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 He blames the change on replacement theology, which states that the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel is no longer valid because the Mosaic Covenant was abolished with the coming of Yashua.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

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

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

It is evident that there is a difference between the two New Testament passages 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 faithful Jew 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 most cases, and since the writer of the present form of the Book of Matthew is not believed to be the original Matthew, the change had to have been made at a later date. Exactly when it happened cannot accurately be determined. It could have been made by early copyists since some existent manuscripts date back to the fourth century A.D., near the time of the Council of Nice. It is unlikely to have happened much later.

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

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, especially since some versions use cross-references which link these passages. Based on the many problems that translators have and their willingness to admit that their work is not perfect, my charge may be too harsh.

Let us look at what the New Testament passages say. That everyone in the world will mourn when the Messiah returns to the earth is a statement which seems to be quite possible. However, for everyone in the world to see Him coming on the clouds, it would be necessary for Him to create a miracle in defiance of His laws of physics and astronomy. He will arrive 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 the whole 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 Greek word 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 the Jews as God's chosen people. Throughout the centuries, Jews have been mistreated by Christians and blamed for the death of the Messiah. Have Christians been innocent of all wrong in regard to Yashua HaMashiach?

This change appears to be a subtle way of de-Judaizing the New Testament. Let us 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 is through 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 an effort to translate into the language of the common people, the Jewishness has been eliminated. Thus, HaMashiach becomes Christos, Christ, Christo, Christus, Cristo, Kristi, and Kristus.

All of these forms come from a Greek word which means anointed. Since the 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 means anointed or anointed one in Hebrew. Why use Christ when we can use Messiah?

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