YZKCU@cunyvm.bitnet (Yaakov Kayman) (12/06/90)
In article <Dec.4.01.10.12.1990.950@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) says: > > ... are found in Jewish misinterpretations of the >Messianic prophecies. Ah! An accusation of misinterpretation from one to whom the Torah was never given and for whom it was never intended. How amusing! The Torah and its interpretation (the Oral Law) were given only to the Jews. See Deut. 33:4 and Ps. 147:19,20. > In some prophecies, the Messiah was portrayed as a >conquering king, a glorious ruler, whose kingdom would last forever. In >others, He was portrayed as a humble, suffering servant, who would be >wounded, spit upon, and rejected by men. With all due respect to your right as members of a faith completely dif- ferent and separate from my own to believe otherwise, the 53rd chapter of Isaiah refers not to any individual, but rather to my people, the Jews, who have been villified (and still are? no?) by the Nations of the World. There is nothing in what Christians call the "O.T." (a term somewhat offensive to Jews) to suggest that Messiah will be "wounded, spit upon, and rejected by men" as my people, the Jews, certainly have been by other nations. > This contrast was so sharp that >some Jews thought there would be two Messiahs, one a political ruler, and >the other a priest from the tribe of Levi who would suffer. There never has been a contention from within the ranks of practicing Jews that there would ever be a messiah from the tribe of Levi. > This in spite >of Zechariah's prophecy, "He shall be a priest upon his throne," which >showed the Messiah to be both priest and king. Only figuratively a priest, not literally at all. > > Other Jews, perhaps most of them, and certainly most that live today, >ignored the prophecies of the suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53 in particular) >and focused on the prophecies concerning the Messiah as king. As I have said above, Isaiah 53 does not refer to Messiah. I will be happy to post to this group a list of all occurrences of the word "ser- vant" (Hebrew: 'eved) in the book of Isaiah, probably a good deal happier than your moderator might be to see such a list posted. :-) It's not that we Jews have "ignored" this "prophecy." We have denied it, and continue to deny it. >David H. Wagner Yaakov K. -------- Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain" [The picture of a political messiah and a priestly messiah from Levi is from the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. It used to be thought that this might be a Christian interpolation, but the text was found in Qumran in a pre-Christian document. The same view is given in some of the Qumran documents themselves, 1 QS and 1 QSa. (This is all from Fuller's book "The Foundations of NT Christology.") While it certainly doesn't represent what is now mainstream Judaism, the Qumran community was certainly a group of practicing Jews. In the 1st Cent. (as now) there was an amazing amount of variety in views about the future. --clh]
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (12/11/90)
In article <Dec.6.03.38.42.1990.23495@athos.rutgers.edu>, YZKCU@cunyvm.bitnet (Yaakov Kayman) writes: >In article <Dec.4.01.10.12.1990.950@athos.rutgers.edu>, >wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) says: >> > >Only figuratively a priest, not literally at all. > Yaakov, I do appreciate your comments from the "Jewish" point of view. I do recognize that we have some differences in the interpretation of the meaning of some of the Bible passages. I recognize that the Jews do have some uniquely true understanding, which we Christians don't. It is in this spirit that I am asking you about the following. The house of Isreal came through the linage of Abraham. He is the "father" of Isreal. Tell me, on what bases did Abraham pay tithes to Melchizedek? What do you know about Malchizedek? Who was he? Can you please also explain the meaning of Psalms 110:4? My question is regarding the possible existance of another priesthood, besides the Levitical. >>Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York > >BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock >Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain" > With brotherly love, Frank
YZKCU@cunyvm.bitnet (Yaakov Kayman) (12/13/90)
In article <Dec.11.01.13.01.1990.7810@athos.rutgers.edu>, farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) says: > >In article <Dec.6.03.38.42.1990.23495@athos.rutgers.edu>, YZKCU@cunyvm.bitnet >(Yaakov Kayman) writes: >>In article <Dec.4.01.10.12.1990.950@athos.rutgers.edu>, >>wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) says: >>> >> >>Only figuratively a priest, not literally at all. >> > >Yaakov, I do appreciate your comments from the "Jewish" point of view. >I do recognize that we have some differences in the interpretation of >the meaning of some of the Bible passages. ... >Can you please also explain the meaning of Psalms 110:4? > >My question is regarding the possible existance of another priesthood, >besides the Levitical. I will be glad to learn yet some more of G-d's holy Torah, and do thank you for providing the opportunity. When I have thoroughly examined all your citations, I'll be in a better position to interpret them properly. In the meantime, can you give me *your* views on Ex. 19:6, "And you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"? I know of no one who claims that the entire Jewish people are priests in the "levitical" sense. To Jews, therefore, the verse refers to those who serve G-d from near, rather than literal "priests." > >With brotherly love, > > Frank Yaakov K. -------- Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (12/19/90)
[In the course of a discussion among Yaakov Kayman, Frank Farkas, and David Wagner, Yaakov asks >In the meantime, can you give me *your* views on Ex. 19:6, "And you will >be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"? I know of no one who >claims that the entire Jewish people are priests in the "levitical" >sense. To Jews, therefore, the verse refers to those who serve G-d from >near, rather than literal "priests." --clh] Thanks for your reply. Somehow I have missed your response, so I appologize for replying late. You have asked about Exodus 19:6. Lets look at the Old Testament and see what we can learn about this promise (Sorry, I know that this title is objectional to you. Please let me know the proper way of referring to it.). One of the things which does intrigue me is the position of Moses. He was a Levith by birth, however, he was not "the" High Priest, his brother was. Yet Moses appeared to be over Aaron, who was appointed to be the spoke person for Moses. It is Moses who talks with God, as one man talks with another in the Tebernacle. He is the one who goes and gets the Ten Commandments. Moses is the one who sprinkles the sacrificial blood on the people. It appears to me that Moses was both king and priest, just like Melchizedek was. Aaron was only a priest, and even his priesthood was subject to the one held by Moses. One can come to this understanding by reading the Bible with an open mind, and using deductions. It is important that we understand the sequence of events which occurred. 1. The Lord tells the people of Israel that they will be "a kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6). 2. He tells them to sanctify themselfs, because he will appear to them (Exodus 10). 3. Moses brings the people to meet God (Exodus 19:17). 4. God tells Moses that the people should not be allowed to come into his present (Exodus 19:20-21). I find the events which transpired very interesting. Why would God tell Moses to sanctify the people so He can show himself to them, and when the appointed time came, He tells Moses to hold the people back? The Bible doesn't tell us what happened. The only conclusion I can come up with is that they either didn't sanctified themselfs, or that they have refused the offer in some way. Bottom line is that I believe that Moses held the priesthood of Mechizedek, which is a higher priesthood then the Levithical or the Aaronic. As such, he was both king and priest. I believe that the promise which God gave the people of Israel that they will become a "nation of priests" was dependent on them accepting the offer and sanctifying themselfs so that they may receive the higher priesthood, which is called the Melchizedek. If they would have received it, then they would have become a nation of priest, just as it was promised. I sure would like to have your comments regarding my answer to your question. I know that I can learn a lot from someone who has the understanding of a Jew regarding the Bible. I believe that many prophesis can't be understood with out knowing the method which the prophets used. Also, I have a poor understanding of history and customs. Yaakov, thanks for your help. With brothely love, Frank [The current neutral term in scholarly circles is "Hebrew Scriptures". --clh]