Journey of a Heretic

By E. J. Writes

What if your entire life was centred around a mistake? E. J. Writes spent decades wrestling with doctrine, faith and gender identity. A degree in Theology from an Evangelical college, a passion for preaching and pastoral ministry and a determination to believe, could not silence the question:

 

What if Jesus is not the Messiah?

 

Determined to find answers, E. J. studied hundreds of Bible verses from various perspectives, reflecting on their implications.

 

This book is a record of that study and how its implications changed E. J.'s life.

• Language: English
• Publisher: E. J. Writes
• Release date: Jun 12, 2022
• ISBN: 9798201689414

Book preview

Introduction

––––––––

‘Will you lead us in prayer?’

My heart must have skipped three beats. The worship leader was watching me, but the rest of the congregation bowed their heads in expectation.

Not even my family knew that I was doubting my faith.

I coughed, made an excuse about my throat and shook my head.

Someone else volunteered and I closed my eyes, relieved.

I would need to decide soon. It would be my turn to preach in a few weeks.

It had all begun with an innocent desire to better understand the Christian Bible. Although I had nearly completed a Bachelor of Christian Theology, the more I learned, the more I wanted to know. I wanted my personal Bible study and my occasional preaching to be better informed. I longed to understand the Bible the way its first readers did, and that meant learning about its Jewish context. After all, Jesus and most of his early followers were Jewish. Their Bible was the Old Testament.

Initially, all my knowledge about Judaism came from Christian sources. Then a trip to Israel made me rethink everything I thought I knew. I heard Jews speak about the Bible, drawing from details in the original Hebrew and interpretations developed over thousands of years. There was such depth and commitment that I wanted to learn more directly from them.

Sermons and articles from Conservative and Orthodox Jewish websites taught me things that years of Christian Theological study and church attendance had not. How could this be possible without the New Testament and the Holy Spirit? I was learning so much that I planned to write a book about what Christians can learn from Judaism.

My Christianity went from Baptist to Messianic as I saw value in obeying what I could of the Old Testament, and learning from the Jewish sages. It made more sense to me to recognise Biblical Festivals than Christian ones with Pagan origins.

At the same time, I was looking for firmer, more objective evidence for my faith. I had placed a lot of weight on having experienced relief from depression, but I was still prone to intermittent despair. As much as I blamed it on circumstances not related to my faith, the roots of my depression were inextricably linked to my beliefs, as I will explain later. While they mostly remained in the shadows, they threatened to resurface at any time. I no longer felt comfortable telling people, ‘I know it’s true because God healed me.’ I needed something stronger than my feelings to support my ability to witness.

Then I began to wonder why the Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah when Christians see it laid out so clearly, even in the Old Testament. And further, I wondered why the New Testament is so different from the Old Testament. How could I work in Christian Ministry while I was uncertain of so many things? What should I encourage my children to believe?

Eventually, I couldn’t push my doubts away anymore. I needed to investigate further, in the Bible and elsewhere.

What if Jesus is not the Messiah?

1. ‘The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed’

––––––––

As a Protestant Christian, I always judged any teaching according to its consistency with Scripture. While I was firmly committed to the ‘Scripture Alone’ rule, I wasn’t entirely comfortable with the other motto of Christian theology: ‘The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.’ This is the English translation of a famous Latin quote from St. Augustine. It means the New Testament is only fully understood in the context of its Old Testament background. Absolutely. But it also insists the ideas of the New Testament including Jesus, his death and resurrection, are concealed in the Old Testament; revealed only through the hindsight of the New Testament. For example, the Passover lamb, the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat, and the ram which Abraham sacrificed in place of his son Isaac, are all given additional significance when understood as signs of Jesus in his role as an atoning blood sacrifice. This is called typology.

Before I had any doubts about Christianity, I preferred to use the Old Testament as my standard by which to interpret and judge the New Testament. After all, wasn't that how the people in the first century would have treated it? I wanted a first-century disciple’s perspective.

––––––––

Typology or misquotes?

Decades ago, I looked up the Old Testament passages cited in the New Testament and was disturbed to find them misquoted and taken out of context. When read in their context without a Christian lens they do not point to Jesus. At the time, I accepted the standard explanation that New Testament writers gave additional meaning to Old Testament verses under the authority and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I accepted that theory but was never comfortable with it. Would God really twist his own Word that way? Here are a few examples.

Matthew says Jesus’ conception fulfilled a prophecy:

––––––––

²⁰ But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ²¹ She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ ²² All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

²³ ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel’ (which means, God with us) (Matthew 1:20–23).

––––––––

The prophecy Matthew is citing is Isaiah 7:14, which was given in the context of Assyrian invasion.

¹⁴ Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ¹⁵ He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. ¹⁶ For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. ¹⁷ The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria (Isaiah 7:14–17).

––––––––

Matthew allegedly had the authority and insight of the Holy Spirit to apply Isaiah 7:14 in this way which follows a common pagan myth of a virgin birth of a divine child. The Hebrew word translated here as ‘virgin’, is ambiguous but usually means ‘young woman’. Many Christian scholars agree that Isaiah did not predict a virgin birth. This was well discussed during the 20 Dec 2014 episode of Premier Insight’s podcast Unbelievable?, hosted by Justin Brierley. The episode can be accessed at https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-v2vs9-6324b9.

A few verses later, Isaiah describes the conception and birth of a son which seems to have occurred not hundreds of years later, but soon after he received and wrote the words of 7:14–17.

––––––––

³ And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, ‘Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; ⁴ for before the boy knows how to cry My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria’ (Isaiah 8:3–4).

––––––––

Matthew 2:18 refers to the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem under King Herod’s orders as if it too had been described hundreds of years before.

––––––––

¹⁸ ‘A voice was heard in Ramah,

weeping and loud lamentation,

Rachel weeping for her children;

she refused to be comforted, because they are no more’ (Matthew 2:18).

––––––––

This reference to weeping in Ramah and the grief of Rachel comes from Jeremiah 31:15. Rachel’s two sons are the ancestors of three tribes, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, and Jeremiah is lamenting the exile of Jerusalem and the rest of Judah into Babylonian exile.

––––––––

¹⁵ Thus says the LORD:

‘A voice is heard in Ramah,

lamentation and bitter weeping.

Rachel is weeping for her children;

she refuses to be comforted for her children,

because they are no more.’

¹⁶ Thus says the LORD:

‘Keep your voice from weeping,

and your eyes from tears,

for there is a reward for your work,’

declares the LORD,

‘and they shall come back from the land of the enemy.

¹⁷ There is hope for your future,’

declares the LORD,

‘and your children shall come back to their own country’ (Jeremiah 31:15–17).

––––––––

Hebrews 10:5–7 ‘. . . you have prepared body for me . . .’ initially sounds like it fits the idea of the incarnation, the eternal son of God having been given a human body:

––––––––

⁵ Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,

but a body have you prepared for me;

⁶ in burnt offerings and sin offerings

you have taken no pleasure.

⁷ Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God’ (Hebrews 10:5–7).

––––––––

This passage is attributed to Psalm 40:6–8 but is quite different, with God’s obedient servant having been given not a body, but an open ear.

––––––––

⁶ In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted,

but you have given me an open ear.

Burnt offering and sin offering

you have not required.

⁷ Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come;

in the scroll of the book it is written of me:

⁸ I delight to do your will, O my God;

your law is within my heart’ (Psalm 40:6–8).

––––––––

Similarly, Psalm 118, written by David and describing events in his own life, is often quoted as if it points to Jesus. For example, verses 22 and 23, which are quoted in Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:7, seem to imply that the Messiah was expected to be rejected, a concept foreign to Old Testament prophecy.