 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 270 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13th, 2007 11:36 pm |
|
This question came up Monday at Bible study and I thought someone here could help out.
Without the Temple and the sacrifices therein how do the Jews atone for their sins?
I would like to take some answer back with me next week. Thanks!
Beth
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 12:39 am |
|
In the centuries since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the cessation of the sacrifices prescribed in the Torah, the Jews in general have developed a religion based on the synagogue. According to what I have read in recent Jewish literature, actual sacrifice is seen as a thing of the past and basically not needed today. Thus orphaned, the Jewish priesthood is not preserved, although some few isolated communities may honor an old man as cohen (priest). Their office is limited to imparting a blessing.
In consonance with this approach, among present-day Jews, personal sin is almost universally acknowledged and presumed forgiven in private prayer with God, somewhat along the lines of what a Protestant Christian would do. Some traditional prayers and rituals are usually included. There is no intercessor and no sacrifice, so forgiveness has to do with the person’s relationship with God and man, not with any cleansing of the soul.
David
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| First Name: | Jeff / japhy | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | (Roman) Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 08:35 am |
|
From what I've heard, the Judaism practiced today is not very much like the Judaism described in the Old Testament; it was changed in reaction to two things, a) the inception of Christianity, and b) the destruction of the temple.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17th, 2007 08:06 pm |
|
This question came up Monday at Bible study and I thought someone here could help out.
Without the Temple and the sacrifices therein how do the Jews atone for their sins?
I would like to take some answer back with me next week. Thanks!
Beth
The short answer, "I don't know".
But, an interesting note,
Indeed, an old Rabbinic teaching says: "In the coming Messianic age all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering [todah] will never cease."....The lamb would be sacrificed in the Temple and the bread for the meal would be consecrated the moment the lamb was sacrificed.....
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0124.html
Isn't that something?
Sincerely,
Juan
Last edited on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 08:07 pm by Juan
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17th, 2007 10:31 pm |
|
In order to understand what Juan is speaking of without actually reading the linked article (which is well worth the time and effort), it is necessary to know that the Hebrew word todah, “thanksgiving,” translated into Greek and from there to English becomes “eucharist.” In this way, the connection between the Old Testament sacrifices and their counterpart in the New is made clear.
David
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 136 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18th, 2007 03:58 pm |
|
Dear David,
I have looked at the passages in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament regarding thank offerings: Lev. 7:12 and Lev. 22:29, but todah is not translated as eucharist there. In fact the only occurance of eucharist I can find in the Septuagint is in Proverbs 11:16 where it is translated by JPS as "gracious":
A gracious woman obtaineth honour; and strong men obtain riches.
So how do you linguistically link the todah sacrifice with eucharist?
Henry
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18th, 2007 08:41 pm |
|
Hi, Henry. I wasn’t making the assertion on my own initiative, but rather providing readers of the thread a little more understanding of what the article linked by Juan is about, hoping that they would then be moved to investigate it. At one point the article states:
The importance of the todah as a backdrop for Jesus and the Last Supper comes into sharp focus when we realize that in Jesus' day the Greek word that would best translate the Hebrew todah was eucharistia, which also means "thanksgiving." From the earliest Christian sources we learn that the celebration of the Lord's meal, or what we call the Mass, was known by Christians as the Eucharist. After all, at the Last Supper Jesus took the bread and wine and gave "thanks" (eucharistia) over them (Luke 22:19).
Might I suggest that you read the article linked in Juan’s post and decide for yourself if it is worthwhile?
David
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 11:08 pm |
|
So how do you linguistically link the todah sacrifice with eucharist?
They both mean "give thanks".
...What does the word "todah" mean? It is Hebrew for "thanksgiving," ...
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0124.html
...The importance of the todah as a backdrop for Jesus and the Last Supper comes into sharp focus when we realize that in Jesus' day the Greek word that would best translate the Hebrew todah was eucharistia, which also means "thanksgiving." From the earliest Christian sources we learn that the celebration of the Lord's meal, or what we call the Mass, was known by Christians as the Eucharist. After all, at the Last Supper Jesus took the bread and wine and gave "thanks" (eucharistia) over them (Luke 22:19)....
Same source, six paragraphs down.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 136 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24th, 2007 02:14 am |
|
Juan,
The Septuagint translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament) preserves how Jews translated its thought into Greek before the birth of Messiah. It serves as a means of linking the New Testament thought to specific Hebrew concepts in the Tanakh.
To say that two different Greek words both mean Thanksgiving in English does not link their meanings in Hebrew at the time of Messiah.
So the Septuagint serves as a "translator" between the Hebrew Tanakh and the New Testament.
For example, one could ask where does the NT "church" appear in the Tanakh? eklesia is the Greek word translated as the English word "church".
So to ask where the church is found in the Tanakh, ask where eklesia appears in the Septuagint. There it is the common Greek translation of the Hebrew word qahal which means a sacred assembly. From this analysis, one can understand that the Jewish authors of the NT considered the church to be a fulfillment and extension of the Israelite assemblies in the Tanakh. The church is thus not a "new" concept invented by Jesus or the apostles.
The fact that eucharist cannot be traced in this way indicates that Jews at the time of Jesus did not use this word to describe the thank offierings in Leviticus--which is a claim of the article.
Henry
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24th, 2007 08:34 am |
|
Juan,
The Septuagint translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament) preserves how Jews translated its thought into Greek before the birth of Messiah. It serves as a means of linking the New Testament thought to specific Hebrew concepts in the Tanakh.
To say that two different Greek words both mean Thanksgiving in English does not link their meanings in Hebrew at the time of Messiah.
Todah is Hebrew.
Eucharist is Greek.
So the Septuagint serves as a "translator" between the Hebrew Tanakh and the New Testament.
True.
For example, one could ask where does the NT "church" appear in the Tanakh? eklesia is the Greek word translated as the English word "church".
Poor example. The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament. There is no equivalent for the Church in the Old Testament. The closest we come is the "gathering" or "assembly". But "church" is much more than that in the New Testament. In the New Testament, the Church is the Body of Christ. Find an equivalent for that in the Old Testament and let me know.
So to ask where the church is found in the Tanakh, ask where eklesia appears in the Septuagint. There it is the common Greek translation of the Hebrew word qahal which means a sacred assembly. From this analysis, one can understand that the Jewish authors of the NT considered the church to be a fulfillment and extension of the Israelite assemblies in the Tanakh. The church is thus not a "new" concept invented by Jesus or the apostles.
Wrong on the very last point. The Assembly is not the body of Jehovah/Yahweh in the Old Testament. The Church is the body of Christ in the New, there is no equivalent in the Old. The Church is essentially the gathering of heaven on earth.
The fact that eucharist cannot be traced in this way indicates that Jews at the time of Jesus did not use this word to describe the thank offierings in Leviticus--which is a claim of the article.
It is? Where?
As I understand the article, it is saying that Jews celebrate a custom called the Todah offering when they give thanks to God for special favors. He said there is an old "Rabbinic" saying which predicts that the "todah" will be the only sacrifice that will survive:
Indeed, an old Rabbinic teaching says: "In the coming Messianic age all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering [todah] will never cease."(1) What is it about this sacrifice that makes it stand alone in such a way that it would outlast all other sacrifices after the redemption of the Messiah?
Where'd you get all the rest?
Here are some Jewish websites using the word "todah" exactly the same way and explaining virtually the same thing:
In Parshat Tzav, the explanations concerning the principal types of sacrifice are continued. In modern times, when sacrifice is no longer a requirement or an actual possibility for us, we seek out new ways to fulfill the essence of these tribal rituals and to make them applicable to our lives. The Zevach ha-Shlamim offering for well-being, we are taught, may be offered to God for thanksgiving. When would a person bring such a gift to God?The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Berakhot identifies the situations in which our ancestors would have brought this todah (offering of thanksgiving).
http://www.hillel.org/jewish/archives/vayikra/tzav/2006_tzav.htm
In commenting on the words "If he should offer it for Todah, [thanksgiving]," Rashi explains that "[the sacrifice] is for giving thanks...We therefore deduce that the Todah offering was brought for only certain miracles. Since the verses "Give thanks to G-d..." enumerates specific categories, and then states: "Let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving," it follows that the Todah offering is to be brought specifically for these four types of miracles.
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/chassidic-dimension-4/25.htm
Chazal say: "The Korban Todah / the thanksgiving offering [discussed in this week's parashah] will never cease to be brought." Asks R' Aryeh Levin z"l (died 1969):
http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5762/tzav.html
So, is your argument that the current Jewish practice of Todah thank offerings is not based on an Old Testament Scriptural thank offering?
Or are you simply arguing that the word "todah" was not in common use in the Old Testament times?
Or do you not see a relationship between the Old Testament thank offering, the Old Testament Passover, and the New Testament Passover (i.e. the Eucharist)?
1 Corinthians 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 136 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 01:08 am |
|
Juan wrote: Juan,
The Septuagint translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament) preserves how Jews translated its thought into Greek before the birth of Messiah. It serves as a means of linking the New Testament thought to specific Hebrew concepts in the Tanakh.
To say that two different Greek words both mean Thanksgiving in English does not link their meanings in Hebrew at the time of Messiah.
Todah is Hebrew.
Eucharist is Greek.
So the Septuagint serves as a "translator" between the Hebrew Tanakh and the New Testament.
True.
For example, one could ask where does the NT "church" appear in the Tanakh? eklesia is the Greek word translated as the English word "church".
Poor example. The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament. There is no equivalent for the Church in the Old Testament. The closest we come is the "gathering" or "assembly". But "church" is much more than that in the New Testament. In the New Testament, the Church is the Body of Christ. Find an equivalent for that in the Old Testament and let me know.
So to ask where the church is found in the Tanakh, ask where eklesia appears in the Septuagint. There it is the common Greek translation of the Hebrew word qahal which means a sacred assembly. From this analysis, one can understand that the Jewish authors of the NT considered the church to be a fulfillment and extension of the Israelite assemblies in the Tanakh. The church is thus not a "new" concept invented by Jesus or the apostles.
Wrong on the very last point. The Assembly is not the body of Jehovah/Yahweh in the Old Testament. The Church is the body of Christ in the New, there is no equivalent in the Old. The Church is essentially the gathering of heaven on earth.
Juan,
You asked a stimulating question on aspects of the church prefigured in the Tanakh (OT) that excited me enough to do a little research. What I think I have found is that the concept of ekklesia as the word appears in the Septuagint translation is the springboard or basis upon which the NT writers developed the concept of the church. In this way, they were not working from a total vacuum, but extending and fulfilling an existing concept.
Here are some of the Tanakh passages which develop this idea:
Idea 1: The ekklesia is prophesied to change and develop in the future. The ekklesia (church) will not merely be the assembly of Israel only, but include Gentiles and the broken (eunuchs)
Original exclusion of Gentiles and eunuchs from the ekklesia:
[size=Dt 23]
1 ¶ "No one who is emasculated, or has his male organ cut off, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
3 "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD,
4 because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.
5 "Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you.
6 "You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days.
7 "You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land.
8 "The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.
where "assembly" is ekklesia in the Septuagint and qahal in the Hebrew Masoretic text.
Yet the Tanakh prophesies that both Gentiles and eunuchs will one day be a part of the ekklesia:
[size=Is 56]
3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from His people." Neither let the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."
4 For thus says the LORD, "To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant,
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.
6 "Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath, And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples."
Gentiles will also become priests and Levites!
Is 66[size=]
[size=18 ]"For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory.
[size=19 ]"And I will set a sign among them and will send survivors from them to the nations: Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Rosh, Tubal, and Javan, to the distant coastlands that have neither heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they will declare My glory among the nations.
[size=20 ]"Then they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as a grain offering to the LORD, on horses, in chariots, in litters, on mules, and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the LORD, "just as the sons of Israel bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD.
[size=21 ]"I will also take some of them for priests and for Levites," says the LORD.
So the Tanakh prophesies that some big changes are coming in the ekklesia! As loyal Jews, Jesus' disciples would look for these changes to the ekklesia in the "last days" of the Messiah!
Idea 2: Israel as a nation personified in the Messiah, ie. israel is identified with Messiah and a part of him--by extension his body
Matthew shows this to be a NT Jewish anticipation:
[size=Mt 2]
[size= ]
14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt,
15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." {Hosea 11:1}
Hosea 11
1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realise it was I who healed them.
The prophesy of Hosea 11:1 refers specifically to the Exodus of the nation of Israel from Egypt. Yet Matthew identifies the Messiah with the nation by indicating that His return from Egypt is also spoken of by Hosea 11:1. So, by Matthew's gospel--Messiah and Israel are mystically linked--they are one. This is also the position of the NT that the ekklesia as the body of Christ is one with Messiah.
Notice that Ephraim is also personified Israel.
This idea is also developed in Isaiah 49:
1 Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendour."
4 But I said, "I have laboured to no purpose; I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing. Yet what is due to me is in the LORD’s hand, and my reward is with my God."
5 And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honoured in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength—
6 he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."
This prophecy identifies the speaker as Israel in v.3. It also identifies the speaker as a servant to bring Jacob back in v.5 and salvation to the Gentiles which is the role of Messiah. So this text establishes a unity between Messiah and Israel--they are one.
Idea 3: The church has differentiation of function within its members.
Israel had 12 tribes. Each tribe had a different destiny and role in Israel's history. Within the tribe of Levi, various divisions of priests and Levites had differentiated functions. So there is a nascent concept within the tribes of differentiated function comparable to the various functions of the parts of the body in I Co. 12.
Scholar H. Wheeler Robinson wrote a work which has been cited in several sources I read on the internet entitled Corporate Personality in ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). I intend to take it out of the Princeton Seminary library for a good read. From the internet citations, Robinson looks at the way in which nations are referenced within the Tanakh. These references personify nations as though they were individual humans with individual personalities. Again, the people of the nation are a part of a national human being.
So, it seems to me that the concepts of the church being comprised of both Gentiles and Jews and being the body of the Messiah are well established within the Tanakh.
Hope this helps!
Henry
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26th, 2007 12:20 pm |
|
Henry, I’ve been busy elsewhere for several days, but I did want to get with you on this topic. My concern is that you are concentrating on a single word, from a single verse, from a single version to arrive at a general conclusion about the meaning of scripture.
First, anyone who deals with linguistics and translation (as I do, although not in biblical languages) knows that context, ideology, culture, locality, time period and even personal education and idiosyncrasies enter into the proper interpretation of a given text or locution. Even the choice between synonyms in the target language is based on these considerations; to say that there is one and only one proper way to render a given passage is scientifically inadmissible.
One of my co-workers is a native of Chile. She speaks in an entirely different way from the local folk (who mostly speak the Tex-Mex patois). Another is a native Mexican, educated in Mexico; the same is true of him. I’ve also known and worked with people from Asturias (with its Catalan influence), from Panama, Nicaragua and Guatemala, from Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, and even from Nigeria and Iran (yes, in Spanish). They all spoke differently. I learned my Spanish in college from professors who came from Cuba, Spain and Italy; I then spent the next 20 years absorbing the quite different traits of Mexican and other Latin American literature and popular culture. My manner of speaking, still quite legitimate according to those around me, is different from all the above.
My point is that in a single place there are diverse influences that have come together. Considering what scholars have told us about Alexandrian culture (in Egypt, where the Septuagint version was created), I see no reason to believe that we are dealing with a homogenous culture or tradition.
This means we have no right to assume that there is a single meaning to be attached to any given word or that one-to-one correspondence of terms is the best way of approaching translation. This is the reason we must look to the context and other factors to understand how a word is to be interpreted. For instance, according to what I have read, the Greek word ekklesia can mean “church (in any of several definitions of the word ‘church’),” “congregation,” “convocation,” “assembly (formal)” or “gathering (informal)”; it does not mean only “church” in a single sense of the latter word. This is what I mean about the inadvisability of assuming a one-to-one correspondence.
Furthermore, dictionary definitions are merely the starting point for communicative understanding. The other factors I mentioned above are equally as important. Here is an example:
The basic meaning of the Spanish verb querer is “to desire,” as an act of the will. But it takes on much different meanings depending on how it is used. ¿Qué quieres? is “What do you want?” (sometimes implying, depending on the inflection, “Don’t bother me!” and at other times, “What do you mean?” or “How can I help you?”) — but ¿Me quieres? means “Do you love me?” The change of a couple of letters in the context changes the meaning entirely.
So what of the verb amar, “to love”? Well, “¿Me amas?” does mean “Do you love me,” but in a slightly different sense than “¿Me quieres?” In the local environment, amar has a more emotional connotation than querer, so that it might in some contexts be rendered “in love with.” Elsewhere, however, the connotative reference may be indifferent or even reversed due to popular confounding of usage. So nothing can be taken for granted as to the exact meaning of a given word; shades of meaning are crucial in many contexts. This is one reason for the Italian proverb, Traductore traditore — “He who translates is a traitor” (because it is often impossible to exactly reproduce the meaning of the original in a different language).
Second, when serious translation is undertaken, consultation is not with one source only but with as many sources as are available, to assure that there is reasonable ground to accept a particular interpretation. Both Judaism and Catholicism rely heavily on tradition as well as manuscripts for this function.
Third, there is always a question of the level of equivalence in a given translation: is it literal, free or somewhere in between? Sometimes this is an indication of the level of skill of the translator; other times it is an intentional approach.
Fourth, especially in biblical research, there is also a question of the accuracy of both a given source text and how it corresponds to other source texts, if available, and to the text or texts underlying the various versions. Are we, for instance, to say that the Septuagint’s interpretation of the original Hebrew is definitive, when perhaps it is based on a defective manuscript or is the result of a scholar’s lack of familiarity with a given word?
Fifth, in addition to the above considerations, I must mention that Jewish and Christian traditions diverge in a number of ways. This is not because of a fundamental incompatibility between the two, but because of human considerations.
Jews before the advent of the Messiah (assuming, as we both do, that the Messiah did in fact appear) had the prophecies, but they did not know how those words would work out in historical events and theological principles. The truth is that while the Jews did expect the Messiah, they did not really know what to expect, and it fell to the early Christians to demonstrate the fulfillment of the prophecies.
Jews after the advent of the Messiah, feeling they had to defend their religion against a growing heresy, developed interpretations of scripture that ran counter to Christian claims. But if we are to make Christian judgments of Christian claims, we must look primarily to the Christian tradition, and not rely solely on the judgment of those who opposed them.
With respect to the word “eucharist,” I believe that its consistent use in the New Testament (and afterwards among the early Christian writers) concerning Christ and the sacrament he instituted at the Last Supper should outweigh a single Jewish translator’s interpretation a couple hundred years before the revelation of Christ. And given this approach, I am disposed to accept the equivalence of the Hebrew todah, the Greek eucharistia and the English “eucharist.”
David
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 136 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26th, 2007 05:22 pm |
|
Hi David,
You have raised some very significant questions that deserve a much more extensive answer than I could post here. You are correct that one has to be very careful as to the historical time frame and source of Jewish intepretation. Consider:
1. Based upon an analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint translation preserves an earlier form of the Tanakh than is represented in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. In general, when the Septuagint differs in meaning from the MT, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the Septuagint.
Example: Ps 22:16
Breton English Translation of Septuagint:
For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Jewish Publication Society English Translation based upon Masoretic Text:
"For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
Martin Abegg, et. al. English Translation of Dead Sea Scrolls version (1st-2nd C BC):
"[For] dogs are [all around me]; a gang of evil[doers] encircles me. They have pierced my hands and my feet." Abegg, et. all, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, p 519.
One of the great advantages of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they represent a source of Jewish interpretation that is neither Pharisaic (thus not linked to the stream that produced modern Rabbinic Judaism), nor Christian (thus not linked to the stream that produced NT intepretations of the Tanakh). So they are unbiased with respect to the person of Jesus. It is interesting to note how the same Tanakh propecies that the NT interprets Messianically as applying to Jesus are so often used in the same way in the scrolls and applied to their "Teacher of Righteousness." Early rabbinic midrashim that preserve traditions before the Christian era also use these same passages in Messianic ways.
2. The Septuagint was not the work of a single author. Linguistic analysis suggests multiple authors over a period of over a century. Jewish tradition attributes it to the work of 70 scholars--hence the name Septuagint.
3. The NT authors quote the Septuagint version of the Tanakh. Hence the Septuagint forms the textual basis for their exegetical arguments.
4. Rabbinical Midrashic exegesis is founded upon specific words and spellings within the text which are used to develop verbal analogies with other texts in the Tanakh, often in different books and contexts. These analogies are then used to spawn entire theological arguments! Midrashic exegetical principles are widely used throughout the NT, especially by Jesus and Paul. So "quibbling about words" is the stock and trade of the apostles' and evangelists' exegesis!
5. With regard to the origins of eucharist, I once wrote a paper at Princeton Seminary that traced two different NT Greek terms: eucharistas and eulogesas to the Passover Haggadah liturgy that is older than the Christian era. The purpose of the paper was to equate the institution of the bread in the Lord's supper with the afikomen ritual in the Passover Seder. The distinction in usage between eucharistas and eulogesas can be used to positively identify the cup of the institution with the 3rd cup of wine at the seder. To me, the Haggadah is a clearer reference point for the origin of the eucharist than the Leviticus Todah sacrifices.
FYI: There are several lists of Rabbinic exegetical principles, the shortest and earliest is attributed to Rabbi Hillel (1st C BC.) One can see numerous examples of the use of these principles by NT authors:
(My apologies in advance if the format of this is screwy!)
HILLEL’S 7 RULES OF INTERPRETATION
1. QAL WAHOMER - What applies in a less important issue will certainly apply in a more important issue.
2. GEZERAH SHAWAH- Verbal analogy from one verse to another. Where the same words are applied to two separate issues it follows that the same considerations apply to both.
3. BINYANAB MIKATHUB ‘EHAD - Building up a family from a single text. When the same phrase is found in a number of passages, then a consideration found in one of them applies to all of them.
4. BINYANAB MISHENE KETHUBIM - Building up a family from two texts. A principle is established by relating two texts together and then this principle can then be applied to other passages.
5. KELAL UPHERAT - The general and the particular. A general principle may be restricted by a particularisation of it in another verse or conversely, a particular rule may be extended into a general principle.
6. KAYOZE BO BEMAQOM ‘AHER – As is found in another place. A difficulty in one text may be solved by comparing it with another which has points of general (though not necessarily verbal) similarity.
7. DABAR HALAMED ME ‘INYANO – A meaning established by its context. “Midrash,”SYMF, http://www.symf.org.uk/teaching_articles/midrash.php, p.1-2.
Henry
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26th, 2007 09:01 pm |
|
Juan,
Hello Henry,
Hope this helps!
Thanks Henry, but no, not very much.
I assume you're responding to these words from my previous message:
You asked a stimulating question on aspects of the church prefigured in the Tanakh (OT) that excited me enough to do a little research. What I think I have found is that the concept of ekklesia as the word appears in the Septuagint translation is the springboard or basis upon which the NT writers developed the concept of the church. In this way, they were not working from a total vacuum, but extending and fulfilling an existing concept.
Although you have found the prefigurement of this concept, you have not found an equivalent because there is none. I hope it will become clearer as I break down your message.
Here are some of the Tanakh passages which develop this idea:
Idea 1: The ekklesia is prophesied to change and develop in the future. The ekklesia (church) will not merely be the assembly of Israel only, but include Gentiles and the broken (eunuchs)
That is true but I don't think I alluded to this at all in my message. Correct me if I'm wrong however. Until then I'll skip down to the next point.
Idea 2: Israel as a nation personified in the Messiah, ie. israel is identified with Messiah and a part of him--by extension his body
Matthew shows this to be a NT Jewish anticipation:
Matthew shows the fulfillment of the type. But there is no so called "NT Jewish anticipation" here. You would have to go to Pre-Christian Jewish literature to show that this was anticipated by the Jews. I am not aware of any.
[size=Mt 2]
[size= ]
14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt,
15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." {Hosea 11:1}
Hosea 11
1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realise it was I who healed them.
The prophesy of Hosea 11:1 refers specifically to the Exodus of the nation of Israel from Egypt. Yet Matthew identifies the Messiah with the nation by indicating that His return from Egypt is also spoken of by Hosea 11:1. So, by Matthew's gospel--Messiah and Israel are mystically linked--they are one. This is also the position of the NT that the ekklesia as the body of Christ is one with Messiah.
There are great many types referred to in this passage.
Moses, not mentioned, but the one who led Israel out of Egypt is the type of Messiah.
Israel is a type of Moses and a son of God who prefigures the Son of God.
The Nation of Israel prefigures the Church.
Enslavement to Egypt prefigures enslavement to sin.
Moses is a type of Messiah, he was called out of Egypt and led the nation of Israel out of enslavement to Egypt as Jesus led the people out of sin. Israel represents a type of Messiah as well, the son of God, but Israel as you can see is the disobedient son, whereas Jesus is the obedient son.
As should be clear without explanation, these are imperfect types. On the other hand, the Church which Jesus established remains a mysterious presence of God on this earth. As I said before, there is no equivalent in the OT.
Acts 9:4 And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
Now, we know that Paul was persecuting the Church. Yet Jesus said that Paul was persecuting Him.
Notice that Ephraim is also personified Israel.
This idea is also developed in Isaiah 49:
1 Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendour."
4 But I said, "I have laboured to no purpose; I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing. Yet what is due to me is in the LORD’s hand, and my reward is with my God."
5 And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honoured in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength—
6 he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."
This prophecy identifies the speaker as Israel in v.3. It also identifies the speaker as a servant to bring Jacob back in v.5 and salvation to the Gentiles which is the role of Messiah. So this text establishes a unity between Messiah and Israel--they are one.
No, this text does not establish a unity between the Messiah and Israel. This text "prophecies" the coming of the Messiah, the breaking of the branch of Israel, the establishment of the new cornerstone and the engraftment of a new Israel.
Lets go over it:
1 Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendour."
Here, Israel is speaking and tells how God had many plans for this nation.
4 But I said, "I have laboured to no purpose; I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing. Yet what is due to me is in the LORD’s hand, and my reward is with my God."
Here, Israel acknowledges his sins and disobedience and that God will punish this nation.
5 And now the LORD says—
Change of venue. Now the Lord speaks to someone else....
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honoured in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength—
Someone who will bring back not only Israel but Jacob, two other personifications of nations named after their Patriarchs.
6 he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."
Someone who will not only bring Israel and Jacob back, but also the whole world.
Idea 3: The church has differentiation of function within its members.
Israel had 12 tribes. Each tribe had a different destiny and role in Israel's history. Within the tribe of Levi, various divisions of priests and Levites had differentiated functions. So there is a nascent concept within the tribes of differentiated function comparable to the various functions of the parts of the body in I Co. 12.
The differentiation of function in Israel is, in my opinion, a punishment for its disobedience. Israel was prophesied to be a "nation of priests" until Israel broke covenant and then God established priests, the Levites, from amongst the people.
God said:
Exodus 19:6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
But Israel offended God:
Exodus 32 1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
So, the Levites were the only ones who remained on the Lord's side:
26Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. 27And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
29For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.
And so God consecrated them as priests.
Scholar H. Wheeler Robinson wrote a work which has been cited in several sources I read on the internet entitled Corporate Personality in ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). I intend to take it out of the Princeton Seminary library for a good read. From the internet citations, Robinson looks at the way in which nations are referenced within the Tanakh. These references personify nations as though they were individual humans with individual personalities. Again, the people of the nation are a part of a national human being.
So, it seems to me that the concepts of the church being comprised of both Gentiles and Jews and being the body of the Messiah are well established within the Tanakh.
I disagree. Although the personification of the Jews in the name of their Patriarchs prefigures the the concept of the body of Christ as the Church. The concept of the Church as the Body of Christ is unknown in the OT.
795 Christ and his Church thus together make up the "whole Christ" (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity: Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself. Do you understand and grasp, brethren, God's grace toward us? Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ. For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members. But what does "head and members" mean? Christ and the Church. Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself.
Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person.
A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: "About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter."
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26th, 2007 09:10 pm |
|
Hi Henry,
With all due respect, I prefer the Catholic Church's teaching on exegesis of Scripture:
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113. 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.
Exegesis in the Catechism
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 136 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 10:38 am |
|
Juan,
I fear that I am generating more heat than light here! I'll make one more attempt at explaining what I mean, then I'll have to let it rest for a while.
The issue is not how I believe Scripture should be translated or interpreted, nor how excellent 21st Century Biblical scholars think it should be, nor even how the Roman Catholic Church thinks it should be translated and interpreted.
The issue is how the community of Jewish Rabbis living in the 1st Century AD thought Scripture should be interpreted and translated, most especially Jesus and Paul. | | |
