When the Jewish people returned from exile
to Babylon, not all of them could speak Hebrew. Little by little more and
more of them began to use Aramaic, although Hebrew itself remained the
language of a substantial number. To assist those who could not understand
the Hebrew, a series of translations and commentaries on the scriptures
was made. These were called 'targums'. At first, it was even forbidden
to write down these targums, lest they should come to have equal authority
with the scriptures. These translations (and commentaries) would sometimes
be read in the synagogues at the conclusion of the reading of the scripture,
so that the congregation could fully understand what was being read. (See,
for example, Nememiah 8:8: 'And they read in the book, in the Law of G-d,
distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading'.)
So, while these translations and notes were in no way to be considered
equal to scripture, they do give us hints as to what the interpreters believed
then, and how they viewed certain passages.
The two main targums which we have to this
day are the Targum of Onkelos on the five books of Moses, and that of Jonathan
ben Uzziel on the prophets, although fragments of other targums also remain.
In places in these targums the writers, in order to show reverence for
G-d, substitute a word or phrase such as 'The Holy One', or 'The Name',
for that word. In places, they also substitute 'The Word of G-d', or the
'Memra' ('Word') for G-d. For example, in Exodus 19:17, instead
of 'Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet G-d', one can read
in the targum, '. . . to meet the Word of G-d'. According to Alfred Edershem,
the use of this word 'memra' occurs over 600 times in the targums in relaton
to G-d. (see, 'The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', Alfred Edersheim)
Thus we have, in the targum of
Jonathan ben Uzziel, 'And the Word of the L-rd caused to descend upon .
. . Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire. . . ' (Gen.19:24), instead
of the usual text, 'Then the (Divine Name) rained upon Sodom,' etc. In
Genesis 1:27 we have, in the same targum, 'And the Word of (Divine Name)
created man in his likeness. . . ' Genesis 15:6 reads in the targum
of Onkelos,
'Abraham believed in the Word of (Divine Name), and He counted it to him
as righteousness'. In Genesis 22:8, Abraham replies to his son (in the
Jersualem targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel ) 'The Word of the L-rd will provide
me a lamb. . . ' The same targum even says, in reference to the Ten
Commandments, 'And the Word of the L-rd spoke all
these glorious words' (Exodus 20:1).
Now we can see with more clarity just what
it was that John was referring to when he began his gospel with the words,
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word
WAS G-d. Through him were all things made; without him nothing was made.
. . '
52. Who is the 'Spirit' of G-d?
The 'Spirit' of the L-rd is frequently mentioned
in the scriptures. For example, in Numbers 11:25, 'Then the L-rd came down
in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took of the Spirit that was on
him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on
them, they prophesied. . . ' The Spirit of G-d is said to be hovering
over the waters at the beginning of the creation (Gen. 1:2) . In Numbers
24:2, the Spirit of G-d comes upon Balaam so that he can prophecy. The
same thing occurs to Saul, in I Samuel 10:10; and so on.
In Isaiah 63:10 there is the statement, 'Yet they rebelled against Him
and grieved His Holy Spirit'. And in the targums, too, there is this same
expression, 'Holy Spirit'. For Gen. 6:3, 'My Spirit shall not strive with
man forever. . . ', the targum of Johnathan ben Uzziel says, 'Have I not
given my Holy Spirit in them. . . ' For the question, 'Who has directed
the Spirit of the L-rd. . . ?' (Isaiah 40:13), the same targum has,
'Who has directed the Holy Spirit?'
So we see that there is a divine Spirit which
may rest upon man, sent from the L-rd, and yet which does not
encompass Him in its entirety.
53. Who is the 'Arm of the L-rd'?
The 'Arm of the L-rd' is sometimes used simply
as an expression of G-d's power and strength. In other places it indicates
the Messiah. For example, in Isaiah 40:10,11, 'Behold, the L-rd will come
as a mighty one, and His arm will rule for Him. . . He will
feed His flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs. . . ' In
Isaiah 63:8, G-d Himself declares that He became the Savior of His people.
'In all their distress He too was distressed' (verse 9) 'and the Angel
of His Presence saved them. . . Yet they rebelled and grieved His
Holy Spirit (verse 10). . . Where is He who set His Holy Spirit among them
(verse 11), who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand.
. . (verse 12). In these verses all three of the expressions of G-d's person
are seen to have been at work.
In Isaiah 53:1,2 the question is asked, 'Who
has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?
He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, and like a
root out of dry ground. . . ' The 'shoot', or the'branch', is a common
expression for the name of the Messiah (see, for instance, Isaiah 11:1,2:
'A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse, from his roots a Branch
will bear fruit. The Spirit of the L-rd will rest upon him. . . '; also
Zech. 3;8: 'I am going to bring My servant, the Branch. . . ')
In Isaiah 52:10, it is promised that the L-rd will bare His holy arm in
the sight of all the nations (or gentiles), and all the ends of the earth
will see the salvation of our G-d'.
54. How can you say that you believe in one G-d, when you actually believe in three?
We believe in the same G-d Who is presented
in Torah, just as you do. Here He is called, variously, 'El' and 'Elohim'
. 'El' is the singular form for 'G-d', and 'Elohim' is the plural form.
That 'elohim' really is such a plural form is seen by its use in such passages
as Judges 10:13. Joshua 23:16, Exodus 18:11, and even in the Ten Commandments,
'Thou shalt have no other gods ('elohim') before Me' ( Ex. 20:3).
When used in reference to the G-d of Israel, though, 'Elohim' is
always translated in the singular. Perhaps there is a form of 'hint' intended
here?
Sometimes 'El' and 'Elohim' are even used
in the same sentence; for instance, in Exodus 20:5, 'For I am (Divine Name)
your G-ds ('Elohim'), a jealous G-d ('El'). . . And in Joshua 22:22, the
phrase is twice repeated, 'G-d, G-ds, (Divine Name), G-d, G-ds, (Divine
Name), He knoweth, and all Israel shall know. . . ' Again, maybe these
and other similar passages contain a hint of a deeper, hidden truth?
In Genesis, there is the phrase, 'Let Us make
man in Our image'. Some people think that this means G-d is speaking to
the angels. But we are not made in the image of angels. And, in Genesis
3:22, after man's disobedience, it says, 'Behold, the man is become as
one of Us'. This is not an expression that G-d would have used if he were
speaking merely to an angel, because angels are not equal with G-d, they
are less, only created beings. G-d would not speak to an angel as
an equal.
In Eccl. 12:1, Solomon, who was wiser than
other men, said, 'Remember now your Creators (plural) in the days of your
youth'. And in Psalm 149:2, it says, 'Let Israel now rejoice in his Makers'.
This again is taken to suggest that there is yet a further, hidden meaning
here.
In the Shema, it says, 'Hear O Israel, (Divine
Name) our G-ds (Divine Name) is one' (Deut. 6:4). The word for 'one' here
is 'echad'. Echad is used a number of places in the scripture to indicate
a 'unity', rather than a 'singleness'. For example, In Genesis 1:5, evening
and morning together make up 'yom echad', or one day. In Genesis
2:24 a man and wife shall cleave together and be one (echad) flesh. In
Numbers 13:23 there is one (echad) cluster of grapes.
There is another word in Hebrew
for one, 'yaheed', which is an indivisible unity, a pure, mathematical
'one', or 'an only one', but it is not used in the Shema. Likewise
the word 'rak' might have been used, or the word 'bilti'. An example of
the use of 'bilti' is found in Exodus 22:20, 'He who sacrifices to any
gods save only (bilti) Adonai shall be utterly destroyed.'
But these words were not used. They are the
ones one would have expected to find had the intention of the writer been
to emphasize that there was only one, to the exclusion of all others, of
what was being mentioned. Since one of these words, which clearly expresses
that meaning, was not used, one is forced to conclude that Moses was not
expressing that concept here. (Maimonides in his second statement
of faith substitutes here the word 'yaheed'for 'echad', perhaps because
he was aware of this very difficulty.)
(RP)
55. But there is no place in Judaism where G-d assumes a human form!
In Isaiah 6 the prophet says 'In the year that
King Uzziah died, I saw my L-rd seated upon a high and lofty throne; and
the skirts of His robe filled the Temple'. Sure sounds like he saw something
that resembled a human form. Seated on a throne? Skirts of
His robe?
And at Sinai the people all hear the voice
of G-d. This is on the same level as his assuming a human form, in order
to be able to better communicate with us. (Some try to say that it is not
considered anthropomorphic for HaShem to have spoken with a voice,
because a 'voice'--that is, sound waves--only emanate from a Being, and
are not a real representation of Him. But light (or photons) are also only
'emanations', and thus in that case a 'sight' of HaShem would not be anthropomorphic,
either.) Certainly, G-d CAN assume such a form, if He wishes. Surely no
one would want to claim that this would be beyond His power?
(RP)
56. Son of G-d' doesn't has no special meaning. A lot of people are called sons of G-d in the scripture. We're ALL sons of G-d.
Yes, but in Psalm 2 there seems to be a mention
of a special 'son of G-d'. Here, the nations of the world plot against
G-d and his 'anointed' (the word in Hebrew here is 'moshiach'). Then the
Psalm goes on to show how G-d laughs at the nations which would try and
stop His plans. He says, (verse 6) 'But I (G-d) have installed My king
on Zion, My holy mountain'. Let me tell of the decree: the L-rd said
to me, 'You are My son, I have fathered you this day. Ask of Me, and I
will make the nations your domain, your estate, the limits of the earth'.
This sure sounds like it is, at least,
messianic. And that there is a particular individual here in mind--'My
king', etc. And who is it who will inherit the nations of the earth, and
who will rule the limits of the earth? Can this be a suggested hint of
something, of a further meaning in the text?
In the Talmud (Suk. 52a), there is the comment,
"The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Messiah ben David. . . 'Ask of
me anything, and I will give it to you, for it is written, 'The Lord said
to me, 'You are my son, this day I have begotten you, ask of me and I will
give you the nations for your inheritance.' And when he will see that Messiah
ben Joseph is slain, he will say before him, 'Master of the World! I ask
nothing of you except life!'. G-d will say to him, 'Even before you said
'life', your father David prophesied about you, as it is written, 'He asked
life of you ,and you gave it to him'. (Ps. 21). (Edersheim suspects that
the term 'Messiah ben Joseph' was a later emendation, and that the original
reads 'Messiah ben David'.)
Similarly, in Proverbs 30:4: 'Who has wrapped
the waters in His garment? Who has established all the extremities of the
earth? What is His name, or His son's name, if you know it?' Another
hint?
(RP)
57. Does the name 'Yeshua' appear in the Tenakh?
In Matthew 1:21, Joseph is told
to call his wife's, Miryam's, newborn son'Yeshua', because, says
the angel, he will save his people from their sins ('Yeshua' means 'Salvation').
This is in keeping with the practice in the scriptures of giving names
which had specific meanings.
For example, Noah gives
the name Lamech gives the name 'Comfort' ('Noah') to his son (Gen. 5:9),
because he would 'comfort' them in their work. Eber names his son 'Division'
('Peleg') because during his life the earth was divided (Gen. 10:25).
And so on.
Thus, practically whenever you find the word
'salvation' in the Tenakh, it is virtually identical with the name 'Yeshua'.
Psalms 9:14 might therefore just as easily read, 'I will rejoice in Thy
Yeshua (salvation)'. Psalm 91:16 might read, 'With long life will I satisfy
him, and show him My Yeshua (salvation)'.
In Isaiah 62:11, you can read,' Say to the
daughter of Zion, behold, your Yeshua comes; behold, His reward is with
Him, and His work before Him'.
In Habbakkuk 3:13, there is the statement,
'You went forth for the Yesha (a form of Yeshua) of Your people;
for Yesha (again a form of Yeshua) your Messiah'.
And thus, in Luke 2:29-30, it is only natural
that the old tzaddik Shimon should say, with the infant Yeshua in
his arms, 'Lord, now let your servant depart in peace, according to your
word; for my eyes have seen your Yeshua'. As it says in Isaiah 52:10,
'The L-rd will lay bare His holy arm in the sight of all the nations (gentiles),
and all the ends of the earth will see the Yeshuat (a form of Yeshua) of
our G-d'.
58. Isn't the New Testament anti-semitic?
Doesn't Yeshua condemn the Jews and call them 'sons of the devil'?
While I don't agree with all of his conclusions,
Rabbi Harvey Falk, in his book 'Jesus the Pharisee', makes some interesting
points about this, especially in regard to Matthew 23, the 'woe to the
Pharisees' chapter.
The Pharisees (notes Falk) were divided into
two main camps, the Bet Shammai, and Bet Hillel. Beth Shammai opposed accepting
converts into Judaism. Rabbi Eliezer (see Sanhedrin 105a) held that no
gentile, no matter how righteous, could have a place in the world to come.
(See also Shabbat 31a). Aquila, a famous convert to Judaism, was almost
rejected because of R. Eliezer's attitude (see Midrash Genesis Rabbah
70:5). Bet Hillel, on the other hand, welcomed converts.
'Woe to you Pharisees (ie, Bet Shammai).
You shut up heaven in men's faces. . . nor will you let those enter who
are trying to do so.' This now appears in a different light, when placed
into context.
Dosa ben Harkinas, a famous sage of
the period, once called his brother a 'first-born of Satan' because he
sided with Bet Shammai in a decision. (see Yevamot 16a). It was also said
(Berakhot 11a and Berakhot 1:4, Yerushalmi) that 'he who observes the teachings
of Bet Shammai deserves death'. When Rabbi Tarfon acted in accord with
Bet Shammai in one case, and then escaped being killed by robbers,
the Sages told him (Mishnah, Berakhot 10b) that he would have deserved
to have been killed. These remarks are not considered to be anti-semitic
when placed in their proper context.
Bet Shammai
was also implicated in the murder of a Zechariah ben Berechia in the Temple
(see Josephus, Wars, 4:335), possibly as instigators of the Zealots, who
committed the murder. Thus, the condemnation of these Pharisees (in
this case perhaps only from Bet Shammai) for the murder(s) which their
fathers did, including the blood of Zechariah ben Berechia, may fit into
place.
Bet Shammai is also seen as grouping
together to confront Hillel (Betsah 20a) and his followers (Betsah 20b)
in the Temple, the way Yeshua was later confronted. Falk notes that
there is no record of Bet Hillel acting in this way.
Ergo, the events of Matthew 23 fit right into
the Jewish context of the Second Temple period, and have to be wrenched
away from it in order to arrive at some sort of anti-semitic conclusion.
It should also be noted that the Talmud itself
complains of hypocrites among the 'plague of Pharisees'. 'What
is a plague of a Pharisee? He teaches legal tricks. . . ' (Sotah
22). 'A foolish saint, a subtle knave, a woman Pharisee, and the
plague of Pharisees bring ruin on the world'.(Mishnah Sotah 3,4)
'What is the plague of Pharisees? Scholars acting as lawyers who give counsel
by which, apparently in strict form of law, the law may be circumvented.'
(Sotah 19a, Yerushalmi)
(RP)
59. What about calling Jews 'sons of the devil'?
When Yeshua calls some of the leaders 'sons of the devil' (John 8), it is a) not a criticism of ALL Jews--in fact, the inference is clear that he is simply calling them 'unJewish', the way that we might call someone 'unAmerican'. To call someone 'unJewish', i.e., NOT a son of Abraham, but rather a son of the devil, is NOT a criticism of Jewishness. And b) neither was it unique: Dosa ben Harkinas referred to his own brother as a'first-born of Satan' because he sided with Bet Shammai in a dispute with Bet Hillel (Yevamot 16a). John the Baptist refers to his opponents as a 'brood of vipers' (Matt. 3:7). This may be equivalent in Hebrew to 'sons of the Snake' ( ie, the devil); a similar expression, 'creatures of the Snake', occurs in the Qumran Thanksgiving Hymns IQH3:17. And in Isaiah 1:4, Israel is called the 'seed of evildoers, sons who corrupt'. Therefore, such expressions fit neatly into the milieu of the times.
(RP)
60. Don't the gospels try to pin all the blame for the death or Yeshua on the Jews?
'They will condemn him to death and will turn
him over to the Gentiles, to be mocked and flogged and crucified.' (Matt.
20:17)
(Looks like Gentiles do the crucifying
here)
'They will condemn him to death and will
hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog
him and kill him.'
(Mark 10:33-34).
(Looks like the Gentiles are at work
again)
'He will be handed over to the gentiles. They
will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him.' (Luke
18:32)
(Gentiles again)