Featured Items Ritchie Christian Media

Question Box

Help would be appreciated as to whether the words in Zechariah 13.6 – "What are these wounds in thine hands" - refer to Christ.

Because of the mention of the wounds many assume that the verse must refer to Christ’s wounds, but I do not believe that the words in the context of the passage refer to Christ. The section in which they are set in vv. 3 to 6 has to do with false prophets of a future day, when God, just before the Lord returns to the earth, will begin to cleanse the land of Israel of false prophets and unclean spirits (v.2). These prophets will deceive by wearing hairy garments - a visible sign of a prophet, but these are removed to try to hide the fact that they were false prophets. They will protest that they were no prophets at all. Such will be the suspicion against them that they will be asked, "What are these wounds…?". Those who will be found out will experience strong feeling against them and will run the risk of being put to death.

Here are my reasons for not interpreting Zechariah 13.6 as referring to the Messiah. In the first place the false prophet in that day will strongly protest and say he is no prophet. There is no way this could be true of Christ. He could never say, "I am no prophet" (v.5). Second, He could not say, "I have been made a bondman (slave) from my youth" (RV). Third, our Lord was not wounded in the house of His friends, but in the house of His enemies. Tragically, the Jews were no friends of Christ – "they hated him". Some render the phrase as, "…wounds between thine hands", and not, "…in thine hands". Whether that be a correct translation or not, the wounds in the context appear to be self-inflicted, such as was common among pagans of the ancient East who, in their religious frenzy, made incisions on the body to please the gods or to induce them to give favours. The context points to a false prophet and not to our Lord Jesus who at Calvary was wounded for our transgressions. To understand the reference to the wounds it is better to connect v.6 with the previous passage in vv.3 to 5 rather than with the following verse which clearly refers to the Messiah’s suffering on the cross.

John J Stubbs

What is the difference between the baptism in Matthew 28.19, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", and that practised in Acts, e.g. "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2.38), "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8.16; 19.5), and "in the name of the Lord" (10.48)?

In the closing verses (28.18-20) of Matthew, the King commissions His disciples for the proclamation of the Kingdom. In essence the command is, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…" (or "disciple all nations") i.e. to preach the Kingdom worldwide.

The Lord Jesus continued, "…baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". This is not, in the opinion of the writer, some formula to be recited "parrot fashion" on the occasion of a baptism. It was no longer circumcision, but baptism, for those who were commissioned here were to make disciples, not to Judaism, but to the Lord Himself.

This baptism is "in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Thus the three Persons of the Godhead are described under one name, implying one true God; disciples were to be baptised into the authority of the name. The fuller revelation of the Godhead is contrasted with the name Jehovah by which God was known to Israel.

As to the references in Acts, when we read, "And he commanded them to be baptised in (Gk. en) the name of the Lord" (10.48), the clause "in the name of the Lord" governs the verb "commanded" and not the word "baptised".

The Greek preposition eis meaning "to" or "into" is used in both 8.16 and 19.5: "they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus". The earlier reference is to the Samaritans who were converted through the preaching of Philip the evangelist, and that in ch.19 to certain disciples who knew only John’s baptism. In both cases there was special importance attached to the confession of the right name: "into the name of the Lord Jesus".

When preaching to the Jews, Peter says, "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in (Gk. epi, upon) the name of Jesus Christ" (2.38). It was important for the Jew to recognise that the despised Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Christ, the promised Messiah.

In none of the places in is "the name of Jesus Christ" or "of the Lord Jesus" given as a formula used. The baptism referred to by the Lord Jesus in His commission is the same as that practised according to the book of the Acts.

David E West

Subscribe

Back issues are provided here as a free resource. To support production and to receive current editions of Believer's Magazine, please subscribe...

Print Edition

Digital Edition

Copyright © 2017 John Ritchie Ltd. Home