Isaiah 50:6 - Smitten and Spit Upon

ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

In Matthew 26:67, we are told that before Jesus went to see Pilate, he stood before the High Priest and was condemned by him and the audience shouted to have Jesus executed. And (KJV):

“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands”

So, they spat at him, pounded him with their fists, or with the flat of their hands.

This is before he goes to Pilate and then gets whipped.

ACCORDING TO ISAIAH

The claim here is that the spitting and whacking fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 50:6 which says:

“I offer my back to the floggers, and my cheeks to those who tore out my [facial] hair, I did not hide my face from insult and spittle.”

To say that the story in Matthew matches this one is to be creative in one’s interpretation that Matthew was talking about flogging and beard tearing. OK, we do have being spat at and insulted.

ANALYSIS

But the verse in Isaiah is not about a protagonist who is purely passive about this.

In the verses leading up to this we have:

               1-3: God saying that he had never abandoned him (contrary to Matthew 27:46)
               4-5: The protagonist declaring how he will trust God in all things even when…
               6: “I offer my back to the floggers…”
               7-10: God will help me out of all of this. Always trust Him.
              

But it is the final verse of this which is the clincher. It is the protagonist that anyone who has tried to harm him, that person is going to be killed in a painful way, by the protagonists’ own hand. As if to say “Yeah, I trust God, and I will expose myself to their abuses. But you know what? Their mockery will be short lived because I AM GOING TO KILL THEM, PAINFULLY, BY MY OWN HAND!” (verse 11).

CONCLUSION

No, this verse is not about a prophecy of being spat at. It’s a promise of retaliating with deadly force against any who have the temerity to do so.

Definitely not about Jesus.

Meme used:

 

Isaiah 53:5 - Wounded and Bruised

ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

In Matthew 27:26, we are told that Jesus was flogged and then sent off to eventually be crucified and there is a claim that this was prophesied in Isaiah 53:5.

The verse in question will vary, depending on which translation that you see. Some tweak the verse in Isaiah to reflect the Jesus story in Matthew a lot better.

KJV: “But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities, upon him was a chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes, we are healed.

Words not found in the Hebrew text: “wounded”, “for our”, “stripes”, “brought us”.

Some versions, such as the NIV, NLT, NASB, and so forth will replace “wounded” with “pierced”, which also isn’t in the Hebrew text. In fact, as I respond to many of the claims which cite a piercing for other Tanach verses, I see this one word misapplied almost more than any other.

Greek: “But he was weakened by abuse because of our sins, and he became weakened because of our lawless acts. The discipline of our peace was upon him. By his bruise we were healed.”

Now, the Greek version doesn’t even try to identify the two types of harm, but simply translates both as “weakened”, which isn’t bad, but also weakens the text. It does reflect the Masoretic text (MT) by using “bruise” and using the singular form. It also correctly reflects the MT by writing “abuse” in the singular.

The important difference from the English is that it correctly used “because of”, in reference to the sinful behavior. The punishment was not to cleanse away the sins, as is part of the Christian ideology, by it was the sinful behavior, the attacking and harming, which was causing the suffering. While I am not excited by the interpretive translation overall, it is certainly much better than the English ones.

The Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) version has a few differences from the MT, which are interesting. It pluralizes “bruise” and “wrongdoing” and inserts an “and” in a couple of places to aid in the flow of the text:

“But he was harmed through our wrongdoings and emotionally crushed through our wicked behaviors and his mussar was our peace and with his bruises is was a healing for us.”

Now, before I can explain about the Biblical Hebrew word “mussar”, let’s look at the Biblical view of suffering altogether.

BELIEF ABOUT SUFFERING

There are a number of views on the idea of suffering, and many of these are based on Leviticus 26:14-41, which lists all of the curses by God to those who don’t follow every one of his commandments. And out of that, there’s a Talmudic debate (Shabbat 56a) that says that if it were not for sinning, one would never get sick or die, that both of those experiences are a result of sin. And the application of God harming others who sin is often associated with the verb “מוסר”, which I will explain below. It is worth noting that whenever someone in the Tanach is killed by God, apologists will explain why he must have deserved it even though the text is silent as to why, which is reflecting this view of God giving mussar to the sinful, to turn them back. And it is from this view that the Rabbis created a blessing that a religious Jew recites upon seeing a deformed person or hearing news about a death, calling God “the true Judge”, meaning, “He must have had His reasons, and the person deserved it.”

Keep in mind that Isaiah was not written with chapter and verse numbers. While there are indicators for where a new though begins, which is often, but not necessarily, where a chapter will start (Isaiah 53 has such an indicator, even in the DSS), verse breaks aren’t so easily noticed and Isaiah 53 has almost no gaps, and we can clearly see that in the Great Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea archives.

I bring this up because in order to gain a better understanding of Isaiah 53:5 which most translations begin with “BUT”, it’s important to look at the second half of verse 4 which explains the use of the “BUT” (which is really a “ו” and could also be “And”, “Or”, “Furthermore”, etc.

ISAIAH 53:4b

“We accounted that his having been infected, beaten, and abused, was from God”

Prior to this verse (verse 1), the name “YHVH” was used and, in context, referred to a redeeming God. In this verse we see that the name “Elohim” is being used. Very often, when this type of name change takes place, especially in songs, it is referring to a more hardened nature of the Deity in His role as Divine Judge. It isn’t perfectly clear who the “We” are at the beginning of this second segment of verse 4, but whoever they are, they understood that if the person had been sick and was suffering from inflicted pains, then all of these things were from God, and so obviously the protagonist deserved it.

The style of this segment makes it appear that this has been going on for some time, and this “we” is the same “we” in the next verse, then it’s not just mussar from God, but He had help.

CONTINUING INTO ISAIAH 53:5a

And this is where Isaiah 53:5 begins with a single letter as a continuation. I will paraphrase for simplification, but will translate more exactly later on:

“But it wasn’t just God who harmed him, but we did that through our evil actions. And it wasn’t just God who caused him emotional distress, but our sinful actions against him did that.”

So, this verse isn’t about “He will be tortured”, but, rather:

“The sinful protagonist was stricken by God. And God permitted the evil people to commit their own sinful acts against the sick and hurting individual. Those evil actions that will be repaid in verse 9 where it says “and He will cast the evil doers and the wealthy into his grave with all of its dead ones…”.

WOUNDED OR PIERCED?

Now it should be noted that I never said that he had been “wounded” or “pierced”. That’s because the word for “wounded” or “pierced” isn’t in the Hebrew or Greek editions of this verse, even though “wounded” and “pierced” is in a number of translations. The verb used in the Hebrew text is מחולל and this verb isn’t used elsewhere. There is a noun with the same root “חלל” used in Deuteronomy 21:1 where it speaks of the slain person discovered between two communities and nobody knows how he got there or who did it.

So, it “could” mean “assassinated” as Ibn Ezra holds or my choice, “grievous harm”. “Wounded” implies an injury of no specific strength and is easily applied to generically. And “pierced” is just pushing a verb into the verse to make it work with the Jesus story

CRUSHED

The Hebrew word דכא has two types of meanings. “Crushed” as used in Psalm 143:3 “he has crushed my life” and Psalm 72:4 “may he crush the oppressor”. But another use of the term is as a synonym for “contrite”, which works well here for the idea of one being punished for his sins being emotionally crushed and feeling remorse. We see this in Isaiah 57:15 where it means “contrite and humble” and Psalm 90:3 “a contrite man turns”.

So, I chose “emotionally crushed” out of preference because it seems to fit much better than simply “crushed”.

As we move past the first half of this verse, it’s important that I explain another Biblical Hebrew word, “mussar”.

WHAT IS MUSSAR

Mussar (מוסר) in the Tanach is the act of providing corporal punishment in order to change someone’s undesirable (sinful) behavior, to send them a message (מסר) to shape up. The first appearance is in Deuteronomy 11:2 when Moses explains how God gave mussar to those in Egypt with His mighty hand and outstretched arm by way of the plagues that afflicted them. It appears 51 times in the Tanach, and more than half of those in Proverbs. It carries a connotation of Torah-based ethical instructions (as indicated in Leviticus 26:14-41) of having been violated.

There was this belief by the ancient sages that if someone was suffering of, say, a painful illness, that it was God’s mussar, and before praying for a healing, they would ask the person if he was getting any benefit from the mussar, and, if not, would he like it to go away?

We read a view of this in Proverbs 3:11 where it says:

“Do not reject the mussar of YHVH, my son. Do not abhor His affliction/punishment.

In other words, accept the pain given to you by God and make changes to your life to stop it. There are cases where mussar is applied by a father, representing God, to his son. In Proverbs 13:24 we read:

[A father] who withholds his switch [for striking], hates his son. And [a father] who loves his does mussar early (meaning, uses the switch to strike).

Mussar is painful experiences inflicted to cause one to change one’s ways, to become more observant and fearful of Divine (or parental) retribution, in order to turn away from sin.

Other equally valid translations are: Corrective punishment, disciplinary action, moral correction, behavioral correction, restorative punishment.

It’s clear from Isaiah 53:4-5, that the protagonist is not only suffering from God, but by the will of God, as a form of mussar to correct his behavior. The word is in the Hebrew text, but what it implies is watered down with terms like “chastisement” and “disciplined” which doesn’t really cry out “because God decreed that he deserved it” like “mussar” does.

PARALLELISMS

The last segment is a difficult read because it doesn’t really flow well.

That’s because it is listing two pairs of opposites to end the verse to give the differences between the protagonist and his God-approved abusers. You have mussar opposing shalom, and bruise[s] (where one needs a healing) as compared to “a healing for us”. It’s a poetic use that also includes a repetition of the sound “nu” in each segment.

There are those who want to interpret this part of the song as cause and effect, as in “the painful chastisement of the sinner causes peace, and his bruise[s] or contusion[s] causes a healing. While forced, I have seen this appear a lot by both Christian and Jewish commentators. It pushes meaning into the song, which ignores that it’s a song.

CONCLUSION

The person suffering is not an innocent, but has sinned and God has caused his past illnesses and pains while He permits the evil-doers to add to that with their own application of harming.

Isaiah 53:5 is not talking about Jesus, unless you want to referred to a verse in Matthew where Jesus is purging his own personal sins. And the wording indicates that this had been going on for more than a single day, not that it was over a few hours.

Calling Isaiah 53:5 a description of the trial and whipping of Jesus is a forced interpretation with a lot of bad translations.

To finish, here’s a nice and honest translation of Isaiah 53:4b-5

“We accounted that his having been infected, beaten, and abused, was from God.

And he was grievously harmed by our wrongdoing[s] against him,
emotionally crushed from our wicked behaviors against him,
his punishment from God (mussar), our peace,
and with his bruise[s], for us a healing.

  Meme used:

Isaiah 53:7 - Silent Before Accusers

ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

In Matthew 27:12, we are told that after Jesus was arrested and was brought eventually to Pilate. And was asked to defend himself, that Jesus remain silent. Fourteen verses later, Jesus is scourged, beaten, and eventually crucified, and in the midst of that cries out in complaint “My God, my God, why have you removed yourself from me?” (Based on the Aramaic).

We are told that this fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 53:7.

Let’s look at the verse with some explanations. I will highlight the verses so that it’s easy to scan with the eyes.

TRANSLATING ISAIAH 53:7

The verse says “נגש”, or “He had been oppressed”. This word is also used in Isaiah 14:4 when God promises to one day stop the oppression against the Jews.

“and had been abused”. The verb root is “ענה”, which is often an expression for torture, and when it refers to what a man does to a woman, it is translated as “raped”. Here, however, it’s torturous abuse.

“And yet, he would not open his mouth”. I am translating the vav-prefix here as “and yet”, since the context is “despite the pain, he didn’t open his mouth”, rather than the usual simple “and”, “or”, or “but”. This verse is also part of a song, with the second and fourth parts of the quatrain echoing one another to provide emphasis on this one point that seems to make it a praiseworthy act.

“like a ram lamb to the slaughter” – the noun “שה” is masculine and refers to a designated offering, a sheep or a goat, usually. And sine they were usually young for being slaughtered, I used “lamb”. Using “ram” is just to point out the gender in the verse which will then switch. “Slaughtered” can refer to a sacrifice or a meal (see Genesis 43:16), or massacring a person (Isaiah 34:2).

“he’d been brought”. The masculine form is carried forth. The type of bringing was typically one who is bound, which may be the imagery implied.

“like a ewe”. Here the gender switches while making a parallelism between “like a ram lamb” and “like a ewe”.

“before her shearers”. The use of the plural form is a nice expression when applying it to one who is before his enemies. The feminine form is perhaps being used to imply more passivity from the view of the ancient songwriter.

“who is dumbstruck”. While it literally translates to “she is dumbstruck”, I felt that “who” flows better. It’s a continuation of the feminine form.

“and yet, he would not open his mouth”. This is a parallelism to the second segment of this quatrain. And its relation to “dumbstruck” is possibly to provide even more emphasis.

COMPARING MATTHEW TO ISAIAH

As I mentioned at the beginning, Matthew has Jesus being silent, and then tortured, and then crying out his complaint.

In Isaiah, it’s the exact opposite: the protagonist has been tortured, and despite it being understandable if he complained, he instead kept silent and accepted his fate, like a lamb.

Since Isaiah is speaking about being silent in the midst of such torture, and seems to hold it as honorable, the text in Matthew has Jesus being silent when no such torture was happening, which is an easier thing to do.

CONCLUSION

Did the Matthew text fulfill the text in Isaiah?

No.

 Here's the meme

Psalm 35:11 - Accused by False Witnesses

In Matthew 26:59-63 we have a docile Jesus being led to the High Priest’s palace for judgement. He stood quietly while someone who was a “false witness” repeated a saying of Jesus before them, but slightly modified (whether intentionally or not, it’s unclear). When confronted with the words that Jesus should have known, Jesus remained silent.

The claim is that this man, being a false witness, fulfilled a “prophecy” of Psalm 35:11.

How can one say that “Jesus literally fulfilled it” when it was the chief priests who made it happen? That happens a lot more than it should by the people who make up the “Jesus literally fulfilled all of these prophecies” lists.

But was Psalm 35:11 talking about Jesus?

The prior 10 verses depict a very angry man who is sick and tired of being attacked by enemies who are intent upon hurting him. And he repeated asks God to kill them.

Here are the first 11 verses in a nutshell:

“Fight against them” (1). “Grab your shield” (2), “Draw your spear” (3), “Make them turn back” (4), “Make them as chaff before the wind, falling” (5), “Make their way dark” (6), “They are being treacherous” (7), “Let destruction come upon them” (8), “Then my soul will rejoice” (9), “I will be grateful to you” (10), “They publicly embarrass me by asking me questions of things that I do not know.” (11)

So, we have someone who is sick and tired of his enemies and wants them all dead.

Now, what about verse 11? Is it about someone lying, or understanding incorrectly, what the protagonist has said?

No.

It’s about someone being publicly embarrassed by being asked questions to which he doesn’t have the answer ("e.g., "Where is your God now?"). 

Let’s go through the checklist.

1. Jesus was angry at his oppressors? No.
2. Jesus prayed to God to kill his oppressors? No.
3. Jesus was asked a question that he couldn’t answer? No.

No, Jesus did not fulfill Psalm 35:11 by not answering a question that he had the ability to answer.

Here’s the meme:

 

 

Zechariah 13:7 - Forsaken by his Disciples

This is yet another example of seeing an event in the New Testament and looking for a verb that matches to make it a prophecy that was fulfilled.

In Mark 14:49-50, we have the soldiers arresting Jesus, who complains and then says that it must be done to fulfill scripture (whatever that means!) and all of the apostles ran away.

Here’s the KJV version:

Jesus: “I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.” And they all forsook him and fled.

The claim is that this fulfills Zechariah 13:7.

So, prior to 13:7, in verse 11:15, God gives over His flock to the foolish shepherd, which is a metaphor for the Jews being exiled or captured into another nation. Some say that this was Edom, and others have their own ideas. But then when it’s time to free them, God says in Zechariah 13:7:

“Sword! Rouse yourself against My shepherd, upon the man who I had dealings with””, says YHVH of Hosts. Strike down the shepherd and let the flock disperse, and I will return My hand upon the young ones.”

As we see, the “shepherd” is not the Messiah, but someone that was foolish, dominating His flock, and who, in the end, was commanded by God to be executed so that His people could flee. The weren’t dispersing because they were afraid that they would be next, but they were dispersing towards home, freedom.

There is no equivalence here. The problem is interpreting “shepherd” as always being a kindly metaphor, when the other side of that coin, he is the one who keeps them from leaving, which is how it is being used in this verse, which is why God wants him dead.

The apostles running away was not fulfilling a messianic prophecy. Jesus wasn’t killed and they weren’t running back to Israel after being kept away against their will.

It’s a forced narrative, like so many of the “Prophecies that Jesus literally fulfilled”.

Zechariah 11:13 - Price Given for Potter's Field.

 The PDF that I acquired this list from has the title:

 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies Literally Fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth

Other web sites, also claim that these were prophecies that Jesus personally fulfilled.

So, what’s the deal with this one?

In Matthew 27:7, a couple of priests find the money that Judas has tossed into the Temple, wanting nothing to do with it. They then make the odd claim that, because it was blood money, it couldn’t be used by the Temple anymore, so the bought the field from the potter so that Gentiles can have a place to be buried.

And even though nobody in the story says that they were fulfilling a prophecy, there is a claim by many that this fulfils the prophecy in Zechariah 11:13.

Even though there are no priest mentioned, and there is no potter’s field purchased with the money.

Oh, and Jesus had nothing to do with this anyhow.

Rather than going into the details of this difficult verse which has never been accurately translated as far as I can tell, the fact is, for Jesus to “fulfil” this non-prophetic verse, he would have had to have been commanded by YHVH to take the money himself and toss it at the yotzer (which is usually translated as “potter”, but has other meanings, such as “the creator”, being a bit of wordplay by the Hebrew author.)

So, no. Jesus didn’t fulfil Zechariah 11:13 because he wasn’t given the 30 silvers (as the text calls it) by YHVH, nor did he take it to the Temple and toss it at the “yotzer” (The LXX translates that to be a smelting forge), and as for buying a field, that’s not in Zechariah either, but if it were, Jesus didn’t buy that either.

So, this is a failed attempt to create a fulfilled prophecy where there was no prophecy, and Jesus didn’t do it anyway, so what’s the point?

So, Jesus failed again.

Meme used:

Zechariah 11:13 - Money to be Thrown into God's House

There is a story in Matthew 27:5 where Judas, after having pocketed the money a chapter earlier, was so disgusted by what he had done, betraying another person for blood money, that he threw it into the Temple and left. 

This is supposedly the fulfilment of a prophecy in Zechariah 11:13.

But was it?

If one actually reads the text, one will see that:

In Zechariah 11:12-13, God, using a metaphor of getting paid 30 shekels, tells His holy prophet to take the precious pieces of silver that the people had just given to Him.

God then tells Zechariah (specifically!) to toss the purse of silver to "היוצר", which can refer to the artisan (a potter or, perhaps, a silversmith) who is working in the Temple. It is also a term for the creator of these object, and was possibly chosen for the wordplay of THE Creator (YHVH) tells Zechariah to toss the silver to "the creator". It's something worth considering. (See the Abarbanel on this idea).

This craftsman may be a specific craftsman, perhaps even the lead one since he is referred to as "היוצר" or THE potter. Or perhaps it is a pun for "THE creator". As to what the potter is supposed to do with the silver is unclear although the LXX version has "smelting furnace" (χωνευτήριον) instead of "potter", so perhaps he is to melt it if one holds that the LXX is correct in this area.

In any case, this interaction between God and His prophet is generally assumed to be a metaphor (e.g., God doesn’t need cash and 30 pieces of silver is too specific of a request), and there are many interpretations. But that’s not at issue here.

What is crucial here is that all of these actions had been handled by Zechariah himself.

There was nothing left that needed to be fulfilled in the future. Not by a messiah nor anyone else.

End of story.

CONCLUSION

A traitor to a messiah hundreds of years after Zechariah had already accomplished the silver tossing was not fulfilling anything.

The assertion by Christians that the scene in Matthew, where a traitor threw away his blood money in disgust, is equated to Zechariah taking silver that was precious and delivering it to the temple's craftsman, is absurd.

So, no, Jesus did not fulfil this. Neither did Judas.

Here was the meme used:

 

Zechariah 11:12 - Sold for 30 Pieces of Silver

PREFACE – REGARDING THE BOOK OF ZECHARIA

The Book of Zechariah is on of the most difficult books of the prophets, and because of it’s use of metaphor that is often difficult to decipher, it is easy prey by Christians to reinterpret its meanings.

So, I am going to keep this one easy without going into great depth about the passage.

ZECHARIAH 11:11-13 IN A NUTSHELL

In Matthew 26:15, Judas is paid 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus and he takes it and puts it in his purse (He will try to give it back in a later chapter). There is no mention in Matthew 26 that this payment was the fulfillment of a prophecy.

In Zechariah 11:11-12, God is talking to the Jewish people (through His prophet). Verse 11 indicates that the sheep (Israel) realized that their defeat (due to the nullification of God’s protection) at the hands of the nations was a message from God. God then says “If this is good in your eyes, pay Me My wages (a possible reference to return to obeying God), if not, then don’t”. So [the Judeans] weighed out My wages, thirty shekels of silver…

There are different interpretations as to what the 30 pieces of silver represents. Rashi claims that it was the 30 prophets who would be put into safekeeping. There are others.

But that’s not as important as the next verse, verse 13.

The narration then returns to the prophet.

"God said to me, "Toss [the silver] to the potter", and I took the thirty shekels and tossed it into the house of YHVH, to the potter."

(There are a number of different interpretations for היוצר, but the one that is used consistently is "potter" which could be a generic term for a craftsman who works in materials that need to be formed (יצר). See Psalm 2:9 which references breaking the enemies like a potter's vessel with a rod of iron). The term could also very likely simply be a pun, in that "THE Creator" is telling Zechariah to cast the money to "the creator" (היוצר). But to simplify things, I will just use "potter in this particular blog post.

So Zechariah fulfilled it centuries before Jesus was born, and it's obviously non-messianic because Zechariah was not the messiah.

THE DIFFERENCES

In the Christian story, the priesthood gives Judas 30 pieces of actual silver in order to betray Jesus. Judas takes it and puts it in his purse for a later unholy purpose.

In the Hebrew text of Zechariah, God demands his payment if the people are ready to pay. They agree and God tells Zechariah to take possession of the metaphorical “thirty pieces of silver” and toss it to the potter, someone who is in the Temple. As to what he will do with that silver, it's not clear. The Greek version of the text has "smelting furnace" (χωνευτήριον) to indicate that he was a silversmith or related craftsman. But the plain Hebrew text is silent on the matter.

Other than the expression “thirty pieces of silver”, these two verses are completely unrelated.

One was taking blood money and using it to cause harm to another, an ungodly act. The other was commanded by God to deliver the silver, not out of disgust, but because it was precious (יקר).

THE VERDICT

Even though Christians may claim that Matthew 26:15 was a fulfillment of prophecy, it doesn’t say that in the text. Furthermore, the reason for the “silver” is worlds apart and have absolutely no relationship to one another.

And it was already fulfilled by Zechariah.

How one can say that Jesus fulfilled this verse is beyond me.

So, no. Zechariah is not about paying for a betrayal. In fact, it’s the exact opposite, being a payment out of loyalty, with the recipient being God, through His prophet.

Meme used

Psalm 41:9 – Betrayed by a friend

Introduction

In this analysis, I will refer to the verse numbers based on the Hebrew text rather than the Christian one. Psalm 41 is categorized among the "my life is terrible, and they are out to get me" psalms, evident from the preceding psalms:

·     Psalm 40:15 – "Let them be ashamed and abashed together that seek my soul to sweep it away."

·      Psalm 39:2 – "I will keep my mouth shut while evil is before me."

·      Psalm 38:12 – "My friends and companions stand aloof from my plague."

·      Psalm 37:12 – "The wicked plots against the righteous and gnash at him with his teeth."

There are numerous other examples for those interested in further exploration. In some psalms, the speaker, potentially David, is depicted as ill, while in others, he is not. In Psalm 41, the reader perceives that the protagonist is on the brink of death.

Narrative Review of Psalm 41

Verses 2-4 convey that those who visit the sick and weak and perform acts of kindness can expect divine assistance from YHVH. This serves as a prelude to the narrative's description of the protagonist, who confesses to having sinned against YHVH.

It is essential to understand the belief, reinforced in the Torah (Leviticus 26:14-40), that illness is often seen as a consequence of sin. In this psalm, the protagonist's sin is considered significant (verse 9), implying severe illness, to the point of being bedridden.

Verses 6-10 describe the extent of the protagonist's illness and the malevolence of those around him. In verses 11-13, he pleads with God to heal him so that he may repay his betrayers, asserting that such an act would confirm God's concern for him.

The protagonist's sole solution for dealing with betrayers is vengeance—contrary to Jesus' handling of Judas. Jesus did not lie sick in bed, burdened by sin to the extent of immobility.

 Christian Interpretation and Psalm 41

Christians claim that Matthew 10:4, which simply states "Judas who betrayed [Jesus]," fulfills Psalm 41:9 (41:10 in the Hebrew text). However, as observed in other instances, the Gospels do not explicitly state that any prophecy was fulfilled. This reflects a pattern of identifying elements in the Jesus narrative and retrospectively seeking matching words to fabricate prophecies.

Conclusion

Psalm 41 provides a complex narrative intertwined with themes of sin, illness, and betrayal. The traditional Jewish interpretation contrasts sharply with Christian attempts to link it to the New Testament. This analysis underscores the necessity of contextual and theological understanding when examining ancient texts and their interpretations.

In short, this Psalm was certainly not messianic, and the only prophecy that one can try to even make is "If you betray me, you are dead".

Definitely not about Jesus. 

Here was the meme used:

Psalm 110:1 - Session

THE BOTTOM LINE

Before I get into an explanation, let me begin with saying that, whoever YHVH was talking to in this verse, it sure wasn't Jesus. Many people who cite it only say the first half of the verse, which is only part of the conditional statement. Look at the second half:

"A Psalm of David. YHVH declared to my master, sit to My right until I make your enemies as a stool for your feet."

Instead of the protagonist being crushed by his enemies, as was the case for Jesus, the enemies for this person would themselves be crushed. The enemies, in this verse as we read further, were the enemies of the Jewish people. And as Acts 1:6 says, even the people who supported Jesus were asking "Why did he leave without crushing our enemies and establishing a Jewish kingdom?"

OK, so Jesus didn't fulfill that prophecy.

But let me expand a little further as to why this is not about a dead messiah sitting in heaven.

IMAGINE NO HEAVEN

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. It seems to be a view that developed after the Hellenistic period,

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).

RIGHT HAND

The expression of being to God's right side or hand is an expression of loyalty and authority. It does not mean that someone was sitting on a mountaintop next to God (YHVH preferred dwelling on mountain tops and high places). We even use that expression today, as in "he's my right hand man", an expression of being indispensable. In other Psalms, the protagonist is to God's right, and at other times, God is at the right of the protagonist. 

They aren't playing musical chairs here on some mountaintop, it is an expression concerning a human being's relationship to God and visa versa.

MY LORD

The term used to speak of the human being in verse 1 is "adoni" (pronounced "adonee"). This is not a reference to a supernatural being. A nearly identical word, traditionally, is "adonai" which is a reference to God. While Abraham was referred to as "adoni", he was never referred to as "adonai" since the former was a title of honor, and the latter the title of a deity.

Unfortunately, the Septuagint didn't make this any easier since it took those names and the one for the tetragrammaton YHVH and used the same word for all of them, making it a bit cumbersome to read. 

So this is why I translated it as "my master". "My sovereign" is equally good.

 BY OR FOR?

The prefix letter used for "David" typically means "for", "to", but in Biblical poetry can also mean "By" and "belonging to".

So the question is then, "Did David write the song, or was it written in the style of David, or was it written for David?"

To do that, one needs to look at the to text as a whole. Does is speak of the life of David? If not, then perhaps it was written for David. Was it written in the first person and seems to speak of David's life? The "by David" is suitable. If one holds that this is about a future king messiah, then "of" as in "the style of David" is suitable. 

But to hold that it cannot be about David because it was written by David is simply presuppositional.

FINALLY

Jesus didn't fulfill Psalm 110:1 because his enemies were not killed, and, instead, his enemies killed him. 

Since there is no "Heaven" in the Tanach, the view of the protagonist sitting in heaven next to YHVH is anachronistic and misses the expression of "my right".

There's a lot wrong with forcing Jesus into Psalm 110:1. Some of it is by not reading the rest of the Psalm.

Style: Presuppositional anachronisms applied to force Jesus into the role that describes someone else.

Meme used:

Psalm 68:18 - Ascension

 In Acts 1:6-9, we have the apostles asking Jesus "Are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel", to which Jesus gave a cryptic reply, "It's not for you to know", and then he flies off in Acts 1:9.

It never calls this ascension as fulfilling a prophecy in the text.

But that kind of thing has never stopped Christians from looking for one.

Psalm 68:18 (or Psalm 68:19 in the Hebrew version) is cited as another fulfillment by Jesus.

Which is odd, especially if you ever read it. The verse numbers that follow are all based upon the Hebrew readings.

Let's look at the preceding verses.

YHVH has come and destroyed His enemies (1-3), the righteous rejoice as He rides the clouds (with his chariots, as we see later - 4-5), protector of widows and orphans He restores them to their homes (6-7), He marched his army [of Israelites] through the desert to Sinai (8), where it was thunder, lightning, rain, as the Israelites dwelled at Sinai (9-11), foreign armies attacked and YHVH protected them (12-15), of all of the more majestic mountains, YHVH chose Sinai as His mountain and will dwell there forever (16-17), and YHVH's many chariots are with Him atop Sinai (18).

And then we get to verse 19:

"You went up to the heights, having taken captives, having received gifts of men, even those who rebelled against the dwelling of YHVH-Elohim."

It should be obvious that this is all about YHVH and the Exodus story There are a lot more verses, of course, but the main point is that Jesus did not ascend Mt. Sinai with captives. This excerpt isn't about him at all.

As a side note, in the Torah, YHVH is a mountain dwelling God who comes down from time to time, and this is just another scene in that common narrative.

So, no, Jesus did NOT fulfill that verse about YHVH ascending Mt. Sinai with His chariots and captives and the gifts of men.

Here is the meme used: