A. WHAT IS AN ANTI-MISSIONARY?
An anti-missionary is a rabbi or a lay volunteer who is somewhat knowledgeable in the New Testament or New Testament theology. They are earnest and honest people who feel that the Jewish community is threatened by Christian evangelism. They believe this so strongly that they dedicate their time and their lives to countering Christian evangelism efforts.
B. WHAT DO THEY DO?
The mission of the anti-missionary is to rescue Jews caught in the clutches of the church or to steady wavering Jews who are coming under the influence of evangelical Christians. Anti-missionaries accomplish their mission by teaching Jewish people that Jesus is not the Messiah and that Jesus is not for the Jew. They do their best to refute the Christian understanding of Messianic Prophecy and the person and work of the Messiah. They do this by teaching in synagogue presentations, synagogue classes and through one-to-one counseling.
When I lived in Seattle I was familiar with one anti-missionary. He went so far as to picket churches that were hosting Jews for Jesus presentations. This is a sticky point today because evangelical Christians are the Jewish community's best friends. This is a sticky point today because eighty percent of the Jewish people won to the Lord are won through the influence of a personal friend. You are the front-line soldiers when it comes to Jewish outreach.
We hope you see the dilemma the anti-missionary faces. On the one hand he has to convince the Jewish person that Jesus is not the Messiah and the Christians are all wrong, but on the other hand he does not want to erode the good relations the Evangelical community and the Jewish community enjoy.
C. WHY DO THEY EXIST?
Anti-missionary organizations exist because of four needs that have cropped up in the Jewish community during the last 40 years.
The first reason they exist is the success of Jewish outreach since the mid-1960's. In 1965-1967 the Jesus movement hit America. God moved in an unusual way among the young people of our country and especially among Jewish young people. Hundreds and hundreds of Jewish people became believers during those years. Many of us in ministry today were saved during that movement of God; I became a believer in 1966.
Those numbers have continued to grow for the last 40 years. Today there are more Jewish believers around than there has been for 2,000 years. Jewish Christians only number about one percent or less of the total Jewish population, we are a distinct minority. The faithful remnant is very small today; however the Jewish community sees this growth as a horrifying and unacceptable trend. Anti-missionary organizations have been formed especially to offset this challenge.
A second reason for their existence is the ignorance of the rabbis. Most rabbis are biblically ignorant. They know the Talmud and the traditions but they spend very little time in the Bible. A common approach when confronted with Messianic Prophecy is to turn to the commentaries. They look in the commentaries and whatever the respected commentators or sages say is good enough for them. The anti-missionaries are called in because they specialize in understanding the Bible.
A third reason for the anti-missionary lies in the ignorance of the Jewish masses. We are no longer the "people of the book." Ninety percent of the Jewish community today is biblically ignorant. Ninety percent of the Jewish community today is secular and atheist or agnostic in position. Only about nine percent of the Jewish community believe in God, the Orthodox, and they focus on the traditions - the Talmud rather than the Bible. When you approach a Jewish person with the Gospel you are probably more biblically literate than they are. In order to deal with this problem the anti-missionary experts are brought in.
The final reason they exist is the fact that specialization is needed to deal with the missionary threat. The average rabbi is like the average pastor, they have too much to do to be an expert in this area. So in order to fill that need anti-missionary organizations have been founded.
D. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN A FRIEND CALLS IN AN ANTI-MISSIONARY?
Three things:
Do not panic. The arguments of the anti-missionary will sound impressive on the surface but when examined they lack substance.
Stick with the Scriptures. In my experience I have found that anti-missionaries do not like to stick to the biblical text. They like to head off in other directions. So do not let them do that, stick with what the text of Scripture says. We can beat the rabbis with one hand held behind our back if we just stick with the Scriptures. Why? Because they say what they say and there is no getting around that.
Do not be intimidated. As I said, in my experience anti-missionaries tend to avoid dealing with the issues. Instead, they tend to use other strategies aimed at discouraging consideration of the Messiahship of Yeshua. These tactics, unfortunately, include scorn, shame, and social ostracism. The tactics also include quibbling, creating smoke screens, creating diversions and confusion and even intellectual intimidation. Please do not let tactics like these dissuade you from dealing with the true issues, the biblical issues and the biblical text. Here are the true issues:
Is the Hebrew Bible true and trustworthy?
Does Yeshua fulfill the Messianic picture presented in the Hebrew Bible?
If He does what are you going to do about it?
These are the only three issues you really have to stick with tenaciously.
E. WHAT THIS STUDY IS NOT...
This is not a Messianic Prophecy study. I will be touching on Messianic Prophecy, but I will be dealing with only one small segment of the subject-objections. I will not be going into all the details of the prophecies. I will not be dealing with all the objections out there, only the ones I have had to deal with in my interactions with anti-missionaries. All the objections I will present to you have come from exchanges with Jewish people, some have been formal anti-missionaries and some have not. The common denominator is that they all object to our position that Jesus is the Messiah and Savior of the World.
In regard to Messianic Prophecy itself, I expect you to know and be able to clearly present the prophecies to your Jewish friend. After you do that and your Jewish friend goes to the rabbi and comes back with an objection is where this study fits in.
This is not a highly detailed technical study. I know some of you are going to think this is a highly detailed and technical class, but I will do my best not to make it so. I will do my best to present you with what you need to know, not with everything there is to know. A lot of this material will be new and strange to some of you and that's because it comes from a Jewish frame of reference and out of Jewish culture. Believe me, it will not be highly detailed or technical. However, the fact that it is unfamiliar will probably make it seem that way.
F. WHAT THIS STUDY IS...
Okay, if that is what the study is not-then what is it?
I will be preparing you to deal with common objections that your Jewish friend may present when you witness to him. This will provide you with a valid reply to the objection. You will see very clearly that all the objections that people throw at the Bible have valid and reasonable solutions.
I will be showing you that there is very little substance behind a good number of the objections. They look significant on the surface, but they evaporate when examined. This should build your confidence in the Scriptures and in your ability to stay on track with the true issues.
I will be providing you with resources that will enable you to dig deeper into the objections if you desire. You may find that you enjoy the challenge of apologetics. The word apologetics is not a negative or defeatist word. The word apologetics does not mean you are making an apology, or saying you are sorry for the Bible. The definition of apologetics is this:
"The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.1"If you find you like challenging objections, this course will provide you with resources to do so. I will be sharing from a Jewish perspective. That means I will be sharing rabbinic material with you. This material could be very new and strange to many of you. Even though this may be new and strange, it will give you a glimpse at the way the rabbis have handled Scripture for centuries. You will see and understand the reasoning that led to the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus.
Finally, I will become a resource for you when you get stuck or when you are faced with an objection that you cannot answer. With that in mind I want to encourage you to take a look at the HaDavar witnessing packet that we have developed. You can order that packet from HaDavar.
This material is a recommended starting point. It contains essential information that will be frequently referenced.
In the Jewish community, there are four basic methods of interpretation used to understand the Scriptures. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, they are:
This consists of applying to the text of the Bible the normal standards of diction, style, and arrangement in order to understand the plain meaning. P'shat deals with the explanation the plain meaning of the text. Of the four, this is the interpretive method the rabbis prefer.
In the Talmud, in Shabbat 63A, this statement is found:
"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning,1"
The importance of this statement is revealed by Rabbi Aharon Feldman in his book The Juggler and the King. Rabbi Feldman describes the comment, "a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning" as the "Sages dictum." A dictum is an "authoritative declaration."2 He goes on to say that it is an authoritative declaration of the rabbinic sages that "the simple meaning of the text is always true."3 So, the rabbinic sages understood that this interpretive method was to be preferred.
This method consists of deriving from Scripture the allegorical meaning of the text. An allegory is a symbolic explanation. The rabbis tend to see extensive symbols in the biblical text. However, most of their symbolic interpretations cannot be substantiated by the text. The vast majority of rabbinic Remez is simply clever, intellectual, imaginative speculation.
This method consists of selecting from the teaching of the rabbis' lessons of an edifying or practical nature which the text suggests. D'rash deals with day to day practical application of Scripture.
This method consists of finding hints or allusions in the Bible on the nature of God and the soul, etc.4
This approach to Biblical interpretation is four-fold in method and very fluid in application. By fluid I mean that it is considered valid to apply each of these four methods to the same verse in the Bible in order to determine the meaning. As a result, in the rabbinical mind, any particular verse can have four levels of meaning:
The writers of the New Testament quote the Hebrew Scriptures using the cultural mindset of the day in which they lived. The result is that they used this "four-fold-fluid" approach rather than any single or rigid method. In fact, Matthew uses all four methods, one after the other, in Chapter 2 of his book. This reflects his first-century Jewish mindset and culture. In Matthew 2:5-6, he views Micah 5:2 as a literal fulfillment, a P'shat. In Matthew 2:15, he views Hosea 11:1 philosophically or typically; in other words, he uses Remez. In Matthew 2:17-18, he views Jeremiah 31:15 homiletically, a D'rash; Matthew 2:17-18 is a practical application of Jeremiah 31:15. Finally, in Matthew 2:23, he makes a summary statement covering all that the prophets (note: plural) as a group taught about the Messiah. In Matthew 2:23, he is approaching the text from a mystical point of view, he is using the technique called Sod.
All quotes of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament will always fit into one of these four categories. The New Testament, because it is a Jewish book and written by Jewish authors, is very consistent in the way it uses the Hebrew Scriptures. The following terminology will be used when referring to these four categories. I will call them:
You would be wise to master this material. A mastery of these ideas will go a long way to aid your understanding of prophecy and your ability to defend the Bible against critics.
1 The Soncino Talmud (©1973 Judaica Press, Inc. and ©1965, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, & 1990 Soncino Press, Ltd.) is a product of Judaica Press, Inc. Brooklyn, NY, and, if included, is incorporated herein pursuant to exclusive license.
2 WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
3 Feldman, Rabbi Aharon, The Juggler and the King, (Spring Valley: Philipp Feldheim, Inc.) 1990, pg. xxii
4 Encyclopedia Judaica, CD Rom Edition Version 1.0, s.v. "Literature, Jewish"
5 Fruchtenbaum, Dr. A.G., Manuscript #134 - "How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament," (Tustin:Ariel Ministries, 1991), pp 2-9; see also Cooper, Dr. David L., Messiah: His Historical Appearance (Los Angeles, California: Biblical Research Society, 1958), pp. 174-178
When dealing with messianic prophecy it is very important to understand that there are four categories of messianic prophecy, and these distinctions are essential. In his book Messianic Christology (pgs. 10-11), Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum discusses the fact that messianic prophecies fall into four categories:
Some prophecies are very straightforward and deal exclusively with either the First Coming (category 1) or the Second Coming (category 2).
The third category of prophecies includes verses that blend the First and Second Comings together in such a way as to negate or conceal the period of time in between. It becomes necessary to study other parallel Scriptures in order to see the distinction. Zechariah 9:9-10 is a good example of this: Verse nine deals with the First Coming, and verse 10 deals with the Second. These verses alone do not distinguish between the two, but this is clarified by other passages.
The fourth category refers to passages which cover the entire messianic program and include four elements: First Coming, Interval of Time, Second Coming and the Messianic Kingdom.
When you study messianic prophecy, carefully note which category the prophecy belongs to.
Another factor influencing the use of the Hebrew Scriptures by the New Testament writers is the "Targumim Factor." This refers to the interpretive translation style of the Targumim that was prominent in the first century. The word "targum" means "translation" or "to translate." Targumim is the plural form-"translations." The Targumim are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible. Aramaic was one of three languages in common use in first century Israel (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic).
The Targumim are not word-for-word translations; rather, they were paraphrastic in nature. They were interpretive translations; they would be equivalent to the Living Bible we have today. The Living Bible is not a translation, it is a paraphrase. The goal of the Living Bible is the same as that of the Targumim, the aim-the goal-was to communicate understanding. The aim was to communicate what the passage meant in the clearest possible terms. They were not interested in producing a one-for-one, literal translation. For example, Isaiah 52:13 literally says, "My servant will prosper …," in contrast, Targum Jonathan says, "My servant, the Messiah, will prosper …" Isaiah 52:13 does not contain the words "the Messiah" in the Hebrew text. However, Jonathan understood the verse to refer to the Messiah, and accordingly, he paraphrased the text when he translated it into Aramaic.
He added the paraphrastic comment "the Messiah." He did this in order to communicate his understanding of the text to the reader.1 Could we say that the Jewish New Testament writers did the same? Yes, we can. They are Jews writing in the same Jewish, cultural context as the Targumim.
They are communicating their understanding of the Hebrew text to their readers, just like Jonathan. This is a very different approach than what we are used to. We live in 21st century, not the first century. We live in America, not Israel. Our culture is high-tech, high-speed, urbanized, linear, and time-fixated. Accordingly, we tend to view the Hebrew Scriptures from our perspective. We do not consider adjusting our point-of-view to fit the perspective of the writer and his audience. However, we must do our best to make that adjustment. We need to do this out of fairness to the author and to the text. Without making this adjustment we can misunderstand the meaning of the text.
This desire to communicate understanding is explained by biblical archaeologist, James A. Sanders, in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls after Forty Years:
"Early manuscripts were written to be read to the community - Tradents wanted their communities to understand, so they would slightly alter the text to facilitate understanding."
The key sentence is that last one:
Tradents wanted their communities to understand, so they would slightly alter the text to facilitate understanding.
I need to define one word in that key sentence; the word is "tradent." The word "tradent" means: "The person who delivers or hands over any property to another.2" I believe his point is that the Jewish and Christian communities considered the Bible to be the property of God. Those who taught or read the Bible to others considered themselves as stewards passing on God's property; they considered themselves "tradents." In order to fulfill that duty in a responsible manner they would do what they felt necessary to facilitate understanding. That is the basis for the Targumim.
The Aramaic paraphrases would alter the biblical text if the translator felt that the alteration would facilitate a proper understanding of the text. The translator felt that amending the translation was a responsible action to take in order to communicate the intended meaning.
The value of the Targumim lies in the fact that they help us to understand the first-century Jewish understanding of the text. In consequence, the first-century Messianic Jews were not concerned by this factor. They considered this technique of amending the text to gain understanding a valid technique. As a result, a free translation of a verse from the Hebrew Bible did not present in their minds the problems it presents to us. We, in the 21st century are much less tolerant of free translations. However, the quotations we have in the New Testament are not always word for word from the Hebrew Bible. They can be slightly different than the original in order to facilitate proper understanding.
My point: when an anti-missionary accuses the Church of tampering with the text he is using an invalid argument. This is a common charge the anti-missionaries level at the New Testament. However, amending the text to produce understanding was an accepted practice in the first-century Jewish community, and the New Testament is a first-century Jewish document. It simply reflects the Jewish culture in which it was written. Altering the text is not the practice of a devious Gentile whose intention is to deceive unsuspecting and gullible Jews into believing a false religion.
This brings up the question of the inspiration and reliability of the New Testament. The Targumim factor does not compromise the inspiration, reliability and authority of the New Testament. If we believe in divine inspiration, then, since the practice is found in the New Testament, the practice does not bother God.
Remember, the practice is found in the New Testament. Matthew Chapter 2 is a prime example. Since God oversaw the production of the New Testament then we can have confidence in the New Testament text. God saw to it that the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures was communicated through the pages of the New Testament. As a result, slight differences in quotations should not bother us as well. You should understand this attack by an anti-missionary to be invalid.
1 "Life of the Messiah" tape series, Ariel Ministries
2 The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., 1989)
A similar situation exists in relation to the Septuagint. First of all let me define the word "Septuagint." The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, it is a translation made by the Jewish community somewhere between the third and first centuries BC. As a result, this Greek version of the Old Testament existed at the beginning of the first century AD.
In other words, this Greek version of the Bible was made by the Jewish community long before Jesus or the Church came on the scene. The Septuagint found widespread use in the Greek speaking Jewish community before Jesus or the Church came on the scene. As a result, the writers of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint frequently. The importance of all this lies in the translation technique that the Jewish scholars utilized when they produced the Septuagint.
Encyclopedia Judaica describes their translation technique as "targumic" in nature.1 Its objective was essentially to teach and explain the Hebrew text. As a result we run into the occurrence of free translation again. The Septuagint does not always quote the Hebrew Bible in a word for word manner. When the New Testament quotes the Hebrew Bible it often is quoting from the Septuagint.
Anti-missionaries claim that the Church and the New Testament tamper with the text of the Hebrew Bible. Again, this is an invalid argument. The first-century Messianic Jews were simply quoting from a version of the Bible that was widespread in their community. They were simply quoting from a version of the Bible that was widely accepted in the Greek speaking Jewish community. There is no tampering with the text going on.
What is going on is Messianic Jews simply quoting a recognized Jewish translation. This brings us to the issue of reliability again. Can we trust the Septuagint? I will say the same thing I said in relation to the Targumim Factor. If we believe in divine inspiration, since the practice is found in the New Testament, the practice does not bother God. Since God oversaw the production of the New Testament then we can have confidence in the New Testament text.
God saw to it that the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures was communicated through the pages of the New Testament. God was quite willing to use the Septuagint in this process. Therefore, slight differences in quotations should not bother us as well.
The anti-missionaries use this as an argument to discredit the New Testament. When they do that they are actually criticizing Jewish translators.
1 EJ, CD Rom Edition, Bible Translations: Greek, The Septuagint
We have to consider these factors when we read the New Testament. These four factors are:
Considering these four factors sufficiently answers the majority of objections raised by anti-missionaries, especially when those objections center on the idea that the Church tampered with the text. We are simply recognizing what was going on in the Jewish community during the first century for the purpose of communicating understanding. Slight differences in quotations did not invalidate the New Testament text. Slight differences in quotations did not invalidate the Targumim in the Jewish community. Slight differences in quotation did not invalidate the Septuagint in the Jewish community either.
Let me emphasize, free renderings of the Old Testament in the New Testament are of no concern. They simply reflect the Jewish literature of the First Century. To criticize the New Testament because of free translations is simply rabbinic quibbling. What does it mean to "quibble"? The meaning of "quibble" is to evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections; to find fault or criticize for petty reasons. Let me close this summary with two statements by A. Lukyn Williams on pg. 111 of Christian Evidences for the Jewish People:
...it is doubtful if a single Jewish writer of ancient times can be found who is punctilious about the exact accuracy of his quotations from Scripture. What does R. Joshua haLevi say (after 1467 A.D.) in his Halikoth 'Olam, II, 2?
"The method of traditional teaching is to shorten the passages of Scripture, and it does not bring them forward as they are."
Also on pg. 79 of Christian Evidences for the Jewish People:
With Jewish writers mere verbal accuracy in a quotation is almost of no importance at all. When a Jew, in arguing with a Gentile, pretends that it is, he is presuming on the Gentile's ignorance of things Jewish.
You would be wise to master this information. With this background information in mind let us move on to our first section of Scripture that anti-missionaries challenge.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
This objection comes from an anti-missionary with Christianity Revealed.
Matthew 2:5-6 says:
"But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel."
Micah 5:2 says:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the rulers/clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins/goings out are from of old, from ancient times/from days of eternity."
These are very different verses. Matthew does not translate the verse correctly, it shows tampering or editing by the Council of Nicea and Trent.
Micah was telling of King Ahaz's son, King Hezekiah. In Hebrew it means the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Wondrous Adviser, and the Government that was on his shoulder as predicted in Isaiah chapter nine. Hezekiah was the King of the Jews, he was anointed, and there was peace in the land for many years. He was truly the Messiah!
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The anti-missionary objects to the fact that Matthew's quote of Micah 5:2 did not match Tanakh exactly. However, we maintain that there is no need to see this as a problem.
We need to go back to "The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses The Hebrew Scriptures." Matthew was not interested in exactness; rather, he was interested in communicating his understanding of Yeshua's (Jesus) birth. What he understands is that a literal ruler will come out of a literal city, and Jesus literally did that.
This is an example of P'shat-a literal prophecy and a literal fulfillment. Remember this is the interpretive method most preferred by the rabbis. Remember what they said in the Talmud-Shabbat 63A:
"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning…"
He is directing the reader back to Tanakh to verify his understanding. This quotation, though differing verbally, agrees substantially with the Hebrew and the Septuagint.1 The fact that he did not quote the Hebrew Scriptures exactly is not a case for tampering with the text.
What Matthew has done here is to combine Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. Combining the two verses emphasizes Matthew's conviction that the King who brings the kingdom is a Shepherd-King.2 Which, by the way, is the same thought communicated two verses further on in Micah 5:3 (Micah 5:4 in English):
"He shall stand and shepherd by the might of the Lord, by the power of the name of the Lord his God, and they shall dwell [secure]. For lo, he shall wax great to the ends of the earth;"3
Matthew would not have been concerned with rendering Micah 5:2 freely as long as he communicated accurate understanding. He has achieved that communication goal, a literal ruler was to come out of Bethlehem. That King would act as God's Shepherd over Israel and Jesus is that Shepherd/King. The reader can then study Micah chapter 5 to decide whether Matthew is correct or not.
Now, is this literal ruler the Messiah or not?
Matthew is convinced that he is and Jesus is that person. Matthew is not alone in coming to the conclusion that this verse is Messianic. The translator of Targum Jonathan felt that the verse was Messianic:
"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."4
Please notice that Targum Jonathan is a free rendering of Micah 5:2 as well. Jonathan understood the verse to be Messianic so he inserted the paraphrastic phrase "the Messiah" to facilitate understanding. This is exactly the kind of thing Matthew has done. This kind of free quote is entirely in keeping with the Jewish culture and thinking of the first century. This is not the Church "tampering with the text."
In addition to Targum Jonathan, let us see what Rabbi David Kimchi said about Micah 5:2:
"… out of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge to be Ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah."
Targum Palestine renders the verse in a similar manner:
"Out of thee Bethlehem shall Messiah go forth before me to exercise dominion over Israel."
In the Soncino Books of the Bible, Chapter 5 is summarized with this statement.
"A prophecy of the Messianic king and Israel's destiny among the nations."
In that commentary verses 1-5 are entitled "The Messianic King." The commentator, Rabbi Goldman's first phrase is, "This prophecy of the Messiah…" Rabbi Goldman also comments regarding the phrase "from ancient of days." He states:
"It is possible that the phrase gave rise to the later Jewish doctrine that the Messiah existed in the mind of God from time immemorial as part of the Creator's plan at the inception of the universe. In the Talmud, the name of the Messiah is included among the seven things created before the world was brought into being."
Dr. Alfred Edersheim (a Messianic Jewish scholar) makes the same point. In his book, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, he states that this is Messianic in nature and refers the reader to Pirque de R. Eliezar.
We think it is fair to say that this is a Messianic prophecy. The fact that it is a Messianic prophecy is well supported by rabbinic literature.
But does it refer to Jesus?
We think it does.
Why?
First of all, the language used to describe the origin of the ruler is much too strong to apply to any human being like Hezekiah. We think Rabbi Goldman's comment supports the strong language describing the ruler to come. In addition, the Hebrew phrase rendered "the days of eternity" uses the strongest Hebrew words for eternity past. These words are also used of God in Psalm 90:2. In that Psalm God is described as "from eternity to eternity." From eternity to eternity is the rendering found in the Tanakh version. The Tanakh is the most recent English translation by the Jewish Publication Society. Their older translation uses the terms "everlasting to everlasting." The same terminology is likewise used of God's wisdom personified in Proverbs 8:22-23. The older Jewish Publication Society version uses the terminology "from everlasting" to describe God's wisdom.
The Tanakh renders the words:
"in the distant past I was fashioned, at the beginning, at the origin of earth."5
Hezekiah's origins are not from eternity past or during the origin of the Earth. Hezekiah cannot be the one referred to here. However, the message of the New Testament is that Jesus fits the data, He fits this description. The New Testament teaches that Jesus has existed from eternity past. Examples of this are found in John 1:1 and John 1:14:
John 1:1 (NASB95)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."John 1:14 (NASB95)
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Yeshua was around at the origin of the Earth. The New Testament states that He created the Earth:
John 1:10 (NASB95)
"He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."
So, Yeshua was around at the origin of the Earth. He also existed from eternity past. We just read that in John 1:1. In addition, Jesus stated it himself in John 8:58:
John 8:58 (NASB95)
"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"
He affirms that His origins are from eternity past as well. In making this statement, Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or He is the Son of God. There is no middle ground. However, the words of the New Testament do not describe a liar, or a lunatic. The words of Jesus and the story of Jesus has blessed untold thousands of people. The New Testament does not relate the story of a liar or a lunatic. The only option left before us is that Jesus is the Son of God who existed from eternity past.
Can we say the same of Hezekiah? Hezekiah does not come close to fulfilling this requirement. Matthew and the other Jewish authors of the New Testament did not think so either. That is why they wrote the New Testament, to put forth their case for Jesus. We are not alone in feeling that Hezekiah is not a good candidate for Messiahship.
Neither did Rabbi Joseph in Sanhedrin 99a. Rabbi Joseph is involved in a discussion regarding the book of Zechariah with Rabbi Hillel. The interaction begins with Rabbi Hillel's position:
"Rabbi Hillel said, 'There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.'"6
In other words, Rabbi Hillel says that Hezekiah was the Messiah. He has come and gone already, there is no Messiah for Israel in the future.
Rabbi Joseph responds to Hillel's understanding
"Rabbi Joseph said, 'May God forgive him (for saying so).'"7
Rabbi Joseph was quite upset with Rabbi Hillel for taking the position that Hezekiah was the Messiah. I do not blame him, Hezekiah is a poor candidate for Messiahship. Granted, Hezekiah was the godliest King that Israel ever had, his character is praised in 2 Kings 18:5:
"(Hezekiah) trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him."
Yet, in contrast to his godliness, Hezekiah had a rebellious streak of pride in his character. 2 Chronicles 32:24-25 reveals the dark side of Hezekiah's character:
"In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill; and he prayed to the Lord, and the Lord spoke to him and gave him a sign. But Hezekiah gave no return for the benefit he received, because his heart was proud; therefore wrath came on him and on Judah and Jerusalem."8
Hezekiah was all too human and not a good candidate for the Messiah. Hezekiah struggled with sin and his origin was not found in eternity past. Jesus is a much better candidate. What we are saying about the Messiah having an origin in eternity past is not something of Gentile or "Christian" origin. In fact, the Israeli scholar Raphael Patai devotes an entire chapter to the subject of the "Preexistence and Names of the Messiah" in his book The Messiah Texts. He explains the concept, then devotes two pages to rabbinic quotes-eight quotations-supporting the idea of the preexistence of the Messiah. This is not a thought alien to the Jewish people. This is not the Church "tampering with the text." The implications of all this are staggering.
Jesus fulfills the biblical data. Jesus is our long awaited Messiah.
1 Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Mt 2:6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
2 New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995. C1995 by Foundation for Reformation. (electronic ed.) (Mt 2:6). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
3 Jewish Publication Society. (1997, c1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures : A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Title facing t.p.: Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim = Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim. (Mic 5:3). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
4 Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Mic 5:2). Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
5 Jewish Publication Society (1997, c1985) Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures : A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Title facing t.p.: Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim = Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim. (Pr 8:23). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
6 The Soncino Talmud (©1973 Judaica Press, Inc. and ©1965, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, & 1990 Soncino Press, Ltd.) is a product of Judaica Press, Inc. Brooklyn, NY, and, if included, is incorporated herein pursuant to exclusive license.
7 Ibid.
8 New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (2 Ch 32:24). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
In Luke 24:46-47, Luke tells us that Jesus rose on the third day:
"Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15:4:
"…and Jesus was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures".
However, the Jewish Scriptures say something quite different. Hosea 5:15 sets the scene and explains the situation very clearly:
"I (God) will go, I will return to My place until they will acknowledge their guilt and seek My face; in their distress they will seek Me."
Hosea explains in verse 15 that God sent a clear-cut message to Israel through His prophets; you heard and refused to repent, so My offer resulted in your death sentence. How could I vindicate you after such defiance? Then Hosea says in Hosea 6:1-2:
"Come let us return to God for He has mangled us and He will heal us; He has smitten and He will bandage us. He will heal us after two days; on the third day He will raise us up and we will live before Him."
We, of course, refers to the nation of Israel.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The anti-missionary is absolutely correct.
We do not believe for a moment that Paul or Luke was referring to Hosea 6:2 when he wrote, "…and Jesus was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." The Hosea passage is not related to Yeshua's (Jesus) resurrection on the third day. This is an example of a "straw man" argument. What is a "straw man" argument? A "straw man" argument is an argument deliberately set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. Instead, Paul and Luke are referring to the book of Jonah, chapter 2:1-11 in the Hebrew Bible (Jonah 1:17-20 in the English Bible). There Jonah drowned, is in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, was resurrected and then regurgitated. He went through an experience similar to the experience that Yeshua went through. This is an example of Literal Prophecy plus Typical Fulfillment (Remez).
Jonah is a type. The word "type" is generally used to denote a resemblance between something present and something future. The future item is called the "antitype." Chapter 2 of Jonah is where we should look to find the reference made by Paul and Luke, "written … according to the Scriptures." This would be Jonah 2:1 in the Hebrew Bible or Jonah 1:17 in the English Bible.
"And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights."
Paul and Luke handle Jonah in this manner because this is exactly how Yeshua used the verse in Matthew 12:40:
"…for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
In addition, note Yeshua's words recorded in Luke 11:30:
"For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall the Son of Man be to this generation."
The sign that Yeshua is referring to is the sign of resurrection. The resurrected Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites. The resurrected Jesus was a sign to Israel. In summary, Paul was right on track when he made his comment "according to the Scriptures." The objection misses the mark because the objection goes to the wrong Scripture verse. We should take our direction from what the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) has to say about the "third day." The Brit Chadashah directs us to Jonah and not to Hosea.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The King James Version and the Tanakh both say in Zechariah 12:10, "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced." When John is writing in John 19:37 and quotes Zechariah 12:10, he has changed it to say, "They shall look on him (instead of me) whom they pierced."
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
John understands Zechariah 12:10 to be a Literal Prophecy plus Literal Fulfillment. See The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah(New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures. This is also a Second Coming prophecy. See The Four Types of Messianic Prophecy. John is convinced that Jesus is God Himself appearing and living among Israel as a man, as the Messianic person. John then communicates his understanding of the scene he witnessed when Jesus was pierced by the Roman spear. He knew that the Messianic person had to be pierced according the Zechariah 12:10. He believes that Jesus is the Messianic person. When he sees Jesus pierced by the Roman soldier, he understands that moment to be a literal fulfillment of what was predicted in Zechariah 12:10.
John makes a slight alteration of the Hebrew text to facilitate understanding. He does a Targum here. He renders the text in an explanatory manner. The alteration is slight but fully consistent with his First Century Jewish culture; John does not quote the Septuagint here. Apparently, John personally translates the verse. The Hebrew text literally reads, "They will look unto me whom they pierced." John translates the verse into Greek in this manner, "They will look unto whom they pierced." I will admit that the majority of the standard English translations do a disservice to John when they add the non-existent pronoun "him." The majority of standard English translations render the phrase in question "… look onto Him whom …" Of the standard English translations the New International Version does the best job by rendering the phrase in this manner:
"They will look on the one they have pierced."
Unfortunately, the standard English translations have provided some fuel for the objection of the anti-missionary. The objection evaporates when the original Greek is consulted. The standard English translations are actually doing a 21st century English Targum. They are rendering the verse in an explanatory manner. For a rabbi to object is simply more quibbling. However, rendered into the English, John's translation does the job and communicates his understanding of the scene he witnessed. Jesus is the pierced one. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the one who Israel will look to. John's personal Targum explains the verse.
This action by John is consistent with his first-century Jewish culture. John directs the reader to Zechariah so that the reader can study the scripture and decide for himself if he is correct or not. Now we have to ask the question, is John correct when he sees this verse as messianic?
John is not alone in his understanding that the Messianic person is being referred to here. Ancient Jewish sages carried the same understanding. Here are a few quotes found in rabbinic literature:
Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52a:
It's well according to him who explains that the cause (of the mourning) is the slaying of the Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scripture verse: 'And they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced; and shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son'.1
Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 52A:
And the land shall mourn, every family apart (Zech. 12:12). Two have interpreted this verse. One said: "This is the mourning over the Messiah," and the other said: "This is the mourning over the Evil Inclination" (which will be killed by God in the Messianic days).2
Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52A:
and the land shall mourn (Zech 12:12). What is the reason of this mourning? R. Dosa and the rabbis differ about it. R. Dosa says: "(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain," and the rabbis say: "(They will mourn) over the Evil Inclination which will be killed (in the days of the Messiah) …."3
Rashi (and also RaDak):
Our Rabbis interpreted it as referring to Messiah ben Joseph.4
Rabbi Moses Alshech:
'They shall look unto Me, for they shall lift up their eyes unto Me in perfect repentance, when they see Him whom they have pierced, that is Messiah, the Son of Joseph; for our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said that He will take upon Himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel had pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died; and, therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One, saying that there is none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died for their sin; this is the meaning of 'They shall look upon Me'.5
It appears that John is in good company when he communicates his understanding of the event. He believes that the Messianic person is being referred to here and so do other respected Jewish commentators. John understands Jesus to be fulfilling the role of Messiah ben Joseph. Messiah ben Joseph is the rabbinic name for the "Suffering Messiah."
1 How to Recognise the Messiah, (Johannesburg: Good News Society, 2000), p. 16
2 Patai, Raphael, The Messiah Texts, (New York, New York: Avon Books, 1979), p. 167
3 Ibid
4 How to Recognise the Messiah, p. 16
5 Ibid, pp. 16-17
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The Jewish Tanakh, written in the present tense, says:
"Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman (alma) is with child, and she will bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel."
The Greek Septuagint changed the Hebrew word, alma, from young woman to virgin and put it in the future tense. These two changes definitely gives it a Christian slant. From Matthew 1:22-23:
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
This anti-missionary is absolutely correct.
The sign promised to Israel is contained the phrase "the young woman/virgin is with child." The sign promised to Israel is worded in the present tense in the original Hebrew. The Tanakh English version renders the Hebrew accurately, "is with child." However, the sign has not been given yet. The giving of the sign is still future. The sign "the young woman/virgin is with child" will become a reality sometime in the future. This sign will not appear until sometime after Isaiah's conversation with King Ahaz.
We have to start our analysis of the sign prior to the phrase "is with child." We have to start with the phrase "shall give you a sign." The verb translated "shall give" is in the imperfect tense in the Hebrew text. The imperfect tense communicates incomplete action. Verses in the imperfect tense are legitimately translated as events to be completed in the future. The Septuagint translators made a legitimate decision and rendered the verb in the future tense in their Greek translation. The rendering is appropriate because the sign is promised for the future, grammatically and contextually. The Jewish translators are simply doing a Targum, an explanatory rendering. With the time frame of the sign determined, we now have to analyze the sign itself.
So what is the sign? Let us start with the Hebrew Definite Article. The text uses the Hebrew Definite Article, appropriately translated into English by the word "the." This indicates that a specific virgin is in view. "The virgin" is pregnant. But more than that, she is bearing a son and called Him "God with us." Yes, Isaiah does word the sign itself in the present tense. She is giving birth at that moment. Isaiah can do this because he is seeing the birth from a prophet's point of view-unlimited by space or time. He is viewing the actual birth as it occurs in the future. It is doubtful that he is, at that moment, viewing the actual birth of a child in his present time. If he was, he would be viewing a birth taking place out in the open, in a public place. If he was, he would be viewing a birth "at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller's field" (Isaiah 7:3). In addition, Ahaz and his entourage would be looking on as well, according to Isaiah 7:3. The context indicates some sort of a public scene. Probably Ahaz is inspecting Jerusalem's water supply in preparation for the expected conflict with Aram and Israel (Isaiah 7:1-2). It is highly unlikely that a woman would be there giving birth in that kind of situation.
What is the explanation? I think the explanation lies in the fact that this is a future event that Isaiah can see occurring in his "mind's eye." He can see it occurring in the future from his prophet's perspective. In addition, this birth has to be a "sign." The word "sign" either signifies the unusual event itself or in some way points to that unusual event. It may point backward to a historical event such as the stones in the Jordan (Josh. 4:6). A sign can even look forward to such a promise as a thornless future world (Isa. 55:13).1
The point of the text is that this birth has to be unusual. It has to qualify as a sign. A non-virgin girl, a young woman, giving birth is hardly an unusual event. It happens every day. It has happened to my daughter four times already. This is not a reference to a young woman giving birth in a public place. This sign is of a virgin giving birth. The physical state of the woman is the sign, not the physical location of the birth. The physical location will be covered in Micah 5:2-Bethlehem, but that is not the point here. A woman, in her virginity, giving birth would be a sign. That does not happen every day.
The anti-missionary claims that the Septuagint tampered with the text by changing the tense to future. I have already demonstrated that the rabbis who translated Isaiah 7:14 into Greek made a legitimate translation decision. If that is tampering, then it was done by Jewish rabbis. The Septuagint was in place long before Jesus came on the scene. The Septuagint translation was made around 285-244 BC. There was no "Christian slant" possible at the time the Septuagint was written. The rabbis who translated the Septuagint apparently understood the text to speak of the future and that it spoke of a virgin. They translated according to their understanding of the Hebrew text. They did not translate the text in agreement with a non-existent "Christian" understanding. In addition, we do not need the Septuagint to determine if the Hebrew word alma means virgin. A word study of alma will do that.
In Biblical Hebrew, alma exclusively means virgin with no clarifying information needed. The Septuagint simply supports that conclusion. Again, Matthew simply uses the Jewish, textual resources available to him in the first century CE/AD. As he compares the text and his experience with Jesus, he sees a literal prophecy uttered by Isaiah and literal fulfillment in the life of Jesus. He then passes that understanding on to the reader. The reader can then decide for himself if Matthew is correct or not.
This brings us to a corollary objection. For this let us move to our next objection, a discussion of the word "virgin" found in the same passage.
1 Harris, R. Laird, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980), p.19
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines: Since alma does indeed mean "literal virgin" in Isaiah 7, who was this sinless second Adam that was born during the reign of Ahaz? And further, what two kings or kingdoms were conquered during the childhood of Jesus?
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
Since there is an admission that alma means virgin we have crossed the major barrier. The conception and birth that is predicted has to be a sign - something out-of-the-ordinary. A young woman conceiving and giving birth is hardly a sign - it happens every day. However, a virgin conception and subsequent birth is out-of-the-ordinary and serves as a genuine sign. That is why the word alma is important.
The word alma clearly means "virgin" in spite of the objections of the Rabbis. In contrast to the vast majority of rabbis today, who will not admit that alma means virgin. We have the opinion of Dr. Cyrus Gordon, Professor of Assyriology and Egyptology in Dropsie College, in his article Almah in Isaiah 7:14 (The Journal of Bible & Religion, vol. 21 [April 1953], p.106):
The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation,...
In addition, the respected biblical commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shelomoh Ben Yitzhaki) states that alma means virgin in his commentary on Song of Solomon 1:3. Specifically, Rashi states that alma is synonymous with another Hebrew word that means virgin, the word betulah. The rabbis unequivocally state that betulah means virgin as well. Almah and betulah are nearly synonymous terms, meaning "virgin." However, alma is the more restricted term and never needs explanatory information. In contrast the range of meaning of betulah includes virginity and marriage. The result is that betulah sometimes requires an explanatory phrase to indicate a virgin (see Gen. 24:16). Finally, Encyclopedia Judaica states in its article entitled "Virgin, Virginity" (Encyclopaedia Judaica - CD ROM Edition © Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.
The biblical betulah usually rendered "virgin," is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical state.
The implication of this statement is that almah is the better term for virgin, as found in Isaiah 7:14.
The second point we need to realize is the fact that Isaiah chapter 7 contains two prophecies, a long-term prophecy (the fulfillment lies well into the future) and a short-term prophecy (the fulfillment lies within the lifetime of the prophet).
Isaiah 7:14 is a long-term prophecy designed to encourage the Davidic dynasty over the next 700 turbulent years until the Messiah comes. The House of David needed to know this. Over those long and dreary years they would read this prophecy and be encouraged regarding the arrival of the Messiah/King. The reference is to the sinless second Adam but it is not a statement that he would be born during the reign of Ahaz. He will be born 700 years later. This is why Matthew directs us to the verse in Matthew 1:23.
In contrast, Isaiah 7:15-25 is a short-term prophecy designed to encourage the house of Ahaz as well as chastise them for their lack of faith. Isaiah 7:15-25 would encourage Ahaz because it tells him that the Davidic dynasty will survive the warfare planned against it. However, it also chastises Ahaz for his lack of faith exhibited in verse 12. Judgment will descend and bring hardship because of his unfaithfulness-but the House of David will survive. Ahaz needed to know that. Please remember that Isaiah's son, Shaar YaShuv, is present in Isaiah's arms.
In Isaiah 7:3 God commanded Isaiah to bring along his young son. There has to be a reason why God wanted him to do this. The reference to the boy eating curds and honey and refusing evil and choosing good in verses 15-16 is a reference to Shaar YaShuv. In other words, in just a few years the foes that Ahaz fears (Pekah and Rezin - verses 1-9) will be gone. Shaar YaShuv will function as a sign for Ahaz. That is the reason why he is present. The sign lies in the timing. The timing is the crucial element. Before that little boy reached the age of moral discrimination, the enemies will be gone. The speed and precise nature of the timing is the out-of-the-ordinary element.
This sign would also authenticate Isaiah as a genuine prophet and support the inclusion of his book in the canon of Scripture. You see, Shaar YaShuv is so young that he is still nursing. The earliest food to be given to him after his mother's milk would have been honey, followed later by milk. This will all happen in 2-3 years and amaze Ahaz. The kingdoms that will be destroyed in such a short time are those of Pekah and Rezin.
Let us combine the two thoughts with first-century historical perspective. The first-century Jewish reader of Isaiah 7 would know from past history that the virgin-sign had not occurred in Ahaz's day. Past history would tell them that Isaiah 7:14 had not come to pass as yet. Past history would have also told them that verses 15-25 had come to pass exactly as stated. They would know from history that the timing-sign had occurred. Pekah and Rezin had fallen. Ahaz had survived and the land did suffer devastation by the Assyrians. However, the House of David and Judah had survived that as well. They would easily see what Matthew was driving at. Emmanuel had arrived after 700 years of waiting.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
In Isaiah 9:5-6 the original Hebrew reads:
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us and authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named 'The Mighty God.'"
This passage is referring to King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz. The King James Version (KJV) had to change the tense from the present to the future making it:
"A child is born, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God."
In Hebrew, Hezekiah means "the mighty God."
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
A paraphrase of this argument would be:
Let us start by examining point four and work backward to point one. That Hezekiah was the Messianic person or is a Messianic person appears to be the implication of the objection. In other words, the statement cannot refer to Jesus because it has already been fulfilled. The anti-missionary probably would like to direct our attention to the rabbinic belief that in every age there is someone who is a potential Messiah. Therefore, Hezekiah was the Messianic person referred to in Isaiah 9:6. He was the Messiah in his age. That is not a very strong position for a number of reasons. Let us ask a couple of questions-first:
Targum Jonathan to the Prophets:
"The prophet announced to the house of David that: 'A boy has been born unto us, a son has been given unto us, who has taken the Torah upon himself to guard it; and his name has been called by the One who gives wonderful counsel, the Mighty God, He who lives forever: "Messiah," in whose day peace shall abound for us. He shall make great the dignity of those who labor in the Torah and of those who maintain peace, without end; on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to build it in justice and in righteousness, from this time forth and forever. This shall be accomplished by the Memra of the Lord of Hosts.'"1
Babylonian Talmud (Tract Derech Erez Zutha):
"Rabbi Hose the Galilean said: Also the name of the Messiah is called Peace, for it is written (Isaiah 9:6): 'Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.'"2
Midrash Rabbah (Debarim 1):
"The Rabbis lay the following words in the mouth of the patriarch Jacob: "I have still to bring forth the King Messiah as it is written: 'Unto us a child is born.'"3
Iggereth Teman (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon writes to Jacob Alfajumi):
"God named Him (the Messiah) with six names as He says concerning Him: 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God, Mighty, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'. That He calleth Him God in a distinctive manner, is to say with it, that His glory surpasses that of all other children of men."4
Aben Ezra:
"There are some interpreters who say that 'Wonderful, Everlasting Father' are names of God and only 'Prince of Peace' is the name of the child. But according to my view the interpretation is right (which says): all are the names of the child."5
Targum Isaiah:
"The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it, and His name had been called from of old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He Who Lives Forever, The Anointed One (or Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us.6
Most assuredly the passage is about the Messiah, but there will be only one Messiah, not a multitude of Messiahs. There will be only one Messiah. Only one candidate will fit the Messianic requirements.
"Rabbi Hillel said, 'There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.' Rabbi Joseph said, 'May God forgive him (for saying so).'"
Rabbi Joseph vigorously denied this teaching.
Finally, we come to the objection that the statement is all in the past and, therefore, speaks of Hezekiah. This is an important exegetical and interpretive decision. The verbs in Isaiah 9:6 are a mixture of perfects and imperfects. The perfects are in the first half of the verse and the imperfects are in the last half of the verse. The perfect aspect denotes completed action in the past, present, or future. The imperfect aspect denotes incomplete or repeated action in the past, present, or future. The mixture of verb aspects means that this is no simplistic decision. We need to "scratch our heads" over this one. We need to really think about this one. We have some options to choose from.
The anti-missionary has chosen the past or present option. The implication of that choice is that Hezekiah is or was the Messiah. By the way, the anti-missionary is making the exact same type of exegetical/interpretive decisions that the KJV makes. The only difference lies in the fact that he is choosing the past/present option. This is because of the mixture of verb aspects in the verse. The KJV has not "tampered with the text" any more than he has. The only difference is the fact that the KJV is choosing a different exegetical option. The anti-missionary's choice is the weaker option for three reasons:
However, we still have one more option to consider and that is the future option. In the case of the perfect aspect it would be the usage called the "Prophetic Perfect." The prophetic perfect occurs when the prophet sees the future action so vividly that the action is deemed "as good as done."7 The use of the prophetic perfect in the first half of the verse (child has been born, son has been given) fits with the imperfects in the last half of the verse (government shall be upon his shoulder, shall be called).
Considering the context and force of Isaiah 9:1-7, the data about the Messianic person developed in other parts of Scripture and the New Testament data about Jesus in contrast to what we know about Hezekiah, the future option is preferable. Jesus is a good fit. He is a much better choice than Hezekiah (700 BC), Bar Kochba (135 AD), or Rebbe Schneerson (1994 AD). If Jesus is not the Messiah, then who is?
Jesus is the:
Wonderful Counselor - Colossians 2:3 "…in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
Mighty God - Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.'" (Quoting Psalm 45)
Eternal Father - John 1:1-2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."
Prince of Peace - John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful."
The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) also translates the verse as "child is born" and "son is given." So the JPS and the KJV happen to agree on the rendering of the first part of the verse. Then, being consistent with their decision to render the verse in the present tense, the JPS translators continue with the wording "government is" and "name is." This rendering would put the anti-missionary at odds with the JPS and open them up to the charge of "tampering." However, that is not necessary. The JPS translators did a reasonable and consistent job of translation. They do not agree with HaDavar's evaluation of the text. Their rendition is a fair but, from our point-of-view, regrettable interpretive decision.
1 Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Is 9:6). Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
2 "How to Recognise the Messiah" Pg. 11
3 "How to Recognise the Messiah" Pg. 11
4 "How to Recognise the Messiah" Pg. 24
5 "How to Recognise the Messiah" Pg. 24
6 McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers) 1972, pg. 151
7 Williams, Ronald J., Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, Second Edition, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press) 1967
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:10 is the most accurate. This is the rendering found in Tanakh:
"And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution (acknowledge guilt) he shall see children, he shall prolong his days and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."
The King James Version (KJV) renders the Hebrew in such a way that is implies Jesus and is inaccurate. Isaiah 53:10 KJV:
"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he had put him to grief: when thou shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."
In addition, Jesus never had children so Jesus cannot be referred to in Isaiah 53:10.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The anti-missionary is objecting to the KJV's rendering of Isaiah 53:10. He points out that the KJV differs from the Jewish rendering found in the Tanakh version. He feels that the KJV is making a deliberate effort to twist the meaning of the verse. He feels that the verse is being distorted so that it will appear to talk about Jesus when, in reality, it does not. Let us take a look at the important phrases and see if the essential meaning of the text is being changed.
Regarding Jesus not fathering children, the entire argument centers around whether the term seed, "zerah" has a metaphorical use or whether it is limited strictly to a literal use in Scripture. If the term can rightfully be viewed in a metaphorical sense then the "seed" of the suffering individual in Isaiah 53:10 can be spiritual descendants or disciples rather than literal offspring. If the term cannot be viewed metaphorically then it is a reference to children born to the suffering individual.
Firstly, let's consider the context of Isaiah 53:10. The key question to ask is, "How can a dead man who has been sacrificed as a guilt offering (vs. 10), see his literal children and prolong his days?" It is affirmed by scores of respected Jewish commentators that the suffering individual of Isaiah 53:10 actually dies in verses 8-10. (See: The Suffering Servant of Isaiah, Driver and Neubauer, pages lxx-ixxii) The only way this can happen is if the individual is resurrected. So, there is something more going on here than the normal. God is intervening with the miraculous. This immediately should alert us to the possibility that normal, natural course of events may be superseded. The literal offspring of the servant may not be the intended thought. The context supports a metaphorical meaning of the word zerah.
Secondly, let's explore the range of meaning found in the word "zerah."1
Already a number of metaphorical uses have made their appearance. It is self-evident that usage number one, sowing, does not mean "literal descendants."
Under usage number two we discover a figurative or metaphorical usage as well. The idolatry of Judah is likened to seed in Isaiah 17:11. In Psalm 126:6 the fortunes of Zion are likened to seed and sheaves (See also Ezk. 17:5).
Another self-evident metaphorical usage is usage number three where seed means "semen" rather than literal descendants.
Usage number four is the usage the anti-missionary wants to emphasize. Zerah often means literal offspring, but it does not mean that exclusively. This is the fact that the anti-missionary is trying to obscure. One notable aspect of this usage is the fact that the word can refer to future generations2 (e.g. Deuteronomy 28:46). To quote Dr. Michael L. Brown, from his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Vol. 3, page 84), "In the context of Isaiah 53:10, this would mean that the servant of the Lord would see future generations of his people serving the Lord." This is a very apt description of the fulfillment of this verse in Jesus.
Finally, the fifth usage is highly metaphorical. One example is Proverbs 11:21. If you take Proverbs 11:21 as strictly meaning "literal descendants" that would mean that the literal descendants of a wicked person are doomed to punishment even if they live a Godly life. Why? Because they are not the children of a righteous man. You would be forced to interpret Proverbs 11:21 as teaching that your punishment or deliverance is decided by your forbears, no matter what your personal righteousness happens to be. Of course that is a ridiculous interpretation that is totally nullified by the lives of righteous individuals whose forbears were wicked. Godly King Hezekiah, the direct descendent of wicked King Ahaz comes to mind, as does Ezekiel 18:20 (Tanakh),
The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.
In contrast, according to Proverbs 11:21, the righteous person will be delivered because he is identified with and united with a group that shares a common quality. In this case he is considered among the descendents of the righteous not because his father is necessarily righteous but because he shares that common quality personally and with all those people who live by God's standards.
In addition, the metaphorical aspect of zerah is an interpretive tool the sages of old utilized. In his book The Rabbinic Messiah, Tom Huckel points out metaphorical nature of Genesis 3:15. In Genesis 3:15 there will be enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and in the Fragmentary Targum of the Pentateuch the woman represents good and the serpent represents evil.
The Sforno, likewise viewed the serpent metaphorically. In his commentary the serpent is the evil inclination. Now, good, evil and the evil inclination are abstract concepts that do not bear children except in a metaphorical sense. Consequently, the rabbis utilize the metaphorical sense in their interpretation. By the way, both renderings of Genesis 3:15 in the Targumim are linked to the coming of the Messiah by the rabbis.
Another metaphorical usage of zerah is linked with Genesis 4:25. There, when Eve stated “God has provided me with another offspring in place of Abel,” (Tanakh) the rabbis say she alluded to the Messiah (Jewish Encyclopedia, Internet Edition, Article: Seth). The rabbis say that the word offspring (zerah) is not a reference to Seth, the literal offspring of Eve, but an allusion to the Messiah.
Finally, let me quote Dr. Brown again (page 84),
...the weakness of this argument is seen when we realize that no less a traditional Jewish authority than Sa'adiah Gaon applied Isaiah 53 to Jeremiah the prophet, yet God commanded Jeremiah never to marry or have children (Jer. 16:1) … More recently, Isaiah 53 was applied to the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, yet he and his wife were unable to have children.
These two rabbinic applications refute the anti-missionary who states that the servant of the Lord has to bear literal children of his own.
I hope I have established my point. This anti-missionary objection is again baseless. It depends upon an unfamiliarity with Hebrew or lack of access to resources that enable close examination of the statement. Since the term zerah can rightfully be viewed in a metaphorical sense then the "seed" of the suffering individual in Isaiah 53:10 can be spiritual descendants or disciples rather than literal offspring.
In the case of Jesus the unusual did occur. He did offer Himself as a guilt offering. He actually died and was miraculously resurrected. Today He lives, prolonging His days. He sees His disciples, His spiritual offspring, and the will of the Lord does prosper in His hand.
Summary: There is no tampering with the text but simply some stronger or weaker translations into English. The essential meaning of the text is not changed. The texts of Isaiah 52 and 53 are about the Messianic Person. The modern rabbinic position states that the text of Isaiah 52 and 53 speak of the nation of Israel rather than the personal Messiah. However, the ancient rabbis agree with my statement in spite of the modern rabbinic position. The ancient rabbinic position preponderantly sees Isaiah 52 and 53 referring to the personal Messiah. A few examples will suffice to establish this fact.
Isaiah 52:13 — Targum Jonathan to the Prophets.
Behold, My servant the Messiah shall prosper; he shall be exalted and great and very powerful.
Isaiah 53:4 — Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b.
…What is his [the Messiah's] name?-"The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come. The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure forever: e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon. The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah. Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far. The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted."
Isaiah 53:5 — Midrash Rabbah, Ruth V, 6.
…The fifth interpretation makes it refer to the Messiah. COME HITHER: approach to royal state. AND EAT OF THE BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions (Isa. LIII, 5).3
Isaiah 52 and 53 describe the Messianic Person. The Messianic Person will be the ultimate substitutionary sacrifice for sin-a "Guilt Offering." Isaiah 52 and 53 are quoted over and over again in the Brit Chadashah (New Testament). The sections are used because the first-century Jewish Believers in Jesus literally understood the passage in that manner. They saw in Jesus a literal fulfillment of that expectation.
1 Brown, Driver, Briggs. Brown-Driver_Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (electronic ed.) Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
Vine, Unger, White. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: T. Nelson.
Harris, Archer, Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) Chicago: Moody Press.
2 Ibid. Brown, Driver, Briggs.
3 Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Is. 52:13). Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The English Bible misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures in Romans 11:26 when Paul says:
"And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written. There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."
The Hebrew Bible tells a completely different story. Isaiah 59:20 says:
"A redeemer will come to Zion, and to those of Jacob who repent from willful sin."
Is it in or out of Jerusalem?
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
This is an interesting question. The Hebrew says "to Zion." The Septuagint says "for the sake of Zion." The New Testament says "from Zion." There is a lot going on here.
I believe the solution lies in the fact that Paul is not producing a one-to-one quote in the context. He is weaving together several thoughts from the Scriptures rather than quoting one passage. He is doing that in order to facilitate understanding. This is a perfectly acceptable practice in the Jewish culture of his time. He appears to be referring the reader to such passages as Isaiah 59:20, 27:9, 59:21; and Jeremiah 31:31.
This is a clear use of the first-century "fluid" approach to using Scripture mentioned earlier in The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures. This is an example of Literal Prophecy plus Summation. Paul is summarizing all that the Scriptures teach about the Second Coming and the institution of the Messianic Kingdom. It is at the Second Coming of Yeshua that He fulfills the role of "Messiah Son of David," the "King Messiah." He already has fulfilled the role of the suffering Messiah. Paul is directing the reader to a number of verses that paint a complete picture of what the Redeemer will accomplish when He comes again.
According to the great Messianic Jewish scholar, Dr. Alfred Edersheim, Isaiah 59:19-20 is applied to the Messiah and Messianic times in Sanhedrin 98a and Pesiqta 166b. The relevant paragraph of Sanhedrin 98a reads:
R. Johanan said: When you see a generation ever dwindling, hope for him [the Messiah], as it is written, And the afflicted people thou wilt save. R. Johanan said: When thou seest a generation overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await him, as it is written, when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him; which is followed by, And the Redeemer shall come to Zion. 1
Clearly the Talmud connects the redeemer who will come to Zion with the Messiah. Pesiqtâ de-Rab Kahanâ, Supplement 5, 4 reads:
…Also "beautiful upon the mountains" is he that announceth redemption (Isa. 52:7), namely the redeemer of whom it is said "The redeemer shall come unto Zion" (Isa. 59:20). 2
Here the Messiah of Isaiah 52:7 is the same person referred to in Isaiah 59:20. There are solid Messianic connections to this verse. Paul affirms that connection through his use of the quotes.
All in all, the three renderings present no real difficulty because all three are true. Does not the Deliverer come "for the sake of Zion," that is, to rescue Zion, as rendered in the Septuagint? Does He not also come "to Zion," as rendered in the Masoretic Text? How else could He save Zion? It is also true that Jesus the Messiah came "out of Zion," as in the New Testament since He is Jewish. Each of the renderings would emphasize one factor or another of the institution of the glorious Messianic Kingdom. There are textual differences but not conceptual differences. By referring to each of them we get fuller and more complete picture of the Messiah's ministry to Zion.
1 The Soncino Talmud (©1973 Judaica Press, Inc. and ©1965, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, & 1990 Soncino Press, Ltd.) is a product of Judaica Press, Inc. Brooklyn, NY, and, if included, is incorporated herein pursuant to exclusive license.
2 Huckel, T. (1998) The Rabbinic Messiah (Is 60:1) Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The King James Version (KJV) of Psalm 2:11-12 reads:
"Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you perish from the way."
In the Jewish Tanakh, Psalm 2:11-12 says:
"Do homage in purity (nash-ku bar) lest He be angry and you perish."
The meaning of the Hebrew word bar is pure or clear. Yes, in Aramaic, the word bar does mean son, but it's used only as a combination of two words-"son of." If in Aramaic, the author wanted to mean just the son, he would have used the phrase ber'a with the letter alef at the end. By simply leaving off one Aramaic word, the entire verse is altered.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
This objection is actually a moot point. We can go into all the technicalities of Aramaic and Hebrew, but the result would be the same. The point of verse 12 is submission to Israel's sovereign King.
There is ample evidence in rabbinic writings that this is a Messianic psalm. The great Messianic Jewish scholar, Dr. Alfred Edersheim, in his classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, documents this fact. In Appendix 9 of that work, he lists one complete page of rabbinic quotes and references attesting to the fact that Psalm 2 is a Messianic psalm. Rev. Tom Huckel in his book The Rabbinic Messiah lists 14 rabbinic quotes attesting to the Messianic nature of Psalm 2.
Psalm 2 is one of the most quoted psalms in the New Testament supporting the Messiahship of Jesus. The first-century Jewish believers were taught by the rabbis that Psalm 2 spoke of the Messiah. They were convinced that it applied to Jesus, and they proclaimed that message at the risk of their lives. I am trying to make a point here. The point to be made is the fact that the Messianic nature of the psalm and its application to Jesus does not rest upon verse 12 in any way. Verse 12 can be translated in various ways and it will not affect the impact of Psalm 2. The controversy about nash-ku bar is well known. Translators have struggled with the unusual construction and have come up with various renderings:
Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way, for his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all they that take refuge in him. (American Standard Version)
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (King James Version)
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (New American Standard Bible)
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (New International Version)
Kiss his feet, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Revised Standard Version)
Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. (Jewish Publication Society)
Unusual in the verse is the apparent use of bar, an Aramaic word for son. Therefore, the versions translate it differently. Jerome rendered it, "Give pure (bar is a Hebrew word for pure) worship," or "Worship in purity," rather than translating the word as son. (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)
"Son" is a defendable translation just as "purity," "pure," and "feet" are defendable, but it is not a necessary translation. The Messianic nature of the psalm is not determined by the translation of the Aramaic word bar. The point of the thought is submission to the Jewish Messianic King. There is no "tampering" here. It is simply an example of a translator's normal struggle as he goes through the translation process. This struggle for accuracy is especially apparent when the construction is unusual. All the possible renderings support the same idea, submit to Israel's sovereign king. None of the references to Psalm 2 in the New Testament demand that "Son" be the required translation in verse 12. It would be nice, as well as providing more support to the Messiahship of Jesus. However, it is not a rendering necessary to the Messianic nature or message of Psalm 2.
With all due respect, the anti-missionary's objection entirely misses the point of the psalm. He misses the mark by unduly focusing on a technicality of translation regarding one phrase. The phrase in question does not alter the message of the psalm no matter what rendering is chosen. This is a psalm that is well attested to by the rabbis as Messianic. The first-century Jewish believers simply agreed and applied the psalm to Jesus.
The objection is simple an example of quibbling. To quibble is
Learn to recognize quibbling when it occurs and call it for what it is - an evasion of truth.
*The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth ed., copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY CHARGE:
In the King James Version (KJV), Psalm 16:9-10 says:
"Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither will you suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."
Why not continue to the next verse? They cannot because David was not talking about Jesus. David was talking about himself. Verse 16:11 says:
"Thou will show me the path of life. In your presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."
In the Hebrew translation, Psalm 16:9-10 says:
"Therefore, my heart rejoiced and my soul was glad; even my flesh shall dwell in safety. For You shall not forsake my soul to the grave; You shall not allow Your pious one to see the pit."
Where is "hell" and "corruption" as the KJV puts it? The Hebrew translation of Psalm 16:10-11 tells of David talking to God, rejoicing that God will not forsake his soul to the grave. While David is alive, he will dwell in safety because God will protect his flesh from injury. Since verse 10 does not relate to Jesus, how can verse 11 relate to Him?
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
We have some significant areas of agreement here. First, we need to review the earlier comments entitled The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures. It was stated there that the New Testament consistently uses the Hebrew Scriptures in four ways. This is an example of Literal Prophecy plus a Philosophical or Typical Fulfillment (Remez). Some comments from the Bible Knowledge Commentary deal with the passage quite well. The Bible Knowledge Commentary is written by conservative, dispensational scholars from Dallas Theological Seminary. Dallas Theological Seminary is an independent seminary, it is unaffiliated with any particular denomination and very solid theologically.
"David was assured that the Lord would preserve his life in the face of death. He rejoiced because God enabled his body to rest securely even when confronted with death. The reason he could rest is that God would not abandon him to the grave, nor let His holy one see decay. This verse refers to David, who describes himself as God's "holy one," that is, one of God's saints (cf. v. 3). He took comfort in the fact that God would not, at that time, allow his body to die and decay in the grave. In fact, God had caused him to know the path of life so he anticipated experiencing further joy in God's presence (vs. 11)."
"Verses 8-11 were cited by Peter on the day of Pentecost (Ac. 2:25-28) and Psalm 16:10b was quoted by Paul at Antioch (Ac. 13:35-37) in reference to Christ's resurrection. So the words of David are also typological; they transcended his own experience and became historically true in Christ. Preservation from the decaying grave is the idea behind both David's and Jesus' experiences, but with David it came through a deliverance from death, whereas with Jesus it came through a resurrection from death."
Now we need to read Acts 2:25-32.
Peter writes:
"For David says of Him, 'I was always beholding the Lord in my presence; for He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted. Moreover my flesh also will abide in hope; because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; Thou wilt make me full of gladness with Thy presence.' Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses."
First of all, please note that Peter does quote verse 11 (Ac. 2:28). He considers the verse germane to his argument, so he includes it. His main point is that this psalm could not be totally true of David. Why? Because David's body did indeed suffer corruption and decay when David eventually died. David cannot be referring only to himself. David's words transcend David's personal experience. However, Peter has been part of another literal event that fits David's words without qualification. Therefore, in Peter's thinking, David's words foreshadow what happened in regard to Jesus. David was a prophet and was looking ahead to the Messianic King.
Let us see what Paul has to say in Acts 13:35-37:
"Therefore He also says in another psalm, 'Thou wilt not allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.' For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay."
Note that Paul does not quote verse 11. He did not consider verse 11 necessary to his argument. However, his point is still the same as Peter's (verse 37). Paul also says that we cannot limit the message in this psalm to David because David does not fit the statement. David eventually experienced corruption. However, Jesus did not experience physical corruption because He was resurrected. Again, it is a Literal Prophecy with a Typical Fulfillment (Remez).
Both are arguing from the lesser to the greater. David was temporarily preserved from the grave during his lifetime and eventually did undergo the grave and corruption. That is the lesser. However, Jesus conquered the grave and corruption through resurrection. That is the greater.
Finally, the Hebrew word for hell (KJV) is Sheol, the place of the dead, the grave, the pit, the underworld. It is agreed that "hell" is not a very good translation since it is really the rendering of a Saxon word rather than the Hebrew. However, while the KJV translators did a poor job in 1611, modern translators do not. "Sheol" is the word of choice in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), American Standard Version (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version (RSV). The New International Version (NIV) uses "grave" which is quite acceptable and the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) uses "nether-world"-also quite acceptable.
The Hebrew word for corruption (KJV) is Shahat which means "pit" (both a literal pit and the pit of Sheol) and "destruction." The JPS and RSV choose pit-certainly an acceptable choice. Other solid translations focus on this idea of destruction and so use appropriate terms-NASB, NIV (decay), ASV, KJV (corruption). Certainly these are acceptable choices as well.
The first-century Messianic Jews, Peter and Paul, obviously understood the term to refer to decay and corruption. It is up to the reader to hear their message and decide whether they agree or not. However, there does not seem to be a tremendous amount of difference between pit and corruption. Jesus conquered both the pit and corruption through resurrection. David did eventually experience the pit and his body underwent corruption. However, David's soul was not abandoned to the nether-world (JPS) because of his personal relationship and trust in God. David's earthly body may be dust today, but he lives on, experiencing the glory of God at this very moment.
In the final analysis, there is no tampering with the text here. The KJV is not the unassailable and unquestionable standard of English translation. The text is available to us and every English translation, Jewish or non-Jewish, has its strength and weaknesses. Nobody is trying to deceive anybody in order to get them to change religions.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The Hebrew Bible correctly translates Psalm 22:16 and says, "They surrounded my hands and feet like a lion." The word ka'ari clearly means "like a lion" as evident from its use in Isaiah 38:13 and other writings in the King James Version (KJV). David, while being pursued by his enemies, often referred to them as "lions" (see Psalms 7 and 17). Yet, when read out of context and wanting to allude to Jesus, the KJV mistranslates the verse to say, "They pierced my hands and feet." The passage intentionally makes you think of Jesus.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
This is a situation where we need not be diverted from the force of the psalm by defendable translations. We can go into all the ins-and-outs of whether the word in question is the noun ari plus the preposition, meaning "like a lion" or whether it is derived from the root cur with a medial aleph meaning "pierced."1
However, we need not do so for the simple reason that the point of the text is not changed no matter what translation decision is adopted. Both translation options are acceptable. There is no problem accepting the translation "like a lion." This is not "tampering" with the text. This charge is really a non-issue. It is another example of quibbling.
Here is a quote from a good, Bible-believing, conservative, Christian commentary who recognizes the textual issue. This commentator is recognizing and accepting both positions as reasonable.
"The words 'they have pierced my hands and my feet' figuratively describe such a tearing as if by animals. Of course in the New Testament, these words in reference to Jesus Christ have greater significance (cf. Luke 24:39-40)."2
We do recognize that a Christian translation is going to lean toward "pierced" (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, and KJV). A Jewish translation is going to lean toward "like a lion" (Jewish Publication Society). The LXX uses a word that means "to dig a trench." That is graphic, is it not? We all have our theological bias. However, the integrity of the text is not compromised if we are dealing with a translation decision that is possible, defendable, and fits the context. Both renderings do exactly that. However, this word is simply one small detail in the overall message of the psalm itself.
A plea to the reader would be to consider the entire message of the entire psalm rather than fixate on one word that fits either way. Do not make a mountain out of a molehill. Could this be a play on words that is deliberately designed to get the reader to think of mauling and piercing at the same time? That is a distinct possibility, as well. Jesus referred to the psalm during his crucifixion experience (Matt. 27:46, Mk. 15:34). This is what draws our attention to the entire psalm. Actually, Psalm 22:16 is never quoted in the New Testament. The Jewish writers of the gospels saw numerous exact parallels in the psalm to the crucifixion of Jesus. Likewise, the rabbinic writing Yalkut sees Messianic connections in verses 8 and 16.
One of those details is the mauling of the hands and the feet. It does not matter one bit which way we take the word (as a noun or a verb). The fact of the matter is that the hands and feet are injured. The rendering "like a lion" is good because of the animal imagery found throughout the psalm. If a lion bites the hands or feet of a victim, the large canine teeth of the lion would pierce the victim's hands or feet just like a large Roman nail. The fact that the psalm is considered Messianic is well established in rabbinic material.
Dr. Michael Brown summarizes that material in his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume three, pages 118, 121-122:
"Rashi explains verse 26[27] with reference to, 'the time of our redemption in the days of our Messiah,' then interprets verses 27-29[28-30] with reference to the Gentile nations turning to the Lord, the end of the age, and the final judgment.
"Pesikta Rabbati, the famous eighth-century midrash, put some of the words of this psalm on the lips of the suffering Messiah (called Ephraim, but associated with the son of David), citing Psalm 22:8, 13, 14, and 16 in the context of Messiah's sufferings. In fact, the midrash explicitly states that 'it was because of the ordeal of the son of David that David wept, saying My strength is dried up like a potsherd (Ps. 22:16).' Did you catch that? According to this respected Rabbinic homily, David described the Messiah's sufferings in Psalm 22!
"Let us look at the key texts more fully:
"During the seven year period preceding the coming of the son of David, iron beams will be brought low and loaded upon his neck until the Messiah's body is bent low. Then he will cry and weep, and his voice will rise to the very height of heaven, and he will say to God: Master of the universe, how much can my strength endure? How much can my spirit endure? How much my breath before it ceases? How much can my limbs suffer? Am I not flesh and blood?
It was because of the ordeal of the son of David that David wept, saying My strength is dried up like a potsherd (Ps. 22:16). During the ordeal of the son of David, the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ephraim, My true Messiah, long ago, ever since the six days of creation, thou didst take this ordeal upon thyself. At this moment, thy pain is like my pain.
"At these words, the Messiah will reply: 'Now I am reconciled. The servant is content to be like his Master'" (Pesikta Rabbati 36:2).3
It is taught, moreover, that in the month of Nisan the Patriarchs will arise and say to the Messiah: Ephraim, our true Messiah, even though we're thy forbears, thou art greater than we because thou didst suffer for the iniquities of our children, and terrible ordeals befell thee… For the sake of Israel thou didst become a laughingstock and a derision among the nations of the earth; and didst sit in darkness, in thick darkness, and thine eyes saw no light, and thy skin cleaved to thy bones, and thy body was as dry as a piece of wood; and thine eyes grew dim from fasting, and thy strength was dried up like a potsherd-all these afflictions on account of the iniquities of our children. Pesikta Rabbati 37:14
Ephraim is a darling son to Me…My heart yearneth for him, in mercy I will have mercy upon him, saith the Lord (Jer. 31:20). Why does the verse speak twice of mercy: In mercy I will have mercy upon him? One mercy refers to the time when he will be shut up in prison, a time when the nations of the world will gnash their teeth at him everyday, wink their eyes at one another in derision of him, nod their heads at him in contempt, open wide their lips to guffaw, as is said All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head (Ps.22:8); My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my throat; and thou layest me in the dust of death (Ps. 22:16). Moreover, they will roar over him like lions, as is said They open wide their mouth against me, as a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is become like wax; It's melted in mine inmost parts (Ps. 22:14-15). Pesikta Rabbati 37:15
"As for Psalm 22:16[17], almost all of the standard medieval Hebrew manuscripts (known as Masoretic) read ka'ari, followed by the words "my hands and my feet." According to Rashi, the meaning is "as though they are crushed in a lion's mouth," while the commentary of Metsudat David states, "They crush my hands and my feet as the lion which crushed the bones of the prey in its mouth." Thus, the imagery is clear: These lions are not licking the psalmist's feet! They are tearing and ripping at them.6 Given the metaphorical language of the surrounding verses (cf. cc. 12-21[13-22]), this vivid image of mauling lions graphically conveys the great physical agony of the sufferer. Would this in any way contradict the picture of a crucified victim, his bones out of joint, mockers surrounding him and jeering at him, his garments stripped off of him and divided among his enemies, his feet and hands torn with nails, and his body hung on pieces of wood?7
"Actually, the Septuagint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh, was the first to translate the Hebrew as "they pierced my hands and feet" (using the verb oruxan in Greek), followed by the Syriac Peshitta version two or three centuries later (rendering with baz'u). Not only so, but the oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess (from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the century before Yeshua) reads the verb in this verse as ka'aru (not ka'ari, "like a lion"),8 a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts-recognized as the authoritative texts in traditional Jewish thought-where instead of ka'ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the texts say either ka'aru or karu.9 (Hebrew scholars believe this comes from a root meaning "to dig out" or "to bore through.") So, the oldest Jewish translation (The Septuagint) translates "they pierced"; the oldest Jewish manuscript (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) reads ka'aru, not ka'ari; and several Masoretic manuscripts read ka'aru or karu rather than ka'ari. This is not a Christian fabrication."10
The anti-missionaries try to make the case that Christian translations of Psalm 22:16 contain subtle, intentional, fabrications that are deliberate attempts to get the reader to think of Jesus. However, we believe that when the evidence is examined there are no subtle, intentional fabrications present. We freely admit that the text of Psalm 22:16, as well as the entire Psalm for that matter, definitely makes the reader think of Jesus. Why? Because He, the Messiah of Israel, perfectly fulfilled all that was predicted about His crucifixion. There is no tampering with the text here, only marvelous Divine revelation.
1 Harris, R. Laird, Archer Gleason L., Waltke, Bruce M, Eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press) 1980
2 Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1983, 1985), Logos Research Systems Electronic Edition
3 From the standard translation of William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbiti: Homiletical Discourses for Festal Days and Special Sabbaths, 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale, 1968), pp. 680-81
4 Ibid., pp. 685-86
5 Ibid., 686-87. All of these citations can be found in the useful Internet article on Psalm 22 found on http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/ps22.htm.
6 It should be noted that the reading ka'ari, "like a lion", is not without problems, since there is no verb in this clause. In other words, the Hebrew literally reads, "like a lion my hands and feet," necessitating the addition of the words "they are at" in most contemporary Jewish translations. Thus, the NJPSV translates, "Like lions [they maul] my hands and feet" (with reference to Rashi and Isaiah 38:13 in the footnote). Cf. Rozenberg and Zlotowitz, The Book of Psalms, 122, 127. Stone translates, "Like [the prey of] a lion are my hands and my feet."
7 This observation undermines the claim of Rabbi Singer that "when the original words of the Psalmist are read, any allusion to a crucifixion disappears" (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/like-a-lion.html).
8 Cf. Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, eds. and trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999), 519: "Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic text has 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' whereas the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads, "They have pierced my hands and my feet!"
9 In contrast with this, only one Masoretic manuscript reads ka'aryeh ("like a lion", 'aryeh is a variant spelling for 'ari, "lion"). Delitzsch (Psalms, 1039) points out this same form, and he notes that "perceiving this [difficulty of the translation 'like a lion' in the context], the Masora on Isa xxxviii. 13 observes, that k'ari in the two passages in which it occurs (Ps. Xxii. 17, Isa. Xxxviii. 13), occurs in two different meanings, just as the Midrash then also understands k'ri in the Psalm as a verb used of marking with conjuring, magic characters."
10 The exact evidence as documented in the standard edition of Kennicot and de Rossi lists seven Masoretic manuscripts reading k'rw, while three other manuscripts have the reading krw in the margins. It has also been pointed out by some scholars that the Hebrew word used for "lion" in Psalm 22:13[14] is the more common 'aryeh, making it more doubtful that a different form of the word, namely, 'ari, would be used just two verses later. Yet this is what the normative reading in the Masoretic manuscripts would call for.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
John tries to make Jesus the perfect, sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and then he tries to relate this to the Jewish Passover. He even makes Jesus die on Passover while the other Gospels say Jesus died the day after. John 19:32-36 tells of soldiers breaking the legs of the crucifixion victims to hasten their deaths, yet sparing Jesus because he was already dead. John then quotes the Hebrew Scripture saying,
"For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken." (The New Testament also refers to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, and Psalm 34:20.)
Notice how conveniently John changed the entire meaning by simply changing the word "it" to "him." Exodus 12:46 refers to the Passover offering, "…and you shall not break a bone in it (the animal)." Numbers 9:12 again refers to the Passover offering, "…nor shall they break a bone of it." Psalm 34:20 refers to David saying no one becomes truly righteous and great without his share of mishaps. The verse says, "He guards all his bones, even one of them was not broken."
There is no indication that this psalm is intended as prophetic or applying to Jesus. And Jesus was physically disqualified as a Passover sacrifice because the female lamb had to be "without blemish." Jesus was wounded, whipped and mutilated.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE
Please refer to the comments regarding The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures. John 19:32-36 is an example of Literal Prophecy plus Typical Fulfillment (Remez).
As with Hosea 11:1 (see Matt. 2:15) this is not even a prophecy as such. Hosea 11:1, Exodus 12:46, and Numbers 9:12 all refer to a literal, historical event. However, as a first century Messianic Jew, John understands the literal, historical event to prefigure something greater. The literal Passover lamb prefigures the greater Lamb, the Messiah. John is communicating his understanding of the significance of the Passover lamb. The redemption from Egypt points to a greater redemption-from sin. He is asking the reader to look at the Passover lamb from a philosophical, symbolic point of view. He is not trying to deceive anyone. He is simply operating within the accepted interpretive norms of his society. This type of thing is not unusual for the rabbis to do.
Remez is accepted as a valid approach to scripture. John is directing the reader to consider Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 which are acceptable verses to guide the reader to. We agree with the anti-missionary in regards to Psalm 34:20. There is no direct reference by the New Testament to Psalm 34:20. John 19:36 is a direct reference to Exodus 12:46 and/or Numbers 9:12, but it is not a quote of Psalm 34:20. John might have Psalm 34:20 in mind, but it is not necessary to his argument.
The cross reference that an editor of a modern English version supplies is not inspired and always needs to be evaluated for validity. Some people get real wild and loose in the area of Messianic prophecy and make statements that are simply not justifiable. However, Psalm 34:20 could possibly be applied to Jesus, if it was considered as an example of Literal Prophecy plus Application (D'rash). Because of one point of similarity, the verse could be homiletically applied to Jesus. He was the epitome of a righteous man, and His bones were not broken. We would not object to a person making that link, but it is not necessary and perhaps not even part of John's argument.
We have to disagree with the anti-missionary when he says that Jesus was physically disqualified for being the Passover Lamb. First of all, a male lamb was specified in Exodus 12:5 unlike the anti-missionary's statement that a female was specified. The lamb was selected on the 10th of Nisan and inspected and evaluated for blemishes until the 14th when it was sacrificed. Note that the lamb was unblemished until it was killed. The act of sacrificing the lamb, slitting its throat, would have definitely blemished it.
Parallel to that, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the perfect Passover Lamb on the 10th of Nisan (Matt. 21, Mk. 11, and Lk. 19) and was hailed as the Messiah. Then He underwent testing and evaluation for blemishes by the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes and Herodians until the 14th of Nisan. By answering all their questions and objections, Jesus showed that He was without blemish in regard to doctrine and character. Then, Jesus observed the Passover with His disciples and after that the process of execution began. Just as the Passover lamb was without physical blemish until the process of death began, so Jesus was without physical, character, or doctrinal blemish until the process of killing Him began.
Most definitely the process of killing Him involved wounding, whipping, and mutilating. The slitting of the lamb's throat is parallel to the mistreatment He suffered that culminated in His death. There has been much controversy generated over the alleged difference between the Synoptics and John's Gospel regarding the day of Jesus' death. We feel the best position is that taken by the great Messianic Jewish scholar, Dr. Alfred Edersheim, in his classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. He establishes the point that all four accounts are in harmony. Jesus observed the Passover.
The point of concern centers around the fact that the Synoptic Gospels appear to state that Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan while John's Gospel appears to state that He died on the 14th of Nisan. Dr. Edersheim tackles the controversy head on in the following quote:
"It is recorded that they who brought Him would not themselves enter the portals of the Palace, 'that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.'
"Few expressions have given rise to more earnest controversy than this. On two things at least we can speak with certainty. Entrance into a heathen house did Levitically render impure for that day-that is, till the evening. The fact of such defilement is clearly attested both in the New Testament (Acts 10:28) and in the Mishnah, though its reasons might be various*. A person who had so become Levitically unclean was technically called Tebhul Yom ('bathed of the day'). The other point is, that, to have so become 'impure' for the day, would not have disqualified for eating the Paschal Lamb, since that meal was partaken of after the evening, and when a new day had begun. In fact, It is distinctly laid down that the 'bathed of the day,' that is, he had been impure for the day and had bathed in the evening, did partake of the Paschal Supper, and an instance is related, when some soldiers who had guarded the gates of Jerusalem 'immersed,' and ate the Paschal Lamb. It follows, that these Sanhedrists could not have abstained from entering the Palace of Pilate because by so doing they would have been disqualified for the Paschal Supper.
"The point is of importance, because many writers have interpreted the expression 'the Passover' as referring to the Paschal Supper, and have argued that, according to the Fourth Gospel, our Lord did not on the previous evening partake of the Paschal Lamb, or else that in this respect the account of the Fourth Gospel does not accord with that of the Synoptists. But as, for the reason just stated, it is impossible to refer the expression 'Passover' to the Paschal Supper, we have only to inquire whether the term is not also applied to other offerings. And here both the Old Testament (Deut. 16:1-3; 2 Chron. 35:1, 2, 6, 18) and Jewish writings* show, that the term Pesach, or 'Passover,' was applied not only to the Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, especially to what was called the Chagigah, or festive offering (from Chag, or Chagag, to bring the festive sacrifice usual at each of the three Great Feasts). According to the express* rule the Chagigah, was brought on the first festive Paschal Day.* It was offered immediately after the morning-service, and eaten on that day-probably some time before the evening, when, as we shall by-and-by see, another ceremony claimed public attention. We can therefore quite understand that, not on the eve of the Passover, but on the first Paschal day, the Sanhedrists would avoid incurring a defilement which, lasting till the evening, would not only have involved them in the inconvenience of Levitical defilement on the first festive day, but have actually prevented their offering on that day the Passover, festive sacrifice, or Chagigah. For, we have these two express rules: that a person could not in Levitical defilement offer the Chagigah; and that the Chagigah could not be offered for a person by some one else who took his place."1
To summarize Dr. Edersheim's argument, all the Gospel accounts record Jesus being crucified on the 15th of Nisan. The confusion comes from commentators who are unfamiliar with Jewish terminology and the Temple services. The mistake lies in not recognizing that the term "Passover" in John 18:28 is a generic term referring to all the Passover sacrifices including the Chagigah. The reference in John 18:28 is in regard to the Chagigah. The Chagigah was offered on the 15th of Nisan and eaten by the priests later that day. The Chagigah is the offering that concerns them, not the Passover Lamb (the Pesach in Hebrew).
With that understanding in mind, the apparent conflict is resolved. Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan. All four Gospels agree. Jesus paralleled the Passover lamb. The Passover lamb was a male, selected on the 10th of Nisan, evaluated until the 14th of Nisan, found to be without blemish, and killed. Jesus too was a male, presented to Israel on the 10th of Nisan, evaluated by the political and religious leadership until the 14th of Nisan, found to be without blemish, and killed.
No wonder the Messianic Jews of the first century, who wrote the New Testament, considered Him the true Passover Lamb -Acts 8:32ff; 1 Peter 1:19; Revelation chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21; 1 Corinthians 5:7ff.
*Marginal note: Ohol. xviii. 7; Tohar. vii. 3
*The subject has been so fully discussed in Wieseler, Beitr., and in Kirchner, Jud. Passahfeier , not to speak of many others, that it seems needless to enter further on the question. No competent Jewish archaeologist would care to deny that "Pesach" may refer to the "Chagigah," while the motive assigned to the Sanhedrists by St. John implies, that in this instance it must refer to this, and not to the Paschal Lamb.
*Marginal note: Chag. i. 3
*But concession was made to those who had neglected it on the first day to bring it during the festive week, which in the Feast of Tabernacles was extended to the Octave, and in that of Weeks (which lasted only one day) over a whole week (see Chag. 9 a; Jet. Chag. 76 c). The Chagigah could not, but the Paschal Lamb might, be offered by a person on behalf of another.
1 Edersheim, Alfred, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (electronic ed., 2002, E4 Group), p. 593
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
Matthew 22:43 says:
How then does David in spirit call him 'Lord,' saying, 'The LORD said unto my Lord'..."
Jesus continues in verse 45:
"If David then calls him 'Lord', how is He his son? And no man was able to answer him..."(Matthew 22:42-46).
The New Testament then quotes Psalm 110:1 to back up this claim.
The issue here is the phrase, "The LORD said to my Lord..." Notice, the New Testament capitalized both "L's" in Lord. The correct Hebrew translation is "my master" or "my lord" in small letters, "The Lord God said to my master..." The Hebrew word "adonee" never refers to God by itself anywhere in the Jewish Bible. It is only used to describe a person, or a title of a person, not a deity. The Hebrew dictionary defines "adonee" as "sir or my master."
Even the Christian Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the New English Bible (NEB) correctly render the Hebrew word adonee as "my lord" (small "l") in Psalm 110:1, thus indicating that it is not speaking of God. The Jewish Bible reads, "The Lord said to my lord..." meaning master.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The question in Matthew 22:41-46 is this: if David called the Messiah LORD, how could the Messiah be David's son? The idea is that David, the progenitor of the Davidic Dynasty, would experience priority over any descendant. Therefore, if the Messiah were merely human (since he is a descendant of David), the Messiah would defer in respect to David.
However, in Psalm 110 we see David deferring to the Messianic person. Why? When reading Psalm 110, it is very important to know exactly who is talking and to whom. It is crystal clear in the Hebrew. In an attempt to avoid confusion in English, we are going to represent God's personal name, the Tetragrammaton, in this manner Y-H, where Y stands for the Hebrew letter Yod, and H stands for the Hebrew letter Heh.
Psalm 110 begins with David recording a conversation for us. He is an onlooker to a conversation between Y-H and the Messianic person. David now repeats the conversation he heard between Y-H and the Messiah. He says in verse 1, "An Oracle, Y-H to my lord: Sit..." David has just called the Messianic person his lord-his master. The anti-missionary is quite correct regarding the rendering of the verse. Now we need to establish that Psalm 110 is Messianic.
Here is some research into Jewish backgrounds that will verify this position.
Yalkut Shimoni on Tehilim 110
"Rabbi Yusan said for Rabbi Aha Bar Hananiah: in the future the Holy one blessed be He will sit the King Messiah at his right and Abraham at his left, and Abraham's face crumpled and he said: the son of my son sits at the right and I sit at the left? but the Holy one blessed is He reconciled him by saying: the son of your son sits at your right and I sit at your right hand..."
T'fillat R. Shimon ben Yochai
And the Holy one, blessed be he, will fight for Israel and will say to the Messiah: 'Sit at my right' [Psalm 110:1]. And the Messiah will say to Israel: 'Gather together and stand and see the salvation of the Lord'."2
Midrash Rabbah, Genesis LXXXV: 9
… AND THY STAFF alludes to the royal Messiah. as in the verse The staff of thy strength the Lord will send out of Zion (Ps. CX, 2).
Midrash Rabbah, Numbers XVIII, 23
...That same staff also is destined to be held in the hand of the King Messiah (may it be speedily in our days!); as it says, The staff of thy strength the Lord will send out of Zion: Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies (Ps. CX, 2).47
Artscroll Tenach Commentary Tehillim
Sforno says that this Psalm is dedicated to the future king Messiah. He is on God's right hand and the ministering angels are on the left. The armies of Gog and Magog will attack, but HaShem will subdue them until they come crawling to the feet of the Messiah.
In reference to the staff or scepter of verse 2; Midrash Yelamdeinu perceives this as a reference to the wooden staff which participated in many wondrous events throughout the course of Jewish history. This rod was first used by Jacob when he split the Jordan River (Genesis 32:11). Moses and Aaron used the same staff to perform wonders in Egypt before the eyes of Pharaoh (Exodus 4:3, 7:10). David held this staff in his hand when he went forth to battle Goliath (1 Sam. 17:40). It served as a scepter in the hands of each king of David's dynasty until the Temple was destroyed; then, the staff was hidden. In the future, it will be revealed to the Messiah, who will use it to conquer all the nations of the world.
In reference to Verse 3: The Messiah will inspire the masses to enlist in his cause.
In reference to verse 5: Yalkut Shimoni states, "in the future, God will place the Messiah at His right hand and Abraham at his left."
In reference to verse 7: According to the Targum, this verse describes the ultimate victory for which all men of faith yearn, because Abraham, David, and the Messiah don't seek blood but truth.
Alfred Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 9)
Verse 7 is also applied in Yalkut to Messianic times, when streams of the blood of the wicked should flow out, and birds come to drink that flood.
The obvious conclusion is that David's master is the Messianic person. Why would he defer to the Messiah? One reason, in the context, is the fact that He sees the Messiah at God's right hand. The right hand was the place of honor and equality. This implies that the Messiah is more than a mere human. He is a God/man. Whether the anti-missionary accepts that idea or not, he has to admit that David sees the Messiah as his superior, at the very least.
However, the question remains. Are the New Testament translations trying to imply something that simply is not there? Did the Christian translators try to insinuate things that are not in the original text? There are some translations that did miss the point, but as even the anti missionary Rabbis claim, in order to support their objections, there are also Christian translations that accurately translated the text. For that, let us deal with the area of capitalizations (sometimes a confusing convention).
The convention the anti-missionary is concerned about is carefully explained in the Preface or Forward of the specific translation. For example:
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Proper Name of God in the Old Testament: In the Scriptures, the name of God is most significant and understandably so. It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity. Thus, the most common name for the deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim. One of the titles for God is Lord, a translation of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letters YHWH (Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 42:8). This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it has been consistently translated LORD. The only exception to this translation of YHWH is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai. In that case it is regularly translated GOD in order to avoid confusion.
The NASB very clearly tells the reader that God's personal name will be rendered capital L, capital O, capital R, capital D. The word Adonai will be rendered capital L, small o, small r, small d. The convention is explained. What is also explained is the reason why they chose to follow that convention-out of respect for the Jewish people. This is an attempt to honor and defer to Jewish religious convictions.
New International Version (NIV)
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendering "Lord," for which small letters are used.
The NIV also explains the convention to the reader. They are not trying to deceive anyone. The standard translations all follow this convention. The following is a comparison of Psalm 110:1 from several major works:
The LORD says to my Lord:-NASB
The LORD says to my Lord:-NIV
The LORD says to my lord:-RSV
Jehovah saith unto my Lord,-American Standard Version
The LORD said unto my Lord,-King James Version
The LORD said to my Lord,-New King James Version
All the standard Bibles make the distinction between Y-H and adonee. Because the Preface or Forward clearly states what the rendering will be, there is no deception being practiced here. A careful review of whatever standard translation is being used would be in order.
The point therefore is: why do David call the Messiah My Lord if he is merely his son in the flesh? Yeshua quotes verse 1 of Psalm 110 in order to explain that the Messiah is not merely a son, flesh and blood. Their objection focuses on the controversy regarding the translation of the word Adoni in the English language and therefore misses the point and is simply another example of anti-missionary quibbling and has no substance whatsoever.
1 How to Recognize the Messiah, Good News Society (Johannesburg, 2000), p.21
2 Aharon Jellniek, "T'fillat R. Shimon ben Yohai," Bet haMidrash (Jeruslam: Wharmann Books, 1967), part 4, p.125-2
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
"And he (Jesus) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23).
ONE: Which prophets said that? TWO: According to scholars, rabbis and historians, the city of Nazareth did not exist during the writings of Hebrew Scriptures. The word "Nazareth" does not appear anywhere in Hebrew scripture, as verified by the New Testament Concordance. However, the word "Nazirite" does appear in the Hebrew Bible, meaning a special kind of Jewish sect.
Therefore, Nazareth and Nazarene are Christian words, not Hebrew words. Nazareth is not mentioned in non-Christian sources until the third or fourth century. Nazarites are not a sect but rather it is an individual oath taken by a person to be in effect for a time period. During this time the person is not allowed to cut their hair, go near a corpse, eat grapes or drink wine. Afterward he must bring special offerings to the Beith Hamikdash and shave his hair.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE
For Matthew 2:23 please review our comments entitled "The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures."
Jacob, you are totally correct, not a single prophet makes the statement found in Matthew 2:23. This has generated all kinds of comments from all kinds of people. The remark is a mystery to many.
The key to understanding Matthew is the plural use of the word prophet. In all his previous fulfillments in chapter 2, Matthew has used the singular “prophet” (2:5, 15, 17). Here he uses the plural. This is an example of a “literal prophecy plus summation.” By using the plural Matthew is telling us that verse 23 is a summary of all that the prophets taught. This is an example of “Sod.”
What did the prophets as a group teach about the Messiah? One of the clear streams of thought taught about the Messiah is the fact that he would be a despised and rejected individual. For example, Isaiah 53:3 “He was despised and forsaken of men.” From Nathaniel’s remark in John 1:46, “Can any good thing come from Nazareth,” it is quite clear that individuals from Nazareth were despised individuals.
So you are quite correct, not one single prophet has made these remarks. This is a summary statement of what the prophets, as a group, taught about the Messiah.
I am surprised at your comments about the non-existence of Nazareth. Encyclopaedia Judaica makes this remark regarding Nazareth,
“Archaeological evidence has shown that the area was settled as early as the Middle Bronze Age, and tombs have been found dating from the Iron Age to Hasmonean times."
The Middle Bronze Age is approximately 2,000 BCE. It appears Nazareth has been around for a long time. The Hasmonean times would extend from approximately 166 BCE to 63 BCE, or in other words, just before Jesus came on the scene. What the archeologists are saying is that Nazareth experienced Jewish occupation before the New Testament was written. Therefore, it would not be a town that Christians fabricated in order to make their story about Jesus believable. Just because a town is small, insignificant, and not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible does not mean it did not exist. That is simply an argument from silence. There must have been 100’s of small and insignificant towns in Israel, that existed during the writing of the Scriptures, that are not mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean they never existed. I believe you need to document your sources for the statement that “Nazareth did not exist during the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures.”
I think you are stretching it when you say that these are Christian words not Hebrew words. Encyclopaedia Judaica remarks,
“the Hebrew and Arabic terms for Christians (Nozeri, Nasrani) are derived from the town's name.”
Encyclopedia Judaica is saying the exact opposite of what you have said. You have said, “Nazareth and Nazarene are Christian words.” EJ says that the Hebrew term for Christian, Nozeri, was derived from the town’s name, Nazareth (see quote below and underlined for the Hebrew root). Therefore, the city named Nazareth had to precede the term Nozeri. Nazareth would then be a Jewish/Hebrew word. This is consistent with the fact that Nazareth was a Jewish town before Jesus came on the scene, just as the NT indicates.
EJ continues:
“Nazareth is not mentioned in non-Christian sources until the third or fourth century, when it was recorded in an inscription found at Caesarea listing the priestly courses and their seats in Galilee. According to this list (which is reproduced in the seventh-century liturgical poems of Kallir and others), the family of Happizzez (I Chron. 24:15) settled in Nazareth, a name derived in this source from the root nsr (to guard). It is described by Jerome as a very small village in Galilee (Onom. 141:3). Constantine may have included it in the territory of Helenopolis, a city which he founded, but the town remained purely Jewish in the fourth century.”
According to the Archeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, “After the destruction of the Second Temple Jews lived at Nazareth and it was the seat of the priestly family of Pises.”
It appears that Nazareth has had a long history of continuous Jewish occupation, before and after Jesus. The evidence indicates that it was an insignificant (despised?) village during those times, just as the New Testament records. Finally, these sources show that the site has a Hebrew name. Do you know of any alternate name for the site besides Nazareth? At this point the evidence, and you are quite free to disagree with me, supports the New Testament.
You are quite correct when you state that Matthew 2:23 is not a reference to the Nazarite Oath. I do not agree with those who make that connection. That is a tenuous conclusion at best, although you will find it in a good number of commentaries.