Old Testament Prophecy Primer

In the second century of the common era a devout Christian named Marcion taught that there was little relationship between the Jewish Bible and the new Christian doctrines espoused by the Apostle Paul. He went so far as to assert that the God of the “Old Testament” was not the same deity as the New Testament description of a compassionate and loving God. Marcion argued that the “Old Testament” had no place among Christian teaching. Christ himself had supplanted these text by expanding salvation to the entire world. The Hebrew texts were merely the details of God’s failed experiment in having the Jews demonstrate God’s grace. Of course, it was not God who failed. It was the Hebrews themselves.

In teaching that there were two Gods and that Christ’s “physical” body on the cross was simply an imitation of a human body, Marcion found himself in direct opposition to the growing Christian power base in Rome. Marcion was excommunicated and his “heresy” would gradually die out as the Roman viewpoint spread throughout all the fledging Christian communities.

Marcion’s perspective highlighted a question some Christians were already asking. What role should the Hebrew texts play in Christianity? Marcion was living in a time when Christians already had their own sacred texts. The letters of Paul were already in circulation among the Christian communities and each community had at least one, if not numerous, Gospels detailing the life of Jesus, and apocalypses detailing the end of times.

Of course, both Jesus and all the Apostles had none of these texts. Their only scriptural text was the Hebrew Bible; therefore, it must play a role in Christianity. This was complicated further with quotations of Jesus where he specifically asserted that he did not come to overturn any of Hebraic laws. If Jesus held these texts to be sacred, certainly Christians must do likewise.

The Hebrew Bible, though, was more of a problem for Paul. He, like Marcion a hundred years later, was arguing that Christ’s death and resurrection produced a “New Covenant.” As Paul spread his message to Gentiles he argued that they did not have to follow the Jewish laws or Mitzvot. He specifically cited Abraham as being a righteous man before God prior to any of these Mosaic laws. Unfortunately for Paul, there was one Judaic practice that did not fit into the category. Circumcision was not Mosaic. It was a direct commandment from God to Abraham and all his descendants, of which Paul claimed Gentiles to be among them.

For every argument Paul could make in opposition to Gentile circumcision, traveling Jewish/Christians had a ready response, the scriptures themselves. They could quote directly from Genesis 17 to show that Paul was wrong. Christians ever since have felt pity for poor Paul having to constantly fend off Jewish-Christian preachers that were arguing that circumcision was a necessary requirement. Quite simply, the preachers were correct and Paul wrong, if (and this is a major “if”) the Hebrew Bible was to be treated as scripture.

Paul most likely was seeing the bigger picture. If Gentiles were forced to undergo circumcision it is very likely Christianity would have grown at a much slower pace and quite possibly never escaped its Judaic heritage. Paul the Rabbi could never ignore Genesis 17 and Paul the Rabbi would have scoffed at the feeble arguments made by Paul the Christian proselytizer. However; Paul the realist understood that there would be no way Christianity would ever become a world religion if circumcision was a mandatory initiation rite.

Ultimately, the early Christians chose to accept Paul. In so doing, Christians departed from a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible. They asserted that the Hebrew Bible was not meant to be read as a literal history of the Israelite relationship with God. Rather; the “Old Testament” was a figurative account of God’s plan for all humanity. The Israelites were the actors in the drama and Israel a metaphor for all of humanity. In this way the “Old Testament” could serve a purpose for Christians and the literal scriptures that did not fit with their viewpoints could simply be ignored or read figuratively with a different meaning.

Empowered with this new method of reading the Hebrew texts, seeming contradictions could be explained away. Psalms 2 appears on the surface to negate all of Christianity. In verse 2 the world takes a stand against the Lord and against his Anointed One. This states that God and the Messiah are separate entities, not one as in the Trinitarian doctrine. Psalm 2 also appears to be contemporary to the time of David meaning the Messiah was alive 700 years before Jesus.

Christians read this Psalm, not as contemporary to the 8th century BCE., but as part of God’s plan for the end times. “I have installed my King on Zion...” is not a reference to King David. It is actually a reference to Jesus. “I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my Son, today I have become your Father.’” Again, Christians do not read this literally, but figuratively replacing any messianic reference with Jesus and thus making Jesus the Lord’s son.

In this manner a whole series of Hebrew scriptures can be read as revealing a deeper meaning that neither the ancient Israelites nor contemporary Jews could grasp. In Jeremiah chapter 31 the Lord declares he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. For Christians the “house of Israel” is a metaphor for all of humanity. When, in verse 34, God declares he will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more, he is referring to all mankind. The New Covenant begins with Christ and Christ provides the means for this forgiveness. Jews cannot hope to understand Jeremiah if they read it literally with “Israel” meaning “Israel”, rather than Israel as a metaphor.

Likewise, Hosea chapter 6 is read as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection. “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” The passage has been read by every Jew as Hosea explaining that God has condemned Israel but Israel can be vindicated by returning to his fold. Christians saw something about restoration on a third day and immediately found a different interpretation.

There is probably no better example of this “new” mode of reading the Hebrew scriptures than Isaiah chapter 53. This is the famous chapter referred to by Christians as the “suffering messiah” chapter. In the chapter Isaiah is telling the long suffering people of Israel that a Messiah will raise them up, astonishing the whole world in the process. For Jews it is a description of the people waiting for the messianic age and predictions about things that will occur to the servant of God thanks to the messiah.

Christians have given this chapter a completely different meaning, lumping the suffering object and the messiah subject into one entity: the suffering messiah. For Christians it is the messiah that does the suffering. It has to be this way! If Israel is a metaphor for humanity then humanity cannot be the one doing the suffering. It must be the messiah. And as long as one accepts that Jesus suffered and died for humanity then the chapter makes sense as a Christian prophecy.

The irony of Isaiah 53 is that the Jewish interpretation is the only one that makes sense but Isaiah’s prediction of a triumphant Israel lead by the anointed king never materialized. The Christian interpretation is equally problematic because Jesus did not fulfill Isaiah’s prediction either.

The Christian interpretation has additional problems. Isaiah (41:8) makes it quite clear that when he says “Israel” he means “Israel.” “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.” The literal meaning is very clear. The people of Israel are the subject, not a metaphor for anything. Those doing the suffering are clearly stated as “God’s servant.” Jesus, of course, is not God’s servant, but his son; God himself, according to Christians.

For most of Christian (Catholic) history the Church used the Pauline approach and simply replaced Israel with humanity. “God’s servants” became “Christians,” and the triumphant Messiah, Christ. In this manner the chapters were read as Rabbis read them, with Christians simply expanding the meaning with the metaphoric use of Israel.

Medieval Protestants were not satisfied with this interpretation. Reading the Bible for themselves, they saw a passage that said someone was suffering and immediately assumed it had to be about Jesus. They ignored the Catholic interpretation as well as the Jewish interpretation even though their assertion meant the passage stopped making sense. They also had a nasty method of dealing with Rabbinic interpretations. They imprisoned and tortured any Rabbi that questioned their revised “suffering messiah” explanation.

The Christian “Old Testament” needs to be understood differently from their “New Testament.” The New Testament is read literally in all occasions and acquitted a higher status than the Old. The Old Testament is a tool to be used by whichever Christian sect is reading it. Some parts are literal. Some are figurative. Some still are accepted as true. Some parts have been superseded by New Testament doctrine.

Probably the most telling feature of the Hebrew texts is that if they are read with no Christian input, no Christian “explanations” or interpretations, nothing about Christianity is revealed in the texts. No non-Christian could discern anything about Christianity by reading the texts. This is remarkable considering the Christian explanation that it details all of humanity’s relationship with God. Paradoxically, the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew texts can be applied to any other work, from Shakespeare’s Hamlet to the Discourses of Plato and produce the same level of proof Christians find in the Hebrew Bible. When Hamlet is talking about his father he is really referring to God. All of a sudden the piece of literature takes on an entirely different meaning. One might wonder; though, whether Shakespeare or any of the Biblical authors would understand this new interpretation of their work. When texts can be interpreted to say whatever one wants them to say even the phone book can become a prophetic work of spiritual magic.