How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples
Number 1 - Haggai 2:7 The Desire of all nations
One of my favorite hymns, O Come, O Come Emmanuel, has the line "O come Desire of nations, come." Handel’s beautiful work, The Messiah, also has this line in one of the hymns taken from the King James Bible. "And the Desire of all nations shall come. But who may abide the day of His coming? For He is like a refiner's fire."
This line comes from Haggai 2:6,7: "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land: And I will shake all nations, and THE DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts."
There are also references to this event in the New Testament. The book of Hebrews says in 12:26: "Whose voice then shook the earth; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." Again, in Hebrews 10:37 we read: "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry."
Matthew Henry comments on Haggai 2:6-7:
"He shall come as the desire of all nations — desirable to all nations, for in him shall all the families of the earth be blessed with the best of blessings — long expected and desired by the good people in all nations, that had any intelligence from the Old-Testament predictions concerning him."
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on Haggai 2:7
“So Hebrews 12:26, which quotes this passage; the apostle compares the heavier punishment which awaits the disobedient under the New Testament with that which met such under the Old Testament. At the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant, only the earth was shaken to introduce it, but now heaven and earth and all things are to be shaken, all kingdoms that stand in the way of Messiah's kingdom, "which cannot be shaken," are to be upturned. Paul condenses together the two verses of Haggai 2:6-7 and 2:21-22, implying that it was one and the same shaking, of which the former verses of Haggai denote the beginning, the latter the end."
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown continue: "There is scarcely a prophecy of Messiah in the Old Testament which does not, to some extent at least, refer to His second coming."
"While the Jews as a nation desired Him not, the Gentiles, who are plainly pointed out by "all nations," accepted Him; and so to them He was peculiarly desirable. The "good tidings of great joy" were "to all people" (Luke 2:10). The Jews, and those in the adjoining nations instructed by them, looked for Shiloh to come unto whom the gathering of the people was to be, from Jacob's prophecy (Genesis 49:10). The early patriarchs, Job (Job 19:25-27) and Abraham (John 8:56), desired Him."
"fill this house with glory-- As the first temple was filled with the cloud of glory, the symbol of God, so this second temple was filled with the "glory" of God (John 1:14) veiled in the flesh at Christ's first coming, when He entered it and performed miracles there ; but that "glory" is to be revealed at His second coming, AS THIS PROPHECY IN ITS ULTERIOR REFERENCE FORETELLS." (Caps are mine)
John Gill comments on Haggai 2:6-7 (Caps are mine):"and the desire of all nations shall come; NOT THE DESIRABLE THINGS OF ALL NATIONS, or them with them, as their gold and silver; and which is the sense of Jarchi, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra; but this is contrary to the syntax of the words, to the context of Haggai 2:8, and to facts; ... but one far more glorious and excellent, is intended, EVEN THE MESSIAH, in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed;... HIS PERSONAL COMING; his spiritual coming; his coming to take vengeance on the Jews; and HIS LAST COMING, of which some understand the words particularly."
John Calvin remarks on Haggai 2:6-7 "But we may understand what he says of Christ, Come shall the desire of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory. We indeed know that Christ was the expectation of the whole world, according to what is said by Isaiah. And it may be properly said, that when the desire of all nations shall come, that is, when Christ shall be manifested, in whom the wishes of all ought to center, the glory of the second Temple shall then be illustrious."
Other Bible versions that agree with the King James Holy Bible "and the desire of all nations shall come" are the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Green's interlinear and Modern KJV 1998, Darby, Douay 1950, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation into English, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (el Deseado de todas las naciones vendrá), the Italian Diodati 1602, Webster’s 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, God's Word Translation 1995, and Third Millenium Bible 1998.
J.P. Green's 2005 KJV3 reads: " And I will shake all the nations; and the Desire of all nations shall come. And I will fill this house with glory, says Jehovah of Hosts.hands; and you did not turn to Me, a state- ment of Jehovah."
The NIV is pretty good here with "and the desired of all nations will come."
Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 and Matthew's Bible 1549 all give the same idea with: " the comforte of all Heithen shall come"
God's Word to the Nations version 1995 - "and the one whom all the nations desire will come." This gives the same sense as that found in the King James Bible.
The previous Douay-Rheims reads like the KJB with - "And I will move all nations: AND THE DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory: saith the Lord of hosts. "
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 also reads similar to the King James Bible - "and the delight of all the nations, shall come in."
However things begin to go awry in the NKJV with its: "and THEY shall come to the Desire of All Nations." This is incorrect because it is the Lord Jesus Christ who is coming to us; not we who are not going to Him.
But with the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation everything has changed, and this is no longer a prophecy about Christ at all. The NASB reads: "And I am going to shake all the nations and THEY WILL COME WITH THE WEALTH of all nations."
The Message - "And I'll shake down all the godless nations. They'll bring bushels of wealth and I will fill this Temple with splendor. GOD of the Angel-Armies says so."
The RSV, NRSV, ESV (2001 English Standard Version) and the 2004 Holman Standard all unite in reading: "and I will shake all nations so that THE TREASURES OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME IN, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts." Again, any prophesy about the return of Christ has been eliminated from this passage. These new Vatican Versions read just like the modern Catholic versions, though the older Douay-Rheims and Douay read like the KJB - "And I will move all nations: AND THE DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory: saith the Lord of hosts." But now the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 have: "I will shake all nations, and THE TREASURES OF ALL THE NATIONS will come in."
Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological seminary is writing his own bible version called the NET bible. He often rejects the Hebrew readings, changes many others, and frequently comes up with a translation that does not agree with any other version in print.
He renders this verse: "I will also shake up all the nations, and THEY(12) will offer their treasures;(13) then I will fill this temple with glory,’ says the sovereign Lord."
Then in his footnotes he admits to emending the Hebrew text. He tells us: (12) Heb “all the nations.” (13) Though the subject here is singular (“desire”), the preceding plural predicate mandates a collective subject, “desired (things)”. This has no direct reference to the coming of the Messiah."
In other words, Dr. Wallace first changed the text, and then said the Hebrew subject "the desire" does not agree with his changed text, and finally that the verse has no reference to the coming of the Messiah! Truly, modern scholarship is a marvel to behold.
The word used here for "desire" - #2532 khem-daw - does not mean "wealth", as the NASB says, nor "treasures" as the ESV, RSV, NET and Holman have it. The correct meaning refers not to THEY who will come, but to Christ, the Messiah, and the Desire of all nations. The NASB has only once translated this word as "wealth", and yet has the same word rendered as "desire" in Daniel 11:37 - "he will show no regard for... the desire of women".
This noun "desire" comes from the verb "to desire" # 2530 and is used in 1 Samuel 9:20 referring to the first king over Israel, when Samuel said to Saul "and on whom is all the DESIRE of Israel?." It is used again in Isaiah 53:2: "and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should DESIRE him." The Isaiah passage clearly refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, at His first coming in the flesh.
The same verb is used in Genesis 3:6 where the woman saw that the tree "was a tree to be desired to make one wise", and in Psalm 19:10 where the judgments of the LORD are described as "more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold."
The King James Bible is right, as always, and the statement by scholarly experts such as James White, who now works for the NASB committee, that we need to compare all versions to get an accurate sense of the meaning, is utter nonsense and results in total confusion.
Number Two - Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy
There are literally hundreds of examples of how the New KJV has changed the meaning of the Scriptures as found in the King James Bible. One of these hundreds of examples is found in Isaiah 66:5.
There we read: "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."
This is the reading of not only the KJB but also the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 (42 years before the KJB), the subsequent Spanish versions of 1602, 1909 and 1960, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible of 1902, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, Green's interlinear translation 1985 and Modern KJV 1998, the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century Version.
The earlier Great Bible of 1540 and the Bishops' Bible of 1568 both have the same meaning with: "but you shall see hym in ioy, when they shalbe confounded."
The Modern Greek translation also reads as does the King James Bible. Though the alleged LXX reads differently even from the NKJV, NASB, with "and may appear THEIR joy", yet the Modern Greek translation has: πλην αυτος θελει φανη εις χαραν σας, εκεινοι δε θελουσι καταισχυνθη."and he will appear to your joy" - just as found in the King James Bible.
However a host of modern versions, including the NKJV, give a very different meaning to this passage of Scripture. The NKJV, along with the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard, says: "Who cast you out for my name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY'. But they shall be ashamed."
Again, the good Doctor Daniel Wallace and his NET version render this verse: “so that we might witness your joy.” Then Wallace significantly remarks in his footnotes: "The point of this statement is unclear."
Well, Duh. Sure it's unclear NOW. You just changed the whole meaning of the verse!
What happened to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is the true meaning "But He shall appear to your joy" or "That We may see your joy"?
The verb used here is # 7200 variously translated as "to see, to appear, to provide". It is a very common verb, but this particular instance is what is called a Niphal participle. According to George Wigram's Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, 1980, Baker Book House Company, on page 1141, Dr. Wigram informs us that this Niphal participle occurs only three times and every time it refers to the Lord who appears. The other two times this verb form is found both refer to either God or the Lord. Genesis 12:7 "the LORD who appeared unto him"; Genesis 35:1 "God that appeared unto thee". The third time is here in Isaiah 66:5 "but he shall appear to your joy."
Jamison, Faucett and Brown comment: They cast you out for my name's sake - excommunicate, as if too polluted to worship with them. So in Christ's first sojourn on earth. So it shall be again in the last times, when the believing shall be few (Luke 18:8). Let the Lord be glorified - the mocking challenge of the persecutors, as if their violence towards you was from zeal for God. "He shall appear to your joy," --giving you "joy" instead of your "rebuke"
John Gill comments: "but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed: that is, the Lord shall appear, either in a providential way, as he did for the Christians at Jerusalem... or else this may respect the second coming, the glorious appearance of Christ, which will be to the joy of those believing Jews, and of all his people; since he will appear to their salvation, and they shall appear with him in glory, and see him as he is, (Hebrews 9:28) (Colossians 3:4) (1 John 3:2) , and to the shame, confusion, and destruction of those that have pierced him, despised and rejected him, and persecuted his people."
John Calvin remarks: "But he will be seen to your joy. As if he had said, “God, by his coming, will cause believers to know that they have not hoped in vain; for he will appear for the advantage of believers, and for the destruction of those who maintain that he will appear as the defender of wickedness, of which he will be the severe avenger. The former shall enjoy gladness and consolation, while the latter shall be ashamed and shall blush, for they shall quickly feel that the judgment of God, which they now laugh at, is at hand.”
I believe this verse has a great deal of application to the Bible version issue being fought today. "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."
We who really believe God has given us an inerrant, complete, preserved and inspired Holy Bible, and tremble at His words, are called ignorant fanatics, church dividers and members of a Cult, from which we need to repent.
Those who deny there is any Bible or Hebrew or Greek text that is the inerrant word of God actually think they are the ones who are glorifying God by promoting a multitude of conflicting, and admittedly non-inspired bible versions, while ridiculing our position on the King James Holy Bible. .
There are two camps in this battle for an inerrant Bible. There are thousands upon thousands of Christians who believe God has kept His promises to preserve His pure, inspired words and that He has done so in the King James Holy Bible for the last 400 years. And then there are those who SAY the Bible is the inspired word of God, but when closely examined, will admit the "originals" no longer exist. They then will tell you what they really believe: "No Bible is 100 percent correct; All translations have errors; The correct text is...; I think a better rendering would be..." yada, yada, yada. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes, and submits to no final, written word of God.
The battle lines are clearly drawn and you cannot sit on the fence. By the grace of God, may we be found among those who tremble at His word. We have God's promise that He will appear to our joy, and they shall be ashamed.
Stick with the old King James Bible and you will not go wrong.
Number Three - Daniel 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself"
Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."
Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.
There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568 -"After these threescore & two weekes shall Messiah be slaine, & not for him selfe" , the NKJV 1982, the French Martin of 1744 - “le CHRIST sera retranché, mais non pas pour soi”, the Romanian Fidela of 2010 "dar nu pentru el însuşi", the Reina Valera 1865 Angel de Mora, the 1909 Reina Valera and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible - “Daniel 9:26 Y después de las sesenta y dos semanas el Mesías será muerto, y no por sí.” but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation -"Και μετα τας εξηκοντα δυο εβδομαδας θελει εκκοπη ο Χριστος, πλην ουχι δι' εαυτον·", the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Green's 1998 Modern KJV 2000, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "And after threescore and two heptads, yikaret (will be cut off) Moshiach [Yeshayah 53:8], but not for himself.", and the KJV 21st Century Version 1994. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.
Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".
The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The Spanish NIV, La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 says: "después de las sesenta y dos semanas, se le quitará la vida al príncipe elegido. Éste se quedará sin ciudad y sin santuario, porque un futuro gobernante los destruirá." which means "After 62 weeks the life of the elect prince will be taken away. THIS ONE WILL REMAIN WITHOUT A CITY AND WITHOUT A SANCTUARY..."! But the Portuguese NIV reads differently than both the English and Spanish versions. The NIV Portuguese edition, Nova Versão Internacional 2000 has: "Depois das sessenta e duas semanas, o Ungido será morto, e já não haverá lugar para ele." which comes out to mean - "After the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one is dead, AND THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR HIM."
Dr. Daniel Wallace and company, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."
This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible commentators, teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.
Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."
John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."
John Gill offers two different interpretations but he gives this one first: "when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."
David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."
C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!
Matthew Poole was well aware of all the different theories and ideas about how to translate this passage and he comments on it in his Commentary on the whole Bible saying: - Daniel 9:26 “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself” - But not for himself - which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people, and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures: There was none to succour him ; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be. But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.”
Bible Babel in Action
Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".
Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."
Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."
The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."
The Lesser Old Testament 1853 - "And after the sixty and two weeks will an anointed one be cut off WITHOUT A SUCCESSOR TO FOLLOW HIM."
Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."
Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."
The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."
The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)
1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)
The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."
The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."
The Common English Bible 2011 - "after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be eliminated. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT HIM." (Then it footnotes that "Hebrew is uncertain")
The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.
The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."
Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)
The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY"
And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)
May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm