses - and by Christian belief, Jesus - was an intercessor.

Now three of these four are really the key to the typological connection between Moses and Jesus; but Berry then lists several dissimilarities between Jesus and Moses in an attempt to refute McDowell:

• Moses lived 120 years; Jesus lived only 33.
• Moses once killed a man; Jesus did not.
• Moses married; Jesus did not.
• Moses had children; Jesus did not.
• Moses held a position of authority over the Israelites; Jesus had no authority over the Jews.
• Moses spent decades in the desert; Jesus spent only a few weeks.
• Moses died of old age; Jesus died by crucifixion.

I am reminded of a conversation I once had with a Muslim who set out to prove to me that Muhammed was the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy. Like Berry, he assembled a list of basic similarities between Moses and Jesus; then put together another list for Moses and Muhammad. He wished to demonstrate that the latter pair had more in common, and the dissimiliarity of the former pair; Berry repeats some of these. I pointed out to the Muslim - and will point out here - that we could easily use plenty of factors to compile an opposite list:

• Jesus and Moses both had siblings.
• Jesus and Moses both experienced periods of decision alone in a desert.
• Jesus and Moses both performed miracles.
• Jesus and Moses both turned water into a red liquid.
• Jesus and Moses were both descended from Abraham.
• Jesus and Moses were both born in a place dominated by a cruel leader.
• Jesus and Moses both came out of the water as part of a significant event in their lives.
• Jesus and Moses were both circumcised.

And so on, ad nauseaum. The point is, first, that we can create similarities and dissimilarities till the cows come home; the second is that the important typological elements of Moses and Christ - which has to do with three out of four of McDowell's comparisons, and are more important than the fourth - are of primacy to Jews and Christians in particular, and form a crux of belief. No one cares about whether or not Jesus was married, or Moses was circumcised, compared to the issue of forgiveness of sins and a covenant with God. The rest of the comparisons are mostly of the level of trivia.

Let's also take a look at this from Item 53:

Some Christians claim that the paschal lamb, a part of Jewish sacrificial rituals, is a "prophecy" of Jesus. The paschal lamb must be a lamb whose bones are not broken, and who is sacrificed. Supposedly, this was a prediction of Jesus' "sacrifice", and the fact that his bones were not broken.

Berry has the right idea here. However, he then goes on to use an analysis by Jim Lippard as a source for a supposed "refutation," which says:

...this analogy fails for several reasons: the paschal lamb was not for the atonement of sin, and Jewish sacrifices were required to be completely without blemish, sore, or injury while Jesus was scourged and mutilated.

Lippard has missed the point, and seems here no more cognizant of typology that Berry was. The annual paschal lamb served as a reminder of what it was first used for - putting the lamb's blood on the doorposts so that the destroying angel would "pass over" (hence the name) and not destroy those inside the house. Likewise, we are to use the blood of Jesus as a sign upon ourselves to escape destruction (damnation). Of course, this is only part of the grand typology of atonement; one must consider the totality of the OT system to see the full, glorious typology. As for the "scourged and mutilated" part, we may note that Jesus was "completely without blemish, sore or injury" prior to being scourged. Just as the lamb was injured in order to kill it, so Jesus was injured to effect His own death. Again, however, even if there is not an exact correspondence, typology does not require one. Indeed, this shows how a perfect correspondence for any typology would be impossible - would Lippard say that because Jesus did not have white, woolly hair, or that He wasn't surrounded by unleavened bread and bitter herbs, he can't be an antitype of the paschal lamb?

This concludes our brief overview of Berry's 7 objections. We now proceed to the most extensive portion of our essay - that which deals with Berry's basic errors of interpretation and assumption.

|

A REIGN OF ERROR

One of the arguments that really struck me as extraordinary was this one by Berry under Item 1, Born of the Seed of a Woman. Let's look at these comments concerning Genesis 3:15 -

There is no evidence that the author(s) of Genesis intended this as a prophecy of the coming messiah. The text simply says that there will be war between the descendants of the woman and the descendants of the serpent.McDowell tries to prove that Genesis 3:15 is indeed messianic by quoting several of the Jewish Targums, including the Targum Onkelos and the Targum Pseudo Jonathan. These quotes are supposed to show that the Jews regarded these verses as messianic, and therefore that the text really is messianic. This line of reasoning is invalid, because there is no proof that the Targums are not simply later Jewish theological interpretations imposed post hoc on the original verses. What is important is not what the Jews thought about the verses centuries after they were written, but what the authors thought about the verses as they were being written. And there is no evidence to suggest that the verse was originally messianic in character.

This line of reasoning is used by Berry at every point where McDowell refers to the Targums. Now, we may ask, by what presupposition does Berry assume that he is a better interpreter of the Old Testament than the devout Jews who wrote the Targums, or that people of that time and culture could not interpret their own Scriptures properly? Someone 1500 years closer to the original source, its culture, and its language is certainly more qualified to know what is meant!

But let's not give the old heave-ho quite yet. Let's give Berry a chance. Is there any evidence that he is a better Biblical scholar than the Targum writers?

Quite simply, no. Berry's essay, I am constrained to point out, is pebbled with errors of Biblical exegesis, and what follows is a catalog of those errors, as they appear in his essay. There are also a few other mistakes of a non-exegetical nature that we will be pointing out along the way, and we will use the item numbers where the errors appear as paragraph headings for reference purposes.

2 Chronicles 28:1-6 clearly states that Ahaz was defeated by Syria and Israel, thus rendering the prophecy false. This makes Isaiah a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18:22. It is doubtful that we will be receiving prophecies from Yahweh through a false prophet.

This is another peculiar argument used by Berry in several places: He finds a prophecy that he believes is false, then disrespects the prophet in question throughout the rest of the essay. But are these false prophecies? Or is this a case of faulty interpretation? Let's look at the Isaiah verses under discussion (from the "virgin birth" section referred to in Item 2):

Is. 7-14-8 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah--he will bring the king of Assyria.

I do not see here where there is a problem here. The lands of the two kings Ahaz dreaded - Syria and Israel - were defeated by Assyria. Judah then became dependent on Assyria (2 Chron. 28:20) and also suffered attacks by them (2 Chron 32), but was not be conquered until the Babylonians came around (2 Chron. 36). Where is the "false prophecy" here?

The source for the prophecy in Item 9 is Jeremiah. Seeking also to toss Jeremiah along with Isaiah on the prophetical pyre, Berry attempts the following:

Jeremiah is a false prophet by the standard set down in Deuteronomy 18:22. Here are three examples of Jeremiah's false prophecies:

According to Jeremiah 22:24-30, Jeconiah was cursed by God; according to Jeremiah, Jeconiah would be childless. Yet Jeconiah did indeed have children 1 Chronicles 3:17-18.

Jeremiah 34:4-5 predicts that King Zedekiah would die in peace. In reality, his son was killed before his eyes, he himself was blinded, and he apparently died while languishing in a Babylonian prison. Lastly, Jeremiah 29:10 predicts that the Exile will last 70 years. But the Exile only lasted 48 years. Since Jeremiah is a false prophet, there is no reason to suppose that Yahweh will be sending prophecies to us through him.

We'll give Berry a bit of a break here, because he notes Jim Lippard as the source of this information. Lippard, though, has botched all three of these attempts:

1) Jeremiah 22:30 states:

This is what the Lord says; Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.

Far from saying that Jeconiah will be childless, this verse acknowledges that Jeconiah will have/has children (offspring)! He is to be recorded as if childless because none of his descendants will receive an inheritance from him.

2) Jeremiah 34:4b-5a says:

You (Zedekiah) will not die by the sword. You will die peacefully...

Jeremiah has only prophesied that Zedekiah will not die by the sword, that is, in battle. That he died in a Babylonian prison (Jer. 52) does not qualify as dying "by the sword," unpleasant though such a situation might be!

3) Jeremiah 29:10 says:

This is what the Lord says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place."

This verse says nothing about the Exile. The seventy years begins at 605 BC, the year Babylon defeated Assyria and became the ruling power in the area, and ends in 535, the year that the foundations of the new Temple were laid down, symbolizing the return of the Jewish people from the Babylonian captivity.

(Skeptics may retort that there is no reason to choose the laying of the Temple foundations as the ending point; the actual defeat of Babylon (540) or the return to Judah from Babylon, authorized by Cyrus (538), they would say, is better. This would result in totals of 65 and 67 years. Either of these might be reasonably accepted in view of Jeremiah's 70 being a rounding up to the nearest ten. Berry/Lippard's "48 years," while a sufficient account of the number of years from the fall of Jerusalem (587) to the fall of Babylon (540), fails to take into account that in 29:10, Jeremiah is communicating with Jews who were taken captive in an earlier incursion by the Babylonians. The Exile started much earlier than 587 for some of them: The OT records at least three separate deportations to Babylon. Indeed, for poor King Jehoiakim [2 Kings 24:2, 2 Chron. 36:6] the Exile began c. 598, when he was carried off to Babylon in fetters.)

At this point we may add in a little feedback from the source of these erroneous exegeses, Jim Lippard. An e-mail was received from Lippard objecting to our analysis. It has, rather strangely, appeared in the Jury feedback section, in spite of its placement there being something of a category error! At any rate, here is the objection:

If you're going to accuse me of "botching" something (and "not surprisingly" at that), you could at least take the time to read what I said first instead of relying on secondhand sources. First here's what you said, then I'll give you what I actually wrote.

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.

I stand behind my criticism, which you have not addressed. My point is that the prophecy specifically says that none of Jeconiah's descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David, yet that's exactly what it is claimed that Jesus will do. Your response to Berry fails to address this.

A few points here, in reply to Lippard:

1) To paraphrase the old Jury Introduction, this is not a rebuttal of Jim Lippard. This is a rebuttal of The Jury Is In. We will not deal with anything that is not contained in Jury itself unless it is our pleasure to do so, and we are no more required here to meet the personal expectations of Jim Lippard than Josh McDowell was once required to meet the personal expectations of Jeff Lowder.

2) In any event, Lippard's specific criticism here is answered elsewhere, as Lippard is undoubtedly aware, by Glenn Miller; and Miller's answer may be found through the links provided below.

3) Finally, let it be noted that Lippard has not even acknowledged his errors delineated above! This is as much as saying, "Well, you got me on points one, two and three, but YOU FORGOT POINT FOUR! HA HA HA HA!" Let us be straightforward: We have enough questionable scholarship to deal with in Jury and elsewhere WITHOUT having to also address the writings of Jim Lippard, whose scholarship has been sufficiently exposed as unqualified elsewhere. Replies to Lippard will be left to those who have already begun answering him. If we do address Lippard's material at some point, it will at our own volition, and AFTER we have completed the other tasks as hand.

Mic. 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel..."

Berry's comment here offers a bit of a misdirection:

There is much doubt that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem. Mark and John clearly state that Jesus was from Nazareth (Mark 1:9, John 1:45-46) Note that John 7:40-43 states that there was division among the Jews over Jesus; some of the Jews rejected Jesus on the grounds that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem. This indicates that John's Jesus did not come from Bethlehem, for if Jesus was known to come from Bethlehem, why would some of the Jews reject him on the grounds that he did not?

It is instructive to read the verses in question. Mark says that "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee," to be baptized by John the Baptist. This would have been close to 30 years after Jesus' birth and has nothing to do with his birthplace. One might as well assume that someone born in Cleveland who moves to Minneapolis at age 10 is indicating his birthplace when he says that he "came from Minneapolis."

The first quote from John has Jesus identified, at the start of His ministry, as "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," and a reply asking if anything good can come out of Nazareth (it apparently being a place where everyone spat on the sidewalk and drove around in pickup trucks). Neither verse says ANYTHING about Nazareth being Jesus' birthplace; indeed, they fit in well with the accounts in Matthew (2:22) and Luke (2:39) that indicate a later move to Nazareth.

And what of John 7:40-43? We need only consider this portion:

Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.

All this proves is that Jesus was NOT KNOWN to come from Bethlehem, nor would we expect this bunch of strangers in Jerusalem (see John 7:1-11; this all happened at the Feast of Tabernacles), who were not Jesus' neighbors, to know one way or the other. They DID know (probably by His accent and that of His disciples - "How ya'll doin'!") that He made a home in Galilee and only presumed that He was born there. But of course, Berry has a ready answer for us:

In an era where birth records were spotty and information could not be easily transferred from one location to another, it would be easy for a person to fake being born in a city other than the one he actually came from. (Even in today's bureaucratized, computerized society, this can be accomplished fairly well even by amateurs, and professional con men can falsify birth records so well that the forgeries can withstand very close scrutiny. How much easier, then, would it be to do so 2000 years ago?)

We have already seen the error of this presumption; but how fascinating that Berry admits that even today, with all of our technology, the system can be beaten! What, then, is the sense of his earlier appeals to the primitiveness of ancient record-keeping? And which would be easier to alter successfully - an electronic record, which may leave little or no evidence of having been tampered with; or, a papyrus scroll upon which records were kept in the time of Jesus, which would require leaving behind physical evidence of tampering (blots of ink to cross out the original record, and an obvious emendation), erasure (obvious damage to the papyrus), or replacement (It would take a while to recopy an entire scroll, and in the meantime, is anyone going to miss it?)? Berry at least should make a study of ancient record-keeping and the possibility of tampering before he makes such statements.

Following the line of many critics, Berry attacks the historicity of the account of the Slaughter of the Innocents in Matthew:

There is no historical evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that Herod ever slaughtered the children of Bethlehem. Neither Roman nor Jewish records contain any mention of such an event; indeed, even the rest of the New Testament is silent on the topic. As Lippard notes, historians such as Flavius Josephus carefully recorded Herod's abuses; how could such a gross miscarriage of justice go unnoticed by them? This becomes even more preposterous when we note that this was a time of political unrest among the Jews, and such an event would surely have touched off a rebellion. Yet no such revolt is recorded anywhere.

Aside from being arguments from silence, Berry's paragraph, and Lippard's note, are replete with misconceptions.

Although much has been made of the Slaughter of the Innocents - and indeed, any such event would be tragic - there is no reason to assume that it could be considered high on the list of Herod's atrocities in terms of scope or magnitude. How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Jospehus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death - why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not? Herod probably died in March or April of 4 BC; the Slaughter would therefore have occurred during one of his last two years on earth, and it is ridiculous to say that the things he did in the previous 34 years - equally, if not more so, a time of political unrest among the Jews - was insufficient to incite rebellion, whereas killing a few male infants in a backwater suburb would be sufficient in comparison. (Also, however careful Lippard thinks he was, it is doubtful that Josephus recorded EVERY atrocity performed by Herod; if he had, his works would be rather significantly larger!)

Furthermore, a little research shows us that a revolt would have been unlikely in any event. For all of his ruthlessness, Herod was nowhere near the monster the likes of, say, Caligula. More importantly, he was careful to not offend Jewish religious sensibilities; Josephus records only two instances where pious Jews questioned him on such matters. [EPS.HF, 19, 297] In Jewish eyes, Herod might have been a devil; but he was a nicer devil to have in charge than a Roman devil! The Slaughter of the Innocents, though, is something that fits in perfectly with the character of Herod. (Also, is it perhaps not too far a reach to wonder whether Herod - who had his own son assassinated - hired vigilantes of some sort to perpetrate the Slaughter, and that it was not connected to him until his death which was shortly thereafter, when it was too late for anyone to vent their anger on him?)

Berry closes this subject on a most peculiar note:

Finally, if we take the birth narrative of Luke into account, Herod was dead before Jesus was even born, and so would not have been in any position to order the death of anyone.

This is most peculiar, because there is no mention of Herod in the chapter 2 of Luke, which is Luke's birth narrative. Herod is mentioned in Luke 1:5 (In the time of Herod king of Judea...) as contemporary with John the Baptist's parents, but there is no hint that he was dead; indeed, the opposite is indicated! Berry does not provide a cite here, so there is really no way to determine what he is talking about! (He MAY be thinking of the erroneous argument that Luke is referring to a census, the only one of which took place in AD 6, after Herod died; this argument is off-base, as demonstrated in one of our links to Glenn Miller's census essay.)

Here Berry adds another "false prophet" to his shopping list:

...Jesus is a false prophet...Jesus predicted in Matthew 16:28 , Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 that some of the people he was speaking to at the time would still be living when the kingdom of God returns. There is certainly no evidence that anybody from that time period is still alive today.(Some might try to excuse this as a prophecy predicting that John would have a vision of the second coming. This is an extremely weak argument, as it means that Jesus gave a prophecy of a prophecy, which seems pointless.)

Actually, most find the fulfillment of this prophecy in the Transfiguration, witnessed by Peter, James, and John and reported immediately after each of the referenced verses; or else, in line with my present "partial preterist" leanings, it is a prophecy of the events of 70AD, which some, and at least John, did live to see). (The argument Berry mentions related to John may also apply. It would not be a "prophecy of a prophecy," however - it would be a prophecy of the giving of a prophecy. This is not a weak argument at all, and may in fact be better than the one related to the Transfiguration, although we need not discuss the issue here.)

Other interpretations of this passage have been suggested. One that goes all the way back to Clement of Alexandria suggests that it is "intended to describe the new possibilities for human existence which were opened up by the resurrection, the outpouring of the Spirit and the existence of the church." [AH.JCH, 86] Another possibility is that it was simply a hyperbolic way for Jesus to say, Be on guard - in the same way He warned us to be on guard in the parable of the wicked servant who became wild while his master was away. N. T. Wright, in his work Jesus and the Victory of God, offers the compelling suggestion that these and other troubling verses (like Mark 13:30!) are actually references to events that happened while Jesus was on earth - his resurrection, for example, being the event that ushered in the kingdom of God. In any event, there is certainly more to the matter than Berry has conceived.

Jesus predicted in Matthew 12:40 that he would spend three days and three nights in the tomb before his resurrection. If the gospel narratives about the resurrection are accurate, then Jesus spent only two nights and one day in the tomb, not three of each.

Matthew 12:40 says:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The heart of the earth could hardly mean a superficial scrape like a tomb. It is rather a reference to Sheol, and thereby a euphemism for death. As for the three days and three nights: By Jewish reckoning, part of a day could be considered a whole day - much like returning a library book due on October 17 returned on any part of October 17 means it is on time, regardless of whether it is returned at 3:00 AM or 11:00 PM! Since Jesus died on a Friday, and was resurrected on a Sunday, the three days are considered Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. (See Glenn Miller's work on this subject.)

In this entry we are given an impromptu Hebrew grammar lesson.

The text of Isaiah 40:3 can be read one of two ways, depending on where you place the punctuation marks. (The Hebrew originals had no punctuation.) The text could read:

"A voice cries in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the LORD'...."

or

"A voice cries, 'In the wilderness, prepare the way of the LORD'...."

The first version could be a prophecy of John the Baptist, but the second could not. But which interpretation is correct? The key to deciding lies in the second part of the verse: "Make straight in the desert a highway for our God." Isaiah 40 is written in poetic form, and thus utilizes the parallelism that characterizes Hebrew poetry. Now the second line speaks of clearing a path in the desert for Yahweh. This is a perfect parallel of the second interpretation, but not the first. Thus, the second interpretation is the correct one, and this text is not a prophecy of John the Baptist.

The author of this work is degreed in English and literature - and assures the reader that this analysis by Berry is completely incorrect. The second interpretation does NOT exclude John the Baptist. It may be argued that John never said the exact words in the wilderness or in the desert, but in terms of literary form (Berry does, correctly, see this as poetry) it is hardly required that to fulfill this prophecy, John had to get up and quote it over a loudspeaker. It is only required that he perform the function indicated, in the places indicated.

It is worthwhile to note a few things about ths verse. First, the Qumranites saw themselves as fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3 [JM.MJ2, 87n] by virtue of their being located in the desert. There is no indication that they went about announcing the words "In the wilderness..." in order to fulfill the prophecy. Second, there is plenty of debate about how to apply these phrases to one another. Some say that it makes no material difference how we look at them [see JRid.Is, 336]; others say that the point of the "wilderness" phrase is that the way will be prepared there - and do not relate the "wilderness" phrase to the calling of the voice at all [see CW.Is, 37]. Either way, Berry's assertion in this regard is speculative at best and contrary to scholarly opinion at worst.

Lippard questions whether or not John the Baptist actually "cleared the way" for Jesus. Says Lippard: "Another verse claimed to offer the same prophecy is Malachi 3:1, which says "Behold, I am going to send my messenger, and he will clear the way before me. ..." This may be plausibly taken as a messianic prophecy. But did John the Baptist actually "clear the way" as a messenger for Jesus? The historian Flavius Josephus writes about John the Baptist, but makes no link of his name with that of Jesus (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.5.2; Josephus (1985), p. 382). The earliest of Christian writings, the letters of Paul, make no mention of John the Baptist. The gospels (and the book of Acts, written by the author of Luke) are the only real evidence of a link. But the gospel evidence does not hold up. The gospel of John shows John the Baptist explicitly recognizing Jesus as the Messiah before being cast into prison by Herod But the gospels of Matthew and Luke depict John the Baptist, in prison, sending his disciples to Jesus to ask if he claims to be the Messiah. If the story in John were true, John the Baptist would have had no reason to ask this question.

That Josephus did not link John and Jesus is quite irrelevant; this is no better than the argument related to the Slaughter of the Innocents. It is an argument from silence; in fact, the above paragraph is full of them. (It may also be added that based on the Gospels, Jesus and John may not have had direct personal contact for more than a few days, hardly enough time for anyone who was not there - least of all Josephus, writing some 40 years after the fact - to notice! That Paul did not mention John is also irrelevant; indeed, since Jesus said that John greater than all men, but less than even the least of those in the Kingdom of God [Luke 7:27], there is no reason why Paul or any non-Gospel NT writer should have made light of John the Baptist.)

The only good question here is why John would send disciples to ask Jesus if He was the expected Messiah, since John had previously recognized Jesus as such. Since John was merely human, he, too, may well have fallen to the improper misconception held by the Jewish peasantry that the Messiah would come and overthrow the Romans before, or at the same time, as His spiritual mission; or that he followed the Qumranites in thinking there were two Messiahs, and Jesus was only one of them, and he was asking after the other one. Indeed, John's fiery oration describing Jesus (Luke 3:17) supports this idea that he "anticipated a Messianic figure who would bring freedom from the political oppression of Rome." [BY.JT, 50] John had evidently had his disciples watch Jesus after he went to prison (Luke 7:18; Matt. 9:14). When he heard that Jesus was not kicking the Romans around, but performing miracles and teaching, he sent his disciples to ask, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" No doubt hearing that his expectations of a political Messiah were not being fulfilled - added to the dreary condition of imprisonment he suffered under an unjust political system! - combined to either shake his confidence in his identification of Jesus as the Messiah (Indeed, he probably hoped that Jesus, before kicking the Romans around a bit, would come and break him out of jail!), or else, he was asking after the manner of the Qumranites for Messiah #2, having figured that Jesus was Messiah #1. Like his fellow Jews, John may not have conceived of a two separately-defined and widely-separated (in time) roles for the one Messiah.

Of course, even if Lippard's premise were true, that would not counter the fact that by offering baptisms, and then in baptizing Jesus, John provided the necessary service and impetus for Jesus' ministry by establishing His identity, and thus, "cleared (or as some versions say, "prepared") the way." John also preached repentance from sin, which was likewise preparatory for the message and mission of Jesus. The connection is so strong that many writers suggest that Jesus was John the Baptist's disciple!

Is. 9:1b-2 In the past he humbled Zebulon and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by way of the sea, along the Jordan - The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned.

Berry writes:

Anyone who bothers to compare Isaiah 9:1and Matthew 4:15-16 will see that Matthew has selectively edited out large portions of the original text. It is fairly easy to find an OT verse that looks like a prophecy if we are allowed to selectively edit the verses to fit the occasion.

We may dispute how easy it is to find an OT prophecy, even with what Berry calls "selective editing." However, to see if this is true in this case, let us quote the verses in Matthew:

Matt. 4:15-16 Land of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles - the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned.

The "large portions" turns out to be the phrases In the past he has humbled and but in the future. There is also a switching of the geographical phrases. My, isn't that scandalous! It's possible here that Matthew was quoting one of the Septuagintal versions of the OT; we know that the NT writers did so often, and even so, Matthew here is using a quotation method no different than that of rabinnic writers of this time. But does the change affect the meaning at all? Hardly. Since Land of Zebulon and land of Naphtali and Galilee of the Gentiles is pretty much the same place - any Bible with a map showing the territories of the tribes of Israel will show this - the loss of the initial phrase from Isaiah alters nothing; and since Matthew is speaking of the fulfilment of this prophecy, the "future" phrase is extraneous. (Presumably this is what Berry is referring to; it is LITTLE hard to deal with people who refuse to explain their arguments!)

No brownie points for anticipating statements like these:

Not one of Jesus' miracles has any extra-biblical confirmation, nor are any of them attested to by any writings contemporary with the time he lived. Except for the resurrection (which is predominant in the Pauline letters) the earliest recorded mention of a ministry of miracles occurs in AD 60-70 in the gospel of Mark -- decades after his death. This is plenty of time for miracle legends to develop. Remember also that these miracles were public miracles. In the story where Jesus fed the crowds with only five loaves of bread and two fishes, thousands of people were said to be witnesses. Yet there is no trace of these people in any contemporary extra-biblical writings. This being the case, there is no grounds for concluding that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.

First, of all, Mark's Gospel may be dated to the mid-50s AD. There is no good reason to date any of the Gospels later than 70. (More on this in Tekton 2-2-2.)

Second, A. N. Sherwin White, a scholar of ancient Greek and Roman history at Oxford, argues that even a span of two generations is insufficient for legend to replace a core of historical facts. But even if we discard the above two arguments, people who had seen and known Jesus would still be alive in 60-70 AD to offer corroboration and/or refutation.

Third, that Jesus was regarded as a worker of miracles is one of the most solidly-attested facts about Him. Meier, while finding not adequate support for individually-recorded miracles of Jesus in the Gospels, nonetheless judges that His general reputation as a miracle-worker does have sufficient historical support.

Fourth, related to public miracles, it would be right to wonder why Jesus' miracles did not garner more written attention if the first century had been an age of predominant skepticism. But it was a time when direct interference by gods or angels was expected, even anticipated, as it was around the pool at Bethsaida (John 5:1-9). The miraculous did not occur often, but it was believed in (albeit not uncritically!). However, an ultimate testimony that Jesus did perform public miracles is that Christianity won so many early converts in Jerusalem and Judea.

Fifth, none of Christianity's opponents whose works are in our possession EVER argued that Jesus could not perform miracles.

We look at this issue a bit further in our reply to Robert Price's Ch. 8 essay.

The prophecy referred to indicates that the Messiah will be a light to the Gentiles. Here is Berry's comment on the matter:

At least one gospel contradicts the prophecy. Matthew's Jesus is depicted as caring primarily for the Jews, and thinking of Gentiles as being of little to no importance.

Since Matthew was writing to his fellow Jews, in an effort to convince them that Jesus was the Messiah, we should not be surprised if his focus is on Jesus' ministry to Jews. (Not to mention that you wouldn't expect to find many Gentiles, relatively speaking, in Judea in the first place! This is a little like complaining that a Messiah in New York pays little attention to Georgians!) However, it is wrong to say that Matthew shows Jesus as regarding Gentiles to be of "little or no importance." Two stories in Matthew involving Gentiles are: Matt. 8:5-13 (healing of the centurion's servant) and Matt. 15:21-28 (healing of the Syro-Phoenician woman's daughter). Let us examine these in detail, from Matthew first, them with where they appear elsewhere - the first story is also in Luke 7:1-10; the second is also in Mark 7:24-30.

Matt. 8:5-8, 10-13 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed..." When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

Does it seem here that Jesus considers the centurion's request any less important because the request is not being made by a Jew? Indeed, this passage tells us that those from the "east and the west" - Gentiles - will be in the kingdom of heaven, while "subjects of the kingdom" - Jews who have not accepted Jesus' authority - will not.

Now based on Berry's presumption that in Matthew, Jesus treats Gentiles as being of little importance, the parallel in Luke should have Jesus practically begging to help the centurion. But if anything, it suggests that Jesus had to be asked by Jews to help out:

Luke 7:3-4 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him. "This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." So Jesus went with them.

The story ends with Jesus praising the centurion's faith, as before - but Luke only uses a paraphrase of the "faith in Israel" sentence, and nothing more! The praise in Matthew is far more detailed and effusive.

(Incidentally, it may not have been necessary for the centurion to send the elders as he did; it was likely a gesture of respect towards one he perceived as a Jewish prophet. This is also why, in both versions, we see the centurion saying that it is not necessary for Jesus to come "under his roof" - he perceived that Jesus, a Jew, might not wish to be contaminated by entering a Gentile home. But based on the Gospels, it is Luke who has Jesus showing less regard for Gentiles - not Matthew. Also, those who see contradictions between the two accounts should realize that Matthew is having the centurion come to Jesus only in a corporate sense.)

The other accounts, of the Syro-Phoenician woman, are fairly well the same in Matthew and Mark; the only major difference has Jesus saying in Matthew, "First let the children eat all they want," before advising her that it is not right to take the children's bread and feed it to the "dogs" (Gentiles). This serves to make it slightly harsher than Mark's version, which again does not fit Berry's proposition.

Here is another old saw, revitalized and oiled up for purportedly fresh use:

The ascension is based on the presumption that Yahweh's home is somewhere in the sky. This presumption has been shattered by modern astronomy and has long been out of favor among even the most conservative theologians. Since Yahweh's home is no more in the sky than in the ground, Jesus had no more reason to float up than to sink into the earth. Thus, the ascension is more likely to be a myth than an actual event.

Since no quotes are provided from any of these "conservative theologians," we wonder who is being referred to. Even so, since Yahweh's "home" is the realm of the spiritual, modern astronomy, which studies the physical realm, has no pull in this matter. To say that Jesus had no more reason to float up than to sink into the earth is to say equally, then, that Jesus had no more reason to sink into the earth than to float up! So why did Jesus do this? In ascending directly upwards, Jesus was, by a dignified physical demonstration, showing His followers that He was leaving the realm that they knew - the physical earth, and also (as indicated in Acts) indicating how He would return. No physical destination was needed or intended. (Perhaps Berry would have had Jesus clear a path, get a running start, flap His arms, and disappear over the horizon?)

Here we see a rather interesting misconception:

Just what does it mean to say that somebody is "seated at God's right hand"? God is a spirit; how can a spirit have hands? God is omnipresent; how could a being who is everywhere have a left and right side? Thus the verse cannot be taken literally.

This is partially correct: the statement is not "literal" in speaking of God's right hand (except where some Mormons are concerned!). But Berry takes this the wrong direction when he writes:

Since the verse can't be taken literally, it must be taken figuratively. But in that case, what does it mean, and how can we test it to see if Jesus fulfilled it?

Berry is incorrect is in his implication that there is no way to understand the verse if it is figurative. Figures of speech are fully understandable in their historical context and setting. In this case, we know that in the time of Jesus, a king would seat an honored or trusted advisor or person at his right hand - it is similar to our phrase, "right-hand man" used today, even with left-handed people! Thus Jesus was using a literal, identifiable situation to illustrate an aspect of His actual relationship to the Father.

Berry accuses Matthew of "fleshing in" the details of Judas' bribe, since his is the only Gospel that specifies that 30 pieces of silver were involved. We cannot answer an argument from silence like this one, but with the reasonable assumption that the coins in question were the denarius, 30 pieces would equal five weeks' wages - an adequate bribe for someone who had been living the life of a vagabond for a few years.

Berry then quotes his expert, Lippard:

Matthew 26:14-15 states that Judas Iscariot was paid thirty pieces of silver by the Jewish priests as payment for his betrayal. Matthew 27:9-10 claims that this is done to fulfill a prophecy of Jeremiah:

'Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver for the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."'

The problem here is that the quoted verse appears nowhere in the book of Jeremiah. There is a verse which is quite similar in the book of Zechariah...But there is really no question that Matthew meant to refer to Zechariah rather than Jeremiah...."

Another critic made a similar statement recently, claiming that Matthew was "honestly confused" and got the prophets mixed up. But as Brown rightly stressed, "given the care with which Matt reflects on the citation in 27:9-10, only by last resort should we consider the attribution to Jeremiah simply an error." [Brow.DMh, 650] Dismissing Matthew as "confused" -- even "honestly" so -- does no justice to the rich and intricate complexities of his work. We are better off seeking another solution, and our purpose here is to present some of them.

We can begin by offering a few simple options of our own before bringing out the one that gives Matthew the most respect as a writer:

1. Copyist error. This is a weak one in terms of textual evidence, but it has some minor corroborating literary support. Zech is named nowhere else by Matt, and the only other place he quotes Zech, he is not named. So perhaps a later scribe was confused rather than Matt. But this, again, an entirely speculative solution.
2. Major attribution. This is essentially my original answer: Matthew has conflated ideas and words from both Zech and Jerry, and simply made the attribution to the more important prophet. A parallel to this is found in Mark 1:2, where Mark conflates Is. 40:3 and Mal. 3:1, but makes attribution only to Isaiah. Of course one could argue that Zech is so predominant here that the attribution to Jerry is indeed strange. But this leads into our next and most likely option.
3. Theme fulfillment. Our problem may be that we are concentrating only on verses 9-10, when we should be looking at the passage beginning with verse 3. Menken [Menk.RJ, 10-11] offers this analysis:

   A partial answer lies in the fact that in narrative (27, 2-8) and quotation (27,9-10) passages from Jer exercise their influence as well. Jer 18,2-3, where a potter is mentioned but no purchase of a field, is often adduced, as well as Jer 32,6-9, where the purchase of a field is dealt with but no potter occurs. A reference to Jer 19 may be more to the point: in front of the elders and priests, Jeremiah has to shatter an earthen potter's vessel, as a symbol of the disasters which will strike Judah and Jerusalem because of their idolatry, and because "they filled this place with blood of innocents" (Jer 19,4). The prophet has to do this on the place that is called Tophet but will be called "Valley of Slaughter", and will be one large burial-place. The points of contact between this passage and Matt 27,3-10 are obvious.

   Menken thereby asserts that it is an atmosphere, rather than a quotation, that is being evoked: That of Jeremiah as being in Matthew "pre-eminantly the prophet of rejection of the Messiah". This, along with Matt's theme of Jesus as a Jeremiac figure (Mt. 16:14), explains the "wrong" attribution of the Zech passage to Jerry. Zech may have been the writer, but the whole theme that Matthew is invoking is derived from Jeremiah.

   This type of attribution, of course, seems very odd to our Western mind that demands documentary exactitude in all things. But we should recall again that the ancients did not think as we did, and it is chauvanistic to regard such thinking as theirs as erroneous. Matthew is not stupid, but he is subtle. He wrote as an educated Jew and as a craftsman with a point to prove to his readers, and it is our own fault that it has taken us so long to "get the point" ourselves.

   More from Lippard follows, concerning the prophecy in Zechariah:

   Matthew 27:5-7 tries to fulfill this non-prophecy by telling a story of Judas Iscariot throwing his payment into the temple before committing suicide, after which the priests use the money to buy a potter's field. This story does not appear in the other gospels (though Acts 1:18-19 says that Judas himself, rather than the priests, bought a field with the (unspecified amount of) money earned by his betrayal).

   This relates to a claim made by many skeptics that Matthew and Acts are contradictory in saying who bought the field - was it the priests, or Judas? Here is a piece of educated, positive speculation that will resolve that problem. The priests would not put the money in the treasury, since it was blood money (Matt. 27:6). It therefore is reasonable to assume that they would not want the money, or the purchase of the field with that money, associated with them or the Temple. So it is likely that the purchase of the field was made in the name of Judas Iscariot, and Luke in Acts is simply reflecting what the purchase records would show: That the field was bought by one "Judas Iscariot." Continuing:

   Another problem with this alleged prophecy is that in the earliest (Syriac) manuscripts of Zechariah, verse 13 does not even contain the word "potter"--instead, it says "treasury," which makes more sense but further damages its credibility as prophecy. (The Revised Standard Version gives the verse as "Cast it into the treasury," with the "to the potter" translation relegated to a footnote.)

   What Lippard does not tell his readers - or perhaps Berry excludes it - is that the Syriac manuscripts are not the earliest available Old Testament copies. The Syriac version is not known to have existed earlier than 400 AD.

   It would also have been a good idea to consult more than just one version of the Bible, as well as several commentaries and linguistic analyses of the issue. What emerges is fascinating, and provides us with some answers to the problem.

   The Hebrews word for "potter" or "treasury" are different by only the addition of one letter - to use English transliteration, "potter" is yoser, while "treasury" is oser.

   As far as what earlier translators thought (and it is odd, based on one of Berry's earlier arguments that it doesn't matter what translators think, that Lippard's reference to the Syriac is used!) Matthew obviously used the word potter; the Septuagint, strangely, uses a word that references metal craftsmen. Both Matthew and the Septuagint are older than the Syriac OT. The original translation, as far as our scholarship is able to determine, makes potter the correct choice.

   And what of the context of the word? Lippard says that "treasury" makes more sense, probably because it is money that it involved. On the other hand, the phrase in Zech. 11:13, "Throw it to the potter," has the structure of an idiomatic phrase, and may reflect an expression in use at the time of Zechariah.

   So which is better for the prophecy issue? As Lippard says, "potter" would be better for fulfilling the prophecy; but even with "treasury," the prophecy can still be regarded as typological, having the elements of the thirty pieces of silver, throwing the money, and the Temple in common. Excluding what/who the money was thrown to does very little "damage" to the credibility of the prophecy, for the better part of the structure remains.

   ITEM 43 - CROSSFALL

   Literally none of the gospels report that Jesus fell under the weight of the cross! The synoptics report that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus all the way to Golgotha, while John reports that Jesus carried it by himself with no help from anybody.

   This is an erroneous assumption - John just says Jesus carried His cross, but doesn't say that no one else helped. John may not have known of Simon's assistance; since he was known to the high priest (John 18:15) he may have tried to use his acquaintance with the high priest to get Jesus released, and thus missed the trip to Golgotha. That he only arrived later is supported by the relatively small amount of information he gives about the first part of the crucifixion (John 19:17-24), which has the literary quality of information reported second-hand, whereas in later verses (25-37) he gives more details, and tells us directly that he was an eyewitness (v. 35).

   None of the gospels state, or even imply, that Jesus collapsed under the weight of the cross...

   So how, then did this idea arise? It probably arose as theologians attempted to reconcile the differences between John and the synoptics. To make it appear that these stories did not contradict one other, it was claimed that Jesus started out carrying his own cross, as recorded in John, but collapsed. Simon of Cyrene was then compelled to carry it the rest of the way, as recorded in the synoptics. There is no evidence to support this explanation, however.

   There is ample evidence to support this explanation. Matthew says that Simon was met "as they were going out" (Matt. 27:32). Mark says Simon was just "passin' by," and they forced him to carry the cross (Mark 15:21). Luke says Simon was drafted "as they led (Jesus) away." (Luke 23:26) Finally, it is well-established that it was the custom of the Romans to have the prisoner carry his own cross, and that they would have no compunction about forcing bystanders to do whatever they pleased.

   The obvious implication is that Simon was drafted at some point after the procession to Golgotha began, probably from among the massive crowd of Passover pilgrims, and the scenario above about John gives us a reasonable explanation for him not mentioning Simon: If John stayed behind to plead with the high priest, the last thing we would have seen was Jesus leaving the area, carrying the cross. (It is McDowell's title, however, that is misleading in this regard; the cited OT type applicable to Jesus refers to one who is weak, and becomes a reproach to others. This probably is better applied to Jesus' general condition throughout the trip to Golgotha, and during the Crucifixion, rather than a specific episode of falling under the cross.)

   ITEM 44 - PIERCING STATEMENTS

   This section concerns the prophecies regarding the piercing of the hands and feet - linked to Jesus' crucifixion. Berry writes:

   The Hebrew version of Psalms 22:16 reads, "like a lion at my hands and feet," rather than "they have pierced my hands and feet." This is probably the original text, as it is retained in the Hebrew version (the original was written in Hebrew) and because it reflects the animal imagery that pervades the entire psalm (see vss. 12, 16, 20, 21).

   The "lion" interpretation is a familiar one, and is found in most Hebrew manuscripts. However, the Septuagint, Syriac, and some Hebrew manuscripts have the "pierced" translation, which gives it considerable weight. Also, despite the 4 cites of "animal imagery" given by Berry - these four, out of 31 verses - the context supports the "pierced" translation. To compare:

   Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and feet.

   Or:

   Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, like a lion at my hands and feet.

   First, the sense does not agree entirely: "Men" is plural, "lion" is singular. Second, what is a lion doing at the writer's hands and feet? Based on the expression, the writer is being attacked; if a lion is part of the imagery, why isn't the lion doing what lions do - pouncing, biting, gnawing on the writer's bones? Why is it just sitting at the writer's hands and feet? The "pierced" translation, though it is dependent upon a rare plural form, is favored by translators; on the other hand, no responsible scholar today would argue that the "lion" translation is accurate [see PC.PS150, 196].

   McDowell claims that Psalms 22:16 is describing crucifixion. But there are many forms of torture that also fit the verse-- stamping on the hands with boots, for instance, or torture with needles or syringes, or being bitten by animals. (Indeed, this last one fits the psalm better than crucifixion, given the many references to animals in the psalm.) This could also describe wounds received in battle, as when an arrow, bullet, or piece of shrapnel strikes the hand or foot. A snakebite would also fit the imagery. We have no way to know that it was crucifixion, and not some other form of piercing wound, that was intended..

   Boots? Syringes? Bullets? Shrapnel? Where are the Romans or other ancient peoples going to get these, at the time-travel surplus store? Or does Berry possibly see some future fulfillment for this verse? As for animals, in line with the verse cited above, it is men who have done the piercing, not animals. (Or are they maybe holding animals? Is this one of those Monty Python skits? "Confess, or I'll attack you with this Welsh corgi!")

   The crucifixion imagery is also found in verses 14-15. Described are bones out of joint, a weakened heart, loss of strength, and incredible thirst. This makes it hard to appeal to wounds received in a battle. (In later entries, Berry wrenches these verses from their context and deals with them singly. This is the only way that he can get away with suggesting the remnants of an army surplus store as possible tools of fulfillment!)

   ITEM 45 - NUMBERED

   Isaiah 53:12 says that the servant was "numbered with the transgressors." "Numbered" does not mean "crucified with" or even "physically close to". Clearly, McDowell is reading far too much into the verse.

   Clearly, Berry is reading far too much into McDowell's subtitles - which in this section on events of Jesus' Crucifixion experience are descriptions of events that fulfill the prophecies, not descriptions of the prophecies themselves, as any careful and sensible reader would determine. But Berry also makes the same mistake in the next entry.

   To be "numbered" with somebody is to be counted among them; hence Jesus was "numbered" with the criminal element in that he was punished like a common criminal of that day and place, by crucifixion.

   ITEM 49 - FAR-OFF FRIENDS

   In regards to the prophecy that friends will stand far off, Berry writes:

   John 19:25-27 directly contradicts this prophecy (as well as the other three gospels) by having a few of Jesus' friends stand close to the cross.

   This is a typical problem of "all or nothing." The prediction does not require that all of Jesus' friends and/or relatives stand far off for the duration; only that they do so at some point.

   Based on our scenario with John, stated earlier, the disciple probably arrived late to the crucifixion also because he wished to alert Mary and others to what was going on. After rousting Mary out from the Passover crowd, he would surely, albeit with much emotional difficulty, explain what was going on; from there, it is not too much to assume that the two of them stood away from the scene for a while, digesting the horror of Mary's "little son" being crucified (by our scenario, both would be seeing this for the first time). It is also likely that they had to get permission from the Romans to get anywhere near the cross, so they weren't going that close to it right away.

   SCEPTER REMOVAL SERVICE

   In this section McDowell expands upon Genesis 49:10, a prophecy that indicates a timeframe for the coming of the Messiah. Let's take a look at this. To begin:

   McDowell claims that the "removal of the scepter" described in Genesis 49:10 is a two-part process consisting of the following:

   Removal of the scepter or identity of Judah

   Suppression of the judicial power

   It is not at all clear why McDowell holds that the "removal of the scepter" mentioned in Genesis 49:10 corresponds to the above two-part process. He doesn't even give a bible verse or a Targum quote to back up his claim, let alone any sort of evidence.

   I must truly have a different edition of ETDAV than Berry, because my copy contains a quite clear explanation of the correspondence - although regrettably, McDowell does not cite a source for his information. But McDowell does include a Talmud quote (not a Targum), and a quote by a rabbi, where it is bemoaned that the scepter had been taken from Judah, and the Messiah had not come. Berry ignores this completely!

   Since McDowell is a bit remiss in citing his sources, we will attempt in part to explain this ourselves. Let us begin with another look at the verse in question:

   Gen . 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

   The "he" referenced here is found in the Hebrew as "Shiloh," which we refers to the Messiah - the one who brings peace. So the scepter will not depart from Judah, and the ruler's staff will not depart from between Judah's feet, until the Messiah comes. Now we need to know what the "scepter" and the "staff" mean. To this writer, it is obvious, but we will indulge the skeptics for the time being.

   Clues to the meaning of this are found in several places in the OT. In Judges 1:1-2 and 20:18, Judah is designated by God to be the first tribe to go up and fight a battle - something no other tribe in the OT had the designation of doing. In Psalms 60:7, God is represented as saying that Judah is his scepter; also in Ps. 108:8.

   The next question is, what exactly is a scepter, and what does it represent? The scepter is the symbol of the power of a ruler; see Esther 5:2, where the king of Persia holds out his scepter to indicate that Esther may approach him. (This, by the way, is not a fanciful invention of the author of Esther; even liberal critics admit that the manners and customs depicted in Esther are consistent with the known practices of the Persian court!) This is typical use of the scepter, and its use as a symbol of power extended even later, so that our standard picture of a medieval king or queen generally includes the wearing of a crown and the holding of a scepter. So, Genesis 49:10 is saying that Judah's power will not pass until the Messiah comes.

   "Ruler's staff," of course, fits in with the same idea.

   Berry continues:

   (McDowell) equates the coming of Herod to the loss of the identity of Judah. Yet the Jews were still clearly recognizable to themselves and others as Jews; in fact, the Jews still retain their "tribal identity" (to use McDowell's term) to this day. He also equates the "suppression of the judicial power" with the removal of the Sanhedrin's right to impose capital punishment. Yet the Sanhedrin retained many rights-- McDowell himself points out that they could still impose imprisonment, excommunication, and even corporal punishment.

   In both cases, it is reasonable to suppose that the Jews still possessed the "scepter", at least to an extent.

   First, McDowell's book says NOTHING about tribal identity, at least not my edition, and not in this chapter. Second, regarding "retained"...When King John gave up some of his powers in signing the Magna Carta, he became less of a king; this may be viewed as the impetus which has rendered the British monarchy the mostly-symbolic office it is today. If the enforcement power of the British monarchy could be represented by a scepter today, it would be a small, plastic one! Similarly, when the Sanhedrin was forced to give up the most important of their executive privileges, the right to enforce capital punishment, the reaction was that of a rabbi quoted by McDowell, who said that when the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death - which is widely considered the most important right ANY people can have! - they mourned that the scepter had departed from Judah, and the Messiah had not come. That they were left with cookie-crumb enforcement of other crimes didn't make it any better for them. They viewed the loss of that privilege as the removal of Judah's scepter!

|

LINKS THAT MAY BE USEFUL

I have three links here which will be useful to anyone interested in this topic.

Glenn Miller's response to Jim Lippard's "Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah" is a work in progress that addresses many of the issues in Berry's essay: The virgin birth prophecy; typology; the Slaughter of the Innocents; the "Nazarene" prophecy; the flight to Egypt; the Bethlehem birth prophecy, and the role of John the Baptist.