مزمور 110

To not Know "the L-rd" from "my master" Can End in Disaster

[Psalms 110]

Messiah Truth

I. Introduction

Psalms 110, an important Christian "proof text", is used by Christian apologists and missionaries as "testimony" from within the Hebrew Bible that validates theological doctrines, such as the Trinity and the divinity of the Messiah.

A rigorous analysis of the Hebrew text of this psalm demonstrates that these claims, which are based on mistranslations from the Hebrew and a lack of knowledge about Judaism, have no basis or support within the Hebrew Bible.

II. Comparison of Christian and Jewish English Translations

Side-by-side renditions of Psalms 110 are displayed in Table II-1. The King James Version (KJV) rendition also shows references to key passages in the New Testament, which cross-reference the respective portions of this psalm. [The references are found in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), but the corresponding passages, quoted below the table, are taken from the KJV.] Highlighted words and phrases will be discussed later as part of the analysis.

Table II-1 – Psalms 110

King James Version Translation		Jewish Translation from the Hebrew	Hebrew Text
Psalms 110
1	The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.⁽¹⁾	Of David a psalm. The word of the L-rd [Y-H-V-H] to my master [ladoni]: "Sit at/[Wait for] My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."
2	The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.	The L-rd [Y-H-V-H] will send the staff of your might from Zion; rule in the midst of your enemies!
3	Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.	Your people will volunteer in the majesty of their holiness, on the day of your battle; when still the dew of your youth was upon you, fresh from the womb of dawn.
4	The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.⁽²⁾	The L-rd [Y-H-V-H] has sworn, and will not change His mind, "on my word, you are to serve for ever, my righteous king." [alternatively, "you are a priest for ever, in the manner of Malki-Tzedeq."]
5	The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.⁽³⁾	The L-rd [A-donai] is at your right hand, He has crushed kings in the day of His wrath.
6	He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.	He will execute justice among the nations, [their land] is filled with corpses; he has crushed the head of a great land.
7	He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.	He would drink from a stream on the way; therefore, he would raise his head.

1. Direct "quotes": Matthew 22:44(KJV) - The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my

right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Mark 12:36(KJV) - For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD

said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make

thine enemies thy footstool.

Luke 20:42, 43(KJV) - And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The

LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Acts 2:34-35(KJV) – (34) For David is not ascended into the heavens: but

he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou

on my right hand, (35) Until I make thy foes thy

footstool.

Hebrew 1:13(KJV) - But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on

my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy

footstool?

Allusions: Matthew 26:64(KJV) - Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say

unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on

the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of

heaven.

Colossians 3:1(KJV) - If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which

are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

Hebrews 8:1(KJV) - Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum:

We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of

the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

Hebrews 10:12(KJV) - But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins

for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

1 Corinthians 15:25(KJV) - For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under

his feet.

2. Hebrews 5:6,10(KJV) – (6) As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever

after the order of Melchisedec.

(10) Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 6:20(KJV) - Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an

high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:17,21(KJV) – (17) For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order

of Melchisedec.

(21) (For those priests were made without an oath; but this

with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and

will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of

Melchisedec:)

3. Romans 2:5(KJV) - But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto

thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the

righteous judgment of God;

Major discrepancies exist between the Jewish and Christian translations of this psalm, particularly as it concerns the opening verse. First, unlike most Christian Bibles, the KJV completely discarded the superscription "Of David a Psalm.". In the rest of the verse, the Hebrew term (adoni; pronounced ah-do-NEE), my lord/master, is rendered in the KJV and many other popular Christian Bibles as my Lord. This alludes to Jesus (via the capital "L"), who is G-d the Son, the second personage in the Trinity. The Tetragrammaton, , the ineffable title of the Creator that is written in the Hebrew via the four-letter sequence (yod-heh-vav-heh), Y-H-V-H, appears in Psalms 110:1,2,&4, and is punctuated with vowels to be pronounced ah-do-NA-i. This is rendered in the KJV as The LORD, alluding to G-d the Father, the first personage in the Trinity. The use of all capital letters aims to distinguish The LORD [G-d the Father] from The Lord [G-d the Son]. The actual word (A-donai), another one of several common titles used in the Hebrew Bible for the Creator, is the first word in Psalms 110:5. It should be noted that in the Hebrew, both (adoni), my lord/master, and (A-donai), G-d, are identically spelled, but are punctuated with different vowels. The KJV, having created the rendition my Lord for [(adoni), my lord/master] in Psalms 110:1, had no choice but to render [(A-donai), G-d] in Psalms 110:5 as "The Lord" (i.e., G-d the Son).

III. Overview of Christian and Jewish Interpretations

A. Overview of the Christian Perspective

Christians view Psalms 110 as a messianic psalm fulfilled by Jesus as both the Messiah (who, in Christian theology, is greater than his ancestor, King David) and, for Trinitarians, a divine being, the Son in the Trinity).

As can be seen from the numerous references to it, the authors of the New Testament had a great interest in this psalm. According to the Christian view, the explicit application of this psalm to Jesus is noted in several ways:

 By Jesus himself (e.g., Matt 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)

 By his apostles (e.g., Acts 2:33-35; Heb 1:13; 7:20-24)

 By frequent references to its language throughout the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 10:12-13)

The prolific use of Psalms 110 in the New Testament leaves no doubt in the mind of a Christian believer about its purely prophetic character. In other words, the Christian view is that, when the L-rd G-d speaks of the Messiah, and when David prophetically refers to the Messiah, who is his descendant, as my Lord in Psalms 110:1, it clearly shows this cannot refer to an ordinary person. Rather, it can only refer to the one who fulfills this verse in both ways, as a divine being and Messiah, namely, Jesus of Nazareth.

Psalms 110:1,4 are the two key verses in this psalm on which the Christian interpretation rests. Psalms 110:1 allegedly refers to Jesus as being invited to sit on the right side of G-d in glory, where he will wait for G-d (the Father) to judge the earth and bring all things into subjection under him (the Son). Psalms 110:4 speaks of a priest of the Most High G-d, Melchizedek (the common Christian transliteration will be used in reference to Christian claims), who came to Abraham, and to whom Abraham tithed one-tenth of all his goods. Thus, because Abraham tithed him, the Christian view holds that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham (who was Levi's great-grandfather). So that the Melchizedek priesthood, having preceded the Aaronic priesthood, is viewed as being superior to it and, thus, supplants and replaces it.

In Judaism, and according to Torah, the royal office (which was the domain of the Tribe of Judah) and the office of the priesthood (which was the domain of the Tribe of Levi) are separate entities, so that a priest may not be a king, and vice versa. But for Christianity, this psalm celebrates the exaltation of Jesus to the throne of an eternal and increasing kingdom and a perpetual priesthood that will see the subjugation of his enemies and the multiplication of his subjects, and which is rendered a certainty by the word and oath of the Almighty.

More detailed commentary may be found in the standard Christian commentaries such as, Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown.

B. The Jewish Perspective

Regardless of who its author was, the overall theme of Psalms 110 is that it speaks of David's legendary power, which came through divine favor that was earned by his righteousness. The author of this psalm assures King David of victory over the enemies of his people, the Jewish people.

Regarding the interpretation of this psalm, as is often the case, there are several perspectives offered by the Jewish Sages. The two most common interpretations are that this psalm is about either King David or our Patriarch Abraham. Another interpretation combines these two. Lastly, since King David's name is associated with the future King/Messiah (e.g., Jer 30:9; Ezek 37:24; Hos 3:5), a messianic interpretation of this psalm is also plausible.

The interpretation of this psalm by Rabbi Ibn Ezra (and adopted also by Rabbi David Qimhi [RADAQ]) as being about King David is according to the pshat, i.e., the simple/literal reading, wherein the superscription is "A Psalm for [or, concerning] David". It entails David's ordeal with King Saul [a Benjaminite, (y^emini) in Hebrew, e.g., Esther 2:5, a word that is identical to the Hebrew term for the phrase my right hand]. According to this view, David is asked to wait until his enemy (Saul) is brought down.

The interpretation by RASHI (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi) uses the apparent allusion to Malki-Tzedeq as a way to relate this psalm to Abraham and his battle with Amraphel, and his subsequent victory over the four enemy kingdoms (see Genesis14).

A melding of these two interpretations is possible when one reads this psalm as a prayer by an aging King David when his soldiers went to battle without him. In his prayer, King David refers to images of G-d's dealings with Abraham during his battle with the four kings, and he asks G-d to help him as He helped Abraham to prevail over his enemies.

Finally, since King David is also counted among the 55 Jewish prophets listed in the Hebrew Bible, and there is use made in this psalm of verbs conjugated in the future tense, it becomes plausible that there is allusion here to the future King/Messiah. As such, this psalm confirms some of the basic requirements the Messiah must meet, e.g., that he will be of the seed of David, victorious over all his enemies, a Torah scholar, and a world leader.

IV. Who Is Speaking to Whom? About What Are They Speaking?

The Christian interpretation of Psalms 110 is plagued by many problems, all of which appear to be connected to the most common Christian renditions of the first verse.

The Superscription

Christian renditions generally do not number the superscription at the head of a psalm and, in the case of Psalms 110, the KJV deleted the superscription altogether. Yet, it is noteworthy that the Christian perspective on this psalm depends on the assumption that King David is the author and speaker. On the other hand, the Jewish interpretations are not limited by such a restriction.

In the Hebrew text, the superscription reads (l^eDavid mizmor), where (l^e) is a preposition, (David) is the name David, and (mizmor) means a psalm. The Hebrew preposition (l^e) could have any of the following meanings: to or for, by, and in or into. Eliminating the last pair for obvious reasons, this particular superscription could indicate this psalm as having been either composed by David or composed for or dedicated to David. In other words, it is not possible to determine, with absolute certainty, that King David was the composer of this psalm.

Christian apologists and missionaries will cry "foul" here, charging that this is an after-the-fact attempt to use this ambiguity to force a biased interpretation of this psalm. Such charges are effectively countered with other instances in the Book of Psalms where the preposition (l^e) in the superscription means for and not by. The group of 11 psalms and songs for the Sons of Korah, Psalms 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 84, 85, 87, and 88, exemplify this. In each of these psalms, the superscription contains the following type of phrase:

Psalms 48:1 - A Song, a Psalm for the sons of Korah [(shir mizmor li'vnei korah)].

Then there is Psalms 72, composed by King David for his son Solomon:

Psalms 72:1,20 – (1) A Psalm for Solomon [(li'shlomoh)]. O G-d, give your judgments to a king; and your righteousness to a king’s son.

(20) The prayers of David the son of Jesse are completed.

In both cases, the preposition (l^e) changes to (li) due to a grammatical rule^¹[1]. These two examples demonstrate that the assumption on which the Christian view of this psalm is based, namely, that David must be its author, is not necessarily valid since it is not the only possibility here. Because this psalm is not written in the 1^st-person relative to David, it could have been composed by someone else, perhaps someone who served under David.

It is interesting to note that, in Psalms 72, King David speaks about himself in the 3^rd-person in the opening and closing verses, something that is also found in other Psalms written by David:

Psalms 144:1,10 – (1) A Psalm of David [(l^eDavid)]. Blessed is the L-rd my rock, Who trains my hands for the battle; my fingers for the war;

(10) Who gives salvation to the kings; Who delivers David His servant from the evil sword.

It is, therefore, reasonable to posit that King David authored Psalms 110, writing about himself in the 3^rd-person, or prophetically about the future King/Messiah. As a result, any one of the Jewish interpretations can be validated vis-à-vis the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the Jewish interpretations do not support the Christian perspective, since it is founded on mistranslations and on concepts that are not part of the Hebrew Bible.

Who Is Speaking to Whom in Psalms 110:1?

In the two renditions of Psalms 110:1 shown below, the equivalent Hebrew terms and their respective transliterations are placed in brackets following the highlighted translated phrases.

The KJV and other Christian translations render the opening verse this way:

Psalms 110:1(KJV) - The LORD [(Y-H-V-H)] said unto my Lord [(ladoni)], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The common Jewish translation of the opening verse is:

Psalms 110:1 - Of David a psalm. The word of the L-rd [(Y-H-V-H)] to my lord/master [(ladoni)]: "Sit at/[Wait for] My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

Clearly, both translations cannot be correct, and a further analysis of this verse will help determine which of these is the correct one.

The first phrase in the Hebrew text, the Tetragrammaton, (yod-heh-vav-heh), Y-H-V-H, is rendered as The LORD in the KJV, and as The L-rd in the Jewish translation. Both Christian and Jewish interpretations agree on this term as representing the Creator.

The next term in the Hebrew text, (ladoni, is rendered as unto my Lord in the KJV (note the capital "L"), and as to my lord/master in the Jewish translation (note the lower-case "l"/"m"). The Hebrew word (ladoni), pronounced as la-doh-nee), consists of two components: the preposition (l^e), which was encountered in Sec. IV.A, and which can only mean to in this case; and (adoni), which is the 1^st-person, singular conjugation (in the possessive) of the noun/title (adon). Rules of Hebrew grammar cause several changes in the noun/title (adon) when it is both conjugated in the possessive and combined with the preposition (l^e)^²[2].

Table IV.B-1 shows the four different applications or the term (adon) in the Hebrew Bible, of which there are 334 instances.

Table IV.B-1 – Applications of (adon) in the Hebrew Bible

Term	Meaning(s)	#	Sample Citations	Remarks
	a ruler, a governor, a head of state	6	Genesis 45:9; Jeremiah 34:5	---
	appellation for addressing G-d	26	Isaiah 1:24; Psalms 114:7	(adoni) is never used in this application.
	a title for a superior	202⁽¹⁾	Genesis 23:6; 1 Samuel 16:16	Appears only in possessive forms.
	master of …, owner of …	103⁽²⁾	Genesis 24:51; Job 3:19	Appears only in plural forms, but may be in singular context.

(1) This includes all instances of (adoni)

(2) This includes three cases from the 26 instances of an appellation for addressing G-d

Of the 334 cases of the term (adon) in the Hebrew Bible, 195 are conjugated in the 1^st-person possessive form (adoni), which occur with and without attached prepositions. This subset of 195 cases is broken out in terms of the various forms (with and without prepositions) in Table IV.B-2.

Table IV.B-2 – Applications of (adon) in the Hebrew Bible

Term	Pronunciation	#	Sample Citations	Correct Translation	KJV Rendition
	ah-do-NEE	162	Genesis 24:18; Isaiah 36:9; Daniel 10:17	my lord [or master]	All but three have: my lord/master. The three exceptions have⁽¹⁾: my Lord (Joshua 5:14; Judges 6:13; Daniel 12:8)
	lah-do-NEE	24⁽²⁾	Genesis 24:36,54,56, 32:5,6,19[4, 5, 18], 44:9,16(x2),33; 1 Samuel 25:27; 2 Samuel 19:29[28]; 1 Kings 1:2(x2), 20:9	to/unto/for my lord [or master]	to/unto/for my lord/master
			1 Samuel 24:6, 25:28,30,31(x2); 2 Samuel 4:8; 1 Kings 18:13; 1 Chronicles 21:3*	the L-rd & to/for my lord [or master]	All but one have: the LORD & to/for my lord/master.
			Psalms 110:1*	the L-rd & to/for my lord [or master]	The exception is: Psalms 110:1, which has: The LORD & unto my Lord
	vah-do-NEE	6	Genesis 18:12; 2 Samuel 11:11	and my lord [or master]	and … my lord; my lord also …
	bah-do-NEE	2	1 Samuel 24:11[10]; 2 Samuel 18:28	at/against my lord [or master]	against my lord
	me-ah-do-NEE	1	Genesis 47:18	from my lord [or master]	from my lord

(1) These three instances of my Lord correspond to Joshua, Gideon, and Daniel,

respectively, addressing an angel.

(2) Since the specific term of interest is (ladoni), all 24 citations are shown. Moreover,

since Psalms 110:1 is one of nine verses among these 24 citation which contain both the

Tetragrammaton , and the term , all nine verses are marked with an asterisk (*).

The data in Table IV.B-2 demonstrate that the KJV translators understood that the term (adoni), with and without prepositions, means my lord or my master. Specifically, as it concerns the term in Psalms 110:1, (ladoni), in 23 cases the KJV has it correctly translated as to/unto my lord/master, and only in Psalms 110:1 it is rendered unto my Lord (with the capital L) which imparts to it the desired Christological significance. This manipulation by the KJV translators becomes even more obvious when the nine cases in which both the Tetragrammaton, , and the term (ladoni) appear in the same verse are analyzed. On eight occasions, the KJV has LORD & lord/master, respectively. In the remaining case, at Psalms 110:1, the combination LORD & Lord appears in the KJV.

According to both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, there is no connection between (adoni) and (A-donai), because the appellation (adoni) is never used to address G-d; it is used in addressing a (mortal) man or an angel. On the other hand, as can be seen from Table IV-B-1, the term (adon) is applied to both G-d and (mortal) men.

The above information clearly demonstrates that the Christian rendition with its imputed Christological implications cannot be valid.

It is an interesting exercise to trace this mistranslation in the KJV and other popular Christian Bibles to its possible source. The manner in which some ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible render the terms (Y-H-V-H)/(adoni) in Psalms 110:1 provides a valuable clue to the answer. Table IV.B-3 shows three ancient translations:

Table IV.B-3 – The terms (Y-H-V-H)/(adoni) as rendered in ancient translations

Source	Language	Terms	Transliteration	Translation (in context)
Targum Yonathan	Aramaic	^*/	Y-H-V-H/li	[Said] the L-rd [in words] to me, [master over all of Israel]
Christian LXX	Greek	ο κυριος/κυριω μου	o kurios/kurio mou	[Said] The LORD [to] my Lord
Jerome's Vulgate**	Latin	Dominus/Domino meo	(as shown in Latin)	[Spoke] The LORD [to] my Lord

* is a common (non-sacred) notation used in place of the (sacred) Tetragrammaton, .

** This is Psalm 109 in both the Christian LXX and Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

The alleged "quotations" of Psalms 110:1 in the Greek language of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all have the same usage that appears in the Christian LXX. Upon reading the relevant passages in the Gospels, the source of the problem – the erroneous translations in Christian Bibles – is discovered. Two separate and distinct Hebrew terms, , (Y-H-V-H) and (adoni), generate the same Greek term, κυριος (kurios), and thereby the distinction is erased. In other words, each Gospel's rendering utilizes the same Greek word κυριος (kurios), lord/master, twice in the same verse. In the Greek text, the first occurrence of κυριος (kurios) [actually, ο κυριος (o kurios)], is the translation of , (Y-H-V-H), and the second κυριος (kurios) [actually, κυριω μου (kurio mou)], is the translation of (ladoni), of which (adoni) is a component. Since the Christian LXX utilizes solely the lower-case Greek alphabet, the exegetical problems to which the Gospels' Jesus refers are apparent only in the Greek rendering. Subsequently, these propagate into translations made from the Greek. The resultant confusion this problem creates in the Greek text does not exist in the Hebrew text and, therefore, Jesus' discourse is only possible if he and those with whom he spoke were conversing in Greek. His exegesis in the Gospels is non-existent in the Hebrew, and it is flawed in its understanding of the Greek rendering. Christian translators seize on this ambiguity and separate the two instances according to Christian theology. The ο κυριος (o kurios) becomes The LORD, a reference to G-d the Father; whereas the κυριω μου (kurio mou) becomes my Lord, a reference to the Son, Jesus, the messiah of Christianity.

Though there is nothing in the Hebrew language of this verse to positively indicate that King David was referring to the Messiah when he wrote (adoni), my lord/master, in reality, there is no problem with David realizing that the Messiah will be greater than he is. Moreover, there is nothing in David's words to indicate that the individual to whom he refers as my lord/master is a divine being. If he authored this psalm, David refers to himself in the 3^rd-person for someone else to chant about him. If the author was someone other than David, he refers to King David. Nothing in the text of this psalm supports the Christian claim that (adoni) refers to Jesus.

Who is speaking to whom in Psalms 110:1? The analysis demonstrates that the Christian interpretation of G-d the Father addressing "G-d" the Son (Jesus) does not work; while any of the common Jewish interpretations is plausible. It definitely cannot be Jesus relating what G-d said to him, yet it could be King David relating what G-d had promised him (in response to his pleas in Psalms 109). Or, perhaps, an anonymous author from the king's court speaking about the promises G-d made to his master, King David.

Can One Find the Trinity in Psalms 110:1?

Christian apologists and missionaries also claim that Psalms 110:1 supports the Doctrine of the Trinity. The question is: "From a Christian perspective, does the Tetragrammaton, , (Y-H-V-H), rendered The LORD in the KJV (and many other Christian translations), refer to G-d the Father, or to "G-d" the Son, or to the full Trinity?" To help put this claim into its proper perspective, consider the Sh^ema, often regarded as the "creed" of Judaism (the Hebrew is shown under the English version):

Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel; the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One.

The Hebrew term (E-loheinu), our G-d, is the 1^st-person, plural conjugation of (E-lohim), G-d. Christian apologists and missionaries maintain that the Hebrew term (E-lohim) is plural and should be understood in its literal sense as gods, thereby reflecting a triunity. Using this line of reasoning, the (translated) Sh^ema should be interpreted as:

Hear, O Israel; the L-rd is our gods, the L-rd is a compound unity.

This Christian understanding of the Sh^ema leads to the conclusion that the expression the L-rd, [, (Y-H-V-H)] can refer to neither G-d the Father nor "G-d" the Son individually. Rather, it must refer to all three members of the Trinity at once. Therefore, this would invalidate the Christian claim that the phrase unto my Lord (as translated in KJV and many other Christian Bibles) refers to Jesus! If, according to the common Christian interpretation of Psalms 110:1, the expression my Lord refers to Jesus, the second member of the Trinity, then who is The LORD at the beginning of Psalms 110:1? Because, if the L-rd [, (Y-H-V-H)] in the "modified" Sh^ema, i.e., "the L-rd (who is) our gods", were a triunity united in the divine name, then The LORD in the KJV rendition of Psalms 110:1 would also have to refer to this triunity. Yet, if this were the case, then the phrase unto my Lord in the KJV's rendition of Psalms 110:1 would automatically exclude Jesus, who would have already been included in the first part of the verse, The LORD.

Another curious issue is created by the attempt to impute the Trinity into Psalms 110:1. If my Lord (allegedly Jesus) is sitting next to The LORD, who represents the triune godhead or any aggregate of it, then he cannot be part of it, since that which exists outside of G-d cannot be G-d. And, lastly, where is the third component of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in all of this?

Has the Melchizedek Priesthood Replaced Israel's Aaronic Priesthood?

As noted in Sec. III.A, Psalms 110:4 is used as a "proof text" by Christian apologists and missionaries to support the notion that Jesus is both the king (Messiah) and high priest, as Melchizedek was. This notion supplants the Aaronic priesthood with a new priesthood, claimed to be superior to it, the priesthood according to Melchizedek. To support these claims, passages such as the following, are cited:

Hebrews 7:3(KJV) - Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Hebrews 7:21(KJV) - (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

Are these claims consistent with what the Hebrew Bible teaches? In order to answer this question, it is important to note that, at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the New Testament did not exist; it was written over a period of many years, starting at least a decade after the event. The Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force at that time. An analysis of some terminology will demonstrate that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews took some editorial liberties in transforming material that he learned from reading some Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible into the message he was generating.

One term of interest is the name/title Malki-Tzedeq (the transliteration from the Hebrew is used here instead of Melchizedek from the common Christian renditions of Psalms 110:4). The Hebrew expression (malki-tzedeq), my king [he] is righteousness or my righteous king, appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible, at Psalms 110:4 and at Genesis 14:18, the latter of which is:

Genesis 14:18 - And Malki-Tzedeq [(malki-tzedeq)], king of Shalem, brought out bread and wine; and he is a priest of the Most High G-d.

[There is also found in the Hebrew Bible, at Joshua 10:1,3, a related, but not identical, name/title, (adoni-tzedeq), my lord/master [he] is righteousness or my righteous lord/master; the King of Jerusalem.] At Genesis 14:18, (malki-tzedeq) is a reference to the King of Shalem (an earlier designation for the city of Jerusalem) in Abraham’s days. Malki-Tzedeq was a Gentile priest-king who worshipped the "One True G-d" as one of the righteous Gentiles who, like some other Biblical personalities (e.g., Noah, Jethro, and Job), was not connected with Israel, as is the case with the righteous Gentiles of today, the B'nei Noach (Noahides). At Psalms 110:4, (malki-tzedeq) is likely to be a reference by the psalmist to King David, whose legendary power came with the help of Divine favor that was earned through his righteousness.

Another term of interest is (koheyn), which, in its most common usage in the Hebrew Bible, is correctly translated as a priest. However, the literal English translation of this term as a priest at Psalms 110:4 can be challenged for several reasons. First, according to the Hebrew Bible, the plan for Israel is one that separates the functions of priesthood and monarchy; an idea that is similar to the concept known today as "separation of church and state". The Torah defines in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 the selection, qualifications, and duties of the king – the political leader. Starting with King David (2 Sam 7:12-16), it was required that kings of the Davidic dynasty had to be from the Tribe of Judah and biological descendants of King David through King Solomon. Deuteronomy 18:1-8, the passage in the Torah that immediately follows the passage about a king of Israel, describes the other category of leadership, the Priests and Levites - the spiritual leaders, who will all be from the Tribe of Levi. Therefore, in addition to their listed qualifications, the two positions, king and priest, are mutually exclusive. In other words, in Israel, a king cannot be a priest, and a priest cannot be a king, and this is evident from the following passage:

Leviticus 4:22-26 – (22) When a ruler [of Israel] sins; and, without intention, does one of the commandments of the L-rd his G-d which may not be done, and he incurs guilt; (23) Or if he is informed of his sin that he has sinned; then he shall bring his offering, a male goat without blemish; (24) And he shall lay his hand firmly upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where he would slaughter the burnt offering before the L-rd; it is a sin offering. (25) And the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place [it] upon the horns of the altar [used] for burnt offerings; and [the remainder of] its blood he shall pour out onto the base of the altar [used] for burnt offerings. (26) And all its fat he shall burn upon the altar as the fat of the peace offering; and the priest shall make atonement for his [the ruler's] sin, and he will be forgiven.

This passage, which describes the sin-offering ritual for a king, shows that the king is subservient to the priest, just as any commoner is, in the performance of the ritual. A king is barred from certain functions performed by a priest.

Second, the term (koheyn) [plural, (kohanim)], in addition to its common application of ministering as a priest, may be applied to describe serving in an official [ruling] capacity, a context in which it is occasionally used in the Hebrew Bible, and even correctly translated in the KJV, as the following examples demonstrate:

2 Samuel 8:18(KJV) - And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David's sons were chief rulers [(kohanim)].

2 Samuel 20:26(KJV) - And Ira also the Jairite was a chief ruler [(koheyn)] about David.

1 Kings 4:5(KJV) - And Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers: and Zabud the son of Nathan was principal officer [(koheyn)], and the king's friend:

Moreover, King David is recorded in the Hebrew Bible as having performed some priestly functions:

2 Samuel 6:14,17 – (14) And David danced with all his might before the L-rd; and David was girded with a linen ephod.

(17) And they brought in the ark of the L-rd, and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the L-rd.

This, too, will be the case with the Jewish King/Messiah of Israel in the messianic era:

Ezekiel 45:17 - And on the Prince shall be [the responsibility to bring] the burnt offerings, and meal offerings, and drink offerings, on the Festivals, and the New Moons, and the Sabbaths, on all the appointed times of the House of Israel; he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meal offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offering, to atone for the House of Israel.

Ezekiel 46:12 - And when the Prince shall prepare a free-will offering, a burnt offering or a peace offering as a free-will offering to the L-rd, one shall open the gate that faces east, and he shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offering as he does on the Sabbath day; and he shall exit, and one shall close the gate after he has left.

Psalms 110:4 defines the status of King David, which also confirms that his distinctive monarchy would be continued in his successors. In addition to his regal dignity, he would also perform certain priestly functions, albeit not of the same standing as Aaron and his descendants, the Priests, (kohanim). Neither Malki-Tzedeq nor King David were consecrated into the Aaronic priesthood; but David ruled his people in the light of G-d's will and, as such, was a priest-king of sorts, portraying the ideal for the Davidic dynasty, that a Jewish king should be like a priest, drawing the Jewish people closer to G-d.

The Hebrew Bible rules out the possibility of having a valid priestly order outside of the Aaronic priesthood. Any priesthood that predates Levi, the son of Jacob/Israel and progenitor of the priestly Tribe of Levi, remains outside the realm of Judaism, since the priesthood that emerged out of Levi has been established for eternity:

Exodus 40:15 - And you shall anoint them [Aaron's sons], as you anointed their father, and they shall serve [as priests] unto Me; and their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Numbers 25:12-13 – (12) Therefore say, "Behold, I give him [to Phineas] My covenant of peace; (13) And it shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of an eternal priesthood; because he was zealous for his G-d, and atoned for the Children of Israel.

Consequently, the references in the Letter to the Hebrews to Jesus being a priest of the order of Melchisedec (Melchizedek) are irrelevant to Psalms 110.

Finally, there is the matter of the claim that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood of Israel because Melchizedek conferred a blessing on Abraham. Christian apologists and missionaries maintain that, through this act, Melchizedek also blessed Levi, one of Abraham's great-grandsons. A careful reading of the actual passage reveals the flaw in this claim. While it is, indeed, Malki-Tzedeq who was acknowledged as a priest-king of the “… Most High G-d …” (Gen 14:18), it was Abram, not Abraham, who “… gave him a tenth of all …” (Gen 14:22). The salient point here is that the tithing took place prior to Abram's name being changed to Abraham and his formal entry into Hebrew monotheism via the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:5-14). In other words, since Abram was a Gentile at the time he received the blessing from Malki-Tzedeq, there is no basis to the claim that Melchizedek's priesthood is superior to Aaron's priesthood; they are independent priesthoods – one for Gentiles and one for Jewish people.

V. Summary

The analysis of Psalms 110 demonstrates that Christian apologetic and missionary claims about this important component in their portfolio of "proof texts" are based on mistranslations, misinterpretations, and flawed reasoning.

Even though several different Jewish interpretations of Psalms 110 exist, they are all consistent with the teachings of the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, the common Christian interpretation of this psalm, with its imputed Christology, falls apart under rigorous scrutiny. Not only can Jesus not be the one sitting to the right of G-d, his supposed priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek is a self-defeating argument, since Melchizedek was a Gentile, not a Jewish, priest.

The bottom line is this:

If, as Christian apologists and missionaries often claim, Jesus was a Jew, then he cannot be a priest in an order that is outside of Judaism, such as the Melchizedek priesthood, since the Aaronic priesthood was established exclusively and eternally for Israel.

If, on the other hand, Jesus was not a Jew, then, according to Torah, he cannot rule as king of Israel.

The case is closed!

Source: www.messiahtruth.com/ps110.html

"The Lord Said to My Lord . . . ." To Whom Was the Lord Speaking in Psalm 110:1 ?

By Out Reach Judaism

Question:

Dear Rabbi Singer,

A co-worker and friend of mine, who I know is a fundamentalist Christian, recently asked me what Jews think about the Trinity. I told him that the concept is not part of our religion and that Jews believe in only one God. He went on to ask me to explain Psalm 110 to him, which starts in English, "The Lord said unto my Lord . . . ." To him this is yet another proof of the trinity. I could not give him an answer to his question. Would you please explain the meaning of this.

Thank You.

Answer:

Psalm 110 represents one of the New Testament's most stunning, yet clever mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures. Moreover, the confusion created by the Christianization of this verse was further perpetuated and promulgated by numerous Christian translators of the Bible as well. As you will soon see, some Christian translators, to their credit, refrain from rewriting this text in Psalm 110.

The story of the church's tampering with Psalm 110 is so old that it begins in the Christian canon itself. In the Gospels we find the church's first use of Psalm 110, and it begins with a question. In Matthew 22:41-44 Matthew's Jesus turns to the Pharisees and asks them,

What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?

The question in laymen's terms is, "Of whom is the messiah supposed to be a descendant?"

They said to him, "The son of David." He said to them, "How then does David in the spirit call him 'Lord,' saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool"?' If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?" No one was able to answer him a word, neither did any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Although the above conversation could never have occurred, I am certain this narrative has been replayed over and over again in the imagination of countless Christians for nearly 1,900 years.

It's an inspiring story to the Christian believer. Jesus really showed those Pharisees how little they knew! Yet, this is precisely why this story could never have transpired. No Jew who had even a superficial knowledge of the Jewish scriptures would have ever found Jesus' argument compelling, let alone a conversation stopper. The depth of knowledge that the Pharisees possessed of Tanach was astounding.

Let's take a closer look at the original verse from which Matthew's Jesus quoted so that you have a sense of how the original Hebrew text was masked. The New American Standard Bible (NASB), one of the most widely read Christian Bibles in use today, translates Psalm 110:1 in the following manner,

The Lord said unto my Lord, "Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet."

It appears from the NASB translation that the "Lord," which is God, "said unto to my Lord" -- who missionaries would have you believe is Jesus (David's "Lord") -- "Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet."

Is the above verse speaking about Jesus? Not at all, yet look at the first word "Lord" in the verse. Now look at the second word "Lord" (they are only three words apart). Did you notice any difference between them? You didn't because the Christian translator carefully masked what it actually says in the text of the original Hebrew.

Although the two English words in the NASB translation are carefully made to appear identical, in the original Hebrew text they are entirely different. Whereas the first word "Lord" in the Hebrew is a correct translation of ,1, which is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the ineffable name of God, the second word "Lord" is a complete and deliberate mistranslation of the text. The second word "Lord" in the verse is an appalling translation of the Hebrew word (pronounced ladonee). The correct translation of ladonee is "to my master" or "to my lord." The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is only used for the profane, never the sacred. That is to say, God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. There are many words reserved for God in the Bible; adonee, however, is not one of them.

To illustrate this, let's look for a completely different place in the Bible where the exact same Hebrew word appears and find out how the same New American Standard Bible translates it there.

For example, we find the same word, (ladonee), used in the following two verses which have been translated by the same New American Standard Bible where the identical word is used as in Psalm 110:

Then he and the men who were with him ate and drank and spent the night. When they arose in the morning, he said, "Send me away to my master (ladonee: )." (Genesis 24:54, New American Standard Bible)

He also commanded them saying, "Thus you shall say to my lord (ladonee: ) Esau, 'Thus says your servant Jacob, "I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed until now." ' " (Genesis 32:4, New American Standard Bible)

The Hebrew word ladonee used in the above two verses is referring to Abraham and Esau, respectively. Notice that the Hebrew word used in both verses is identical to the Hebrew word in Psalm 110:1. Why did the New American Standard Bible translate ladonee correctly in Genesis 24:54 as "to my master," or in Genesis 32:4 as "to my lord," yet, for some reason, in Psalm 110:1 mistranslate it as "Lord"?

The answer is obvious. Both Genesis 24:54 and Genesis 32:4 are not texts used by the church to "prove" Jesus from the Jewish scriptures and therefore they had no reason to tamper with them. Psalm 110:1, on the other hand, is a verse that is flaunted by the New Testament and its missionaries as a verse that evangelicals insist "unquestionably points only to Jesus," and it therefore was deliberately mistranslated.

Some Christian translations are more transparent in their rendering of Psalm 110 than the New American Standard Bible. For example, the King James Version and a few other Bibles still render the second "Lord" as if it were sacred; however, they translate the first "LORD" in upper case. This is a helpful hint to the keen observer that there is a distinction between them. Of course, it's up to the curious Bible student to then look up the second "Lord" in a Hebrew Bible. Only such a deliberate and thorough investigation would uncover how the text was doctored.

It should be noted that while many Christian translators indulge in this manipulation of Psalm 110:1, some do not. Numerous modern Christian Bibles have corrected Matthew's mistranslation. For example, the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible correctly render the Hebrew word ladonee as " to my lord," in Psalm 110:1, indicating that it is not speaking of God.

As mentioned above, this tampering with Psalm 110:1 began long ago in the Christian Bible itself. The Christian translators, who would later also mistranslate this verse, simply followed in the footsteps of the author of the first Gospel. If we look at the original Greek of Matthew 22:44 we find the same doctoring of the text in later Christian translations of the Book of Psalms. When Matthew has Jesus quote Psalm 110:1 to the Pharisees, the identical Greek word kurios 2 (pronounced koo-re-os) is used both times the word "Lord" appears in Matthew 22:44.

Finally, it is essential that I explain the meaning of Psalm 110:1. Of whom is this Psalm really speaking? To whom are the words "my master" or "my lord" referring?

The Psalm begins with the opening Hebrew words "Mizmor l'David." The word "Mizmor" means "a song," and thus the opening phrase of this Psalm is, "A Song of David." In fact, the word Psalms comes from the Greek word psalmos, which means "a song." This is unknown to many Bible readers.

Why would King David be writing these songs? For whom was he writing them? By whom were they to be sung? With these questions in mind, we can begin to understand the intent of Psalm 110.

One of the great disappointments in King David's illustrious life occurred when God refused his request to build the first Temple in Jerusalem. Although David's son Solomon undertook that task and eventually constructed the first Temple, David's connection to it was significant.

For example, David founded the city of Jerusalem, the city where the Temple was built. In fact, both the city and the Temple were called after him, the City and Temple of David. Moreover, he made preparations for the building of the Temple, and even arranged for the Temple service (II Samuel 7; I Chronicles 14-17, 22-26). This is where the Book of Psalms played its central role. King David was a faithful servant of God who possessed extraordinary skills as a teacher, musician, and poet. In fact, King David authored most of the Book of Psalms. The original purpose for which King David composed the Book of Psalms was for the Levites to sing them in the Temple. The Levites would stand on a platform and joyfully chant these spiritually exhilarating Psalms to an inspired people. King David composed Psalm 110 for liturgical recitation by the Levites in the Temple years after his death. Therefore, the Levites would read this lyric,

The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] "Sit thou at my right hand . . . ."

For the church, however, the Psalmist's original intent was superseded by its interest in Christianizing this verse. Thus, the opening verse in Psalm 110 was altered in order to paint Jesus into the Jewish scriptures.

Here is some advice. The only way to recognize such rampant Christian tampering of the Bible is to be able to read it in the original, without the aid of the Christian translator. Therefore, give your children a good Jewish education. Remember, the success of the missionaries who target us represents the unpaid bills of the Jewish people.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnotes:

Click on the footnote to return to the article

1: The hyphens which appear between the last two Hebrew letters, the vav and the hey, were inserted by the author for the purpose of not inappropriately placing the sacred name of God on a web site where it might be printed out and then eventually discarded.

2: Although the two Greek words kurios in this verse are the same, they are written with a slightly different syntax. Whereas the Greek word for the first word "Lord" in Matthew 22:44 is kurios, the Greek word for the second word "Lord" is kurio, because the latter is in the dative case, indicating "to" or "for" which an action occurs. This Greek syntax functions similarly to how the lamed does as a prefix in the Hebrew language.

Source: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/psalm110.html

In Defense of Rabbi Singer... Psalm 110

by Bendad

The Lord said to my master “Sit thou at my right hand . . . .”

One missionary website that I have seen takes great issue with what Rabbi Singer has argued on his website about Psalm 110. I hope that this article will demonstrate that their issues have little basis.

First of all, Rabbi Singer’s article claims that the missionaries have deliberately tampered with the translation of the verse by rendering the word “Adoni” into “Lord” (leading to the false impression that it means G-d) instead of “master”. They proceed to argue quite vigorously that it was not a deliberate tampering and that other Jewish based translations also render the word “Adoni” as “lord”. What they don’t seem to realize is that the main thrust of the argument is not to demonstrate that it was deliberately mistranslated. It is actually a moot point whether the translation of the word was deliberate or not. What is at issue is how the missionaries misinterpret the meaning of this verse. In other words, the main thrust is to show that their “interpretation” is wrong when you examine the verse critically in the original Hebrew. And, in this case, Rabbi Singer’s arguments hold up well.

Secondly, they present the fantastic argument that in several places, the “scribes of the Mesorah” deliberately changed the name of G-d from YH-WH to the word “Adoni” in over 100 places because they didn’t want people to be confused. Their only source for this is to quote a single article written by another missionary. In addition to the fact that this makes little sense, it seems to me that the only “proof” they have to this is the fact that the word “Adoni” exists in these places instead of the word “YH-WH”. However, there is no evidence that the word “YH-WH” existed in those places originally and then it was changed. This is only their wishful thinking. However, I wish to focus more closely on exactly what the word “Adoni” is doing in those places.

The first verse on their list is Genesis 18:3.

And he said, “My Lord, if I find favor in your eyes, please pass not away from your servant.” (Artscroll translation)

There are two standard Jewish explanations of this verse. One explanation is that Abraham is talking with the three men (who were really angels) who had come to visit him. Thus, the “Lord” in the verse, the “Adoni” is in reference to the angel, not G-d. The other explanation was that in a previous verse, Abraham was conversing with G-d and was now “excusing” himself so he could serve the three men.

The next example from Exodus 4:10 is more interesting.

Moses replied to Hashem, “Please my Lord, I am not a man of words…” (Artscroll translation)

In this case, the “Hashem” is “YH-WH” and the “Lord” is “Adoni”. Now, why is this the case? If you examine all of the cases where it says “Adoni”, you will realize the following: That in the case where it is someone addressing G-d in speech or prayer, as is the case where Moses is addressing G-d here or Abraham when was addressing G-d (according to the second explanation), then the word “Adoni” may be used. But, in cases where we are referring specifically to G-d by name and not addressing Him, then “Adoni” is never used.

Additionally, there are cases where the word “Adonai” is used to refer to G-d but the word is always in conjunction with another name of G-d such as “Adonai YH-WH”.

Now, in the case of Psalm 110 the author of the psalm is clearly not addressing G-d or any other “lord”. He is relating what happened (and that is G-d saying to someone else, “Sit thou at my right hand…”). Thus, the Adoni in this case is clearly not G-d (or part of G-d) but rather some other “lord” or “master” who is not G-d.

Another point the missionaries try to refute Rabbi Singer on is by quoting a Jewish source that identifies the “Adoni” with Abraham. Frankly, I don’t know why they bother with quoting this as an argument against Rabbi Singer (who said that the “Adoni” was David), when it is more of an argument against them. If the “Adoni” is Abraham, then it, again, cannot be G-d (or part of G-d). They themselves brought down an alternative explanation when they contend that it can only be referring to the “son of G-d”.

Lastly, the missionaries try to argue that the verse is messianic in nature. In other words, they are saying that David’s “lord” is really the Messiah (who they identify as Jesus). Putting aside whether their arguments have any validity or not, let us examine what they miss by saying that. They specifically miss two points.

The first point they miss is the reason why they brought down this verse in the first place. The reason why they brought it down was to bring a prooftext to the concept of the “son of G-d” not as a proof to the messiahship of Jesus. That is why the whole counter argument has been that the second “lord” (or master) is not G-d. Now, they switch and say it is referring to the messiah. But, that does not help them in their argument. It still does not prove that the “Adoni” was the son of G-d or that there even is such a thing as a son of G-d (in the literal sense).

The second point they miss is that even if this “Adoni” was the messiah, then where does it identify in this verse that this messiah was Jesus? Nowhere!

Thus, in conclusion, Rabbi Singer’s main arguments that this verse cannot be talking about the son of G-d are still valid and they contain no proof whatsoever.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/cmr613/psalm110.html

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Return to Refuting Alleged Old Testament Prophecies Pointing to Jesus

Return to Homepage

1^[1] In cases where two consecutive schwa punctuations, would occur by adding the preposition, the schwa on the preposition changes to another vowel; in this case into a hiriq, the ee sound.

2^[2] The noun/title (adon) has the vowel qamatz, under the letter (aleph), thereby imparting to it the sound ah. However, when (adon) is used in the possessive form, the vowel qamatz, changes to the pseudo-vowel hataf-patah, which has the same ranking as the schwa, except that it carries the sound ah. However, since having the schwa and any schwa-like pseudo-vowel in succession violates rules of Hebrew grammar, a change in vowels is required. In this particular case, the (aleph) becomes silent, and the preposition (l^e) changes to (la).

===============================================================

Matthew 2: Is it False or Is it True?

Messiah Truth

I. Introduction

The common theme of many claims made by Christian apologists and missionaries to their Jewish targets is that Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies contained in the Christian "Old Testament", and various passages from the New Testament are cited as evidence of their fulfillment. A Jewish person, one who lacks a good Jewish education and who might be looking for some spiritual nourishment, could easily be convinced about the efficacy of these claims.

In this essay, the content of an entire chapter out of the first book in the New Testament, Chapter 2 in the Gospel of Matthew, is analyzed in order to test the validity of such claims. It is demonstrated that, under scrutiny, claims of prophetic fulfillments attributed to this chapter do not survive.

II. Matthew 2 in the King James Version

The King James Version (KJV) translation of the second chapter in the Gospel of Matthew is replicated below, including footnotes to identify verses that are claimed to be describing the fulfillments of specific prophetic messianic passages from the "Old Testament". The actual statements of these alleged "fulfillments" are shown in highlighted text:

Matthew 2(KJV)

(1) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

(2) Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

(3) When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

(4) And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

(5) And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

(6) And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.[1]

(7) Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

(8) And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

(9) When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

(10) When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

(11) And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

(12) And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

(13) And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

(14) When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

(15) And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.[2]

(16) Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

(17) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

(18) In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.[3]

(19) But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

(20) Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

(21) And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

(22) But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

(23) And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

[1] v. 6 - Micah 5:2[1 in the Hebrew Bible]

[2] v. 15 - Hosea 11:1

[3] v. 18 - Jeremiah 31:15[14 in the Hebrew Bible]

The references to the prophetic passages in the (Christian) "Old Testament" are taken from footnotes in popular Christian Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New International Version (NIV) Bible.

III. Can Both Matthew 2 AND the Hebrew Bible Be True?

In the second chapter in the Gospel of Matthew, the author records four events which, according to him, were foretold by the Jewish prophets and were fulfilled by Jesus. Each of the four "fulfillment" accounts in Matthew 2 is now contrasted against the claimed corresponding prophetic statement in the Hebrew Bible to test its validity.

A. Claim #1: Bethlehem Is the Messiah's Birthplace^¹[1]

According to the opening verse, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:

Matthew 2:1-2(KJV) – (1) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, (2) Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Upon hearing this proclamation, a very concerned King Herod summoned the chief priests and scribes to the royal court. He wanted to know where this child was born, and was told the following:

Matthew 2:5-6(KJV) – (5) And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, (6) And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

In Matthew 2:6, the author attempts to quote the verse Micah 5:2 from the "Old Testament", which is Micah 5:1 in the Hebrew Bible.

This passage suffers from two major problems. First, according to the historians, Herod reigned for some 33 years, from 37 B.C.E. to 4 B.C.E. This implies that, if the story in Matthew 2 were true, the events described thus far would have had to take place prior to the advent of the Common (Christian) Era. In other words, Jesus would have had to be born not later than 4 B.C.E. to fit into this scenario. The chronology of the historical events conflicts with the time of birth of Jesus according to Christian theology.

Second, the claim that Jesus fulfilled the purported prophetic statement, that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, is based on the misapplication of this passage. Table III.A-1 shows side-by-side English renditions of the verse from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (Mt 2:6), of the original verse from the Book of Micah in the KJV "Old Testament" (Mic 5:2), and of the original verse from the Book of Micah in the Hebrew Bible (Mic 5:1). Also displayed, for reference, is the corresponding verse from the Hebrew Bible.

Table III.A-1 – Comparison of Matthew 2:6 with Micah 5:1[2]

Hebrew Text

King James Version Translation from the Greek	King James Version Translation	Jewish Translation from the Hebrew
Matthew 2:6	Micah 5:2	Micah 5:1
And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.	But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.	And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from old, from ancient days.

The information in Table III.A-1 demonstrates that Matthew 2:6 not only "twists" the original text in order to make it fit the story line, it is not even a complete quote of the verse in the KJV "Old Testament".

Is the original verse, Micah 5:1, really a prophecy that (mashi'ah), the Messiah, will be born in Bethlehem? Without a doubt, the entire passage is messianic; it is about King David's ancestry, which will also be the ancestry of (mashi'ah), who will be a descendant of King David. Since Bethlehem was the place from which King David's family hailed, it is also the place of origin of (mashi'ah), though not necessarily his place of birth.

Support for the claim by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mt 2:1) is found in the New Testament, in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 2:4-7(KJV) – (4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) (5) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. (6) And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. (7) And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

The author of the Gospel of John writes that some people believed the Messiah to come from Bethlehem, while others asserted that he was of Galilean origin:

John 7:40-43(KJV) – (40) Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. (41) Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? (42) Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (43) So there was a division among the people because of him.

However, he does not capitalize on the opportunity to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled Micah's prophecy and state that Jesus was born there. Consequently, this omission might indicate that the author of the Gospel of John did not necessarily concur with the authors of the other two Gospels that Jesus, in fact, was born in Bethlehem, and he lets stand the opposing assertion that Jesus was of Galilean origin (see also Jn 1:46). This is consistent with all other references (except for those of his birth) in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, that Jesus was from Nazareth. Curiously, the author of the earliest of the four Gospels, the Gospel of Mark, is silent on this matter.

Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, has been excavating in the area of an Israeli village, known as Beit Lehem haGalilit, Bethlehem of the Galilee, which is located a few miles west of Nazareth. This town of Bethlehem is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as being in the territory of the Tribe of Zebulun, which included the lower Galilee (Josh 19:15). From his findings, Oshri concludes that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of the Galilee, not in Bethlehem of Judea. Here is a translated portion of the summary to his article:

What has been described above indicates that Jews occupied Bethlehem of the Galilee in the time of Jesus. During the Byzantine era there is a massive Christian presence in that place, a presence that has, if fact, continued to our times with the settling of the Templars. In addition, we learn from the New Testament that the life of Jesus centers around the lower Galilee and the Kineret [the Sea of Galilee]. According to the New Testament, the pregnant Mary rode [on a donkey] to be in her hometown, [yet] it makes no sense that a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy would ride such a distance [Bethlehem of Judea is situated some 70 miles {~113 kilometers} south of Nazareth]. The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of the Galilee, in contrast, is only about 7 kilometers [~4 miles]. The explanation that ties Jesus to Bethlehem in Judea is clear enough; the Christian claim is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Messiah, according to the Old Testament, will come from the House of David, and his [David's] origin is from Bethlehem in Judea. Therefore, if this historical entity existed and was named Jesus, and if he were born in Bethlehem, then it follows that it is Bethlehem of the Galilee, and not that of Judea.^²^[2] [Clarifying editorial comments within the brackets are mine. (UY)]

It is also interesting to note that, in contrast to the important messianic attributes spelled out by the Jewish prophets in the Hebrew Bible, being born in Bethlehem, even if it were true, would be inconsequential.

Consequently, Matthew 2:6 is:

X Inconsistent with the accepted historical chronology

X Is a misapplication of a passage from the Hebrew Bible

Conclusion: Claim #1 becomes Pious Fraud Example #1.

B. Claim #2: The Return of Jesus from Hiding in Egypt Is Foretold by Hosea

Matthew 2:13-15 tells of a dream Joseph had, in which an angel appeared to him and told him to flee with his family to Egypt and stay there till he is told to return. Upon waking, Joseph did as told, and remained in Egypt until the death of Herod. In the last verse of the passage, the author of the Gospel of Matthew makes the claim that the return from Egypt by Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, is the fulfillment of an "Old Testament" prophecy:

Matthew 2:15(KJV) - And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Table III.B-1 shows side-by-side English renditions of the verse from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (Mt 2:15), of the original verse from the Book of Hosea in the KJV "Old Testament", and of the original verse from the Book of Hosea in the Hebrew Bible. Also displayed, for reference, is the corresponding verse from the Hebrew Bible.

Table III.B-1 – Comparison of Matthew 2:15 with Hosea 11:1

Hebrew Text

King James Version Translation from the Greek	King James Version Translation	Jewish Translation from the Hebrew
Matthew 2:15	Hosea 11:1
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.	When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.	For, when Israel was young, I loved him, and from Egypt I called my son.

The phrase "… Out of Egypt have I called my son …" in Matthew 2:15 points to Hosea 11:1 in order to convey the notion that the flight of baby Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod’s homicidal intentions was not an arbitrary event. Rather, it was the fulfillment of what Hosea had foretold.

To test the validity of the claim, consider the passage Hosea 11:1-2 (two renditions are shown, a Jewish translation and the KJV translation):

Hosea 11:1-2 – (1) For, when Israel was young, I loved him, and from Egypt I called my son. (2) [Yet, as much as] they [the prophets] called to them [Israel], so did they turn away from them; they sacrificed to the Ba’als [(la'b^ealim)] and burnt incense to the idols.

Hosea 11:1-2(KJV) – (1) When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. (2) As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

In either rendition, it is clear that the entire first verse, Hosea 11:1, does not describe a child/Messiah fleeing to Egypt and then being summoned back. The prophet relates how G-d called the fledgling nation of Israel out of Egypt. In the second verse, Hosea 11:2, Hosea tells how, in spite pleas by the prophets, those called out of Egypt sinned against G-d – they worshipped the (b^ealim)^³[3], Ba'als, and other idols.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew would have created a serious dilemma, had he quoted both verses in their entirety. The context of Hosea 11:1 is that it is not prophetic, but simply a restatement of an event in the history of Israel. Likewise, Hosea 11:2 is a continuation of the recounting of events in the history of Israel. To attribute Hosea 11:1 to Jesus would be tantamount to making him and his Jewish parents idol worshippers and, thus, they all would be sinners. The author avoided this problem by lifting out of this historical passage just the phrase that suited his purpose, "Out of Egypt have I called my son".

Did this trick solve the problem? Not really, since by going back to the source, Chapter 11 in the Book of Hosea, one would realize that this son is Israel - the Jewish nation, and not Jesus.

Conclusion: Claim #2 becomes Pious Fraud Example #2.

C. Claim #3: The Killing of All Children by King Herod Is Foretold by Jeremiah

King Herod, apparently angered at being mocked by the wise men and desiring to neutralize the threat to his throne posed by this newborn child of whom they spoke, kills all of Bethlehem's children of age two years and younger:

Matthew 2:16-18(KJV) – (16) Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. (17) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, (18) In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Of particular interest here is Matthew 2:18, which is, according to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, the alleged fulfillment of a prophesied sadness that would follow the massacre of the children by King Herod.

Table III.C-1 shows side-by-side English renditions of the verse from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (Mt 2:18), of the original verse from the Book of Jeremiah in the "Old Testament" (Jer 31:15), and of the original verse from the Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 31:14). Also displayed, for reference, is the corresponding verse from the Hebrew Bible.

Table III.C-1 – Comparison of Matthew 2:18 with Jeremiah 31:14[15]

Hebrew Text

King James Version Translation from the Greek	King James Version Translation	Jewish Translation from the Hebrew
Matthew 2:18	Jeremiah 31:15	Jeremiah 31:14
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.	Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.	So said the L-rd: "A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children; she has refused to be comforted upon her children, for they are gone."

This verse from the Book of Jeremiah is part of a passage, Jeremiah 31:2-20 [1-19 in some Bibles], that is chanted in every Jewish synagogue as part of the prayer services on the second day of Rosh haShanah, the Jewish New Year. Perhaps the primary reason this passage found its way into the liturgy is that its last three verses speak of the efficacy of repentance. Another reason is that the passage contains a prophecy of the national restoration of Israel, which brings to the Jewish people a heartening message of hope to encourage them in their darkest ages. The verse in Jeremiah 31, which immediately follows the one being "quoted" in Matthew 2:18 as the original prophecy, continues with this positive message:

Jeremiah 31:15[16 in Christian Bibles] – So said the L-rd, "Refrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for there is reward for your work," the word of the L-rd, "and they shall return from the land of the enemy."

This verse points to a delightful and idyllic picture of the joy of a redeemed Israel. Probably more Jewish liturgy and music has been drawn from this chapter in Jeremiah than from any other single chapter in the Hebrew Bible!

The allusion to Rachel's weeping over the disappearance of her children has no connection to the killing of the children by King Herod, as suggested in Matthew 2:17-18.

Conclusion: Claim #3 becomes Pious Fraud Example #3.

D. Claim #4: The Prophets Foretold of Jesus Being from Nazareth

Joseph finds out that Herod had died, and that he is to bring his family back to the Land of Israel. However, since Herod's son was the ruler in Judea at that time, Joseph decides to go north to the Galilee to settle in the town of Nazareth. The author of the Gospel of Matthew claims that this, too, was a fulfillment of something which was foretold by the Jewish prophets:

Matthew 2:23(KJV) - And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

A search of the Hebrew Bible for passage containing the substance of that which was allegedly "… spoken by the prophets …" will not yield any results. There are no such verses in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there any reference to the Messiah as a Nazarene and, in fact, the town of Nazareth is never mentioned therein. Since there are no references in the Hebrew Bible against which this passage may be compared, one could ask, "What might have been the author's agenda here?"

Various speculations exist concerning a possible answer to this question. One suggestion is that the author was referring to the description of the Messiah as a (netser), an offshoot, used in Isaiah 11:1, a metaphorical allusion to a new, flourishing scion from King David's lineage. This idea is problematic since, even though the metaphor is utilized by Isaiah, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it indicated or implied that (mashi'ah) will actually bear the name (netser). Moreover, the author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote "… which was spoken by the prophets …", i.e., he refers to a plurality and not to a single prophet who may have made such a prophetic statement. Since there exists no other messianic application of the Hebrew term (netser) in the Hebrew Bible, the attempt to force the connection with Isaiah 11:1 fails.

Another suggestion is that the author was using a "play on words" with the Hebrew root verb (natsar), [to] guard, [to] watch [over]. However, this idea, too, cannot be supported from within the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew name for Nazareth is (natsrat) or (natseret), which may have a possible connection with the verb (natsar), primarily due to the geography of the town, as it is situated on an elevated plateau. However, one who hails from Nazareth is called (notsri; pronounced noh-tsree), a term that has become the Hebrew word for a Christian. However, the common noun derived from the verb (natsar) is (notser), a guard, a watchman, and such a term is never used in the Hebrew Bible in connection with (mashi'ah).

Still another proposed idea is that the author is referring to Jesus as being a Nazirite, an English term that comes from the Hebrew noun (nazir), one who is consecrated through a vow (e.g., Num 6:2, Jdgs 13:5). However, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it stated, alluded, or implied that (mashi'ah) will ever take the vow of a (nazir)^⁴[4]. Moreover, there is no linguistic relationship between the Hebrew word (nazir), Nazirite, which derives from the root verb (nazar), and the Hebrew word (notsri), Nazarene, which derives from the root verb (natsar).

The strongest evidence, the "smoking gun", may be found within the verse Matthew 2:23 itself, since it provides the reason for Jesus being called a Nazarene [NazwraioV (Nazoraios), of/from Nazareth in Greek]. Jesus is called a Nazarene because he resided in the town of Nazareth [Nazareq (Nazareth; in Greek)]. This has no relevance to the Hebrew words (netser), (natsar), or (nazir) and, therefore, any speculations about what the author of the Gospel of Matthew had in mind here, in terms of references to Hebrew words, are moot.

Consequently, whether or not the author of the Gospel of Matthew did this with intent, the outcome remains the same, Matthew 2:23 points to a nonexistent prophecy in the Hebrew Bible.

Conclusion: Claim #4 becomes Pious Fraud Example #4.

IV. Summary

This study of Chapter 2 in the Gospel of Matthew identified and analyzed four claims made by its author, of allegedly "fulfilled" prophecies from the "Old Testament". The analysis demonstrated how these claims turned into four examples of pious fraud, and how the author deceived his readers by retrofitting his stories to appear as fulfillments by Jesus of alleged prophecies by the Jewish prophets. In typical fashion, the authors of the New Testament searched for, and found, in their Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, passages that had "Christological appeal", and then wrote "Jesus stories" around them to create the impression they were "fulfilled".

Though not the earliest of the four Gospels, the Gospel of Matthew is the first book in the New Testament and, thereby, it sets the tone for the rest of that portion of the Christian Bible. This is, perhaps, the most compelling motivation for a study such as was presented herein.

The first chapter in the Gospel of Matthew (and in the New Testament) provides the material for two other essays.^⁵[5] In these two essays, the claims are demonstrated to be false relative to the Hebrew Bible. With the first two chapters in the New Testament having no credibility, how can anyone accept the entire book as valid, let alone as Scripture?.

Regardless of the truth, Paul advocated the perpetration of "divine deception":

Romans 3:7-8(KJV) - (7) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (8) And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

1 Corinthians 9:19-22(KJV) – (19) For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. (20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. (22) To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 12:16(KJV) – But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

These passages, in effect, give Christian missionaries the "license" to perpetrate their deceptive deeds. Only by carefully studying such texts can one discover how deceptive, insidious, and sinister they really are.

Source: www.messiahtruth.com/matthew.html

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Return to Refuting Alleged Old Testament Prophecies Pointing to Jesus

Return to Homepage

1^[1] In another essay, Bethlehem: The Messiah's Birthplace?, this particular claim is analyzed in detail, in terms of linguistic context and consistency with the Hebrew Bible.

2^[2] Original article (in Hebrew) - http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_ido.asp?sec_id=17&sub_subj_id=184&id=273#as. A report on this appears in The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1377287,00.html.

3^[3] The Hebrew term (b^ealim) is the plural of the noun (ba'al), the head god of the Canaanites.

4^[4] Nazirite vows were taken by both men and women for personal reasons, such as giving thanks for a recovery from an illness, or for the birth of a child. The Nazirite vow includes three elements: (1) the hair to remain unshorn during the period of the vow; (2) abstinence from intoxicants; (3) avoidance of contact with a dead body. The minimum period for the Nazirite vow was 30 days; it can extend over a period of several years, and can even be a lifelong dedication. It is interesting to note that, since the Bible does not necessarily encourage such a lifestyle, when his period of abstention ended, a (nazir) was required to bring a sin offering to atone for the sin he had committed against his own person.

5^[5] One essay, Was She or Was She not "A Virgin"? Her OB/GYN Would Have Known, concerns the claimed fulfillment of a prophecy from the Christian "Old Testament", the "miraculous" Virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14). The other essay, Genealogical Scams and Flimflams, deals with the claims about the genealogies of Jesus.

=================================================================

Psalm 22: Nailing An Alleged Crucifixion Scenario

Messiah truth

I. Introduction

A casual reading of Psalms 22, either in the Hebrew or in an accurate translation from the Hebrew, is not likely to raise many eyebrows or draw much attention as having some special and unique significance to Christianity. It is only when reading any one of many Christian translations of this psalm, that the reasons for its being dubbed the "Crucifixion Psalm" by Christians, start to surface. This, of course, makes the 22^nd chapter in the Book of Psalms an important component of the portfolio of the Christian apologist and missionary. In fact, some Christian sources list as many as 22 passages from Psalms 22, which are claimed to "messianic prophecies" (i.e., "proof texts") that were "fulfilled" by Jesus.^¹[1]

In this essay, only the significant and most commonly used "proof texts" are examined. For each of these, the Christian perspective is contrasted with the Jewish perspective by analyzing the respective Hebrew texts. The analysis demonstrates that Psalms 22 is an historic account by its author, King David, rather than "messianic text" that foretells the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus.

II. English Translations of Psalms 22

Table II-1 displays English translations of Psalms 22. Note that the respective verse numbers are not synchronized since the superscription is not numbered separately as a verse in Christian Bibles.^²[2] The King James Version (KJV) rendition contains references to key passages in the New Testament, where the respective portions of this psalm are cross-referenced. [The references are found in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), but the corresponding passages, quoted below the table, are taken from the KJV.]

Table II-1 – English translations of Psalms 22

King James Version Translation			Jewish Translation from the Hebrew
Psalms 22
1	[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?⁽¹⁾	1		For the conductor, on the Ayeleth HaShahar, a Psalm of David.
2		My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me? [You are] so far from my salvation, from the words of my loud moaning?
2	O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.	3		My G-d, I call out in the daytime, and You do not reply; and at nigh I do not keep silent.
3	But thou [art] holy, [O thou] that inhabitest the praises of Israel.	4		But You are holy, You await the praises of Israel.
4	Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.	5		Our ancestors trusted in You; they trusted, and You rescued them.
5	They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.	6		They cried out to You, and they escaped; they trusted in You, and they were not shamed.
6	But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.	7		But I am a worm, and not a man; a reproach of man and despised by the people.
7	All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, [saying],	8		All those who see me will mock me; they will open their lip, they will shake their head, [saying],
8	He trusted on the LORD [that] he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.	9		He should cast his trust upon the L-rd so that He will rescue him; He will save him because he delights in Him.
9	But thou [art] he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope [when I was] upon my mother's breasts.	10		For You took me out of the womb; You made me secure upon my mother’s breasts.
10	I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.	11		Upon You, I was cast from the womb; from my mother’s belly, You are my G-d.
11	Be not far from me; for trouble [is] near; for [there is] none to help.	12		Do not distance Yourself from me, for distress is near; for there is none to help.
12	Many bulls have compassed me: strong [bulls] of Bashan have beset me round.	13		Great bulls have surrounded me; the mighty ones of Bashan surrounded me.
13	They gaped upon me [with] their mouths, [as] a ravening and a roaring lion.	14		They opened wide their mouths at me, [like] a ravening and a roaring lion.
14	I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.	15		I was spilled like water, and all my bones were separated; my heart was like wax, melting within my innards.
15	My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.	16		My strength became dried out like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my palate; and You set me down in the dust of death.
16	For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.	17		For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers encompassed me; like a lion [they are at] my hands and my feet.
17	I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me.	18		I can count all my bones. They look and stare at me.
18	They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.⁽²⁾	19		They divide my garments among themselves, and cast lots for my raiment.
19	But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.	20		But You, O L-rd, do not distance Yourself; my strength, hasten to my help.
20	Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.	21		Save my soul from the sword; my only one from the grip of the dog.
21	Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.	22		Save me from the lion’s mouth; for You have answered my call from the horns of the wild oxen.
22	I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.⁽³⁾	23		I will declare Your Name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation will I praise You.
23	Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.	24		You who fear the L-rd, praise Him; all the seed of Jacob, honor Him; and fear Him, all the seed of Israel.
24	For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.	25		For He has neither despised nor loathed the suffering of the poor; neither has He hidden His countenance from him; and when he cried to Him, He hearkened.
25	My praise [shall be] of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.	26		Because of You is my praise in the great congregation; I will pay my vows in the presence of those who fear Him.
26	The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.	27		The humble shall eat and be sated; they shall praise the L-rd, those who seek Him; may your heart live forever!
27	All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.	28		All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the L-rd, and all the families of the nations shall prostrate themselves before You.
28	For the kingdom [is] the LORD'S: and he [is] the governor among the nations.	29		For the kingship is the L-rd’s; and He rules over the nations.
29	All [they that be] fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.	30		They shall eat all the best of the earth and prostrate themselves; before him shall kneel all those who descend to the dust, and He will not quicken his soul.
30	A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.	31		The seed that worships Him shall be the L-rd's, as told to the next generations.
31	They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done [this].	32		They shall come and declare His righteousness to a newborn people, for He has done [this].

1. Matthew 27:46(KJV) - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli,

lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou

forsaken me?

Mark 15:34(KJV) - And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama

sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou

forsaken me?

2. Matthew 27:35(KJV) - And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it

might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my

garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

John 19:23-24(KJV) - (23) Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his

garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his]

coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

(24) They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast

lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which

saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did

cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

3. Hebrews 2:12(KJV) - Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the

church will I sing praise unto thee.

Upon comparing the two translations, it becomes evident that there are several significant differences between the KJV and Jewish renditions of several passages. The particular verses in question are shown in boldface (key phrases within them are highlighted), and are the focus of the analysis that follows.

III. The Christian Perspective

Only a summary of the Christian perspective is presented here. Standard Christian sources, such as commentaries by Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown, provide detailed verse-by-verse Christian interpretations of Psalms 22, which are beyond the scope of this essay.

The Church has long regarded Psalms 22 as a prophetic messianic psalm that describes the agony of the Passion (Ps 22:2[1]), the Crucifixion (Ps 22:17[16]), and Resurrection (Ps 22:23[22]) of Jesus, the Messiah of Christianity. These passages are "quoted" in the New Testament as "evidence" of the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies allegedly contained in this psalm. Perhaps the most notable "quote" from this psalm found in the New Testament is its opening verse, one that is used by the authors of the Gospels of Matthew (Mt 27:46) and Mark (Mk 15:34) as the passionate statement of the crucified Jesus and his last words as he was dying on the cross. In the Gospels of Matthew (Mt 27:35) and John (Jn 19:24), verse 19[18] is "quoted" in the "Crucifixion narrative"; while the author of the Book of Hebrews (He 2:12) "quotes" Psalms 22:23[22] to explain that Jesus needed to suffer in order to triumph, celebrate, and publish G-d's gracious dealings upon his resurrection.

These passages are revisited in the analysis that follows. It is interesting to note that one of the most important verses from the Christian perspective, Psalms 22:17[16], is not cited by any of the New Testament authors. Their silence on this verse would suggest that this verse might not have had the same form as that found today in most Christian translations.

IV. The Jewish Interpretation

As was done with the Christian perspective, this will be a summary of the Jewish interpretation. A detailed verse-by-verse analysis and commentary is beyond the scope of this essay.

The Jewish perspective rests on the context as well as on the consistency of the themes described in this psalm with those found elsewhere within the Hebrew Bible. The overall theme of Psalms 22 depicts the plight of the Jew who, as an individual, prays for an end to Israel’s long exile from its land and from the Temple in Jerusalem. A reading of this psalm in the original Hebrew or in a correct translation reveals that King David is its author (Ps 22:1) and that he is the "voice" throughout. David describes his own pain, anguish, and longing during those times when he was a fugitive from his enemies. Consequently, this is an historical rather than a messianic psalm. When he refers to himself as a worm (Ps 22:7[6]), a helpless creature, whose only salvation can come from G-d, it becomes abundantly clear that the author does not consider himself to be someone who can provide salvation, and certainly not one who is divine!.

King David speaks of the powerful empires that have constantly tried to conquer his kingdom, Israel, and dispossess him of his mantle of royalty. He utilizes a series of metaphorical references to what he endured (Ps 22:12-22[11-21]); this is similar to Isaiah's use of a series of metaphorical references to describe what King Hezekiah experienced during his illness (Is 38:12-14). David's use of animal motifs of lions, dogs, and bulls/bison, to describe his adversaries is not unique to this psalm; he employs similar metaphors on many other occasions (e.g., Ps 17:11,12, 35:17, 59:2-7,15).

V. The Christian Perspective vis-à-vis the Hebrew Text

A comparison of the Christian and Jewish perspectives on Psalms 22 indicates that both cannot be simultaneously valid interpretations. The question is, “Which of these two views is consistent with the Hebrew Bible (and Israel's history)?”

The analysis focuses on the verses being “quoted” in the New Testament. The respective renditions of each verse are taken from Table II-1 above, and are augmented by the corresponding Hebrew text.

A. Psalms 22:2[1]

King James Version Translation		Jewish Translation from the Hebrew		Hebrew Text
Psalms 22
1	[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?	1	For the conductor, on the Ayeleth HaShahar, a Psalm of David.
		2	My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me? [You are] so far from my salvation, from the words of my loud moaning?

As noted earlier, this verse is used in both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, and it appears there as follows:

Matthew 27:46(KJV) - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34(KJV) – And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

These two verses are now compared; first against each other and, then, against the Hebrew text and, finally, against the context of the original verse.

1. Comparing Matthew 27:46 with Mark 15:34

The variations between the two renditions in the Gospels are rather minor, with perhaps, Eli vs. Eloi, showing the most variance. This is, however, only a superficial problem since:

 Some of the old manuscripts have either Eli or Eloi or a mix in both sources

 This is a transliterated word from the Hebrew (or Aramaic), and transliteration is inherently subject to variation

2. Comparing Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 with Psalms 22:2

The transliterated phrases in the Gospels are, "… Eli/Eloi, Eli/Eloi, lama sabachthani …". The Hebrew text of the corresponding phrase in Psalms 22:2 reads, (Eli, Eli, lama azavtani). The question is: "Does sabachtani have the same meaning as (azavtani)?"

The conjugated verb (azavtani) derives from the root verb (azav), [to] abandon/forsake/leave. The word sabachtani exists neither in Hebrew nor in Aramaic. Two possibilities exist here:

 The closest Hebrew/Aramaic term to sabachtani would be (z^evahtani), a conjugated verb that derives from the root verb (zavah), [to] sacrifice/slaughter [a sacrificial animal], but which is never used in the Hebrew Bible. Making this association would render this phrase as "My G-d, My G-d, why have you slaughtered me?". Clearly, the two terms and, therefore, the phrases, are not equivalent. If this identification is correct then one could speculate that using sabachtani in the two Gospels was designed ostensibly to depict the scene of the Passion as a sacrificial offering.

 The Targum Yonathan, an ancient interpretive translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Aramaic vernacular, has (Eli, Eli, m^etul mah sh^evaqtani). The phrase (m^etul mah) is interchangeable with the word (lama), why. The conjugated verb (sh^evaqtani) derives from the Aramaic root verb (sh^evaq), [to] leave/forsake. Because the Greek language does not have the "sh" sound, the letter (shin) is usually transliterated as an "s". Moreover, the use of "ch" for the letter (qof) is plausible, since the actual alphabetic cognate in the Greek language for the letter (qof) – the koppa, not the ^ (kappa) – had been lost centuries earlier, and the letter ^ (chi) was used here instead. Given these facts, one could conclude that, even though the way the term appears in the Greek text is not precise or consistent in its transliteration from Aramaic, the Aramaic (sh^evaqtani) could have become sabachtani in the process of transliteration.

The conclusion drawn from the former view does not necessarily survive under the latter perspective. However placing this verse into the mouth of a dying Jesus, creates more theological difficulties for the Christian paradigm than it solves. For example, King David makes the following statement:

Psalms 37:25(KJV) - I have been young, and [now] am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

This would imply that Jesus was not righteous, i.e., a sinner, since he complained to G-d about being forsaken.

Attributing this verse to Jesus creates a conflict with another common claim by Christian apologists and missionaries concerning a passage in Isaiah 53. According to this claim, the "Suffering Servant", alleged to be Jesus, was silent:

Isaiah 53:7(KJV) - He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

Other issues concerning the Christian claims about Psalms 22:2[1] are:

 As an integral part of Christianity's triune godhead, why would Jesus be complaining, "… [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?"?

 How could G-d (the Father), the first person in the Trinity, not hear the cries of G-d (the Son), the second Person in the Trinity?

 To whom is this god complaining?

 How can G-d not understand his own predicament?

Finally, even the four Gospels do not agree on the last words of the dying Jesus on the cross:

Matthew 27:46(KJV) - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34(KJV) – And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23:46(KJV) - And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30(KJV) - When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

It is evident that attributing Psalms 22:2[1] to a dying Jesus on the cross creates more theological difficulties for Christianity than it solves.

3. The Correct Context of Psalms 22:2[1]

The speaker, King David, questions his feelings of abandonment as he recounts the times that G-d had listened and intervened on behalf of his ancestors, as he is grieved that G-d is not listening to at all times.

Psalms 22:19[18]

King James Version Translation		Jewish Translation from the Hebrew		Hebrew Text
Psalms 22
18	They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.	19	They divide my garments among themselves, and cast lots for my raiment.

The author of the Gospel of John points to this verse as being a prophecy that became fulfilled when Jesus was on the cross:

John 19:23-24 – (23) Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his] coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. (24) They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

The previous verse, Psalms 22:18[17], is critical to a correct understanding of the true context of this verse. Psalms 22:18[17] describes the person whose clothes are being divided as counting his bones while those who are taking his garments look on gloating. This starving man is so skinny that his bones are visible and can be counted. The "voice" here is still King David, as it is throughout the psalm, and he uses the act of taking and dividing his garments as a metaphorical reference to the desires of his enemies to take away his mantle of royalty and make it their own.

Psalms 22:23[22]

King James Version Translation		Jewish Translation from the Hebrew		Hebrew Text
Psalms 22
22	I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.	23	I will declare Your Name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation will I praise You.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews "quotes" this verse at Hebrews 2:12 to help explain why Jesus needed to suffer for humanity. However, the one who speaks here is the same person that speaks throughout the psalm, including Psalms 22:7[6], where he refers to himself as being worm:

Psalms 22:7[6] - But I am a worm, and not a man; a reproach of man and despised by the people.

In the Christian scenario, it would be Jesus calling himself a worm. This reference to a worm as a metaphor for people is not unique within the Hebrew Bible. Isaiah likens the Jewish people to a worm:

Isaiah 41:14 - Fear not, O worm of Jacob, the number of Israel; "I have helped you," says the L-rd, and your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

Bildad the Shuhite, one of Job's friends, does the same:

Job 25:6 - How much less, man, who is a worm, and the son of man, who is a maggot!"

In Psalms 22:7[6], King David uses this metaphor as he writes about the plight of his own people. Does the worm metaphor fit Jesus? Would anyone, other than pagans who worship worms, use this metaphor to characterize a divine being?

The theme in Psalms 22:23[22] is the praising of G-d's name for being so good and benevolent, a theme that is often used by King David in his other psalms (e.g., Ps 9:3, 54:8, 61:9, 69:31).

Psalms 22:17[16]

King James Version Translation		Jewish Translation from the Hebrew			Hebrew Text
Psalms 22
16	For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.		17	For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers encompassed me; like a lion [they are at] my hands and my feet.

This is, perhaps, one of the verses from the Christian "Old Testament" most frequently referenced by Christian apologists and missionaries when claiming that the crucifixion of Jesus was foretold. Yet, as was noted above, none of the authors of the New Testament ever point to this verse, which is such an important component in the evangelical portfolio. A comparison of the above two translations reveals a major discrepancy in the respective renditions of the term (ka'ari), like a lion. The typical Jewish rendition of this term is like a lion, while the KJV (typical of most Christian translations) has they pierced. Which is the correct translation?

A simple word study on the Hebrew term (ka'ari) helps answer this question. For simplicity, the word study concerns only on cases where the same form of the term appears, i.e., excluding conjugations of the root noun (ari) in the singular and plural, and combinations with various prepositions other than that which occurs here [the {or } (ka-) here is the Hebrew preposition equivalent to like/as]. In addition to the application at Psalms 22:17[16], three other instances of (ka'ari) are present in the Hebrew Bible, and all are shown in Table IV.D-1 below, along with their respective KJV translations. There is also a single instance of the term (v^echa'ari), which is the equivalent of (ka'ari) with the preposition (v^e-), and, in front of it to make it, and like a lion. This term is included in Table IV.D-1 for completeness since it contains the original term (ka'ari), though it is not critical for illustrating the point to be made here.

Table IV.D-1 – Comparisons of KJV renditions of (ka'ari) in the Hebrew Bible

Reference	KJV Rendition	Comment
Psalms 22:17[16]	(ka'ari), they pierced	Incorrect
Numbers 24:9	(ka'ari), like a lion	Correct
Isaiah 38:13	(ka'ari), like a lion	Correct
Ezekiel 22:25	(ka'ari), like a lion	Correct
Numbers 23:24	(v^echa'ari), and … as a young lion	Correct

It appears that the KJV translators had a special reason for rendering the term (ka'ari) at Psalms 22:17[16] differently. Why did the KJV translate the Hebrew term (ka'ari) as they pierced only at Psalms 22:17[16]?

Is there a connection between the Hebrew term (ka'ari) and a Hebrew verb that describes the act of piercing? The word (ari), lion, is related to another word for lion, (aryeh); both are used in the Hebrew Bible. Several verbs are used in the Hebrew Bible to describe an act of piercing: (daqar; e.g., Zech 12:10), (hadar; e.g., Ezek 21:19), (naqav; e.g., Hab 3:14), (palah; e.g., Job 16:13), and (ratza; e.g., Exod 21:6). A knowledge of Hebrew is not required to recognize that none of these root verbs resembles the terms (ka'ari), (ari), or (aryeh).

Could there be another linguistic explanation? Two fragments containing Psalms 22:17[16] were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). In the first fragment, which was found at Qumran (4QPs-f; known as the Qumran MS, the word in question is not preserved. In the second fragment, found at Nahal Hever (HHev/Se 4 (Ps); known as the Bar Kochba MS, the word is preserved. The fragment HHev/Se 4 (Ps) shows the Hebrew letters (kaf), (aleph), (resh), and what appears to be a somewhat elongated letter (yod), which some perceive to be the letter (vav).^³[3] Thus, the reading of this word would be either (ka'ari) or (ka'aru), respectively. Although the latter of these two renditions of the term has been the focus of much controversy and discussion, it is a fact that no root verb exists which contains the letter (aleph) in it, conjugated in this fashion (3^rd-person, plural masculine gender, past tense), with the meaning of they pierced, as rendered in most Christian translations. Without the letter (aleph), and using, for the moment, the argument that the last letter [the elongated (yod)] is a (vav), the word would be (karu), for which the Hebrew root verb is (karah), [to] dig [in dirt], such as digging a ditch (e.g., Ps 57:7). In other words, (karu) has the meaning [they] dug [in dirt]. This verb is never used in the context of piercing, either literally or metaphorically, in any of its 15 applications in the Hebrew Bible.

What could cause such a variation between the two terms (ka'ari) and (ka'aru), i.e., with an elongated letter (yod) that resembles the letter (vav)? Since the word (ka'aru) does not exist in the Hebrew language, the most plausible explanation is that such discrepancy is simply a case of scribal variation (or error).

Another possibility, one that has been alleged by Christian apologists and missionaries, is textual revisionism by the Masorites, who added vowels and melodic trope marks to the Hebrew Bible around the 10^th century C.E., i.e., the claim is that the Masorites changed the original (ka'aru) to the current (ka'ari) in order to remove any resemblance to a crucifixion scenario. Given the strict prohibitions in the Hebrew Bible concerning any tampering with its text (e.g., Deut 4:2, Pr 30:6), and the fact that the term (ka'aru) does not exist in the Hebrew language, this is a rather preposterous claim regarding an unlikely action by the trained scribes.

Given the late dating of the Nahal Hever fragment^⁴[4], the discrepancy could be the result of exactly the reverse of the previous claim. Namely, this could be the result of an attempt by second century C.E. (early) Christians to edit the original (ka'ari) to be (ka'aru), thereby making it appear like the term (karu), they dug. This would have accomplished the effect of aligning the word with the events of the early first century C.E. It is also interesting to note that in the LXX (the Christian translation into Greek of the Hebrew Bible), where this verse is numbered as Psalms 21:17, the reading is ωρυξαν (oruksan), which stems from the root ορύσσω (orusso), to dig, as in [to] dig a trench. Liddell & Scott (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon) do not list a meaning of pierce for this word, and the identical usages occur only in early Christian renditions (Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon of the Greek Testament). This LXX reading could possibly stem from a presumed, though non-existent, Hebrew reading (which makes no sense in context) of (karu) [i.e., without the (aleph) - not the reading (ka'aru)]. As noted above, the Hebrew word (karu) means [they] dug [in dirt], and it is never used in the Hebrew Bible with the context of piercing.

A final clue is found within the New Testament itself. The New Testament authors are silent on Psalms 22:17[16], a verse so central to Christianity in the description of the crucifixion itself. Given its significance to the Church, the question is: "Why is the New Testament silent on this verse?".

One possible answer is that none of the authors of the four Gospels, all of which provide a narrative of the crucifixion, was aware of this verse. That answer is not likely, however, since all of them referenced other parts of this psalm. Another possibility is that none of the authors saw this verse as being significant, or even relevant, to their respective crucifixion narratives. But this answer would be inconsistent with the important role this verse plays in the Christian perspective.

Perhaps the most likely answer is that the common Christian rendition, they pierced in the "Old Testament", came after the New Testament was written, i.e., the authors of the New Testament were unaware of a future revision of Psalms 22:17[16], in which the Church attempted to create a better fit with the crucifixion narrative. There was no need to mistranslate the term (ka'ari) in Numbers 23:24, 24:9, Isaiah 38:13, and Ezekiel 22:25, since these passages, unlike Psalms 22:17[16], had no Christological value to the Church, and could not help improve the fit into the Hebrew Bible of any component of Christian theology. This is a serious charge to make. However, given the hard evidence of tampering by the Church with other passages from the Hebrew Bible, it certainly is a plausible scenario for the disparity between the two renditions of this particular verse.

VI. Summary

The linguistic and thematic analyses demonstrate that it is possible to derive a plausible explanation for the significant difference between the Jewish and standard Christian perspectives and, thereby, affirm the validity of the Jewish understanding of Psalms 22. The Christian perspective appears to have been fashioned with hindsight, i.e., knowing what the narratives in the New Testament have described, Psalms 22, perhaps enhanced through editing, was a close enough passage to be claimed as a template for the prophetic description of the crucifixion that would take place a millennium after these words were recorded. This assessment is supported by the fact that, Psalms 22:17[16], perhaps the most important passage relative to the crucifixion, is not referenced by any of the authors of the New Testament.

Whereas the Christian perspective on Psalms 22 may be acceptable to Christians, as it is also based on passages from their New Testament, which allegedly represent accounts of "prophetic fulfillments", this scenario conflicts with both the text and context in the Hebrew Bible and, therefore, is unacceptable within Judaism.

Source: http://www.messiahtruth.com/psa22.html

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Return to Refuting Alleged Old Testament Prophecies Pointing to Jesus

Return to Homepage

1^[1] 300+ Messianic Prophecies: Prophecies From the Old Testament that Reveal that Jesus is the Messiah - http://www.gotell.gracenet.org/gbn12.htm

2^[2] The notation for cases where verse numbers differ between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian "Old Testament" shows the verse number in the Hebrew Bible followed by the verse number in the Christian "Old Testament" in brackets. Example: Psalms 22:17[16].

3^[3] An image of this fragment, in which the line with the word in question has been "enhanced", is shown in an article by a Christian apologist, Tim Hegg, Psalm 22:16 – "like a lion" or "they pierced"? - http://www.torahresource.com/Newsletter/Ps22.16.pdf. The reader should be cautioned that the Hebrew linguistic analysis in the article is seriously flawed. The article contains other questionable items. For example, the fragment also shows the next word as being misspelled, having an extra letter "heh" attached at the end, which makes no grammatical sense. The author shows this incorrect spelling in the text, but in a later segment in which he compares the Masoretic Text with the text from HHev/Se 4 (Ps), he drops the extra letter "heh".

4^[4] The Nahal Hever papyri are dated as late as the second century C.E. according to DSS scholars and researchers; e.g. G. Vermes, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 29.

سيف الإسلام للرد على الشبهات

السبت، 27 يونيو 2020

مزمور 110 و22 ومتي 2

I. Introduction

II. Comparison of Christian and Jewish English Translations

III. Overview of Christian and Jewish Interpretations

I. Introduction

II. Matthew 2 in the King James Version

I. Introduction

II. English Translations of Psalms 22

III. The Christian Perspective

V. The Christian Perspective vis-à-vis the Hebrew Text

A. Psalms 22:2[1]

ليست هناك تعليقات:

إرسال تعليق