I’d recommend reading Psalm 22 alongside the Dead Sea Scroll evidence and Zechariah 12:10. I don’t think it definitively answers all objections but it may lend additional context to the issue.
I hardly see how literal compositions written by two men (David & Zachariah) who were separated by 500 years are referencing a futuristic event of a death penalty that is supposed to occur many hundreds of years in the future. I don’t see the connection leading to a 33 AD common point in time wherein these specific things are suppose to occur. Rather, I see the writers speaking in their own times to their own peoples, and dealing with their own problems leading up to near futuristic events over the horizon.
Zachariah’s pierced does not lend me to visualize or imagine a futuristic Messiah being nailed to a cross by foreign invaders/overlords (Romans). This is entirely a Christian church interpretation in an effort to find something in the Old Testament to fit their new narrative in creating religion. As you know, the use of the word pierced (stabbed?) has been debated since long before our time and scholars argue for multiple interpretations in what exactly is being implied in Zachariah’s prophetic oracle.
For reference:
Num 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
2 Kings 18:21 Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him.
Luke 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
So, yes, we can look at the context from different angles and determine that crucifixion and capital punishment is not explicit to the text in question.
I’d agree that Zechariah 12:10 does not explicitly describe crucifixion or Roman execution, but the argument is not that Zechariah gave a detailed prediction of that event, but that the prophet’s image of a pierced figure whose death leads to mourning and repentance is found in Jesus. It could even be said that there are two telescopic images here: one fulfilled in the crucifixion and a second to come.
In that way, the belief is consistent with other “types” seen in the Old Testament—the fulfillment of the patterns in the aggregate, not just in the word “pierced.” Arguably the best image for the crucifixion is the lifting up of the snake on the staff of Moses, with those who look on it being “saved.”
I’d agree that Zechariah 12:10 does not explicitly describe crucifixion or Roman execution, but the argument is not that Zechariah gave a detailed prediction of that event, but that the prophet’s image of a pierced figure whose death leads to mourning and repentance is found in Jesus. It could even be said that there are two telescopic images here: one fulfilled in the crucifixion and a second to come.
In that way, the belief is consistent with other “types” seen in the Old Testament—the fulfillment of the patterns in the aggregate, not just in the word “pierced.” Arguably the best image for the crucifixion is the lifting up of the snake on the staff of Moses, with those who look on it being “saved.”
The lifting of Moses’s serpent as a type of Christ as labeled by Christian writers is a great example of how they took something from the Old Testament in effort to try and find anything to fit the sacrificial New Testament narrative. I don’t buy it at all! It’s fake New Testament news and pure thievery. A real prophecy from someone seeing (seer) the future and making the connection between that and Christ would have explicit details like we read in the Book of Mormon which does not mince words but spells it out clearly. Biblical so-called prophecies of Jesus are cheap and lack any detail, but the ones in the Book of Mormon are exactly what we should get if those things were true. But none of it is historically true. It’s just religion playing its hand and dealing cards to suit one’s fancy.
The fact that 2,000 years have expired and Jesus’ imminent return failed to materialize is all the proof we need that New Testament writers did not know what they were talking about. The day of Christ’s return is not soon at hand and he will not come in a day, or a night, or in a thousand years from now. He is not coming back, ever. The Book of Revelations is a total man-made false dream. Probably drug induced!
The lifting of Moses’s serpent as a type of Christ as labeled by Christian writers is a great example of how they took something from the Old Testament in effort to try and find anything to fit the sacrificial New Testament narrative.
Interestingly, if the Nehushtan had been a "type of Christ" as Christians have asserted, I wonder what they make of King Hezekiah destroying the Nehushtan because the people were worshipping it. (2 Kings 18:4) If the Nehushtan had been a "type of Christ", Hezekiah's act would have indicated that Christ should not be worshipped.
This typology business can have unintented consequences.
I also find it odd that Yahweh would have used a snake to represent Christ.
I also find it odd that Yahweh would have used a snake to represent Christ.
Moses/Yahweh were clueless about what the future entailed for their new cult. It was the blind leading the blind on a trail northward. If he had used a bronze lion or lamb then it might have been a better fit for Jesus and future Christian ideas of salvation. But as it were, Moses took the Egyptian route, quite literally. Yahweh was a construct of Moses’s imagination and he used the imagery indicative of protection and healing powers used by the Egyptians. The serpent on a pole was NOT a revelatory depiction of a future Messiah being crucified. That concept was made up by the Christians in order to attempt to validate their cult.
The traditional interpretation is that Jesus “became sin,” represented by the snake. The brass snake was never meant to be worshipped as a graven image.
It would surprise me if you had never read about or heard this view.
The traditional interpretation is that Jesus “became sin,” represented by the snake... It would surprise me if you had never read about or heard this view.
If you take the metaphor to its logical conclusion, you might realize why Jesus "becoming sin" doesn't work theologically.
The traditional interpretation is that Jesus “became sin,” represented by the snake... It would surprise me if you had never read about or heard this view.
If you take the metaphor to its logical conclusion, you might realize why Jesus "becoming sin" doesn't work theologically.
Fair enough, but the notion isn’t that Jesus “became” sinful, or that He sinned. Rather the argument is that he bore sin, much as the bronze serpent symbolized the curse that was being healed.
Is there something specific you had in mind?
The scapegoat you have mentioned carries the same symbology.
