- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi borther Kerwin,
As I have already told that you seem to be repelled by the material I bring out from Jews for Judaism who are the true orthodox jews. Also as I quoted above 'the Jews for Jesus' and 'Messianic Jews' are fake no more Jews rather Christians who are against Paul's views. Therefore I quoted them to be aware of. It is not Jesus who invented this religion Christianity but the Hellenistic Paul the so called Jew.Hi GM,
Is orthodoxy relevant?
Why do you pay so much attention to rebels who refuse the Lordship of Jesus?Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 27 2009,14:18) Hi borther Kerwin,
As I have already told that you seem to be repelled by the material I bring out from Jews for Judaism who are the true orthodox jews. Also as I quoted above 'the Jews for Jesus' and 'Messianic Jews' are fake no more Jews rather Christians who are against Paul's views. Therefore I quoted them to be aware of. It is not Jesus who invented this religion Christianity but the Hellenistic Paul the so called Jew.
I added information about the Gabriel stone to my last post. The Orthodox Jews are to my mine the most legitimate Jews but they have chosen to reject the Anointed One and so rejected God. In rejecting Jesus they have altered their religious doctrine over time by adding or subtracting to the words of God. In some cases they have the same faults in their practices that Jesus addressed in his day.Does the Targum say Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah?
CLAIM: The oldest Jewish commentary on Isaiah, the Targum Jonathan teaches that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah.
In almost every missionary book or article that brings Rabbinic sources to try and prove their arguments, the Targum of Yonason Ben Uzziel is mentioned as a ‘proof’ that the ancient Rabbis believed that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 was the Moshiach Ben Dovid, the King Messiah. Most sources just quote a single verse from it. Here is an example from an Internet article by Victor Buksbazen:
‘From the earliest days, Isaiah 53 was interpreted by Jews as applying to the Messiah. Thus, Jonathan ben Uziel of the first century, in his Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible) paraphrases Isaiah 53: “My servant, the Messiah, will be great, who was bruised for our sins.”’[1]
It should be noted that the author has fabricated part of this passage. The words: “who was bruised for our sins” do not appear in the original Targum in any place as we can see from the translation that will be discussed in detail below.
There are few sources that deal with the Targum in full. Those that do, while they claim that this Targum is a support for the idea that Isaiah 53’s suffering servant is the Messiah, they will at the same time attack the author of the Targum for ‘completely twisting’ the text, or making a ’virtual rewrite’. If the issue were not so serious, it would be laughable.
Here are some quotes from Dr. Michael Brown’s latest work that shows what I mean:[2]
“So, for example the Targum interprets the passage with reference to the Messiah – as warring, victorious king, even to the point of completely twisting the meaning of key verses”[3]
“Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (which for simplicity in this discussion, we will simply call Isaiah 53) with reference to the Messiah, despite the fact that the Targum virtually rewrites the entire passage, changing the verses that speak clearly of the servant’s sufferings so that they speak instead of the suffering of the nations.”[4]
It should be noted that the second quote above has an error. The suffering (as we shall see) is not “of the nations” but of a single nation. It is the suffering of the Jewish people in exile. In another of his works we find:[5]
“Note that the Targum Jonathan, the Targum to the prophetic books, applied this section directly to the Messiah (“my servant the Messiah”) but changed the text in a number of key points, thereby effectively removing all references to the Messiah’s suffering. How odd it is that the Targum recognized that the servant of the Lord spoken of in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 was actually the Messiah – a fundamental position of the New Testament – and yet found it necessary to radically alter the meaning of the text to make it into a statement of the Messiah’s military prowess and his victory over the nations. It would have been more logical to attempt to argue that the text did not refer to the Messiah at all!” [6]
Why do they have to go through such contortions? Why not just accept that the Targum has another opinion? Why not just admit that the Targum does not help their cause? The reason is simple. The traditional church believed in a theology of Replacement of Israel by the church. This was not a good tactic to convince Jews to willingly convert. It failed for hundreds of years. Over the last few decades, the missionaries ‘got it.’ The overwhelming majority of Jews don’t want to stop being Jews. So the missionaries needed to say that the church does NOT replace the Jewish people.
This creates a problem. Historical Christianity and Historical Judaism are NOT the same, or even similar on many fundamental theological points. They need to show that the Jews weren’t so wrong, and that we can find ‘roots’ for Christianity in ancient Judaism. If they are there, then they can claim the Rabbis just made a wrong turn along the way.
But for that to work, there still needs to be some leftover traces of the ‘true’ theology by the Rabbis, in addition to their new mistakes. The further back, the closer to the truth. Rashi, Maimonides and all the later Rabbis got rid of the ancient beliefs. So the Targum and other sources have to have ‘hints’ showing that the ancient Jews, before the Rabbis ruined it, had beliefs that were consistent with Christianity. Whether it is with regards to Isaiah 53, or the Unity of G-d, or many of the other critical theological issues. Rabbinic works need to be examined to find indicators of the existence of this pre-Rabbinic ‘Biblical’ Judaism that believed similarly to the early Christians. THEN, they can claim that someone of Jewish background can become a Christian, and still be a Jew, since he has not abandoned the ancient Jewish beliefs. It was the RABBIS who have abandoned the ancient Jewish beliefs.
This explains the anger and exasperation that we see in the words of Dr. Brown and others when they discuss the full text of the Targum. We shall see that, in fact, the theology that comes out of the Targum is EXACTLY what later Rabbis, like Rashi, and Maimonides would write with regards to the Messiah and the subject of Isaiah 53.
The first issue we need to examine is what type of a commentary this Targum is. We shall see that this is a key issue to understanding the Targum, and also Jewish eschatology. Targum literal means ‘translation’, but not all Targums are the same. In my article “What is Midrash” I discuss the nature and content of Midrashic commentary. There I brought some sources that explain this method of interpretation. Dr. Michael Brown in his work ‘Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus’[7] states:
“Talmudic citations are not meant to be precise interpretations of the biblical text but are often based on free association and wordplays.”
In his “Introduction to the Talmud” by Moses Mielziner[8] he states:
“Where the Midrash does not concern legal enactments and provisions, but merely inquires into the meaning and significance of the laws or where it only uses the words of Scripture as a vehicle to convey a moral teaching or a religious instruction and consolation, it is called a ‘Midrash Agadah’ Interpretation of the Agadah, homiletical interpretation.”
In essence a Midrash is NOT a translation or literal commentary, but a pedagogical style of teaching theological concepts that is not strictly dependant on the text it is using.
The well-known scholarly translation of the Targumic Messianic texts, by Samson H. Levey, ‘The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum” says with regards to the Targum on Isaiah 53:[9]
“This is an excellent example of Targumic paraphrase at its best. It is not a translation, nor is it loose meaningless commentary, but a reworking of the text to yield what the Targumist desires it to give forth.”
This is almost exactly what appears in the quote from Mielziner above. From this we see that the Targum is a Midrashic commentary, and not a literal one. The Targum is not strictly telling us what the verses say, but what Judaism teaches. It is painting for us a picture of the end-times and Jewish eschatology.
This is something that the more knowledgeable missionaries KNOW, even if they are reluctant to admit it in a clear way in their books. This actually came up in an email dialogue with Dr. Michael Brown that involved a number of subjects including the Targum to Isaiah 53. In an email sent to me Sunday, October 20, 2002 he responded to some remarks I made with regards to this issue. I had made the following comment about the Targum on Isaiah 53: “1. It is a Midrashic commentary and not a translation. It is conveying ideas and theology, not exegesis. “ To which he responded: ”I take for granted your point 1 on the Targum to Isaia
h” That the Targum to Isaiah 53 is Midrashic and theology, and NOT a literal translation is not even an issue open to debate.[10]Now that we recognize that this is a Midrashic comment, we need to try and understand what the Targum is trying to teach us. In it we see a picture painted for us. It is of the end-times. (See my article “Who is Moshiach Ben Yosef” for some texts dealing with this period, especially the passage of Isaiah 11 which gives some background on the Targumic references to the Messiah.) The Christian missionary scholar Dr. Louis Goldberg in his pamphlet ‘A Jewish Christian response’[11] summarizes what appears in the Targum.[12] He states that 'all the verses which relate to exaltation were applied to a (sic) personal Messiah, while the remainder of the passage relating to suffering was applied to the nation'. So the Targum is teaching us two points: The Messiah will be an exalted character, and the Jewish people suffered in exile. Sounds pretty much like what we find in traditional Jewish commentaries.
Let’s look at the Targum and compare it to a translation of the original passage. It will be easy to notice that this is not a translation at all. It is not a simple explanation of the verses. It is a Midrash, in the style we have just explored. The translation from the JPS is bold letters. The translation of the Targum is by Driver and Neubauer[13] as that is the one that is usually quoted from by the missionaries.
52:13 Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
52:13. Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong:
52:14 According as many were appalled at thee—so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men—
52:14. as the house of Israel looked to him during many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men,
52:15 So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.
52:15. so will he scatter many peoples; at him kings shall be silent, and put their hands upon their mouth, because that which was not told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have observed.
53:1 ‘Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?
53:1. Who hath believed this our glad tidings? and the strength of the mighty arm of the Lord, upon whom as thus hath it been revealed?
53:2 For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.
53:2. The righteous will grow up before him, yeah, like blooming shoots, and like a tree which sends forth its roots to streams of water will they increase – a holy generation in the land that was in need of him; his countenance no profane countenance, and the terror at him not the terror at an ordinary man; his complexion shall be a holy complexion, and all who see him will look wistfully upon him.
53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
53:3. Then he will become despised, and will cut off the glory of all the kingdoms; they will be prostrate and mourning, like a man of pains and like one destined for sicknesses; and as though the presence of the Shekhinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not.
53:4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
53:4. Then for our sins he will pray, and our iniquities will for his sake be forgiven, although we were accounted stricken, smitten from before the Lord, and afflicted.
53:5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.
53:5. But he will build up the Holy Place, which has been polluted for our sins, and delivered to the enemy for our iniquities; and by his instruction peace shall be increased upon us, and by devotion to his words, our sins will be forgiven us.
53:6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.
53:6. All we like sheep had been scattered, we had each wandered off on his own way; but it was the Lord's good pleasure to forgive the sins of all of us for his sake.
53:7 He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth.
53:7. He prayed, and he was answered, and ere even he had opened his mouth he was accepted; the mighty of the peoples he will deliver up like a sheep to the slaughter and like a lamb dumb before her shearers; there shall be none before him opening his mouth or saying a word
53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
53:8. Out of chastisements and punishment he will bring our captives near; the wondrous things done to us in his days who shall be able to tell? For he will cause the dominion of the Gentiles to pass away from the land of Israel and transfer to them the sins which my people have committed.
53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.’
53:9. He will deliver the wicked into Gehinnom, and those that are rich in possessions into the death of utter destruction, in order that those who commit sin may not be established, nor speak deceits with their mouth.
53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:
53:10. But it is the Lord's good pleasure to try and to purify the remnant of his people, so as to cleanse their souls from sin; these shall look on the Kingdom of their Messiah, their sons and their daughters shall be multiplied, they shall prolong their days, and those who perform the Law of the Lord shall prosper in his good pleasure.
53:11 Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.
53:11. From the subjection of the nations he will deliver their souls, they shall look upon the punishment of those that hate them, and be satisfied with the spoil of their kings; by his wisdom he will hold the guiltless free from guilt, in order to bring many into subjection to the law; and for their sins he will intercede.
53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
53:12. Then will I divide for him the spoil of many peoples, and the possessions of strong cities shall he divide as prey, because he delivered up his soul to death, and made the rebellious subject to the Law: he shall intercede for many sins, and the rebellious for his sake shall be forgiven
We can see clearly from the above that the Targum is not a translation, nor can it be called ‘commentary’ in the usual sense of the word. If we look in the commentaries of the Rambam (Maimonides) where he discusses the Messiah, his time, and h
is role we see most if not all of what appears in this Targum about the Messiah.In his commentary to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 he states:
“The twelfth principle… We believe the Messiah will be greater than any other king or ruler who has ever lived.”
“The Messiah will be a very great king, whose government will be in Zion. He will achieve great fame, and his reputation among the nations will be even greater than that of King Solomon. His great righteousness and the wonders that he will bring about will cause all peoples to make peace with him and all the lands will serve him. Whoever rises up against him will be destroyed by G-d and given over into his hand.”
“The main benefit of the Messianic Age will be that we will no longer be under the subjugation of foreign governments who prevent us from keeping all the commandments.”
In his Mishnah Torah in the Laws of Kings Chapter 11 we have more:
11:1. “The Messiah will be a king who will restore the kingdom of David to its original state. He will rebuild the Temple and gather together all Jews, no matter where they were scattered.”
11:4. We may assume that a person is the Messiah if he fulfills the following conditions: He must be a ruler, from the house of David, immersed in Torah and its commandments like David his ancestor. He must also follow both the written and the Oral Torah, lead all Jews back to the Torah, strengthen the observance of its laws, and fight G-d’s battles. If one fulfills these conditions then we may assume he is the Messiah. If he does this successfully, and then rebuilds the Temple on its original site and gathers all the dispersed Jews, then we may be certain that he is the Messiah. He will then perfect the entire world and bring all men to serve G-d in unity.”
There is nothing especially surprising here for anyone familiar with the beliefs of Historical Judaism. What is interesting is that so much of the Jewish beliefs are explicitly mentioned in the Targum to Isaiah 53. (I would also note that some of the Biblical quotes from my article on Moshiach ben Yosef indicate many of the things that the Rambam says.)
I want to examine text of the Targum and explain what he is saying and point out where the Targum’s words agree with the Rambam about the messianic period. This will be in stark contrast to Christian theology about the Messiah, which is conspicuously absent from the Targum. I will be discussing each sentence of the Targum. I have made a few modifications of the translation based on the translation of Levey, and the wording of the original where the text used above gives a nuance that is not there in the original.
52:13 Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
52:13. Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong:
Here the servant is the Messiah. The Targum is almost the exact same wording as the Hebrew, except that he mentions the Messiah. We see that the Messiah will be of an exalted character, something that the Rambam emphasizes in his commentary to the Mishnah. “The Messiah will be a very great king, whose government will be in Zion. He will achieve great fame, and his reputation among the nations will be even greater than that of King Solomon.”
52:14 According as many were appalled at thee—so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men—
52:14. as the house of Israel looked to him during many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion (darkened) beyond the sons of men,
Here the servant is Israel. We see how Israel suffered abuse in their exile while waiting for the Messiah to come.
52:15 So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.
52:15. so will he scatter many peoples; at him kings shall be silent, and put their hands upon their mouth, because that which was not told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have observed.
The servant is the Messiah again. We see how the Messiah will be victorious in war against all enemies. This reflects what the Rambam wrote in his commentary to the Mishnah: “Whoever rises up against him will be destroyed by G-d and given over into his hand.”
53:1 ‘Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?
53:1. Who hath believed this our glad tidings? and the strength of the mighty arm of HaShem, upon whom hath it been revealed?
This seems to be similar to what the Rambam stated: “His great righteousness and the wonders that he will bring about will cause all peoples to make peace with him and all the lands will serve him.”
53:2 For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.
53:2. The righteous will grow up before him, yeah, like blooming shoots, and like a tree which sends forth its roots to streams of water; will they increase – a holy generations (lit. holy children) in the land that was in need of him; his countenance no profane countenance, and the terror at him not the terror of a simple person; his complexion shall be a holy complexion, and all who see him will look (stare) upon him.
The servant in this verse is the righteous of Israel. It appears that this verse is the source for Rashi saying that the servant is the righteous of Israel, and not just all of Israel. We see that not just the Messiah, as mentioned in 52:13, but all the righteous of Israel will be exalted in that time.
53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
53:3. Then he will despise, and will cut off the glory of all the kingdoms; they will be weakened and mourning, like a man of pains and like one prepared for sicknesses; and as though the presence of the Shekhinah had been withdrawn, they will be despised, and esteemed not.
It seems that the servant here is the NATIONS, an interesting twist in his interpretation. This seems to be a continuation of 52:15 where we see that the nations who have caused the suffering to Israel will be subjugated.
53:4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
53:4. Then for our sins he will pray, and our iniquities will for his sake be silenced, and we were accounted stricken, smitten from before HaShem, and afflicted.
The servant’s role here is applied to BOTH the Messiah and Israel. In Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4 the Rambam says: “lead all Jews back to the Torah, strengthen the observance of its laws” This is what the Messiah is doing here. The Targum also discusses the suffering in exile of Israel, and what the nations said about them.
53:5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.
53:5. But he will build up the Holy Place, which has been polluted for our sins, and delivered (to the enemy) for our iniquities; and by his instruction peace shall be increased upon us, and by devotion to his words, our sins will be forsaken[14].
The servant here is the Messiah. We see described the ‘job’ of the Messiah. It is almost exactly what the Rambam has stated: Book of Kings 11:4. We may assume that a person is the Messiah if he fulfills the following conditions: He must be a ruler, from the house of David, immersed in Torah and its commandments like David his ancestor. He must also follow both the written and the Oral Torah, lead all Jews back to the Torah, stren
gthen the observance of its laws, and fight G-d’s battles. If one fulfills these conditions then we may assume he is the Messiah. If he does this successfully, and then rebuilds the Temple on its original site and gathers all the dispersed Jews, then we may be certain that he is the Messiah. He will then perfect the entire world and bring all men to serve G-d in unity.”53:6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.
53:6. All we like sheep had been scattered, we were exiled, each wandered off on his own way; but it was HaShem’s will to forsake the sins of all of us for his sake.
Here we see Israel’s position in exile and Israel’s sins being forgiven. (In the next few verses we see what the Messiah does to cause this: prayer and teaching Torah to the people.)
53:7 He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth.
53:7. He prayed, and he was answered, and ere even he had opened his mouth he was accepted; the mighty of the peoples he will deliver up like a sheep to the slaughter and like a lamb dumb before her shearers; there shall be none before him opening his mouth or saying a word
The servant here is again the nations. As to the role of the Messiah in this verse the Rambam says: “Whoever rises up against him will be destroyed by G-d and given over into his hand.”
53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
53:8. Out of suffering and punishment he will bring our exiles; the wondrous things done to us in his days who shall be able to tell? For he will cause the dominion of the Gentiles to pass away from the land of Israel and transfer to them the sins which my people have committed.
The servant here is Israel. The suffering of Israel in the exile will be ended. As to the Messiah what it says here follows what the Rambam says in the book of Kings 11:1. “The Messiah will be a king who will restore the kingdom of David to its original state. He will rebuild the Temple and gather together all Jews, no matter where they were scattered.” Also in his commentary on the Mishnah: “The main benefit of the Messianic Age will be that we will no longer be under the subjugation of foreign governments who prevent us from keeping all the commandments.”
53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.’
53:9. He will deliver the wicked into Gehinnom, and those that are rich in possessions, that were forced from us, into the death of utter destruction, in order that those who commit sin may not prevail, nor speak deceits with their mouth.
The servant here is the nations. This is a continuation of the previous verse of the victory over the gentiles.
53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:
53:10. But it is HaShem's will to purify and to cause suffering to the remnant of his people, so as to cleanse their souls from sin; these shall look on the Kingdom of their Messiah, their sons and their daughters shall be multiplied, they shall prolong their days, and those who perform the Law of HaShem shall prosper by His Will.
The servant here is Israel. We see that the suffering in exile was for the good of Israel and they shall merit to have many children, and those who keep the Torah (the righteous) will prosper.
53:11 Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.
53:11. From the subjection of the nations he will deliver their souls, they shall look upon the punishment of those that hate them, and be satisfied with the spoil of their kings; by his wisdom he will hold cause merit to the meritorious, in order to bring many into service to the law; and for their sins he will intercede.
The servant here is both Israel and the Messiah. He repeats here the successful end to the enemies of Israel, and that Israel will divide the spoils from these enemies.
53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
53:12. Then will I divide for him the spoil of many peoples, and the possessions of strong cities shall he divide as spoils, because he was willing to suffer martyrdom, and made the rebellious subject to the Law: he shall intercede for the sins of many, and the sins of the rebellious for his sake shall be forsaken
The servant here is the Messiah. A repetition of what was said above in 53:5 and 53:11.
The best expression of the claim of the missionaries is in a recent work by Dr. Brown. Here is what Dr. Brown says:
“Interestingly, the national interpretation is not found once in the Talmuds, the Targums, or the midrashim (in other words, not once in all the classical, foundational, authoritative Jewish writings). [15]
We have seen that this is just not true. In the Targum numerous references are made to a ‘national interpretation’ of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Verses like 52:14, 53:4,8 and 10 all discuss the suffering of Israel in exile where the verse in the original discusses the suffering of the ‘servant’. There are even places where the suffering of the servant is applied to the punishments that will befall the nations in the end of days.
But there is a problem. As we have said, this is a Midrashic commentary. It is theology and not exegesis. We see that the theology of the Targum and that of Historical Judaism are in agreement. The question is can we discern who the Targum believes is the subject of Isaiah 53? I think that we can. I think that we have a few pieces of information that tells us that in the time of the Targum they understood the simple meaning of Isaiah 53 is that the suffering servant is referring to Israel, or the Righteous of Israel.
The first fact is based on a simple question: Why is Moshiach ben Yosef not mentioned in this passage of the Targum? In a few others places[16] the Targum mentions Moshiach ben Yosef. Had the Targum wanted to indicate that Isaiah 53 related to the idea of a suffering Messiah figure, then it would have been natural for him to include mention of Moshiach ben Yosef. By excluding mention of Moshiach ben Yosef in Isaiah 53 the Targum shows that he excludes the idea of a single person for the subject of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, especially the Messiah.
Secondly, all sources, Christian and Jewish; acknowledge that the subject of Isaiah 53 is a servant who suffers. As we saw from Dr. Goldberg, and from our examination of the Targum itself, the person suffering is ISRAEL. The inclusion of discussion about what the Messiah would be like and what he would do does not change anything with regards to that fact. This is, after all, a Midrash that is trying to teach something theological about the end-times period. It tells us many things, all of which Judaism accepts and acknowledges to the present day. And one point it makes quite clearly is that Israel has suffered in the exile.
These two points give us strong proof and confidence that, just like the theology the Targum teaches with regards to Isaiah 53 is what Historical Judaism believes, so the identification of the servant as Israel or the righteous of Israel, which Historical Judaism believes, is the same as the Targum. The
Targum DOES NOT teach that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. There is nothing in the Targum that even remotely is connected with the Christian theology about a Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. No person reading the Targum objectively, from beginning to end, would make such a contention.Gollamudi,
So your source claims that this verse is fabricated.
Isaiah 53:5(NIV) reads:
Quote But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Why should I believe them more that the translators of multiple translations of the Scriptures?
I even looked up in a Hebrew Lexicon and it states the Hebrew words that were commonly translated to the words written in Isaiah 53:5.
Why Jesus cannot be the Messiah
“… I think we should go back and look at whether Christianity is even a valid belief. So let's start with the core belief of Christianity – that Jesus is the 'Messiah'.
According to Christian belief, the Messiah that will save Israel and mark a new era in God's kingom on earth, can only be the Messiah if he is in line to be the king of Israel, which requires the Messiah be in the royal line of Solomon, and shall NOT be, according to Jeremiah 22:28-29, a descendent of Jeconiah. In this context check out Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 where we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus that are in conflict. They both cannot be correct as they disagree, and this discredits the bible as the infallible word of God. But Christians don't give up so easy, they explain away the different lineages by claiming the genealogy found in Matthew is the lineage of Jesus through his father Joseph, and the genealogy found in Luke is the lineage of jesus through his mother Mary. Now there is no reason found in the Bible to think this, and both passages in fact say they are the lineages of Jesus through his father Joseph, but Christians need to explain away the contradiction or the basis for their whole religion is in question.
In the lineage in Matthew, a couple of issues arise – first, Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus, since Mary was a virgin. As Christians claim, God was the father not Joseph. But God is not a descendant of Solomon. So if God is the biological father of Jesus, as the gospels and Christians assert, then Jesus is not a descendant of Solomon, and if not, then he cannot be the Messiah. Further, if you read the lineage in Matthew, Jeconiah is in the list of ancestors of Jesus. But according to Jeremiah 22:28-29, no descendants of Jeconiah can be king of Israel. But the Messiah has to be a king according to prophecy…thus for two reasons, Jesus could not be the Messiah based on this lineage.
So that leaves us with Luke's lineage. This lineage is different than the one in Matthew, so Christian scholars attempt to justify this by claiming the lineage in Luke is through Jesus' mother Mary. However, even if we accept this lineage is indeed Mary's, which there is no reason to do other than to justify the discrepancy, you must deal with a second difficulty – the rights of the royal line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was a descendant of David as required by prophecy, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). But even if Mary could transfer kingship, Mary (if this is indeed her genealogy) is a descendant of Nathan not Solomon. Nathan is a brother of Solomon, and the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon, so again, this lineage cannot be that of the Messiah. Even if the kingship could go through Nathan, Luke lists two people in this genealogy named Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and they are descendents of Jeconiah according to Matthew 1:12, and as shown above, Jeconiah cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah. Further, in Matthew, Jeconiah is listed as a descendent of Solomon, so the lineages again disagree, and Luke's then disagrees with other Old Testament lineages which also show Shealtiel and Zerubbabel as descendants of Solomon not Nathan. So, the question is, is Mary a descendant of Solomon through Jeconiah or of Nathan and not Solomon? Either answer disqualifies the lineage as that of the Messiah, ignoring completely that the kingship could not be transferred through the mother anyhow.
The fun of all of this is that it shows that Jesus CANNOT be the Messiah, and if he is not, the basis for Christianity whithers.”
Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/WhyJesusChristCannotbetheMessiah.html
Professor Bart Ehrman presents several reasons why Jesus cannot be the Messiah from a Jewish perspective, to wit: The Jews have no knowledge in their readings of their sacred texts (the Bible) of the Messiah having to “suffer” and “be rejected by his own people.” (Note: Ehrman does not address the Jewish understanding that Yom Kippur, Leviticus 16:30, is God's system for the forgiveness of _all_sins_of his people and thus the need for a Messiah's suffering, rejection and death for forgiveness of sins is nonsensical)
Ehrman:
“The belief in a suffering Messiah is absolutely central to the Christian relgion. The term “Messiah” is simply the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek term “Christ.”…Why is it that the vast majority of Jews has always rejected that Jesus is the one who was predicted- a savior sent from God in order to suffer for others, so as to bring salvation, and then be raised from the dead?
The answer is actually quite simple. In the Jewish tradition, before the appearance of Christianity, there was no expectation of a suffering Messiah. But doesn't the Bible constantly talk about the Messiah who would suffer? As it turns out, the answer is no. Since the beginning, Christians have frequently cited certain passages in the Old Testament as clear prophecies of the future suffering Messiah, passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, in which someone suffers horribly, sometimes expressly for the sins of others. These passages, Christians have claimed, are clear statements about what the Messiah would be like. Jews who do not believe in Jesus, however, have always had a very effective response: the Messiah is never mentioned in these passages. You can check it out for yourself: read Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22…The term “Messiah” never occurs in them. In Jewish tradition, these passages refer not to the Messiah but to someone else…”
(pp. 227-229. “A Suffering Messiah.” Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus, Interrupted, Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them). New York. HarperOne. 2009)
If there was no expectation among Jews that the Messiah would suffer and die for sins, why is it that Christians believe in a suffering Messiah?…Prior to Jesus' death some of his followers evidently thought he was the Messiah; this conviction shows up throughout the Gospels. But obviously if they said “Jesus is the Messiah,” they meant it in a traditional Jewish sense, for example, that he would be the king who would establish the throne once more in Israel and rule over his people…This hope that Jesus could be the Messiah was radically disconfirmed by the events of history: Jesus never did raise an army, never did drive the Romans out of the promised land, never did establish Israel as a soveriegn state. Instead he got crucified. This showed his followers that their faith in him had been unfounded…the earliest Christians…logic was impeccable. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus suffered and died Therefore, the Messiah had to suffer and die.
But what was one to do with the fact that there were no Jewish prophecies that the Messiah would suffer and die? The earliest Christians began searching the Scriptures for hints of their new belief, and they found them, not in passages that referred to the Messiah but in other passages that describe the suffering of God's righteous one. Christians concluded, and argued, that these passages were actually referring to the Messiah, even though the Messiah is never mentioned in them and even though no one had ever thought, before this, that they referred to the Messiah.”
(pp. 233-234. Ehrman)
“In reality, the idea that Jesus was the suffering Messiah was an invention of the early Christians. It is no wonder that the apostle Paul, writing decades after Christians had come up with this idea, indicates that it is the greatest stumbling block for the Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23). Even though this is the very foundation for all Christian belief, to many Jews it was a ridiculous claim.”
(p. 236. Ehrman)
Ehrman understands that Jesus never intended to found a new religion or do away with the Jewish observance of the Laws and Statutes of Moses, it was later Christians who ascribed these notions to Jesus. Ehrman understands that the earliest followers of Jesus, called the Ebionites, observed Torah. He understands that these people were later denounced as heretics, marginalized and superceded by later Christians who believed, under Paul's influence, that Jesus had intended to do away with Judaism. That is to say the “original” Jewish-Christians, the Ebionites, observed Torah and circumcision.
Ehrman:
“One of the most pressing and intriguing questions that historians of early Christianity have had to face is how the thoroughly Jewish religion of Jesus so quickly transformed itself into a religion of gentiles. How did Christianity move from being a sect within Judaism to becoming a virulently anti-Jewish religion in less than a century?
When one reconstructs the actual sayings and deeds of Jesus, they all stand firmly with this Jewish apocalyptic framework. It was only his later followers who saw him as starting a new religion. He appears to have had no intent to start a new religion. Some of his later followers retained the Jewish character of his proclamation. As the Christian religion developed in other directions, however, these followers came to labeled heretics. This is one of the real ironies of the early Christian tradition, that the original form of the religion came to be cast out and denounced.
The followers of Jesus known as the Ebionites urged that Jesus never intended to abrogate the law; since he was the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law, and since he himself wholeheartedly embraced the Jewish law, his followers needed to be Jewish -and needed to keep the law…Jesus taught his followers that they needed to keep the law if they wanted to enter the kingdom of heaven. In fact, they had to keep it even better than the leaders of the Jews themselves (Matthew 5:17-20). Jesus in this Gospel is portrayed as a teacher of the law who conveys its true meaning to his followers. He never urges them to break any of the laws. He urges them to follow him by observing the law.”
This view of what it meant to follow Jesus was destined to lose out in the struggles over core beliefs in the early church. The apostle Paul's views were different from those of the Ebionites (who saw Paul as the archenemy), of Matthew, and of Jesus himself. Paul was quite vociferous in claiming that the law can have no role in having a right standing before God.”
(pp. 237-239. Ehrman)
Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/WhyJesusChristCannotbetheMessiah.html
gollamudi,
Your sources talk too much and seem to have a penchant for dishonesty or ignorance. When you are willing to do some talking for yourself on this issue then it may worth discussing. I am tired of dealing with the babbling of fools.
Hi GM:
The scriptures show that the Messiah has already come. I know that Jesus is the Messiah because I have born again and the Spirit of God has testified to that reality. But I am asking you that if the scriptures state that the Messiah has already come, if not Jesus, then who?
Quote Dan 9:24 ¶ Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (gollamudi @ Oct. 27 2009,19:18) Hi borther Kerwin,
As I have already told that you seem to be repelled by the material I bring out from Jews for Judaism who are the true orthodox jews. Also as I quoted above 'the Jews for Jesus' and 'Messianic Jews' are fake no more Jews rather Christians who are against Paul's views. Therefore I quoted them to be aware of. It is not Jesus who invented this religion Christianity but the Hellenistic Paul the so called Jew.
Warning brother! A witch hunt has begun, preaching to the choir is the rule of the day. If you are not willing to believe that Jesus is the Christ or that Jesus is GOD or something along those lines you will be persecuted no matter how many facts or proofs you have.It seems to me that God Almighty is a lesser deity than the one that so many worship here.
You will no doubt be labeled an ATHEIST
Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 17 2009,00:51) Why Jesus cannot be the Messiah “… I think we should go back and look at whether Christianity is even a valid belief. So let's start with the core belief of Christianity – that Jesus is the 'Messiah'.
According to Christian belief, the Messiah that will save Israel and mark a new era in God's kingom on earth, can only be the Messiah if he is in line to be the king of Israel, which requires the Messiah be in the royal line of Solomon, and shall NOT be, according to Jeremiah 22:28-29, a descendent of Jeconiah. In this context check out Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 where we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus that are in conflict. They both cannot be correct as they disagree, and this discredits the bible as the infallible word of God. But Christians don't give up so easy, they explain away the different lineages by claiming the genealogy found in Matthew is the lineage of Jesus through his father Joseph, and the genealogy found in Luke is the lineage of jesus through his mother Mary. Now there is no reason found in the Bible to think this, and both passages in fact say they are the lineages of Jesus through his father Joseph, but Christians need to explain away the contradiction or the basis for their whole religion is in question.
In the lineage in Matthew, a couple of issues arise – first, Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus, since Mary was a virgin. As Christians claim, God was the father not Joseph. But God is not a descendant of Solomon. So if God is the biological father of Jesus, as the gospels and Christians assert, then Jesus is not a descendant of Solomon, and if not, then he cannot be the Messiah. Further, if you read the lineage in Matthew, Jeconiah is in the list of ancestors of Jesus. But according to Jeremiah 22:28-29, no descendants of Jeconiah can be king of Israel. But the Messiah has to be a king according to prophecy…thus for two reasons, Jesus could not be the Messiah based on this lineage.
So that leaves us with Luke's lineage. This lineage is different than the one in Matthew, so Christian scholars attempt to justify this by claiming the lineage in Luke is through Jesus' mother Mary. However, even if we accept this lineage is indeed Mary's, which there is no reason to do other than to justify the discrepancy, you must deal with a second difficulty – the rights of the royal line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was a descendant of David as required by prophecy, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). But even if Mary could transfer kingship, Mary (if this is indeed her genealogy) is a descendant of Nathan not Solomon. Nathan is a brother of Solomon, and the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon, so again, this lineage cannot be that of the Messiah. Even if the kingship could go through Nathan, Luke lists two people in this genealogy named Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and they are descendents of Jeconiah according to Matthew 1:12, and as shown above, Jeconiah cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah. Further, in Matthew, Jeconiah is listed as a descendent of Solomon, so the lineages again disagree, and Luke's then disagrees with other Old Testament lineages which also show Shealtiel and Zerubbabel as descendants of Solomon not Nathan. So, the question is, is Mary a descendant of Solomon through Jeconiah or of Nathan and not Solomon? Either answer disqualifies the lineage as that of the Messiah, ignoring completely that the kingship could not be transferred through the mother anyhow.
The fun of all of this is that it shows that Jesus CANNOT be the Messiah, and if he is not, the basis for Christianity whithers.”
Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/WhyJesusChristCannotbetheMessiah.html
Yep another one plastering the walls with beliefs contrary to Christianity!GM it sure has taking you awhile but I have noticed how you have regressed against the Gospel especially since you quit being Genes yes man.
It seems that you and Gene are far apart now!
I pray God will show you the truth and keep you from falling even further from the truth!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 18 2009,13:28) Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 17 2009,00:51) Why Jesus cannot be the Messiah “… I think we should go back and look at whether Christianity is even a valid belief. So let's start with the core belief of Christianity – that Jesus is the 'Messiah'.
According to Christian belief, the Messiah that will save Israel and mark a new era in God's kingom on earth, can only be the Messiah if he is in line to be the king of Israel, which requires the Messiah be in the royal line of Solomon, and shall NOT be, according to Jeremiah 22:28-29, a descendent of Jeconiah. In this context check out Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 where we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus that are in conflict. They both cannot be correct as they disagree, and this discredits the bible as the infallible word of God. But Christians don't give up so easy, they explain away the different lineages by claiming the genealogy found in Matthew is the lineage of Jesus through his father Joseph, and the genealogy found in Luke is the lineage of jesus through his mother Mary. Now there is no reason found in the Bible to think this, and both passages in fact say they are the lineages of Jesus through his father Joseph, but Christians need to explain away the contradiction or the basis for their whole religion is in question.
In the lineage in Matthew, a couple of issues arise – first, Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus, since Mary was a virgin. As Christians claim, God was the father not Joseph. But God is not a descendant of Solomon. So if God is the biological father of Jesus, as the gospels and Christians assert, then Jesus is not a descendant of Solomon, and if not, then he cannot be the Messiah. Further, if you read the lineage in Matthew, Jeconiah is in the list of ancestors of Jesus. But according to Jeremiah 22:28-29, no descendants of Jeconiah can be king of Israel. But the Messiah has to be a king according to prophecy…thus for two reasons, Jesus could not be the Messiah based on this lineage.
So that leaves us with Luke's lineage. This lineage is different than the one in Matthew, so Christian scholars attempt to justify this by claiming the lineage in Luke is through Jesus' mother Mary. However, even if we accept this lineage is indeed Mary's, which there is no reason to do other than to justify the discrepancy, you must deal with a second difficulty – the rights of the royal line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was a descendant of David as required by prophecy, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). But even if Mary could transfer kingship, Mary (if this is indeed her genealogy) is a descendant of Nathan not Solomon. Nathan is a brother of Solomon, and the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon, so again, this lineage cannot be that of the Messiah. Even if the kingship could go through Nathan, Luke lists two people in this genealogy named Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and they are descendents of Jeconiah according to Matthew 1:12, and as shown above, Jeconiah cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah. Further, in Matthew, Jeconiah is listed as a descendent of Solomon, so the lineages again disagree, and Luke's then disagrees with other Old Testament lineages which also show Shealtiel and Zerubbabel as descendants of Solomon not Nathan. So, the question is, is Mary a descendant of Solomon through Jeconiah or of Nathan and not Solomon? Either answer disqualifies the lineage as that of the Messiah, ignoring completely that the kingship could not be transferred through the mother anyhow.
The fun of all of this is that it shows that Jesus CANNOT be the Messiah, and if he is not, the basis for Christianity whithers.”
Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/WhyJesusChristCannotbetheMessiah.html
Yep another one plastering the walls with beliefs contrary to Christianity!GM it sure has taking you awhile but I have noticed how you have regressed against the Gospel especially since you quit being Genes yes man.
It seems that you and Gene are far apart now!
I pray God will show you the truth and keep you from falling even further from the truth!
WJ
Should I get the boiling oil? You know your kind loves the inquisitions so very different than Jesus who used words as a sword you prefer calling everyone a heretic.You can't speak the truth so you seek vengence of those who wish to seek truth you are not that different from Paul who persecuted the real church and stood and watched Stephen be stoned. Keep Worshiping Jesus but are you sure he will say he knows you and not call you a worker of iniquity?
Adam…….What do you do with Dan 9:24-26 and remember the WORD Messiah means (anointed one) and the word Christ means the same Christos or Anointed same meaning. Israel had many Messiahs or anointed ones in there History Like Moses and others, Jesus was indeed and anointed Person and when He returns he still will be. Jesus has yet to fulfill the establishment of the Nation of Israel but this will take place at His return. Be careful of the Jewish mindset concerning Jesus, Adam. IMO
Peace and love to you and yours Adam………………………….gene
Hi brothers WJ, Marty, Bodhitharta, Kerwin and Gene,
I appreciate your concern for me. But I am really in dilemma of believing what is written in our N.T especially the Christology of St. Paul which Jesus himself never preached. I now turn towards the religion of Jesus which was Judaism. The God of Israel never changed. I want to test N.T material in the light of O.T. I find lot of inconsistencies in our N.T. The Jewish interpretations are entirely different. I see Trinity, preexistence, human sacrifice, bodily resurrection etc as foreign doctrines in comparision to Judaism. Hope God will enable me to understand Him and His Messiah fully.
Thanks for you prayers for me.
Love and peace
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ Nov. 19 2009,11:35) Hi brothers WJ, Marty, Bodhitharta, Kerwin and Gene,
I appreciate your concern for me. But I am really in dilemma of believing what is written in our N.T especially the Christology of St. Paul which Jesus himself never preached. I now turn towards the religion of Jesus which was Judaism. The God of Israel never changed. I want to test N.T material in the light of O.T. I find lot of inconsistencies in our N.T. The Jewish interpretations are entirely different. I see Trinity, preexistence, human sacrifice, bodily resurrection etc as foreign doctrines in compariion to Judaism. Hope God will enable me to understand Him and His Messiah fully.
Thanks for you prayers for me.
Love and peace
Adam
Jesus and Paul taught the same thing. I am not sure why you may not see that. For example in John 8 Jesus teaches his students how he will free them being servants of sin. In Romans 6 Paul teaches his students the same lesson.Sometimes their teachings are hard to understand and ignorant or corrupt individuals misinterpret them to their own injury but that does not render either Paul or Jesus wrong.
For brother Gene….on Dan 9:24-29
Question
Hello, I am a Christian and have recently studied Daniel 9:24-27. “v25 So you are to discern that from the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. v26 Then, after the 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing…”How do you interpret this verse? I did some research and found that the begining of this time (the decree to rebuild Jerusalem) was in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2:1, 5-7). Artaxerxes, I found, began to rule in 464 B.C. That places the beginning of this prophecy at 444 B.C. If I understand correctly, the Hebrew calendar has 360 days. Thus, in order to find the time when “the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing” we should add the 7 and 62 (69) weeks together, accounting for the shorter years. It is my understanding that “weeks” in this prophetic sense is meant to be “years” so when you do the math you get 483 years (by the modern calendar). When you convert that into Hebrew 360 day years, it is 476.057… (360*483=totaldays/365.25=years in modern calendar). If you start at 444 B.C. and just add 476 you get the following:
444B.C. to 1 B.C. is 443 years
1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is 1 year (there is no year zero)
that gives 444 years, 476-444=32Therefore, to get the time when “the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing”, you simply add the remaining 32 years to 1 A.D. and you arrive at 33 A.D, a year commonly given to the death of Jesus. How do you interpret this verse? I am very curious, it is not my goal to attack your beliefs, I am simply curious as to how you interpret that verse because it seems to indicate to me that Jesus is the Messiah.
Also, did/do Jews believe that the Messiah would/will be God incarnate? (if this is 2 different questions, answer both please)
If not, does the capitalization of “Messiah the Prince” indicate in this prophecy that the Messiah would be God Himself? I am curious as to your ideas o these issues, it will help me learn a lot about Judaism, I have a Jewish friend and I would like to be knowledgable when talking to her.
Thank you,
Clint HarrisAnswer
Dear Clint,
Your interpretation of Daniel is based on mistranslation and a false assumption that a Jewish year is 360 days (it is in fact 354 days, and a leap year is 384 days).
A correct interpretation is copied below.
Jews do not believe that the Messiah is G-d incarnate. He will be a human being. There are no capital letters in Hebrew.There are many differences between Jewish Bible translations of Daniel 9:25-26 and several different Christian Bible translations. What should be the correct readings of the disputed words and phrases?
In our study of the different translations we will compare the Hebrew text with that of the King James Version of the Bible. It contains the grossest errors, which are, in whole or in part, duplicated by other Christian versions of the Bible.
First, the King James Version puts a definite article before “Messiah the Prince” (9:25). The original Hebrew text does not read “the Messiah the Prince,” but, having no article, it is to be rendered “a mashiach [“anointed one,” “messiah”], a prince,” i.e., Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1, 13; Ezra 1:1-2).
The word mashiach is nowhere used in the Jewish Scriptures as a proper name, but as a title of authority of a king or a high priest. Therefore, a correct rendering of the original Hebrew should be: “an anointed one, a prince.”
Second, the King James Version disregards the Hebrew punctuation. The punctuation mark 'atnach functions as the main pause within a sentence. The 'atnach is the appropriate equivalent of the semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It thus has the effect of separating the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: “. . . until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again . . .” (9:25).
By creating a sixty-nine week period, which is not divided into two separate periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christians reach an incorrect conclusion, i.e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple.
Some Christians claim that there is something called a “prophetic year” of 360 days, thus shortening the interval between the beginning of the 483 years which they claim began in 444 B.C.E., and the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. They do this in order to make the dates coincide, but the claim of a “prophetic year” is without any scriptural foundation.
Third, the King James Version omits the definite article in Daniel 9:26, which should read: “And after the threescore and two weeks. . . .” By treating the sixty-two weeks as a distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew, shows that the sixty-two weeks mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated from the seven weeks by the 'atnach. Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven weeks (Cyrus), and the other after a further period of sixty-two weeks (Alexander Yannai).
Fourth, the words v'ayn lo (9:26) are incorrectly translated by the King James Version as “but not for himself.” They should be translated as “he has nothing” or “he shall have nothing.” There are Christian commentators who maintain this phrase has both meanings, but that claim cannot be supported grammatically.
All the best,
Rabbi MossSource: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-Judaism-952/Daniel-9.htm
Was Messiah divine?
1) At no time has Judaism ever taught that the Moshiach (Messiah) was to be divine. There are a
number of “messianic” texts in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and they all refer to flesh and blood,
normal humans:The Messiah can sin:
Vayikra (Leviticus) 4:3-5 If the Moshiach, the Kohen sins and brings guilt upon the people,
he shall offer a young bull, without blemish to the Lord for the sin which he has committed. And
the Moshiach, the Kohen shall bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before the
Lord; he shall place his hand upon the head of the bull, and he shall slaughter the bull before the
Lord. The Moshiach, the Kohen shall dip his forefinger into the blood; he shall sprinkle some of
the blood seven times before the Lord toward the Curtain of the Holy.The evil King Saul was called the Messiah of the Lord:
1 Sh’muel 24:4-6 And the men of David said to him, Look! This is the day which the Lord
told you about, Behold, I will deliver your enemy into your hand, that you may do to him what
ever seems good to you. Then David got up, and secretly cut off the wing of Shaul's garment. But
afterward, David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off Shaul's wing. And he said to
his men, the Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the Lord's Moshiach, to stretch
forth my hand against him, seeing he the Moshiach of the Lord.
The Lord’s Moshiach is also mentioned in: 1 Sh’muel 26:9,11,16,23; 2 Sh’muel 1:14,16The Messiah can be a righteous king:
2 Sh’muel 19:21 Refers to David as “the Lord’s Moshiach”
2 Sh'muel 23:1 Now these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse, the man who
was elevated as the Moshiach of the God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel, said…God can be angry with the Messiah:
Psalm 89:38 But You have cast off and abhorred, You have been angry with Your Moshiach.The Messiah can be a gentile king:
Isaiah 45:1 Thus says the Lord to his Moshiach Koresh (Cyrus), whose right hand I have
held, to subdue nations before him…2) The early Jewish followers of Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph (a.k.a. Jesus) were condemned by “the
Church” because they denied the divinity and the “virgin birth” of Jesus:“They considered him [Jesus] to be a plain and common man, who was justified
only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of
Joseph with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the law was altogether
necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone but
by a corresponding life.” [Hist. Eccl. III, xxvii – Eusebius]“Nevertheless, inasmuch as they refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed,
being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former,
especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship
of the law.” [ibid]3) During the Christological debates between the second and fourth centuries the church added
whole chapters to the New Testament (particularly the first two chapters of Matthew) to establish
the “virgin birth;” and words were altered to establish that he was the “son of God.” [See: The
Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman]
Does it not seem strange that the “Jerusalem Church” rejected the divinity and the virgin birth
while the “Roman Church” established these concepts? Is it Rome where God has placed his
name forever, or is it Jerusalem?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
