TESTAMENTS OF THE 12 PATRIARCHS (1st-2nd century) Questions

[rakovsky]

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are a collection of 12 testaments, one for each of the sons of Jacob, the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel.
As Wikipedia's entry for the document states, it

is part of the Oskan Armenian Orthodox Bible of 1666. ... The Testaments were written in Hebrew or Greek, and reached their final form in the 2nd century CE. ... Presently, scholarly opinions are still divided as to whether it is an originally Jewish document that has been retouched by Christians, or a Christian document written originally in Greek but based on some earlier Semitic-language material.

Some parts are pre-Christian. For example, Wikipedia's section for the Testament of Levi says:

Taking the theme of the Levite priesthood, the Testament explains how Levi's descendants corrupted the office by their arrogant disregard for the proper regulations.
One way in which this testament is distinguished from the others is by additional footnotes in a Greek version of the manuscript from Mount Athos. These footnotes were found to be translated from a non-apocalyptic precursor of the text in Aramaic, partially preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.... dated by the Oriental Institute [13] to between 100-200 BC using Radiocarbon dating. ...Aramaic Levi is a composite of two documents. One source was "a wisdom apocalypse derived from the exegetical elaboration of Malachi 2:4-7". The other, based on the same exegesis, "described Levi's actual initiation into the priesthood by angels".[14] ... Aramaic Levi ... is a Hasmonean compilation, 133-100 BCE.

In A Difficult Case: The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a lecture by J. Davila on 20 February, 1997, Davila reported that these Testaments

are based at least in part on older purely Jewish (Hebrew and Aramaic) material. A number of specific texts have a clear literary connection with the T12P.

(i) The Aramaic Testament of Levi.
(ii) The Hebrew Testament of Naphtali.
(iii) Midrash Wayissa'u.

J. Marcus sees T of 12 Patriarchs and the Christian "Didascalia" as both written in Syria around 200 AD, but thinks the former was pro--observant Jewish Christian while the latter was reacting against that viewpoint. (SOURCE: www.jstor.org/stable/43665335?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)

The text of the Testaments is here: www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/patriarchs.html

(Question 1) Can one reconcile the Testament of Judah's declaration that the scepter will never ever depart from Judah with the Judean kingdom's destruction by Rome in the 1st-2nd centuries AD?
In Genesis 49:10, Balaam prophesies: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."
Shiloh literally means "Whose it is", and the Russian theologian Lopuhin noted that in the Talmud and Midrashes, Shiloh was considered a reference to the Messiah. Lopuhin also says that it was considered Messianic in the early Church and he quotes Jerome's vulgate as saying for "Shiloh": "qui mittendus est", "he who is to be sent". So one could conclude that the scepter, kingly power, would remain with Judah and his tribe until the Messiah came.

Chapter 22 of the Testament of Judah (one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs), on the other hand, says:

And the Lord shall bring upon them divisions one against another, and there shall be continual wars in Israel; and among men of other race shall my kingdom be brought to an end, until the salvation of Israel shall come, until the appearing of the God of righteousness, that Jacob and all the Gentiles may rest in peace. And he shall guard the might of my kingdom for ever: for the Lord swore to me with an oath that the kingdom should never fail from me, and from my seed for all days, even for ever.

R.H. Charles, in his publication of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, notes that this passage may be based on genesis 49:10.

I see three ways to explain how the kingdom never failed from Judah and his seed. (1) Christ is from Judah's seed and therefore he continues Judah's kingdom. (2) The Christian community is a continuation of the "Qahal" or "assembly" of Israel, and therefore carries on Judah's kingdom. This idea is reflected in Paul's epistles, like when he writes (Rom.9:6, KJV), "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". To paraphrase my understanding of the Greek: "It's not all those who are descended from Israel who are Israel." (Οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ·) (3) The promise was for eternity, but an intervening event (eg. Israel's disobedience or impiety) occurred that prevented the promise from being continued. To give an analogy, the Mosaic covenant was promised to be forever, but if the Israelites apostasized or broke the covenant, then its protections would not be in force. This explains why Jeremiah 31 promised a new covenant because the old one was broken: <<31. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32. not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.>> So for example, even if Judah's scepter was promised not to depart until Shiloh came (Genesis 49) or forever (Testament of Judah), Jeremiah prophesied Babylon's subjugation of Israel for seventy years because of Judah's failing to observe the 7 year planting cycle.

(Question 2) Were the Watchers all cursed as Naphtali's Testament seems to suggest?

Genesis 6:4 says about the time before the flood: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and afterward as well, when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men. And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown."
The verse suggests that the Nephilim were on earth, but doesn't specify whether all or just some or all of them had sex with women.

Paul seems to refer to this story in 1 Cor. 11: <<9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.>>
In Daniel 4, King Nebudchadnezzar has a dream wherein "a Watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven" and said: "The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men.’" Daniel interprets this as being a decree from God.
Here the "holy" Watcher might not be necessarily bad, since he fulfills God's decrees, although in this case the Watcher is penalizing the Babylonian king, and deciding that he will live with the beasts of the field.

Wikipedia's entry on the "Watchers" notes that in the Book of Enoch, "The term irin is primarily applied to disobedient watchers who numbered a total of 200, and of whom their leaders are named, but equally Aramaic iri ("watcher" singular) is also applied to the obedient archangels who chain them, such as Raphael (1 Enoch 22:6)."

We know from the Testament of Levi's citing of the Book of Enoch that the Testaments of the Patriarchs' author was familiar with it. Wikipedia's entry on the Nephilim says: "The Greek, Aramaic, and main Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees obtained in the 19th century and held in the British Museum and Vatican Library, connect the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the egrḗgoroi (watchers)... In addition to Enoch, the Book of Jubilees (7:21–25) also states that ridding the Earth of these Nephilim was one of God's purposes for flooding the Earth in Noah's time. These works describe the Nephilim as being evil giants."

Reuben's Testament connects the Watchers (using the Greek word "Egregoros") with the Nephilim story in Genesis:

Therefore flee fornication, my children, and command your wives and your daughters that they adorn not their heads and their faces; because every woman who acteth deceitfully in these things hath been reserved to everlasting punishment. For thus they allured the Watchers [44] before the flood; and as these continually beheld them, they fell into desire each of the other, and they conceived the act in their mind, and changed themselves into the shape of men, and appeared to them in their congress with their husbands; and the women, having in their minds desire toward their apparitions, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven. [45]

FOOTNOTES
[44] This name, occurring once again in the Testaments (Naph. 3), is one frequently found applied to the angels as the custodians of the world and of men. Thus, in the Chaldee of Daniel (iv. 10, 14, 20: 13, 17, 23, Eng. Ver.), we find the expression R+J+E+, which Aquila and Symmachus render egregoros. The corresponding Ethiopic term is of frequent occurrence in the book of Enoch, not only of the fallen angels (e.g., x. 9, 15, xvi. 1, etc.), but of the good (xii. 2, 3, etc., ed. Dillmann). See also Gesenius, Thesaurus, s.v. R+J+E+.
[45] [Gen. vi. 4; Revised margin, 1 Cor. xi. 10; Jude 6, 7.]

So the Book of Enoch sees some Watchers/Egregoros as good and others bad, whereas Reuben's Testament sounds as if the Watchers collectively were tempted, changed into giant, humanoid form and mated with women.

Naphtali's Testament says:

Be ye not therefore eager to corrupt your doings through excess, or with empty words to deceive your souls; because if ye keep silence in purity of heart, ye shall be able to hold fast the will of God, and to cast away the will of the devil. Sun and moon and stars change not their order; so also ye shall not change the law of God in the disorderliness of your doings. Nations went astray, and forsook the Lord, and changed their order, and followed stones and stocks, following after spirits of error. But ye shall not be so, my children, recognising in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made them all, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of its nature, in like manner also the Watchers changed the order of their nature, whom also the Lord cursed at the flood, and for their sakes made desolate the earth, that it should be uninhabited and fruitless.

Here it sounds like the watchers collectively changed their nature and the Lord cursed them at the flood and made the earth desolate.

I guess the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is just oversimplifying or overgeneralizing the Watchers.

(Question 3) When the Testament of Naphtali describes the ship named Jacob with dead flesh at the sea of Jamnia and the 12 brothers fleeing it, is it alluding to the Council of Jamnia's rejection of Christianity?
Naphtali says in his Testament:

6. And again, after seven months, I saw our father Jacob standing by the sea of Jamnia, and we his sons were with him. And, behold, there came a ship sailing by, full of dried flesh, without sailors or pilot: and there was written upon the ship, Jacob. And our father saith to us, Let us embark on our ship. And when we had gone on board, there arose a vehement storm, and a tempest of mighty wind; and our father, who was holding the helm, flew away from us. And we, being tost with the tempest, were borne along over the sea; and the ship was filled with water and beaten about with a mighty wave, so that it was well-nigh broken in pieces. And Joseph fled away upon a little boat, and we all were divided upon twelve* boards, and Levi and Judah were together. We therefore all were scattered even unto afar off. Then Levi, girt about with sackcloth, prayed for us all unto the Lord. And when the storm ceased, immediately the ship reached the land, as though in peace. And, lo, Jacob our father came, and we rejoiced with one accord.

[*NOTE: R.H. Charles' version says there were nine or ten planks, depending on the manuscript.]

At the Council of Jamnia in c. 70-90 AD, the rabbis decided to limit the Jewish canon to the books of the TANAKH, and they also created the Birkat Ha-Minim, a curse against "heretics", probably directed against Christians.

According to the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (5 Volume Set)'s entry on the Pseudepigrapha:

There is a relative lack of MSS stemming from Jewish circles because the Pseudepigrapha, along with all other books of the period outside of the twenty-two books of the Heb. canon, were rejected by the rabbis. This was influenced by the destruction of Jerusalem, which drastically dimmed the eschatological hopes prevalent at that time. The leaders who led the restructuring of Judaism, which centered in Jamnia (q.v.), purged the apocalyptic element from their theology. But these writings had become popular among Christians and were adapted for Christian apologetic and devotional purposes.

It seems to me that Naptali's vision could be referring to the council as naming itself after "Jacob" (Israel), but being made of spiritually dead flesh. In this scenario, the fleeing of the 12 Patriarchs could represent the 12 apostles and their followers leaving the official rabbinical community.

Phillip Long on his website "Reading Acts" explains Naphtali's vision this way:

Jacob tells the family to embark and they go out to sea only to be met by a violent windstorm. The family was dispersed to “the outer limits” on ten planks, a reference to the Diaspora.

I think that Long means that just as there were 10 Lost Tribes, the vision had 10 planks for the Diaspora.

(Question 4) What do you think of Joseph's instructions to his descendants in the Testament to hide each others' sins out of love?
In the Testament, he did not tell Potiphar that he had been put into slavery by his brothers illegally, nor did he tell Potiphar that his eunuch stole some of the payment to buy Joseph from the Ishmaelites:

16. So when the eunuch had made trial of them [ie. asked the Ishmaelites Joseph's price], he made known to his mistress that they asked a large price for their slave. And she sent another eunuch, saying, Even though they demand two minæ of gold, take heed not to spare the gold; only buy the boy, and bring him hither. And he gave them eighty pieces of gold for me, and told his mistress that a hundred had been given for me. And when I saw it I held my peace, that the eunuch should not be punished.

17. Ye see, my children, what great things I endured that I should not put my brethren to . Do ye also love one another, and with long-suffering hide ye one another's faults. For God delighteth in the unity of brethren, and in the purpose of a heart approved unto love.

James 5:16 says: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."
Galatians 6 says: "1. Brothers, if someone is caught in a trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him with a spirit of gentleness. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. 2. Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the Law of Christ."
So one can think that if Christians are hearing each others' confessions, restore eachother when caught sinning, and bear each others' burdens, it's a good policy to hide each others' sins from the public. It doesn't help to report them unless there is a risk of them going to attack others.

[alon]

I am obliquely familiar with the Gospel of the Twelve Patriarchs, but not at all well read in them. However I will try and shed some light (from our perspective) on your questions.

First off, we agree that these "gospels" were written much, much later than the Patriarchs themselves? And that the texts were added to over time? I believe you alluded to this, but want to make sure. The writers never knew the patriarchs themselves, nor did they witness any of the things about which they wrote.

(Question 1) Can one reconcile the Testament of Judah's declaration that the scepter will never ever depart from Judah with the Judean kingdom's destruction by Rome in the 1st-2nd centuries AD?
In Genesis 49:10, Balaam prophesies: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."
Shiloh literally means "Whose it is", and the Russian theologian Lopuhin noted that in the Talmud and Midrashes, Shiloh was considered a reference to the Messiah. Lopuhin also says that it was considered Messianic in the early Church and he quotes Jerome's vulgate as saying for "Shiloh": "qui mittendus est", "he who is to be sent". So one could conclude that the scepter, kingly power, would remain with Judah and his tribe until the Messiah came.

Lopuhin is correct. In both the Babylonian diaspora and the Greek and Roman occupations, the Jews kept genealogical records of the line of David. That's how they got into the Gospels. Yeshua was the heir to the throne, the Crown Prince of Israel, if you will; and everyone knew it. That's why they tried to make Him king (John 6:15). So the scepter did not depart until Shilo/Messiah came.

Chapter 22 of the Testament of Judah (one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs), on the other hand, says:
And the Lord shall bring upon them divisions one against another, and there shall be continual wars in Israel; and among men of other race shall my kingdom be brought to an end, until the salvation of Israel shall come, until the appearing of the God of righteousness, that Jacob and all the Gentiles may rest in peace. And he shall guard the might of my kingdom for ever: for the Lord swore to me with an oath that the kingdom should never fail from me, and from my seed for all days, even for ever.

Easy to write that centuries after the fact. I'd say it is false.

R.H. Charles, in his publication of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, notes that this passage may be based on genesis 49:10.

I see three ways to explain how the kingdom never failed from Judah and his seed. (1) Christ is from Judah's seed and therefore he continues Judah's kingdom. (2) The Christian community is a continuation of the "Qahal" or "assembly" of Israel, and therefore carries on Judah's kingdom. This idea is reflected in Paul's epistles, like when he writes (Rom.9:6, KJV), "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". To paraphrase my understanding of the Greek: "It's not all those who are descended from Israel who are Israel." (Οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ·) (3) The promise was for eternity, but an intervening event (eg. Israel's disobedience or impiety) occurred that prevented the promise from being continued. To give an analogy, the Mosaic covenant was promised to be forever, but if the Israelites apostasized or broke the covenant, then its protections would not be in force. This explains why Jeremiah 31 promised a new covenant because the old one was broken: <<31. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32. not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.>> So for example, even if Judah's scepter was promised not to depart until Shiloh came (Genesis 49) or forever (Testament of Judah), Jeremiah prophesied Babylon's subjugation of Israel for seventy years because of Judah's failing to observe the 7 year planting cycle.

(1) is true.

(2) is partly true. If you are saved, then you are grafted from the pagan tree into Israel. The unsaved branches are pruned from the cultivated olive tree, which are unbelieving Jews and believers who fall away. However the false part is that this is seen as the church replacing Israel (Replacement Theology). That is a lie of ha'satan! You are grafted into Israel; Jewish believers are NOT grafted into Christianity! Furthermore, the cultivated tree is nourished by , and the farther you are from the more danger you are in of either not actually being saved or of falling away. Yet the church teaches that was nullified by the very person of Yeshua, who came to uphold and fulfill it!

(3) is false. And Jeremiah prophesied a "renewed" covenant, not a "new" one. The Hebrew word is the same for both, and Christian translators chose the one (the wrong one) that best fits their theology.

(Question 2) Were the Watchers all cursed as Naphtali's Testament seems to suggest?

God does not hold the innocent accountable for the actions of others. Watchers, Irin are a class of angelic beings more accurately called messengers. They watch, report, and deliver messages. They also guard, or stand watch over their assigned places. Some fell with ha'satan, and these were cursed at that event. I see no need, Naphtali notwithstanding for them to be cursed again.

Genesis 6:4 says about the time before the flood: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and afterward as well, when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men. And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown."
The verse suggests that the Nephilim were on earth, but doesn't specify whether all or just some or all of them had sex with women.

Nephilim were not the product of intercourse between angels and women. Nowhere in scripture are we told angels can procreate. The "sons of God" were men, not angels. And the Nephilim, mighty ones were large, warlike men who naturally took and held positions of power. 

Paul seems to refer to this story in 1 Cor. 11: <<9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.>>

Context, context, context. That is part of a passage where Paul is dealing with conflict and order within a particular body of believers. 

Wikipedia's entry on the "Watchers" notes that in the Book of Enoch, "The term irin is primarily applied to disobedient watchers who numbered a total of 200, and of whom their leaders are named, but equally Aramaic iri ("watcher" singular) is also applied to the obedient archangels who chain them, such as Raphael (1 Enoch 22:6)."

The author of the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch certainly had a vivid imagination.

We know from the Testament of Levi's citing of the Book of Enoch that the Testaments of the Patriarchs' author was familiar with it. Wikipedia's entry on the Nephilim says: "The Greek, Aramaic, and main Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees obtained in the 19th century and held in the British Museum and Vatican Library, connect the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the egrḗgoroi (watchers)... In addition to Enoch, the Book of Jubilees (7:21–25) also states that ridding the Earth of these Nephilim was one of God's purposes for flooding the Earth in Noah's time. These works describe the Nephilim as being evil giants."

Giants are not 20 ft tall. A foot taller than average height might be called giant. Just a very large man, particularly if he is strong could be called a giant. So these evil men were very large, very strong, and very warlike (if I remember right from reading Enoch a while ago). So these were men, not hybrid angelic-men.

Reuben's Testament connects the Watchers (using the Greek word "Egregoros") with the Nephilim story in Genesis:
Therefore flee fornication, my children, and command your wives and your daughters that they adorn not their heads and their faces; because every woman who acteth deceitfully in these things hath been reserved to everlasting punishment. For thus they allured the Watchers [44] before the flood; and as these continually beheld them, they fell into desire each of the other, and they conceived the act in their mind, and changed themselves into the shape of men, and appeared to them in their congress with their husbands; and the women, having in their minds desire toward their apparitions, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven. [45]

Again, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the veracity of these testaments. The most we can get out of them is an idea of how many of the Hebrew people or sects thought during the period just before and after Yeshua. 

Naphtali's Testament says:
Be ye not therefore eager to corrupt your doings through excess, or with empty words to deceive your souls; because if ye keep silence in purity of heart, ye shall be able to hold fast the will of God, and to cast away the will of the devil. Sun and moon and stars change not their order; so also ye shall not change the law of God in the disorderliness of your doings. Nations went astray, and forsook the Lord, and changed their order, and followed stones and stocks, following after spirits of error. But ye shall not be so, my children, recognising in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made them all, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of its nature, in like manner also the Watchers changed the order of their nature, whom also the Lord cursed at the flood, and for their sakes made desolate the earth, that it should be uninhabited and fruitless.
Here it sounds like the watchers collectively changed their nature and the Lord cursed them at the flood and made the earth desolate.

That is a good example of where we can see how the people thought; how they interpreted scripture in that period of time. They did read a lot more into it though, so I'd not take any of it as "gospel."

I guess the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is just oversimplifying or overgeneralizing the Watchers.

Actually they overcomplicated them. They read a lot more into scripture than was there. They also embellished it with some pretty wild imaginings.

(Question 3) When the Testament of Naphtali describes the ship named Jacob with dead flesh at the sea of Jamnia and the 12 brothers fleeing it, is it alluding to the Council of Jamnia's rejection of Christianity?
Naphtali says in his Testament:
6. And again, after seven months, I saw our father Jacob standing by the sea of Jamnia, and we his sons were with him. And, behold, there came a ship sailing by, full of dried flesh, without sailors or pilot: and there was written upon the ship, Jacob. And our father saith to us, Let us embark on our ship. And when we had gone on board, there arose a vehement storm, and a tempest of mighty wind; and our father, who was holding the helm, flew away from us. And we, being tost with the tempest, were borne along over the sea; and the ship was filled with water and beaten about with a mighty wave, so that it was well-nigh broken in pieces. And Joseph fled away upon a little boat, and we all were divided upon twelve* boards, and Levi and Judah were together. We therefore all were scattered even unto afar off. Then Levi, girt about with sackcloth, prayed for us all unto the Lord. And when the storm ceased, immediately the ship reached the land, as though in peace. And, lo, Jacob our father came, and we rejoiced with one accord.

At the Council of Jamnia in c. 70-90 AD, the rabbis decided to limit the Jewish canon to the books of the TANAKH, and they also created the , a curse against "heretics", probably directed against Christians.

I really wouldn't know what the author was saying, though that does sound plausible. However the council could not have been rejecting Christianity because it did not exist at that time. They were rejecting the Notsarim, the sect of the Nazarines. And of course rejecting Yeshua as the Christ/Messiah. After 70 AD and the loss of the rebellion, those Jews who had not accepted Yeshua blamed the Notsarim for their troubles. Many of the men dead left many widows. They were again dispersed, and were not even allowed to go up to Jerusalem. The problem was that the Nazarenes left the rebellion when Rabbi Akiva declared Bar Kochba to be the Messiah. Believers in Yeshua could not do that. They were persecuted and some killed for their refusal, and so the rest left and went to Pella. And subsequently the Jews barely lost that rebellion, and they became bitter towards the Notsarim. The Birkat Ha-Minim is an addition to the Amidah, the Standing Prayer said daily by observant Jews. It is also said in synagogue. It is a curse against the Nazarene sect, put there so that none could come into synagogue and worship with them any more. If you did not clearly say this curse, you'd be expelled. It is said a cantor could mess up any prayer, or any part of the Amidah. But if he even stumbled on the Birkat Ha-Minim he might lose his post, even be expelled himself! So again, it was not against Christians (who did not even exist at the time) but against Jewish believers and converts who before this did, like all Jews go into synagogues and worship together.

According to the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (5 Volume Set)'s entry on the Pseudepigrapha:
There is a relative lack of MSS stemming from Jewish circles because the Pseudepigrapha, along with all other books of the period outside of the twenty-two books of the Heb. canon, were rejected by the rabbis. This was influenced by the destruction of Jerusalem, which drastically dimmed the eschatological hopes prevalent at that time. The leaders who led the restructuring of Judaism, which centered in Jamnia (q.v.), purged the apocalyptic element from their theology. But these writings had become popular among Christians and were adapted for Christian apologetic and devotional purposes.

Jews and Messianics will still read other texts. But we do not put as much stock in them as do some Christians even today.

(Question 4) What do you think of Joseph's instructions to his descendants in the Testament to hide each others' sins out of love?

I don't think he ever gave such instructions. 

James 5:16 says: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."
Galatians 6 says: "1. Brothers, if someone is caught in a trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him with a spirit of gentleness. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. 2. Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the Law of Christ."
So one can think that if Christians are hearing each others' confessions, restore eachother when caught sinning, and bear each others' burdens, it's a good policy to hide each others' sins from the public. It doesn't help to report them unless there is a risk of them going to attack others.

I would agree that when someone speaks to you in confidence about his struggles with sin, unless there is good reason (like he is a serial killer, or is spreading disease) then you should never break that confidence. 

Dan C

[garrett]

As a side note to this topic, the Birkat HaMinim has generally kept me from any synagogues for some time now. This fundamental difference has gnawed at me more and more over time.

[Elizabeth]

...... a curse without cause will not alight"
Proverbs 26:2

I say it in the form that specifies heretics and slanderers as kind of a memorial before G-d and also to pray against those who try to hide the truth but know it. There is nothing to fear in that prayer except the turning of the tables that will result for some from it. It's ultimately almost them cursing themselves, which is truly terrifying.

I pray it as a memorial for the first believers, against anyone trying to hide the truth, and on behalf of those G-d needs to intervene for in mercy as the truth is being hid from them. I think they really are ultimately cursing themselves so if I stop praying it, it will be because of that, not because I'm worried about it somehow effecting us.

Like I said though, I pray it against those who know the truth and yet continue to mislead those who don't. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil" comes to mind. It's an insult to G-d and directed more against Yeshua than us so I'm not worried for our sake. Yeshua is blameless. It is a scary prayer though, but it's not us who need to be afraid if it. It's in my heart to say it as a memorial and a plea for judgment against the liars and mercy for those who have been lied to. There are probably people who say it in ignorance and just need us to pray for mercy and intervene for judgment against the lies on their behalf.

I'm not encouraging you to go back though. There's probably more to what you're experiencing or feeling than just that prayer. I'm just sharing how I relate to it because so far this has been my regard for it. It doesn't provoke me like it otherwise would when I think of it like this. I hope you're doing well though and that the lack of fellowship isn't being too hard on you. 

[alon]

The Birkat HaMinim has changed over time. While neither of my contemporary Siddurim contain any reference to the Notsarim specifically, 2 medieval copies found in a Cairo Genizah do:

"For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the noẓerim and the minim be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant." 

As I said, this was a curse meant against the Notsarim sect to keep them from any longer fellowshipping and worshiping in synagogues with those Jews who did not acknowledge Yeshua to be the Messiah. And Jews today definitely consider us to be part of the minim; heretics and nonconformists. So I do not say that part when I pray the Amidah. 

Elizabeth, you may be right that they are praying a curse on themselves. But since I really don't want to curse anyone (especially my own) I just omit this part.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

Feb 23, 2019 11:18:06 GMT -8 alon said:

Elizabeth, you may be right that they are praying a curse on themselves. But since I really don't want to curse anyone (especially my own) I just omit this part.

Dan C

I may see it like that at some point, but at this point I'm doing the opposite of you for the same reason. I hope G-d doesn't forget all the lies and the context of that prayer because I want Him to act to intervene - to counter the lies for the sake of those deceived who are saying it. I'm redirecting it in my heart to address real evil. I don't think people generally realize what they're praying is wrong, and I do believe they're cursing themselves. So I don't think I'm cursing anyone.  I'm asking G-d to hold the intentional liars who know the truth accountable because he has to intervene against them for the sake of the ones saying it that have been lied to or there's just a curse.  

A bit later
After thinking about this for a while, I'll stop saying it just to do what I said and call evil evil and good good.  The hard part for me is that this prayer seemed to say a lot of what I needed to pray and say against demonic lies I have had to fight and sift through.  I always had that in my mind when I prayed this; demonic and intentional deception.  I just want G-d to distinguish between that and those who are unknowingly being deceived by them.  

[Questor]

Feb 22, 2019 11:29:58 GMT -8 alon said:

Paul seems to refer to this story in 1 Cor. 11: <<9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.>>

Context, context, context. That is part of a passage where Paul is dealing with conflict and order within a particular body of believers. 

Although the Greek for the word 'angels' is used in the manuscripts we have, I cannot help but think of the word 'Watcher' here...because the context seems to be speaking of those women being modestly attired due to the Corinthian standards of the Temple Priestesses...and that those that would be 'watching' would gain information from the covering of their hair, as opposed to the Temple Priestesses/Prostitutes who wore their hair loose and long, and who were one of the main attractions to the city, making it a favoured port for the shipping industry.

I do not think that Sha'ul was intending to mandate hair coverings for all in all places or times, as the Christian Church assumed (or preferred), as non-priestesses mostly wore their hair (from the statues and paintings we have) up in a sort of bun or chignon at the neck. Priestesses, while on duty at the Temple of Isis were imitating their goddess, and presumably, Shaul did not want there to me any misapprehensions about the women of his synagogue. Even the braiding of hair sometimes spoken against in other scriptures was not the braiding as such, but the time wasted in such pursuits (think of the hours spent to make the mini braids some people wear) and winding jewels and pearls into them to attract attention, and to parade one's wealth...a custom in all ages amongst the wealthy.

I have no objection to women speaking or praying in public in synagogues, and particularly not in home churches, but under public settings, it has been noted that men, perhaps because of these directions given here to the women of Corinth prefer the women so speaking in a public setting to cover their hair...so as to not represent themselves as being in authority over them. And yet, I don't think that was the reason behind Sha'ul's statements...but to not have women thought to be available for 'ritual' sex, or for the use of any man.

Just think what the words used above...'but the woman (made) for the man' in the sense of ritual sexual usage...might otherwise be taken.

[alon]

Feb 23, 2019 13:51:54 GMT -8 Questor said:

Feb 22, 2019 11:29:58 GMT -8 alon said:

Context, context, context. That is part of a passage where Paul is dealing with conflict and order within a particular body of believers. 

Although the Greek for the word 'angels' is used in the manuscripts we have, I cannot help but think of the word 'Watcher' here...because the context seems to be speaking of those women being modestly attired due to the Corinthian standards of the Temple Priestesses...and that those that would be 'watching' would gain information from the covering of their hair, as opposed to the Temple Priestesses/Prostitutes who wore their hair loose and long, and who were one of the main attractions to the city, making it a favoured port for the shipping industry.

Since the term "watcher" means a special class of angel then you could be right. What I was saying is that this was not about watchers performing as in the "Gospel of the12 Patriarchs." 

I do not think that Sha'ul was intending to mandate hair coverings for all in all places or times, as the Christian Church assumed (or preferred), as non-priestesses mostly wore their hair (from the statues and paintings we have) up in a sort of bun or chignon at the neck. Priestesses, while on duty at the Temple of Isis were imitating their goddess, and presumably, Shaul did not want there to me any misapprehensions about the women of his synagogue. Even the braiding of hair sometimes spoken against in other scriptures was not the braiding as such, but the time wasted in such pursuits (think of the hours spent to make the mini braids some people wear) and winding jewels and pearls into them to attract attention, and to parade one's wealth...a custom in all ages amongst the wealthy.

I have no objection to women speaking or praying in public in synagogues, and particularly not in home churches, but under public settings, it has been noted that men, perhaps because of these directions given here to the women of Corinth prefer the women so speaking in a public setting to cover their hair...so as to not represent themselves as being in authority over them. And yet, I don't think that was the reason behind Sha'ul's statements...but to not have women thought to be available for 'ritual' sex, or for the use of any man.

Paul often had to deal with problems in the assemblies throughout the diaspora. And you are correct, we must consider who he is writing to when we interpret his meaning. Paul was not anti-women as many claim; he was anti-disruptions in the body of believers. Women speaking in public did not bother him, but women disrupting worship or the teachings did bother him very much!

Just think what the words used above...'but the woman (made) for the man' in the sense of ritual sexual usage...might otherwise be taken.

This harkens back to creation, when God made a help mate for Adam. However there could be a secondary meaning there. Intriguing. If so it would be a polemic against the one way usage of one individual by another. Both must get something from the exchange for the marriage to work. It could also indicate the different roles of men and women- he the provider, and she the one who keeps home and family together. If not for the woman and family, the man providing only for himself would be less than many animals!

Dan C

[Questor]

Feb 23, 2019 14:20:10 GMT -8 alon said:

Feb 23, 2019 13:51:54 GMT -8 Questor said:

Although the Greek for the word 'angels' is used in the manuscripts we have, I cannot help but think of the word 'Watcher' here...because the context seems to be speaking of those women being modestly attired due to the Corinthian standards of the Temple Priestesses...and that those that would be 'watching' would gain information from the covering of their hair, as opposed to the Temple Priestesses/Prostitutes who wore their hair loose and long, and who were one of the main attractions to the city, making it a favoured port for the shipping industry.

Since the term "watcher" means a special class of angel then you could be right. What I was saying is that this was not about watchers performing as in the "Gospel of the12 Patriarchs." 

I do not think that Sha'ul was intending to mandate hair coverings for all in all places or times, as the Christian Church assumed (or preferred), as non-priestesses mostly wore their hair (from the statues and paintings we have) up in a sort of bun or chignon at the neck. Priestesses, while on duty at the Temple of Isis were imitating their goddess, and presumably, Shaul did not want there to me any misapprehensions about the women of his synagogue. Even the braiding of hair sometimes spoken against in other scriptures was not the braiding as such, but the time wasted in such pursuits (think of the hours spent to make the mini braids some people wear) and winding jewels and pearls into them to attract attention, and to parade one's wealth...a custom in all ages amongst the wealthy.

I have no objection to women speaking or praying in public in synagogues, and particularly not in home churches, but under public settings, it has been noted that men, perhaps because of these directions given here to the women of Corinth prefer the women so speaking in a public setting to cover their hair...so as to not represent themselves as being in authority over them. And yet, I don't think that was the reason behind Sha'ul's statements...but to not have women thought to be available for 'ritual' sex, or for the use of any man.

Paul often had to deal with problems in the assemblies throughout the diaspora. And you are correct, we must consider who he is writing to when we interpret his meaning. Paul was not anti-women as many claim; he was anti-disruptions in the body of believers. Women speaking in public did not bother him, but women disrupting worship or the teachings did bother him very much!

Just think what the words used above...'but the woman (made) for the man' in the sense of ritual sexual usage...might otherwise be taken.

This harkens back to creation, when God made a help mate for Adam. However there could be a secondary meaning there. Intriguing. If so it would be a polemic against the one way usage of one individual by another. Both must get something from the exchange for the marriage to work. It could also indicate the different roles of men and women- he the provider, and she the one who keeps home and family together. If not for the woman and family, the man providing only for himself would be less than many animals!

Dan C

I always worry about anything written after the first century...so much of it was twisted to suit local conditions within the Greco Roman populace, or for politics or both. For instance, I detest what the Christian Church has made of 'Paul's' writings...I find Sha'ul difficult enough to take from a Hebraic point of view...mostly because what he writes is presumed to be pre-eminent over even Yeshua's words, or that of the Disciples, and if you do not pull the underlying references from the Prophets, it often makes no sense at all.

I always see the conflicts in what is written in the Pauline lettersno matter the translation, but I do pick up here and there in the Prophets what he was driving at, although I do not agree with all he has written, nor think him the authority that other's give him.

Sha'ul was a brilliant man trying to tell the Greeks how to understand Judaism, and the effects of the new Covenant for Jew and Gentile, pulling on all the teachings from the Tanakh to fill in the limited picture we have of what was taught then, but I don't think a lot of his writings survived to reach us, and once he was gone, the various 'party's (denominations?) went to work, saying what they thought everything meant...for Jews and Gentiles. So few were Jews, and even those in the Diaspora did not have much from the Disciples, which those at Jerusalem at least did from local preaching...and discount, because they are not 'Paul'.

I also wonder about that stuff of staying a Gentile if born a Gentile, and a Jew if born a Jew when the Acts 15 say to learn the Mosaic Covenant...which the New Covenant is a perfection of.  I could understand him saying there is no need to be more than a G-d Fearer, but there is a need to follow the commandments even if not taking on the Covenant.
If we are not to be led to the fulfilment of the by the Ruach, what was the point?  Just avoiding circumcision...which is a big deal even with anaesthesia? For all not born to the Covenant, as it seems I was (and a FINE time to be learning about it) it means being a G-d Fearer, and that's it's wonderful to not have to take on the obligations of the Covenant in ritual matters if you know nothing of it, and don't want to take on the Covenant...as I did not when I began to follow where the Ruach led me, long before I found out that being a disciple of Yeshua meant just that.

What I am getting at is that all these 'Church Fathers' are CHURCH...and not about Yeshua, or , but merely supporting their own ideas about what they think happened or was said...whether it was or not, so I wonder what we are supposed to take from Sha'ul that is not what Yeshua and the Disciples of Yeshua actually taught.

[alon]

Questor said: I always worry about anything written after the first century...so much of it was twisted to suit local conditions within the Greco Roman populace, or for politics or both. For instance, I detest what the Christian Church has made of 'Paul's' writings...I find Sha'ul difficult enough to take from a Hebraic point of view...mostly because what he writes is presumed to be pre-eminent over even Yeshua's words, or that of the Disciples, and if you do not pull the underlying references from the Prophets, it often makes no sense at all.

Paul is extremely hard to understand, and was even before the church fathers got ahold of his writings:

2 Peter 3:16 (ESV) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

The real trick is to read Rav Shaul in context with not only and the OT, but all his own works as well. And none here give his words preeminence over Yeshua, or even the other apostles. If there is contradiction anywhere, we have a problem in our understanding what he is saying.

Questor said: I always see the conflicts in what is written in the Pauline lettersno matter the translation, but I do pick up here and there in the Prophets what he was driving at, although I do not agree with all he has written, nor think him the authority that other's give him.

His letters are scripture, and he was called by God in a way no other apostle was. That gives him authority, but only equal authority. And even then, when he was called he would have been the junior apostle. James would have been senior. The church assigned him preeminence because they could easily twist what he said. That is the hardest thing is often getting past what we think we know of his works and finding the truth.

Questor said: Sha'ul was a brilliant man trying to tell the Greeks how to understand Judaism, and the effects of the new Covenant for Jew and Gentile, pulling on all the teachings from the Tanakh to fill in the limited picture we have of what was taught then, but I don't think a lot of his writings survived to reach us, and once he was gone, the various 'party's (denominations?) went to work, saying what they thought everything meant...for Jews and Gentiles. So few were Jews, and even those in the Diaspora did not have much from the Disciples, which those at Jerusalem at least did from local preaching...and discount, because they are not ‘Paul'.

Actually in the very late 1st cen and into the second (and probably beyond) the early pagan proponents of a universal church (not synagogue or temple) were translating his letters into Greek and putting their own spin on them. That is why we have so many disagreeing copies and partial copies today (well over 5800 at last count). Marcion said as much. Galatians was probably the worst hit. So yes, it can be hard. But man’s tampering cannot hide the truths in God’s word.

I talked with someone who’d been on staff at Wycliff, and asked how they sorted out the documents to choose which ones to translate. Without coercion, I was told they went back and compared them to ! Amazing- Christian translators using as the foundational document, yet they still deny its preeminence! But at least they use it, so probably we are starting with the best copies we have.

And Paul primarily spoke to the Jews. That he was the apostle to the Gentiles is church deception. He'd preach to anyone when the opportunity arose, and he did try to educate pagans converting to Nazarene Judaism. Also, from the time he learned of it he fought the ides that you had to be fully converted to Judaism before you could be saved, and that works would save you. He had no word for it, because legalism was a new concept. So he used "law" and figured we'd be smart enough to distinguish what was meant based on context, just like all Jewish words. And the legalists did go after Gentiles who were converting because the Jews knew better. So in a sense you are right. Just we need to distinguish between his speaking to Gentiles who were converting and this idea he was the apostle called to the Gentiles.

Questor said: I also wonder about that stuff of staying a Gentile if born a Gentile, and a Jew if born a Jew when the Acts 15 say to learn the Mosaic Covenant...which the New Covenant is a perfection of.  I could understand him saying there is no need to be more than a G-d Fearer, but there is a need to follow the commandments even if not taking on the Covenant.

Shaul never taught against . But I know the passage you are talking about. I take that to mean don’t claim to be what you are not. I am always careful to tell people I am a believer in Messianic Judaism; but I’m a convert, still learning. Otherwise it raises too many expectations I can’t meet. And it’s just more honest than saying “I’m a Jew.” In fact, I just told one person he is as much a Jew as I am if he is saved- grafted onto the same tree. If not, he’s got a problem. That took him back a bit.

Questor said: If we are not to be led to the fulfilment of the by the Ruach, what was the point?  Just avoiding circumcision...which is a big deal even with anaesthesia? For all not born to the Covenant, as it seems I was (and a FINE time to be learning about it) it means being a G-d Fearer, and that's it's wonderful to not have to take on the obligations of the Covenant in ritual matters if you know nothing of it, and don't want to take on the Covenant...as I did not when I began to follow where the Ruach led me, long before I found out that being a disciple of Yeshua meant just that.

We are Messianic, and not bound to all the rituals of Rabbinic Judaism. For example, I do Netilat Yadayim because it is our halacha, and I find value in doing it. But he parent synagogue of this forum does not. And that’s no big deal. But the things says to do are not open to debate- we all do them.

Questor said: What I am getting at is that all these 'Church Fathers' are CHURCH...and not about Yeshua, or , but merely supporting their own ideas about what they think happened or was said...whether it was or not, so I wonder what we are supposed to take from Sha'ul that is not what Yeshua and the Disciples of Yeshua actually taught.

Agree about the church fathers. And here’s what I’d suggest about Rav Shaul: you have , and you have the entire 66 book Bible. When you run into a problem with what Rav Shaul says, put it aside and look elsewhere for your answers. But don’t discard the good Rav; as you read and learn more he may suddenly make sense, giving you a deeper understanding. He’s hard to understand, but God called him for a reason. So never discount him. And God’s truths are still there in his writings, we just have to dig a bit deeper to get to them at times.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

These are insightful replies by Alon to the opening questions. I like how he has some familiarity with these texts and how the Messianic ideas overlap with them. This is a great discussion as well following it. It shows the value of the forum.

[rakovsky]

Dan,

To answer your question "First off, we agree that these "gospels" were written much, much later than the Patriarchs themselves? And that the texts were added to over time?" I believe that these texts were written in the first few centuries AD, but some parts of them are older, like in the Testament of Levi. So for example, the "Aramaic Testament of Levi" was one of the oldest parts and must have been written after the 8th century BC Assyrian conquest, and then it became the basis for the "Testament of Levi" that we have in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, written in the first few centuries AD.

For Question 1 (Can one reconcile the Testament of Judah's declaration that the scepter will never ever depart from Judah with the Judean kingdom's destruction by Rome in the 1st-2nd centuries AD?), the normal difficulty with this passage would be that the scepter never departing from Judah would suggest that the line of Judah's descendants will always constantly hold kingly office and exercise outward political rule. But we know that even by the first century AD, the earliest time when the passage was written, the line of Judah had lost outward political rule several times, like under the Babylonian captivity. So the author must not have been referring to constant eternal outward political rule.

I mentioned three possible explanations for the declaration that the scepter will never depart from Judah:

Option 1. Christ is from Judah's seed and therefore he continues Judah's kingdom despite the Roman conquest.

Option 2. The community of believers in Yeshua is a continuation of the "assembly" of Israel, and therefore carries on Judah's kingdom.

As you noted, Options 1 and 2 are in line with the Biblical interpretation that Yeshua's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom.

Option 3. The promise was about real political rule for eternity, but an intervening event (eg. Israel's impiety) occurred that prevented the promise from being continued.

Option 3 would suggest that the line of Judah's descendants would always have at least intermittent political rule. If one takes the view that Judah's declaration of holding the scepter forever is meant in terms of earthly political rule, then the problem is not so much the 70 AD Roman conquest, but the loss of Judah's descendants' power for centuries all the way back to the 6th century BC Babylonian captivity. Judah's descendants lost political rule in Palestine/Zion during the Babylonian captivity, but to some extent it survived in the form of the Babylonian Exilarch, the head of the Babylonian Jewish community. Still, the Exilarchate does not sound much like earthly political power envisioned in an image of a "scepter", since it is more like communal governance. Wikipedia's article on the "Exilarch" notes that

The Exilarch was the leader of the Jewish community in Babylon during the era of the Parthians, Sassanids and Abbasids up until the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258, with intermittent gaps akin to political developments. The Exilarch was the equivalent of the Katholikos of the Christian Church of the East (Nestorian), and was thus responsible for community-specific organizational tasks such as running courts, collecting taxes, supervising and providing financing for the Talmudic Academies in Babylon, and the redistribution and financial assistance to needy members of the community. The position was hereditary in a family that traced its descent from the royal Davidic line.

Yehuda Alharizi (after 1216) met at Mosul a descendant of the house of David, whom he calls "David, the head of the Exile."

The Maccabees, as well as other post-Captivity rulers in Palestine/Zion, were not from the house of David or part of the Babylonian Exilarch.

For Option 3, whereas I gave Jeremiah's promise of a "new" covenant as evidence for the concept of intervening periods of rule and loss of rule, you replied that Jeremiah meant a "new" one in the sense of a renewed covenant. Nonetheless, the concept of a single renewed covenant does not really dispel the concept of intermittent periods of rule, because in the same chapter (31), Jeremiah wrote that the people's forefathers "broke" their old covenant. If a protective covenant is "broken", then the protection might not be in force. Besides, the itself says that if the people broke it that they would suffer loss of rule among other calamities.

So really the question becomes not so much how do you reconcile the declaration in the Testament of Judah with the 70 AD Roman conquest, but how do you reconcile Genesis  49's promise that the scepter won't depart from Judah until Shiloh comes with Judah's descendants' loss of political rule from the 6th century BC Babylonian captivity up to today?

One answer (A), in line with Option 3 (everlasting rule can mean intermittent rule depending on whether the covenant is upheld by Israel), is that the scepter did temporarily depart in the 6th century BC.

Jay Mack supports this view on his Teaching Ministry website, writing:

Similar words were spoken from Ezeki'el the prophet: As for you, you wicked prince of Isra’el, due to be killed, whose day has come. The wicked prince was Zedekiah. Because he violated his oath of allegiance to Babylon, he would be deposed... Because the pleas of God had fallen on deaf ears, Ezeki'el declared that the entire land of Isra’el was ripe for judgment (Ezeki'el 7:2-3). At the time of final near historical punishment for the kingdom of Judah in 586 BC, here is what Adonai ELOHIM says: 'Take off the turban of the High Priest..., remove the crown of the king...' ...Ruin! Ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored (Ezeki'el 21:25-27a)

Mack continues:

Then 49:10b puts us in the far eschatological future:

Until He comes to whom it rightfully belongs, or ad bo asher lo (Ezeki'el 21:27b).

Until He comes to whom it rightfully belongs, or ad bo asher lo (Genesis 49:10b).

These two verses are so parallel that the great Rabbi Rashi in his commentary on Ezeki'el said that there is a strong connection between Ezeki'el 21 and Genesis 49. Some have translated Genesis 49:10a as: Until Shiloh comes. They see Shiloh as the city in the Israelite territory of Ephraim where the Tabernacle stood from the time of Joshua (Joshua 18:1) through the time of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:24). She lo (see above) is not the name of a city, it is a short form of shiloh in Hebrew. Consequently, we can look at the two parallel passages above and agree with Rashi that she lo is the Ezeki'el 21 person. The one who has the right to the throne would be King Messiah – the Kosher King from Judah to whom the throne rightfully belongs. There were other godly kings from Judah, like David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, Hezekiah and Josiah. But the sаd prophecy of Ezekiel 21 says remove the crown, its done. The kosher kings are stopping in 586 BC. There will be no more kings of Judah until He comes to whom it rightfully belongs..., and to this very day not one king of Judah has been crowned. The Maccabees were Levites.

Jay Mack is referring to the middle of Ezekiel 21:27, which runs:

"I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him."

A second answer (B) is to interpret the passage to mean that Judah retained its scepter in the form of governing privileges that the conquering Babylonians, and later the Greeks, gave to the Jews, such as the Exilarchate.

The article "Woe Unto Us, For Judah’s Scepter Has Departed And The Messiah Has Not Appeared!" on the "Planet Zion" Wordpress blog claims that the Scepter just refers to its tribal staff, meaning its "tribal identity", and that the lawgiver departing from his feet refers to the Romans' abolition of the Sanhedrin's right to impose the death penalty:

From Genesis 49:10 we learn that two things were to occur immediately after the arrival of the Messiah or Shiloh:

1) The Departure of the scepter of Judah or its identity: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah…”
2) The Suppression of Judicial Power: “…nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.”

First of all, the “sceptre” that we see in the prophecy, according to the Rabbis, was a “tribal staff” or “tribal identity,” this granted the Jews the power to render justice on those who broke the Mosaic Law and exact capital punishment on the guilty or “jus gladii” – a legal term which simply means “to seek the death punishment for a crime.” As such, this prophecy actually gives us a time limit for the arrival of the Messiah, so the Messiah would only arrive just before the Jews lost this special authority. Please keep in mind that this prophecy also eliminates anyone else from claiming to be the Messiah after these two above requirements have been satisfied.

From 606-537 B.C., Judah was made captive by the Babylonians for 70 years, which is commonly known as the Babylonian captivity. Judah had lost their national sovereignty but had retained its identity as a judge that can demand punishment (McDowell, 1979), this is confirmed within the Book of Ezra, where we learn that they had judges and individuals in place to uphold the law (Ezra 7:25, 26). Even while under the oppression of the Medo-Persians, Greeks and Roman Empire for the next 500 centuries, Judah had never lost its identity.
...
As such we see that the first requirement was indeed satisfied, but what about the second requirement? Is there any confirmation that Jews did indeed lose the power to uphold the law and serve capital punishment? Yes, according to Levy (1974), with this change in leadership the right to take the life of a law-breaker was stripped from the Sanhedrin and given to Rome.

One problem with this article's scenario is that the author suggests that the Sanhedrin would retain the power of the death penalty until Shiloh comes (referring to Yeshua's arrival in the early first century AD). Yet it sounds like in fact the Romans had already abolished the Sanhedrin's right to impose the death penalty - when the Romans took power over Judea in the mid-first century BC.

A third proposed answer (C) is that Judah's "scepter" only refers to Judah's historic right to rule over the other tribes. The Jews for Judaism makes this theory, but bases it only on the "incontrovertible fact" that

there was a period of some six hundred years, prior to the birth of Jesus, during which the scepter of leadership had departed from the tribe of Judah. In view of this incontrovertible fact, we are compelled to interpret... the phrase "the scepter shall not depart" [to mean] that the right to the scepter of leadership shall always remain within the tribe of Judah, regardless of who is actually exercising authority over Israel at any given time.

I think that this is not strong reasoning. They seem to be saying that since in real life Judah failed to exercise rule for centuries, then the scepter must mean something else than rule in the prophecy. It would be better if they found scriptural or even rabbinical verses that backed up their interpretation.

The Internet Christian Library in contrast to Answer (C) takes the view based on scriptural verses that having the scepter must mean having actual rule, and not just the right to rule. The ICL article on this verse in Genesis points to:

• Esther 4:11. All the king's servants, and the people of the king's provinces, do know, that whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the king into the inner court, who is not called, there is one law of his to put him to death, except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden scepter, that he may live.

Here the scepter is in the hand of an actual ruling king. It ís the same in Esther 5:2 and 8:4.

* Psalm 2:9. Thou shalt break them with a rod (Hebr. shevet, scepter) of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Here the scepter belongs not only to one that has the right to rule, but also to one that actually rules.

* Psalm 45:6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter.

Here the scepter belongs to God. And as we all know, God is a perpetual King, and rules always and everywhere.

* Psalm 110:2. The LORD shall send the rod (Hebr. shevet, scepter) of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

This rod or scepter of strength makes him actually rule in the midst of his enemies.

* Isaiah 14:5. The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the scepter of the rulers.

This scepter is the scepter of the rulers; not merely of such as have the right to rule. You find the same in Ezekiel 19:11,14.

[alon]

The scepter never departed from Judah, just as was prophesied. You've heard me refer to Yeshua as the Crown Prince of Israel. And you have read the genealogies of both His earthly father and His mother. Those genealogies were kept all through their exile is how they knew exactly who Yeshua was. Always they knew who held the scepter of Israel; a king in exile is still a king. And now Yeshua holds that scepter forever.

Dan

[rakovsky]

Aug 26, 2019 20:36:12 GMT -8 alon said:

The scepter never departed from Judah, just as was prophesied. You've heard me refer to Yeshua as the Crown Prince of Israel. And you have read the genealogies of both His earthly father and His mother. Those genealogies were kept all through their exile is how they knew exactly who Yeshua was. Always they knew who held the scepter of Israel; a king in exile is still a king. And now Yeshua holds that scepter forever.

Dan

Dan,

It sounds like you agreed with Answer C above, that the scepter only refers to a right to rule, not necessarily having actual rule, since you wrote that "a king in exile is still a king".

Do you think that you could address the point that Jay Mack brought up about the relationship between Genesis 49 and Ezekiel 21?

Genesis 49:10 says: "The sceptre (Shebet) shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until _he to whom it belongs_ (Shiloh) come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."

On Biblehub, the underlined part runs in Hebrew, "Ad ki yabo Shiloh"

Ezekiel 21, which refers to the doom of the Babylonian conquest, appears to perhaps be alluding to Genesis 49:10 in a few places:

9. Son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus saith the Lord; Say, A sword, a sword is sharpened, and also furbished:
10. It is sharpened to make a sore slaughter; it is furbished that it may glitter: should we then make mirth? it condemneth the _rod_ (shebet) of my son, as every tree.

12. Cry and howl, son of man: for it shall be upon my people, it shall be upon all the princes of Israel...

13. Because it is a trial, and what if the sword contemn even the rod (Shebet)? it shall be no more, saith the Lord God.

...

25. And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
26. Thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
27. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

The Orthodox Jewish Bible says that the underlined part in Ezekiel 27 runs in Hebrew, "ad bo asher lo hamishpat (until He come to whom the right it is)". On Biblehub, it runs similarly, "Ad bo asher lo hammishpat".

These are not the same word (Shiloh vs mishpat), but they have similar meanings. (to whom it belongs vs whose right it is) and the context is similar (to whom the scepter belongs vs to whom the crown belongs).

In Ezekiel 19, Ezekiel says about the mother of Israel's princes:

11. And she had strong rods for the sceptres of them that bare rule,

12. But she was plucked up in fury, she was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up her fruit: her strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them.
13. And now she is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground.
14. And fire is gone out of a rod of her branches, which hath devoured her fruit, so that she hath no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule.

Taken as a whole, it looks like Ezekiel 21 is talking about the loss of the scepter in the context of the Babylonian conquest and saying that there won't be a crown until Shiloh comes. But on closer inspection, it looks like in Ezekiel 21:13, it is putting the loss of the scepter in the sense of a hypothetical ("What if"?) So it is not real clear that the loss is definite.

[rakovsky]

I think the answer to Question 1 must be like you said, spiritual rule or right to political rule, and likely both because the author was a believer in Yeshua as the Messianic king, he said the scepter would be forever, and he knew in the first century that Yeshua lacked political power.