Tovia Singer

How misused: Singer claims this prophecy refers exclusively to King Hezekiah, not Jesus, and uses past tense verbs to describe an event already occurred. He also minimizes the significance of divine titles ('Mighty God', 'Everlasting Father') by suggesting they are not truly divine or are absent in the Septuagint, arguing Christian translations corrupt the original.

Scripture's answer: The Hebrew text uses prophetic perfect tense, describing a future event with certainty. The titles attributed to the child are explicitly divine, pointing to a unique, extraordinary figure beyond a mere king. The Septuagint, while different, doesn't negate the Masoretic Text's clear language. Christian interpretation understands this as a direct messianic prophecy ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is both human and divine.

How misused: Singer repeatedly alleges that John deliberately changed 'me' to 'him' in John 19:37 when quoting Zechariah 12:10 to fit a Christian narrative, implying theological dishonesty and textual manipulation.

Scripture's answer: The Apostle John was likely quoting from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament widely used in the first century, which renders the verse with 'him.' This was a legitimate textual variant and recognized translation, not a deliberate falsification by John. The prophecy speaks of looking upon the one 'whom they have pierced,' universally applied by Christians to Christ's crucifixion.

How misused: Singer fundamentally misinterprets the 70-week prophecy, shifting its starting point from a decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the destruction of the First Temple. He denies its explicit Messianic timing and events, such as the 'Anointed One being cut off,' prior to the temple's destruction, often reassigning 'Messiah' to figures like Cyrus or the Jewish priesthood itself.

Scripture's answer: The prophecy in Daniel 9 clearly specifies a starting point 'from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem' (9:25). Christian theology identifies the 'Anointed One' (Messiah) who is 'cut off' as Jesus Christ, whose death made atonement for sin possible before the Second Temple's destruction in 70 AD. Singer's reinterpretation distorts the clear chronology and purpose of the prophecy.

How misused: Singer consistently asserts that the 'suffering servant' is the nation of Israel as a collective, not an individual Messiah, and dismisses Christian interpretations as 'salad bar hermeneutics' that ignore surrounding context. He denies the individual, substitutionary atonement language for another's sins.

Scripture's answer: While other 'servant songs' in Isaiah may refer to Israel collectively, Isaiah 53 uses intensely personal language ('He,' 'His,' 'Him') and describes a vicarious suffering for the sins of 'many.' The individualistic, atoning nature of the suffering is compellingly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who bore the sins of the world. The New Testament directly applies this passage to Jesus.

How misused: Singer misuses this to argue that 'son' refers exclusively to Israel as a collective, implicitly denying the unique divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and equating any opposition to Israel with being 'at war with God.'

Scripture's answer: While Israel is corporately called God's 'firstborn son' in a chosen sense, this does not preclude the unique, ontological Sonship of God the Father to Jesus Christ. The New Testament presents Jesus as the archetypal 'Son' who perfectly embodies Israel's calling and fulfills its destiny. This cannot be used to negate Christ's divinity or universalize divine protection to the modern state of Israel unconditionally.

How misused: Singer vehemently denies the 'pierced' reading, claiming the Masoretic Text says 'like a lion' and that 'pierced' is a Christian corruption invented to fit Jesus' crucifixion. He ignores textual and translational evidence for 'pierced' in ancient versions.

Scripture's answer: While the Masoretic Text (MT) has an ambiguous Hebrew word, 'ka'ari' (like a lion), older versions and ancient translations (e.g., Septuagint variant, Syriac) support the reading 'pierced' (or 'dug'). This textual difficulty has long been recognized, but a strong case, both textual and theological, can be made for 'pierced,' especially given its clear fulfillment in Christ. Singer’s dismissal is dismissive of textual scholarship.

How misused: Singer dismisses Trinitarian interpretations of the plural 'us' by asserting it refers exclusively to God addressing angels, thereby denying inherent plurality within the Godhead. He grounds this in a dualistic understanding of man's nature.

Scripture's answer: While 'divine council' interpretations are possible, the consistent use of 'us' in creation and direct address from God strongly suggests an internal divine conversation or a plurality of persons within the unified Godhead. This usage, combined with other Old Testament hints (e.g., 'angel of the Lord', divine wisdom), lays the groundwork for the fuller revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament.

How misused: Singer claims this passage literally refers to Christmas trees, asserting it's a prophecy against their pagan origins and condemning Christian Christmas celebrations as idolatry based on this interpretation.

Scripture's answer: Jeremiah 10 condemns ancient pagan idolatrous practices involving cutting down wood, carving idols, and decorating them, not modern Christmas trees. Applying this verse anachronistically to Christmas trees ignores the historical and cultural context of Jeremiah's prophecy. It's a misapplication of scripture to demonize Christian traditions.