In his book Messianic Jewish Manifesto, David Stern points out a changein Matthew 24: 30 from Zechariah 12: 11, 12, of which it is a quote. This change appearsin most versions. He blames the change on replacement theology, which states that the Jewishclaim to the Land of Israel is no longer valid because the Mosaic Covenant was abolished withthe coming of Yashua. I propose to examine this claim with reference to passages from variousversions of the Bible.

A letter from Emperor Constantine to the churches of the Catholic Church atthe time of the Council of Nice in A.D. 325 was very critical of the Jews and their faith. Onesentence reads as follows: "Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble ofthe Jews." Although the specific point of interest was the celebration of Easter instead ofPassover, Constantine seemed to oppose anything Jewish.

I shall quote nine versions in regard to Matthew 24: 30, as well as toRevelation 1: 7, both of which refer back to Zechariah 12: 10 and 12. The passage inZechariah is quoted from those versions which include the Old Testament. The point for which towatch is who, in each passage, will mourn on the return of Yashua. Following the quotations ismy evaluation.

It is evident that there is a difference between the two New Testamentpassages and the Old Testament one. There are three possible conclusions:

1. Jesus misquoted Zechariah in Matthew and in Revelation;
2. Zechariah misinterpreted his revelation from God; and
3. There was a change made by man after the original writings by Matthew and John.

No true Christian would accept the first or the second conclusion. No faithfulJew would accept the second one. That leaves only the third one.

Since the statements in both places in the New Testament are the same in mostcases, and since the writer of the present form of the Book of Matthew is not believed to bethe original Matthew, the change had to have been made at a later date. Exactly when ithappened cannot accurately be determined. It could have been made by early copyists since someexistent manuscripts date back to the fourth century A.D., near the time of the Council ofNice. It is unlikely to have happened much later.

Later copyists are known to have made errors and interpolated notes into thetext. However, the early manuscripts would probably exonerate them from having made thechange.

Fault can lie with modern preparers of Greek texts and with modern translators.If a few translators have caught the discrepancy, some others should have also, especiallysince some versions use cross-references which link these passages. Based on the many problemsthat translators have and their willingness to admit that their work is not perfect, my chargemay be too harsh.

Let us look at what the New Testament passages say. That everyone in the worldwill mourn when the Messiah returns to the earth is a statement which seems to be quitepossible. However, for everyone in the world to see Him coming on the clouds, it would benecessary for Him to create a miracle in defiance of His laws of physics and astronomy. He willarrive at the Mount of Olives, near Jerusalem (Zechariah 14: 4). Throughout chapters 12,13, and 14, Zechariah is talking about Jerusalem, the surrounding area, and its people, not thewhole world (or earth) and its people.

In Zechariah 12: 12, the Hebrew word translated as land is 'eretz.This word also means country, earth, and world. In Matthew 24: 30 and Revelation 1: 7, the Greekword translated earth is ge. This word also means, country, land, and world. Thus,it was very easy to make the change.

Replacement theology among Christian groups would diminish or eliminate theJews as God's chosen people. Throughout the centuries, Jews have been mistreated by Christiansand blamed for the death of the Messiah. Have Christians been innocent of all wrong in regardto Yashua HaMashiach?

This change appears to be a subtle way of de-Judaizing the New Testament. Letus not forget that the Scriptures were written by Jews, or those closely associated with Jews,and basically for Jews. However, the messages of both Testaments have meaning for all people-- Jews and Gentiles alike.

There is another way in which translators have Gentilized the Bible. That isthrough the changing of proper names. Some examples are as follows: God (Yahweh), Jesus Christ(Yashua HaMashiach or Yashua the Messiah), Moses (Moshe), Isaac (Yitzchak), Matthew(Mattityahu), Peter (Kefa), John (Yochanan), and Paul (Sha'ul). These are just a few. In aneffort to translate into the language of the common people, the Jewishness has been eliminated.Thus, HaMashiach becomes Christos, Christ, Christo, Christus, Cristo, Kristi, andKristus.

All of these forms come from a Greek word which means anointed. Sincethe Greeks had no ceremony for installing leaders by pouring oil on them as the Israelites had,the people could not comprehend the word Christ. The word Mashiach meansanointed or anointed one in Hebrew. Why use Christ when we can useMessiah?

Has the Jewishness of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, beendiminished and, as some scholars feel, even been made anti-Semitic? Look closely as you readyour Bible next time. Are the Jews still God's people, or have they been replaced by theChristian church? How important is the Old Testament to you? Is it something that is no longerrelevant, or does it point to Yashua the Messiah?. I hope that this survey causes you tothink on these questions. I believe that Yahweh will keep His promises to the children ofIsrael. Thus, Christians need to be more cognizant of not only the New Testament but also theOld Testament.