questiona8190

81. Psalm 22 doesn't refer to the messiah; it refers to David; or to any righteous sufferer.

Compare these verses:

          But I am a worm and not a man,
             Scorned by men and despised by the people
          All who see me mock me;
             They hurl insults, shaking their heads:
         'He trusts in the L-rd; let the L-rd rescue him, if He
              delights in him!'

                                                      Psalm 22: 6-8

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads. . .In the same way the chief Cohenim and Torah teachers and the elders mocked him. 'He saved others', they said, 'but he cannot save himself. . .He trusts in G-d. Let G-d rescue him now if He wants him . . .'

Matthew 27:39; 41-43

          I am poured out like water,
               All my bones are out of joint.
          My heart has turned to wax;
                It has melted within me.
           My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
                And my tongue cleaves to the roof of
                       my mouth. . .

           Dogs have surrounded me;
                 A band of evil men has encircled me,
           They have pierced my hands and feet.
                  I can count all my bones;
            People stare and gloat over me.
                  They divide my garments among them
            And cast lots for my clothing.

Psalm 22:14-18

When they had crucified him, they divided up his
clothes by casting lots.

Matthew 27:35

                 When the soldiers crucified Yeshua, they took his
     clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them,
     with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless,
     woven in one piece from top to bottom. 'Let us not tear it',
     they said to one another. 'Let us decide by lot who will get it.'

John 19:23,24

Who else suffered in this manner? Who else suffered in ALL these ways?

(RP)

82. But again, this is only your Christian interpretation.

'The patriarchs of the world will arise in the month of Nisan (the month of Pesach--and, by the way, also the same time as the crucifixion) and will say to him: Ephraim, our Messiah! Even though we are your forefathers, you are greater than we, because you have suffered on account of the sins of our children, and cruel chastisements has come over you. . . and you were held up to ridicule, and scorned . . . and you sat in darkness and your eyes beheld no light, and your skin stuck to your bones, and your body dried up and became like wood, and your eyes grew dim from fasting, and your strength was like a potsherd.'

Pesikta Rabbati

While this is perhaps intended to be allegorical, it does show that Jewish thought sometimes considered Psalm 22 as being descriptive of the type of suffering the messiah would have to undergo, either in this world, or possibly in paradise before his descent to earth.

(RP)

83. But Psalm 22:16 doesn't say 'they pierced my hands and feet'. It says, 'Like a lion, they were at my hands and feet'!

     The psalm says, '(something) my hands and feet' The word here in the parenthesis is not found elsewhere in Hebrew, so we have to guess at its meaning. The three earliest translations of this passage, the Syriac, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, all saw this word as a VERB,and translated it as 'they pierced'. (And the Septuagint was completed over a century before the birth of Yeshua.) Modern Jewish translations prefer to consider that this word is a NOUN, or an adjective, 'like a lion'. It is possible to attain this reading if you use different vowel points. However, this would still leave the phrase without a verb, since then it would say, 'like a lion my hands and feet'.
     Attempts have been made by some scholars to assume that, perhaps, a word has been left out, and the phrase should read, 'like a lion, they (something) my hands and feet'. Suggestions here range from 'they tear at my hands and feet', 'they maul', or perhaps 'they tore (kaaru) like a lion (kaari) my hands and feet'.
    If the word is, indeed, a verb, it would then be synonymous with a very similar verb for 'to bore through'. (Arabic in fact possesses a similar set of verbs.) In any case, however, whatever verb is used here, is indicative of wounding of the hands and feet, which is what took place at the crucifixion.

(RP)

It doesn't mention a crown of thorns, or scourging, or a spear in the side, either. This is NOT proof that the reference is not to Yeshua. It's not even a reasonable disqualificaiton.. The important thing is that what IS mentioned is entirely symmetrical with Yeshua's suffering and death.

(SJ)

84. Doesn't Deuteronomy 4:27-28 predict that Jews will be forced to worship false gods of wood and stone, that is, Christianity and Islam? 'G-d will then scatter you among the nations. . . There you will serve other gods that men have made out of wood and stone, which cannot see, hear, or smell.' And Deuteronomy 28:64 says, 'G-d will scatter you among the nations. . . There you will serve other gods, of wood and stone, whom you and your ancestors have not known'.

Christians do not point to a human being and say, 'This is your G-d, O Israel'. Christians point to G-d and say, 'This is your G-d, O Israel'. Is this so hard to learn that you repeat this mistake over and over?

(JE)

The moslems don't worship the Kaaba, and Christians don't worship the cross. Don't Jews reverence the Torah? Don't they kiss its containers? Isn't it forbidden to touch the scroll with your bare hands when reading from it? By this logic, you could say that Jews are worshipping 'gods of leather and parchment'. But it wouldn't be a true description, and it would be stretching things way beyond the breaking point to say that they were.

(RP)

Don't Jews put mezzuzah's on their doors? Sometimes even inside their houses? Are these just good luck charms? Are they objects of worship? Can this same charge be made, then, that Jews are worshipping 'metal' and 'ceramic'?

(RP)

85. Say what you will, but Yeshua is completely irrelevant to Judaism. He has no meaning at all for us.

         It is due, in fact, to the life of Yeshua, that so many gentiles around the world have come to know about the G-d of Israel. For now the Tenakh has been translated into nearly every language; and the stories of Moses, David, Saul, the Psalms, the Ten Commandments, and so on, have become part of the common cultural heritage of mankind. Thus, there has been a 'light for the gentiles, to the farthest reaches of the earth'. Wouldn't you say that this, too, suggests a good credential for one claiming to be the messiah? Who else has done this? (Not even Eliljah, or Hezekiah). Wasn't this, in fact, fulfilling the mission of the Jewish people--to spread the knowledge of G-d and his commandments around the world?
     And, if Yeshua had not lived, who else would have done this? Would we, the gentiles, still be waiting 2000 years for someone else? Do you think that it would have been better if we had not heard even this much of Tenakh? If you step back from things for a moment, and view the world from a distance, you will be able to see how Judaism has permeated the world because of the life of Yeshua.
      But, again, supposing Yeshua hadn't lived. Then--what would the Jewish nation be today? Something like the Druze, perhaps? A small sect in the Middle East, about which nobody would have heard anything much? Just another nationalistic sect like the Alawites, the Kurds, the Adjerbejanis? Is this what the Jewish nation was intended for? And the nations of the world would still not have heard of the G-d of Israel, nor started to call on His name?

(RP)

86. 'At that moment the curtain of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Yeshua's resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many'. (Matthew 27:51-53) Do you really BELIEVE all this? It sounds more like Halloween than anything Jewish!

Well, perhaps something like this is recorded elsewhere in the Jewish memory, too. In Yoma 39a and 39b, it says:

Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the lot (for choosing the Azazel goat) no longer came up in the right hand, and the thread of crimson never turned white (any longer), and the westernmost light (of the menorah) never shone, and the doors of the courtyard would open by themselves.

The crimson thread was tied between the horns of the bull that was sacrificed on Yom Kippur; its turning white was said to signify that Israel's sins were forgiven. The section in Yoma describes how in the time of Shimon the Tzaddik the thread would always turn white; the lot for the selection of the Azazel goat would always come up in the right hand; and so on. After his death, these things would sometimes occur, and sometimes not. Then, from forty years before the destruction of the Temple, they never happened again. In other words, after the death of Shimon it can be suggested that these sacrifices were not always accepted or as effective. And then, suddenly, they ceased to be effective or accepted at all (perhaps because the sacrificial system had been made obsolete?). With the death of Yeshua, which ocurred forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the bulls, goats, etc., and what they had symbolized, were no longer necessary. Men continued with their traditional rituals, but if the Talmud is correct, then HaShem no longer blessed these rituals.

(RP)

87. Wasn't Yeshu actually a violent and intolerant person? Look at how he cursed a fig tree, in a fit of pique!

Yeshua was simply engaging in a demonstrative parable, that is, his teaching was enacted out in order to more fully make a point. This is just what Jeremiah did when he first bought and then broke a pot (Jer. 19); and what Ezekiel did when he first made and then destroyed a model of the city of Jerusalem( Ez. 4-5). Ezekiel was also told to lie on one side for a time, and then on his opposite side, and to shave half of his hair. These weren't 'fits of pique' on their part, but part of a 'show-and-tell' lesson.

(RP)

        My well-beloved has a vineyard in a very fruitful hill. And he fenced it, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress there; and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, but it brought forth only bad fruit.
        What more could have been done for my vineyard, that I have not done it? Why, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, did it bring forth bad fruit? And now. . . I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. . .
                                                                              Isaiah 5:1-5

The Lord showed me, and behold, two baskets of figs were set before the Temple of the Lord. . . One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that ripen early; and the other basket had bad figs, so bad that they could not be eaten. . . (And the good figs are then said to represent the obedient, while the bad figs represent the disobedient, who will be scattered and destroyed.]

Jeremiah 24:1-10

A certain man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and he found none. Then he said to the dresser of the vineyard, Behold, these three years [i.e., the length of Jesus' ministry] I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none. Cut it down. . .

Luke 13:6,7

As Spurgeon noted, men cut down whole forests and never repent of it, but criticize Jesus for destroying one tree which bears no fruit, though he used it to teach a lesson which can benefit all mankind.

88. Didn't Yeshu warn that all of his enemies would be brought before him and slain? Look at Luke 19:27!

    'Furthermore, all the leaders of the priests and the people became more and more unfaithful, following all the detestable practices of the nations and defiling the Temple of the L-rd, which he had consecrated in Jerusalem.
     'The L-rd, the G-d of their fathers, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. But they mocked G-d's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the L-rd was aroused and there was no remedy. He brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man nor young woman, old man or aged.'
                                                                          II Chronicles 36:14fff

This is only a parable, an illustrative story (a mashal). It is about what we do with what G-d gives us, and the fact that we are responsible for what we do with our lives.It is also, however, a warning of what will happen to those who are unrighteous.

(RP)

           For the L-rd is enraged against all the nations, and furious against all their hordes; he has doomed them, and has given them over for slaughter. Their slain shall be cast out, and the stench of their corpses shall rise; the mountains shall flow with their blood. . . The L-rd has a sword; it is sated with blood, it is gorged with fat. . . (Isaiah 34:2-6)
     How is the warning of Yeshua any different than the words of the prophets, some of which are quoted above?
     Besides, anyone who rejects Torah and who rejects the rightful king of Israel is to be put to death, according to Torah.
     This is actually a loving provision; it protects against rebellion. And the threat of imminent execution may help direct the rebel in the direction of repentance.

(BF)

89. Isn't Yeshua wrong when he says that Judaism teaches people to hate their enemies ('You have heard it said, Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy', Matt. 5:43)? Judaism never said this!

Psalm 139:21,22 says, 'Do I not hate those who hate you, O L-rd, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.' Some authorities of the period may have taken this as an injunction to hate one's foes.

In the Qumran community there is a requirement (IQS1:9-10) to 'love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in the council of G-d, and to hate all the sons of darkness, according to his guilt in the vengeance of G-d'. And, "These are the norms of conduct for the Instructor. . . about what he must love and what he must hate: everlasting hatred for the sons of perdition' (IQS 9:21-22).
So, this may be a part of the first-century background to his words, or reflect the culture of the period in which he lived.

And the traditional Oral Torah, cited from a later time, also may have considered it a mitzveh to 'hate' the enemies of Israel. For example, Hagahot Maimuniyyot has a gloss, '(One loves one's neighbor) only if he is such a neighbor as one who honors Torah and performance of the mitzvot. But concerning a wicked person, one who does not accept rebuke, the mitzvah instead is that he should be hated, as it is written, 'The fear of the L-rd is to hate evil'. (Prov. 8:13) And the Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meir) stated, 'He is your neighbor if he is good, but not if he is evil, as it is written, 'The fear of the L-rd is to hate evil.' (Prov. 8:13). While these are from a later period, and while the exact definition of 'hate' and 'enemy' may have been debated, they may nonetheless reflect earlier concerns and interpretations.