Psalm 16:10 - Resurrection

 PREFACE – REGARDING SHEOL

If you look throughout all of the writings of the Tanach that were written before their exile to Babylon and their interactions with the Zoroastrians, there is no mention of Hell, Purgatory, or Heaven as supernatural locations for eternal punishment, burning away of evil, or as a place for the good to reside. These were all later inventions that would then lie at the periphery of Jewish thought, even until today.

Rather than “Heaven”, there’s “Gan Eden”, a supernatural Garden of Eden for those who are righteous to wait for the final resurrection of the dead. Rather than “Purgatory”, there’s a “Gehinnom” where everyone goes for some period of time to purge away one’s sins with fire. And there is no Hell. Although, I expect that if your sins were horrific, that Gehinnom could be a rather long enough time where it would be indistinguishable from Hell.

In any case, those supernatural states and places were never in the Tanach. And, therefore, when one reads a narrative in the Tanach that predates those beliefs, then projecting those later views upon those earlier views is reading into the text (eisegesis) rather than pulling out from the text (exegesis).

Sheol, while similar to Hades in some ways, was not Hades even though the Septuagint would use the word “Hades” to refer to Sheol. We find a description in Psalm 6, which many orthodox Jews recite during the contrition part of the morning service, “tachanun”. The text reads:

“For in death there is no memory of You, in Sheol who will give you thanks?” (verse 6)

And as we read in Ecclesiastes 9:5:

“As for the living, they know that they will die. And the dead? They don’t know anything at all.”

It is a grey colorless place where one knows nothing, not even God, there is no memory of Him, nor of anything. It’s a rather dismal view of death, but it is consistent with the view in the Tanach prior to the Babylonian exile. And, so, when I use the term “Tanach”, I am talking about texts composed prior to the Babylonian experience.

Remember that.

IMPOSING MEANING

While it is natural is see something based upon one’s own life experience, one needs to keep in mind that the Tanach was written by an ancient people who had a different view of the world. And, so, when one reads about the rqia (רקיע) or “firmament” which was a solid protective covering over the earth that encircles it, keeping the upper waters at bay, more sophisticated people will dismiss that as part of the ancient view of the world. Loyal literalists, however, will redefine the Biblical view, either claiming that רקיע means “horizon” or that the Bible was describing the OORT Cloud that encircles our solar system, something of which the ancient writers had no knowledge.

Another example is the expression of “right hand” or “right side” of God or anyone else. Biblically, that term is an expression of trust, devotion, and partnership. Sometimes the Psalmists will speak of God being at the right side of the speaker, and sometimes the speaker will be on the right side of God, changing the source of devotion or success from one source to the other. It does not mean sitting in heaven with God because, as I have already mentioned, there is no “Heaven” in the Tanach. There are the “heavens” overhead, which is another term for the raqia, but no “Heaven”.

One final example of this is the term “soul”.

There are a number of words that are translated into “soul” or “spirit”, and it is often inappropriate to do so. For example, the word “nefesh” (נפש) when applied with a personal pronoun is simply a poetic way of speaking of a physical entity, his very being of which is represented by his physical body. And when you cast away one’s nefesh, it is a poetic expression for killing. And “You will not abandon my nefesh” means “you will keep me safe”. While later philosophers attempted to categorize the three typical terms for “soul” into supernatural ideas of differing levels, the ancient authors were singers, not sophisticated philosophers, and one is simply imposing a view of “soul” that wasn’t a Tanach view, into a verse of the Tanach.

ACTS 2:24-32

In chapter 2 of the Christian book of Acts, Peter imposes a Jesus narrative unto more than one Psalm, and to do so, he imposes a non-Tanach view of the supernatural and of a messiah.

In one of these, Peter quotes from Psalm 16:8-11 and tells his audience (KJV):

29. Men and brethren, let me speak freely unto you of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him, that the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31. He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted…

 So, the claim by Peter is that Psalm 16 speaks of Hell, of being buried, and of being resurrected, and that it cannot be about David because we have David’s tomb (which, ironically enough, is as empty as the ones claimed to be the tombs of Jesus).

The thing is, Psalm 16 does not say that the subject of the song ever died. That is an imposed view by Peter who forces a resurrection narrative.

PSALM 16

1.      A michtam of David: “Protect me, EL, for I took refuge in You”

This alone should dismiss the idea that this is about a resurrection rather than about God’s protection and the speaker having taken refuge. Nobody is certain what a michtam is, although many suggest that it is a style of song, but are uncertain about the style.

2.      “I said to YHVH, “You are my Lord. My good is nothing without you.””

Again, he cannot be speaking from Sheol. The last half of the verse is difficult and I simplified it., The gist is that he is saying to God as YHVH, that he relies upon him.

3.      “As for the holy ones in the land, they and the mighty ones, I had delighted in all of them.”

This is speaking of fellow devotees, some of whom are fighters. It’s not entirely clear who they are. These are not dead people, and I have seen some Christian translations render this as “in the earth” instead of “in the land”, which is a problem contextually. The Greek version has “On behalf of the saints that are in his land, he has magnified all his pleasure in them”, which is a version that Peter would have been using.

4.      “May the sorrows increase on those who hasten to an “other”. Their drink offerings of blood, I will not pour out as an offering, nor will my lips utter their names.”

This is an opposing verse to verse 3. To emphasize how he is devoted and would never even think of speaking aloud the names of one of the Elohim Acherim (“other Gods”). “Acher” is used in the singular form here and refers to some other God. It may also be a generic term for a deity that others follow and serve. It can also mean “after”, as in “one that they hasten after”.

5.      “It is YHVH, a portion of my inheritance and my share. You maintain my lot in life.”

The text literally has “cup” rather than “share”, but we see “cup” used as an expression of counting and portion determining. Still no mention of dying yet. Rather, it’s an expression of hope and faith in a continued blessed life.

6.      “The portions have fallen upon me in pleasant areas. Indeed, a pleasant inheritance has fallen unto me.”

7.      “I will bless YHVH who as counselled me. Indeed, in each of the nights I am moved, emotionally”

The verse literally ends with “in the nights, my kidneys afflict me”. In ancient times, the kidneys were considered the center where emotional stirrings reside, and with the heart, the center of thinking, it was one of the most important organs in having a balanced life. While modern views might see it as having to get up at night to use the bathroom, this was not the ancient view of this expression. This verse is about emotionally tinged gratitude. Again, nothing about dying.

8.      “I have set YHVH before me always. For He is by my right side and will not be moved.”

This is an expression of devotion, with YHVH being on the right side as being the most important one. Later, sides will switch. It does not mean that the singer is in Heaven next to God, since that would be an anachronistic view of the text. And there is nothing in the text to even suggest that he has died, but instead, has been protected from death and rewarded for his loyalty.

9.      “Therefore, my heart is glad, and my glory has rejoiced. My flesh also dwells in safety.”

He is safe, secure, and hasn’t died yet. Now we come to the verse that claims that he resurrected:

10.   “For you will not abandon me to Sheol, and you will not give your devoted one to see the place of death.”

Basically, this is “You are protecting me and won’t let me die.” Not “I’m dead, so beam me up!” I translated שחת as “place of death”, which can refer to a grave, tomb, or even a variant of Sheol. And as part of his gratitude, the singer ends with:

11.   “You have shown me the path of life. In your presence is the fullness of joy.  At your right hand is bliss for evermore.”

Again, “right hand is an expression of devotion and loyalty”. And here it changed from God being at the right hand of the one who is devoted to him, to God being devoted to the man.

It’s actually a beautiful song even though is has nothing to do with dying, and certainly nothing to do with resurrection.

So, no, Jesus didn’t fulfill this unless one wants to say that Jesus was devoted to YHVH and served YHVH who was Jesus’ Lord.

But that’s not the claim.

So, no. Jesus didn’t fulfill Psalm 16:10, which has nothing to do with resurrection.

Style: Like many of the others, it has nothing to do with a messianic prophecy, and therefore it was never “fulfilled” by Jesus as a “resurrection” narrative, which it isn’t.

 Meme used:

Isaiah 42:6 - A Light to the Gentiles

 There’s a story in Acts 13:47-48, where Paul is being heckled by the local Jewish populace and, getting fed up with them, he announces to the that he had decided to take his message of eternal life to the gentiles. He then quotes Isaiah 42:6 as a justification for it. Many Christians also incorrectly associate Isaiah 60:3 which has similar imagery, but a different message.

And neither are about evangelizing to outsiders.

That alone should end the claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy “to be a light to the gentiles” since not only had Jesus never done that, nor had he ever expressed any interest in doing so in any of the gospels, it was Paul who claimed it as a justification as to why he was going to peddle his new religion to those who, unlike the Jews, wouldn’t be so critical of it.

Now, even if Jesus somehow pulled off this prophecy, one that was fulfilled before he was ever born, and doing so only after he was dead, it wouldn’t have made a difference if one actually takes the time to read the verse.  

First of all, Isaiah 42 is early on in the narrative that is commonly referred to as “Deutero-Isaiah” (chapters 40-54 of the Book of Isaiah), and those fifteen chapters as a whole focus exclusively on the imminent fall of the Babylonian empire and the freeing of the Jewish exiles from captivity. Because of that, one should immediately wonder about any verse pulled to prove something about Jesus, especially the context of the verses referring to the fall of Babylon and the freeing of the Judeans.

So here is the verse from Isaiah 42:6 which is referring to the Judeans being freed. First, the KJV version:

“I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the gentiles.”

Or better:

“I, YHVH, with righteousness have called you forth, and I have grasped you strongly by your hand, and I formed you and I have appointed you as a covenant nation, a light of peoples.”

With this verse and the one that follows, it is clear that this is talking about taking the Judeans out of Babylon “rescuing prisoners from confinement”. The second half is simply an expression of being special, so special that God Himself will take your hand and lead you out of captivity from Babylon.

This is not about converting the gentiles, or being a missionary to them. Despite Paul claiming that he had a Divine Mission to do so, it certainly wasn’t from the Book of Isaiah.

Now, since many have come to realize that Isaiah 42:6 cannot be applied to Paul, they have switched gears to use Isaiah 60:3, which says: (KJV)

“And the Gentiles shall come to they light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising”

Again, this doesn’t say to go to the gentiles, but that the gentiles will com to you. In fact that chapter begins with “you light has come”, as an expression of “In the future, your time will come to be the head of all nations.”

And in any case, this verse is not what Paul in Acts was citing, but the one in Deutero-Isaiah.

So, Paul didn’t “fulfill” the declaration that God was going to take the Jews out of Babylon. And Jesus, being dead, certainly didn’t.

Style: “Not a command, fulfilled before Jesus was born, Jesus was dead, was not fulfilled by Jesus or Paul.”

The meme used:

Psalm 118:22 - Cornerstone Rejected

 In 1Peter 2:7, he speaks of the resurrected and dominant Jesus and uses Psalm 118:22 as a comparison, that while rejected by the Jews, Jesus is the cornerstone of the building, with the builders being the Jews.

Now, while that is obviously polemical, Psalm 118:22 isn't that bad of a metaphor to use. It's never referred to as a prophecy, even though many Christians see it as such.

The problem is, as we have seen in other supposed prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, just because one might be able to see a connection metaphorically, that doesn't mean that it's a fit contextually.

And that is certainly the case with Psalm 118.

The nameless narrator tells as, as many of the Psalms do, that the enemies of the Jews are surrounding him, not like a lion or dogs, but as annoying bees and thorns, and then declaring that he will crush them all, destroy them. Then the next four verses talk about how YHVH is the true source of strength and salvation, and no other. And that leads into verses 17-26 where the speaker is grateful that he will not die nor be given over to death, and recites his gratitude to YHVH.

And so, being in the middle of all of this, after having destroyed the other nations and having been spared from death, the speaker says:

"The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone."

Now, there is an Aramaic Targum that refers to this as referring to David: 

"The boy that the builders rejected; he was among the sons of Jesse and he was privileged to be appointed as the king and ruler."

Killing the enemies and surviving them, being grateful for having been saved from death, these could certainly apply to David.

But to Jesus? Not even close.

Other than a way of whining that the Jews rejected him, and then, only as a allegorical force.

Style: (I am going to stop adding a style at the end, just because it's getting repetitive). 

Meme used: 

Zechariah 9:9 - He Was to Enter Jerusalem on a Donkey

 Unlike most of the supposed "fulfilled prophecies" by Jesus, Zechariah 9:9 is actually a messianic verse.

Yes, it does have the messiah arrive on a donkey. 

The verse is:

"Rejoice much, fair Zion; Raise a shout, fair Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you."

Except that is only the first part of the verse. The rest of it goes:

"...He is victorious, triumphant, yet humble, riding on a donkey, upon a donkey foaled by a she-ass." 

Yes, he is the triumphant king.

The prior four verses tells us that this will take place after all of the enemies of the Jews had been defeated, crushed, and plundered, and after this, the victorious king will arrive.

Rather than being a victorious king who would rule after the fall of the enemies, Jesus fell at the hands of their enemies, was never called king except by the mocking Romans as they tortured him.

So, no, he did not fulfill Zechariah 9:9 by borrowing someone's donkey and riding into town.

Style: "Messianic, incomplete reference, Jesus did not fulfill"

And here was the meme used:

Malachi 3:1 - He Was to Enter the Temple

 First, let's look at Matthew 21:12 which claims a fulfillment of Malachi 3:1:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves."

The claim is that this fulfills Malachi 3:1 which had YHVH saying:

"Behold! I am sending my angel to clear the way before Me, and the Lord that you seek will come to the temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, behold! It is coming" says YHVH of Hosts.

Now, like most of these "fulfilled prophecies", this particular source is also not messianic.

Certainly, one can interpret the half of a verse as referring to the coming of the messiah, but only if one doesn't read the other verses around it and knows little of Malachi.

So unlike the other prophets, which were written during a time of oppression, Malachi wasn't. So let's look at the book in order to better understand what Malachi 3:1 actually means...in context!

THE BOOK OF MALACHI

Malachi (pronounced “MAH LAH KHEE”) means “my messenger” Whether that was his actual name, or is a bit of word-play based on the book assigned to his name is uncertain. He lived during the time of the second Temple and is considered to be the last of the prophets (sorry Muhammed and John the Baptist!)  His book is chronologically not only the last of the books, but takes place after the redemption from Babylon was long over, the Temple had been rebuilt, and the Jews were trying to figure out how to use the Temple, and were disappointed in it. Mainly, based on this book, they didn’t see God in the Temple and considered all of the rituals to be a bother.

In this book, the Problem of Evil (basically, “Why do the righteous suffer and the evil ones prosper?”) is invoked more than once, and while nobody is taking this very seriously, there are those who hope that there is something to it, even though God doesn’t seem to be in the Temple like the legends concerning the first one, which the Babylonians had destroyed a long time ago.

CHAPTER ONE

And so, this is where the book opens up, with Malachi explaining that YHVH does love them, and that He had chosen them over the descendants of Esau (the Edomites being symbolic of God’s disfavor by their destined fall, again and again). The is the theme of the first five verses of the first chapter.

Verses 6-14, the remaining verses of the first chapter is basically saying, “It’s not working. Not because God doesn’t care, but because YOU haven’t cared enough in your offerings, you cheap bastards!” And so, the first of the three chapters is chastising the Jews for not taking this whole Temple thing seriously enough.

It should be noted that Malachi is not concerned with any Messianic declaration, as in “the messiah will come and save you” as did the other prophets who were concerned with the Assyrian, Edomite, and Babylonian threats. Here, the Prophet is only concerned with getting the Temple activities to be taken seriously so that God can dwell in there once more, rather than being a whimsical bit of cosplay by the people involved.

Which slides nicely into the second chapter that addresses exactly that.

CHAPTER TWO

The first 10 of the 17 verses of chapter two is chastising the priesthood, complaining that they are not taking their job seriously, the see this entire ritual thing as a burden, and aren’t serious about being Temple or societal priests. They are an embarrassment to their priestly ancestors, and they are despised by the people because God despises their attitude concerning their priestly duties.

The last 7 verses of chapter two are where the prophet turns his attention to the non-priestly element of the Jewish people, complaining that they have married out, taking as wives from other nations, marrying women who worshipped other Gods (verse 11). Such men who marry gentile women will have no more descendants (verse 12), given that, after the Greek occupation, for one to be a Jew, one’s mother needed to be Jewish as a result of “droit du seigneur”.

Verses 13-16 is addressing the act where Jewish men who had Jewish wives would take on a pagan wife later on, causing the Jewish wives to cry, bringing offerings of their tears to God, tears that have no effect, and the men would then divorce (literally “sent away”) their first wife, the wife of their youth (verse 15), and God hates that. (Some Christians use this verse to explain why God hates divorce without seeing that it means divorcing the wrong woman – the Jewish one).

Chapter 2 then ends with the people, seeing how God doesn’t intervene in such cases of evil, obviously prefers the evil over the good. The people then says that God wearies of hearing that nonsense, since it’s a justification of blaming God for their own acts.

This then slides in nicely to the third chapter (Christians have divided this last chapter into two chapters, but that’s not important here), which is, “God is absent from His Temple because you aren’t doing it right, and isn’t making His presence known because you aren’t living your lives right.

So, chapter three is about getting God back into the Temple and their lives.

CHAPTER THREE

As I mentioned before, the Jews don’t have any problems with enemies, and so the focus here is not about having a messiah come to save them, as in the case of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and so forth. Rather, the focus is on having God reside in His Temple, and be an active part of the lives of the Jews, and to be taken seriously. While Christins see Malachi 3:1 as messianic, of a messiah coming to the Temple, it’s really about God. That becomes apparent when one looks at all of chapter three.

Before we start, notice that the name of the prophet is “Malachi” which means “my messenger” or “my angel”. And this first verse contains that name and its root as part of the verse. This could be a bit of word-play.

Verse 3:1

               “I am here and have sent My angel to clear the way before Me, and instantly afterwards the Lord, that you-all are requesting for, will come to His Temple. And an angel of the covenant that you-all desire, behold! He comes, says YHVH of hosts.”

This “angel of the covenant” is a literary element representing the purification process needed for God to reside among the people. So, YHVH sends this angel, later referred to as the “angel of the covenant”, who has the power to purify, to clean away impurities, before God will reside in His Temple. “Fire” and “lye” are used as expressions of purification when it speaks of purifying a people.

The first group, as referred to in the first part of chapter two, are the priestly cast. They need to be purified (3:3) so that they can present the right offerings and do so in righteousness. The next group referred to in the second part of chapter two are the non-priestly Judeans.

But just before the angel can do his cleaning, God steps forth (3:5) and makes accusations about the people, that they haven’t been acting as they should have, that they were doing some of the worst things possible that would normally have demanded their lives for doing so. And then God says that they have also been cheating Him out of what is due to them – the priestly tithing. (3:10). And promises to bless them all if they bring the required tithes to the Temple storehouse. And if they do so, they will also benefit, prosper, and be happy (3:11-12). Verses 13-21 has God chastising them for believing that God doesn’t care about who does good or evil, and that none of it matters. God then corrects them and tells them that one day they will certainly see a distinction.

The book ends with the last three verses of the third chapter telling people that they should keep the teachings of Moses, with all of his laws and commandments, and if they do so, one day, YHVH will send Elijah (there is a legend that he never died and travels around to attend every circumcision and every Passover meal), to summon the end of days (“the great and fearsome day of YHVH”), where all will be gathered together.

SUMMARY

The book of Malachi is not messianic. Verse 3:1 speaks of YHVH coming to reside in His Temple, not a messiah coming into a temple to kick over tables and knock over chairs and hit people with his homemade whip.

The entire intent of this book was about taking God seriously and His works. There was no need for getting freed from the other nations, or to be saved from them. Nor does it speak of any king (other than, perhaps implied, YHVH, as “the Lord”).

So, did Jesus fulfill Malachi 3:1 by entering the Temple during an angry moment?

No. It was possible fulfilled during the lifetime of Malachi, indicating that the Jews took their lot seriously. But Jesus certainly didn’t accomplish God dwelling in His House, which was the focus of the Book of Malachi.

And that’s Malachi in a nutshell!

Style: “non-messianic, was already fulfilled, and Jesus didn’t fulfill it”

Psalm 78:2 - Teacher of Parables

 Matthew 13:34 (KJV) says: 

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them;"

Now nowhere does it say in Matthew does it say that Jesus fulfilled something a prophet said, or anything resembling that. This is another case of an overzealous Evangelical seeing "spake in parables" and looking for that same expression in the Tanach.

Without the "spake", of course!

It doesn't matter that the "match" had nothing to do with anything messianic, never mind that it would be said by a messiah.  

In fact, this seems to be that case for more of these "fulfilled prophecies" than one should expect.

So here is the verse cited as being fulfilled by Jesus in Matthew 13:34:

"I will open my mouth with a proverb, I will speak riddles from days of old."

The word mashal is typically referred to as a "proverb" (the Book of Proverbs is called "mishli"), and in this context, it is referring to a riddle, and allegory, and, in a way, a "parable". They are usually common sense traditional sayings that are easy to understand. And, funny thing, Jesus surrounded himself with followers who kept telling him that they didn't understand.

Psalm 78 has a number of straightforward traditional tales about the history of the Jewish people, and despite all of his miracles, they still weren't loyal. and it repeats the stories from Noah, to Jacob, to the Exodus from Egypt, to establishing the kingdom, and it ends with mentioning king David.

So not only was this not a difficult parable, it never says that the messiah will speak in parables.

It was a connection made up perhaps centuries ago. Perhaps less.

Style: "Non-messianic, no-connection to the "fulfillment", so obviously Jesus didn't "fulfill" anything."

Here's the meme used:

Isaiah 35:5-6 - Ministry of Miracles

 In Matthew 9:35 (KJV) we read:

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness, and every disease among the people."

One interesting point is that, unlike many of the other so-called "fulfilled prophecies", this one does not say "so he may fulfill that which was said by Isaiah" or some such thing. This was a much later attempt at trying to find a text where there is some apparent healing going on, and so Isaiah 35:5-6 was chosen.

Except Isaiah 35:5-6 was "fulfilled" many centuries before Jesus was even born. 

It was during the rein of King Hezekiah (Isaiah 36:1) that there was "problems" with Assyria, and Edom was like a hyena, picking off the smaller Judean communities, taking people captive, and just being overly unlikable, to say the least.

Isaiah 34 is a hyperbolic telling of how Edom would fall, invoking images of demons, including Lilith, and the hairy goat-like ones (satyrs?) which could be wordplay on the Patriarch of Edom being Esau, the very hairy brother of Jacob who was Israel.

Chapter 35 is about the people being freed and returning, and people celebrating their return with great happiness. So happy that everything seemed brighter and better. The very land and the flowers were rejoicing. Those who were blind to the problems with the other nations could now see, those whose ears were plugged up (not deaf) could hear, and the roads that were once dangerous with "beasts" were now safe again.

But it was certainly not about a messiah with magical healing powers visiting and healing people.

That's just not in the text.

There are so many of these similar choices that mention the return of exiles and the defeat of Israel's enemies, that one should wonder: "Why would anyone ever consider assigning that verse to the Jesus narrative?!"

After all, Jesus did not of that, which is inherent in Isaiah 35.

Style: "Not messianic, took place centuries earlier, Jesus didn't fulfill it"

Meme used:

Isaiah 9:1 or Isaiah 8:23 - Ministry Began in Galilee

 When we are talking about early Isaiah chapters with single-digit numbers, we are talking about time period where there was a tense situation going on between Israel and the neo-Assyrian king, Sennacherib. 

The northern half of the tribes would be taken and never seen again. And here is what Isaiah 9:1 (or 8:23 in the Hebrew version) says: 

"For there is no weariness to the one who oppresses her; like the first time, he dealt mildly [by only taking those of] the land of Zebulon and the land of Naftali, and the last one he dealt with harshly: the way of the sea, the other side of the Jordan, the galil of the goyim."

The prophet is reminiscing about the early period, when Sennacherib defeated and took the Jews of Zebulon and Naftali, and then really crushed the seaside tribes, specifically those in the galil of the goyim.

Now galil can mean "Galilee", or simply a region, or rolling, or even something that attracts. And goyim means the enemies of the Jews, who took it over and dwell there.

So not only is there no Messiah going there to preach, but the one going there seeks to dominate the Jews, which isn't the type of "prophecy" that one would want to associate with Jesus.

So here's the verse in Matthew 4:13-15 (KJV) speaking about Jesus:

And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelled in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zebulon and Nephthalim: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, "The land of Zebulon, and the land of Naphthalim, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles."

Except that could not be fulfilled by Jesus because, according to the prophet, it was destined to be fulfilled by Sennacherib, who would make it an area of the enemies of the Jews.

It's quite possible that the author knew of the verse, wove a story for Jesus to walk through the same areas, and then applied the prophecy later to give Jesus' claim more credence.

But it doesn't.

For Jesus to "fulfill" the verse, he would have to enter the Galilee area and take it over, and subdue the residents, like Sennacherib.

And he didn't.

Style: "Non-messianic verse, an inverse relationship, Jesus didn't fulfill it."

Isaiah 40:3 - Preceded by a Messenger

 In order to better understand Isaiah 40:3, let's look at it in context with the prior two verses, Isaiah 40:1-2, which is the beginning of Deutero-Isaiah, the book that speaks of the end of the Babylonian exile for the Jerusalemites who had been living there as dominated workers for about 48-54 years, depending how one wants to count.

1. "'Take great comfort, My people', says your God.

2. 'Speak to Jerusalem's heart and call to her, saying, 'Your full term of service is done, because your sinfulness [that was the cause] has been wiped clean, for she has/will received from YHVH's hand a double amount for all of her sins."

A few notes about this. 

First, the doubling of the term for "be y'all comforted", I chose to use "Take great comfort" because of a doubling. It is interesting that "doubling" will be part of this theme. 

Next, when the speaker says "Jerusalem", he means the Jerusalemites, since one speaks to a people, not real estate. And the place where the Jerusalemites were residing was in Babylon, which will be referred to later, rising in threats in chapter 47.

"Your full term of service is done" refers to the Jerusalemites being forced workers as a result of a national sinfulness. And for having suffered fully enough, their servitude to the Babylonians is over.

The last bit can be read in two ways, depending on who "she" is. If it's Jerusalem, then she will receive a doubling of reward for having endured the pains of exile and servitude. If it's Babylon, then she will receive a double portion for her part, having too much pleasure in inflicting pain and suffering. Either interpretation is fine.

So now that we see that the chapter begins with YHVH saying that the time is up, let's look at verse 3:

3. A voice calls out in the wilderness, "Clear a way for YHVH, straighten in the wilderness a path for our God"

 And this is the verse that Christians compare it to, where John is using a language reminiscent of the eve of the High Holidays, when men will often immerse themselves, repent, and prepare:

Matthew 3:1-2 - "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying 'Repent, ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Granted, there's no call for repentance in Isaiah 40:1-3. In fact, it indicates that there's no need for repentance because the debt has been fully paid. Also, it is not saying that the "kingdom of heaven is at hand", but "The Jerusalemites will be returning home".

Well, they both do have the word "wilderness", but that's certainly not the focus here.

And then Matthew 3:3 goes on to claim about John "For this is he spoken of by the prophet Isaiah..."

Perhaps as a metaphor, or symbolically, but, not, it wasn't speaking about John the Baptist. 

And on cannot fulfill a metaphor.

So, no, John telling Jews in Judea to repent because of an end times narrative is not fulfilling a verse that tells exiled Judeans that God will bring them home.

Style: "Forced narrative, non-comparable, Jesus didn't fulfill"

Here's the meme:

Psalm 69:9 or Psalm 69:10 - His zeal for God

 Now, on of the more fun narratives to visualize is John 2:15-16 which is where Jesus goes all Indiana Jones, makes himself a whip, and beats the heck out of the moneychangers and pigeon sellers. The narrative makes it appear that Jesus is the hero of the story, and many justify his brutality against innocents. 

What do I mean by innocent?

Well, for one thing, the Temple was, for the most part, a religious slaughterhouse when it wasn't being a place for people to bring money as required by their religious tenants. People had to bring goats, sheep, and other animals for sacrifices.

One of these animals was what is called a "turtledove", which is basically a Middle Eastern pigeon. For example, women who gave birth, after a designated amount of time, would have to bring pigeons to be sacrificed. And as anyone who has lived in a big city knows, catching pigeons isn't easy. So the people in charge permitted pigeon sellers to be in the general courtyard so the ladies could buy their pigeons to give to the priests who were waiting a short distance away.

The other task in the Temple was to collect money for a census at the designated times. The head of each household would have to bring a half-shekel of silver for every member. 

Now just imagine that it's almost Passover. You have your sheep or goat to be slaughtered, and are standing in line with 10,000 other guys with their own sheep. It's been hours. You're hungry. A local is hawking food, so you buy something. Another is hawking drinks, so you  buy one of those. Another is selling gifts for the wives, so you buy one of those. 

And after 6 or 7 hours in line, you finally see the end in sight. And then you realize that you don't have exact change. You have more than enough, but you need 5 silver half shekels, not a single 3 silver shekels of weight. 

So what do you do? Do you go back home with your sheep? Or do you pay the exorbitant prices to the guys hawking up and down the line?

The Jewish leadership saw that as a problem, because people would get angry and have a bad experience overall. So, with the drawing of lots, they set up official changing booths where the moneychanger would charge a nominal/acceptable fee and the priesthood would get a cut, and the Jews were happy.

And in walks Jesus and goes ballistic.

And that claim is that he fulfilled a messianic prophecy by doing so as noted in Psalm 69:9 (for Christians) or 69:10 (for Jews). Yes, there is a different numbering system that usually overlaps, except when it doesn't.

So what is Psalm 69:10 say? Here's the KJV version:

"For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen unto me."

It's not too bad. Although the Hebrew word "קנא" isn't "zeal", but "jealousy". So a better way of reading this is "It is because of the jealousy of your house that I suffer, that I an consumed, those who cannot abide you turn to me with their abuse. 

This psalm is about someone who is hated, not because they deserve it, but they suffer because, while God cannot be attacked and abused, His follower can. 

If you read the rest of the verses that immediately follow this one, it is someone who is in anguish, not attacking. He fasts, wears a sackcloth, mourns about what is going on, but takes the abuse anyway.

And this Psalm has absolutely no connection to the angry whipping zealot in John 2:15-16, who attacked his fellow Jews, not because they were abusing him or his God, but because they were simply trying to make a living in a way that was permitted.

Style: "Non-sequitur, not fulfilled, it's an ironic choice. Jesus didn't fulfill it."

Here is the meme used: 

Isaiah 11:2 - Special Anointing of the Holy Spirit

 Let's begin by looking as Isaiah 11:1 and then the next verse, because the first verse is quite important:

"And a shoot shall grow out from the stump of Jesse, a twig will sprout from his root."

This refers to the Messiah as a descendant from Jesse, through his son David. Now verse 12:

"And YHVH's ruach will rest upon him, a ruach of wisdom and understanding, a ruach of counsel and might/strength, a ruach  of knowledge and the fear/awe of YHVH."

In the Tanach, a ruach is an emanation from God that is used to adjust reality, forcing it to his will. A ruach was used in Genesis to part the waters and dry them. When God wanted a people to hate one another, He sent a ruach of evil. When he wanted honest people to lie, he cast a ruach of lying upon them. When he wanted a husband to suspect his wife of adultery he cast a ruach of jealousy upon him. And, on a positive note, if He wanted someone to be wise, He case a ruach of wisdom upon them.

But there's one type of ruach not mentioned here, a ruach of holiness, or "ruach Hakodesh", which is often translated as "holy spirit", but in the Tanach is an expression for "knowledge from God", which is not to be confused with "navuah" or "prophecy". That's likely because, as I have mentioned before, there is no prophecy about the Messiah needing such abilities.

As I have also mentioned repeatedly, for one to be from the family tree of Jesse, one's birth father needed, at the very least, to be from the same tribe. Jesus, not having a Jewish birth father was tribeless, and therefore was not a descendant from Jesse.

Also, if Jesus was also YHVH, was he really in awe/fear of YHVH? And did he demonstrate his strength and valor by slaying the wicked that was upon the land? (verse 4)

Given all of that, let's look at the fulfillment claim in Matthew 3:16:

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightaway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." (KJV)

A note about being baptized: while it is true that people would immerse themselves when they perceived themselves to be tamai ("impure"), it was a lone (unless the place was crowded) activity that one did naked. There was no such job as a "people dunker", and a later Hebrew word had to be invented to describe "John the dunker" as a "matbil". It's just another one of those elements in the text that didn't need to be there.

It's also not clear how, out of all of those people in the story being dunked, only Jesus had that special moment, a vision, and why only he seemingly heard the Voice.

But to be serious, Isaiah 11:2 speaks of one who has a paternal lineage connection to Jesse, who was given several different kinds of ruach, and not just a generic one, who didn't need to be dunked. After all a "baptizer" was unknown to the singer. This warrior messiah would be given the ruach of valor to be a strong and uncompromising king who would slay all of the evil in the land and from which would have a period of peace where the "lion would lay by the lamb".

So Jesus did not fulfill those most important requirements by standing in a pool of water naked and being dunked by John the Dunker (This was the Hebrew name used on the plaque I saw at the Masada visitor center). And was Jesus really in fear/awe of YHVH?

But that's for another post.

Style: "Messianic, lineage and lack of warrior problems, Jesus didn't fulfill"

The meme used:

 

 

Psalm 2:6 as King, and Psalm 2:7 as "My Son"

This one one of the stranger claims, that it is surprising that it has gained ANY traction. 

In Matthew 27:37, it has the Romans making a cross for Jesus to be crucified upon, and, to mock him, that put a sign on it that said "King of the Jews".

Therefore, Jesus was king, right?

No. That's not how becoming a Jewish king works.

While Psalm 2:6 does say "I have installed my king in Zion", it will soon be apparent that it is talking about a warrior king who has crushed his enemies.

The next sentence, Psalm 2:7, (which they also claim the Jesus fulfilled) says:

"...YHVH said to me: 'You are My son. This day I have caused you to be born.'"

I won't even bother with discussing who this is talking about. Instead, let's look at the next two lines, keeping in mind that I have already said that, very often, when a claim is made about a verse in the Tanach, a couple of verses in either direction will undermine the claim with ease.

Here or those next two lines:

Ask of Me, and I will give you the goyim as an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your inheritance. You will break [the goyim] with a rod of iron, you will dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel."

In Psalms, "goyim" is used in the plural form when there is a problem with the gentile neighbors (in this case, the protagonist is supposed to be crushing them). So in this context, it always refers to the enemies of the Jews.

Nowhere in the NT is there a claim that Jesus ever crushed the enemies of the Jews.

Instead, the enemies of the Jews crushed him, and mocked him by calling him "king" as a joke.

Style: "Cherry picking, Jesus didn't fulfill it"

Here's the meme used:

 

 

Isaiah 33:22 - Judge

Many Christians claim that Jesus declared himself as judge in John 5:50, and that's a fulfillment of Isaiah 33:22.

Except there are problems, as expected, with that claim.

First, John 5:30 KJV: 

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me."

So Jesus is claiming to judge according to the will of YHVH.

And now Isaiah 33:22:

"For YHVH will be our judge, YHVH will be out monarch, YHVH will be our sovereign and it shall be He who will deliver us."

Notice that this is not a messianic verse. There is no reference to the messiah at all. In fact, this verse is being declared by the Jerusalemites who are having a problem with the Assyrians, who are on the move.

Yes, chapter 33 of Isaiah is about the Assyrian takeover and the Jerusalemites (because they are pretty much all that is left of Israel) and have united, have fortified their city, and are seeking salvation.

And as history will have it, the Jerusalemites survived and made a pact with Babylon, but that's another story for a later chapter (the end of Deutero-Isaiah).

So Isaiah 33:22 isn't Messianic, and without superimposing a Christian ideology onto a non-Christian belief where YHVH was considered One, one cannot (well, obviously they can!) honestly say that Isaiah 33:22 is even remotely connected to Jesus.

This is yet another case of having a verse and trying to somehow turn it into a prophetic fulfillment when, in truth, there is no real connection at all.

Especially since Isaiah 33:22 is having them declare YHVH the king, not a Messiah, and Jesus was never the king of Jerusalem by any stretch of the imagination.

Style: "Non-messianic prophecy, forced ideology, not fulfilled by Jesus"

And here's the meme:

 

Psalm 110:4 - Priest

 

RECAP

As I have already mentioned in the blog post concerning Psalm 110:1, Psalm 110, in general, is about a messianic character, with God crushing the enemies of the Jews, and telling the protagonist to dominate them, establishing a Jewish theocracy that will become the center of the world. Note that the text has YHVH saying that HE will “make your enemies a footstool for your feet”. So, when He says to the protagonist “your enemies will be crushed”, it means the enemies of his people.

Since God promised to crush the protagonist's enemies, and this never happened with Jesus, and since Jesus never became king and sat upon his throne in Jerusalem, but was instead CRUSHED by the very enemies that God was supposed to crush, Jesus certainly didn't fulfill that perceived prophecy.  

Of course, one could say, “Jesus will do that when he gets back”.

Fine. So don't say that Jesus fulfilled it until after he does so.

VERSE 4 REFERENCE

"If you haven't realized by now, many of the 'fulfilled prophecies' are simply events in the NT about Jesus that are then searched for a similar reference in the Tanach. If the text said that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of dancing almost naked in the middle of the street and was cheered on by spectators, they would likely use the reference of King David doing just that as a “prophecy”.

So, let’s look at the Christian verse that they used to retrofit into a prophecy, which is Hebrews 3:11 (KJV being cited here):

“Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.”

Now, the clincher here is “High Priest”, in that only someone descended from the tribe of Aaron, paternally, can ever become a HIGH priest (conditions can prevent that as well, but we’ll simplify things here). However, the word kohen or “priest” can have more than one meaning while HIGH priest does not. Granted, the author of Hebrews 3:1 was treating Jesus as an intercessor, reminiscent of what the High priest would do on Yom Kippur (there are differences, which I will leave to the reader). In any case, the anonymous author of Hebrews 3:1 was likely using the expression as simile and metaphor.

So where does the Christian apologist look for a prophecy to have this verse about a “high priest” be a fulfillment?

Psalm 110:4, of course:

“YHVH has sworn;
and will not regret (go back on)
You are a kohen forever
[comparator] Malki-Tzadek”

In any case, the anonymous author of Hebrews 3:1 was likely using the expression as a simile and metaphor. Rather than getting too deep into meanings, let’s simply accept that it was calling the Canaanite king who was referred to as a kohen (not a HIGH priest, since that wasn’t a consideration), and not just a kohen, but a king.

As we read in 2 Samuel 8:18, members of the Davidic monarchy, his sons, were also referred to as “priests”, as in “important officials who can intercede on one’s behalf in a non-Temple priestly way”.

WHO WAS MALKI-TZADEK?

In the land of Canaan, there dwelled a pagan people. It said that he served the Highest God, El, not that he was a High Priest to El, and that would have been an expression that was yet to find its way into the Tanach. He is only mentioned in Genesis 14:18-20, and then disappears. But beside being an important person who does not offer a sacrifice to YHVH, but simply gave bread and wine to Abram and the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Bela. After the king of Shalem blesses Abram and praises the Highest God El, Abram gives presents to the king of Shale who leaves.

Shalem is traditionally held to be the future city of Jeru-Shalem, and Shalem is referenced as a dwelling place of Elohim, where His sukkah (a sort of tabernacle) is located, and Elohim's dwelling place is there, in Zion.

So Malki-Tzadek, “My king is righteous”, who was addressing kings who fought a righteous battle, kings who required Abram to assist in order to actually win, this was the very king of what would be Jerusalem, and was forever known as a kohen.

WHAT IS THE CONNECTION TO BEING LIKE MALKI-TZADEK?

Putting aside the possible historical implications here (a fight between the two different priestly factions, for one), we have a king who served his God and ruled in an early Jerusalem. The important thing to note is that Malki-Tzadek did not fight in any war, but appeared after the war was over. A king of peace. He blessed Abram, gave food that one could consider as a holy libation, and returned home to rule in peace.

THAT is the likely connection between Malki-Tzadek and the protagonist of this verse: it’s about a kind, blessed by God, and who will sit on his throne as a peaceful king, whose wars will be won by God, and will be set there to serve him.

It doesn’t say that he will be a high priest, nor anything more than one who can declare that “My King is righteous” and will dominate without having to lift a sword.

Jesus was never king, nor were his enemies defeated, nor does this verse talk about an intercessor nor a high priest.

Style: “eisegesis, forced narrative, Jesus didn’t fulfill”.

Here’s the meme used:

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 18:18 - Will be a Prophet

The context of Deuteronomy 18:18 is this:

Moses is going to die, and so he is explaining to the Hebrews that, after him, there will be a prophet to take his place. In fact, there will be other prophets, such as Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and so forth. None of them were messiahs.

Most people will agree that those men that came after Moses were accepted as prophets within the Biblical narrative.

And that's all the Deuteronomy 18:18 is talking about.

The fact that Christians are pulling a verse out of the Torah and claiming that it is messianic should be a red flag because there is no messiah mentioned in the Torah. Remember, a messiah was unnecessary except to help the Jewish people get out of really big troubles, such as going into exile in Babylon for one thing. And they were doing just fine, even though at the end of Deuteronomy Moses recites his song, Ha'azeinu, that tells them all that they are going to mess up and need Him to get out of that mess.

If you read the various actual messianic verses, you will see that they are practically all about "he will get you out of that mess", "he will get you home", and "he will reunite a people torn apart".

And none of these other prophetic texts say "He will be a prophet".

That's not his job.

There are those, such as Maimonides who state that before there can be a messiah, there needs to be a prophet to anoint him, to declare him as the true messiah. Of course, not everyone has held that, which we can see because there have been more than 50 Jewish messiahs, all of them embraced without a prophet giving his okay. 

So that should be enough, right?

The thing is, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 gives specific details on who is a false prophet, and a false prophet is to be stoned to death.

These specifics are: 

• If he speaks in the name of YHVH it doesn't come true.
• If it doesn't come true, then it wasn't the words of YHVH.
• If he says things that contradict the known words of YHVH, he is false.
• If he speaks in the name of other Gods, then he is to be killed.

There are a couple of Christian narratives about Jesus that would have caused him problems in these areas.

The first, problem when Jesus promised his followers that they would live long enough to see his return. Of course, one could argue that Jesus didn't say it in the name of YHVH, but that he made it up. But if people believed that he was a prophet, then they would believe that he was speaking for YHVH.

But then, you cannot stone a dead man.

The other problem is when Jesus tells a group of Pharisees that even though the bill of divorce is in the Torah, God never wanted that from the beginning and that Moses just put it in there to make people happy. 

That would certainly qualify Jesus as a false prophet.

Then there is that vague verse "Before Abraham was, I am". If it meant what many Christians claim, that Jesus was announcing that he was another God, then he would surely be stoned. But many others don't find that claim convincing, so it's not a game changer.

Conclusion

Deuteronomy 18:18 isn't claiming that the messiah will be a prophet. And it doesn't really matter if Jesus was a prophet or not. What does matter is that he could not have fulfilled a non-messianic verse to prove that he was the messiah. So the claim that he fulfilled the messianic prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18 is false.

Style: "Non-messianic, forced into new meaning, non-fulfilled"

Meme used:

Psalm 110:1 - He will be called Lord

PROBLEM SUMMARY

In Matthew 22:43-45, Jesus argues with the Pharisees, asking, "How can the Messiah be the son of David if David also refers to him in Psalm 110 as 'Lord' (capital 'L')?" The Pharisees had no answer for him.

I would like to think the Pharisees were more clever and literate than that, but the New Testament often portrays them polemically, which may not reflect reality.

The key issue is that Matthew 22:43-45 doesn't "fulfill" Psalm 110:1, which is not a prophecy that a Messiah would be called "Lord." It's simply Jesus posing a puzzle to his audience.

So, Jesus didn't fulfill anything since there was no prophecy to fulfill.

Psalm 110 is one of those many a retributional fantasy songs that we find in the book of Psalms. It's your typical "God is on our side and we will win" song.

Psalm 110 begins with a powerful image of an enthroned king "sitting at God's right hand," metaphorically representing divine authority, protection, and influence, with his enemies' bodies (see verse 6) piled up as a footstool, an expression of dominance.

God certainly didn't massacre Jesus' enemies; in fact, they massacred him.

Therefore, Jesus didn't fulfill verse 1 of Psalm 110 (which isn't a prophecy) during his lifetime because he was killed.

If you argue that it refers to after his death and ascension into Heaven (which doesn't exist in Tanach literature), and that he will one day judge and destroy at some end-time period, then he hasn't done it yet.

So, Jesus didn't fulfill Psalm 110:1, even though there are claims he will one day do so.

You don't get to say he did fulfill when you mean he will fulfill...maybe.

Let's diverge for a bit, just for fun, by looking at other facets that are useful to know.

IMAGINE THERE'S NO HEAVEN

First, there is no "the righteous die and go to heaven" narrative in the Tanach. In fact, there's no "Heaven" in the Tanach. Death in the Tanach was a dark and dreary matter that was rarely mentioned, as the writers were generally more concerned with what people do while they live rather than what might happen afterward. The strange anonymous book "The Book of Job" is somewhat of an exception, speaking more of a Hades-like existence, of darkness and grey.

So, to force an "after death" narrative onto a song about a king who had his enemies crushed by YHVH after the king is dead is anachronistic.

RETRIBUTIONAL FANTASIES

Many of the Psalms refer to war, exile, and domination. Some deal with how the Babylonians will get what's coming to them. Others deal with fearsome nations wanting to decimate Jerusalem. Think of them as patriotic songs written during wartime, reflecting patriotic idealism more than reality.

This is true of many Psalms, and Psalm 110 is no different.

It is important to note that actual messianic verses within the Tanach contain elements of war, a warrior messiah, the defeat of his enemies (which are the enemies of the Jews), crushing, subduing, dominating, and after all of that, the establishment of a theocracy with a Jewish king, reminiscent of David, as its head and the dominant power in the world. Psalm 110 is somewhat different in that it isn't the king who will kill his enemies, but God. But the end result is the same. (There are two traditional views of a messiah, one who comes in peace and one who comes in war).

In any case, such a vision is messianic, making it difficult to separate the literal from the symbolic.

And that is Psalm 110 in a nutshell.

Jesus didn't fulfill the required core of the song—crushing his enemies.

ADONEE OR ADONEY?

Let's touch upon the word "adoni" (pronounced "ah-do-nee") as expressed in the first verse, "YHVH said to adoni, 'Sit at My right hand, and I will make your enemies your footstool.'" Adoni is a term of endearment and personal honor. Others in the Tanach were also referred to by that term, such as Abraham (Genesis 23:6), and it should not be confused with the Divine title of "Adonai" (pronounced "ah-do-nahy").

Interestingly, the Greek translation uses the same word, "kyrios" (κύριος), for YHVH, adoni, and Adonai.

So, perhaps the story where Jesus cited Psalm 110:1 was based on the Greek form of the verse, leading to confusion between adoni and Adonai.

Style: "Anachronistic, word redefinition, Jesus didn't fulfill"

Meme used: