Posted by: rshalomw | March 21, 2013

ANCIENT RABBINIC VS. MODERN RABBINIC COMMENTARY

You will be amazed when you see the stark difference in these commentaries. I can understand fully the Jewish resistance to Jesus, because of the hideous things that have happened to them in the name of Jesus. I believe modern Rabbinic Commentary is a reaction to Anti-Semitism . The CHURCH must shed its Anti-Semitism :

Ancient vs. Modern Commentaries Messianic Prophecies I
by Rabbi Ian Kalev Michaels

TANACH/OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY

But you, Beyth Lehem Ephrathah, you who are little among the clans of Yehudah, out of you shall come forth to Me the One to become Ruler in Yisrael. And His comings forth are of old, from everlasting. [Micah 5:2]
ANCIENT RABBINICAL COMMENTARY “And you, O Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before Me the Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel, He whose name was mentioned from before, from the days of creation.”
[Targum Jonathan] “ ‘Son of Judah, Judaean! Tie your ox and tie your plow, for the King Messiah has been born!’…He asked him:’From where is he?’ He answered: ‘From the royal fort of Bethlehem in Judah.’”
[Jerusalem Talmud, Berachoth,fol.5a]
BRIT CHADASHAH/NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNT And it came to be in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus for all the world to be registered. This took place as a first registration while Quirinius was governing Syria. And all were going to be registered, each one to his own city. And Yoseph also went up from Galil, out of the city of Natsareth to Yehudah, to the city of Dawid, which is called Beyth Lehem, because he was of the house and lineage of Dawid, to be registered with Miryam, who was engaged to him – being pregnant. And it came to be, that while they were there, the days were filled for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her first-born Son; and wrapped Him up, and laid Him down in a feeding trough, because there was no room for them in a lodging place.” [Luke 2:1-7]
MODERN RABBINICAL COMMENTARY “…there is one more verse on the divinity of the Messiah which serves double duty by demonstrating his birth in Bethlehem as well. (Micah 5:1 = 5:2 in some translations). The Christological translation of the last phrase (miqedem mimei olam) is ‘of old, from everlasting,’ which demonstrates that this ruler is eternal and hence divine. But aside from the almost immediate reference to ‘the Lord his God,’ we are once again dealing with a mistranslation…according to the most probable reading of this verse, it not only fails to say that the Messiah is everlasting, it doesn’t even say that he will be born in Bethlehem.” [Jews and “Jewish Christianity,” by David Berger and Michael Wyschograd, pp.44-45; C 1978] SUMMARY COMMENT “With all due respect, this verse certainly does indicate that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and be eternal. …..Also, the Jerusalem Talmud and Targum Jonathan, two major Jewish commentaries, say this verse refers to Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah. Hoping not to offend, we suggest David Berger, and the other authors and rabbis of the anti-missionary writings we have quoted in this book, brush up on their Hebrew and ancient rabbinical commentary.” [Philip Moore in his book The End of History – Messiah Conspiracy, Vol. I]

TANACH/OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY “despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and knowing sickness: And as one from whom men the face is hidden, being despised, and we did not consider Him.” [Yeshayahu/Isaiah 53:3]
ANCIENT RABBINICAL COMMENTARY “…the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, Thou speakest falsely: already is the Messiah slain, and there is non other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they will despise him, as it is written, ‘Despised and forsaken of men;’ but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, ‘Like one hiding his face from us.’” [Mysteries of Rabbi Shim’on Ben Yohal Jellink, Beth ham-Midrash (1855), part iii,p.80]
BRIT CHADASHAH/NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNT “ ‘…and I give them eternal life, and they shall by no means ever perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. And no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.’ Again the Yehudim picked up stones to stone Him. Y’shua answered them, ‘Many good works I have shown you from My Father. Because of which of these works do you stone Me?’ The Yehudim answered Him, saying, ‘We do not stone You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself Elohim.’” [Yochanan/John 10:28-33]
MODERN RABBINICAL COMMENTARY “He was despised and rejected of men [men of high status], 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. This verse, continuing the theme of the previous one, speaks of the servant as being generally despised. He is described as suffering from pains and diseases with which he is well acquainted. Terms having to do with wounds, sickness, pain, and disease are often used in the Scriptures to describe the humiliations and adversities suffered by the nation of Israel (Isaiah 1:5-6; Jeremiah 10:19, 30:12). The prophet quotes the Gentiles as saying that the suffering servant of the Lord ‘was despised and rejected’ by their leaders, the ‘men of high status.’” [The Jew and the Christian Missionary, by Gerald Sigal, p.39; C 1981]
SUMMARY COMMENT Mr. Sigal and Rabbi Bronznick just do not understand the ancient rabbinical commentaries about the servant of Isaiah 53 being the Messiah who is despised and expected to die for Israel. They employ an argument which began in the Middle Ages with Rashi, which was a fatalistic attempt to transfer the sufferings of the Messiah to Israel. Thus, their claim was and is that this passage refers to non-Jews against Jews. This is ironic because, clearly, Isaiah speaks of an individual dying for the sins of Israel and everyone else. When Isaiah said we, he was referring to himself as well as the rest of Israel. The rabbinical commentaries of ancient Israel said this person was the Messiah. [Philip Moore from The End of History—The Messiah Conspiracy, Vol I]

TANACH/OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our crookednesses. The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.” [Yeshayahu/Isaiah 53:5]
ANCIENT RABBINICAL COMMENTARY “The Patriarchs will one day rise again in the month of Nisan and will say to the Messiah: ‘Ephraim, our righteous Messiah, although we are your ancestors, you are nevertheless greater than we, for you have borne the sins of our children, as it is written: ‘Surely he has borne our diseases and carried our sorrows; yet we regarded him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our sins, bruised for our iniquities, upon him was the chastisement that makes us well, and through his wounds we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:4-5). Heavy oppressions have been imposed upon you, as it is written: ‘As a result of oppression and judgment he was taken away; but in his day, who considered that he was torn from the land of the living because of the transgressions of my people?’ (Isaiah 53:8).” [Pesiqta Rabbati, Friedmann’s edition, chapter 37]
BRIT CHADASHAH/NEWTESTAMENT Who Himself bore our sins in His body on the timber, so that we, having died to sins, might live unto righteousness – by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your lives.” [I Kepha/Peter 2:24-25]
MODERN RABBINICAL COMMENTARY In verse 4 [of Isa. 53], the Gentile spokesmen depict the servant as bearing the ‘diseases’ and carrying the ‘pains’ which they themselves should have suffered. At the time of the servant’s suffering, the Gentiles believed that the servant was undergoing divine retribution for his sins…we must conclude that this statement, made by the enemies of the suffering servant of the Lord, does not refer to Jesus, who, it is alleged, suffered as an atonement for mankind’s sins. There is no indication in this verse that the servant of God suffered to atone for the sins of others…This is the confession of the Gentile spokesmen, who now realize that it was they and their people who deserved to suffer the humiliation inflicted on the servant of the Lord, as they stated in verses 4-6.” [The Jews and the Christian Missionary, by Gerald Sigal,pp. 42-43, 52; C 1981.]
SUMMARY COMMENT How did Isaiah, the Jewish Prophet all of a sudden become a representative for Gentile spokesmen? And the Messiah does certainly suffer to atone for others, or why else would this chapter tell us that he was wounded for our transgressions (verse 5) and You shall make His soul an offering for sin (verse 10)? Apart from being applied to Y’shua, many orthodox Jews refer to this very passage in reference to one they call “Mashiach ben Yoseph”, the Suffering Servant who they still expect to come. Mr. Sigal not only needs to brush up on his knowledge of ancient rabbinical commentary; but also on how to read a text for what it’s really saying. [Rabbi Ian Michaels]

TANACH/OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY “YHWH said to my Master, ‘Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.’” [Tehill/Psalm 110:1]
ANCIENT RABBINICAL COMMENTARY “In the future God will seat the King Messiah at His right, for it is said: ‘The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at My right hand.’” [Midrash on Psalm 18:35 (36 in Hebrew)]
BRIT CHADASHAH/NEW TESTAMENT And He said to them, ‘How do they say that the Messiah is the Son of Dawid? For Dawid himself said in the book of Psalms, “YHWH SAID TO MY MASTER, ‘SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.’ Dawid then calls him ‘Master,’ how is He then his Son? [Luke 20:41-44]
MODERN RABBINICAL COMMENTARY “The Christians believe that this passage proves that Jesus sits at God’s right side, that Jesus should be called Lord, and that he is …God (“The Lord said unto my Lord”). Once again, this interpretation rests on a mistranslation…the Psalm refers to the anxious time before Abraham had to fight the four kings, in Genesis 14. God is telling Abraham not to worry, sit, so to speak, at my side, until I take care of your enemies…” [You take Jesus, I’ll take God, by Samuel Levine, pp. 37-38; C 1980]
SUMMARY COMMENTS Now I know that by bringing up the original ancient understanding of this prophecy to light, I may help to burst the bubbles of both liberal so-called “Christians” and modern rabbis, who deny the deity and Messiahship of Jesus. However, I am obligated by the Bible to illuminate these truths to all who sincerely want to understand and accept this Scripture in its authenticity. It is not my purpose to offend, only to proclaim the absolute truth, even though it may cause discomfort to some. In proving our point beyond doubt, I would like to quote the learned Henry Frowde of Oxford University, who notes in his article, “The Christian Messiah in the Light of Judaism” that: “The New Testament in its citations from the Old Testament Scriptures preserves much of the old exegesis of the ancient synagogue, which has often been refined away or modified by the later Rabbis and teachers. An interesting example of this meets us in the case of Psalm 110 (The Lord said to my Lord). In the New Testament (Matthew 22:44 and parallels) it is implied that the Messianic interpretation of this Psalm was the one generally accepted and current at the time among the Jews. Later, however, this view was largely displaced in favor of others, more especially of one which referred the words my Lord to Abraham (so Rashi). But the older view is sometimes attested. Thus it reappears in the Midrash to Psalm 18:36 in a comment on the words: ‘Thy right hand hath upholden me.’ R. Judan in the name of R. Chama says, ‘that in the time to come the Holy One – blessed be He – will make King Messiah sit at His right hand as it is said (Psalm 110:1).: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at My right hand’…”Frowde’s scholarship certainly exposes Levine’s error. [Philip Moore] If one were to read The Massoretic notes of the Hebrew text of Psalm 110, one would find that the Massorete scribes changed the Name of “Yahweh” (Jehovah) in 110:5 to “Adonai” (The Lord); this they did in 133 other places as well. But Ps.110, verse five would read: “Jehovah at Your right hand will strike through kings on the day of His wrath…” The Peshitta OT has the same reading. Our Lord’s quotation of verse one suggests the whole Psalm of seven verses. If Jehovah is at God’s right hand in verse 5, then He must be the very same Jehovah at His right hand in verse 1 ! [Rev. Glenn David Bauscher in his Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament]

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: