Examination of the Prophecies
Examination of the Prophecies:Author's Preface
Examination of the Prophecies:The Book of Matthew - passages 1-6
Examination of the Prophecies:The Book of Matthew passages 7-10
Examination of the Prophecies:The Book of Mark
Examination of the Prophecies:The Book of Luke
Examination of the Prophecies:The Book of John
Examination of the Prophecies:The Book of Matthew -- passages 1-6
by Thomas Paine
The passages called prophecies of, or concerning, Jesus Christ, in the Old Testament may be classed under the two following heads.
First, those referred to in the four books of the New Testament, called the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Secondly, those which translators and commentators have, of their own imagination, erected into prophecies, and dubbed with that title at the head of the several chapters of the Old Testament. Of these it is scarcely worth while to waste time, ink, and paper upon; I shall, therefor, confine myself chiefly to those referred to in the aforesaid four books of the New Testament. If I show that these are not prophecies of the person called Jesus Christ, nor have reference to any such person, it will be perfectly needless
to combat those which translators or the Church have invented, and for which they had no other authority than their own imagination.
I begin with the book called the Gospel according to St Matthew.
In i. 18, it is said, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph before they came together, SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD OF THE HOLY GHOST."
This is going a little too fast; because to make this verse agree with the next it should have said no more than that she was found with child; for the next verse says, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately." Consequently Joseph had found out no more than that she was with child, and he knew it was not by himself.
Verses 20, 21. "And while he thought of these things, (that is, whether he should put her away privately, or make a public example of her), behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him IN A DREAM (that is, Joseph dreamed that an angel appeared unto him) saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins."
Now, without entering into any discussion upon the merits or demerits of the account here given, it is proper to observe, that it has no higher authority than that of a dream; for it is impossible to a man to behold anything in a dream but that which he dreams of. I ask not, therefor, whether Joseph, if there was such a man, had such a dream or not, because admitting he had, it proves nothing. So wonderful and irrational is the faculty of the mind in dream that it acts the part of all the characters its imagination creates, and what it thinks it hears from any of them is no other than what the roving rapidity of its own imagination invents. It is therefor nothing to me what Joseph dreamed of; whether of the fidelity or infidelity of his wife. I pay no regard to my own dreams, and I should be weak indeed to put faith in the dreams of another.
The verses that follow those I have quoted are the words of the writer of the book of Matthew. "Now {says he} all this {that is, all this dreaming and this pregnancy} was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us."
This passage is in Isaiah vii, 14, and the writer of the book of Matthew endeavors to make his readers believe that this passage is a prophecy of the person called Jesus Christ. It is no such thing, and I go to show it is not. But it is first necessary that I explain the occasion of these words being spoken by Isaiah.
The reader will then easily perceive that so far from their being a prophecy of Jesus Christ, they have not the least reference to such a person, nor to anything that could happen in the time that Christ is said to have lived, which was about seven hundred years after the time of Isaiah.
The case is this: On the death of Solomon the Jewish nation split into two monarchies: one called the kingdom of Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem: the other the kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was Samaria. The kingdom of Judah followed the line of David, and the kingdom of Israel that of Saul; and these two rival monarchies frequently carried on fierce wars against each other.
At this time Ahaz was King of Judah, which was in the time of Isaiah, Pekah was King of Israel; and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, King of Syria, to make war against Ahaz, King of Judah; and these two kings marched a confederated and powerful army against Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed at their danger, and "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah vii,3.
In this perilous situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all prophets), that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to assure him that this should be the case (the case was however directly contrary (II Chron. xxviii 1-8) tells Ahaz to ask a sign of the Lord.
This Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason, that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who pretends to be sent from God, says, verse 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son--butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good--for before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings"- meaning the King of Israel and the King of Syria who were marching against him.
Here then is the sign which was to be the birth of a child, and that child a son; and here also is the time limited for the accomplishment of the sign, namely, before the child should know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz must be something that would take place before the event of the battle then pending between him and the two kings could be known. A thing to be a sign must precede the thing signified. The sign of rain must be before the rain.
It would have mockery and insulting nonsense for Isaiah to have assured Ahaz as a sign that these two things should not prevail against him, that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead, and that before the child should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, he, Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger he was then immediately threatened with.
But the case is that the child of which Isaiah speaks WAS HIS OWN CHILD, with which his wife or his mistress was then pregnant; for he says in the next chapter (Is. viii,2), "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah; and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bear a son;" and he says, at verse 18 of the same chapter "Behold I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel."
It may not be improper here to observe, that the word translated `a virgin' in Isaiah, does not signify a virgin in Hebrew, but merely a young woman. The tense is also falsified in the translation. Levi gives the Hebrew text of Isaiah vii, 14, and the translation in English with it--"Behold a young woman IS with child and beareth a son." The expression, says he, is in the present tense.
This translation agrees with the other circumstances related of the birth of this child which was to be assign to Ahaz. But as the true translation could not have been imposed upon the world as a prophecy of a child to be born seven hundred years afterwards, the Christian translators have falsified the original: and instead of making Isaiah to say, behold a young woman IS with child and BEARETH a son, they have made him to say, "Behold a virgin SHALL conceive and BEAR a son."
It is, however, only necessary for a person to read Isaiah, vii and viii, and he will be convinced that the passage in question is no prophecy of the person called Jesus Christ. I pass on to the second passage quoted from the Old Testament by the New, as a prophecy of Jesus Christ.
Matthew ii, 1-6. "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the King, behold there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying, where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the East and are come to worship him. When Herod the king heard these things he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people
together, he demanded of them where Christ was should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem, in the land of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, art not the least among the princes of Judah, for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my people Israel." This passage is in Micah v, 2.
I pass over the absurdity of seeing and following a star in the daytime, as a man would a will-with-the-whisp, or a candle and lantern at night; and also that of seeing it in the East, when themselves came from the East; for could such a thing be seen at all to serve them for a guide, it must be in the West to them. I confine myself solely to the passage called a prophecy of Jesus Christ.
The book of Micah, in the passage above quoted, v, 2, is speaking of some person, without mentioning his name, from whom some great achievements were expected; but the description he gives of this person,
verse 5, 6, proves evidently that it is not Jesus Christ, for he says, "and this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise up against him
(that is against the Assyrian) seven shepherds and eight principal men.
"And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod on the entrance thereof; thus shall HE (the person spoken of at the head of the second verse) deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."
This is so evidently descriptive of a military chief that it cannot be applied to Christ without outraging the character they pretend to give us of him. Besides which, the circumstances of the time here spoken of and those of the times in which Christ is said to have lived are in contradiction to each other.
It was the Romans, and not the Assyrians that had conquered and were in the land of Judea,and trod in their palaces when Christ was born, and when he died, and so far from his driving them out, it was they who signed the warrant for his execution, and he suffered under it.
Having thus shown that this is no prophecy of Jesus Christ, I pass on to the third passage quoted from the Old Testament by the New, as a prophecy of him. This, like the first I have spoken of, is introduced by a dream.
Joseph dreams another dream, and dreams that he sees another angel.
The account begins in Matthew ii,13. "The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: For Herod will seek the life of the young child to destroy him.
"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."
This passage is in the book of Hosea, xi, 1. The words are, "When Israel was a child then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim and burned incense to graven images."
This passage, falsely called a prophecy of Christ, refers to the children of Israel coming out of Egypt in the time of the Pharaoh, and to the idolatry they committed afterwards. To make it apply to Jesus Christ, he then must be the person `who sacrificed unto Baalim and burned incense to graven images'; for the person called out of Egypt by the collective name, Israel, and the persons committing this idolatry, are the same persons or the descendants of them.
This then can be no prophecy of Jesus Christ, unless they are willing to make an idolator of him. I pass on to the fourth passage called a prophecy by the writer of the book of Matthew.
This is introduced by a story told by nobody but himself, and scarcely believed by anybody, of the slaughter of all the children under two years old, by the command of Herod. A thing which it is not probable should be done by Herod, as he only held an office under the Roman Government, to which appeals could always be had, as we see in the case of Paul. Matthew, however, having made or told his story, says, ii,17, 18, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying--In Ramah there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they were not."
This passage is in Jeremiah xxxi, 15; and this verse, when separated from the verses before and after it, and which explains its application, might with equal propriety be applied to every case of wars, sieges and other violences, such as the Christians themselves have done often to the Jews, where mothers have lamented the loss of their children.
There is nothing in the verse, taken singly, that designates or points out any particular application of it otherwise than it points to some circumstances which, at the time of writing it, had already happened, and not to a thing yet to happen, for the verse is in the preter or past tense. I go to explain the case and show the application of the verse.
Jeremiah lived in the time that Nebuchadnezzar besieged, took, plundered and destroyed Jerusalem, and led the Jews captive to Babylon. He carried his violence against the Jews to every extreme. He slew the
sons of King Zedekiah before his face, he then put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and kept him in prison till the day of his death.
It is of this time of sorrow and suffering to the Jews that Jeremiah is speaking. Their Temple was destroyed, their land desolated, their nation and government totally broken up, and themselves, men women and children, carried into captivity. They had too many sorrows of their own, immediately before their eyes, to permit them, or any of their chiefs, to be employing themselves on things that might, or might not , happen in the world seven hundred years afterwards.
It is, as already observed, of this time of sorrow and suffering to the Jews that Jeremiah is speaking in the verse in question. In the next two verses (16, 17), he endeavors to console the sufferers by giving them hopes,
and, according to the fashion of speaking in those days, assurances from the Lord (that their sufferings should have an end, and that their children should return again to their own land). But I leave the verse to speak for themselves, and the Old Testament to testify against the New.
Jeremiah xxxi, 15. "Thus saith the Lord, a voice WAS heard in Ramah {it is in the preter tense}, lamentation and bitter weeping: Rachel weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for her children because they were not." Verse 16, "Thus saith the Lord: Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and THEY shall come again from the land of the enemy." Verse 17,--"And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border."
By what strange ignorance or imposition is it, that the children of which Jeremiah speaks (meaning the people of the Jewish nation, scripturally called children of Israel, and not mere infants under two years old), and who were to return again from the land of the enemy, and come again into their own borders, can mean the children that Matthew makes Herod to slaughter? Could those return again from the land of the enemy, or how can the land of the enemy be applied to them? Could they come again to their own borders?
Good heavens! How the world has been imposed upon by testament-makers, priestcraft and pretended prophecies. I pass on to the fifth passage called a prophecy of Jesus Christ.
This, like two of the former, is introduced by dream. Joseph dreamed another dream, and dreamed of another angel. And Matthew is again the historian of the dream and the dreamer. If it were asked how Mathew could know what Joseph dreamed, neither the Bishop nor all the Church could answer the question.
Perhaps it was Matthew that dreamed, and not Joseph; that is, Joseph dreamed by proxy, in Matthew's brain, as they tell us Daniel dreamed for Nebuchadnezzar. But be this as it may, I go on with my subject.
The account of this dream is in Matthew ii, 19-23. "But when Herod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt , saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother and go into the land of Israel; for they are dead which sought the young child's life. And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel."
"But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither. Notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream here is another dream he turned aside into the parts of Galilee; and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
Here is good circumstantial evidence that Matthew dreamed, for there is no such passage in all the Old Testament; and I invite the Bishop, and all the priests in Christendom, including those in America, to produce it. I pass on to the sixth passage, called a prophecy of Jesus Christ.
This, as Swift says on another occasion, is lugged in head and shoulders; it need only to be seen in order to be hooted as a forced and farfetched piece of imposition.
Matthew iv, 12-16. "Now when Jesus heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee: and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the seacoast, in the borders of Zebulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias {Isaiah} the prophet, saying, The land of Zebulon and the land of Nephthalim, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light is springing upon them."
I wonder that Matthew has not made the cris-cross-row, or the Christ-cross-row (I know not how the priests spell it) into a prophecy. He might as well have done this as cut out these unconnected and undescriptive
sentences from the place they stand in and dubbed them with that title. The words, however, are in Isaiah ix, 1, 2, as follows: "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphthalim, and afterwards did more grievously afflict her by way of the sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations."
All this relates to two circumstances that had already happened at the time these words in Isaiah were written. The one, where the land of Zebulon and Naphthali had been lightly afflicted, and afterwards more
grievously by the way of the sea.
But observe, reader, how Matthew has falsified the text. He begins his quotation at a part of the verse where there is not so much as a comma, and thereby cuts off everything that relates to the first affliction. He then
leaves out all that relates to the second affliction, and by this means leaves out everything that makes the verse intelligible, and reduces it to a senseless skeleton of names of towns.
To bring this imposition of Matthew clearly and immediately before the eye of the reader, I will repeat the verse, and put between brackets {} the words he has left out...
"{Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation when at the first he lightly afflicted} the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphthali {and did afterwards more grievously afflict her} by the way of the
sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations."
What gross imposition is it to gut, as the phrase is, a verse in this manner, render it perfectly senseless, and then pull it off on a credulous world as a prophecy. I proceed to the next verse.
Verse 2. "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." All this is historical, and not in the least prophetical. The whole is in the preter tense: it speaks of things that HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED at the time the words were written, and not of things to be accomplished afterwards.
As then the passage is in no possible sense prophetical, nor intended to be so, and that to attempt to make it so is not only to falsify the original but to commit a criminal imposition, it is matter of no concern to us, other-
wise than as curiosity, to know who the people were which the passage speaks that sat in darkness, and what the light was that shined in upon them.
If we look into the preceding chapter, Isaiah viii, of which ix is only a continuation, we shall find the writer speaking, at verse nineteen of "witches and wizards who peep about and mutter," and of people who make
application to them; and he preaches and exhorts them against this darksome practice.
It is of this people, and of the darksome practice, or walking in darkness, that he is speaking at ix, 2; and with respect to the light that had shined in upon them, it refers entirely to his own ministry, and to the bold-
ness of it, which opposed itself to that of the witches and wizards who peeped about and muttered.
Isaiah is, upon the whole, a wild, disorderly writer, preserving in general no clear chain of perception in the arrangement of his ideas, and consequently producing no defined conclusions from them.
It is the wildness of his style, the confusion of his ideas, and the ranting metaphors he employs, that have afforded so many opportunities to priestcraft in some cases, and to superstition in others, to impose those
defects upon the world as prophecies of Jesus Christ.
Finding no direct meaning in them, and not knowing what to make of them, and supposing at the same time they were intended to have a meaning, they supplied the defect by inventing a meaning of their own, and
called it his. I have however in this place done Isaiah the justice to rescue him from the claws of Matthew, who has torn him unmercifully to pieces, and from the imposition or ignorance of priests and commentators, by letting Isaiah speak for himself.
If the words `walking in darkness', and `light breaking in', could in any case be applied prophetically, which they cannot be, they would better apply to the times we now live in than to any other. The world has `walked in
darkness' for eighteen hundred years, both as to religion and to government, and it is only since the American Revolution began that light has broken in.
The belief of one God, whose attributes are revealed to us in the book or scripture of the creation, which no human hand can counterfeit or falsify, and not in the written or printed book which, as Matthew has shown, can be altered or falsified by ignorance or design, is now making its way among us: and as to government, the light is already gone forth, and while men ought to be careful not to be blinded by the excess of it, as at certain time in France when everything was Robespierrean violence, they ought to reverence, and even adore it, with all the perserverance that true wisdom can inspire.
Examination of the Prophecies:The Book of Matthew passages 7-10