Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

[-Peacemaker-]

I don't think there's any doubt that Jesus was rejected by the Jewish nation. I don't even think the Jewish nation would argue this. It's true he had some followers but Scripture and history have agreed that they were a minority

John 1: 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"

John 5: 41 “I do not accept glory from human beings, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. "

John 15: 23" Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[c] "

John 1:

45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
46 “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked. “Come and see,” said Philip

Matthew 27: 11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.
15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus[b] Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18 For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Evidence of working class background: They couldn't afford the ideal sacrafice of 2 lambs as prescribed by Leviticus so they have to but 2 pigeons or doves

Luke 2: 24

22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”b), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”c

Leviticus 12:8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'"

 

[Poisonshady313]

I might not have access to my computer tonight. If that's the case, ill get back to you in the morning.

 

[Muffled]

The general Jewish charge is mistranslation and deliberate altering of the translation in order to fit Jesus into it. The more I read from Jewish apologetic websites the more I see this will be the root of basically every debate we have on the individual verses. I've been trained on one Bible, the Christian translation. I can argue verses all day with that resource but you've exposed me to something I've never knew existed: that of a Hebrew version that often has a completely different take on the verses. One thing is certain SOMEBODY isn't interpretting things faithfully. Who that is, I have to find out for myself. I'll be back

My experience is that the jewish translation takes a particularly Jewish view that is not necessarily accurate from the Hebrew. Have fun reading right to left in a different script in an archaic language. Ancient Hebrew is not equivalent to modern Hebrew. Also be aware that there aren't any vowels in the origal text. Marks were put in later texts to indicate vowels and maybe they are correct.

 

[Muffled]

To build on that particular line of thinking, another bit from the Jews for Judaism website:

Does the Gospel's representation of Jesus show fulfillment of the description of the suffering servant: "he was despised and we esteemed him not" (Isaiah 53:3)?


Answer: The Gospel accounts claim Jesus was popular throughout his life generally (Luke 2:52) and during his public ministry in particular. The evangelists insist that Jesus was greatly admired by large segments from every level of society. What is more, many were his loyal followers. True, the evangelists claim that the Jewish rulers condemned Jesus, but, nevertheless, they assert that Jesus had many followers even among the ruling class. The evangelists speak of Jesus as one who, while losing at times, many of his followers, always had, even at the end of his life, a great many faithful adherents. According to the Gospel accounts, these adherents came from every segment of society.
It is claimed that wherever he went, crowds flocked about him. True, it is said that Jesus felt many followed him for unworthy motives (John 6:26). However, this negative motivation or the servant's disappointment at the lack of true loyalty is not reflected in Isaiah 53:3. There the servant is despised and rejected but nothing is said about his adversaries having, at one time been his followers, let alone that they had unworthy motives in initially following him. In verse 3, they never were his followers to begin with.
The Gospels' Jesus is described in superlative terms that are the exact opposite of one who is despised and rejected. He is "glorified by all" (Luke 4:14-15); "a great crowd came together" to see him (Luke 8:4); "great crowds followed him" from near and far (Matthew 4:25); and he is called "a great prophet" (Luke 7:16).
John states that many of the Jews believed in Jesus (John 12:11), and that among them were many of the rulers who secretly believed in him (John 12:42). In Luke 13:31, we are told that even some of the Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod was planning to kill him and urged him to escape. Matthew 21:46 and Mark 12:12, 37, inform us that Jesus taught the crowds in the Temple and that his enemies were afraid to arrest him because they feared the multitudes who listened to him enthusiastically. Moreover, when his enemies made their final plans to arrest him, they decided: "Not during the festival, lest there be an uproar of the people" (Matthew 26:5, Mark 14:1-2, see also Luke 22:2). When Jesus entered Jerusalem, it was to the accompanying shouts of "Hosanna" coming from the crowds (Matthew 21:9) that declared him to be "the prophet Jesus" (Matthew 21:11).
Was Jesus abandoned in his last hours? As Jesus went to be crucified "a great multitude of people, and of women" accompanied him "beating themselves and bewailing him" (Luke 23:27). At his crucifixion "many women [supporters] were there looking from a distance" (Matthew 27:55, Mark 14:40, Luke 23:49); Luke adds "all those acquainted with him were standing at a distance" (Luke 23:49); "all the multitude" attending the crucifixion began "beating their breasts" (Luke 23:48). John mentions the presence at the crucifixion of "the disciple whom he loved" (John 19:20). Nicodemus, a Pharisee and "a ruler of the Jews" (John 3:1), helped Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man, to prepare the body for burial (John 19:39). Joseph of Arimathaea was a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57, John 19:38) and a member of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50-51).
The overall Gospel accounts claim that Jesus had a large and loyal following throughout Judea and the surrounding territories. This group, it is alleged, consisted of people from among every strata of society. These were individuals who did not know of events in Jerusalem and were still loyal to him.
Some Christians claim that Jesus died without any significant following. This, however, is only an argument necessitated by theological needs. The Gospels allege that the masses adhered to a messianic belief that Jesus, who was believed to be the son of David (Matthew 9:27), was not only the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 (John 7:40), but was in fact, the very Messiah himself (John 7:41). Even though there was a division among the crowd over who he was (John 7:43), and many of his disciple left him (John 6:66), we must assume, the Gospels not telling us otherwise, that thousands of people throughout the country, still believed in him as the Messiah at the time of his crucifixion. It should be noted that, according to the Gospel narratives, the general Jewish populace did not have occasion to directly reject Jesus' messianic assertions, since he had not openly claimed to be the Messiah (Matthew 16:16, 20; Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9:20-21).
The words of Isaiah 53:3: "He was despised and rejected of men . . . and as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him not" cannot be applied to Jesus if one is to believe the New Testament narrative.

This argument doesn't hold water. Isa. 53 is particularly about the crucifixion. In that case He was despised and rejected. Not only that but his visage was so marred that it must have been painful for people to look at him.

 

[esmith]

If there is no objection I would like to enter into this discussion. I will be using the "Fully Revised Fourth Edition of The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version With The Apocrypha" and "The Jewish Study Bible" by the JPS as my sources.

Isaiah 53:5-6 Does not say "pierced" it says "wounded" both in the NRSV and Tanakh

I will now use the NRSV synopsis "quoted directly" for 52:13-53-12
Announcement of the exaltation of the servant of the LORD. The fourth and final servant song portrays the suffering of the servant and his ultimate exaltation. Talmudic tradition identifies the servant with Moses, who suffered throughout the wilderness journey, and early Christian tradition identifies the servant with Jesus. Second Isaiah identifies the servant with Israel although the servant's mission is to restore Israel and Jacob to the LORD. Other figures identified with the servant include the prophet Jeremiah, who was persecuted throughout his life; King Josiah, who was killed by Pharaoh Neco at Megiddo; and King Jehoiachin, who was exiled to Babylon. The disfigurement and suffering of the servant, but also his exaltation elicit astonishment from foreign nations and rulers. The intense suffering of the servant is defined vicariously; just as the LORD calls for Israel to be blind and deaf so that they will suffer punishment, so the servant now exemplifies that role. His suffering serves as a means to atone for the sins of the nation, much like a lamb sacrificed at the Temple altar. The servant's offspring refer to those who follow his example and teaching after his death rather than indicating that he survived and was rehabilitated.

The JPS Tanakh interpretation is too long to place here

This passage interpretation can be argued either by the Christian faith or the Jewish faith and neither will agree with the other. I do want to make one comment. If those of the Christian faith wish to utilize a reference Bible I would suggest that you not use the NIV but the NRSV.

 

[logician]

I think both of us would be willing to talk about this with you but I ask respectfully that we take it into a different thread. We'd like to keep the focus of these on the scriptural debate of the Messaih. Not whether prophecy in general is all a sham.

Just a reminder that true prophets cannot exist in a random/chaotic universe. Nbody can predict with certainty what will happen 5 minuets in the future. The possibilities approach infinity as the time increases.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Isa. 53 is particularly about the crucifixion.

No, it's not.

In that case He was despised and rejected.

Except by those that admired him, followed him, worshiped him, etc...

Not only that but his visage was so marred that it must have been painful for people to look at him.

Rabbi Akiva had his skin ripped from his body by metal rakes. One might argue that the verse more accurately describes him than it does Jesus. But it's neither here nor there, because the servant of Isaiah 53 is not an individual person.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Poison, I'll let you get the last word if you want. I think we can probably move to another passage then

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'll address Jesus as the despised in a few moments. I wanted to talk context in this post. I found a compelling point at this site: Outreach to Judaism | Who is the Servant of Isaiah 53?

the quote says it best:
"The servant of Isa. 53 is the “righteous servant” (v. 11), meek “as a lamb” (v. 7), who had done no violence and had no deceit in his mouth (v. 9). This is hardly a description of national Israel at any time in its history. Isaiah uniformly describes Israel as apostate, sinful and iniquitous, doing “deeds of violence” (chap. 59, especially v. 7), “children of transgression, offspring of deceit” (57:4). Though Israel in Babylonian exile suffered double what she deserved (40:2) she was hardly “my righteous servant” suffering innocently for the guilty, either before, during, or after the exile. The exile was a punishment for sin. The biblical record shows Jewish history as checkered -- sometimes good, often bad.
So who is the Servant of Isaiah 53? Is he the nation of Israel suffering for the sins of the Gentiles? In view of the statements in Ezekiel 18 that God does not make the innocent suffer for the guilty (which Jewish expositors quote against the idea of substitutionary atonement) why should Israel have to suffer for the sins of the nations? In this world the innocent constantly suffer for the sins of the wicked; but such suffering is not from God. Yet Isa. 53 clearly states “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (v. 6) and that “it was the will of the LORD to bruise him” and “put him to grief” (v. 10). God has never made Israel the sin-bearer for the Gentiles."

The interesting point is that Israel in this time of it's history doesn't have the integrity of the servant Isaiah is talking about.

From the JewsforJudaism website:

It is true that the Jewish Scriptures show that there are times when the nation of Israel undergoes suffering as divine retribution for sin. But, it also shows that suffering is not always an indication of sin. Attributing sin to the sufferer is often a glib generalization by those who do not understand the biblical message. The centuries of Jewish martyrdom and suffering alluded to in Isaiah 53 cannot be explained simply as divine judgment for sin. Certainly there is suffering because of sins (Deuteronomy 31:17-18), but not all suffering can be strictly attributed to divine punishment for sin. In a world where there is much evil, suffering is very often the fate of the innocent person. There is suffering that ensues, not from divine judgment, but from the evil committed by man. "My people went down at first into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause" (Isaiah 52:4). We see that the sufferings of the Jewish people are not a reflection of its failures, but of the failures of humankind. One may be faithful to God and still suffer persecution. Of this the psalmist writes: All this came upon us yet we have not forgotten You, and we have not been false to Your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor has our footstep strayed from Your path. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and covered us with the shadow of death. Have we forgotten the Name of our God, or spread out our hands to a strange god? Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart. Because for Your sake we are killed all the time, we are considered as sheep for the slaughter. Awake, why do You sleep, O my Lord? Arouse Yourself, forsake not forever. Why do You conceal Your face, do You forget our affliction and our oppression? (Psalms 44:17-24)

Isaiah 53 provides a model: Israel suffers not only for its own sins but also as a result of the sins of those nations among whom they dwell. The fact is that Jews, because they are elect, suffer. Election carries responsibilities, some of which are not pleasant, but, in the end, faithful Israel will be rewarded.

Also, it's an interesting debate being waged about the Hebrew word Lamo which is used to desribe the servant in the plural. I'm no Hebrew scholar but the arguement appears to have some merit. Outreach to Judaism | Is Lamo the Smoking Gun of Isaiah 53?

From the same source I used earlier:

In Isaiah 53:8, the Gentile spokesperson continues to acknowledge the fault of the nations for the trials and tribulations suffered by the servant, Israel, during his passage through history (cf. Isaiah 52:1, 15-53:1-2). Thus, he states: "As a result of the transgression of my people [the Gentile nations] he [Israel] has been afflicted." The literal translation of' this verse is: "From the transgression of' my people there has been affliction to him [or "to them"]." The poetic form of lahem, lamo, "to them," is used in this verse in reference to a collective noun (cf. Genesis 9:26). Lamo is rendered "to him" as it refers to the collective noun, "suffering servant of the Lord," that is, the Jewish people. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity given the appellative "suffering servant of the Lord." The proper rendering of lamo is sometimes unclear. For example, there appears to be a Question on how to render lamo in the verse, "Then a man uses it [a tree] for fuel: and he takes it, and warms himself; he kindles it and bakes bread; he makes a god, and worships it; he makes it a carved image, and falls down lamo ["to them," alternately suggested "to it,"]" ( Isaiah 44:15). Since the noun, "god," is in the singular it would seem to show that lamo can mean "to it" as an actual singular and not just when used as a collective noun. This is not the case. Although the prophet's words are in the singular he uses the poetic form lamo, "to them," to show that the content of his message is to be understood as being in the plural. The translator of the Hebrew, into the Greek Septuagint, understood this and rendered the verse accordingly: "That it might be for men to burn: and having taken part of it he warms himself; and they burn part of it; and bake loaves thereon; and the rest they make for themselves gods, and they worship them."
The plural nature of the poetic form lamo is supported by the fifty four places it is used in the Hebrew Scriptures. That the plural lamo, in verse 8, refers to the suffering servant of the Lord as a collective noun excludes any possibility that it pertains to an individual. As a result, it cannot refer to Jesus. The suffering servant of the Lord is a collective noun and, as such, does not refer to a specific Israelite.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Poison, I'll let you get the last word if you want. I think we can probably move to another passage then

Ok...there were still a couple of posts from a while ago that I haven't had a chance to respond to... I'll do that now.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I don't think there's any doubt that Jesus was rejected by the Jewish nation. I don't even think the Jewish nation would argue this. It's true he had some followers but Scripture and history have agreed that they were a minority

John 1: 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"

John 5: 41 “I do not accept glory from human beings, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. "

John 15: 23" Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[c] "

John 1:

45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
46 “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked. “Come and see,” said Philip

Matthew 27: 11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.
15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus[b] Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18 For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

What was said in posts 48 and 49 still holds. He preached from the mountaintops and had followers.

Besides, why should your argument focus on the fact that the Jewish nation rejected him when the speaker of Isaiah 53 is the gentile nations of the world?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Evidence of working class background: They couldn't afford the ideal sacrafice of 2 lambs as prescribed by Leviticus so they have to but 2 pigeons or doves

Luke 2: 24

22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”b), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”c

Leviticus 12:8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'"

This is neither here nor there.



For the sake of being able to move on...

You see individual sentences and say "oh, that sounds like Jesus being crucified". But if you pay attention to Isaiah, and understand that the servant Isaiah speaks of is Israel (as is the case many times throughout Isaiah), and that the narrator of Isaiah 53 is the gentile nations of the world (as is made clear by the end of Isaiah 52), it can only be said that what is being spoken of is the world's amazement at what terrible things they had done to Israel during their exile.

I think we've exhausted Isaiah 53. It occurs to me that lists like the ones provided by you and pegg have several different entries within Isaiah 53, and it would do well for you to take all of them and lump them into one.

So you say Jesus = the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.
I say Israel = the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.

I can't see any way that it can be Jesus. You can't see how it's not.

Let's move on to number 2 out of 48 (minus other instances of verses within Isaiah 53).

 

[-Peacemaker-]

One more point that I thought I had made but see I missed. I'll still let you get the last word however: Why did it PLEASE God to allow Israel to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles if this suffering was an unjust suffering cause by the Gentiles? Surely such suffering is not God's will nor would it please him.

 

[Poisonshady313]

One more point that I thought I had made but see I missed. I'll still let you get the last word however: Why did it PLEASE God to allow Israel to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles if this suffering was an unjust suffering cause by the Gentiles? Surely such suffering is not God's will nor would it please him.

At verse 10, we see a shift in the narration. God is letting the world know that, as I indicated earlier, while some of it was the wickedness of the nations that harassed Israel, some of it was Israel's punishments for its sins.

"Israel suffers not only for its own sins but also as a result of the sins of those nations among whom they dwell."

Also. Meaning both circumstances apply. We know that the narration shifts and that I'm not simply making stuff up to suit my argument because the next verse uses the phrase "My servant" again.


But as long as you want to look at verse 10, "if his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and the desire of the Lord would succeed in his hand".

Christians maintain that the sacrifice of Jesus was that of his bodily existence. It's his flesh and blood that Catholics say they consume. If we was perfect, as Christians generally maintain, and it was everyone else's sins that he took upon himself, his soul wouldn't have any guilt to acknowledge. If his death is compared to a sin atonement animal sacrifice, as it usually is by Christians, the animal doesn't take the sins into its own soul.

And Jesus didn't have any children. He didn't see offspring.

And he didn't live long days. He died at 33, less than half the age of King David when he died.

It's not very helpful or meaningful to pick out a few buzzwords from a passage of text and say "aha!" when the context can clearly be shown not to apply.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

let's move on:

HANDS AND FEET NAILED

Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. 1000 B.C.
John 20:25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

 

[Poisonshady313]

let's move on:

HANDS AND FEET NAILED

Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. 1000 B.C.
John 20:25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

Another instance where the words "pierced" is not present in the text. Like a Christian editor of his particular version decided to substitute the correct phrase with the word "pierced" for the specific purpose of making a verse that is very much not about Jesus (and very much not a messianic prophecy at all) turn into a verse that folks like yourself can grab onto and say "see? Psalms says hands and feet were pierced, Jesus hands and feet were pierced, so it must be about Jesus".


Another passage about the Jews in exile... except this time, rather than the narrator being the nations of the world, this time the narrator is the nation of Israel.

The description of this Psalm in the Artscroll Tanach (a side note, not a foot note) says:

Speaking as an in individual, the Jew prays for a final end to Israel's long exile from its land and its Temple.

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a pack of evildoers has enclosed me, like a lion at my hands and my feet.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Interesting to note that the NIV translates the same Hebrew word differently in two different verses in the same chapter.

Psalms 22:21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;...



THE SAME HEBREW WORD!!!

The ONLY explanation for this is a willful tampering with the text to insert the word "pierce" where it doesn't belong.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Because it seems most appropriate when talking about this verse, I'd like to share with you what Jews for Judaism has to say on this one. It goes further in depth with the actual Hebrew text:

Christians see in this verse an opportunity to make the claim that the psalmist foretold the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet as part of the crucifixion process. They maintain that the Hebrew word ka-'ari in verse 17 (16 in some versions) should be translated as "pierce." They render this verse as: "They pierced my hands and my feet." This follows the Septuagint version, used by the early Christians, whose error is repeated by the Vulgate and the Syriac. However, it should be noted that the Septuagint underwent textual revisions by Christian copyists in the early centuries of the Common Era; it is not known if the rendering "pierced" is one of those revisions.

In any case, this rendering contains two fallacies. First, assuming that the root of this Hebrew word is krh, "to dig," then the function of the 'aleph in the word ka-'ari is inexplicable since it is not part of the root. Karah consists only of the Hebrew letters kaph, resh, and he, whereas the word in the Hebrew text, ka-'ari, consists of kaph, 'aleph, resh, and yod. Second, the verb krh, "to dig," does not have the meaning "to pierce." Karah generally refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh (cf. Genesis 26:25; Exodus 21:33; Numbers 21:18; Jeremiah 18:20, 22; Psalms 7:16, 57:7). There are a number of words that are used in Hebrew for piercing the body: rats'a, "to pierce," "to bore with an awl" (Exodus 21:6); dakar, "to pierce" (Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 13:15); nakar, "to pierce," "to bore," "to perforate" (2 Kings 18:21). This last word is used in a very significant sense in the last verse cited: "It [the reed] will go into his hand and pierce it." Any of these words would be far better suited for use in this passage than one that is generally used to denote digging the soil.


The correct interpretation of the verse must be based on the elliptical style of this particular psalm. The text should read, in effect: "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." Ellipsis (the omission of words) is an apt rhetorical device for a composition in which suffering and agony is described. A person in agony does not usually express his feelings in complete round sentences. Such a person is capable of exclaiming only the most critical words of his thoughts and feelings. In this case: "Like a lion . . . my hands and my feet!" Similarly, in verse 1 we find broken phrases rather than whole sentences: "Far from helping me . . . the words of my roaring."


Examining Psalm 22, we find that verses 17, 21, and 22 express parallel thoughts. In verse 17, the psalmist speaks of "dogs" and "a lion," which are metaphoric representations of his enemies, and in verses 21 and 22 respectively, he beseeches the Almighty to save him "from a dog's paw" and "from a lion's mouth." Thus, in verse 17, where he complains of the lion, the missing words are understood, and it is to be read: "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." This is the most plausible interpretation of the text. Rashi's interpretation of the verse--"As if crushed by the mouth of a lion are my hands and my feet"--is similar in thought to the one we have offered though differently stated. While these interpretations fit with the diction of the entire psalm, the Christian translation--"They pierced my hands and my feet"--does not.


Grammatical proof of the correctness of the Masoretic text is seen by the use of the qamatz under the kaph in ka-'ari, which is the result of an assimilated definite article. Thus, the literal translation would be "Like the lion. . . ." While in English, a noun used in a general sense is recognized by having no article, either definite or indefinite, in Hebrew, as well as in many other languages, such nouns take the definite article. For example, "Work is good for man" in Hebrew would be "The work is good for man." (Cf. Amos 5:19 with the English translation.)


The metaphorical terminology used by the psalmist to express in physical terms his mental anguish is comparable to similar usage found in Jeremiah 23:9. There the prophet exclaims: "My heart within me is broken, all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine has overcome."


As a result of a careful study of this verse, we see that the Christian claim that Psalms 22:17 (16 in some versions) foretells that Jesus' hands and feet would be pierced has no truth to it.

 

[esmith]

let's move on:

HANDS AND FEET NAILED

Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. 1000 B.C.
John 20:25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

Sorry Junglej25; According to the NRSV Psalm 22:16 reads " For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled" with a footnote on shriveled saying "Meaning of Hebrew uncertain".
As I suggested before, you should obtain the NRSV.