|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 28, 2015 15:56:32 GMT -8
1 Chronicles 17: 12-14
"He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and His throne shall be established forever."
1 Chronicles 28: 6-8
" Now He said to me, 'It is your son Solomon who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father. Moreover, I will establish his kingdom forever. If he is steadfast to observe My commandments and My judgments, as it is this day'. Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of the L-RD, and in the hearing of our G-d, be careful to seek out all the commandments of the L-rd your G-d, that you may possess this good land, and leave it as an inheritance for your children after you forever."
I read this in conjunction with Psalm 2
"I will declare the decree: the L-Rd has said to Me, You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel. Now therefore, be wise, O kings, Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the L-RD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." Psalm 2: 7-12 I was reading this with Questor's thread about "Why a  -observant Jew would need Yeshua" in mind. I didn't want to convolute his thread with my questions so started this one. I am a circular thinker so it is hard for me to pull my thoughts together, but I think my thoughts basically boil down to two questions
1) What are the common Jewish thoughts about eternal life. I know it is a belief as Yeshua discussed it and G-d talks about people "going to their fathers" when they die. I only ask because it doesn't seem to be a concern for Questor's friend so am curious about the difference in thinking.
2) How do Jewish people understand the idea of "forever" regarding the Messianic Kingdom? Is it only referring to lineage and inheritance or is Messiah's own Kingship going to last forever? I am curious because of the implications this may have on our differing views of Messiah as G-d and His need to overcome death. I am just trying to sort out any of my thinking and get a better grasp and understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 28, 2015 22:34:11 GMT -8
I suspect the only person who could answer this with authority from a Jewish perspective would be tonga, however I can share my views and what little I know.
MJ and Christianity both see Psalm 2 as a Messianic prophecy. Most (if not all) Jews say that Psalms are psalms and NOT prophecy. We could debate the issue, but that's not the point (and we'd have a bit of an advantage anyhow so nothing would really be settled). Point is this is a fundamental difference in how we look at things.
I think too that most of Judaism believes anytime the TNK refers to God's Son, it means Israel. And actually I don't have any problem with this interpretation other than its exclusivity. This is God we are talking about, and the Rabbis teach His word acts on more than one level at a time. Meanings can be inferred, and parallel meanings exist. I think this is a case where there are parallel meanings. One is Israel the son of God, the other is God Himself becoming a part of that sonship in the form of Yeshua. He put a part of the Divine presence in the form of a Hebrew human in order to redeem all mankind to Himself. Obviously they would disagree with my interpretation.
From what I've read, Jews do believe in an afterlife as well as the resurrection, but they aren't necessarily all agreed on the details. But then, neither are we (anyone want to talk about the "Rapture"?).
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 1, 2015 12:17:49 GMT -8
Reading the Psalms as not prophetically just wouldn't be nearly as much fun either. 
This is my take away from my study. Hopefully I am on the right track.
Yeshua didn't just come to earth to keep the commandments to give us an example, which is as far as I used to get. He came here to keep them because it is necessary for Him to establish His Kingdom. It's a whole new level of understanding of Him coming here to do His father's will.
There is also something interesting about G-d being rejected as King when the people demanded an earthly King, Messiah's Kingdom being forever, Yeshua being both G-d and man, and Yeshua overcoming death. One forever King with a forever Kingdom, same on earth as in heaven. I can't grasp how huge that gift is, but I do know the L-rd's prayer is saying a lot more than I realized.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Mar 14, 2015 21:11:40 GMT -8
Elizabeth,
Ditto on the L-rd's prayer. What other prayer sums it up like this one?? And HE told us to pray this prayer. Incredible.
garrett
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Mar 15, 2015 8:38:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 16, 2018 6:37:20 GMT -8
Regarding Psalm 2:11-12
The Hebrew translation I have doesn't even translate it as we do so that Yeshua is seen so plainly. The translation of the Hebrew in the Psalms book I have says
"Serve Hashem with awe, so that you may rejoice when there is trembling. Yearn for purity, lest He grow wrathful and your way will be doomed, for blaze in a brief moment will His anger; praiseworthy are all those who trust in Him."
As comparison, the English reads
"Serve the L-RD with fear; and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in your way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him."
I know there are issues related to the absence of vowel markings. I don't know if that's what has happened here, and it can be read very legitimately both ways. Maybe thats the extent of the issue. But it irritates me, and I am not sure who to be irritated with.
Did someone change the original understanding to better suit their own perspective/agenda? Clearly I believe in Yeshua, but I don't like the idea of anyone skewing the original meaning even if it seems to help us out simply because I trust G-d's word to be deeper than what we can completely grasp. I place a lot of emphasis on this verse so if Christians have somehow convoluted its original meaning, it frustrates me.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 16, 2018 15:03:46 GMT -8
My interlinear translates Ps 2:11-12 as "Act wisely- be taught- O judges of the earth- serve Jehovah - with fear- and rejoice- with trembling. Kiss- the Son- lest he be angry- and you perish- from the way- for- is kindled- quickly His anger. Blessed are- all seeking refuge- in Him."
So comparing your two transliterations there is some difference in all three, but the second one seems closest to me:
"Serve Hashem with awe, so that you may rejoice when there is trembling. Yearn for purity, lest He grow wrathful and your way will be doomed, for blaze in a brief moment will His anger; praiseworthy are all those who trust in Him."
"Serve the L-RD with fear; and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in your way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him."
My JPS TNK renders it thus:
"Serve the Lord in awe; tremble with fright, pay homage in good faith, lest He be angered and your way be doomed in the mere flash of His anger."
Translators (transliterators more like) take a lot of license in their work. They have to in order to make the end product readable. However they often use this license to infuse the work with their own theology. My guess is the Hebrew sources eliminated the reference to the Son out of concern it might bolster Christian beliefs here.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 12, 2018 10:10:42 GMT -8
This is just to follow up on another translation/ interpretation conflict I ran into today. In Matthew 22:45, Yeshua references Psalm 110 to point out David calls Messiah L-rd. The Hebrew Psalm book I have first of all says the Psalm wasn't wrote by David but for David, so the Psalmists is just honoring David as master. My question is then, how do they get around "sit at my right hand" part as that seems like equality with G-D from my limited perspective. (  ??) It also translated the phrase we understand as "in the order of Melchizedek" as more along the lines as "you are a king of righteousness". Read the whole Psalm in context, it's Messianic....."till I make your enemies a footstool." It even references "Zion", which from what I learned is what we would also call "The New Jerusalem" or Jerusalem under Messiah's reign.... And if it's not Messianic, and considering every other Messianic passage being undermine for the sake of discrediting Yeshua that's identified as not Messianic, tell me what hope Israel has of any Messiah? Yeshua is being slandered by the commentary and it's just hard to take. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Mar 12, 2018 17:24:24 GMT -8
This is just to follow up on another translation/ interpretation conflict I ran into today. In Matthew 22:45, Yeshua references Psalm 110 to point out David calls Messiah L-rd. The Hebrew Psalm book I have first of all says the Psalm wasn't wrote by David but for David, so the Psalmists is just honoring David as master. My question is then, how do they get around "sit at my right hand" part as that seems like equality with G-D from my limited perspective. ( ??) It also translated the phrase we understand as "in the order of Melchizedek" as more along the lines as "you are a king of righteousness". Read the whole Psalm in context, it's Messianic....."till I make your enemies a footstool." It even references "Zion", which from what I learned is what we would also call "The New Jerusalem" or Jerusalem under Messiah's reign.... And if it's not Messianic, and considering every other Messianic passage being undermine for the sake of discrediting Yeshua that's identified as not Messianic, tell me what hope Israel has of any Messiah? Yeshua is being slandered by the commentary and it's just hard to take. We have to remember that the Jews even more than our Christian brethren have been brainwashed by their years of training and teaching. It's difficult to overcome this in either case. But in the case of the Jews there is also 2000 yrs of history of persecution by Christianity in the name of Jesus. So it is not surprising that most of them will not consider much of the TNK as Messianic prophecy if it bolsters support for Yeshua as ha'Moshiach. I actually find it easier to take the Jews "slandering" Yeshua in their commentary than to take most Christian commentary on the "New Testament." They've taken a thoroughly Jewish collection of writings and twisted the meanings to the point everything is changed; again making it very difficult for the Jew to accept. Or me for that matter. It's entirely possible that had I not found Hebrew Roots and later Messianic Judaism I might be apostate and lost for good. However as always I find your insights refreshing, and spot on. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 13, 2018 11:16:03 GMT -8
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Yeshua asked them, saying, What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They said to Him, " The son of David." He said to them, How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'L-rd,' saying 'The L-RD said to my L-rd, "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool"? If David then calls Him 'L-rd,' how is He his son?
Matthew 22:41-45
When Yeshua wrote this it was known that the Psalm was wrote by David, it was known to be about Messiah, and He Was asking how could David call his own son Master. I am just stating that because I have read commentaries that say Yeshua didn't know the difference between the use of the term for master and the sacred name of G-d. If you read the whole passage it was about David calling his own son L-rd (lower case as in master), not about calling Him G-d. Yet as we possibly see from the next verse, it does equate Him with G-d if the phrase "sit at My right hand" means what I think it does.The point is Jewish people listening to Him knew what this Psalm is saying at the time He walked the earth.
Now here we are, and we can still know without a doubt this Psalm was wrote by David just like the Jews at this time did because Yeshua said it and Jewish people documented it. We can know that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is Messianic just like the Jews at this time did because Yeshua said it and Jewish people documented it. Yet today because of deception, the vast majority of Jewish people don't know who wrote it, and they don't know it's about Messiah. Between the deception that occurred in Christianity and in Judaism, what would be left of what G-d gave us if He didn't keep It? Scarry how evil works so well, but oddly enough the wisdom of G-d may be in the divide as if kind of takes on an ironic two witnesses validity despite itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 13, 2018 13:47:16 GMT -8
It also translated the phrase we understand as "in the order of Melchizedek" as more along the lines as "you are a king of righteousness". King of Righteousness is a proper translation of the transliterated Melchizedik. It doesn't change the meaning of the text but would give a greater understanding to a English speaking person. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Hebrew names have meanings that are lost to English speaking people, when they read the transliterated from of the name instead of the translated form. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 13, 2018 14:44:17 GMT -8
It also translated the phrase we understand as "in the order of Melchizedek" as more along the lines as "you are a king of righteousness". King of Righteousness is a proper translation of the transliterated Melchizedik. It doesn't change the meaning of the text but would give a greater understanding to a English speaking person. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Hebrew names have meanings that are lost to English speaking people, when they read the transliterated from of the name instead of the translated form. I know it's a fair translation, but I thought it gave more understanding to Yeshua's role as High Priest to translate it "in the order of Melchizedek" as I thought there was some question about His lineage to be a Priest, but I may be confusing myself. I don't doubt the translation, it's the intentions. I am sure "l'david" can be translated "for David" as well as "by David", but based on Matthew 22 it is truly better translated as "by David". I simply think the differing translations are more than just accidental as, based on Matthew 22, at one time in Jewish History Psalm 110 was known to be wrote by David. The Pharisees didn't question Yeshua as saying such and Matthew felt no need to say anything further either. I just kind of assumed the "order of Melchizedek" verses "king of righteousness" translation could be the same thing based on what I understand regarding ctiticisms about Yeshua being regarded as High Priest based on His lineage. Again, I may be confusing myself. |
|
-observant Jew would need Yeshua" in mind. I didn't want to convolute his thread with my questions so started this one. I am a circular thinker so it is hard for me to pull my thoughts together, but I think my thoughts basically boil down to two questions
??) It also translated the phrase we understand as "in the order of Melchizedek" as more along the lines as "you are a king of righteousness". 
