[soc.religion.christian] Whose misinterpretations?

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]